New Fosbury Flop?

[Albert Caruana]

You can find the jump technique video at the following link. Hal Harkness, the rules guru in CA, deemed the jump illegal at first but now says it's legal.

Thoughts?

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100505/SPORTS/100509747/1031/SPORTS07?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar

Albert Caruana
http://www.crosscountryexpress.com

[Marlow]

If you pause the video at take-off, you see he DOES go off one foot. I have always thought that a front dive would be the ultimate technique, because you could wrap yourself around the bar with a center of gravity even below that of the Fosbury, but he goes over inefficiently on the side of his hip. If he can straighten that out, I think he'd have a superior style to any.

[Bruce Kritzler]

He's definitely generating force with both feet in contact with the ground.

[rainy.here]

I hate the one foot rule in high jump, and wish it was changed.

[26mi235]

I think that the reason for the one-foot rule is to outlaw tumbling. Clearly a standing high jump might also use two feet on the ground and there seems little reason why that should not be allowed.

[Marlow]

I think that the reason for the one-foot rule is to outlaw tumbling.

Who care if they tumble? Gymnasts only look like they're going high on sprung floors. If the object of the High Jump is to see how how one can jump over a bar, do it any way you wish!

[Marlow]

He's definitely generating force with both feet in contact with the ground.

This jumper is generating force when the other is clearly off the ground. If I'm the official, I call it a legal jump.

[BCBaroo]

I'm no official, but that looks like a 2 foot jump to me.
But, nonetheless, itd be interesting to see how hight it could go...

[gh]

I'd say it's unquestionably an illegal 2-footed jump.

[marknhj]

Undoubtedly a two footed jump, in my opinion. Illegal, but nice novelty value...

[Marlow]

If you pause the video at take-off, you see he DOES go off one foot

I'd say it's unquestionably

??!!

[Albert Caruana]

According to following article, this technique is a go for this jumper:
http://prepsports.blogs.pressdemocrat.c ... %9D-lives/

[Marlow]

I guess I got it right . . .

Hal Harkness, the CIF/National Federation Cross Country and Track & Field Rules Interpreter who declared O’Donnell’s front-flip jump illegal this week, has reversed his opinion. After reviewing the IAFF, NCAA and NFHS rule books and consulting with others in the track community, Harkness has determined the jump is legal because O’Donnell takes off from one foot.

[toyracer]

I'm thinking it is going to come down to the definition of "take off".

[Marlow]

I'm thinking it is going to come down to the definition of "take off".

Looking at the paused frame again, I see the one foot almost 12" off the ground before the other leaves the ground. I can't fathom how that is 'undoubtedly' a two-footed takeoff.

[marknhj]

I guess I got it right . . .

Hal Harkness, the CIF/National Federation Cross Country and Track & Field Rules Interpreter who declared O’Donnell’s front-flip jump illegal this week, has reversed his opinion. After reviewing the IAFF, NCAA and NFHS rule books and consulting with others in the track community, Harkness has determined the jump is legal because O’Donnell takes off from one foot.

Withing the letter of the law maybe, but not within the spirit:

"As you know, it simply says “takeoff must be from one foot”. Since we all agree that Kellan does leave his right foot on the ground fractionally after the left foot releases, he is within the letter of the rule."

Matters not though. No elite jumper would seriously consider it and any coach of a potentially elite athlete who recommends it would need to be replaced (and yes Marlow, I'm sure people scoffed at Dick Fosbury and Debbie Brill!)

[Marlow]

No elite jumper would seriously consider it and any coach of a potentially elite athlete who recommends it would need to be replaced (and yes Marlow, I'm sure people scoffed at Dick Fosbury and Debbie Brill!)

As I stated above, I believe the front dive will be the ultimate HJ technique. In it, at bar clearance, the head and shoulders will already be well below the bar, as will be the legs, with the hips piked over the bar, essentially placing the body's CoG well below the bar, which, for the Fosbury, is already a little below the bar. As the body jack-knifes more efficiently in a dive than a back lay-out, the front dive will be the most efficient technique possible. You may call it the "Pat Pike!"

This kid has the take-off, but goes over on the side of his hip.

[lonewolf]

He takes off from one foot, imo.

[Marlow]

He takes off from one foot, imo.

Point - game - set - match - championship!
Anyone older and wiser than lonewolf may contradict him . . .

