Salto em Altura - Analise Biomec.
Salto em Altura - Analise Biomec.
HIGH JUMP
#32
(Men)
Although the hi gh jump has been one of the most intensely studied events in track and field, knowledge of it is
st ill imperfect, and there is room for doubts and disagreements. We have tried to give you what we believe are the
best poss ible recommendations, based on the biomechanical information that is presently available, but we do not
pretend to have all the answers. We hope you do not feel that we are trying to force our ideas on you, because that is
definitely not our intent. Use what you like, and ignore what you don't like. If you find any part of this report useful
in any way, we will feel that it has served its purpose.
• Read the main text of th e report (" Discuss ion of high jumping technique, and general analysis of results"). Try to
follow the logic that we used to arrive at our conclusions.
• If yo u feel comfortable with our logic, and it fits with your own ideas, try to implement our recomm endation s as
described in "Specific recommendation s for individual athletes". Throughout the report, keep in mind that "c.m."
stands for "center of mass", a point that represents the average position of the whole body. This point is also called
somet im es the "center of gravity".
• If yo u do not agree with our logic, we still hope that you will find our data useful for reaching your own
conc lusion s.
NOTE FOR PREVIOUS READERS OF THESE AND OTHER REPORTS : The masses or weights of the
segments that make up the body of an individua l athlete are not known exactly, and neither are the moments of
inertia nor other important mechanical characteristics of the segments of the human body. Therefore, researchers
have to work with estimates of those values, and different researchers work with different estimates. The methods
used for the ca lculation of mechanica l information (for instance: three-dimensional coordinates of body landm arks,
center of mass position, angular momentum) also vary from one researcher to another. Because of this, it is often
not advisable to compare the data from reports produced by different laboratories.
Even within our own laboratory, some definitions have changed from one report to another. Also, some of the
data are calculated with progressive ly improved methods which give more accurate values . Therefore, the data in
this report may not be strictly comparable with data presented in previous reports. However, all values given in the
present report were computed usi ng the same method , because any data for jumps from prev ious years were re-
ca lcul ated. Therefore, all the data presented in this report, including data for jumps made in previous years, are
compatible with each other.
TA BLE OF CONTENTS
page
I NTRODUCTION ............... ................... .................. ....... ... ... ........... ... ........... ............ .... ... ... ......... .. ............. .. .............. ... .. I
GENERAL METH O DOLOGY ..... ... ..... ....................................................................... ........... .. ..... ...... .... ..... ...... ... ... ... .. 1
Vid eotaping and se lection of tri als ..... ...... .... ...... ................ .............................................. ................ ...... .... ..... ... ... ... ... !
Vid eo analys is ........... .. ......... ... ..... .... ........ .... ............ .... .......................................... ....... .................... ..... .... ...... ... .. ........ I
Seq uences ........ ......... .. ... ....... .. ...... .... ............ ...... ...... ................................................ ......................... .. ..... .. ........ ........... I
Subject characteri sti cs and meet res u Its ..... .... ...... ...... ..... ........................................................................ ........ ... ......... I
SPEC I FI C RECO MM EN D ATI ONS FOR I N DI V ID UA L AT HL ETES ............ .. .. ........ ... ............................... .... 35
Dillin g .............. ....... ... .. ..... ....... .... .... .... ... ... .... .. .. .. ................ ........................ .... .......... .. .. ............................ ..... ............ 35
Harri s .............. ....................... .................. ............. ... ............ ...... ... ........ .... ...................... ........ ........................ ..... ........ 44
Hutch in son ........................................... ............ .. .. ....................... .......... .......... ............ ......... .... ...... ..... ........... .. ........... 52
Littleton ............... .............. ....... ... ............. ....... ................... .. ......... ......... ... ... .............................. .............. ......... ...... .. 6 1
Moffatt ........ ....... .................. ........ .... .................................... .............. ................ .. ...... ......... ........... .... ... .... .... ...... ... ...... 70
Nieto ..................... .. .......... .. ... .............................................. ........................ ....... .. ......... ..... .......... ............ ...... ..... .. ...... 79
Se ll ers ....... ...................... ..... ............................................ .... .... ................ ......... ................ ................. .. ...... ........ .. .... .. 88
Shunk .......... ...... ..... ...... ............. .... .... ................................ ..... .. ........ .... ........ ................... ...... .......... .. .. ........ .... .... ........ . 98
Willi ams ... ............. ... .. ......... ....... ....... .............. .............. ............ .............. ......... .. .............. ........... ... ....... ..... ........ ..... 107
REFER ENCES ............................... ... ................................................................... ... ........ ..................................... .. ...... 120
ACKNOWLED GEMEN T S ... ........ .... ... ..... ........................ ... ....... ........... ................ .. .................................... ..... ... ..... . 12 1
A PP EN DI X 3: PRO DUC TIO N O F LA T ER A L SOMER SAULTI NG ANGULA R MOM EN T UM ...... .. ... 129
A PP EN DI X 4: DRAW I NG TH E PAT H O F A HIG H JUMP RUN-U P ... ..... ... ... ...... ...... ....................... ...... .... 13 1
I NTRODUCTI ON run-up, step lengths, and o ther in fo rm ation.
Table I
li fted by loweri ng ano th er part; o ne part of th e body steps of the run-up , the takeoff ph ase and th e a irbo rn e
can be m ade to ro tate faster by makin g another part ph ase. Notice that the c. m . (e.g .) path is initia lly to
s low down its rotation) . th e left of th e footprints . This is because th e athlete
The run-up serves as a preparation for th e takeoff
ph ase, th e most important part of the jump . The is leaning toward th e left during th e curve. The c. m .
actions of th e athl ete durin g th e bar c learance are less path th en co nverges w ith th e footprints, and the c.m .
impo rtant: Most of the pro bl ems fo und in th e bar is pretty mu ch directly over th e takeoff foot at th e
clearance actu a ll y origi nate in th e run-up o r takeoff end of th e takeoff.
ph ases. Figure 2 a lso show s ang les t 1, p 2 , p 1 and p0 : t 1 is
th e ang le between th e bar and th e lin e joining the last
General characteristics of the run-up two footprints; p 2 and p 1 are the ang les betw een th e
T he typ ica l length of th e run-up fo r ex perienced bar and th e path of the c. m. in the ai rb orne ph ases of
hig h jumpers is abo ut I 0 steps. In th e Fosbury-flo p th e las t two steps; p 0 is the ang le between the bar and
techniqu e, th e first part of the run-up usua lly follows th e path of th e c. m . durin g the a irborn e phase that
a stra ight lin e perpendicular to th e plane of th e fo llows the takeoff. The angles are sma ller in
stand ard s, and th e las t four o r fi ve steps fo llow a athletes who move mo re para ll e l to th e bar. The
curve (Figure 1). On e ofth e main purposes of the va lu es of th ese ang les are shown in Table 2.
curve is to make the jumper lean away fr om the bar at
the start of the takeoff phase . The faster th e run o r Progress ion of the run-up
th e tig hter th e curve, the greater th e lean toward th e To start th e run-up , the athlete can e ith er take a
center of the curve . (Fo r mo re deta ils on th e shape of few wa lking steps and th en start runnin g, or make a
the run-up , see A ppendi x 4 .) standing start. In th e ear ly part of the run-up the
athl ete needs to follow a g radu a l progress ion in
Approach angles which each step is a littl e bit lo nge r and fas ter than
Fig ure 2 shows an overhead view of the last two the prev io us o ne. After a few steps, the high j ump er
3
Figure 1
Figure 2
/
9<>..-----
1 '
, ' .....
~------...
I '
~- '
I
1
/
'
G 8 -T--
II
I '
' I
Po'··..., i Too
________j_. __ _
I I
\ c. m. path
/
I
I
I
/
/""
/
raJi LI S or
\
I
I
I
I
~
..
e. m . pos iti on at the end
- I1e tak eo t'f p I1ase
~P 1· · · ... sL ,
', •••••••
1,·•.
I I
1 o tt ------------ .L.~
/ the eur\'e
/ \n 1
-
1 I
I I
--------------------- ___ , or
/
/
1
________ -- ll start
'' the curve
\
ce nter of th e cun·e
I
p
''
Table 2
Directio n o f th e foo tprints o f th e last ste p (t 1) , d irec tio n of the pa th of the c .m . in the las t two steps (p2 and p 1) and afte r
takeotT(p 0 ) , d irectio n o f th e lo ng itud in al axis of th e foo t with respec t to th e ba r (e 1) , w ith res pect to the fi na l direc tion of
th e run- up (e 2) and w ith respect to th e ho rizon tal fo rce made o n th e gro und durin g th e takeoff ph ase (e 1) , leng th of th e last
ste p (S L 1, ex pressed in meters and a lso as a percent of th e stand ing he ight of the co rres po ndin g athl ete), and takeoff
d istance (TOD) . No te : So me of the va lu es in th is tab le may not fi t perfec tl y w ith each o ther, beca use of ro unding off.
(*) U99 = 1999 USATF C h.; UO I = 200 I USATF Ch.; U02 = 2002 USATF Ch.; U03 = 2003 USATF C h.; T04 = 2004
U.S. O lympi c T ria ls ; U06 = 2006 USATF Ch.; U07 = 2007 USATF Ch.
di scuss io n of th e mechani sms th at may be in vo lved and in a hig h pos itio n at th e end of the takeoff. Most
in th e high jump takeoff, see Dapena and C hung, hig h jumpers have no tro uble ac hi ev ing a reaso nably
198 8.) Ta bl e 3 shows the va lues of vH2 , the hig h pos itio n at th e end of th e takeoff; th e greatest
hori zo nta l ve loc ity of the athlete in th e next-to- las t difficul ty Iies in the establi shm ent of a low pos ition at
step of th e run-up , and of vH 1, th e ho ri zo nta l ve loc ity the start of th e takeoff phase . T here are two ways to
of the athlete in th e las t step of th e run -up , just produce a low pos iti on of th e c.m . at the start of th e
before th e tak eoff foo t is pI anted o n th e g ro und . Th e takeoff ph ase: (a) to run with bent legs in th e last
va lu e of VHt is the important o ne . couple of steps of th e run-up ; and (b) to run on a
To m ax imize th e ve rti ca l ran ge of motion curve, which makes the athl ete lean toward th e center
thro ug h whi ch fo rce is exerted o n the body during th e of th e curve, and thus produ ces a furth er lowerin g of
takeo ff ph ase, it is necessary fo r th e center of mass to the c.m . Th e c. m .-lowerin g effects of th e two
be in a low pos it ion at the start of the takeoff ph ase meth ods are additive, and hig h jumpers norma lly
5
Table 3
Height of th e c.m. at the start of th e takeoff pha se (ilru, expressed in meters and a lso as a percent of th e
standin g he ight of eac h athl ete), hori zo ntal ve loc ity in th e last two steps of th e run-up (v 112 and v 111 ), horizo ntal
ve locity afte r takeoff(v 1rro) , change in hori zo ntal ve loc ity during th e tak eoff phase (t.v 11 ), vertical ve loc ity at
the start of the takeoff phase (vzm), and vertica l velocity at the end of the takeoff ph ase (vl.To). Note : Some of
th e va lu es in thi s tabl e may not fit perfec tl y w ith each oth er, because of roundin g off.
Athlete Trial and h·m VHz V][J VJI TO t.v " VzTD VzTo
meet(*)
(m) (%) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
Willi ams 16 T04 0.88 47 .5 7.4 7.3 3.8 -3.4 -0.2 4.40
82 U07 0 .88 48 .0 7.8 7.7 4J -3.4 -OJ 4 .50
(*) U99 = 1999 USATF Ch.; UO I = 200 I USATF Ch.; U02 = 2002 USATF Ch.; U03 = 2003 USA TF Ch.;
T04 = 2004 U.S. O lympic Tria ls ; U06 = 2006 USATF Ch.; U07 = 2007 USATF Ch.
lower th e c. m. through the combin ation of both necessary work to achieve this, since th e results will
meth ods. be highly rewarding. Appendix 2 describes so me
Running with bent legs requires th e body to be exercises that can help high jumpers to run with bent
supported by a deeply flexed non-takeoff leg durin g legs in the last steps of the run-up without los ing
the nex t-to-last step of the run-up , and thi s requires a speed, and to produ ce a good pos ition for the body at
very strong non-takeoff leg. A Iso, it is d ifficu It to th e start of the takeoff ph ase.
learn the appropriate neuromu scul ar pattern s that will By runnin g on a curve, the athlete can reduce the
allow th e ath tete to pass over the deeply fl exed non- amount of leg flexi on needed to attain any given
takeoff leg without los in g speed. Still , it is poss ible amount of c. m. lowering. Therefore, th e curved run-
to learn how to run fast with bent legs. It requires a up makes it easier to maintain a fast running speed
considerable amount of effort and trainin g, but while lowering the c.m. Unfortunately, th e amount
athl etes should be strongly encouraged to put in the of c.m. lowering that can be produced exclusively
6
thro ug h curve-i ndu ced leaning is rath er limited . than the second o ne. However, if the two values of
T herefore, hig h jumpers no rmally need to combine hm were, fo r in stance, 46.5% and 48.0% it would not
bent-l egs runnin g w ith the use of a curved run-up to be poss ible to be compl ete ly sure w hi ch of th e
produce th e necessary amount of lowerin g of the c .m . jumpers was lower, becau se th e 46.5% co uld be
Table 3 shows th e value of hm , the heig ht of th e rea lly 47.5%, and th e 48 .0% co uld be rea lly 47 .0% .)
c.m . at the in stant w hen th e tak eoff foot is planted o n Let' s cons ider what would happen if a ll th e
the g ro und to start the takeoff ph ase . It is the athl etes shown in Figure 3 had simil ar dy namic
comb in ed result of running w ith bent legs and strength in th e takeoff leg. In such case, the athletes
leanin g toward th e center of th e cur ve. It is in th e upper left part of th e gra ph wo uld be far from
expressed in meters, but a lso as a percent of each th e ir limit for bu cklin g, the athletes in the lower right
athl ete' s standing he ig ht. The percent va lues are part of the g raph would be c losest to bucklin g, and
more meaningful for the compariso n of o ne athl ete the athletes in th e center, lower left and upper right
w ith anoth er. parts of the g raph wo uld be so mewhere in between
Let's say th at an athlete has learn ed how to run with respect to th e ri sk of buckling. Therefore, if a ll
fast and low. A new pro blem could occur : The th e athletes show n in Figure 3 had s imilar dy nami c
athl ete co uld ac tu a lly be too fa st and too low . If th e streng th , we would reco mm end th e athl etes in the
takeoff leg is not stro ng eno ug h, it will be forced to upper left part of th e g raph to learn how to run faster
flex excess ive ly during th e takeoff ph ase , and then it and lower (see Appendix 2) , and th en ex perim ent
may not be abl e to make a forcefu I ex tens io n in th e with jumps us ing run-ups that are faster and/or lower
final part of th e takeoff ph ase . In oth er words, th e than th e ir ori g inal ones. The athletes in the center,
takeoff leg m ay bu ck le (collapse) und er the stress , lower left and upp er ri g ht parts o f th e graph would
and th e res ult will be a very low jump o r an aborted a lso be advised to exper iment with faster and lower
j ump . Therefore, it is important to find th e o ptimum run-ups, poss ibly emph as izin g " faster" for the
combin ati on of run-up speed and c.m . he ig ht. We jumpers in the lower left part of the g raph , and
wi ll now see how this can be do ne. " lower" for the jumpers in the upper ri g ht part of the
Figure 3 show s a plot ofhm versus VHJ· (At this g raph . The athletes in the lower ri g ht part of th e
tim e, pl ease ig nore the diago nal lines ; we will deal g raph would be cautio ned aga inst the use of much
with them later o n.) Each po int o n th e g raph faster and /or lower run-up s th an their present o nes,
rep resents o ne jump by o ne athl ete. A different because these athletes wo uld already be c loser to
sy mbo l has been ass ig ned to each athlete. This buckling th an the oth ers.
