Why has long jump declined so horribly?

ironside wrote:

My age is irrelevant. Again, look up the word simultaneous. Read everything I have stated on this thread. I am fully aware of 100m long jump correlation. You are making my point. You are stating Carl Lewis was a great sprinter and long jumper for six years. Carl Lewis was a great long jumper for over sixteen years. Carl Lewis was able to be a great long jumper without being a great sprinter. We are not going back and forth over the meaning of simultaneous. The OP wanted a discussion on why long jump performance has lagged. Please focus.

Carl Lewis was the best sprinter in the world for six years. He was a great sprinter for 16 years. He was a great sprinter and a great long jumper for 16 years.

The depth of talent in the Long Jump is far smaller than the 100m. When Lewis was the best sprinter in the world he was almost untouchable in the Long Jump. When his sprinting speed declined fractionally (I bet still highly ranked even in 96) he was still the best Long Jumper.

He set his Long Jump pb at the same championships as his 100m pb (Tokyo 1991).

What is this gay shat? Basketball and football taking away the best talent?? What a joke! Phillips, Irving Saladino (8.71), Louis Tsatoumas (8.66), and Sebastian Bayer (8.71) had the longest jumps in 20 years in the event. Besides Phillips, they were all soccer players. If any sport, I would say the real football takes away long jump talent. There been plenty of basketball and American football players in those past 20 yrs that tried but couldn't hack it.

Dear ukathleticscoach:

There is no shortage of people who want to sprint. Or rather, no shortage of people who THINK they can sprint. Long jumping as you know is much more technical and mentally taxing (hitting the board, wind, etc.).

You will never have a shortage of people who will take a stab at the 60m or the 100m. But as you go up in distance the numbers drop off very quickly. How many kids do you know who will opt to be a 400m runner OVER a 100m runner? That is why there is no "drop-off" in sprinting. When I used to coach high school-aged athletes I had between 45-50 60m and 100m athletes and only 3 300-400m athletes on any given day at practice. 2 of the 3 were young ladies, so we could not even put together a relay team.

With regards to tall athletes being able to sprint AND jump you really need to come out to the USA and go to a big-time Division 1 athletic program and look at the wide receivers on the football team and the shooting guards and "wings" on the basketball team. In the last video I posted you need to realize that those guys were not good enough to play "at the next level" (NBA, CBA, Europe) or if they did, they only played for a very short time.

In the USA there are only 3 schools that make up 1/8 of the NBA. The competition to get onto those teams to say fierce is an understatement. The athlete I mentioned who won the 100m, 200m, and 400m City Meet was being recruited by one of those schools. He is 6'6" tall 220lbs and has a 40 inch vertical. He was recruited to run track but choose basketball.

Why . . . the NBA, hoop dreams.

Track only has the Oly Games and Worlds. Even in the UK this week, your Lottery just slashed the funding of some of the UK's BEST athletes. Greg Rutherford in 2012 had his sponsorship gone AFTER winning the Olympic GOLD!!!! Guys who sit the bench in the NBA are not worried about such things.

Speaking from personal experience, I was asked several times by the football coach at my Division 1 school to play for him and I would have a FULL scholarship (he had seen me lifting in the gym, he also knew I could jump, and I had a GPA over 3.4). At the time I was 6'4" 242 lbs with a low body-fat percentage (under 12%).

But I am NOT unique or special or rare!!! There are lots and lots of guys who have similar "stats" and who are second, third, or fourth on the depth chart of their football teams or sit the bench on their basketball teams.

The 6'6 220lb basketball player with a 40 inch vertical I mentioned earlier almost NEVER got on the floor for his club basketball games. The guy who played ahead of him (they are the same age; same position) on his club basketball team is a LEGITIMATE NBA Draft pick and plays for one of the best teams in NCAA Division 1 Basketball.

Like I said before basketball and football suck up a ton of track and field talent.

Runfastrunfar

Dear stupidity abounds:

Please refrain from the swearing and homophobic language. We are all adults and we can disagree in a civil manner.

You are arguing with Coach Tom Tellez AND Carl Lewis. Both of these gentlemen in interviews have stated that basketball had taken away potentially great track and field athletes. These interviews were conducted in the last four years; that is, the last Olympic Cycle.

In the Coach Tellez interview, he is asked specifically why has long jump declined - the very same topic heading of this thread. He proceeds to go into detail about where the athletes have gone (basketball), names athletes who would be great long jumpers, and the standard of long jump in the 80s in USC and UCLA Dual Meets.

By the way, Marcus Goodwin is a wide receiver in the NFL who went to the Olympics in long jump and competed well but not as well as he could have since he is in the NFL taking hits from 250lb linebackers and 230lbs strong safeties.

Arguing with some obscure coach and Carl Lewis? haha. Now what about the hundreds of other coaches or "experts"?

