Slide1: The Evolution of High Jumping Technique: Biomechanical Analysis Jesús Dapena Department of Kinesiology Indiana University U.S.A. adapted from the Dyson Award Lecture at the XX International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports Cáceres, Spain, 2002


Slide2: There was no high jumping event in the ancient Greek Olympic Games. High jumping seems to have its origin with the Celts (Tailteann Games).


Slide3: But modern high jumping began in Germany in the late 1700s.


Slide4: Then it developed into a competitive sport in England in the early 1800s. And soon after, it spread to Canada and the United States.


Slide5: To clear a high jump bar, it is necessary to drive the center of mass (c.m.) of the athlete to the largest height possible. basic principles of high jumping: It is also necessary to move the body in the air in a way that will allow the athlete to clear a bar set as close as possible to the peak height reached by the c.m.


Slide6: bar height cleared


Slide7: For a given peak height of the c.m., lowering some parts of the body makes other parts of the body go higher. This is the mechanical principle that high jumpers have used to improve the effectiveness of the bar clearance.


Slide8: Techniques have progressed a lot since the beginning of modern high jumping around 1800. And every new technique was named after an improvement in the bar clearance. Let’s look at this progression in the bar clearance technique.


Slide9: progression of bar clearance effectiveness If a high jumper remains in a straight vertical position after taking off from the ground, the height of the bar that the feet can clear will be far below the peak height of the c.m. By lifting the legs, the trunk and head get lower, and the c.m. stays at the same peak height as before. But the athlete can clear a higher bar.


Slide10: scissors The next technique in the evolution of high jumping was the “scissors”, in which the legs are lifted over the bar in alternation one after the other. The advantage of the scissors technique is that parts of both legs are below the level of the bar at the peak of the jump. This increases the height of the pelvis, and therefore the bar height that can be cleared.


Slide11: progression of bar clearance effectiveness


Slide12: eastern cut-off The scissors was followed by the “eastern cut-off” technique (sometimes called the Lewden scissors in Europe). In this technique the athlete rotates the trunk into a horizontal position at the peak of the jump. This lowers the trunk, and therefore lifts the pelvis higher than in the simple scissors technique. The result is a higher bar clearance. A disadvantage of the Eastern cut-off is that it requires tremendous flexibility.


Slide13: progression of bar clearance effectiveness


Slide14: western roll The eastern cut-off was succeeded by the “western roll” technique. In this technique the athlete cleared the bar on his/her side, with the takeoff leg tucked under the rest of the body. This technique probably did not improve much the effectiveness of the bar clearance in relation to the eastern cut-off. However, it also did not require very much flexibility. Thus, the contribution of the western roll was to provide a reasonably effective bar clearance for a larger number of high jumpers.


Slide15: progression of bar clearance effectiveness


Slide16: straddle The western roll was followed by the “straddle” technique. In this technique the athlete cleared the bar face-down, with the body stretched along the bar. The straddle allowed parts of the legs to be lower than the bar at the peak of the jump. This allowed the pelvis to rise to a greater height in relation to the position of the c.m., and therefore improved the effectiveness of the bar clearance.


Slide17: progression of bar clearance effectiveness


Slide18: While the straddle was replacing the western roll, important innovations were occurring in the run-up and in the takeoff:


Slide19: improvements in run-up and takeoff: fast run-up Some athletes used a fast run-up. This allowed them to put the muscles of the takeoff leg in fast eccentric conditions during the takeoff phase, which in turn allowed the athlete to exert a larger vertical force on the ground. * * (In “eccentric conditions” the muscles are forced to stretch while they are trying to shorten. In such conditions the muscles can make very large forces.)


Slide20: improvements in run-up and takeoff: fast run-up low position at end of run-up Other athletes ran with the c.m. in a low position in the last steps of the run-up. This allowed them to have available a long vertical range of motion for the c.m. during the takeoff phase. This increased the height of the jump.


Slide21: close to vertical at end of takeoff improvements in run-up and takeoff: fast run-up low position at end of run-up Some athletes noticed that a vertical position of the body at the end of the takeoff increased the height of the jump. This was also due to an increased vertical range of motion during the takeoff phase.


Slide22: double-arm action close to vertical at end of takeoff improvements in run-up and takeoff: fast run-up low position at end of run-up Other jumpers moved their arms into a backward position in the last steps of the run-up, and then threw them strongly forward and upward during the takeoff phase. This allowed the takeoff leg to exert a larger force against the ground.


Slide23: double-arm action close to vertical at end of takeoff improvements in run-up and takeoff: fast run-up low position at end of run-up straight lead leg action Still others kicked forward and upward with the lead leg during the takeoff phase, with a motion similar to a soccer kick:


Slide31: This “straight lead leg” action had the same purpose as the double-arm action, but with an enhanced effect due to the larger mass and length of the leg.