sy mbo l will be used for th at athl ete in a ll graph s of The procedure just describ ed would make sense
this report. Po ints in th e left part of th e g raph if a ll th e jumpers shown in Figure 3 had s imil ar
represent jumps w ith a s low speed at th e end of the dynamic strength in th e takeoff leg . However, this is
run-up ; points in the right part of the g raph represent not a good assumption : The takeoff legs of different
jumps w ith a fast speed at th e end of th e run-up . hig h jumpers will have different amounts of dynamic
Po ints in th e upper part of the graph represent jumps strength , and mo re powerful athle tes will be able to
with a hig h c.m . at the end of the run-up ; points in the handle faster and lo wer run-ups without bucklin g.
lower part of the g raph represent jumps with a low Therefore, it is poss ible that an athlete in th e upper
c. m . at th e end of the run-up . This kind of g raph left part of the g raph mig ht be weak , and thus already
permi ts to v isua li ze s imultaneous ly how fast and how c lose to bucklin g , while an athlete farther dow n and
hig h an athlete was at the end o f the run-up . For to th e ri g ht in the g raph mig ht be mo re powerful , and
in stance, a po int in th e upper ri g ht part of the g raph ac tua lly farther from buckling. The o ptimum
would indi cate a jump with a fast run-up but a hig h co mbination of run-up speed and c. m . he ig ht will be
c.m . pos ition at th e end of th e run-up. different fo r different hig h jumpers , and we w ill need
(At this poi nt, it is important to co ns ider th e to know a hig h jumper' s dynamic strength befo re we
acc uracy of these va lu es . A II meas urem ents have can predict how fast and how low th at hig h j umper
so me degree of erro r, and dependin g o n what is be in g sho uld be at th e end of the run-up.
meas ured, the erro r may be larger or sm a ller. Th e It is not easy to measure the dyn amic strength of
errors in the vH 1 values are s ma ll , typically less th an a high jumper's takeoff leg . The personal record of
0 . 1 m/s; th e errors in th e hm va lues can be of greater an athl ete in a squ at lift o r in a vertica l jump-and-
s ig nifi cance . It is easy for th e va lu e of hm to be ha lf reach test are not good indi cators of th e dynamic
a percent point off for any jump , and occas iona lly it streng th of th e takeoff leg. Thi s is because these tests
co uld be off by as mu ch as o ne whole percent po int. do not duplicate c lose ly enough th e conditions of th e
T herefo re, if two jumpers had, for instance, hm high jump takeoff. The best indi cato r that we have
va lu es of46 .5% and 49.0%, res pect ive ly , we co uld found of th e takeoff leg ' s dy namic strength is the
be pretty sure that the first jumper rea lly was lower capab ili ty of th e hig h jumper to generate lift in an
7
Figure 3
50
49
0
MOF 84
48
IL 16
}:{
NIE62 0
47 }:{ MO 40
NIE 17
}:{
46 SHU 95
~
NIE 36
45
.-~
~-
44
43
VHI (m/s)
8
ac tua l hig h jump. Therefore, we use the vertical th at athl etes near th e regress io n lin e or be low it were
ve loc ity achi eved by the hig h jumper at the end of th e running too s low ly at the end of th e run-up.
takeoff ph ase (VzTO - see be low) to indicate the A s imilar ratio na le can be followed with th e
athl ete's dy nami c strength o r " tak eoff power". g raph of hm vs. Vzro, show n in Figure 5. Each of the
To help us in our prediction of th e optimum small open circles in Figure 5 represents one jump by
horizo ntal speed at the end of the run-up from the one of th e athletes in o ur stati stica l sample. The
dynamic strength of th e takeoff leg , we made use of oth er symbo ls represent the athl etes ana lyzed for the
stati stica l inform atio n accumulated thro ug h film present report. The ho rizo ntal ax is of the g raph aga in
ana lyses of ma le and female hig h jumpers in the shows vertical velocity at takeoff (vzTO): The most
co urse of Scientific Support Services work spon sored powerful high jumpers are the ones who are abl e to
at Indiana University by th e United States Olympic generate more lift, and they are to th e ri ght in the
Com mittee and by USA Track & Field (formerly The g raph ; th e weaker jumpers are to the left. The
Athletics Congress) in th e peri od 1982- 1987 . The vertica l ax is shows the he ig ht of the c.m . at the start
athl etes in vo lv ed in these studi es were a ll elite hi gh of the takeoff ph ase (hm ), expressed as a percent of
jumpers film ed at the fin a ls of natio na l and th e athl ete's standin g he ig ht. The di ago nal regression
internatio na l leve l co mpetitio ns (USATF and NCAA lin e shows the trend of the stati st ica l data . Although
Champ io nships ; U.S . Olympic Trials; Wor ld Indoor the data are more " noisy" than in th e prev io us graph
Champio nships). (i .e. , th ere is a wider " cloud" around th e regress io n
Each of the s ma ll o pen c irc les in Figure 4 lin e), th e g raph in Fig ure 5 also agrees with o ur
represents one jump by one of the athl etes in our genera l expectatio ns: The more powerful jumpers
ori g inal statistical sa mpl e. The other sy mbo ls (larger Vzro values) are able to be lower at the end of
represent the athletes analyzed for the present report. th e run-up (smaller hm values) w ith o ut bu ckling
The ho ri zo nta l ax is of th e g raph shows vertical durin g the takeoff ph ase. In Figure 5, jumpers on the
ve locity at takeoff (vzTO): The most powerful hig h regress ion lin e or above it will have bad techniques in
jumpers are the ones w ho are able to ge nerate more this regard , and the optimum will be somewhere
lift, and they are to the ri g ht in the g raph ; the weaker be low th e reg ress io n lin e.
jumpers are to th e left. The vertical axis shows th e Wh en Fig ures 4 and 5 are used as diag nosti c
final speed of th e run-up (vH 1). The di ago nal tools, it is necessary to take into cons id eration the
" regression" line shows the trend of the stati stica l information from both g raphs. For in stance, if a
data. The graph agrees with o ur expectations: The g iven athlete is pretty much on the regression lin es of
more powerful jumpers, those able to get more lift Figures 4 and 5, or below the regression line in
(larger Vzro) , can a lso handle faster run-ups (larger Fig ure 4 and above the regression line in Figure 5, we
v~ 11 ) without bucklin g . should presume th at this athlete is not near th e
So , what is th e o ptimum run-up speed for a given buckling po int. Therefore th e athlete sho uld be
hig h jumper? It seems safe to assume that most hig h adv ised to in crease the run-up speed and/o r to run
jumpers will not use regularly a run-up that is so fast with lower hips at th e end of th e run-up . However, if
that the takeoff leg will buckle . Thi s is because it an athl ete is s lig htl y below the regression lin e in
takes intense concentratio n and effo rt fo r a hig h Figure 4 , but markedly be low it in Figure 5, the case
jumper to use a fast run-up , and if the athlete fee ls is different. Since th e c.m . was very low durin g the
th at the leg has buckled in o ne jump, an easier run-up, may be th e athl ete was c lose to the bu ck ling
(slower) run-up will be used in further jumps. Since po int, even th oug h the run-up speed was not very
buck lin g (o r at leas t partial buckling) will begin to fast. In this case, it would not be appropriate to
occur at run-up speeds immediately faster than the advise an increase in run-up speed, even if th e
optimum , this m eans th at few hig h jumpers sho uld be athlete's run-up speed was somewhat s low in
expected to use regularl y run-ups that are fas ter th an compari so n to what we would ex pect o n the average.
their o ptimum . On the other hand , we sho uld ex pect By now, it sho uld be c lear to the reader that the
a larger number of hig h jumpers to use run-up speeds intensity of th e demands put on the takeoff leg during
that are s lower th an their o ptimum . This is because a the takeoff phase depe nds m a inly on th e combination
fa ir numb er of high jumpers have not learned to use a of final run-up speed and c. m. he ig ht at the end of the
fast eno ug h run-up . Therefore, the diago nal run-up . Therefore, the adv ice given to an individual
regression line which m arks th e average trend in the athlete needs to take into acco unt both of these
g raph represents speeds that are s lower than the factors s imultan eo us ly . This is where the diago na l
optimum. In sum , a lthou g h th e prec ise value of th e lin es in Fig ure 3 come into play. Each diago nal line
optimum run-up speed is not known for any g iv en indicates combinati ons of run-up speed and c.m.
value of Vzro, we know that it will be faster than the heig ht th at are equally demanding for the takeoff leg .
val ue indicated by the diago na l regress ion lin e, and Diago na l lin es further down and toward the rig ht on
VHI
8.8
8.6
(m/s)
8.4
8.2
8.0 ~ 6.
HAR61
"YO
SEL03 ""
HAR 2 1 HAR 38
0
T""'
LI T 48 OIL97
7.8 + HAR 30
0 0 0 0
. HAR 17
7.6
0
SEL42
"" @
MOF 33 ""
HAR II •
W IL8
!
0
0 0 0 0 0
N IE 24
7.4 0 ):!:>
99 WIL 16
,,
..,.,<v
~
e J:t o ~·
o J:t o o
=
0 0
MOF40
7.2 + 0
~
HUT72~ N I E
MOF 84
N IE 36 ):!
0
13
0
c+ SH U95
0 0 ""!
~
7.0 + 0 0 0~ N IE 17 ):! + sH U 28
):!
~ N IE 62
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6.0
5.8
~~~+-~-+--~+-~-+--~+-~-+--~~~-+--~+-~
3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0
VZTO (m/s)
\0
11
the g raph represent progress ively mo re demanding the bar e ither o n the way up toward the peak of th e
combin at ions. Each athlete's Vzro va lu e (which jump o r o n th e way d ow n.
needs to be obta in ed fro m Table 3) d etermines the It is important to keep in mind that the reg ress ion
appro priate diago na l line for that athlete in Fig ure 3. lin es in F ig ures 4 and 5 represent average va lues , not
If an athlete is hig her and/o r to the left of the optimum va lu es . They represent m edi ocre
recomm end ed diagona l lin e, as will often be th e case, techniqu es that are not parti cul ar ly bad but a lso not
we w ill adv ise the athlete to move his/her po int to the parti cul arl y good . For o ptimum technique, an athl ete
reco mm end ed diago nal lin e. If the athlete is already need s to be hig her than th e regress ion line ofF ig ure4
on the reco mm end ed di ago na l line , we will advi se the and/o r lower than th e reg ress io n lin e of Figure 5. In
athl ete to retain the current co mbin ati o n of run-up contras t, th e diago nal lines in Figure 3 have a lready
speed and c. m . height. If th e athlete is so mewh at been adjusted to represent optimum values in stead of
lower and /or to the ri g ht of the recomm ended average values. Therefore, if an athl ete ' s po int in
diagonal lin e, we will a lso adv ise th e athlete to retain Figure 3 is o n the di ago na l line recomm ended for that
the current combin atio n of run-up speed and c.m . athl ete (based on th e athlete ' s Vzr o va lu e taken from
he ight. T his is because our reco mm end ed diago na l Tab le 3), th e athlete is cons idered to be at his/her
lin e is a rath er co nservative cho ice with a safety o ptimum co mbin atio n of speed and c.m . he ig ht at the
marg in built into it. [Note f or other researchers end of th e run-up .
(coaches and athletes can skip this) : In statistical ( IMPORTANT CAUTION: C hang ing to a
terms, the recommended diagonals were chosen to be faster and /o r low er run-up wi II put a g reater stress on
only one standard deviation more demanding than the takeoff leg, and thu s it may increase the ri sk of
the average.] In the rare case that the athl ete is mu ch injury if the leg is not stron g eno ug h. Therefore, it is
lower and/or much farther to the rig ht than the always important to use caution in the adoption of a
recommended di ago na l lin e, we wi ll warn th e ath lete faster and /or low er run-up . If the des ired change is
that such a combin atio n mig ht be excess ive ly very large, it wo uld be adv isable to make it g radu a lly,
demanding in relation to th e athlete ' s current leg over a peri od of time. In a ll cases, it may be wise to
strength capability . further stren gthen th e takeoff leg, so th at it can
We have a reasonably good idea o f which is the withstand the in creased force of the impact produ ced
appropriate diago na l lin e for each athl ete. However, w hen the takeoff leg is pl anted .)
we do not know where th e athlete's po int sho uld be
located along that di ago nal lin e. Coaches who are Vertical velocity of the c.m. at the start of the
advocates for so-ca ll ed " power jumping" w ill prefer takeoff phase
the athlete's poi nt to be farther down and to the left The ve rtica l veloc ity at th e end o f the takeoff
a lo ng th e di ago na l lin e, whi le coaches who are phase, which is of crucial impo rtance fo r th e he ight
adv ocates for so-ca lled "speed jumping" will prefer o f the jump , is determin ed by the vertical velocity at
the athlete's po int to be farther up and toward the the start of the takeo ff phase and by the change that
right a long the diago na l lin e. We are neutral in thi s takes pl ace in its value durin g the takeoff ph ase . In
disp ute : As long as the ath lete is on the no rm a l hig h jumping, at th e end of the run-up (that is,
recommended di ago na l lin e, we cons id er the athlete at the start of th e tak eoff phase) th e ath lete is mov in g
to have an appropr iate co mbin atio n of speed and c. m. fast forward, and a lso s lig htl y dow nwa rd . In other
he ig ht at th e end of th e run-up . The o nl y caution th at wo rd s, the ve rti ca l ve loc ity a t th e start of the takeoff
we give is to avoid extreme va lu es e ith er far up and ph ase (vzm) usua lly has a small negati ve va lu e ( i.e.,
to th e right or far down and to the left a long th e dow nwa rd) . It is ev ident that for a give n change in
diago na l line, because bo th will tend to create vertical ve loc ity durin g the takeoff ph ase, the athl ete
problems later fo r the bar c learance. An extremely with the small est a mo unt of negative vertical velocity
fast speed and hig h c.m . pos itio n at the end of the at touchdown wil l jump the hig hes t. The valu es of
run-up w ill tend to leave the athlete with a lot of Vzm are shown in Table 3 . The jumpers w ith the best
leftover hor izo ntal speed at th e end of th e takeoff. techniques in thi s res pect are th ose with th e least
This will m ake it imposs ibl e for the ath lete to "drape" negative Vzm va lu es.
