|
|
Post by arizonaduck on Feb 20, 2024 7:45:12 GMT -8
I see that World Athletics is considering a new rule to create a "jump zone", whereby actual jump lengths can be measured. For years I have been saying that we have the technology to measure from take-off to landing accurately. If we have the technology to create poles from bamboo to steel to flexible fiberglass and allow the old pole vault records to be wiped out, then we certainly should be OK with technology to measure an ACTUAL long jump. A HUGE portion of the traditional long jump skill is to master your stride length. Other technological improvements have been accepted for competition in our sport (shoe technology). Why not the most logical......an actual length of a long jump?
|
|
|
|
Post by ducktafnut on Feb 20, 2024 11:32:58 GMT -8
As a former (average at best) long jumper and fan, I completely agree with the change.
|
|
|
|
Post by chileduck on Feb 20, 2024 11:34:58 GMT -8
Certainly would change the event with a lot less of these: X X X
This I think would make the event more enjoyable for the fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by mallardg on Feb 20, 2024 12:32:49 GMT -8
I also agree that the change will be good for the sport. The foot markings on the side of the landing pit will become meaningless. This may take away a bit of the immediate fan response after a jump, but will add a little more drama in waiting for the announcement of the actual jump distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by bruce3404 on Feb 20, 2024 13:40:06 GMT -8
Disagree. Part of the event is both synching the stride lengths, adjusting to wind conditions and making adjustments on the fly. There's a huge amount of technique that would be wiped out and it might become a matter of speed. We already get that in the dashes.
|
|
|
|
Post by arizonaduck on Feb 20, 2024 14:19:55 GMT -8
Disagree. Part of the event is both synching the stride lengths, adjusting to wind conditions and making adjustments on the fly. There's a huge amount of technique that would be wiped out and it might become a matter of speed. We already get that in the dashes. But with the advent of the fiberglass pole, didn't the vault technique significantly change to a much more gymnastic event? |
|
|
|
Post by allducksalways on Feb 20, 2024 16:35:48 GMT -8
I think that’s a good point. I always like to look at are we locked in to something because it’s the best version or just what we are used to or limited to?
I would say that the event is the long jump and because of the lack of technology there was no other way to approach the event other than to jump from a line. Under those criteria you had to be good at measuring your stride and getting as close to the line as you can. However, with lasers we can now actually determine who is the longest jumper rather than be limited by the technology. Will it change the all-time lists? You betcha. Will we see new distances be achieved? Certainly. And lots of other exciting things that will come with it. The event will still require all of the same skills but with less emphasis on some of the other aspects.
|
|
|
|
Post by chileduck on Feb 20, 2024 17:16:01 GMT -8
Disagree. Part of the event is both synching the stride lengths, adjusting to wind conditions and making adjustments on the fly. There's a huge amount of technique that would be wiped out and it might become a matter of speed. We already get that in the dashes. But with the advent of the fiberglass pole, didn't the vault technique significantly change to a much more gymnastic event? Not quite the same analogy. What if they took the cross bar off of the pole vault (or high jump) and just measured the height jumped by laser technology? Part of the pole vault is still timing the takeoff and coordinating a precision jump to get over the bar. Is the pole vault more gymnastic-like due the the fiberglass pole or is it because you still have to negotiate getting over the bar. Wouldn't the long jump be more gymnastic-like if you have to coordinate your takeoff at a precise point? I'm sympathetic to bruce3404's point and I guess we all recognize that it would be a huge change in the event. I still think the casual fan would like the change but bruce3404 is no casual fan.  |
|
|
|
Post by mallardg on Feb 20, 2024 17:41:25 GMT -8
Good points by all. I am wondering, what it was that led to this change. Do the athletes want it, or did the officials or fans want it? Having worked on the field for many a year, I am aware of the exasperation of the long/triple crews when they did their best to rule on fouls, yet have the fans boo/heckle them when they felt they saw something different. I realize that they have been using this new stick down/tear off tape for some of the more important meets, but that must not have provided a cure-all to a real or perceived problem? Apparently this is not a fixed permanent change, but rather will be a one year experiment. Gads I love this board for the discussions we get into, and in a civilized manner. Now, to show you all that change is inevitable, or is it? From the days of the "Broad Jump", comes this historical article:  |
