Where for art thou long jump?


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Where for art thou long jump?

Postby BCBaroo » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:58 am

Just reading the front page news that 27'3.25" is a new world lead.

27'3?

Without getting out any calculator it seems that event (this year and last merged) is furthest from WR territory and generally least exciting.

Anyone care to offer an explanation?

Or was I simply spoiled/ fortunate to be a track fan during the Myricks/Lewis era. And we'll never see it again?
BCBaroo
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:12 am

Most of the top jumpers are not in the mix at this point. Note that in the college conference meets last weekend we saw several jumpers over 8 meters at the SEC meet and college heptathletes at 7.85. Also, these marks are all indoors with no aiding wind; while not a huge factor, for season bests we might expect that it would be adding 10cms.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby BCBaroo » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:33 am

Sure, but the world lead last was all of 8.35.

I know there's been talk about human limits being reached by Soto in the HJ. Is the LJ at the same asymptote-al limit?
BCBaroo
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:53 am

BCBaroo wrote:Sure, but the world lead last was all of 8.35.

I know there's been talk about human limits being reached by Soto in the HJ. Is the LJ at the same asymptote-al limit?


Yes, but the world lead is affected by the lack of top-level jumpers jumping and for those, it is still the 'off-season' in a year with a major summer championship.

The WR is indeed at a place where it is hard to get it to go higher, but that is a bit different from the 8.25 WL effect which is not in the 'extremely hard to exceed range. That is more the equivalent of a 2.25 HJ, which almost fails to get you to the NCAA championships.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby LopenUupunut » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:03 am

BCBaroo wrote:Or was I simply spoiled/ fortunate to be a track fan during the Myricks/Lewis era. And we'll never see it again?
My take would be this.

The main difference between this era and the Myricks/Lewis era is the absence of the likes of Myricks and Lewis. The current depth isn't that bad - perhaps we're not "instant glory era, just add Myricks and Lewis" but it's pretty close.

As for why Myricks and Lewis are not present, well, if you only have one or two of those at any given time the odds are sooner or later you'll have none for a while; in other words, one suspects this is just random variation. At the same time, if you want to make Lewis-like jumps it helps a lot if you have Lewis-like speed, and we haven't really seen that many world-class sprint-LJ doublers lately. Maybe the most prominent is Makusha, who keeps getting injured; ditto Howe. Dwight Phillips, a 6.47/10.06 type, is on the decline; if he were still at peak level we wouldn't have to worry about WLs of 835.

True, even when he was peaking there tended to be one or two other athletes at 84x, but they weren't consistent at anything close to that level. I would say the 835 WL was a statistical fluke in that against all odds nobody had a big fluky jump (and athletes like Makusha, Phillips, Watt all happened to have injury woes at the same time); I'd expect a better WL this year, even if the jumpers' actual quality doesn't go up a bit.
LopenUupunut
 
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Sleeping in Finland

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby Marlow » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:08 am

We've had at this before. The talent is being siphoned off by other sports and interests. Unlike 30 years ago, there are so many things that an athlete can do besides T&F now, including sitting on your butt playing video games. There are more 'other' sports and activities than ever before. Football and basketball are really killing us now.

Plus, events go in cycles. The 400, 400H and PV are down too. Many events are way up.

If you look at HS and college results, you'll see that the depth at the top is still there, so the cycle will eventually go up again.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:24 am

Talent is not being siphoned off by other sports (which is why USATF keeps citing those ridiculously meaningless hs participation rates); particularly Football and Basketball, which have always been there. And with the decrease in D-1 scholarships there are actually fewer opportunities for football not more.

I agree that there is a cyclical component but when i factor in your other point ("there are so many things that an athlete can do besides T&F now, including sitting on your butt playing video games") and the fewer opportunities for men at NCAA T&F level and i think there is reason to be alarmed that it may never get back aside from the occasional outlier(s).
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:46 am

Starting salary now in the NBA and NFL (and soccer) is vastly higher than 30 years ago. It makes those sports the ones that catch the attention of good athletes. Further, it used to be that there was not a lot of specialization in sports before high school. Now, kids are playing football or basketball or swimming thousands of hours before they hit the age of mid high school where they might be long jumping.

In addition, coaches seem to want to keep football players etc. playing during the off-season and many college athletes do spring ball instead of track. The total number of scholarships does not affect the top talent that could be world class; it has more effects on the cannon fodder that the likes of Bear Bryant used to chew up (I had a colleague that was one of them and he despised Bryant). And football has a category called 'preferred walkons' that fill that numbers gap, keeping more that are good football talent but better track and field talent doing football.

Look at the vertical leaps in basketball and even football and it seems obvious that jumpers (LJ and HJ) are going in to those sports. Even baseball has much more emphasis on pure athletic ability than it used to have.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby lapsus » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:58 am

Looking at the all-time lists, the top level is Lewis, Powell, Pedroso, Phillips - the only ones who have had lots of 8.50+ jumps. And even they jumped 8.70 only occasionally.

The second level - Emmiyan, Myricks, Walder, Beckford, Saladino were fairly regular 8.50 jumpers but perhaps one step below the all-time greats.

Then Dombrowski, Streete-Thompson, Lamela, Tsatoumas, Bayer, some others fluked one or two really long jumps over 8.50.

I think the "just unlucky that there were no fluke jumps" theory holds in that I believe there are current long jumpers with at least the same amount of talent as the jumpers in the third group. However, the problem is that there don't seem to be any current first or second level talents currently competing in the long jump. If there were, there is no way the WL mark would be below 8.45 at the end of a season.
lapsus
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby Tuariki » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:10 am

Perhaps what we need is a "bolt-er" from somewhere. Maybe from a place like Jamaica. I hear they have some pretty fast guys who can also dunk. :D
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby JumboElliott » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:13 am

I'd be interested to see what Eaton could do if he trained for the long jump full time.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby highjumpfan » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:32 am

Running 4.27 for the 40 yard dash. For that matter also doing 38 reps in the bench press. Look no further then the nfl combine for the greatest track and field athletes in the world.
highjumpfan
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: right where I'm supposed to be.

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby Marlow » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:11 am

JumboElliott wrote:I'd be interested to see what Eaton could do if he trained for the long jump full time.

That's one event that I don't think suffers at all from the lack of attention he pays it. He's probably close to his potential there.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby eldanielfire » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:37 pm

Marlow wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:I'd be interested to see what Eaton could do if he trained for the long jump full time.

That's one event that I don't think suffers at all from the lack of attention he pays it. He's probably close to his potential there.


Indeed. And successful multi-events have had weird results when moving onto focusing on single events. Carolina Kluft for example went backwards.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Where for art thou long jump?

Postby lumberjack » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:05 pm

Despite the low quality of the event, the IAAF keeps raising the standards to qualify for championships. The Moscow A standard is 8.25 and the B is 8.10. There are men that could win that won't qualify for the meet. The IAAF certainly doesn't seem to be encouraging anyone to compete in the event.
lumberjack
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:58 pm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 26mi235, booond and 13 guests