Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carl Lewis 30ft Long Jump

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • imaginative
    replied
    To re-raise an issue about COM: Should we really use the COM at stand-still?
    To me it seems to make more sense to use COM at the time the take-off foot
    looses contact with the ground. (This will depend on exactly how and when
    speeds are measured, and whether the sole-contact-to-toe-contact change
    increases or decreases vertical speed.) I made a (very) approximate measurement on myself (also 6'2''-6'3''), and saw roughly a 10 cm increase, which puts us
    back at roughly 1.26.

    Admittedly, the effect will likely be limited, but one or two extra decimeter
    lengthwise seem plausible to me. (The projectile applet, unfortunately, crashes my browser.)

    Similarly, arm-movements may possibly raise the COM a few additional
    centimeters.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    jrm has a 60m function in the drop-down menu of his 100m calc

    try it out - 6.50 with +1.0 -> 6.523 basic ( i put in something wrong to get 6.49 basic )

    take off 0.05s for poor rt & his likely at best 0.14s & you get 6.47, which i agree is same as dwight's

    as for his top speed, i already mentioned 0.83s is likely to dip at take-off to 0.84 or 0.85s, but this is still hugely quicker than 0.89s speed ( 11.2 ) & he even dipped from there to 0.904s speed as you quote

    Carl LEWIS 8.91m
    11.23 / 11.26 / 11.06 / 9.72 / 3.22
    he dipped from 11.23 from 6 - 11m out to 11.06 at take-off -> ~ 1.5% reduction

    apply that to 0.83 & you still have 0.84 - 0.85 with slowing at take-off, which is still helluva lot quicker than 0.904 speed

    all it comes down to is what angle he gets with 0.84 - 0.85 speed - if he coud manage 11.5 degrees ( just over 1/2 of usual angle ), he'd get 9.00 with it

    put it in yourself

    http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/projectile.htm

    poster on page 1 says we shoud use 1.16m for c o m

    I think the centre of mass of 1.25 is a little bit to much. I thought centre of mass was about 0.6180 times height. so in Lewis case around 1.16
    ( you can try the data on page 1 as a test for it - just use pythagoras on 2 speed components ( angle is sometimes out by 0.1 degree though when you do arctan - but this is small error in measurements as you'd expect ) )

    try 0.84 or 0.85 speed with that & see what angle is needed for 9.00

    coud he have done 11.5 degrees ?

    i think it's feasible

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre-Jean
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    as for indoor pbs, people have expressed scepticism at 6.02i - he never ever looked that fast for 60m

    besides, that 6.46 split had a +1.2 wind overall for 100m - jrm has 60m calc ( he says if wind for 100m race is used for 60m split there is little more than 0.01s error ) -> ~ 6.50s basic ( rome split is better at 6.49 basic )
    I don't see how Rome split 6.50 becomes 6.49 basic.
    However, his reaction time was terrible 0.196. This gives 6.30 without reaction time and 6.40 "basic" with perfect reaction time. With an average reaction time, he was able to run mid 6.4, which ties with his 6.02, 6.04, 6.06, 6.07 60 yards times, all worth about 6.45-6.50.
    If he he was allowed to do flying starts in those 4 indoors races, he was allwoed to do so outdoors? I don't follow your logic.

    Carl Lewis run-up was 21 steps in Tokyo'91, but speed is recorded btw 1 and 11m to the board, so he is in the zone after 18 steps i guess. However, the is a reduction of speed on the 1 to 0m to the board, in ordert to prepare the jump and transfer horizontal speed into vertical speed. That's why your reasoning is false regarding Lewis using his 12m/s top speed into a jump. Body positions are different in sprinting and run-up, same thing applies for Drechsler.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    last part is interesting ( to me's anyways ! )

    say he did try a 60 - 70m run exclusively in a meet & did it 12 times in his career when he had exceptional speed ( '81 - '93 ) - i e 1 meet/year

    you can't say he had no chance of "nailing" a jump ( he was of unique calibre ), just very little probability

    trying different probabilities of nailing it in 1 meet & seeing what overall probability is of doing it at least once during 12 meets

    1% -> 1 - 0.99^12 = 11.3%
    2% -> 1 - 0.98^12 = 21.5%
    3% -> 1 - 0.97^12 = 30.6%
    4% -> 1 - 0.96^12 = 38.7%
    5% -> 1 - 0.95^12 = 45.9%
    6% -> 1 - 0.94^12 = 52.4%

    so, if he had a 6% chance of 9.00m at any 1 meet with a 60 - 70m run-up, then 12 meets in a career attempting such, means probability wouda been in his favor of jumping it

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre-Jean
    If you don't trust Lewis 6.02, then use 6.04 (in 1983, worth 6.47-6.48) or 6.06 (in 1981, worth 6.49-4.50). Phillip's next best ever is 6.53, do you doubt his 6.47?

