I am pretty opposed to walk-ins, jog-ins, skip-ins, etc. They just seem to introduce more unnecessary variability to the approach. The most classic example of this is Mike "Foul" Powell, who by many accounts gave up several 8.90+m jumps because of his inconsistent approach.
Really? I found, this past year that by using a walk/skip in approach it gave me a "rhythm" so to speak, instead of starting from a cold standstill. It felt more natural to me and I might argue that it gave me as much, if not more accuracy on the board than a crouching or rocking start.
Other questions:
Is it better to have linear acceleration all the way to the board, or at least until the penultimate step OR is it better to accelerate to sub-maximal speed until a driving point where you fire on all cylinders until takeoff. I've always used the first way, but once I did use the second way and it felt very good. It felt like I was actually faster across the board, and doesn't it make sense to assume that your speed would be greater coming across the board than a linear acceleration from the beginning.
Also, looking back at my jumps here's one thing that I think if I changed would help a great deal, I hope. After accelerating to full speed and I am lowering myself the last 2 strides to takeoff, I feel as though I am not accelerating anymore, just lowering myself with the momentum gained through run up before take off. I was thinking for greater jump distances wouldn't it make sense to keep accelerating through the lowering of the body before take up because I'm almost certain nearly everytime I jumped I would just 'coast' through the final two steps. Is acceleration through the final two steps uncommon or have I been missing the boat?