I'm sure there's just as many saying there's a decline in the long jump due to the increased popularity of table tennis.

Runfastrunfar,

I guess my question would be, what's changed? Yes, basketball salaries have increased some since the 1980s, but I would guess that the pull of basketball / football was much the same in Lewis' day as it is now.

Is the problem that basketball has become a year-round thing for high schoolers, and spring football (as well as summer 7 v 7) keeps athletes from even trying track and field?

This too is possible, but I also think there's a deeper issue with the LJ - I just don't know what it is. Have coaching trends changed? Is the impact of doping so much greater on sprinting? Is the LJ just a quirky event - where generational athletes (such as Owens, Beamon, Lewis) truly once in a generation?

I have only posted once in this thread.

I guess others were mocking your post.

But Carl Lewis' lifetime 100m PR of 9.86 occurred on Aug 25, 1991.

His LJ PR of 8.87 m (29' 2") happened 5 days later.

That's pretty simultaneous.

He never came within 20 cm (8 inches) of that jump as he lost speed (couldn't break 10)

His 1996 best was 8.50 m (27' 10")

Yes. He did maintain his long jumping ability better than his 100m speed, I agree.

But to say he didn't thrive at them simultaneously while getting Golds in each in the same meet many times?

Leroy Burrell jumped mid 27 feet the same year he first broke 10 in the 100.

But he stopped jumping after that.

Seems like he could have pushed 29 feet if he kept at it.

I guess is that the talent in the sport has focused on the track and not bothered with the long jump.

Last year 25 men broke 10 in the 100. And 12 men jumped 8.25m (27 ft)

In 2000 only 8 men broke 10. While 17 jumped 27.

I'm not saying you need a sub 10 PR, but you may need sub 10 talent that gets devoted to jumping instead of full sprinting.

Another theory may be lack of coaching.

Fewer world class jump coaches.Need more Dick Booths.

Star wrote:

I don't know.

It seemed to start with Leroy Burrell who was a very good long jumper that gave it up to focus on the 100 even while his traing partner, Carl Lewis, thrived at both simultaneously.

Other good college sprinters/ jumpers gave up jumping.

Today's top jumpers are those who couldn't cut it as sprinters and therefore have less talent for jumping.

And Mike Conley Jr went with basketball.

Conley Jr is an excellent player. Team-first oriented, high IQ, and probably the most underestimated guard in the NBA, but his jumping ability isn't "elite". He rarely dunks.

Good post but if the NFL and NBA disappeared I don't think the US Olympic roster or NCAA performance lists for sprints and jumps change dramatically.

I agree that NCAA and professional wide receivers/ cornerback depth charts are full of guys who can go sub 10.5, 21, 47, high jump 7 flat, long jump 24 feet and triple jump 50 feet. However, these marks are nothing special at the NCAA level and certainly not world class. History shows that football speed and basketball hops do not necessarily translate to T&F greatness. For example, Chris Johnson was the previous record holder in the NFL combine 40 and generally considered the fasted running back of our times. CJ was a very good HS sprinter but Walter Dix beat him consistently in high school and there is little reason to think that would have changed if CJ kept running track.

As you said, most top level NCAA sprinters could walk over to the football field and get a scholarship based on their raw physicality. Most of them would be unwise to do so as they probably lack field vision, cutting ability, and hands to make it on the professional level despite their speed.

By the same token, if you took every sub 4.4 40 guy from the NFL combine, put them on the Florida sprint team for a year, paid them a 200k salary with a 100k bonus for breaking 10 seconds in the 100m I doubt more than one does and no way do any of them break 9.9. (USADA drug testing protocols apply)

Why? Most football players get their speed through pure power and struggle with speed endurance and will continue to do so even with training and weight loss. That said, I think Ted Ginn, Jr, RG III, Trindon Holliday and a few others could have been Olympic class sprinters/ hurdlers if they had stuck with track.

I still don't think the crossover at the highest, highest levels occur so often that the popularity of the NFL/ NBA affects the performance level of American track athletes. The physical requirements are similar but not exactly so and the mindset is much, much different. Edwin Moses was a beast of a man but his methodical approach and reserved attitude made him much more suited to hurdling than playing wide receiver. I would argue the reverse is true for Tyreke Hill, Julio Jones, etc, etc.

But here is the original Mike Conley dunking from at least a few inches behind the foul line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZz6qJvbrgY

Though Jr makes much more money playing in the NBA than Sr ever did being a 28/58 jumper.

Dear stupidity abounds:

The fact that you do not know who Coach Tom Tellez is lets me and everyone on this thread know that you are a troll.

Well played sir, well played.

But I feel that I must end our conversation. I come to letsrun forum to learn more about my sport and engage in a thoughtful exchange of ideas, philosophies, and principles. You seem here to throw out slurs and swear and not move our sport forward.

