Men's long jump

Congratulations to Greg Rutherford on his unexpected gold medal. However, I have a couple of coments / questions about the level of performance and competition in the event at the moment.

Greg's winning jump of 8.31m is no better than the world record of the early 1960s (accepting that conditions were far from ideal), and there have only been a handful of jumpers ever exceed 8.50. The last 2 world records have both lasted in excess of 20 years, and at the moment it doesn't look as though there is anyone likely to challenge Mike Powell's 8.95m WR (unless Usain Bolt does as he has previously threatened and take seriously to jumping)

So, the questions are why is the level so moderate at the moment, and is this one event that is getting close to the boundaries of possibility?

Also, why are so many of the jumpers reverting to the hang technique rather than the hitch kick jump (as Carl Lewis for one used)?

I wonder if there is a technical limit to how effectively a jumper can transfer their flat running speed to the required lift and forward momentum, especially given that the flat speed of 100m runners has improved significantly during this time.

Any thoughts and comments welcome.

Some good questions there Dummy_half.

I have to admit, I thought it would take 8.30+ for Bronze. Looking at previous Olympics, 2004 and 2008;

Mens Long Jump

2012 Olympics --------------------------- 8.31m [ S:8.16 B:8.12 ]

2008 Olympics --------------------------- 8.34m [ S:8.24 B:8.20 ]

2004 Olympics --------------------------- 8.59m [ S:8.47 B:8.32 ]

Things have been getting 'progressively' worse. But differences between 2012 and 2008 are marginal.

Athletes have jumped further this year. And Rutherford's best jump in London was into a headwind of -0.4m. Most of the jumps were taken into a headwind, stifling performance overall. But doesn't take away from the fact that distances weren't great

That said, Rutherford was in good form. If he'd had a following wind, we would have seen a jump somewhere in the 8.40's.

Rutherford's said in recent times that he's now modelling his technique on Carl Lewis' and using the hitch-kick and believes he can go much further. In the right conditions, he will one day jump in the 8.50m range.

How critical is speed at take-off for jumping long distances?

We can all guess speed is important. But speed has to be harnessed and allow the athlete to apply technique. Bolt running down the long jump track at 9.70 pace isn't going to work [ he'd probably forget to jump at the board, and dip instead ].

Each of the events probably has certain absolute limits - we just don't know what they might be yet. 9m seems the barrier in the Long Jump at present. Mike Powell's 8.95 is huge. But apparently, he's also jumped 8.99 wind assisted too [ +4.4m 1992 Sestriere ].

Why don't jumpers, jump touch down with their hands and do a turnover. Wouldn't this give a greater distance? I tried this technique at school but was sent to the changing rooms by a p.e. teacher who didn't share my vision

Nore Staat wrote:Why don't jumpers, jump touch down with their hands and do a turnover. Wouldn't this give a greater distance? I tried this technique at school but was sent to the changing rooms by a p.e. teacher who didn't share my vision

I always thought that gymnastics could give the long jump and the high jump a go - they could somersault from the board in the long jump and am sure could jump beyond 10 meters - and for the high jump, they'd clear 2.75m easy

Strawberry Jam wrote:Some good questions there Dummy_half.

I have to admit, I thought it would take 8.30+ for Bronze. Looking at previous Olympics, 2004 and 2008;

Mens Long Jump

2012 Olympics --------------------------- 8.31m [ S:8.16 B:8.12 ]

2008 Olympics --------------------------- 8.34m [ S:8.24 B:8.20 ]

2004 Olympics --------------------------- 8.59m [ S:8.47 B:8.32 ]

Things have been getting 'progressively' worse. But differences between 2012 and 2008 are marginal.

Athletes have jumped further this year. And Rutherford's best jump in London was into a headwind of -0.4m. Most of the jumps were taken into a headwind, stifling performance overall. But doesn't take away from the fact that distances weren't great

That said, Rutherford was in good form. If he'd had a following wind, we would have seen a jump somewhere in the 8.40's.