    The difference between Tomlinson and Lewis is that Lewis requires more distance to reach max speed (Tomlinson prolly 50m, Lewis 70m).

    Your reasoning should apply to all jumpers, they all use shorter runs up than 50m, hence should all take longer runs up to reach max speed. Again, the problem is to transfer your sprint into a jump, hence all the jumpers have an approach speed during run-up fractionnally slower than their max speed during sprints.
    i have little faith in early '80s clockings without RT quotes/equipment

    he was a slow starter & also likely reaction, so good chance he tried to catch a flyer in those american meets knowing little chance of being called back by starter who knew who the big draw was

    in europe races, he never looked like a mid-6.4 guy in his 100m races

    dwight's 6.47i i have perfect faith in - RT equipment at hand to call a flyer - it obviously wasn't

    as for run-ups - sure, they shoud try 60 - 70m ones, but as i said, you're only going to have enough energy to do 2 or 3 jumps out of 6 if you're running flat-out 60m

    likelihood is you may not not get in 1 valid jump out of 1st 3 attempts in a championship with this hit & miss approach - so basis of risk/reward, not a viable proposition there as you may not get a valid jump in initial 3 attempts

    your also only likely to have 2 attempts out of initial 3 ( 1st & 3rd attempts ) as fullout sprinting for 60m isn't likely to let you recover for attempt 2

    cutting run-up to 50m means majority have sub-max speed at take-off, but better control & likely to get a valid jump in, but not ultimate potential jump - the physics shows speed is better than angle

    i've seen enough of his jumps & got bored with his run-up, which for last 20m looked liked he was cruising the 130 - 150m section of a 200 - not attacking the board with the ferocity of like a lebedeva

    he had 0.83s speed & wasted it by never trying 60 - 70m run-ups

    time to attempt it was not a championship, but a gp meet with 6 attempts guaranteed & knowing he was only going to put in 2 or 3 attempts, inform promoter this was going to be a hit & miss affair trying to see if coud "nail" an angle & be behind the board with one of his 2 or 3 attempts

    bottom line -

    - standard run up, he had 50%+ chance of a 8.50+ & obviously a likely win

    - 60m+ run-up maybe gave him a 5 - 10% chance of a 9.00m jump in a meet - trying a dozen meets between '82 - '92, woud give him mathematically a

    ~ 45 - 70% probability of a 9.00m jump

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    My recollection is that Carl Lewis run up was about 170'/52m. I don't remember any of his contemporaries had a longer run up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre-Jean
    replied
    If you don't trust Lewis 6.02, then use 6.04 (in 1983, worth 6.47-6.48) or 6.06 (in 1981, worth 6.49-4.50). Phillip's next best ever is 6.53, do you doubt his 6.47?

    The difference between Tomlinson and Lewis is that Lewis requires more distance to reach max speed (Tomlinson prolly 50m, Lewis 70m).

    Your reasoning should apply to all jumpers, they all use shorter runs up than 50m, hence should all take longer runs up to reach max speed. Again, the problem is to transfer your sprint into a jump, hence all the jumpers have an approach speed during run-up fractionnally slower than their max speed during sprints.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre-Jean
    Eldrick, i don't agree fully with the excellence at 50 or 60m for Long Jump...
    well, 11.2m/s is ~ 0.89s, which is not really fast, even allowing for fractional slowing at take-off - plenty of other jumpers shoud be able to go that fast

    you are also assuming that at peak speed of 12.0m/s he coudn't get the same take-off angle - he probably woudn't, but it's not impossible - tomlinson himself states that he tries for absolute max speed at the board & jump off that - so that's one current elite guy who tries for max speed

    i'd like to have seen him try with max speed - 12m/s over 11.2m/s with same angle on a previous assumed 8.80pb yields over 9.40m - sure angle woud be less at max speed, but it may still have been good enough for 9.00+ with fractional slowing at take-off to 0.84 - 0.85s speed & slightly less angle than at 0.89s

    also no matter how you play it, if King's take-off was only 50m, there is no way he was going to get max speed in such a short distance, starting blocks or not - he needed 60 - 70m to get upto 0.83s speed - whether lj run-ups can extend to 60 - 70m, i don't know - clearly he'd only have energy for 2 or 3 jumps out of 6 in such a scenario, but if he wanted the wr, that's what he needed to do