around the bar w ith o ut kn ocki ng it down with either In each step of the run-up th e c. m . norma lly
the sho ulders or th e ca lv es . At th e other extreme, a moves up s lig htl y as th e athl ete takes off from the
very s low speed and low c. m . pos itio n at the end of g ro und , reaches a max imum height, and th en drops
the run-up wi ll tend to leave th e athl ete w ith o nl y a down aga in before th e athl ete plants the next foot on
small amo un t of leftover ho ri zo ntal speed at the end the gro und . In the last step of the run-up , if the
of the takeoff. This will severe ly limit the amount of takeoff foot is p !anted o n th e g ro und early, the
ho ri zo nta l travel of the body after th e end o f th e takeoff phase wil l start before the c. m . acquires too
takeoff, and thus w ill make it diffi cult to avoi d hitting much downward vert ica l ve loc ity . To ac hi eve this ,
12
the athlete has to try to make th e las t two foot of the run-up , but usually it is a lso dev iated s lightly
contacts with the g round very quick ly one after th e toward the landing pit (see Figure 6). (The reason for
other. In other w ord s, th e tempo of the last two foot this dev iation is ex plain ed in Appendix 3 .)
supports shou ld be ve ry fast. Most hig h jumpers plant th e takeoff foot o n the
If the length of th e last step is very long, it co uld gro und with its lo ng itudinal ax is po inting in a
contribute to a late planting of the takeoff fo o t, which directio n that ge nera lly is not a lig ned with th e fin a l
in turn co uld lead to a large negativ e va lu e fo r Vzm. directio n of th e run -up nor with th e ho ri zo ntal force
Ta bl e 2 shows th e leng th of the last step of the run-up th at the athlete is abo ut to m ake o n th e g rou nd: It is
(S L 1). T his length is ex pressed in meters, but to more para ll e l to the bar th an e ither one of them .
fac ilitate co mpariso ns amo ng athl etes it is also Since th e hori zo nta l reacti o n force that the foot
ex pressed as a percent of th e standing he ig ht of each receives from the g ro und is not a lig ned wi th the
athl ete. long itudin a l ax is of the foot, th e force tends to make
Another factor that has an influ ence o n th e th e foot ro ll inward . (See the sequ ence in Figure 7,
ve rti ca l velocity at the start o f th e takeoff phase is th e obtained from a high- speed v id eo tape taken durin g
way in which th e c.m . is lowered in the fina l part of the 1988 Internatio nal Golden High Jump Gala
the run-up. Hig h jumpers can be c lassified into three competition in Genk , Be lg ium - co urtesy of Dr . Bart
g roups, depending on the way in which they lower Van Gheluwe.) In anato mica l te rmin o logy, this
the c.m. Many athl etes lower the ir c. m . ear ly (two or rotation is ca ll ed " pro natio n of the ankle j o int". It
three steps before the takeoff) , and th en th ey move stretches the media l s id e of th e joint, and produ ces
relatively flat in th e last step. T hese athletes ty pica ll y co mpress io n in the latera l s id e of th e jo int. If th e
have a moderate amo unt of downward ve rti ca l pronation is very severe, it can lead to injury of the
ve loc ity at the in stant that th e takeoff ph ase starts. ankle . It a lso m akes th e foo t be suppo rted less by th e
T he second gro up of athl etes keep th e ir hips hig h o utside edge o f the foot , and more by th e long itud in a !
until almost th e very end of th e run-up, and then th ey (forward-backward) arch of th e foo t o n th e media l
lower the c.m. in th e las t step . Th ese athletes have a s ide . Accordin g to Krahl and Kn ebe l (1979), this can
large negative vertical velocity at the start of the lead to injury of the foot itse lf.
takeoff phase, regardl ess of how early they plant the Pronation of the ankl e j o int occurs in th e takeoffs
takeofffoot o n th e g ro und . A third g roup of athletes of man y hig h jump ers. However, it can bed ifficu It
lower the c. m . in th e same way as th e first gro up, but to see, dependin g o n th e pos itio n of the camera and
then they raise the c .m . aga in quite a bit as the no n- the s ize of th e image. Because of thi s, pronation of
takeoff leg pushes off into the last step. Th ese the ankl e j o int is oft en no t c learl y v is ibl e in o ur
athl etes ty pi ca lly have a ve ry s ma ll a mo unt of standard film s o r v id eotapes of hig h jumping
downward verti ca l ve loc ity at th e start of the takeoff competitio ns (and th erefore it does not show in o ur
ph ase, and this is good, but th ey a lso was te part of computer g raphi cs sequences eith er). This does not
their prev io us lowerin g of th e c .m . necessaril y mean th at there is no ankle pro natio n; it
The first and th e third techniqu es have bo th onl y means that we can't see it.
advantages and di sadvantages, but the second In an effort to diag nose the ri sk of ankle and foot
technique seems to be less so und than the o ther two, injury fo r each anal yzed hig h jumper, we measured
because of th e large do wn wa rd ve rtica l velocity th at ang les e 1 (th e ang le between th e lo ng itudin a l ax is of
it produces at th e in stant of th e start of the takeoff the foot and th e bar), e 2 (between the lo ng itudinal
ph ase. There is a mo re de ta il ed di scuss io n of these ax is of th e foot and th e f in a l direction of th e run-up ),
three techniqu es in Appendix I . and e 3 (between the longi tudin a l ax is of th e foot and
A g rap h show in g the ve rti ca l mo tio n of the c .m . the ho ri zo nta l force) in each jump. (See Figure 6.)
in the final part of th e run-up was produ ced for each The va lues of th ese ang les are repo rted in Table 2.
athl ete, and these gra ph s are in serted in the report For diag nos is of the risk of injury , e 3 is the most
afte r th e individual ana lys is of each athl ete . important ang le. Although th e safety limit is not we ll
known, anecdotal ev id ence suggests that e3 values
O r ientatio n of th e ta keo ff foot, a nd po te ntia l fo r sma ller than 20° are reasonably sa fe , that e3 values
an kle a nd foot inj u r ies between 20° and 30° are somew hat risky , and th at e 3
At the end of the run-up, th e hig h jumper's c.m . values larger th an 30° are dange ro us.
is mov ing at an ang le p 1 w ith respect to th e bar (see
" A pproach angles"). During th e takeo ff phase, th e Tru nk lea n
athl ete pu shes o n th e g ro und ve rti ca ll y downward , Figure 8 shows BFTD , BFTO, LRTD and
and a lso hor izo nta lly. T he ho ri zo nta l force that the LRTO, the backward/forward and left/rig ht ang les of
foo t makes on th e gro und during th e takeoff phase lean of th e trunk at the start an d at th e end of th e
po ints forward, a lm ost in lin e with th e final directio n takeoff phase, respectively . The va lu es of th ese
13
Figure 7
Figure 6
landing pit
ba r
,_
fin al direc tion , '•,,
of th e run-up __;;; .. __ '•,,,
/''--, ----:~~:
ho11Zontal f01 ce made
on the ground
__
Figure 8
'-..., BFTO
' \
'I
- - -- - - "-
side view
I
I /
I
LRTD_. I
/
/ I
I
I -'---
I
-'--- -
back view
(videota pe courtesy of
Bart Van Gheluwe)
14
Table 4
Ang les of tilt of the trunk [bac kward/forward at th e start of th e takeoff phase (BFTD) and at th e end of the takeoff pha se (BFTO), and
th e chan ge in this angle during th e ta keoflphase (t.BF); left/rig ht at the start of the takeoff phase (L RTD) and at th e end of th e takeoff
phase (LRTO), and the change in thi s angle during th e takeoff phase (t.LR)] , acti ve ness of th e ann nea res t to th e bar (AAN) and of th e
ann farthest from the bar (AAF), summed acti ve ness of the two arms (AA T) , ac ti ve ness of the lead leg (LLA), and summed acti veness of
th e three free limbs (F LA). No te : Some of the values in this ta bl e may not fi t perfect ly with eac h o ther, because of rounding off.
Athl ete T ri al and BFTD BFTO t.BF LRTD LRTO t. LR AAN AAF AAT LLA FLA
meet (*)
Cl (0) (0) (0) Cl (0) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m)
(*) U99 = 1999 USATF C h.; UO I = 200 I USATF Ch.; U02 = 2002 USATF Ch.; U03 = 2003 USATF Ch .; T04 = 2004 U.S. O lympic
Tria ls; U06 = 2006 USA TF C h.; U07 = 2007 USATF Ch.
ang les are g iven in Table 4 . The trunk normally has it is usually somew hat beyond the ve rtica l (L RTO ).
a backward lean at the start of the takeoff phase Up to I 0° beyo nd the vertical (LRTO = I 00 °) may be
(BFTD). Then it rotates forward , and by the end of co ns idered norma l. Table 4 a lso shows the values of
th e takeoff it is c lose to vertical , and somet im es past ~BF and ~LR . T hese are th e changes that occur
th e vert ica l (BFTO). Due to th e curved run-up, the durin g the takeoff ph ase in th e backward/forw ard and
trunk no rm a lly has a lso a late ra l lean toward the left/r ig ht ang les of ti It of the trunk , respect ive ly.
center of the curve at the start of th e takeoff phase Statistical info rm at io n has show n that th ere is a
(L RTD ). Durin g the takeoff ph ase, the trunk rotates relation ship of the trunk lean ang les with the ve rtica l
toward the ri g ht (toward the left in athl etes who tak e ve loc ity of th e athlete at the end of the takeoff ph ase,
off from the ri ght foot) , and by the end of the takeoff and co nsequ ently with the peak height of th e c. m.: If
15
two athl etes have s im ilar run-up speed, he ig ht of the acce lerated up wa rd durin g th e takeoff phase, th ey
c.m . at th e end of th e run-up and arm ac tio ns during exert by reaction a compress ive fo rce down ward on
the takeoff phase (see be low), the athlete w ith s ma ll er the trunk . Thi s fo rce is tran smi tted thro ug h the
BFTD , t. BF, LRT D and t.LR valu es ge nera lly takeoff leg to th e g ro und . Th e in creased downward
o bta in s a large r ve rtica l ve locity by th e end of th e verti ca l force exerted by th e foot on th e g round
ta keoff ph ase. T hi s means th at athl etes w ith g reater evokes by reactio n an increased up ward vertica l fo rce
bac kwa rd lean at th e start of the takeo ff ph ase and exerted by th e g ro und o n th e athlete. T hi s produces a
g reater latera l lean toward th e center of th e curve at large r vertical ve loc ity of th e c .m . of the athl ete by
the start of the ta keoff ph ase te nd to jump hig her. th e end of the takeo ff ph ase, and co nsequ entl y a
A lso, fo r a g ive n amo unt of bac kw ard lean at th e start higher jump .
of the takeoff ph ase, the athl etes w ho ex peri ence Th ere is no perfec t way to meas ure how acti ve
sma ll er changes in thi s ang le durin g th e takeoff ph ase th e arm s and the lead leg were during th e takeoff
genera lly jump hig her, and for a g iven amo unt of ph ase of a hig h jump . In o ur reports w e have
latera l lean at th e start of th e takeoff ph ase, th e progress ive ly improved o ur measurement of thi s
athl etes who ex perience sm a ller changes in this ang le impo rtant technique facto r; th e data in th e present
durin g the takeoff ph ase a lso tend to jump hig her. repo rt were ca lculated with o ur latest meth od whi ch
However, before j umping to conc lu s ions and g ives mo re meaningful valu es th an so me of the
dec iding th at a ll hig h jumpers sho uld lean backward previo us o nes.
and latera ll y as much as poss ible at th e start of th e [Note for other researchers (coaches and
takeoff ph ase, and then change th ose ang les of lean athletes can skip this paragraph): In this report, arm
as little as poss ibl e during th e ta keo ff ph ase itse lf, it activeness was expressed as the vertical range of
is necessary to take two po ints into cons id eratio n. motion of the c. m. of each arm during the takeoff
First o f a ll , sma ll va lu es o f BFTD , t.B F, LRTD and phase (re lative to the upper end of the trunk),
t. LR are not o nl y statisti ca lly assoc iated w ith large r multiplied by the frac tion of the whole body mass that
ve rti ca l veloc iti es at th e end o f th e tak eoff ph ase corresponds to the arm, and divided by the standing
(w hi ch is good), but also with less ang ul ar height of the subject. The activeness of the lead leg
mo mentum (see be low), and th erefo re w ith a less was similarly measured as the vertical range of
effecti ve rotatio n during the bar c learance. motion of the c. m. of the lead leg during the takeoff
A lso, we can't be comple te ly certa in that sm a ll phase (relative to the lower end of the trunk),
va lues of BFTD , t. BF, LRTD and t.LR produce a multiplied by the fractio n of the whole body mass that
takeoff that ge nerates a larger am o unt of ve rti ca l corresponds to the lead leg. and div ided by the
ve loc ity and therefore a hig her peak he ig ht fo r the standing height of the subject. In effect, this means
c. m . We do n't understand we ll the cause-effect that the activeness of each free limb was expressed as
mechani sms behind th e stati sti ca l re latio nships, and it the number of millimeters contributed by the limb
is poss ibl e to offer a ltern ati ve ex pl anatio ns, such as motion to the lifting of the c. m. of the whole body
this o ne: Weaker athletes are no t abl e to ge nerate during the takeoffphase, per meter of standing
much lift, mainly because th ey are wea k. Therefo re, height. Defined in this way, the activeness of each
they are not able to jump very hig h. Thi s makes f ree limb cons iders the limb's mass, its average
them reach the peak of th e jump re lative ly soon after vertical velocity during the takeoffphase, and the
takeoff. Co nsequ entl y, th ey will want to rotate faster duration of this vertical motion. It allows the
in the ai r to reach a no rm a l ho ri zo ntal layo ut pos itio n comparison of one j umper with another, and also
at the peak of the jump . Fo r thi s, they will gen erate direct comparison of the lead leg action with the arm
mo re ang ul ar mo mentum durin g th e takeoff, whi ch in actions.]
turn w ill require larger va lues o fBFTD , t.BF , LRTD Tabl e 4 shows the ac ti veness of th e arm nearest
and t.LR . We can't be sure of whi ch interpretati on is to th e bar (AAN ) and o f th e arm fa rth est fro m the bar
th e correct o ne: Does the trunk til t affec t the he ig ht (AA F), th e summ ed acti veness of th e two arm s
of th e jump, or does th e weakn ess of th e athl ete affect (A AT), the ac ti ve ness of th e lead leg ( LLA) and the
the he ight o f the jump and ( indirectly) th e trunk tilt? co mbin ed acti veness of a ll three free limbs ( FLA).
O r are both ex planatio ns partly correct? At this po int, (As ex pl a in ed in th e prev io us paragraph , coaches and
we don't kn ow fo r sure. athl etes don't need to wo rry about th e fin e deta il s of
how th ese va lues w ere calculated ; th ey onl y need to
Arm and lead leg actions keep in mind th at large r numb ers ind icate g reater
The ac tio ns of th e arm s and of th e lead leg ac tiveness of th e limbs durin g the takeoff.)
durin g the ta keoff ph ase are very important fo r the Fig ure 9 shows a plo t of AA F versus AAN for
o utco me of a hig h jump . When th ese fr ee limb s are the ana lyzed tri a ls. Th e fa rth er to th e ri ght that a
po int is o n the pl ot, the g reater th e acti veness of th e
16
Figure 9
AAF
(mm/m)
14
0
SEL42
•
HUT 72
SEL 03
{:)
12
}:{
NIE 36 NIE 62
SHU 28
10
+ }:{
NIE I + NIE 99
...
HAR I I
}:{
NIE24 i E
37
SHU 95
...
HAR I7
OIL 97
8 ... 0
NIE 13
• ... HAR 30
HAR 21 MO F 40 ...
LIT 48
b. HAR 61
0 ...
