Except that the goal of long jump is to see who can jump the furthest from the board without going over. Now we are changing the rules and saying let's just see who can jump the furthest.
I'm all for growing the sport and getting more eyeballs on the events but let's call this for what it is, it's a way to drum up new records.
Why not simplify the whole thing? All measurements are from the front edge of the pit. No boards, no take-off zones, no visual spotting other than the landing point, no need for lasers or video. Use the entire runway and have a painted area as a visual cue to denote the end of the runway/edge of the pit.
The local CYO youth league does this for kids under age 10. No fouls and no controversy. If your toes touch the sand at takeoff - that's where the measurement is.
Here is another way to simplify. They could have like a line or maybe even a board near the end of the runway that they have to jump before they get to that or we could call it a "foul" if they step over it.
Why not simplify the whole thing? All measurements are from the front edge of the pit. No boards, no take-off zones, no visual spotting other than the landing point, no need for lasers or video. Use the entire runway and have a painted area as a visual cue to denote the end of the runway/edge of the pit.
The local CYO youth league does this for kids under age 10. No fouls and no controversy. If your toes touch the sand at takeoff - that's where the measurement is.
Here is another way to simplify. They could have like a line or maybe even a board near the end of the runway that they have to jump before they get to that or we could call it a "foul" if they step over it.
Most high school long jump sand pits aren't long enough to allow for boys that are jumping over about 20 feet to takeoff at the edge of the pit safely. That's why the boards are usually 12 feet/4 meters from the sand pit.
Not sure where I saw it on here, but the only rule change I am for is the 1500 in the decathlon should be staggered start (or whatever the longest distance in the multi is). First place across the line wins.
Here is another way to simplify. They could have like a line or maybe even a board near the end of the runway that they have to jump before they get to that or we could call it a "foul" if they step over it.
Most high school long jump sand pits aren't long enough to allow for boys that are jumping over about 20 feet to takeoff at the edge of the pit safely. That's why the boards are usually 12 feet/4 meters from the sand pit.
It was sarcasm. What I explained is exactly what long jump currently is.
We are going to make US kids learn technique and conform to the "old" current rules of long jump because high schools and middle schools cannot afford video/laser measuring equipment or lengthening the landing pits. Then, when they reach college, they will have to re-learn how to jump with the proposed new takeoff zone rules. Has anyone at World Athletics tested what this would do to athlete development? Is there any evidence that the proposed new rules would make 28' 6"+ jumps the norm?
What's the next step for World Athletics to generate excitement? Raised runways, like indoors, but with a 1-2% down gradient to increase a jumper's speed at takeoff? Plexiglass shields to eliminate crosswinds during the entire jump sequence? Get rid of the wind gauges? Hold any and all long jump competitions at high altitude?
Beamon, Lewis, and Powell were exceptional athletes. Just because today's best cannot match their jumping prowess is not a reason to spit on tradition. Today's shoes, runways, and sports science is better than what these legends had available. We shouldn't cheapen the event to get a handful more viewers.
In five years when Bolt's 100 WR still stands, we can look forward to the new "flying start" rules where the runner leaves the blocks 110 meters from the finish but the clock doesn't start until he reaches the official starting line. A few more eyeballs and another commercial break or two for NBC is worth shi**ing on tradition, I suppose.
Good idea for novelty event held inside a mall or such but should not be adopted for actual competition. If the idiots at World Athletics can only come up with this idea, we are already fooked. Maybe do a downhill run up, no board and see how far a human can jump. Current crop probably still won’t reach Beamon, Powell and Lewis even with this help.
Jon Ridgon couldn’t make it as a 110 hurdler because he was too soft. Then he switched to 400 hurdles and found out he was far too soft for that too. He’s too stupid to come up with any good ideas. Like changing longjump is going to cause a blip in the sports popularity. It’s like changing the corn flavoring at the state fair and expecting it to boost attendance. World athletics should embraced to bring this idea forward.
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.
This is the correct answer.
It's only an essential skill because arbitrary rules make it necessary. I get that timing/measuring your jumps is difficult, and I can appreciate the skill behind it, but that in no way means I have to think it should be an integral part of this event that calls itself the long jump, not "the best executed and timed jump while taking off from an arbitrary point for (historical?) reasons we're not entirely sure of."
I'd much rather the winner be the person who jumps the farthest.History won't change - the people who won in the past will still have won in the past - so there's nothing to fear there.
There is merit to the comparison made with the 100, but part of what makes the 100 great is that it's a race - not a time trial - run directly against each other, rather than a turn-by-turn event. If the 100 had a starting gun for each competitor going one at a time, we would see how arbitrary the starting gun actually is. This is almost exactly the case with the long jump (substitute "starting gun" for "take-off board").
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.)
Yes. This. Everything in athletics/track and field should be somewhat (or mostly) viewed through the lens basic/primal human survival or warfare. Long jump over a water pit of sorts would be amazing.
9x Olympic gold medalist Carl Lewis and current University of Houston head coach gives his take on World Athletics' proposal to change how we measure the lon...