The long jump has historic and practical roots associated with the ability to jump over a stream or canyon.
When a person approached the limit of their ability, they would want to take off from a point as close to the edge of the stream/canyon as possible in order to make it to the other side.
A variable take off point removes connections to the historic and practical aspects of long jumping.
If appealing to the average person is the main goal, have a fixed landing area on the far side of an artificial stream or canyon (water pit or recessed area) and progressively move the take off point/board further away from that landing point. This would be conducted similar to high jump and pole vault, where the bar moves increasingly higher and athletes can choose at what height they enter the competition.
The average person would also enjoy it when athletes fail to jump the distance and fall back into the water or canyon, and are then eliminated from the competition. This would eliminate multiple fouls, and make long jumping more similar to running events where athletes only get a very limited opportunity to achieve their best mark (No runner is given up to six chances to run their fastest race.)
I thought baseball fans were ridiculously closed minded when it came to change, but this discussion is proving T&F fans may be also. I love this idea. I want to see who can jump the furthest, that is the whole idea, not who can plant their takeoff the most accurately. There are plenty of other changes the sport should consider. You want to reduce confusion, how about the Decathlon winner almost never crossing the line first in the final event, how is that for confusing and killing fan interest. Why not stagger the 1500m based on score, then let everyone literally chase the leader...whoever crosses the line first gets the crown of Worlds Greatest Athlete.
The latter is used in Nordic Combined to make the 10K ski easier to understand. After the ski jumping the distances are "converted" to a time handicap. The person with the worst jump starts first and then skiers are sent off after them in time intervals based on the distance jumped. So let's say I just 10m shorter than you, you might get a 2 second head start.
Prior to this, they all started at the same time but the person who crossed the finish line first often was not the winner.
The beauty here is that everyone knows exactly where a skier stands. If you cross the finish line first you have won.
While I don't see this ever happening, which I agree with, it's probably going to be for the "wrong" reason. Both live and broadcast audiences want to see the yardstick and graphic overlays to gauge performances and results instead of having no idea what's going until they get the answer, so for the sake of the audience they won't change it.
The better reason not to change it is because timing the leap is part of the skill requirements.
Long jumping as a skill is useful for crossing crevasses, rivers, etc, bridging the gap, and if you don't time it right there can be consequences.
But there's at least one sport that's implemented what's essentially dynamic or fleeting inputs: ski jumping.
Ski jumping is:
- Sequential. One jumper at a time. The entire procedure takes between 1-2 minutes per jumper under normal circumstances. Same as long jumping. - Point based. You get points for distance, and points for style. The style points take distance into consideration, so you don't earn high style points for short jumps. - Gate and wind compensation. Points are added or removed depending on the wind conditions and start gate used (starting at a higher point in the hill gives more speed).
This means that the athlete with the longest jumps doesn't necessarily win, and that two consecutive jumps of equal length might yield very different scores. With all this ambiguity the sport is still wildly popular in its domain (it's likely the second most popular winter sport after ice hockey).
No...figure skating and alpine skiing are likely far, for more popular.
No...figure skating and alpine skiing are likely far, for more popular.
Yeah it's definitely hockey, figure skating, alpine skiing, and then a more vague order between snowboarding, ski jumping, biathlon, cross country skiing, curling, etc.
I absolutely agree with this, the response to this rule change has been very disappointing. Track and Field should be about pushing the limits of human performance. The long jump should be about absolute speed and power. I want to see the absolute limits that a human can project their body through the air, not watch some choreographed run down the runway so athlete's can hit some arbitrary mark. Remove the board and let 'er rip!
Then 100m should be about absolute speed. Let's eliminate false starts and measure the actual time a sprinter takes to cover the distance. The clock starts when the sprinter's foot leaves the starting block. Coleman crosses the line first, but Lyles is declared the winner because he took shorter time to cover the distance.
I think this is an interesting argument so i'll be the voice of dissent.
33% of the jumps at Budapest were fouls. The simple reality of this change is that it would make one of this sport's most visible and easily understandable events significantly more presentable and marketable to a wider audience.
You can shout and scream that the board is part of the skill of the event. Personally I agree but try telling that to the casual fan that watches a diamond league meet every 2 and a half years, the Olympics, and US trials.
Sebastian Coe was quoting that 33% figure in Eugene last year, not long after worlds. Anyone who was paying attention knew this change was inevitable. Coe is never difficult to read. He was fed up with the number of fouls. They sent it to their review guy and this is what he came up with, just like the final 3 format in the field events several years ago.
So essentially an inept generation of long jumpers has prompted this change. And I would add coaches to the list. I have emphasized for years that long jump is the worst coached event in track and field, for exactly this season. Any gambler knows that the first variable is number of chances. That factor is enormous, far outreaching anything else. It's the reason a 4 team parlay pays nearly double of 3. The more opportunities the house has to take you down, the better it is for them.
Somehow the long jump coaches never figured that out. They brainstormed that 4 successful jumps within close proximity to the board is preferable to all 6 successful jumps while allowing more leeway. It is analytics in reverse.
And now Coe thinks he has to remove stupidity from the equation
Allowing long jumpers to take off anywhere within a certain zone and then measuring the total distance they jumped would be similar to allowing 100 meter sprinters to do whatever they wish while covering 120 meters and only measuring their fastest 100 meter segment.
Starting a sprint from a still position from behind a specific starting line is a necessary and valuable skill that is an essential part of sprinting, just as jumping from behind a specific edge of a take off board is a necessary and valuable skill that is an essential part of long jumping.
As a former long jumper, and after reading the WA article, I think this could be a good thing.