Dear Oldenuf:

You have hit the nail on the head squarely with regards to the decline of long-jumping with respect to year-long team sports that share the same athletic pool of talent.

AAU basketball, EYBL basketball, and 7v7 football has overlapped AND overshadowed AAU track and USTF track meets. Then when you add in all the sneaker company Invite Camps, NBA Invite Camps for HS, Skill Camps, and the financial reality that track will not/can not give full scholarships you have an ever-shrinking pool of athletes.

When you couple this with the financial reward, or lack thereof, in track and field and you have almost a perfect storm for decreasing participation AND performances.

There are plenty of good, excellent, and outstanding long-jump coaches in the United States, the issue is the athletes that would have been running track in the 1990s and earlier are playing summer basketball and football.

Another factor to consider with the long-jump is the added complexity of wind, surface, jump count, jump position, fatigue, and form break-down. It is not that these do not apply to raw sprinting but the difference is that a cross-wind or a swirl can significantly throw off a jumper if he/she has not been coached well or even has a coach. I have been to many meets in North America where kids do not have a coach or even know how to do a run-up or get on the board. I have volunteered and have been asked by "rival" coaches and parents to help their kids - I always help.

With regards to generational jumpers and Carl Lewis in particular.

What most people do not know about Carl Lewis is that his mother was on the US Olympic Team, his idol was Jesse Owens who he meet at a very young age at his mother's summer track camps AND throughout his career, and Carl Lewis' high school in New Jersey has produced many quality athletes throughout the decades it was run by his parents.

Carl Lewis was in the PERFECT environment of loving and supportive parents, knowledgeable coaches (Mom/Dad/Coach Tellez), coaches who competed at the very highest level, attended a school that had a very strong track program in a state with exceptional athletes. As a coach, I try and mimic these so that my athletes can perform at a high level.

NB: Carl Lewis did NOT win the New Jersey State Meet in long jump, BUT that was the last long jump competition he lost until 1991 Worlds. Almost 10 years undefeated.

With regards to Bob Beamon, I meet his teammate from UTEP. I asked how they trained, what they ate, and why. The gentleman responded by saying that they were well coached but they all LOVED the sport so practice was something they all looked forward.

No reason to continue the debate. The facts of his rankings are out there for all to see. You can do both at the same time or one or the other.

carlactually wrote:

Best jump in the last seven years is 12th all time. Why?

All the talent is in the marathon.

ironside wrote:

My age is irrelevant. Again, look up the word simultaneous. Read everything I have stated on this thread. I am fully aware of 100m long jump correlation. You are making my point. You are stating Carl Lewis was a great sprinter and long jumper for six years. Carl Lewis was a great long jumper for over sixteen years. Carl Lewis was able to be a great long jumper without being a great sprinter. We are not going back and forth over the meaning of simultaneous. The OP wanted a discussion on why long jump performance has lagged. Please focus.

Well for 6 years he was SIMULTANEOUSLY both which puts a big dent in your argument. Yes he was a better LJer longer, but for those 6 years...

Carl Lewis was first ranked in the top 10 in the long jump in 1980 and in the 100 in 1981.

He was last ranked in the top 10 in the long jump in 1996 and in the 100 in .. wait for it... 1996

hellorunners wrote:

especially 10 000m

Rupp and Mo have gone top 15-16 in the last 3-4 years with a few other top 25s, and it's uncommonly run like 5k or jumped LJ

luv2run wrote:

ironside wrote:

My age is irrelevant. Again, look up the word simultaneous. Read everything I have stated on this thread. I am fully aware of 100m long jump correlation. You are making my point. You are stating Carl Lewis was a great sprinter and long jumper for six years. Carl Lewis was a great long jumper for over sixteen years. Carl Lewis was able to be a great long jumper without being a great sprinter. We are not going back and forth over the meaning of simultaneous. The OP wanted a discussion on why long jump performance has lagged. Please focus.

Well for 6 years he was SIMULTANEOUSLY both which puts a big dent in your argument. Yes he was a better LJer longer, but for those 6 years...

After pondering for several days about what ironside meant, I think he's a Brit or maybe Australian. To him the word "simultaneous" only holds if any time Lewis was at the top of one event he also needed to be at the top of the other. That's not the meaning in the US, but it got lost in the exchange.

Interaction with him was demeaning enough, but that's LetsRun, and no, I'm not Star.

Dear Churchill Downs:

Warning - Long post.

I must respectfully disagree with you regarding if the NBA and the NFL disappeared tomorrow that the level of long jump and track and field would NOT dramatically improve.

Please allow me to explain.