Rutherford's said in recent times that he's now modelling his technique on Carl Lewis' and using the hitch-kick and believes he can go much further. In the right conditions, we will one day jump in the 8.50m range.

How critical is speed at take-off for jumping long distances?

We can all guess speed is important. But speed has to be harnessed and allow the athlete to apply technique. Bolt running down the long jump track at 9.70 pace isn't going to work [ he'd probably forget to jump at the board, and dip instead ].

Each of the events probably has certain absolute limits - we just don't know what they might be yet. 9m seems the barrier in the Long Jump at present. Mike Powell's 8.95 is huge. But apparently, he's also jumped 8.99 wind assisted too [ +4.4m 1992 Sestriere ].

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I do appreciate that long jumping is one of the events where absolute distances are strongly affected by headwinds, and so 8.31 into the wind probably equates to a high 8.40s jump with a following wind. Even so, that's a long way down on the best ever distances, so suggesting that the level of competition in the event is not as good as it has been inthe moderately recent past.

Perhaps it's just the lure of the 100m, meaning we get fewer young athletes coming through as sprinter/jumpers in the Carl Lewis mould, and so those who don't make it as 100m runners just drop out of the sport rather than becoming the new Mike Powell.

Obviously, some events are getting close to the physical limits of the human body, and I suspect the jumping events (including the pole vault) will be amongst the first to get there - unless there are significant revolutions in technique, I don't see how anyone is going to jump much beyond 9m or higher than about 2.50 (high jump) or 6.25 (pole vault), at least during my lifetime. Interestingly, the world records for all three are around 20 years old, and certainly the high jump and pole vault records are held by absolute freaks (in the nicest possible way).

Dummy_half - in complete agreement; even taking the wind into account, the Long Jumps witnessed in London weren't that great [ though 8.40's would've sounded a lot better than 8.30's - with even Rutherford saying that he'd hoped to have been able to have jumped further ].

Regarding the lure of the 100m and getting fewer sprinter / jumpers in the Carl lewis mould - not sure there are / were that many sprinter-junmpers in the Carl Lewis mould - other than the man himself and Jesse Owens [ i.e. rare examples perhaps?! ]. Not sure how many 100m sprinters cross-over and the sprint-jump combo at major events - though there are some good jumpers with quite handy 100metre times.

Regarding absolute limits, you provide great examples. The men's Pole Vault looks extremely difficult to beat - so too the men's high jump. Really difficult marks indeed! It seems the challenges of defying gravity will force us to reach human limits earlier in the jumping [ and throwing ] events sooner than the running ones.

It would be interesting to analyse how close the best athlete in any given year [ on distance/height or time rather than major-event placing ] may get to their respetcive world records on a year-to-year basis [ might there be a dip when no Olympics or Worlds in a given year?! But then there are always anomolies! ]. The IAAF website is a useful starting place [ along with Powerof10 for British Stats ].

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2012/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=LJ/detail.html

...

Interesting question
I was thinking the same thing especually considering that Lyn Davies won his gold in 1964 with 8.07. That's roughly a 3% improvement in 48 years!

Having said that the world record is nearly a 10% increase on Davies's distance

Also if you take the first electric 100m (jim hines 1968 mexico) of 9.95 then Bolt's time last night is only about 3% better than that! Albeit not at altitude

So perhaps the anomolies in the LJ are the distances of Beamon, Lewis and Powell rather than Rutherford's?

Good question though

EO

Thanks - I think you may be right, that it is Lewis and Powell that are the anomalies (Beamon's was a one-off freak jump, at altitude), and that a long jump of 8.50 is the real benchmark (like the sub 9.9s 100m). Of course, Lewis and Powell were contemporaries and rivals through from national to world level, and so one's ability was probably pushed by the other leading to improvements for both.

Any idea where I can find a list of say 8.50+ or 8.70+ jumps? I'm interested to know how many men have gone beyond these distances.