Slide32: Today we know that all these actions are advantageous for the generation of lift in a high jump. However, this was not clear in the 1940’s and early 1950’s. There were disagreements about what was advantageous, what was detrimental, and what was neutral. As a result, only a small number of high jumpers incorporated one or another of these elements into their techniques, and nobody used all of them.


Slide33: 1956 Charles Dumas (USA) 2.15 m (7’ 0-1/2”) The United States dominated the men’s high jump event during the first half of the 20th century. Following this tradition, in 1956 Charles Dumas raised the world record to 2.15 m, and then proceeded to win the Olympic Games at Melbourne. But things were about to change …


Slide35: In 1957, Yuri Stepanov of the Soviet Union broke Dumas’ world record with a jump of 2.16 m. It was found out later that Stepanov had used a “built-up” takeoff shoe with a very thick sole. This increased the vertical range of motion of the c.m. during the takeoff phase, and thus gave an advantage to the jumper. But the rules current at the time did not limit the thickness of the sole, and therefore Stepanov’s jump was legal. The International Amateur Athletic Federation soon changed the rules, and limited the maximum thickness of the shoe sole to 13 mm. However, the rule was not made retroactive, and Stepanov’s record was allowed to stand.


Slide36: In 1960, things seemed to go back to “normal”. John Thomas reclaimed the world record for the United States, and raised it to 2.23 m. He was the overwhelming favorite for the gold medal at the Olympic Games to be held at Rome later that year ...


Slide37: Olympic Games Rome, 1960


Slide38: Rome, 1960


Slide39: Surprisingly, Thomas was relegated to third place in the 1960 Olympic Games at Rome by two athletes from the Soviet Union, Robert Chavlakadze and Valeri Brumel … and by 1963 Brumel had raised the world record to 2.28 m. It became clear that there was more to Russian high jumping than Stepanov’s built-up shoe!


Slide40: But to a great extent they were also due to the work of the Soviet Union’s national high jump coach, Vladimir Dyachkov. In part, the improvements of the Russian high jumpers were due to advances in physical conditioning methods.


Slide41: Dyachkov had studied films of the world’s best high jumpers for many years. Through his analyses, he was able to figure out the advantages and disadvantages of the various techniques used by high jumpers. He acquired a particularly good understanding of the advantages provided by the run-up and takeoff improvements that had been gradually introduced during the 1940’s and 1950’s. Dyachkov incorporated practically all of them into the technique of every one of his athletes. Before Dyachkov, one or another of these advantageous technique elements had shown up sporadically in the techniques of various high jumpers.


Slide42: dive straddle A new variant of the straddle appeared around 1960. It was called the “dive straddle”. In this technique, at the peak of the jump the athlete’s trunk was set at an oblique angle with respect to the bar. This allowed the athlete to drop the head and upper trunk below the level of the bar at the peak of the jump. This raised the hips and the rest of the body, and therefore allowed the athlete to clear a higher height than with the older (“parallel”) straddle. Dyachkov adopted this bar clearance technique for his jumpers.


Slide43: progression of bar clearance effectiveness


Slide44: So by the mid-1960s high jumping technique seemed to be well understood. Dyachkov had figured it all out! a fast and low run-up, with preparation of the arms in the last one or two steps, followed by a double-arm action and straight lead leg action that ended in a vertical position of the athlete at the end of the takeoff. The athlete cleared the bar using the dive straddle technique. What was needed was:


Slide45: It is important to point out that not all high jumpers adapted well to this technique.


Slide46: My interest in high jumping started at about this time.


Slide47: My father had been a high jumper when he was young. He used the technique of his day, the eastern cut-off. He took me to many track meets as a child. I liked the sport, and eventually I also became a high jumper (low jumper??). I used the technique of my day, the dive straddle.


Slide48: A completely new technique appeared in the mid-1960’s. It was invented independently by several different jumpers who took advantage of the increased safety provided by foam-rubber landing mats. In 1968, Dick Fosbury won the American University (NCAA) Indoor and Outdoor Championships using this technique. Later that year, Fosbury competed at the Mexico City Olympic Games. And the winner was …


Slide49: Olympic Games Mexico City, 1968 #1 Dick Fosbury (USA)


Slide50: Until Fosbury’s win at the 1968 Olympic Games, there had been little information on this jumping style. But the Games were televised live, world-wide. The high jumpers and coaches in the audience were able to see the new technique in great detail. It became clear that the bar clearance was not the only difference between the “standard” dive straddle and the Fosbury-flop: Fosbury’s run-up was curved, and his arm and lead leg actions during the takeoff phase were weaker than in the straddle.


Slide51: The day after the 1968 Mexico Olympic Games every high jumper in the world tried the Fosbury- flop.


