New Fosbury Flop?

ghad wrote:

I cant believe people are arguing this- that's clearly illegal

How so? Two feet leave the ground at different times. Is there some minimum time differential between the feet leaving the ground that this technique violates? If you are going to argue that both feet cannot contribute to upward thrust then I am quite confident that nobody who has ever highjumped in competition (outside of the special olympics) has ever abided by the rule.

So, tell me exactly how he is violating any rule.

clearly huh? wrote: If you are going to argue that both feet cannot contribute to upward thrust then I am quite confident that nobody who has ever highjumped in competition (outside of the special olympics) has ever abided by the rule.

Huh? The traditional flop is done by springing off of only one foot. The other leg is thrust skyward to give some momentum, sure, but one does not push off the ground with it at all.

I watched the video frame by frame and each time he went off one foot!...So maybe we need instant replay? IT WAS LEGAL!

RuKiddingMe! wrote:

I watched the video frame by frame and each time he went off one foot!...So maybe we need instant replay? IT WAS LEGAL!

Yes, it's not that close to jumping off two feet if you break it down. I can see why it would still seem fishy to some people, but it's not close to taking a two footed jump. He had his entire foot off the ground when he started to take off with his other foot. It wasn't like he started with both feet and one cleared the ground before the other by a millisecond.

If he was a black guy or whatever, he'd be lauded for his new style, for his improvisation and the 'method' would be allowed.

Actually, if one were to try to leave the ground with two feet at exactly the same time, they probably never could. One foot would always leave at least a fraction of a nano-second before the other. Of course, it would be hard to detect - but where does one draw the line between something that would be considered a one-foot versus a two-foot take off. If this jump is declared legal - and it looks like it has been - then you might as well get rid of the one foot rule altogether. I actually liked the initial ruling - that determined it was two footed because the upward force for the jump was generated by the action of both feet against the pavement. This appears to be the original intent of the rule.

The reason it's easier to dunk off of one foot isn't because you can jump higher, but that you can reach higher. Stand facing a wall, then see how high you can reach. With two feet on the ground, your limit is your vertical extension. With only one, your limit is the diagonal extension from one foot to the opposite hand. You'll get several extra inches of reach the one-footed way.

nano-second????...what are you talking about JOE?..it was clearing ONE FOOT take off!...It doesn't take forensic science by the POLICE!

While that is certainly true, I think that the transition from horizontal speed (running) to vertical liftoff (jumping) is easier with a one footed take off. Running and then jumping off of two feet is choppy and breaks up the momentum of the jumper (this is less true with the sideways take off this kid employs than it is for two footed take off basketball dunk attempts). With a one footed jump one also gets to throw their other leg upwards to assist in the lift (as is done in the typical high jump flop).

should be clearly....to much wine...it was clearly a one foot take off

Nutjobwins wrote:

nano-second????...what are you talking about JOE?..it was clearing ONE FOOT take off!...It doesn't take forensic science by the POLICE!

You really have no idea what I wrote, do you?

Nutjobwins wrote:

nano-second????...what are you talking about JOE?..it was clearing ONE FOOT take off!...It doesn't take forensic science by the POLICE!

Again, it depends on what you mean by "take off". If you just mean that one foot came off the ground before the other, than sure. In that case nearly every jump can be one footed since it'd be impossible for both feet to come off the ground perfectly simultaneously. But what we mean in this thread, and had always previously understood the rule to mean by one foot take off is that only one foot is used as a coil to spring off of: this kid very obviously uses both feet to "jump" off of, regardless of whether one comes off the ground first or not. Both legs propel him skyward.

You should be able to go off of two feet, isn't the point of the high jump to see how high you can jump? Or is just some gay event like racewalking?

say what polar bear wrote:

tell me when he jumps over 7'0". I might actually care.

I think this is the cruxt of it. If this guy were in contention to win state people would care and make a big issue out of it. I don't think anyone in the NCS is going to give a rat's ass even if he nabs one of the state meet spots. Regardless, the guy who has final say has cleared him to use it so it's irrelevant until he goes 7+ or tries this in college.

BTW, it's Analy Tigers, not Trojans.

I wonder how old the high jump rules are? You know they used to jump onto a pile of sawdust. Fosbury had a strange technique in his day.

I say just get over the damn bar. These tic-tac rules are why no one cares about Track and Field.

Alan

He's only going 3 inches over his own height, so it's nearly meaningless. He invented a new style. It's illegal, plus it stinks. Congratulations kid.

the whole thing is irrelevant and will never be widely accepted

the success of the fosbury flop has to do with the fact that since you arch over the bar, your center of mass is always below the level of the bar. when your arms go over, the rest of your body is below the bar. when your stomach goes over, your head arms and chest as well as your pelvis and legs are below the level of the bar, meaning your center of mass is passing underneath the bar despite the fact that your actual body is above the bar. This is possible due to the nice sort of C curve your body can make backwards (aided by such things as your knees bending backwards)

you cannot achieve this effect going over forwards simply because of the way the body bends. when your hips are over the bar going forwards, to have the center of mass below the bar, you would have to dangle your legs downwards. Then to get them to clear the bar you would have to kick them up behind you (which would in turn push your hips into the bar). With the flop, when your hips clear the bar, your thighs are just about parallel to your hips and the ground, and you can maintain the low center of mass by dangling your lower legs (you cannot do this going forwards because those pesky knees only bend one way), which is why you see the big lower leg kick to clear the bar (and the hips are well clear at that point).

so whether its a legal jump or not, it will never be as efficient as the flop, and thus will never gain wide acceptance

he also didn't 'invent' it....its been done before

its known as a holm roll in fact

It's similar but Holm jumps off one foot only whereas this kid goes more sideways and uses both feet.