MOF 84 HAR 38
•
WIL 82
•
WIL 16
2 4 6 8 10
AAN (mm/m)
17
arm nearest to the bar ; th e hig her up that a po int is on detrim enta l. Short takeoffs go together with a stro ng
the plot, the greater the act iveness of the arm farthest ac tio n of the takeoff leg (good) , but a lso with weak
from the bar. T he ideal is to be as far to th e ri g ht and arm actio ns and w ith a hig h c.m. position at th e start
as hig h up as possib le o n th e graph, as this g ives the of th e takeoff ph ase (bad). In sum , takeoff tim es are
largest va lu es for th e to tal arm action , AA T , also informative , but the length of th e takeoff tim e by
shown in the grap h. itself does not necessarily indi cate good or bad
For a good arm ac tio n, both arm s sho uld swi ng technique.
stro ng ly forward and up durin g th e takeoff ph ase .
The arm s should not be too fl exed at th e e lbow C hange in horizo nta l velocity durin g the takeoff
during the sw ing - a good e lbow ang le seem s to be phase
somew here between full ex tens io n and 90 ° of It was ex plained befo re that the athlete sho uld
fl ex ion. have a large hori zo ntal ve loc ity at the instant
The diagonal lin e goi ng from the lower left immediately before th e takeoff foot is planted on the
corner of Figure 9 toward the upper rig ht part of the gro und to start the takeoff ph ase, and that therefore
graph indicates the poi nts for w hich both arm s would no horizonta l velocity sho uld be lost befo re that
have the same act ive ness. T he pos iti o ns of th e po ints in stant. However, th e hori zo nta l ve loc ity sho uld be
above the diagonal lin e reflect a we ll- establi shed fact: redu ced cons id erably durin g the takeoff phase itself.
Hig h jumpers are ge nera lly mo re active w ith th e arm The losses of horizonta l ve loc ity th at a ll hig h jumpers
that is far th est from th e bar. ex perience during the takeoff ph ase (see tlv 1.1 in Table
So me hig h jumpers ( in c ludin g m any women) fa il 3) are du e to th e fact that th e jumper pu shes forward
to prepare their arm s correctly in the last steps of the o n the g ro und durin g the takeoff ph ase, and therefore
run-up , and at the beginning of the takeo ff phase the receives a backward reaction force fro m the gro und .
arm nearest to the bar is ahead of the body in stead of These losses of ho ri zo nta l ve loc ity durin g the takeoff
behind it. From this position th e arm is not able to phase are an intrin sic part of the takeoff process , and
swing stro ng ly fo rward and upward during the th ey are associated with the ge nerat ion of vert ica l
takeoff, and these jumpers usua lly end up with small ve loc ity . !fa n athl ete does not lose much hori zo nta l
AAN va lues. These athl etes sho uld learn to bring ve locity durin g the takeoff phase, thi s m ay be a sign
both arm s back in the final o ne or two steps of the that the athlete is not mak in g good use of the
run-up , so that both arms can late r sw in g hard hori zo nta l velocity obtain ed durin g th e run-up . We
forward and up during th e takeoff phase. Learnin g cou ld say that th e athlete sho uld produ ce a lo t of
this kind of arm actio n will take som e time and effort, hori zo ntal velocity durin g the run-up so that it can
but it sho uld he lp these athl etes to jump hig her. If a th en be lost during the takeoff ph ase while the athl ete
jumper is unabl e to prepare th e arm s for a double-arm obtains vertica l ve loc ity . If not enoug h ho ri zo nta l
actio n, the forward arm sho uld be in a low pos itio n at velocity is produced durin g the run-up, or if not
the start of the takeoff ph ase . That way , it can be eno ug h of it is lost during the takeoff phase, we can
thrown up wa rd during the takeoff, a lth o ug h usua lly say that th e run-up is not be ing used appro priately to
not quite as hard as with a do ubl e-arm action . help th e athlete to jump hig her.
Figure I 0 shows a plot of LLA versus AAT for
the an a lyzed trials . T he farther to the ri g ht th at a Height and vertica l veloc ity of th e c. m. at the end
po int is on the plot, th e g reater th e co mbined of th e takeo ff ph ase
ac ti ve ness of th e arm s ; th e higher up that a po int is on The peak he ig ht th at the c. m . wi ll reach over the
the plot, the greater th e activeness of the lead leg . bar is co mplete ly determined by th e end of the
The ideal is to be as far to th e right and as hig h up as takeoff phase: It is determined by th e he ig ht and the
poss ibl e on the graph , as this g ives the largest values vertica l velocity of the c.m . at th e end of the takeoff.
for the to tal free limb action , FLA , a lso show n in the At the instant that th e takeoff foot loses contact
g raph . with the gro und , the c .m . of a hig h jumper is usually
at a he ight so mewhere between 68% and 73 % of the
Ta keo ff ti me standin g he ig ht of th e athlete . This means that ta ll
The duration of the takeoff phase (TTO) is show n hig h jumpers have a built-in advantage : Their
in Table 5. (Due to the s low cam era speeds used , the centers of mass wi ll genera ll y be higher at the instant
va lu e ofT TO can eas ily be in erro r by 0.01 s, and that they leave th e gro und .
somet im es by as mu ch as 0.02 s.) This "takeoff T he vert ica l ve loc ity of th e c.m. at th e end of the
tim e" is influenced by a series of factors. Some of takeoff phase (vzTO, show n in Table 3) determin es
them are beneficia l for th e jump ; oth ers are how much h igher the c.m . wi ll travel beyond the
takeoff heig ht after the athlete leaves the grou nd .
18
Figure 10
LLA
(mm/m)
30
•
HUT72
25
';\:)
0 SEL 03
MOF40
}:{
<> <> SEL42
20 0 NIE 62
MOF 84
NIE 17 }:{
}:{ NIE99
0 NIE 13 + s HU95
MOF 33 NIE 37
NIE 24 A \ .DIL97
15 Ll 8 SHU 28
NIE 36
}:{
W IL 16
eT WIL82
HAR 38
• I-IAR61
T
T
HAR II
1><\:1
T
10 HARI 7
T
HAR 2 1 T
HAR 30 ~~
'\:::_~
"'\:)
~-y"'?-
5
ry\:1
'\-\:)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
AAT (mm/m)
L9
Table 5
Ta keo ff time (Tro), he ight o f th e bar (hBAR), o utco me of the jump, maximum he ight o f the c.m. (h, K), c lea rance height in th e
pl ane of th e stand ard s (hcLs), abso lute clea rance he ight (hcLA), effectiveness o f th e bar cl earance in the plane o f th e standard s
(~ h c Ls) , and abso lute e ffecti ve ness o f th e bar clearance (~ h cLA ) ; tw istin g ang ul ar momentum (1-J.,-), forward so mersa ultin g
ang ul ar momentu m ( HF), lateral so mersa ultin g ang ul ar momentum (HL) and total so mersa ultin g angul ar momentum (Hs)
du ri ng th e a irbo rne ph ase . Note : So me of the va lu es in thi s tabl e may not fit perfectl y w ith eac h oth er, beca use of ro undin g
off.
Athl ete Tr ia l and TTo hnAR O utco me hi'K hu .s hu .A ~h c1.s ~ h ci.A HT H,. H ~. Hs
meet (*)
(s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (**) (**) (**) (**)
Hutchin so n 72 U07 0.22 2.2 1 c leara nce 2.27 2.2 1 2.22 -0 .06 -0 .05 50 60 70 90
Littl eton 48 U07 0 .16 2 .18 clea rance 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0 .00 45 90 90 125
Mo ffa tt 33 T04 0 .17 2 .27 clea ran ce 235 2.26 230 -0.09 -0 .05 40 50 90 100
40 U06 0 . 18 23 0 clea rance 2.41 232 233 -0.09 -0 .08 50 45 95 110
84 U07 0 . 18 2.24 c lea rance 2.33 2.25 2.27 -0.08 -0 .06 40 45 95 105
Nieto 17 U99 0 .19 2.25 clea rance 230 230 2 .30 0.00 0 .00 35 85 95 125
36 UO I 0 .20 2.27 mi ss 23 1 2.25 2.28 -0.06 -0 .03 40 55 100 11 5
13 U02 0 .18 2.24 clea rance 23 1 2.27 2 .27 -0.04 -0 .04 45 60 95 11 0
37 U03 0. 18 230 clea rance 236 2.28 234 -0.08 -0 .02 45 65 100 120
62 T04 0 . 18 233 c lea rance 235 23 1 235 -0.04 0 .00 55 70 95 11 5
24 U06 0 .18 2.2 4 mi ss 2.28 2.2 1 2.23 -0.07 -0 .05 40 65 95 11 5
99 U07 0 . 19 2 .25 clea ra nce 2.30 2.28 2.29 -0.02 -0 .0 1 35 65 100 11 5
Willi ams 16 T04 0 . 16 2.24 clea rance 2.28 2.25 2.25 -0 .03 -0 .03 50 90 75 120
82 U07 0. 15 2.24 clea rance 232 2.25 2.27 -0 .07 -0.05 30 80 75 11 0
(*) U99 = 1999 USATF Ch .; UO I = 200 I USATF Ch .; U02 = 2002 USA TF Ch., U03 = 2003 USATF Ch.; T04 = 2004 US
O lympic T ri als; U06 = 2006 USATF Ch., U07 = 2007 USATF Ch.
(** ) Ang ul ar momentum units: s·' · 10·'
Height of the bar, pea k height of the c.m., and been cleared successfu ll y ; if th e bar stays up , th e
clearance height athlete is credited with the heig ht at whi ch the bar
The he ig ht of th e bar (h sAR), th e maximum was set, even if the jumper had room to spare over it.
heig ht reached by th e c. m . (hrK) and the outcome o f Us in g computer modeling and g raphics, it is
th e jump are shown in Table 5 . poss ible to estimate the approximate maximum
The true value of a hig h jump generally is not heig ht that an ath lete wou ld have been ab le to c lear
kn own : If the bar is knocked down , the jump is ruled c lean ly witho ut touchi ng the bar in a g iven jump
a fou I and the ath lete gets zero credit, even though a ("c learance heig ht" ), regard less of whether the actual
hy poth eti cal bar set at a lower heig ht wo uld have jump was offi c ially a valid c learan ce o r a foul.
20
Figure 11
Figure 13
momentum ") is a mechanica l factor that makes the durin g the tak eoff ph ase.
athl e te rotate. Hig h jumpers need th e ri g ht amount of Stati st ics show th at jumpers w ith a ve ry large
ang ular momentum to make in th e air the rotations backw ard lean at th e start of the takeoff phase (s ma ll
necessary for a proper bar clearance. The athlete BFTD ang les) do not get quite as much forw ard
obtains th e angular momentum durin g the takeoff so mersaulting angular momentum as other jumpers.
ph ase, through the forces that the takeoff foot makes The reaso ns for this are not co mpl ete ly clear.
o n the gro und ; the angular momentum cannot be The forward so mersaulting angular mo mentum
changed afte r the athl ete leaves the g ro und . can a lso be affected by the actions of the arms and
The bar c learan ce technique of a Fosbury-flop lead leg. Wide sw ings of the arm s and of the lead
can be described ro ug hly as a twisting somersault. leg durin g the takeoff can help the athl ete to jump
To a great extent, th e twist rotatio n (w hi ch m akes the hig her (see " Arm and lead leg actio ns" above) .
athl ete turn the back to the bar durin g the asce ndin g However, in a v iew from the s id e (top sequ ence in
part of the fli g ht path) is ge nerated by sw ing in g the Figure 16) they a lso imply backwa rd (c lockw ise)
lead leg up and so mewhat away from th e bar durin g rotat io ns of these limbs, which can reduce th e total
the takeoff, and so metimes also by actively turnin g forw ard so mersaulting ang ular mo mentum of the
the shoulders and arm s during the takeoff in the body .
desired direction of th e twist. These actions create To dimini sh this pro blem , so me high jumpers
angu lar mo mentum about a vertical ax is . This is turn their back toward th e bar in the last step of the
ca ll ed th e twisting ang ul ar momentum , Hr. The Hr run-up , and then sw ing the arms diagonally fo rward
va lu es of the analyzed athletes are shown in Table 5. and away from th e bar during the takeoff phase (see
Mos t hig h jumpers have no difficulty obtaining an Fig ure 17) . Since thi s diago nal arm sw in g is not a
app ropr iate amo unt of Hr . (However, we will see perfect bac kward ro tati o n, it interferes less with the
later that the actions tha t the athlete makes in th e a ir, ge neration of forward som ersaultin g ang ul ar
as we ll as other factors , can a lso s ig nificantly affect momentum .
w hether the hig h jumper will be perfectl y face-up at
the peak of th e jump, o r tilted to o ne s ide with one
hip lower than the other.)
Fig ure 14
The so mersault rotatio n, which will make the
shou lders go down while the kn ees go up , results
from two components: a fo rward so mersaulting
compo nent and a latera l somersaulting component.
(a) Fo rward so mersa ultin g a ng ular
momentum (H F) Durin g the takeoff phase, the (a) (b)
athl ete produces ang ul ar mo m entum about a
horizontal ax is perpendi cul ar to the final direction of
the run-up (see Figure 14 a and the sequence at the '·
top of Figure 15) . This forward ro tation is s imilar to
the one prod uced when a person ho ps off from a
mov ing bus facing the direction of motio n ofthe bu s : side v iew back view
After the feet hit th e g ro und , the tend ency is to rotate
forward and fall flat on one's face . It can be
described as angular mo mentum produ ced by th e
checking of a linear mo tion .
-......_ -......_ final run- up direc1ion
The tilt ang les of the trunk at the start and at the
end of the takeoff phase (see "Trunk lean") are
stat istically re lated to the angular mo mentum G III . 1.\II.R,\I
. . ._/'. . ._·;Q
8
o bta in ed by th e athlete . Large changes of the trunk "1)\ II ·R"'i\l il ll'\'i...l -V'......... I
tilt from a backward pos itio n toward vertical durin g RUL\110' :::::-.... I
the takeoff phase are assoc iated with a larger a mo unt --G---~ -
of forward somersaulting angular mo mentum . This
makes sense, because athle tes with a large amount of (c)
Hs
IliSl "II A' I
!\o, u ~<sAt ut~c ;
/ ~"'P" '
;<
forward so mersaultin g ang ular mo mentum at the end Rtll:\ 110\i
I \
of the takeoff phase sho uld a lso be expected to have a 1 0 1(\\1\}{J)
~
riC;"
=
-'"I
I'D
Ul
BACK VIEW
N
Vl
10 . 22 10.20 10 . 18 10 . 16 10.14 10 . 12 10.10 10 .08 10.06 10 .04 10.02 10.00
DIRECT FORWARD ARM SWING
SIDE VIEW
~
IJCI
=
~
.....
0'\
BACK VIEW
N
0\
10.22 10 .20 10.18 10.16 10.14 10.12 10.10 10 . 08 10.06 10.04 10.02 10.00
DIAGONAL ARM SWING
SIDE VIEW
~
dQ"
=
'"I
~
.....
-...J
BACK VIEW
N
-...l
10 . 22 10.20 10.18 10 . 16 10.14 10 . 12 10.10 10.08 10.06 10.04 10.02 10.00
28
Figure 18
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
HF
30
Figure 19
-
..0
._. -()
._.