I do think that in the future people will look back at Rutherford's gold almost in the same light as Alan Wells's 100m from Moscow, with a sort of 'how did that performance win the title' question.

Agreement from me, too, EO on the longer jumps being the anomolies - and dummy_half that 8.50 is the real benchmark.

For a list of the all-time greatest jumps - see below;

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=LJ/detail.html

Was wondering, what might count as national standard / class, world class, and absolute elite class?! [ We could ask this about not only the Long Jump, but other events across track and field ].

SJ

Thanks for the list - very interesting. If I counted correctly, there have only been 9 jumpers ever gone 8.70 or more, and only 4 of those achieved this more than once (Powell, Pedroso and Myricks twice each and Lewis 8 times). A further 11 have gone 8.50 or more, with quite a lot in the 8.30 to 8.50 bracket.

Suggests that 8.30m (or perhaps 8.25) should be considered world class and 8.50+ really the elite. I'd probably equate those to sub 10s and sub 9.9s 100m times (and the 8.70 + as the equivalent of the sub 9.8s)

dummy_half wrote:SJ

Thanks for the list - very interesting. If I counted correctly, there have only been 9 jumpers ever gone 8.70 or more, and only 4 of those achieved this more than once (Powell, Pedroso and Myricks twice each and Lewis 8 times). A further 11 have gone 8.50 or more, with quite a lot in the 8.30 to 8.50 bracket.

Suggests that 8.30m (or perhaps 8.25) should be considered world class and 8.50+ really the elite. I'd probably equate those to sub 10s and sub 9.9s 100m times (and the 8.70 + as the equivalent of the sub 9.8s)

Makes every bit of sense dummy_half

A further thought experiment / question; is there a way of comapring the two world records - 8.95 and 9.58?! [ This would be subjective and completely open to debate and differences of opinion and approach; possibly use top 3 performances of all-time top 20 athletes, getting average and then analysing the difference between that average and world record?! And then asecrtaining how far ahead of the average each respective world record is?! One problem in this approach already is that most of the best 100m times are more rcent. Best long jumps are further back. Would this be something to have to consider?! ]

I think that athletics generally is much cleaner than it was in the past and that this is reflected in the much lower standards across a wide range athletics events. LJ has probably been one of those events to suffer most.

"I think that athletics generally is much cleaner than it was in the past and that this is reflected in the much lower standards across a wide range athletics events."

mens 100m?
mens 200m?

althought to be fair the excesses of the 80's world records seem to have ended

1988 womens 100 10.49
1988 womens 200 21.34
1985 womens 400 47.60 (my particular favourite)
1983 womens 800 1:53.28

compare that to this years gold medallists

100m 10.75
400m 49.56

Should we just abandon all the 80's records?

Some of those 80's records are very dubious!!!

Strawberry Jam wrote:Some of those 80's records are very dubious!!!

Dubious? Understatement of all time, especially the 400m record of Marita Koch.

Also, I have big suspicions about the improvement in times in the 5000 and 10000m since the early 90s and the availability of EPO (I'm also a cycling fan, so am very aware of the effectiveness of these types of oxygen-carrier drugs on endurance, and have heard the suggestion that this is most beneficial in efforts of around 20 minutes, so would be really helpful in these longer races and on climbs in bike races).

I think that OOC testing has become quite effective, maybe not in preventing all (steroid etc) doping but certainly in reducing the quantities and frequency of use, meaning tha tclean athletes are now competetive. It's consistent with the reduction in performance in some of the throwing events and with the women's shorter distance track times.

dummy_half wrote:

Strawberry Jam wrote:Some of those 80's records are very dubious!!!

Dubious? Understatement of all time, especially the 400m record of Marita Koch.

.

LOL

I've seen that race where Koch set the world record. Both Koch, and Kratochvilova [ who traded records with Kock and who still holds the 800m WR ], were probably - and very likely - under the influence

The women's 800m world record held by Kratochvilova is dubious.