Slide52: They imitated Fosbury’s curved run-up, even though they did not know why --or if-- the curve was needed. But most of them added a double-arm action and a straight lead leg, since these were regarded as basic elements for any high jumping technique. However, this did not work: They found it impossible to attain at the peak of the jump the desired face-up position, perpendicular to the bar. These athletes had to give up on the Fosbury-flop.


Slide53: On the other hand, the bent-lead-leg high jumpers (remember them, the ugly ducklings?) adapted to the Fosbury-flop with little trouble. This led to the separation of the world’s high jumpers into two groups: those who used the straddle and those who used the Fosbury-flop. These were the differences in their techniques:


Slide54: straddle Fosbury-flop bar clearance on the stomach bar clearance on the back straight run-up curved run-up strong double-arm actions, and straight lead leg weaker arm actions, and bent lead leg fast run-up even faster run-up


Slide55: The Fosbury-flop raised important questions: What advantages did the curved run-up provide? Was the bar clearance more effective than in the straddle? Why was it so difficult to do a Fosbury- flop with a straight lead leg? And how could a technique that used a bent lead leg be good??


Slide56: Answering these questions was what I set out to do in my research.


Slide57: What advantage did the curved run-up provide?


Slide58: Some popular theories: (1) The curve allowed the athlete to use “centrifugal force” to get more lift. This made no sense at all. Centrifugal force is a horizontal force, and therefore can’t provide lift. (2) The curve allowed the athlete to start the rotation already during the run-up, and thus allowed the athlete to concentrate exclusively on getting lift during the takeoff. This had some potential, but ultimately was also shown to be wrong:


Slide59: What I found: In the Fosbury-flop, the rotation was not generated during the run-up; it was generated during the takeoff. Here is how the curve was useful:


Slide60: Was the bar clearance more effective in the Fosbury-flop than in the straddle? Yes. The Fosbury-flop had an advantage of about 5-7 cm (2-3 inches) in the effectiveness of the bar clearance with respect to the straddle. Let’s take a look at this graphically:


Slide61: progression of bar clearance effectiveness


Slide62: The Fosbury-flop also had a disadvantage of about 5 cm (2 inches) in the height of the c.m. at the end of the takeoff. This was because in the Fosbury-flop the arms and the lead leg were in lower positions at the end of the takeoff: However …


Slide63: Straddle


Slide64: Therefore, the Fosbury-flop had a more effective bar clearance (an advantage), but also a lower height of the c.m. at the end of the takeoff (a disadvantage). To a great extent these two factors cancelled each other out. So overall there was no net advantage for either technique with respect to these two factors.


Slide65: Why was it so difficult to do a Fosbury-flop with a straight lead leg?


Slide66: The double-arm swing and the straight lead leg action are backward (counterclockwise) rotations …


Slide68: … so they favor the generation of the counterclockwise rotation generally needed in the air for the straddle bar clearance.


Slide70: However, in the Fosbury-flop this would not be good, because for the Fosbury-flop you need to make a clockwise rotation in the air.


Slide76: This is why Fosbury-flop high jumpers need to use weaker actions of the arms and of the lead leg during the takeoff.


Slide77: And how could a technique that used a bent lead leg be a successful technique?? Because the Fosbury-flop jumpers compensated for the bent lead leg with the use of a faster run-up. If the athlete ran fast enough, the actions of the arms and of the lead leg became less important. In effect, what counted was the combination of the run-up speed and the actions of the swinging limbs.


Slide78: … and different combinations were optimal for different athletes. For Fosbury-flop high jumpers the optimum was at a combination of very fast run-up speed, and rather weak arm and lead leg actions. For straight lead leg straddle high jumpers the optimum was at a combination of slightly slower run-up speed, but stronger arm and lead leg actions.


Slide79: Why wasn’t one of these techniques good for everybody? Nobody knows for sure, but it was probably due to physiological differences in the muscles of the takeoff leg. In the Fosbury-flop the takeoff leg flexes quickly, and then extends quickly. In the straddle the takeoff leg flexes more slowly, stays flexed for a longer time, and then extends more slowly than in the Fosbury-flop. Some people’s muscles seem to be suited better to the first kind of action, and other people’s muscles to the second.


Slide80: The choice of arm and lead leg actions was the first decision. For the athletes with the weaker free limb actions, the Fosbury-flop type of bar clearance. For the athletes with the stronger free limb actions, the straddle type of bar clearance. This first choice then determined what kind of bar clearance would work the best for that individual:


Slide81: So the bottom line is: For some jumpers the Fosbury-flop would be the best technique … while for other jumpers the straddle would be the best technique.


Slide82: Therefore, today both techniques should be in use … but they are not. Only the Fosbury-flop is being used today; the straddle has disappeared.


Slide83: The crucial factor was that the Fosbury- flop was much easier to learn than the straddle. So today, all high jumpers use the Fosbury-flop technique … even though the straddle probably would be better for some of them.


Slide84: The End