~r r ~
--~ C c__ ~
F ~------~ ~
"'
00
0
.-<
"'"'
0
.-<
31
after th e takeo ff ph ase was co mp leted, by fl ex ing at somersaulted faster : Both jumpers had th e same tilt
the kn ee and ex tending at the hip ( t = I 0 .34 - at t = I 0.22 s, but at t = I 0.94 s the athl ete in Fig ure
10 .58 s). In reactio n, this helped th e trunk to rotate 19c had a mo re backward-rotated pos itio n than th e
faster co unterc lockwise, and th erefo re contributed to athl ete in Figure 19b . T he faster speed of rotati on of
produce th e horizo nta l pos itio n shown by th e trunk at th e jumper in Fig ure 19c was du e to hi s more
t = 10 .58 s. Later, fr o m t = I 0 .5 8 tot = 10 .82 s, the co mpact body config uratio n in the period between t =
athl ete slowed down th e counterclockwise rotatio n of I 0.46 s and t = 10 .70 s. It was ac hi eved ma inly
th e trunk , and even reversed it into a c lockwise throug h a g reater fl ex io n of the kn ees . Thi s
ro tation; in reactio n, th e legs s imultan eo us ly config uratio n of th e body redu ced th e athl ete's
increased th e ir speed of rotation counterc lockwise, mo ment of inertia abo ut an ax is para lle l to the bar,
and thu s c leared th e bar (t = 10 .58- I 0 .82 s) . and mad e him so mersault fas ter. (The jumps show n
The prin c ipl es of acti on and reaction just in Fig ures 19b and 19c were artific ia l jumps
describ ed both fo r tran slatio n and ro tatio n result in produced us in g co mputer s imul atio n - see be low .
th e ty pi ca l archin g and un-arch in g actio ns of hig h Thi s ensured that th e athl ete had exactl y th e same
jumpers o ver the bar: Th e ath lete needs to arch in pos ition at takeoff and th e same amo unt of angular
o rder to lift the hip s, and then to un-arch in ord er to momentum in both jumps. )
speed up the rotati on of th e legs. As the body un- Th e techniqu e used by the athl ete in Fig ure 19c
arches , th e legs go up , but th e hips go down . can be ve ry helpful fo r hig h jumpers with low or
T herefo re, timing is critic al. If th e body un-arches moderate amo unts of so mersaulting ang ular
too late, th e ca lves will kn ock th e bar down ; if the mo mentum . Both jumps show n in Fig ures 19b and
body un-arches too earl y, th e athlete w ill " sit" on th e 19c had the same amo unt of ang ular mo mentum (H s
bar and w ill a lso kn ock it down . = I I 0), and th e center of mass reached a peak he ig ht
Th ere can be severa l reaso ns for an athl ete's 0.0 7 m hig her than the bar in both jumps. While th e
weak arching . The athl ete may be un aw are that athl ete in Fig ure 19b hit th e bar with his ca lves (t =
he/she is not arching eno ug h. Or th e athl ete is not I 0 .82 s), the fas ter so mersault rotation of the athl ete
able to coordinate properl y th e necessary actio ns of in Fig ure 19c he lp ed him to pass a ll parts of th e body
th e limbs. Or th e athl ete is no t fl ex ib le eno ug h. Or o ver th e bar with som e ro o m to spare.
th e athlete is fl ex ible eno ug h but has w eak abdo minal In the rare cases in whi ch a hig h jumper has a
mu sc les and hip fl exo r mu sc les (the mu scles that pass very large amount of ang ular mo mentum , the
in fr ont of th e hip j o int) , and therefo re is re luctant to technique shown in Fig ure 19c co uld be a liability,
arch ve ry mu ch s in ce he/she is aw are th at the because it mig ht acce lerate th e rotatio n so mu ch th at
necessary un-arching actio n that will be required later th e sho uld ers will hit the bar o n the way up . Fo r
will be imposs ible to execute with th e necessary athl etes with a large a mo unt of ang ul ar mo mentum , it
fo rcefuln ess due to th e weakn ess of th e abd omin a l will be better to keep the legs mo re extended on th e
and hip fl exo r mu sc les . way up to th e bar, fo llo win g the body configuratio n
Anoth er w ay in whi ch rotatio n can be changed is pattern shown in Fig ure 19b . This will temporarily
by alterin g th e " mom ent of inertia" of the body . Th e s low down the backward so mersau lt, and thus
moment of in ertia is a number th at indi cates whether prevent the athl ete fro m hitting the bar with th e
th e various parts th at m ake up th e body are c lose to sho uld ers o n the w ay up to th e bar. (Of course, th e
th e ax is o f rotation or far fr om it. When many parts athl ete will still need to arch and un-arch with good
ofth e body are far fr om the ax is of rotati on , th e timing over th e bar.)
moment of inertia of th e body is large, and thi s
decreases th e speed of turning abo ut th e ax is of T he tw ist rotation; proble ms in its exec utio n
rotat ion. Vi ce ve rsa, if most parts of th e body are It was po inted o ut earli er th at th e tw ist rotati on
kept c lose to th e ax is of rotatio n, th e mo ment of in hig h jumping is pro du ced to a g reat ex tent by th e
inertia is sma ll , and th e speed of ro tatio n in creases . tw isting compo nent of ang ular mo mentum , HT. But
This is wh at happ ens to fi g ure skaters in a v iew fr om it was a lso mentio ned th at o th er fac to rs co uld affect
overhead wh en th ey spin : As they bring th e ir arm s wh ether the jumper wo uld be perfectl y face-up at th e
c loser to th e verti ca l ax is of rotatio n, th ey spin fas ter peak of th e jump, or tilted to o ne s id e with o ne hip
abo ut the ve rtica l ax is. In hig h jumping, rotatio n lower than the oth er. On e of th e mos t impo rtant of
abo ut a ho ri zo ntal ax is paralle l to th e bar (i.e ., the these facto rs is th e pro po rti on betw een th e s izes of
so mersault) is genera lly mo re impo rtant th an rotation the fo rward and latera l co mponents of th e
about th e ve rtical ax is, but th e sam e princ ipl e is at somersaulting ang ul ar mo m entum . We w ill now see
wo rk . T he jumps shown in Fig ures 19b and 19c both how thi s works.
had th e same amount of so mersaultin g ang ul ar Fig ure 20 show s sketches of a hy poth eti cal hig h
momentum . How ever, th e athl ete in Fig ure 19c jumper at th e end of the takeoff ph ase and after three
32
Figure 21
acti o ns
rcactio{j-..._ f\
~
sequence. T hi s impli es that the a thl ete ro tated takeoff ph ase ; a pos ition th at is too tilted toward th e
co un terc lockwise fas ter th an th e camera, i.e., fas ter ri g ht at the end o f the takeoff ph ase (toward the left
than the part of th e tw ist rotatio n pro duced by the in th e case of jumpers takin g o ff fr o m th e ri g ht foo t);
tw ist in g co mpo nent of ang ular mo m entum. Th e premature lowerin g of th e lead leg soo n aft er takeoff.
co un te rc lockw ise rotatio n of the hips v is ible in the Wh en thi s kind of pro bl em occurs, it w ill be
sequ ence is th e amo un t of tw ist rotatio n pro du ced necessary to check th e cause of th e pro bl em in each
th ro ugh catting. It occurred m a inly as a reaction to indi vidu a l case, and then dec id e w hat wo uld be the
th e c lockwise motio ns of the rig ht leg, w hi ch moved eas ies t way to correct it.
toward the ri g ht, and th en backw ard . (These actions
of the ri g ht leg are subtl e, but neverth e less v is ibl e in Control of airborne movements; computer
the sequ ence.) In part, th e co un terc lockw ise catting simulation
rotatio n of th e hips was a lso a reactio n to the We have seen th at th e c.m . path and th e ang ular
c lockw ise rotation of the ri g ht arm. With o ut th e mo mentum of a hig h jumper are determ ined by th e
catting, th e tw ist rotatio n of this athl ete wo uld have time th e athl ete leaves th e g ro und . We have a lso
been redu ced by an amo unt equ iva lent to th e seen that in spite of th ese restrictio ns o n th e free do m
approx im ate ly 45 ° of co unterc lockw ise ro tat io n of the jumper, th e athl ete sti II has a certa in degree of
vis ib le in the sequence of Fig ure 2 1. contro l over th e movem ents of th e body durin g the
Some j umpers e mph as ize th e tw isting ang ular a irbo rn e ph ase.
momentum mo re; others tend to e mph as ize th e Sometim es it is easy to predi ct in ro ug h genera l
catting mo re. If not eno ug h twisting angular term s ho w th e ac tio ns of certa in parts of the body
momentum is ge nerated during th e takeo ff ph ase, or dur ing the a irbo rne ph ase will affect the mo tions of
if th e athlete does no t do eno ug h catting in th e a ir, th e the rest of th e body, but it is difficult to judge throug h
athl ete w ill not tw ist eno ug h in th e a ir, wh ich w ill simple "eyeba lling" w heth er th e amounts of moti on
make th e body be in a tilted pos itio n at th e peak of w ill be suffic ient to achieve th e des ired res ults.
th e jump, with th e hip of th e lead leg low er than th e Other times, particularly in complex three-
hip of th e takeoff leg. T hi s will put the hip of the dim ens io nal a irbo rne motions such as th ose in vo lved
lead leg ( i.e., th e low hip) in danger of hittin g th e bar. in hig h j umping, it is not even poss ible to predict th e
T here are other ways in whi ch pro bl ems can kinds of mo tio ns th at w ill be produ ced by act ions of
occur in th e twist ro ta ti on . If at the end of th e ta keoff oth er parts of the body , let a lo ne th e ir amoun ts .
ph ase an athl ete is tilting backwa rd too far, or is To he lp so lve this pro ble m, a meth od fo r th e
tiltin g too far toward th e ri g ht (too fa r tow ard th e left computer s imul atio n of hum an a irborne movements
in th e case of a jumper w ho takes off fro m th e rig ht was develo ped ( Dapena, 1981 ). In thi s meth od, we
foo t), o r if the lead leg is lowered too soo n after g ive the computer th e path of th e c.m . and th e
takeoff, th e tw ist rotatio n w ill be s lower. This is due ang ular mo mentum of th e body fro m an actu al j ump
to interac tions between th e so mersault and twist th at was film ed or v id eo taped . We a lso g ive th e
rotatio ns that are too co mpl ex to ex pl a in here . co mputer th e pa ttern s of moti on (ang les) o f a ll th e
Acco rdin g to th e previous discuss io n, a tilted body segments re lati ve to the trunk durin g the entire
pos it io n at th e peak of th ej ump in w hi ch the hip of a irbo rn e ph ase . T he computer then ca lculates how
the lead leg is lower than th e h ip of the takeoff leg the trunk has to move durin g the a irborn e ph ase to
can be du e to a vari ety of causes : an in suffic ient ma inta in th e path of th e c. m . and th e ang ular
amount of tw isting ang ular mo mentum ; a mu ch momentum of the w ho le body the sam e as in th e
larger amount of fo rward than latera l so m ersaulting orig in a l j ump. If we input to the computer the
ang ular momentum ; in suffic ient catting in th e a ir ; a orig in a l pattern s of motio n of the segments (th at is,
backward tilted pos ition of th e body at th e end of th e th e pattern s of mo tio n that occurred in the or ig in a l
34
SPEC I FI C R ECOMMEND AT I ONS FOR takeoff phase . Th en, hi s arm actio ns durin g th e
I ND I V ID UAL AT H LETES takeoff ph ase were stro ng (AAT = 16 .2 mm/ m).
However, th e acti on of his lead leg was weak ( LLA =
Jim DI LL I NG 15. 8 mm /m), and th erefore hi s overa ll combin ation of
arm and lead leg actio ns w as somewh at weak (F LA =
Jum p 97 was Dillin g's las t successful c learance 32. 1 mm /m) .
at th e 2007 USATF Champi onships (2.2 7 m).
In jump 97, th e backward lean of Dilling ' s trunk
Based o n Dilling's ve rtica l ve loc ity at takeoff in at th e start of th e takeo ff ph ase was so mewh at sma ll
j ump 97 (vzm = 4 .40 m/s), a techniqu e of average (BFTD = 79°). Then he ro tated fo rward, and by the
qu a lity wo uld have in c lud ed a fin a l run-up speed of end o f th e takeoff hi s trunk was 2 o beyo nd the
abo ut 7.5 m/s and a c. m . he ig ht at th e end of th e run- verti ca l ( BFTO = 92°). In th e vi ew fro m th e s id e, th e
up equa l to abo ut 4 7% of his ow n standing he ig ht. trun k sho uld be vertica l ( i. e., at 90°) at th e end of the
Dilling's actu a l c. m. he ig ht at th e end of the run-up takeoff, so Dilling's overrotatio n pro bably produ ced
was s imilar to w hat mig ht have been expected for a a s lig ht loss of li ft. Dilling was able to ge nerate a
technique of average qu a lity (hm = 47. 5%), but he good amo unt of fo rwa rd somersaulting angular
was fas ter (vH 1 = 7. 8 m/s) . The overa ll co mbin ati on mo mentum ( HF = 80). It wo uld have been preferabl e
of run-up speed and c. m . he ig ht that Dilling used in for Dilling to have a g reater amo unt of backwa rd lean
jump 97 was reasonably good fo r a jumper capabl e of at the start of th e tak eoff ph ase, and then rotated only
generatin g 4 .40 m/s of vertical ve loc ity. up to th e vertica l by th e end of the takeoff. That way,
he wo uld have been abl e to generate the same amo unt
T he las t step of Dilling's run-up was so mewhat of ang ular mo m entum witho ut incurring any loss of
too lo ng (S L 1 = 2. 05 m , o r I 05 % of hi s own standing lift.
height). This s lig htly lo ng length of the last step of
the run-up pro bably contributed to Dilling's Dilling ' s trunk had a good amo unt of lean toward
so mewhat large negative vertical ve loc ity at the sta rt th e left at th e start of th e takeoff ph ase ( LRTD =
of the takeoff phase (vzm = -0.6 m/s). A large 7r) . Th en, he rotated toward th e rig ht, but by the
negati ve Vzm valu e is not ad v isable, because it end of th e takeoff he had not quite reach ed th e
requires the athl ete to make an extra effo rt to stop th e
verti ca l in th e view fr o m th e back (LRTO = 89°). In
downward motio n before produ c ing th e needed
th e v iew fr om th e bac k, it's no rm a l to go a few
up ward vertica l ve locity .
degrees pas t the vertica l at th e end of the takeoff. We
consider it acceptabl e ( indeed , des irable) to tilt up to
At the end of th e run-up , Dilling pl anted th e
10° pas t the vertica l at th e end of th e takeoff( in th e
takeo ff foo t too para ll e l to th e bar . Because of thi s,
view fro m th e bac k) because we be lieve that this may
the ang le between th e lo ng itudin a l ax is of th e ta keoff
be th e best co mp ro mise between th e generat ion of lift
foo t and the hor izo nta l fo rce rece ived by th e foot was
and th e generati on of ro tatio n (ang ular mo mentum ).
too large (e 3 = 33°). This wo uld no rma lly lead us to
Thus, Dilling's pos itio n at th e end of th e takeoff in
predict a risk of foo t pro nation, and injury to th e
jump 97 was too conserva ti ve. Because of this, the
ankle and foot. (See th e sectio n o n " Ori entation of
amo unt of latera l som ersaulting ang ular mo mentum
the takeo ff foot, and potenti a l for ankl e and foot
th at he was able to g enerate w as extremely s ma ll (H L
inj uri es" in th e m a in text of th e report. ) However,
= 35). (Fig ure 18 shows th e c learly th e difference
direct examin atio n of th e v id eos showed litt le or no
between Di lling's HL va lu es and those of th e oth er
vis ible pro natio n in any of Dilling's jumps. It is
hig h jumpers.)
necessary to keep in mind that, du e to o ur c am era
locat ions, it is hard er to actu a lly see pro natio n in
Dilling's fo rward and latera l co mpo nents of
j umpers w ho approach fr om th e ri g ht s ide ( lik e
somersaulting ang ular mo m entum added up to a very
Dilling) , so it is co nce ivabl e th at he mig ht be
sma ll to ta l amo unt of so mersaultin g ang ul ar
pro nating w ith o ut o ur no tic ing it, but we think thi s is
mo mentum ( Hs = 90).
unlike ly.