Football:

The way football players are trained is very, very different than how track and field athletes are trained. First and foremost, college football players are recruited on their size, skill, and then speed. But at the NFL-level they are recruited in the reverse - speed, skill, and then size. It is for this reason the business of NFL Combine Prep is a multi-million dollar business. The football players NEED to learn how to SPRINT and LIFT in order to get drafted and make "real money" (NFL $465,000 minimum per year - 2017).

The million dollar question literally is, "What were they doing the previous 3-4 years?!"

College football strength and conditioning programs all across the US all claim and chant, "Bigger, Stronger, Faster"; "We are going to squat, pull, press."; "We lift heavy."; "We are ground-based."; "We don't use machines."; "We use free-weights."

But there is a very public "dirty secret" within in the college football strength and conditioning community and it is that they can get their player bigger, stronger, but NOT faster. (Source: The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research - Sept. 2013)

The research and results were conducted by Oklahoma State University were;

The speed/skill athletes got bigger and stronger but stayed the same speed.

The linemen got bigger and stronger and SLOWER !!!

But if one were to look at the roots of college strength and conditioning and where we are today makes absolutely no sense.

Boyd Epley was the first College Football Strength and Conditioning Coach. He got the job at the University of Nebraska because he, as a POLE VAULTER, was stronger than the University of Nebraska's LINEMAN.

But if one were to go any Power 5 School weight-room none of the football players are lifting or training like pole vaulters.

Now lets compare track coaches (sprints, jumps - vertical and horizontal) who could not get their sprinters to drop their times or spur their athletes to higher bars or further into the pit. They would not be coaching for very long.

Football players rarely ever sprint (I am using shin-angles and torso lean definition). The only times are kick-off, punt, and wide-receiver deep-ball. Most players who play football even at the NFL-level are "just running fast". We have "hard" data due to CATAPULT SPORTS that tells top-speed, average speed, and miles/kilometers run. Top-speeds in the NFL of wide-receivers are SLOWER than elite and sub-elite female sprinters. I have my theories and I do not want to go on and on.

Other factors why college and NFL players are not as fast or "springy" as their spandex-wearing brethren is that they on average are 10-20 pounds heavier per height. Imagine long-jumping with five pounds of Omaha Steaks (keeping with the theme) attached to you.

I know someone will counter that it is not the same since it the football players have functional muscle and not just a slab of beef in a backpack. Fair enough, but if we were to remove the slab of beef and the "functional football muscles" I can almost guarantee faster times AND better "jumps".

In earlier posts, I mentioned how football sucked talent away from track. I am big enough to concede that football players are "slower" but this is due to -

the hits that they receive, (How fast would you be after being hit in the chest with a shoulder at top speed for five months out of the year - Spring Ball, Pre--season, IN-Season, Bowl Games, and BCS Finals)

their training, (see above)

Injuries, (self-explanatory)

and their "running" technique. (rarely ever given the opportunity to sprint)

If these impediments to speed and jumping are removed we would see good if not drastic improvements in their performances compared to where they are currently.

Basketball:

Basketball at the elite-level is very skills-based and not as "physical" as long-jumping or "raw" sprinting - that is not to say that they are not "fast" or cable of being "track fast". Take Kevin Durant, during his NBA Draft Workout he could not lift 185lbs on the bench, but put a basketball in his hands and his nearly unstoppable.

As a long-jumper you absolutely need "physicality" in order to "get the job done". This is what makes track beautiful - the human body stripped down to the very essentials and asked to run fast, jump high, and throw far.

A basketball court is only 94 feet in American or 28.7m for the rest of the world. This means that the entire length of a basketball court is about the length of a long-jump runway or on the sprinting side of the equation this would only be the drive phase of a 60m or 100m race. This does NOT give you enough time to really "open up" and hit maximum velocities. In fact, hitting maximum velocities on the court would be a recipe for injury and shortening careers. When you couple this with the start-stop nature of the game, looking out for picks, and catching/dribbling/shooting the ball. These must all be done at sub-maximum velocities. That being said, elite HS, College, and NBA basketball players can dunk from or close to the free-throw line (15 feet - 4.572m). That means that they are physically capable of "approximating the long-jump take off" with an object (the basketball) in hand. Even though the basketball is "light" the additional "mental space/energy" used to "control and account" for the ball impedes maximum upward thrust.

To make this point clearer, try jumping using your arms; without using your arms; and finally with a ball (any ball) in hand. The result will be telling. Now, factor this into the speed, or lack of maximum speed, and you have the "deficit" that basketball players have compared to "track" athletes. But given some time, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I gave 4 truly WORLD-CLASS performers in track who were basketball converts.

Andre Degrasse - sub 10

Damian Warner - 8.04m long jumper 10.2sec 100m

Donald Thomas - 2.37m

Trey Hardee - 7.88 Lj 10.3X 100m

Sorry for the long post.

Thoughts and counters are welcome.