I'm also suspicious about the women's 100m hurdles world record too. But this record is within reach of Pearson.

Another dubious world record; Flo-Jo's 100m world record. 10.49. This is one that's not within reach of any present day athlete. Similarly, the women's 400m WR held by Koch. The 800m is very difficult too.

SJ

I think it's pretty obvious that all the women's records up to 800m are held by athletes that benefitted from PED use. The 400 and 800 are from Eastern European athletes in systems where it is known that systematic doping was practiced, and Flo-Jo's improvements in 88 were too good to be true based on any other explanation.

The hurdles I'm not sure are illegitimate, or at least they aren't ridiculous compared with the times currently being run.

It's interesting that the men's records don't show the same step change, and even when long-standing records exist (Johnson's 400m record being one, and Seb Coe's still top 5 ever 800m time another), they are more easily explained by clean but freakish athletes than by PEDs. Suggests that high dose and frequent steroid use in particular was more beneficial to female runners than male ones (from Ben Johnson's times, it looks like being a heavy steroid user could give about a 0.2s advantage in the men's 100m, and that this didn't carry over to the 200 and 400m, where the excessive muscle bulk became detrimental to performance).

dummy_half wrote:SJ

I think it's pretty obvious that all the women's records up to 800m are held by athletes that benefitted from PED use. The 400 and 800 are from Eastern European athletes in systems where it is known that systematic doping was practiced, and Flo-Jo's improvements in 88 were too good to be true based on any other explanation.

The hurdles I'm not sure are illegitimate, or at least they aren't ridiculous compared with the times currently being run.

It's interesting that the men's records don't show the same step change, and even when long-standing records exist (Johnson's 400m record being one, and Seb Coe's still top 5 ever 800m time another), they are more easily explained by clean but freakish athletes than by PEDs. Suggests that high dose and frequent steroid use in particular was more beneficial to female runners than male ones (from Ben Johnson's times, it looks like being a heavy steroid user could give about a 0.2s advantage in the men's 100m, and that this didn't carry over to the 200 and 400m, where the excessive muscle bulk became detrimental to performance).

Thanks for comments dummy_half

Pretty much agree with everything you say.

Reference to women's 100m hurdles world record - my doubts are there because of the era in which the mark was set and within which that particular athelete dominated [ still holding 6 of the 12 fastest times ever ] - and many more times from the 1980's across the list - pretty much dominating, while the event has moved on terms of competitiveness since then [ more competitive now due to wider / increased participation ].

Running events in Athletics have prgressed hugely. We can consider the approach of the British Cycling team, where each and every aspect that could affect performance is considered i.e. policy of 'marginal gains'. This makes every bit of sense and can support the performance of atheletes, getting the most of natural ability and hard work. Over the last decade and a half, there have been huge advances in the 'science' of each sport and each event. The 100m now has phases - rather than the previously held idea of simply getting out as fast as you can and plain running as hard as you can. Alberto Salazar has done something amazing in the longer distances - including ensuring athletes don't overtrain! They look at everythinbg; diet; sleep; rest etc

These advances have been more recent. In the men's track events, no record from the 1980's stand. There are a few record from the latter half of the 1990's that still stand - mainly over some of the middle distances.

In the women's events, some of these records remain. And I agree with you that the women likely gained a lot more from them. My view is, given advances in the 'science' around the hurdles, for examples, how does a record set in 1988 still survive?! When the 'science' behind these events were considerably less developed than now, how does Yordanka Donkova's times appear so high up on the all-time list?! Including the world record?! How have more recent advances in understanding technique and training not given today's athletes some sort of an advantge over athletes in the 1980's [ in terms of absolute performances i.e. times ]? Instead, what we find is that times from the 1980's [ and into the early 1990's ] hogging the all-time list. And when, as mentioend earlier, the event has moved on in terms of genuine competitiveness and participation.