Dilling's sm a ll amo unt of latera l so mersaulting
Dillin g started hi s arm preparatio ns too many
angular mo mentum produced two pro blems. T he
steps befo re th e takeoff. T herefor e, he spent too
most impo rtant one was that it redu ced his tota l
many steps runnin g w ith th e arm s o ut of sy nc w ith
amo unt of so mersaulting ang ul ar mo mentum , which
the legs. To some extent, thi s m ay have limited his
in turn s low ed down th e so mersault rotatio n over th e
ability to run fas t. But he did succeed in hav ing hi s
bar. But in add it ion it a lso produced a large
arm s in good ( i.e., low) pos itio ns at th e start of the
36
withstand the increased force of the impact lead leg. But if Dilling lifted th e knee of his right
produced wh en the takeoff leg is planted.) knee higher at th e end of th e takeoff, he would be
able to generate a littl e bit more lift durin g the takeoff
A small probl em in Dilling' s technique was the phase .
somewhat long length of th e last step of his run-up .
To co rrect thi s, he should try to increase the tempo of In summ ary, th e most seri ous problem in
the last two foo t landings , i.e., he should try to plant Dilling's techniqu e is probably his very small amount
th e left foot on th e ground almost imm edi ately after of lateral so mersaulting angul ar momentum , which
he pl ants th e right foot. By increasing the tempo of has an important detrimental effect on th e
th e last two foot landings , Dilling will reduce the effectiv eness of hi s bar clearance. This needs to be
length of th e last step of th e run-up , but more co rrected by allowing th e trunk to rotate furth er
importantly, he will redu ce the tim e that he spend s in toward the right by th e end of the takeoff ph ase . Of
th e air durin g th at step. This will prevent him from lesser importance are the slightly excess ive length of
accumul atin g too much downw ard (negativ e) verti ca l the last step of his run-up , his so mewhat in suffi cient
ve loc ity in th e air, so that he does not have an amount of backward lean at th e start of th e takeoff
excess ively large downward vertical ve locity when ph ase, and th e weakn ess of his lead leg action during
he pl ants th e left foot on the ground to start th e th e takeoff ph ase .
takeoff ph ase .
TAKEOFF PHASE
BAR CLEARANCE
~ ~
10 . 94 10 . 82 10.70 10 . 58 10 . 46 10 . 34 10.22 ~
41
0 0 0
.... 0
"' L[)
0
I
0
....
0
co
I "'
I
\
0
-
"'
"'
fil
u
z
~
fil
H
u
::;:
.....
N
N
.....
0
....
~ N
....H "'
0
{)) .....
:>
....
:r:
<..?
'"'z"'
<..?
H H
fil H
:r: H
H
0
::;:
.... Cl
u "'
42
Tora HARRIS adequate for his needs, and poss ibly even too stro ng,
given the extremely demandin g co nditions produ ced
Jump 6 1 was Harri s' last successful clearan ce at by hi s tremend ously fas t and low run-up .
th e 200 7 USAT F Championships (2.2 1 m) .
Harris' trunk had a moderate backward lean at
Based on Harris' vertica l ve loc ity at takeoff in th e start of th e takeoff ph ase (BFTD = 76°). Then, he
jump 6 1 (vzro = 4.3 0 m/s) , a techniqu e of average rotated forward durin g the takeoff ph ase, but at th e
quali ty would have includ ed a fin a l run-up speed of end of th e takeo ff he was still somewhat short of the
about 7.4 m/s and a c. m. height at th e start of th e verti ca l in a view from th e side (BFTO = 8r) . The
takeoff ph ase equal to about 47% of hi s own standing amount of forward so mersaulting angul ar momentum
height. Harris' actual speed at th e end of th e run-up th at Harris was able to generate was somewhat small
(vH 1 = 8.0 m/s) was mu ch faster th an wh at would be (HF = 75).
ex pected for a techniqu e of average quality, and his
c.m. at th e end of th e run-up was in a mu ch lower Harris' trunk had a very good lean toward the left
pos ition (hm = 44.5%) th an what would be ex pected. at th e start of the takeoff phase (LRTD = 74°). Th en
Overall , th e co mbin ation of run-up speed and c. m. he rotated toward th e right, and at th e end of th e
height th at Harri s used in jump 61 was ex tremely takeo ff he was r past th e verti ca l in a view from th e
demanding - maybe too demanding if he was not in back (LRTO = 9r). In the view from th e back, it's
peak phys ica l condition. normal to be up to I 0° past th e vertical at the end of
the takeo ff. Th erefore, Harris' pos ition at the end of
At th e end of th e run-up , Harris pl anted th e
the takeo ff in jump 61 was very good. His good
takeoff foo t too parall el to th e bar. Because ofthi s,
pos itions at th e start and at th e end of th e takeoff
th e angle between the long itudinal ax is of th e tak eoff
phase enabl ed him to generate a large total amount of
foot and the horizo ntal force received by the foot was
lateral somersaulting angular momentum (HL= 95).
so mewhat too large (e 3 = 26°). Thi s was actually a
very good improvement in comp ari so n with any of Harris' forward and latera l components of
his prev ious an alyzed jumps, but sti II it would somersaultin g angul ar momentum add ed up to a large
norm ally lead us to predi ct some ri sk of foot total amount of somersaulting angular momentum
pronati on, and injury to th e ankle and foo t. (See th e (Hs = 120) .
section on "Orientation of th e takeoff foot, and
potential fo r ankle and foo t injuri es" in th e main text Harris' c.m . reached a max imum height hPK =
of the report.) However, direct examination of th e 2 .28 m in jump 6 1. Th e "saturation graph" shows
videos showed little or no visibl e pronation in any of th at in this jump he co uld have cl eared cleanly a bar
Harris' jumps. It is necessary to keep in mind th at, set at about hCLs = 2 .24 m, and at hcLA= 2.26 m if he
due to our camera locations, it is hard er to actu ally had taken off betw een 5 and I 0 em closer to th e pl ane
see pronation in jumpers who approach from th e right of th e bar and th e stand ard s. In relation to the peak
side (like Harri s) , so it is conce ivable that he might height of the c. m. (2 .28 m), the 2.2 6 m clean
be pronating with out our noti cing it, but we think this clearance height indicated a very effective bar
is highly unlikely. clearance .
Harris' arm actions durin g th e takeo ff phase were Recommendations
stro ng (AAT = 16 .3 mm/m), a good imp rovement
relati ve to 2006 . The action of his lead leg was weak All as pects of Harri s' technique were quite good.
(LLA = 12 .9 mm/m), alth ough it was better than in The ori entati on of the takeoff foot does not seem to
any of his previous analyzed jumps. The overall be a problem anymore now th at we can observe it
combin ation of arm and lead leg action s was weak more accurately with high-definition video.
(FLA = 29.3 mm/m) , a lth ough it was better than in
most of his previous an alyzed jumps. Norm ally, we Harris' co mbin ation of speed and c. m. height at
wo uld consider weakn ess in th e fr ee-limb actions a th e end of th e run -up was extremely good. He should
problem in a jumper's technique. However, Harris' not go any fas ter or lower th an in jump 61 . We also
run-up was so fas t and so low th at it put a tremendous suspect th at he should not go quite so fas t nor so low
amount of stress on th e takeoff leg. The use of very unless he is in perfect phys ical condition.
stro ng free-limb actions durin g th e takeoff ph ase in
addition to such conditions at the end of th e run-up The weakn ess of Harris' arm and lead leg actions
might have produced the collapse of th e takeo ff leg . might superfi cially seem to be a problem in his
Therefore, Harris' free-limb actions may have been
45
TAKEOFF PHASE
10.22 10.20 10.18 10.16 10.14 10.12 10.10 10.08 10 . 06 10 . 04 10.02 10.00 ::3
HARRIS #61 062407 2 . 21 M CLEARANCE
BAR CLEARANCE
C . M. HEIGHT VS TIME
50
~
~- ----
40
9.40 9.60 9 . 80 10 . 00
momentum added up to a very sma ll total amount of lean toward th e left was th at Hutchin so n's run-up
somersaulting ang ular mo mentum (H s = 90) . w as not curved enoug h: It was too straig ht. To
acquire the necessary a mo unt of lean toward th e left
Hutchin son 's c.m . reached a max imum he ig ht at the end of th e run-up , he will need to tighten th e
hrK = 2.27 m in jump 72. Th e " saturatio n g raph" run-up curve, i.e. , to use a curve with a shorter radius .
show s that in this jump Hutchin so n could have See Appendi x 4 fo r more info rm ati on o n how to
c leared c leanly a bar set at abo ut hcLs = 2 .2 1 m, and change th e shape of the run-up curve .
at hcLA = 2 .22 m if he had taken off s lig htl y farth er
fro m th e pl ane of the bar and th e standard s. In Also , hav ing the appro priate amount of curvature
re lation to the peak he ight of th e c .m . (2.27 m), th e in th e run-up does no t g uarantee that th e athl ete will
2.22 m c lean c learan ce heig ht indicated th at lean properly . Th e back view of Hutchin son at t =
Hutchin son ' s bar cl earance in jump 72 was 9 .82/9 .88 s sho ws that hi s trunk stayed uprig ht while
reasonably effectiv e. Cons iderin g th at his ang ul ar the legs jutted o ut to w ard th e ri g ht. This was not
momentum w as ve ry small , this indi cated that his good . It is impo rtant to lean wi th th e entire body , and
ac tions in th e a ir were very good . not only with th e legs.
TAKEOFF PHASE
Vl
10.22 10 . 20 10.18 10 . 16 10.14 10 . 12 10 . 10 10.08 10.06 10 . 04 10 . 02 10.00 0'1
HUTCHINSON #72 062407 2 . 21 M CLEARANCE
BAR CLEARANCE
1t
Vl
10 . 94 10.82 10.70 10.58 10 . 46 10.34 10.22 -..)
58
0 0 0 0
\0
""'
L()
0
I
0
....
I
0
- CXl
"'
\
0
- \0
"'
I
N
r--
0
""'
N
\0
0
~
H N
E-i r--
%
Ul
:> z
0
E-i Ul
:r: z
H
t!J
H :r:
w u
:r: E-i
0 :::>
:r:
i ""'
u "'
59
1.00 m
the ac tion of his lead leg was weak ( LLA = 15.3 was hrK = 2 .20 m. T he "saturatio n g raph" shows that
mm /m). His overall combin ation of arm and lead leg in this jump Littl eton could have cleared cleanly a bar
actions was a lso weak (F LA = 30.8 mm /m). set a lso at abo ut hcLs = 2 .20 m . In re lati on to the
peak heig ht of th e c.m . (2 .20 m), the 2 .20 m c lean
In j ump 48 , Littl eto n ' s trunk had o nl y a very clearance he ight indicated an extre me ly effective bar
sma ll amo unt of bac kward lean at th e start of th e clearance .
takeoff ph ase (BFTD = 84 °). Then he rotated
forwa rd, and by the end of the ta keoff hi s trunk was Recomm endation s
vert ica l ( BFTO = 90 °). Thi s pos itio n at the end of
th e takeoff ph ase was very good. But, g ive n th at Almost all as pects of Littleton 's technique we re
Littleto n's backwa rd lean at the start of the takeoff very good . He was reaso nably low and very fas t at
ph ase was very sma ll , and that he did not ro tate the end of the run -up . Then, w ithout produ cing
forward throug h a ve ry large ang le during the takeoff excess ive leans fo rward no r toward the right at the
ph ase (s ince he had not go ne beyo nd th e ve rti ca l by end of th e takeoff, he generated good a mounts of
th e end of th e takeoff) , we ex pected him to generate ang ular momentum , whi ch contri buted to make his
onl y a limited amo unt of fo rward so m ersaulting bar c learance extreme ly effect ive . These are so me of
ang ular momentum . However, he was able to the most impo rtant techniqu e aspects of high
generate a large amo un t of forwa rd som ersaulting j umping, and Litt leto n d id th em a ll very we ll.
ang ular momentum (HF = 90) . It's not entire ly c lear
how Litt leton m anaged to do thi s. In part, it may The o nl y s ig n ificant concern that we have about
have been faci litated by the weak ness of his arm and Littleto n' s technique is the o ri entatio n of his left foo t
lead leg actions. ( Weak ar m and lead leg actio ns can durin g th e takeoff phase. He pl anted the takeoff foo t
hamper the generat ion of li ft, but th ey do fac il itate too para ll e l to th e bar. Based on this, we advise him
the generatio n of fo rwa rd som ersaul ting ang ular to pl ant the takeoff foo t on th e g round w ith its
mo mentum .) long itudin al ax is mo re in lin e w ith th e fin al d irection
of th e run-up , w ith th e toe po int ing at least 15 o more
Littleto n' s trun k had a moderate amo unt of lean clockw ise than in jump 48 . Thi s technique change
toward the left at the start of th e takeoff ph ase w ill help to prevent foot pro natio n, and inj ury to the
(L RTD = 79 °). Then he rotated toward the rig ht, and ank le and foot.
by the end of the takeoff he was I I o past the vertical
in th e v iew fro m th e back ( LRTO = I 0 I 0 ). In th e In the pas t, to adv ise high j ump ers about the
view fro m the back, it's no rm a l to go a few degrees appro priate o ri entat io n of th e ta keoff foot, we re li ed
past the vertica l at th e end of th e ta keoff We exclus ive ly o n th e orientatio n of the takeoff foo t
cons ider it acceptabl e ( indeed , des irable) to t ilt up to relati ve to the direction of the horizo nta l fo rce made
10° pas t th e vertica l at the end of th e takeo ff ( in th e by the athlete o n th e ground durin g th e takeoff phase
view from th e back) because we believe th at this may (ang le e3 ). This was because it was alm ost never
be th e best compro mise between th e generatio n of lift poss ibl e to actu a lly see th e foot pro nation in th e
and th e generatio n of ro tati on (ang ular mom entum) . im ages of the 16 mm mov ie film that we used. This
Litt leton was essentia lly at th e acceptabl e limit fo r has changed to som e extent w ith our sw itch to high
lean toward th e rig ht at th e end of th e takeoff phase . defi nition v ideo . The im ages are mu ch clearer, and
T hat was ve ry good . The fac t that Littleto n had only we have a better chance of actua lly see ing the
a moderate amo un t of lean toward th e left at th e start pronation in th e v id eo im ages . For athl etes who
of the takeoff phase limi ted som ewhat th e amo unt of approach from the left, we can genera lly see the
rotat ion towa rd the rig ht that he co uld go th ro ugh pro nati on qui te we ll if it occurs . Unfo rtun ate ly, for
d uri ng the takeoff phase w itho ut be ing over-rotated at athl etes who approach fro m th e right ( like Littl eton),
the end of the takeoff Because of this, the amo unt of it is not so easy to see, due to the pos itions in which
latera l so mersaulting ang ul ar momentum that he was we have to pl ace o ur cam eras . Still , we were abl e to
ab le to generate was so mewh at sm all (H L = 90). detect so me pro natio n in most of Littl eton 's jumps.