[jhc68]

I think Marlow is right about the potential for this technique... Bob Avant was doing a similar style over the bar (although clearly one-footed) 50 years ago to achieve world-class results. If it is done with a belly to the bar apex as Avant did then it is an efficient, more natural clearance and gives the jumper a view of the bar without the contorted backbend that the Flop requires.

Video of Avant is still available here http://www.dyestatcal.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/56_state.htm
You have to go to about the 5 minute point to find Avant, although the rest of the coverage is delightful!!!

On the other hand, Marlow is totally wrong about the kid's take off being legal... I'd call it a violation every time. He gains thrust from both feet in the same way that short NBA guys (look at the old Spud Webb tapes) and volleyball players (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoKhEiAHfYs) and gymnasts (there is another ancient thread here somewhere about the guy who was featured in a national magazine tumbling over a purported 7 feet in the 1950's) have done since, well, forever.

People have always known that generating power from two feet is superior to one footed jumping -- Spud Webb always dunked from a two footed take off just like the kid in today's video. Look at the Cuban volleyball guy in the video link above -- same stuff, one foot leaves the floor a moment before the other. It is standard procedure in lots of sports but it is not high jumping as T&F rules intend.

True, one foot leaves the ground before the other, but the jumper is using both feet and both legs to translate horizontal force to vertical energy. To rule that the technique is legal because one foot leaves the ground a fraction of a second before the other is legal would not merely allow a new style, it would be an absolute redefinition of the event. Moreover, no human eye could determine that one foot was leaving clearly before the other so every jump would require a video slow-mo replay.

I'd equate it to a weight man incorporating an extra turn or glide step behind the shot put ring and claiming it was simply the way the thrower chooses to enter the ring.

[Marlow]

People have always known that generating power from two feet is superior to one footed jumping

Actually, some people don't know that. I have done extensive testing (with the vertical leap apparatus where you push colored slats to the side) with dozens and dozens (probably over a 100) of volleyball and basketball players and PE students to see if they'd make good HJers for our track team. Invariably they all took off on two feet at first the way a diver hits the end of a springboard. When I taught them to take off on one first, it took a while to get the hang of a running start (I liken it to the way you do a lay-up in basketball), but after a while almost every single kid exceeded their 2-foot takeoff height with a 1-foot takeoff. The ones that didn't were always the least coordinated of the bunch. I can still jump 6" higher with a 1-foot take-off than 2.

The legends of tumbling 2-foot jumps are myths. They are none documented over 7'.

[jhc68]

Marlow, you can jump higher with a one-footed take off because you either haven't practiced enough, haven't perfected a clearance or you don't know how to translate horizontal speed into vertical thrust efficiently. Most likely a combination of the three. As for your kids, how long an approach did they use with their two footed attempts and how much speed did they generate? Not much approach or speed, I would bet. Am I wrong?

Do you really think that Spud Webb could have elevated higher off one foot than two? If so, why did he prefer the latter and why didn't someone talk him out of it? Even Jordan often used a two footed take off to finish fast breaks. Or that high-flying volleyballers ought to be coached to jump from one foot? Really skilled B-ballers or V-ballers have worked their 10,000 hours to become proficient at moving fast horzintally and quickly, efficiently translate it to altitude off two feet. You haven't and I'd suggest that you don't know how to teach your athletes... not because you are deficient as a coach but because jumping off two feet is illegal so no one wastes time to figure it out properly.

As for the tumbler, I don't see any advantage to doing a flip before take off, and the old photos that were analyzed here a couple of years ago do not seem to show real world class clearances. But they were probably in the 2 meter range, which was impressive in the 1950's. I agree that spring loaded floors enhance jumps but I'm not sure it makes more than 2 or 3 inches in elevation.

[marknhj]

As I stated above, I believe the front dive will be the ultimate HJ technique. In it, at bar clearance, the head and shoulders will already be well below the bar, as will be the legs, with the hips piked over the bar, essentially placing the body's CoG well below the bar, which, for the Fosbury, is already a little below the bar. As the body jack-knifes more efficiently in a dive than a back lay-out, the front dive will be the most efficient technique possible. You may call it the "Pat Pike!"

You've been coaching HJ for twenty years, right? If you believe this is the ultimate HJ technique, why don't your athletes do it?