First, how long would the takeoff area be? If you're talking only a foot, that would still be a challenging skill to master.
Watch any competition and what you see after an athlete has left the pit after a jump, especially a good one, is them looking back anxiously while waiting and hoping for the white flag to be raised. And every viewer is doing the same. I think this new concept would alleviate this tension and bring a spontaneous excitement. Think how many times we've seen athletes crestfallen seeing a red flag after they've just bombed a big jump?
The long jump has historic and practical roots associated with the ability to jump over a stream or canyon.
When a person approached the limit of their ability, they would want to take off from a point as close to the edge of the stream/canyon as possible in order to make it to the other side.
A variable take off point removes connections to the historic and practical aspects of long jumping.
If appealing to the average person is the main goal, have a fixed landing area on the far side of an artificial stream or canyon (water pit or recessed area) and progressively move the take off point/board further away from that landing point. This would be conducted similar to high jump and pole vault, where the bar moves increasingly higher and athletes can choose at what height they enter the competition.
The average person would also enjoy it when athletes fail to jump the distance and fall back into the water or canyon, and are then eliminated from the competition. This would eliminate multiple fouls, and make long jumping more similar to running events where athletes only get a very limited opportunity to achieve their best mark (No runner is given up to six chances to run their fastest race.)
Canyon? Who the f--- were jumping over canyons!?
Yes- jumping across narrow canyons and also ravines, crevasses, ditches, moats, etc.
"How much of the event is hampered by trying to hit the board perfectly?" shows so much ignorance of the long jumps...
Why the condescension? As a former jumper, I'd agree that trying to hit the board is a huge and consequential problem and hampers the event. The winner should be the athlete who jumps the "longest", full stop, not the one who jumped the third longest and happened to be better at measuring. lol.
So I take it you were good at measuring? Too bad that's not an event, huh?
As a long time coach, parent and fan, track meets are boring at all most every level.
Changes needed: Remove long jump and triple jump board. Start Decathlon 1500m pursuit style. Anyone getting lapped gets pulled off the track. (choose your heat wisely) Can not step on steeple barrier including water jump. Add targets to the javelin. No more hammer throw, race walking and mix gender relays. 800m race runs 300m in lane and 2 people per lane before cut in. Change 1500m and 3000m to 1600m and 3200m so we can have a 1 lap, 2 lap, 4 lap and 8 lap race. (no I am not American) Also makes reading splits for fans easier.
Relays are exciting - add the 4x800m.
Add XC instead of the 10000m with team and individual medals. (Olympics only)
Marathon should be run on a 10km looped course for spectators friendly.
High jumpers only get 5 misses in total. That event goes way too long.
I absolutely agree with this, the response to this rule change has been very disappointing. Track and Field should be about pushing the limits of human performance. The long jump should be about absolute speed and power. I want to see the absolute limits that a human can project their body through the air, not watch some choreographed run down the runway so athlete's can hit some arbitrary mark. Remove the board and let 'er rip!
Then 100m should be about absolute speed. Let's eliminate false starts and measure the actual time a sprinter takes to cover the distance. The clock starts when the sprinter's foot leaves the starting block. Coleman crosses the line first, but Lyles is declared the winner because he took shorter time to cover the distance.
Actually if it's about absolute speed, eliminate the distance and just measure it in mph. They take off and run as far as they want and measure the top speed they hit. Whoever gets the highest number wins.
"How much of the event is hampered by trying to hit the board perfectly?" shows so much ignorance of the long jumps...
Why the condescension? As a former jumper, I'd agree that trying to hit the board is a huge and consequential problem and hampers the event. The winner should be the athlete who jumps the "longest", full stop, not the one who jumped the third longest and happened to be better at measuring. lol.
So I take it you were good at measuring? Too bad that's not an event, huh?
So the winner of 100m should be whoever covers the distance in the shortest time? Let's eliminate the false start and start the clock whenever the athlete's foot leaves the block.
And while we are at it, let's eliminate the "exchange zones" in relays, and make it like a short-track speedskating relays. Each team with four runners, and they can pass the baton at any point they like. After all, the winner should be the team that covers the distance in the shortest time.
Eliminate the circle for throws. Who ever throws furthest from any point wins.
John Rigeon is a failed hurdler for the 80s UK . He was a good junior and couldn’t make it as a senior because he’s soft. Now he wants to make soft rules for soft athletes.
Athletics/track is a participation sport. Embrace it for what it is. Other sports would love our participation numbers.
As a former long jumper, and after reading the WA article, I think this could be a good thing.
First, how long would the takeoff area be? If you're talking only a foot, that would still be a challenging skill to master.
Watch any competition and what you see after an athlete has left the pit after a jump, especially a good one, is them looking back anxiously while waiting and hoping for the white flag to be raised. And every viewer is doing the same. I think this new concept would alleviate this tension and bring a spontaneous excitement. Think how many times we've seen athletes crestfallen seeing a red flag after they've just bombed a big jump?
Count me converted.
Previous proposals I've seen have talked about a 1 meter long take-off area. So athletes will still have to have their run fairly dialed in and there will still very rarely be fouls when something goes horribly wrong.
There's no reason why in this day and age you actually need an official to watch the board to determine fair or foul. That's what they make cameras and lasers for.
You could have 1 official to literally watch the camera replay if a foul occurred.
Measuring from take off point to landing point is equally as dumb.
Edit: the camera/laser system might not be possible at the high school level due to cost.
I think it's far more important to make sure that you do not have to run a 3:15 to win the 1500 at the Olympics because of the springboards for shoes and tracks.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.