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=W/all=y/legal=A/disc=100H/detail.html

As you appropriately suggest, it's likely that PED enhanced performance for women to a degree than they did for men. While PED usage remains a very current issue, it is do not compare to what was going on during the 1970's - 80's and into 1990's. And - as you state - because of the likely greater enhancement to women's performances compared to men's, we can see how so many of the women's records are so hard to beat, even with advancement in training, techniques and general wider preparation.

Lots to think about

Should add that I'm not necessarily saying that any one individual has taken PEDs - not accusing anyone

Just offering food for thought

Nore Staat wrote:Why don't jumpers, jump touch down with their hands and do a turnover. Wouldn't this give a greater distance? I tried this technique at school but was sent to the changing rooms by a p.e. teacher who didn't share my vision

Somersaulting in the air is banned. I think somebody started doing it in the 1970s and they changed the rules on safety grounds.

trickstat wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Why don't jumpers, jump touch down with their hands and do a turnover. Wouldn't this give a greater distance? I tried this technique at school but was sent to the changing rooms by a p.e. teacher who didn't share my vision

Somersaulting in the air is banned. I think somebody started doing it in the 1970s and they changed the rules on safety grounds.

Safety grounds?!

Why don't they have a larger landing mat / area?!

Strawberry Jam wrote:

trickstat wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Why don't jumpers, jump touch down with their hands and do a turnover. Wouldn't this give a greater distance? I tried this technique at school but was sent to the changing rooms by a p.e. teacher who didn't share my vision

Somersaulting in the air is banned. I think somebody started doing it in the 1970s and they changed the rules on safety grounds.

Safety grounds?!

Why don't they have a larger landing mat / area?!

The long jump is a simple, accessible event that any able-bodied kid can have a go at. The last thing you want is to have kids trying to somersault into sand. (You cannot measure distance jumped if the landing area is a mat unless you have some kind of video measurement).

Strawberry Jam wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Strawberry Jam wrote:Some of those 80's records are very dubious!!!

Dubious? Understatement of all time, especially the 400m record of Marita Koch.

.

LOL

I've seen that race where Koch set the world record. Both Koch, and Kratochvilova [ who traded records with Kock and who still holds the 800m WR ], were probably - and very likely - under the influence

The women's 800m world record held by Kratochvilova is dubious.

I'm also suspicious about the women's 100m hurdles world record too. But this record is within reach of Pearson.

Another dubious world record; Flo-Jo's 100m world record. 10.49. This is one that's not within reach of any present day athlete. Similarly, the women's 400m WR held by Koch. The 800m is very difficult too.

I have read that the 100m women's record was also tainted by a wind gauge malfunction (there was apparently a huge tailwind)?

Babario wrote:

Strawberry Jam wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Strawberry Jam wrote:Some of those 80's records are very dubious!!!

Dubious? Understatement of all time, especially the 400m record of Marita Koch.

.

LOL

I've seen that race where Koch set the world record. Both Koch, and Kratochvilova [ who traded records with Kock and who still holds the 800m WR ], were probably - and very likely - under the influence

The women's 800m world record held by Kratochvilova is dubious.

I'm also suspicious about the women's 100m hurdles world record too. But this record is within reach of Pearson.

Another dubious world record; Flo-Jo's 100m world record. 10.49. This is one that's not within reach of any present day athlete. Similarly, the women's 400m WR held by Koch. The 800m is very difficult too.

I have read that the 100m women's record was also tainted by a wind gauge malfunction (there was apparently a huge tailwind)?

Regarding Flo-Jo's run [ 1988 Indiannapolis US Trials ], there was a faulty wind guage. And that should've been enough make Flo-Jo's time invalid as a world record. But for some reason, it seems this issue's been overlooked.

At the same trials, Carl lewis ran 9.78 in the 100m. Denis Mitchell came 2nd in 9.86. The great Calvin Smith came third in 9.87. 4th place in 9.88. This was a seriously fast 100m. But the reason is clear. There was a tailwind of +5.2m per second. This gives some idea of the windy conditions affecting the US trials in which Flo-Jo set that 10.49 mark!