Because of the rather large va lu e of th e e3 ang le in
Littleto n's fo rwa rd and latera l compo nents of j ump 4 8 and th e ex istence of pronat ion in Littleto n' s
so mersaulting ang ular mom entum ad ded up to a good j umps (even tho ugh we can' t judge very well how
tota l amo unt of so mersaulting ang ul ar mo mentum severe th at pro nation was), o ur adv ice to Littleton is
( Hs = 125) . to pl ay it safe by plantin g th e takeoff foo t more in
lin e w ith the fi nal di rectio n of the run -up .
The peak heig ht reached by the c.m . in j ump 48
63
Other than the just described change in th e w ill actu a lly produce mo re lift fo r Littleto n. (See the
o rientatio n of th e takeoff foot, we have no oth er prev io us two parag raph s.) Tak ing a ll of this into
stro ng adv ice fo r Littl eto n. Sure, we co uld adv ise acco unt, is it wo rth whil e to experiment w ith all these
him to swin g hi s left arm and th e kn ee of hi s rig ht leg changes? We think th at it pro bably isn ' t. O ur advice
hard er fo rward and up , to hig her pos itio ns by th e end is to wo rk only o n th e improved o ri entatio n of th e
of th e takeoff ph ase. Such actio ns mig ht a ll ow takeo fffoo t, and to leave everything e lse in
Littleto n to generate mo re lift. Ho w ever, it is Litttl eto n 's techniqu e as it was in j ump 4 8.
poss ibl e that, w ith his very fast and low run-up,
Littleto n might be already near his limit fo r bu cklin g, Future improvem ents in Littleto n's results w ill
in which case a marked increase in hi s arm o r lead probably need to be based on improve ments in hi s
leg ac tio ns might be counterproducti ve . phys ica l conditio n rath er th an in hi s techniqu e,
because hi s techniqu e is a lready very good.
Even if in creased arm and lead leg actio ns wo uld
in crease Littleto n's li ft (w hi ch is so mething th at we
are not sure of), th ey could a lso produ ce o ther
pro bl ems unless oth er changes are a lso incorp orated
in to his technique, as w ill be ex pla in ed next. As we
stated previo us ly , it is poss ible that th e weakn ess of
Littleton' s arm and lead leg actio ns mig ht be what
a llows him to ge nerate a good tota l amo unt of
so mersaulting ang ul ar mo mentum , because th ey
co mpensate fo r the probl em created by the very sma ll
size of hi s bac kward lean at th e start of the takeoff
ph ase. If Littl eto n streng thened hi s arm and lead leg
actions w ith o ut f irst correcting ( i.e. , increas ing) hi s
bac kward lean at th e start of th e takeoff phase, it is
poss ibl e that th e amo unt of fo rward so mersaultin g
ang ular mo mentum th at he wo uld be abl e to generate
wo uld beco me sma ller. This wo uld reduce his to ta l
amount of so mersaulting ang ular mo mentum , whi ch
in turn wo uld pro bably deterio rate th e effecti veness
of Littleto n's bar c learance. Thu s, w hat Littleton
wo uld gain in lift (thro ug h his enhanced arm and lead
leg actio ns) mig ht be lost thro ug h redu ced
effecti ve ness in his bar clearance. T herefo re, s imply
makin g stronger use of the arm s and lead leg during
th e takeoff ph ase is pro bab ly no t a good idea fo r
Littleto n.
TAKEOFF PHASE
0\
10 . 22 10.20 10.18 10.16 10 . 14 10 . 12 10 . 10 10.08 10.06 10 . 04 10.02 10 . 00 Vl
LITTLETON #48 062407 2 . 18 M CLEARANCE
BAR CLEARANCE
~~
0\
10 . 94 10.82 10 . 70 10 . 58 10 . 46 10 . 34 10 . 22 0\
60
C . M. HEIGHT VS TIME
50
~~
/ ~
40
%
. 2006 .
.
sequ ence im ages o n this page show screen captures few degrees pas t the vertica l at the end of th e takeoff.
o f Moffatt' s takeoff foot during the tak eoff phase in
71
•
III IT ~
he ig ht. T his wo uld be a
fin a l run-up he ight s im ilar
to those used by Littleton
or Shunk at the 20 07
USATF C ha mpionships.
7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 With such a pos it ion at the
72
end o f th e run-up , a fi nal hori zo ntal speed of abo ut repo rt; (d) use stronger arm actions during the takeoff
7.7 m/s wo uld be suffic ient to qu a li fy as o ptima l. phase.
(See the low est of the three arrows in th e graph .)
Amo ng the athl etes anal yzed in this repo rt,
(Standard caution when increasing the run-up Moffatt is pro bably the o ne wh o is performing
speed and /or lowering the c.m. height at the end of fa rth est fro m hi s potentia l. If he ever corrects hi s
the run-up: The use of a faster and/or lower run- many and impo rtant technique pro bl ems, he co uld
up will put a greater stress on the takeoff leg, and make tre mendo us progress in his high jump res ults.
thus it may increase the risk of injury if the leg is
not strong enough. Therefore, it is always
important to use caution in the adoption of a Jaster
am/lor lower run-up. If the desired change is very
large, it would be advisable to make it gradually,
over a period of time. In all cases, it may be wise to
further strengthen the takeoff Leg, so that it can
withstand the increased force of the impact
produced when th e takeoff leg is planted.)
TAKEOFF PHASE
-..)
10.22 10 . 20 10 .1 8 10 .1 6 10.14 10 .1 2 10.10 10.08 10.06 10.04 10 . 02 10.00 ~
MOFFATT #84 062407 2.24 M CLEARANCE
BAR CLEARANCE
-..)
10.94 10.82 10.70 10.58 10.46 10.34 10.22 Vl
60
--- / v
50
~
40
Jamie N I ETO
45
Overa ll , N ieto's leans a t
the pIan t and at the end of th e
takeoff, his generat ion of
S
+ l ~H
ang ular momentum , and hi s 44
bar c learance were ve ry
good.
T he ma in pro ble m in
N ieto ' s technique was his
7.0 7.2 7.4
co mb inatio n of speed and
c. m . he ig ht at the end of the run-up . He needs to be important to use caution in th e adoption of a Jaster
faste r and /o r lower than in j ump 99. T he o ptimum and/or lower run-up. If th e desired change is very
co mbin atio n fo r any j umper is fas ter and /o r lower large, it would be advisable to make it gradually,
th an th e ex pected ave rage ("o rdin ary") combin ation. over a period of time. In all cases, it may be wise to
In term s of Fig ure 3 , a ll so luti ons to th is probl em f urther strength en th e takeoff leg, so that it can
invo lve mov ing Nieto's po int to the diago na l lin e withstand the increased fo rce of the impact
reco mm ended for Vzm = 4 .30 m/s. On e poss ib le produ ced wh en the takeoff leg is planted. )
o ption wo uld be to co mbine th e he ig ht th at Ni eto had
at th e end of the run-up in jump 99 (hm = 46 .5%) In spite of the very large ang le between th e
w ith a much fas ter speed (vH 1 = 7.7-7.8 m/s). (See lo ng itudin a l ax is of Ni eto's ta keoff foot and the
the ho rizo nta l arrow in th e g raph shown in this page.) hori zo nta l force rece ived by the foo t (ang le e3 ) , d irect
T his larger amo un t of fin a l run-up speed sho u ld observatio n of th e v id eotape im ages indicate that
a ll ow N ieto to generate more lift durin g the takeo ff N ieto's ankle only experi enced a moderate amo unt of
ph ase, and thu s to produce a large r he ight fo r hi s c.m . pronatio n. Ang le e 3 is not th e o nly fac to r th at
at th e peak of th e jump . (See Appendi x 2 fo r determin es th e amo unt of pro natio n, and it may be
exercises that wi ll he lp to produ ce fas t and low that Nieto's ank le mu sculature is stro ng enoug h to
co nditio ns at the end of th e run-up .) contro l the amount of pro natio n of the foot in spite of
the very large e3 ang le . We sti ll think it wo uld be
An a ltern ati ve o ption wo uld be to put the c.m . at good fo r Nieto to plant the takeoff foot on the ground
the end of th e run-up in a lower pos ition, equi va lent in a mo re counterc lockw ise orientatio n, w ith the toe
to about 45.5% of Nieto's own standing he ig ht. T his po inting more toward the land ing pit than in jump 99.
wo uld be a f ina l run-up he ig ht s imi lar to those used However, du e to th e in fo rm atio n g leaned fro m
by N ieto in j umps 36 and 13 fr om 2001 /2002. With N ieto's vid eo images, we are not as co ncern ed abo ut
such a pos ition at the end of th e run-up , a fin a l N ieto ' s ankle as we we re in prev io us re ports.
ho ri zo nta l speed of abo ut 7 .6 m/s wo uld be suffi c ient
to qu a lify as o ptima l. (See the arro w po inting Nieto's arm and lead leg actio ns in jump 99 we re
dow nward and toward the r ig ht in th e g raph .) overall so mew hat weak , but this was not a very
important pro b lem . T he prob lem wo uld be
(S ta nd ard ca ut ion w hen in crea sin g t he run- up compl ete ly e limin ated if N ieto lifted h is left knee a
s peed a nd /or lowe rin g the c. m. height a t th e end of litt le bit hig her at the end of the takeoff phase.
t he run- up: The use of a f aster and/or lower run-
up will put a greater stress on th e takeoff leg, and No changes sho u ld be made in N ieto's leans at
thus it may increase the risk of injury if th e leg is the start and at the end of th e takeoff phase , in his
not strong enough. Therefo re, it is alway s generation of ang ular mo m entum , nor in hi s actio ns
81
BAR CLEARANCE
00
10.22 10 . 34 10 . 46 10 . 58 10 . 70 10 . 82 10 . 94 -+::-
85
0 0 0
L{)
"" 0
I 0
0
- 00
"'
\
0
-
"'
I "'
[ii
u
z
~
[ii
...:!
u
~
L{)
N
N
[ii r-
~ 0
H
E-< ""
N
(fl
:>
"'
0
E-<
:r:
<:!>
"'"'
~
H 0
[ii E-<
:r: [ii
H
0
z
~ ""
u "'
86
Scott SELLERS
up will put a greater stress on the takeoff leg, and As ex pl a in ed before, we do not kn ow why
thus it may increase the risk of injury if the leg is Se llers' takeoff foot pronated, when it had such a
not strong enough. Th erefore, it is always good o rientatio n during th e takeoff phase . May be th e
important to use caution in th e adoption of a faster mu sc les th at fi g ht aga inst pronatio n are weak in
am/lor lower run-up. If the desired change is very re latio n to the oth er mu sc les of his takeoff leg. Or he
large, it would be advisable to make it gradually, mig ht have fl at fee t, a lth o ug h we think that this is
over a period of time. In all cases, it may be wise to unlike ly . We a lso are not sure how severe th e
further strengthen the takeoff leg, so that it can amo unt of pro natio n is. In any case, it may not be a
withstand the increased force of the impact bad idea to have Se ll ers be examined by a phys ician
produced when the takeoff leg is planted.) o r a phys ica l therapist. May be there is nothing
wro ng w ith hi s foo t o r ankle, but m ay be th ere is, and
Th e most impo rtant proble m in Sellers' an o rth otic mig ht he lp to protect aga inst inj ury .
techniqu e w as pro bably the minim a l a mount of lean
that he had toward th e left at the start of th e takeoff Se llers' arm and lead leg actio ns durin g the
ph ase . (See the back v iews of hi s run-up sequence o r takeoff ph ase were very good. N o changes are
of his takeoff sequ ence at t = I 0 .00 s.) It led him to needed thi s as pect of his techniqu e. In fact, as
acquire a very large lean of hi s trunk toward the ri g ht mentio ned above, Se ll ers ' free limb ac tions we re so
at th e end of th e takeoff ph ase (see th e bac k view of stro ng th at, fo r optimum techniqu e, he sho uld
the takeoff sequ ence at t = I 0 . 18 s) , w hi ch in turn led pro bably use a s lig htl y s lower and/o r higher run-up
to a large loss of lift . T he fas ter run -up speed th at we than w hat was reco mm ended in th e prev ious page .
pro pose fo r Se ll ers sho uld he lp to produce a s lig ht
increase in hi s lean toward th e left at the end of th e In th e a ir, o ur ad vice to Se llers is to impl ement
run-up . However, to acquire th e necessary amo unt of the a irborn e ac tio ns pro posed in th e 200 6 report: He
lean he w ill pro bably a lso have to tig hten th e run-up should bend th e kn ees as if he w ere try ing to kick th e
curve, i.e., to use a curve w ith a sho rter radiu s. See bar fro m be low with his hee ls. (See the 2006 report
Append ix 4 for mo re information o n how to change for furth er deta il s.)
th e shape of th e run-up curve.
In summ ary , Se llers sho uld use a faster and/or
A sma ller pro blem is Se llers' in suffi c ient lower run-up . He sho uld al so tig hten ( i.e., sho rten)
backwa rd lean at th e start of the takeoff phase. He the radius of hi s curve, and he sho uld thru st his h ips
should thru st hi s hips furth er fo rward in th e ve ry last furth er fo rward in th e las t step of th e run-up . T hi s
step of the run-up . This w ill g ive his trunk a large r w ill produ ce good leans tow ard th e left and backward
amo unt of bac kward lean at th e start of th e takeo ff at th e start of the takeoff phase. He should try to
ph ase. T hen, he sho uld a llow hi s trunk to rotate plant th e takeoff foo t o n th e g ro und imm edi ate ly afte r
fo rwa rd durin g the takeo ff ph ase, but o nly up to th e he pl ants th e ri g ht foot o n th e g round . Then he
ve rtica l by the end of th e takeoff. This should should rotate during the takeoff ph ase fo rwa rd all the
produ ce a large r amount of fo rward so mersaultin g way to th e verti cal, and to ward the rig ht to a pos ition
ang ular mo mentum , w hile avo iding any loss of lift no more th an I 0 ° beyo nd th e vertical in the v iew
th at mig ht have been produced thro ug h excess ive from the back. By do ing this, he will generate a good
fo rward lean at th e end of the takeoff. amount of somersaulting an g ul ar mo mentum w ith out
los ing any lift. In th e a ir, he needs to impl ement the
Anoth er sma ll pro bl em was the rath er long a irbo rne acti ons pro posed in th e 2006 repo rt
length of Se ll ers ' last step of th e run-up . To correct ( inc luding th e bending of th e kn ees as if he we re
thi s, he should try to in crease th e tempo of th e las t try ing to ki ck th e bar fro m be low w ith hi s hee ls:
two foot landings, i.e., he sho uld try to pl ant th e left mimic th e ac tio ns of s imul ation #2 fr o m th e 2006
foo t o n the gro und a lmost imm edi ate ly aft er he pl ants repo rt). N o changes sho uld be m ade in Sell ers ' ar m
the ri g ht foo t. By in creasi ng the tempo of th e las t o r lead leg ac tio ns durin g th e takeoff ph ase , because
two foot landings, Se llers sho uld be abl e to redu ce they are a lread y very good . It may be a good id ea to
the length of the last step of th e run-up, but more get his takeoff foot examin ed by a physic ian or a
impo rtantly, he will redu ce th e time that he spends in phys ica l therapist - m ay be th ere isn ' t anything wro ng
the a ir durin g th at step. Th is w ill prevent him fr om w ith it, but may be th ere is.
accumul ating too mu ch dow nward (negati ve) verti ca l
veloc ity in the a ir, so th at he does no t have an
excess ive ly large downward ve rtica l ve loc ity when
he pl ants th e left foot on the g ro und to start th e
takeoff ph ase.