(jhc - with respect, I find it very hard to believe that a front flip clearance of the bar would offer a more efficient bar clearance than the flop. The most knowledgeable biomechics guy I know is mojo's DH and I'll solicit his feedback)

[berkeley]

There are two separate debates around this kid's technique - (1) two footed takeoff, and (2) clearing with the athlete's front to the bar instead of the back (as in the flop). Leaving aside the first question (where I agree with gh and mark that it would be difficult to consistently rule this jump legal in real competition situations without the benefit of video), it's definitely true that the body is designed to jackknife so that, *theoretically*, one can clear with a lower maximum center of gravity on the front than the back. Pole vaulters do it all the time, they purposely rotate 180 degrees to do so, and it would be ridiculous to contemplate not doing so. If it were that easy for a high jumper, it would have been perfected long ago. The fact is that it's a lot more difficult. First, floppers execute an arc on the approach so that they can lean away from the bar and negate some of their momentum across the bar. This leads to a rotation away from the bar and onto the jumper's back. To make a one footed jump head first, I think one would have to run straight at the bar, and take off further from it (as this HS jumper does). The idea recalls John Delamere's somersault long jumping from the 1970s ... only higher.

[polevaultpower]

As for the tumbler, I don't see any advantage to doing a flip before take off, and the old photos that were analyzed here a couple of years ago do not seem to show real world class clearances. But they were probably in the 2 meter range, which was impressive in the 1950's. I agree that spring loaded floors enhance jumps but I'm not sure it makes more than 2 or 3 inches in elevation.

I have tumbled on wrestling mats and tumbled on spring floors and I would bet a spring floor would make way more than a 2-3" difference in elevation for an athlete who took proper advantage of it.

[Marlow]

You've been coaching HJ for twenty years, right? If you believe this is the ultimate HJ technique, why don't your athletes do it?

a. because it has the same quick-step that this kid has, which looks 2-footed (but isn't)

but more importantly

b. I couldn't perfect it myself (I've tried!), and I (others seem to be able to, but I) can't teach someone else to do it unless I can do it. I was one of the first HJers to adopt the Fosbury (I literally started teaching myself, a HS senior, the fall of 1968 after seeing Fosbury that summer), and after 30-40 years of still doing it, the old dog can't learn a new trick.

I've had a few kids who looked like they could it, but I didn't even try to train them since the style was so 'different', I felt local officials would DQ them.

As for your kids, how long an approach did they use with their two footed attempts and how much speed did they generate? Not much approach or speed, I would bet. Am I wrong?

Yes, the approach length and speed were identical in both approaches. I am not talking about jumping at a bar; I'm talking about measuring their vertical leaping ability, which is almost always higher with 1-foot than 2. And this is with kids who would rather take off with 2.

[jhc68]

Part of this has to do with individual body types in combination with coaching.

On the anecdotal level, Marlow has all these kids who could jump higher with a one-foot take off. On the other hand, my own kid was a high level volleyball player who was taught by very good coaches from a very young age to use a quick four step approach and jump very effectively off two feet. I know for a fact that he ALWAYS could jump higher with a two footed take off.

I was the opposite, but then I was never taught to make a two footed jump with efficiency. Conversely, I knew lots of basketball players who had huge hops from a two footed standing jump with no approach -- probably 8 inches better than I could do with the same process -- but those same people couldn't high jump at all, while I was reasonably proficient.

Jumping for altitude is a complex equation with different variables for each person.

Mark, I certainly don't know the physics of a front vs. a back layout. Especially if you factor in the effects of good J-turn. But, again, my hunch is that individual body types might be better suited for one or the other.

Same for sping loaded floors... they vary a lot, in my experience, and probably vary even more depending on what sort of jumping or tumbling you do. I know there was a little gym in Hawaii that I had access to way back in the day where I was pretty damn sure I could have become a 7 foot jumper if I'd had a bar, standards and porta-pit. That was still only a 4 inch differential but maybe I underestimate.

[lonewolf]

LJers take off from one foot a millisecond after the other foot propels them to the board. They maintain momentum with alternating feet all the way down the runway, but no thrust from the non-takeoff foot. That is all this kid is doing; with a very short final step and some contortions in mid-flight.
I don't see it as exceptional that a 6-3 kid can clear a bar only 3 inches above his head. There are hundreds (thousands?) of young men out there jumping heights a foot or more above their height.