|
|
|
Post by arizonaduck on Feb 20, 2024 18:12:04 GMT -8
Good points by all. I am wondering, what it was that led to this change. Do the athletes want it, or did the officials or fans want it? Having worked on the field for many a year, I am aware of the exasperation of the long/triple crews when they did their best to rule on fouls, yet have the fans boo/heckle them when they felt they saw something different. I realize that they have been using this new stick down/tear off tape for some of the more important meets, but that must not have provided a cure-all to a real or perceived problem? Is this a permanent change? Or is it an experiment to "give it a try" for a year or two change? Gads I love this board for the discussions we get into, and in a civilized manner. Here is their thinking: "It was found that 33 per cent of jumps at last year’s World Championships were fouls and administrators are looking at ways to make athletics more fan friendly and appealing. The idea was outlined by Jon Ridgeon, the World Athletics chief executive, after its president Sebastian Coe had said last summer that the sport was in “a race against time” to stay relevant to young people. “It was Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results,” the double Olympic 1,500 meters champion said." I notice that Carl Lewis is very opposed to it. Personally, I still like the idea. It is being considered for a trial, maybe two years. I understand what's going on. We are all avid fans of the sport and we want it run pretty much as we know it. But we don't generate enough revenue to keep it going in any relevant sense. So, WA has to keep it relevant to the average sport fan. That's why NBC concentrates on the winners with their coverage. We purists also want to know where our favorite athletes finish. Were they in the top 5, or 10? Was there a personal best? We don't give a damn to see the cameras focused on exhausted winners sprawled on the track. Was our favorite athlete near? Did they pass anyone in the final stretch? Did they get that important PB, which keeps an athlete motivated? Certainly a tightrope that World Athletics has to walk. |
|
|
|
Post by chileduck on Feb 20, 2024 19:17:27 GMT -8
... Now, to show you all that change is inevitable, or is it? From the days of the "Broad Jump", comes this historical article: View AttachmentThat is freaking hilarious. Only 60+ years later and the exact same proposal "accepted in principal" then is being tested now? Well, we have the technology for it now? What an excellent historical find mallardg! |
|
|
|
Post by mallardg on Feb 20, 2024 19:39:12 GMT -8
Give Conrad Truedson (one of the world's greatest track fans) credit for this historical find. I think he occasionally lurks on this board, so giving credit to him is only fair. I thought the article was significant in another manner, relative to the Javelin. The 1961 changes in the implement's shape lasted only about 30 years, or until the men started throwing it around 350 feet and out of stadiums. So, in the early '90's, the shape was again changed to cut down on the flight of the implement. Ahhh, the evolution of our sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by truedson on Feb 21, 2024 13:32:33 GMT -8
Meanwhile....this is from 12 years ago..from a sprinter on the new false start rule.
Some just don't like change.
"Either way, the IAAF’s false start rule — automatic DQ for any sprinter who jumps the gun — is the worst piece of legislation in sport.
Any sport.
On earth.
It’s an abomination for sprinters, for fans, and for a sport that struggles to capture the attention of casual sports fans in the years between Olympic Games."
|
|
|
|
Post by truedson on Feb 21, 2024 14:42:39 GMT -8
Don Bragg in 1963 was not happy....
He continued to win competitions for the next year, but early in 1962, his records were broken by a new generation of vaulters using fiberglass poles that could fling them higher. It had taken 22 years for the pole vault record to advance from 15 feet to 16, but only 18 months to go from 16 feet to 17. (The current record, held since 2014 by Frenchman Renaud Lavillenie, is 20 feet, 2½ inches.)
“These guys aren’t vaulters, they’re catapultists,” Mr. Bragg said.
He argued in vain to have fiberglass poles banned from the sport, then retired, suddenly as obsolete as the aluminum pole that had helped him scale the heights.
“I worked for 10 years, long hours every day, to become a champion,” he told The Washington Post in 1963. “Sure, I’m jealous, but I also have good reasons for not liking the fiberglass pole . . . when you get beat by a gimmick, it hurts.”
|
|
|
|
Post by arizonaduck on Feb 21, 2024 16:36:14 GMT -8
I thought that we recognize javelin records as "old javelin" and "new javelin". Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