92
co
"'
"'
"'
"'
\0
r-
"'
"'co
"'
co
co
"'
....
w
"'
u
z
"'
~
w
...:!
u 0
0
~
co ....0
"'
r-
0
....
"'
\0
0 0
....
"'....
'lj,
0
....
Ul
~ p..
w ::>
...:! I
...:!
w
z
::>
Ul ~ '!b 0
"'
0
....
SELLERS #42 062407 2 . 18 M CLEARANCE
TAKEOFF PHASE
\!)
10.22 10.20 10.18 10 . 16 10 . 14 10.12 10 . 10 10.08 10 . 06 10.04 10 . 02 10 . 00 VJ
SELLERS #42 062407 2 . 18 M CLEARANCE
BAR CLEARANCE
C . M. HEIGHT VS TIME
--
~ -------------
~ 50
~
--------- ~
40
TAKEOFF PHASE
Jesse W ILLIAMS
it's norm al to go a few degrees past the verti ca l at th e airborn e mot ions than the mai n sequence of j ump
end of th e takeoff. We co nsid er it acceptable 82 ' s bar clearance. Therefo re, the reader can use
(indeed, des irable) to tilt up to 10° past the vertica l at them to check that Williams indeed started to un-arch
the end of the takeoff ph ase (in th e view from th e too soon. See the view along th e bar of simulation # I
back) because we be lieve th at thi s may be th e best between t = I 0. 64 sand t = I 0.76 s. Th e sequence
co mpromise between th e generation of lift and th e shows th at Will iams started to un-arch before his hips
generation of rotation (angul ar momentum). had crossed over to the oth er sid e of the bar.)
Therefore, Williams' lack of lean toward th e left at
the end of the tak eoff was very "conservative", and In simulation #2 we kept th e pos ition at takeoff,
the amount of latera l somersaulting angul ar th e angular momentum and the path of the c.m. th e
momentum that he was able to generate was small same as in the orig in al jump . In the air, we had
(HL= 75). Williams execute, on the way up to the bar (up tot =
I 0.64 s), th e same actions as in th e orig inal j um p 82 .
Willi ams' large amount of fo rward But fro m th at po int onward we had him change hi s
somersaulting angul ar momentum and small amount actions. (See th e view along the bar in the sequence
of lateral somersaultin g angul ar momentum of simulation #2.) We had him keep his knees
combined into a somew hat small total amount of lowered fo r a littl e bit longer th an in the origin al
somersaulting angular momentum (Hs = II 0). j ump (between t = I 0.64 sand t = I 0.76 s) ; then we
had him lift his knees very strongly (t = I 0.76-1 0.88
Williams' c.m. reached a max imum height hrK= s) to avo id dragg ing th e bar down w ith his ca lves .
2.32 m in jump 82. Th e "saturation graph" shows
that in this j ump he co uld have cleared cleanly a bar The "satu ration graph" of simulation #2 showed
set at about hcLs = 2.25 m, and at hcLA = 2.27 m if he that, w ith th ese alterati ons in his act ions over the bar,
had taken off about 5 em c loser to the pl ane of the Will iams wo uld have been able to clear cleanly a bar
bar and th e stand ard s. In relation to th e peak height set at a height of2.30 m. A height of2.3 0 m is 0.03
of th e c.m. (2 .32 m), the 2.27 m clean clearance m higher than th e 2.27 m height (hcLA) th at Will iams
height indi cated a reasonably effective bar clearance. co uld have cleared cleanly in th e origin al jump, and
only 0.02 m lower th an th e peak height reached by
Alth ough we class ify Willi ams' bar clearance as the c. m. (2.32 m). Thi s wo uld qu alify as a very
"reaso nably effec tive", thi s is not th e same as say ing effective bar clearance.
th at he should be satisfi ed with it. Computer
anim ations of jump 82 showed th at Williams started Recommendations
his un-arch ing prematurely, and we wond ered if a
change in the timin g of Willi ams' un-arching might The main prob lem in Williams' techniqu e was
help him to produ ce a more effective bar clearance. the orientation of his takeoff foo t. He should plant
the takeofffoot on th e gro und with the long itudi nal
To in vestigate this qu estion furth er, we made ax is of th e foot more in lin e w ith th e fin al direction of
tes ts usin g compu ter simulation of the bar clearance. the run-up : The foot should be pl anted on th e ground
We made two compu ter simul ations. In the first one in a more co unterc lockw ise orientation, w ith the toe
of these computer-generated jumps ("s imul ation # I") pointin g at least 35 ° more toward the landing pi t than
we kept the pos ition of th e body at takeoff, th e in jump 82. This techniqu e change will help to
angular momentum , the path of the c. m. and the prevent ankl e pronation, and injury to th e ankle and
motions of th e body segments relati ve to each other foot. This is a hea lth-related issue rath er than a
after takeoff th e sa me as in the origin al j ump 82. perform ance-related issue, but nevertheless it is the
Grap hic sequences of this simul ation (v iew fro m most important problem in Willi ams' technique.
overh ead; view perp endi cular to the pl ane of the bar
and the standards; view in line w ith th e bar) are From a perfo rm ance standpoint, th e most
show n in one of th e graphi cs pages th at follow these important probl em in Willi ams' technique was hi s
comm ents. The result was a simul ated j ump very co mbinat ion of speed and c. m. height at th e end of
si mil ar to the origi na l j ump . This is a stand ard the run-up . He needs to be fas ter and/or lower than
pract ice in computer simul ati on, to check th at th e in j ump 82. The optimum co mbin ation fo r any
simulation program is functioning properly. The j umper is faster and/or lower th an th e expected
graphic sequences of this unaltered simul ated jump average ("o rdin ary") combin ation. In terms of Figure
are shown here to prov id e a bas is for co mp arison 3, all so lutions to thi s pro blem in vo lve mov ing
with simul ation #2. (The sequ ences of the simul ated Williams' point to th e diago nal line recomm ended for
jump also happen to show more images of th e Vzro = 4.50 m/s. One poss ibl e option would be to
l09
TAKEOFF PHASE
BAR CLEARANCE
fl~1\r
10 . 22 10 . 34 10 . 46 10 . 58 10 . 70 10 . 82 10 . 94 -
N
60
C . M. HEIGHT VS TIME
/
/ ~~ 50
"'
~
40
S I MULATI ON # 1
G-- G- D
.(, ~ ( D
t\1r1rir* ~-t--t-Jt
f-ir+---Wrtt~--\t-
£fif1~~~~~i\v
10 . ~8
10 . 22 110 . 28 1 10 . 34 1 1o.4o 1 10.46 1o . s21 1o164 1p . 1o 110.16 1 1o . 82 1
--
1o.88
0 '\
J . WILLIAMS #82 062407 2 . 24 M CLEARANCE COMPUTER-SIMULATED JUMP
SIMULATION #2
G- G- D
" ~( D
t\T1riF-If~~-!P- _t_
f~+---.---e-----tt-t
£fif1ft~~~~~
10.22 110 . 28 10 . 34 1 1o.4o 10 . 46 1 1o.s21 10 . ~8 1of64 1p . 7o 11o.76 1 1o . 82 1 10.88
--
- ..)
118
COMPUTER-SIMULATED JUMP
SIMULATION #2
COMPUTER-SIMULATED JUMP
SIMULATION #2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
60
peak of path
is reached
ballistic path
starts rappin g
peak of path
is reached
>
50 """"
I
""""
lowest point of path right foot
in left leg support is planted right foot
leaves gro t.dnd
do~ward mo'tion is
st pped by the support
of the right leg
Athlete A
40 N
w
9.60 9.80 10.00 t (s)
h (%)
6~
very hi g h path
landing of d ro p pi n g
rig ht f oot a t s t a rt
t akeoff phase "rj
~·
c
""!
~
>
,_.
5~ I
N
Athlete B
4.0 -
N
~
6~
brief
phase ~
~·
c
'"I
I'D
>
....
50 I
w
e upward
the time
ght foot
ground
Athlete C
40
N
Vl
Figm·e A2.2
A second exerc ise is shown in Fig ure A2 .3. It
was a lso devi sed by Arturo 0 live r, and it consists of
30 to 50-meter runs at abo ut 50% o f max imum speed,
with the hips he ld low (as low as in the las t steps of a
hig h jump approach run ), and carry in g a 20-25 Kg
barb e ll o n the sho uld ers (IMPORTANT : Wrap a
a b c d c towe l aro und th e bar). Th e m a in id ea is to fo rce th e
athl ete to run w ith low , fl at, non-bo un cy steps ; if the
athl ete makes bo uncy steps, th e barbe ll w ill bounce
ath Jete pu shes off ge ntl y with th e back leg (th e on the sho ulders, th e ath Jete w i II notice it, and make
takeoff leg), to place th e weig ht of th e body over th e adju stm ents in th e runnin g to prevent th e excess ive
no n-takeoff leg . Th e body th en s lo wly passes o ver bo unc ing . Make sure that no one is in your way
the no n-takeoff leg (pos itio ns b-d), and finall y, at the when you do this exercise!
las t instant, the takeoff leg is placed ahead o n th e When th e athlete is able to d o th ese exerc ises
128
Figure A3-1
athlete 1
athlete 2
athlete 3
13 1
APPENDIX 4 athl ete in the Spec ific Reco mmend ations section).
Jumpers no t includ ed in thi s repo rt should first
DRAWING THE PATH OF A HIGH JUMP ass um e that their id ea l p 1 ang le is 40°. Then, if the
RUN-UP run-up curve drawn based o n that ang le does not fee l
co mfo rtable, they sho uld ex perim ent with oth er p 1
T he cur ved run-up used in the Fosbury-fl op style va lues until th ey find an ang le th at fee ls good . Fo r
of hig h jumping makes th e athlete lean to ward th e most athletes the o ptimum value ofp 1 w ill be
center of the curve . This he lps th e jumper to lower so mew here between 35 ° and 45 °.
th e c. m . in th e last steps of th e run-up . It a lso a llows
the ath lete to rotate durin g the takeoff phase fro m an Deciding the radius of curvature of the run-up
ini tia l pos ition in which th e body is tilted toward th e path (distance r)
center of the curve to a f in a l pos itio n in w hi ch th e The run-up curve needs to have an optimum
body is essenti a lly vertica l; th erefo re, it a llow s th e radiu s of curvature. If the radius is too small, th e
athl ete to generate rotatio n ( latera l so mersaulting cur ve w ill be too tight, and the athl ete will have
ang ul ar mo mentum) with out hav ing to lean difficul ty runnin g; if th e radiu s is too large, the curve
excess ive ly toward the bar at th e end of the takeoff. will be too stra ig ht, and th e athlete w ill not lean
A curved run-up has c lear benefits over a stra ight eno ugh toward th e center of th e curve. T he optimum
one, and th erefore a ll hig h jumpers should use a radius w ill depend o n th e speed of the jumper: T he
cur ved run-up . However, a curved run-up is a lso fas ter the run-up , th e lo nger the radiu s should be. We
mo re co mpl ex . T herefore, it is mo re di ffi cult to can make a ro ugh es tima te of th e optimum va lue of
learn , and requires more attentio n fro m th e athlete the radius of curvature fo r an indiv idu a l high jumper
2 2
and the coach. using th e equation r = v I 6 .8 (men) o rr = v I 4 .8
T he curved run-up can a lso be a so urce of (wo men), where r is th e approx im ate va lue of th e
in cons istency: Th ere are m any different poss ible radius of curvature ( in m eters), and v is the fin al
path s that the jumper can fo llow between th e start of speed of the run-up ( in m eters/seco nd) . Jumpers who
th e run-up and th e takeoff po int. If the athlete does kn ow the ir fin a l run-up speed (such as th e jumpers
not a lways fo llow the sam e path , th e di stance ana lyzed in this repo rt) can m ake a rou g h initi al
between th e takeoff po int and the bar w ill va ry fr o m estimate fo r the ir o ptimum radiu s of curvature by
o ne j ump to anoth er. T hi s incons istency w ill make it substituting into th e appro priate equ ation the ir ow n
d iffi cu It fo r th e athl ete to reach th e peak of the jump vH 1 valu e fro m Table 3 (o r a di fferent va lu e ofvH 1
directly over the bar. proposed fo r that ath Jete in the Spec if ic
To make it eas ier fo r a hig h jumper to fo llow a Reco mm endatio ns section). Fo r jumpers not
g ive n run-up path cons istentl y, it can be useful to analyzed in this repo rt, it is more difficult to se lect a
mark th e des ired path o n the g ro und fo r practice good initia l es timate for th e radius of curvature, but
sess io ns (Dapena, 1995a; Dapena et at. , !997a) . But the fo llowing ro ug h g uid e lines can be fo llowed for
before drawing th e run-up path , it will first be o lympi c-leve l high jumpers: 6 .5-ll m for men ;
necessary to choose v a lu es fo r the two ma in fa ctors 7.5-1 3 m fo r wom en. In a ll cases (even for the
th at determine th e path : (a) th e final direction of th e jumpers analyzed in this repo rt), th e optimum valu e
run-up and (b) th e radius of curva ture. of th e radius of curvature fo r each in d iv idu a l athl ete
w ill ultim ate ly have to be fo und thro ug h fin e-tuning,
Deciding the final direction of the run-up path us ing tria l and erro r.
(angle PI)
T he fin a l di rec tio n of the run-up can be defin ed Actual drawing of the run-up
as the ang le between th e bar and th e direction of Materi a ls needed : a measuring tape (at least 15
motion of the c.m . in th e las t a irbo rne ph as e of the meters lo ng), a piece of cha lk , and white adh es ive
run-up immediate ly befo re the takeoff foot is planted tape .
on th e ground . Thi s ang le is ca ll ed p 1 in thi s repo rt, Te ll the athlete to m ake a few jumps at a
and its va lu es are g iven in T able 2. (The ang le of the chall eng ing height, us ing his/her present run-up .
fin a l run-up direction sho uld no t be confused with the Us in g adhes iv e tape, make a cross on the ground to
ang le betwee n th e bar and the lin e jo ining the last mark the pos ition of th e takeoff po int (po int A in
two foo tprints. T hi s latter ang le is ca lled t1, and it is Figure A4. ! ).
ge nera ll y l 0-1 5 degrees sm a ller th an th e ang le of th e Put one end of th e meas uring tape at po int A,
fi na l run-up directio n, p 1.) Jumpers ana lyzed in this and measure a distance j para ll e l to the bar. T he
re port should use th e va lue of p 1 given in T abl e 2 (o r va lue of j depends o n th e f in a l di rec tion des ired fo r
in so me cases a d iffe rent va lue proposed fo r the th e run-up (p 1):
132
Figure A4.2