[jhc68]

Lonewolf, you are right (as usual).
What do you think: World wide, how many jumpers are clearing a foot over head during any given season?
I'd guess more than 100 but not 200. But I have absolutely no basis for that guess. In any case all those folks are perfectly happy to be floppers.
So I don't see this kid changing the world of high jumping.
That still doesn't keep us from idle chatter about what ifs, though !!!

[Per Andersen]

As jhc68 says: " He gains thrust from both feet". It's thus an illegal jump.

[26mi235]

I see some pretty small gymnasts that certainly could not jump 4 feet at a HJ pit quite far in the air. These same gymnasts do a leap and, while they get some good height, it is not on the same level as some of them attain on their tumbling passes. Also, these passes are constrained in the run up unless they are very small because usually they need to do triples of some sort and so get use to accelerating quickly and then executing the skill. However, sometimes there is a single tumbling move on one of the passes which is the one where the greatest height is attained.

lonewolf: You had a very competitive gymnast in your family (better than what I have seen); what is your experience on the heights that these usually very diminutive athletes attain. S. Johnson is only 4'11" for reference.

[Marlow]

These same gymnasts do a leap and, while they get some good height,

Most often they are doing their leaps on floors with springs under them, not unlike how divers jump high.

[lonewolf]

I can't put a quantitative effect on a sprung floor but it definitely is considerable. I will ask Kelly next time I see her if she has data or an opinion of the effect.

[TrainerPhil]

There shouldn't even be room for opinions on this. At frame 27 of the video it clearly shows him making his final push off of one foot. It is an ugly jump, but a legal one.

[Dave]

There shouldn't even be room for opinions on this. At frame 27 of the video it clearly shows him making his final push off of one foot. It is an ugly jump, but a legal one.

So it is legal. Now, is there another 6-12" in the technique?

[Suso2]

I'd say this jump is clearly illegal. If this is legal, then ALL two-footed jumps would be legal.

Yes, I understand that the rules simply say that you have to take off from one foot. However, I would interpret that to mean that "at no point during the takeoff phase should the athlete have both feet on the ground". The alternative interpretation (that the jump is legal as long as one foot leaves the ground before the other) would make ALL double-footed jumps be legal, because if you look at double-footed jumps with a very high speed camera, one foot will always take off earlier than the other, even if it is by a thousandth of a second or a ten-thousandth of a second or a hundred-thousandth of a second. If you put enough decimals to the instants of loss of foot contact, there will always be a difference between the times when each separate foot leaves the ground.

So, unless you want to make all 2-footed jumps be legal, O'Donnell's jump has to be declared illegal.

On a somewhat different issue, lonewolf's statement that "LJers take off from one foot a millisecond after the other foot propels them to the board" is totally incorrect. From (say) the right foot's loss of contact with the ground to the takeoff of the left foot for the long jump itself, the elapsed time is more like 0.18 seconds, not 0.001 seconds

[Suso2]

Ah, and between the takeoff of the right foot and the plant of the left foot in a long jump (assuming again a left foot takeoff) there is a clear-cut airborne phase of about 0.07 or 0.08 seconds. That airborne phase is what is missing in O'Donnell's HJ style.

[gh]

it's clearly a 2-footed jump made to look sorta like a 1-footed one by the fact that while the inside leg thrusts off and the foot just trails, the outer leg instantly begins to bend as the knee drives up, creating a deceiving visual effect.

[jhc68]

I'm in Suso's camp. No human could discern whether one foot left before the other. If each jump has to be judged by a frame by frame review of the video, that presents a little bit of a problem for officials.
On a practical basis, how many of us here as coaches or officials have told athletes flat-out that a take off like the one in this instance is illegal? And if you had said, yeah, sure that's OK... then what reaction would you have gotten from other coaches and officials.
The universal interpretation of the rules has been to disallow such an attempt. I am astounded that a rules interpretation expert would say the jump is legal.

[Marlow]

The universal interpretation of the rules has been to disallow such an attempt. I am astounded that a rules interpretation expert would say the jump is legal.

And yet, after deliberation, it IS ruled legal. I have corrected many jumpers in my time, but all of them dis the double-foot hop to take-off. This kid doesn't. Legal, de facto.

What's 'special' about this circumstance is that half say legal, half say illegal, but pretty much everyone is sure they're right!

I'm glad that "after further review" it's being called legal. because now maybe we can open up a discussion of how to hone this technique into something better. I hope this catches on like Fosbury did and people try to get that front pike going.