    frankly, if you have 0.83s speed, you'd want to have a run-up long enough to attempt to generate it & see if at least once, you "nail it" with that speed & reasonable angle - using 0.89s speeds always is a disappointment

    as for indoor pbs, people have expressed scepticism at 6.02i - he never ever looked that fast for 60m

    besides, that 6.46 split had a +1.2 wind overall for 100m - jrm has 60m calc ( he says if wind for 100m race is used for 60m split there is little more than 0.01s error ) -> ~ 6.50s basic ( rome split is better at 6.49 basic )

    dwight had faster 60m pb & also potential for 9.00+, but again, not long enough runway to get to top speed

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    In a next step we can reason that CL could have received an even
    larger speed increase by using a longer run-up (than he could have
    from dropping sprinting). Likely, then, he felt that he already had
    all the speed he needed and could handle at take-off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre-Jean
    replied
    Eldrick, i don't agree fully with the excellence at 50 or 60m for Long Jump, since these distance require perfect execution with starting blocks, which is irrelevant for LJ. 50m with standing start, or the ability to generate highest speed over the shortest distance describes what is needed during a long jump approach. Lewis had his fastest run-up speeds recorded at 11.0 to 11.2m/sec, which he was able to produce after about 16 to 18 steps, into a progressive acceleration. At 12m/sec (the speed he reached after roughly 30 to 35 steps during 100m races), Lewis couldn't be in proper position to create an impusle at the required angles.

    Dwight Phillips' indoor PB 6.47 is no better than Carl Lewis' 60 yards 6.02 in 1983 (then a WIB), which is worth 6.45-6.46. 6.46 was by then way his intermediate time during his 100m PB of 9.86.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    i tend to go with his best split being usually 60 - 70m & even sometimes 70 - 80m !

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    Strictly speaking, it is the _speed_ at roughly 50/60 meters that would
    be interesting, not the over-all time. I had a brief look at Mureika's
    splits, and I have the impression that Lewis was usually roughly at top
    speed in the 50-60 meter interval.

    (Nevertheless, it is quite possible that he would have been able to
    reach a higher take-off speed, had he not had to bother with speed
    endurance and similar.)

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    lj'ing doesn't require 100m sprinting excellence

    it requires 50 - 60m sprinting excellence - something which was never as good as his 100m

    if he didn't concentrate on running 100s ( especially that last 40m ) but spent his time just on 60m ( running indoor seasons frequently ), he may have got 3 or 4 hundredths quicker over 60m & therefore faster at take-off - trading off stopping work done for 60m - 100m section for extra work in 0 - 60m - this coud lead directly to improvements in lj

    worth remembering that his 60m speed couda been significantly improved - dwight had much faster 60mi pb & therefore possibly faster run-up speed

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    Re: Carl Lewis 30ft Long Jump

    Originally posted by MJR
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by MJR
    If he had just focused on the LJ, he'd have gone 32 feet, easily.

    must have missed that 0 and hit the 2 instead.
    It would be startling news to Carl to find out he did NOT focus on the LJ! He even says in his Bolt remarks, "I'm a Long Jumper who also sprints."
    I can't believe he would have been any better if he had not sprinted. IMO he would have done worse as a LJer if he had not sprinted.
    Yah need to learn about specificity of training. If you practice 3-4 things to get good at them all, there is no way to possibly maximize performance in any one of them. The amount of work he did never allowed him to rest and recuperate enough to excel to the limits of his physical talents.

    An interesting speculation is the possibility that sprinting helped saving
    him from injuries. In particular, as I understand it, his current
    knee/back problems are attributed to the long jump; and with the
    stress of additional long jumping, he could conceivably have called it
    a day before 1996.

    Leave a comment:


  • MJR
    replied
    Re: Carl Lewis 30ft Long Jump

    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by MJR
    If he had just focused on the LJ, he'd have gone 32 feet, easily.

    must have missed that 0 and hit the 2 instead.
    It would be startling news to Carl to find out he did NOT focus on the LJ! He even says in his Bolt remarks, "I'm a Long Jumper who also sprints."
    I can't believe he would have been any better if he had not sprinted. IMO he would have done worse as a LJer if he had not sprinted.
    Yah need to learn about specificity of training. If you practice 3-4 things to get good at them all, there is no way to possibly maximize performance in any one of them. The amount of work he did never allowed him to rest and recuperate enough to excel to the limits of his physical talents.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X