I will try to answer the previous post one piece at a time.
dbandre:
“I am sorry, but you have over complicated the high jump either to a coach who is new at it or an athlete who competes in the event.”
Glen:
No, it IS complicated, and if one is to explain how it works and what needs to be changed in the common perception of the approach, then a full (even if complicated) explanation of the physics involved, and the interaction of approach, takeoff, and flight should be aired. The goal is to improve approach technique from the present “wave of the hand and leave it to the jumper’s preference”, to something that is reliable, predictable, and adjustable.
dbandre:
“This is the second least complicated jump of all the jumps.”
Glen:
Interesting assertion. Has nothing to do with the question at hand.
dbandre:
“For a flop approach, one would finish their approach on a curve, whether it’s a constant radius or a tightening radius really needs to be the jumpers preference.”
Glen:
How does one teach a jumper to hit the takeoff mark, be headed across the center of the bar, and be leaned away from the bar the correct amount if one can not even define the shape of the approach being run. Any deviation from the planned curve, whatever it’s shape will cause the jumper to miss the takeoff mark, and probably the lean angle and final direction of travel as well. This, in addition to simply having the stride length vary as occurs in any jumping event. And, not being able to define the approach shape, how can you possible adjust it without countless hours of experimentation by the jumper to get back “on”.
dbandre:
“A curved approach with a natural inward lean (away from the bar) from running the curve is needed to successfully execute a flop high jump. This curved approach is what gives the athlete the necessary rotations to clear the bar around all three axises.”
Glen:
Agreed.
dbandre:
“The biggest problem with high jumpers is coaches allowing them to get too close to the bar, letting their athletes square off an approach, and coaches not understanding that the path of bar on a missed attempt should have a direct correlation to a flawed approach or the athlete is at their maximum height.”
Glen:
Yes, and I believe that it is largely because coaches and jumpers have no plan for their approach. They “wing it” as best they can. And once they find something that sort of works, they stick with it. Forget that they are under rotated and dragging the bar with their legs whenever the jump is close. At that point, it’s “good enough” or they fish around to see if they can adjust it – if they even recognize under rotation when they see it. Adjust it, you say? How? How do you adjust an approach that is some decreasing radius conglomeration. More guesses? Infinite fishing? Be my guest. Waste your time fishing, I’m going to use a path that allows me to tie down the approach in such a way that I can teach a jumper to run it, that I can predict what it will do, and that will enable me to adjust it to get the jumper into the proper configuration at plant.
dbandre:
“Also, the feedback and communication between athlete and the coach should be positive reinforcements of what to do that they messed up and not negative reinforcements of what they did. The best example i can give is of an athlete who jumps into the bar. I often hear coaches at meets or at club practices repeating that line of “you are jumping into the bar” or something very similar instead of focusing the athlete on maintaining a curved approach which will prevent them from jumping into the bar.”
Glen:
Absolutely! Teach them exactly what approach path to use. Teach them exactly how to get to the takeoff point leaned away from the bar, and headed toward the center of the bar. Don’t rely on teaching or letting them use some half-baked constantly varying approach curve that the coach can’t possible understand, verify, or adjust. Break free of the old, unusable idea!