Strawberry Jam wrote:

Babario wrote:

Strawberry Jam wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Strawberry Jam wrote:Some of those 80's records are very dubious!!!

Dubious? Understatement of all time, especially the 400m record of Marita Koch.

.

LOL

I've seen that race where Koch set the world record. Both Koch, and Kratochvilova [ who traded records with Kock and who still holds the 800m WR ], were probably - and very likely - under the influence

The women's 800m world record held by Kratochvilova is dubious.

I'm also suspicious about the women's 100m hurdles world record too. But this record is within reach of Pearson.

Another dubious world record; Flo-Jo's 100m world record. 10.49. This is one that's not within reach of any present day athlete. Similarly, the women's 400m WR held by Koch. The 800m is very difficult too.

I have read that the 100m women's record was also tainted by a wind gauge malfunction (there was apparently a huge tailwind)?

Regarding Flo-Jo's run [ 1988 Indiannapolis US Trials ], there was a faulty wind guage. And that should've been enough make Flo-Jo's time invalid as a world record. But for some reason, it seems this issue's been overlooked.

At the same trials, Carl lewis ran 9.78 in the 100m. Denis Mitchell came 2nd in 9.86. The great Calvin Smith came third in 9.87. 4th place in 9.88. This was a seriously fast 100m. But the reason is clear. There was a tailwind of +5.2m per second. This gives some idea of the windy conditions affecting the US trials in which Flo-Jo set that 10.49 mark!

The story going around shortly after was that the manufacturers of the wind gauge wouldn't admit it was faulty because of the bad publicity they would get therefore the record was ratified.

The long jump cometition sucked. 8.31m should never be enough to win. The other guys for whetever reason were so bad it almost seemed like they weren't trying. That was a bronze medal jump that won the competition!

What is the problem with the Long Jump? Mike Powell and Carl Lewis would jump 8.31m as a warm up jump! Speaking of Mike Powell I bet he was fuming watching that god awful display! To think a Euro level plodder like Rutherford is an Olympic Champion and a fine jumper and WR holder Powell is not! Shows the world to be unfair I guess!

That 8:31m jump might have been more in better conditions. Rutherford had the WL for most of the season so best current man in form won it.

Sure was a surprise seeing him win it though. Not sure why so many others have been so poor but I wonder if the others are all 'clean'?

teassoc wrote:That 8:31m jump might have been more in better conditions. Rutherford had the WL for most of the season so best current man in form won it.

Sure was a surprise seeing him win it though. Not sure why so many others have been so poor but I wonder if the others are all 'clean'?

Agree regarding Rutherford's [ and most other athletes' ] jumps coming in bad conditions. Most, if not all, of Rutherford's jumps were done into a headwind, including his best of 8.31. That was worth 8.40+ [ which if the conditions had allowed, would've been a new British record ].

Before London, I would've had 8.30m down as a Bronze contendor myself. But this is the nature of competition. You got to beat those who are there, when it matters. No-one can look back and say he didn't deserve it. He was the strongest and most consistent on the day that mattered.

I think Rutherford can Jump 8.50+

Well done to the fella

The headwind was only about -0.5m. The competition was poor whichever way you slice it. It was painful to watch absolutely no-one challenging Rutherford who to be fair deserved the win as his second best jump of 8.21 would have won it.

I bet Chris Tomlinson is feeling pretty gutted right now as he's capable of jumping similiar lengths to Rutherford but had a shocker.

Super D Boon wrote:The headwind was only about -0.5m. The competition was poor whichever way you slice it. It was painful to watch absolutely no-one challenging Rutherford who to be fair deserved the win as his second best jump of 8.21 would have won it.

I bet Chris Tomlinson is feeling pretty gutted right now as he's capable of jumping similiar lengths to Rutherford but had a shocker.

LOL

I don't think anyone's suggesting that it was pretty to watch