Posted In: Jumps
For my next mesocycle I am planning to start doing full approaches and I was wondering what an ideal effort distribution should look like. My college coaches seem to favor a very gradual approach, starting at almost a jog. On the other hand I have also heard that effort should be at 90-95% or even "all out" at the beginning of the approach. What do you guys usually go with?
Thanks for any comments
Your goal is to reach the maximum speed possible while relaxed the last few strides to gather for the jump. You also have to hit the board with consistency. A slow start to your run may be justified if that is what you need to get the rhythm to hit the board. But you also need a long enough run to gain the speed and then relax. If you are a good sprinter and jumper, I would think you would need at least 120 feet runup if you start hard. If you are going to start slow, you might need 140' which is hard to come by on some runways. And the longer your runup, the more you might have to deal with fatigue in several jumps. You have to balance the need for rhythm, the need for speed, and the length of your runway. What your coaches say is irrelevant. What you feel, what works for you is what matters. Experiment.
[quote author="ex400" date="1191902772"]
What your coaches say is irrelevant. What you feel, what works for you is what matters. Experiment.
Easily the worst piece of advice I have ever heard.
[/quote]
LOL. I assume you have never been a jumper, nor observed the wide variety of methods used by good jumpers to start their approach runs.
What I took exception with was your telling any athlete that "What your coaches say is irrelevant. What you feel, what works for you is what matters."
That is easily the worst piece of advice I have ever heard given a jumper. High level jumping is far from intuitive. Without proper coaching the vast majority of jumpers would not perform at anywhere near their potential. What "feels" good and what athletes think "works for them" are usually the exact opposites of what they need to be attempting in order to develop sound technique.
In short answer to the original poster's question:
The effort distibution should be fairly even over the length of the approach; however, stride frequency and length will change significantly over the course of the entire approach.
Now we're getting somewhere. As a jumper (well, former jumper) and a coach, I teach the basic technical aspects and principles of longjumping. But there are some aspects of jumping that are a bit idiosyncratic, most especially the beginning of the approach run. At least with my jumpers (high schoolers), a major obstacle is inconsistency in the runup and hence inconsistency of hitting the board. In my experience, this is often a problem with inconsistency in the first few steps. Different methods of beginning the approach run seem to work with different athletes in terms of developing consistency (and the confidence that goes with it). In my own career, I switched from one type of beginning to another at one point. When I work with a jumper, I do not tell him/her that he/she must use the type of start that I use. We start with full acceleration from the first step. But if that is not working, we experiment with "jog-on, sprint-off," or gradual buildup. All I care about on the runway is my jumper attaining optimal speed in time to prepare to execute the jump. What his/her first few steps look like do not matter. What works is what matters. That is the sense in which what the coach says irrelevant. As a coach, I do believe in coaching! Of course, this whole thing presupposes that the OP's coach is not dogmatic and understands that there is more than one way to skin this cat.
I guess it depends on the jumper. You need two strides for the jump and I think most jumpers want two or three strides after attaining max speed in order to prepare for the last two. So maybe, 30 feet from top speed to the board. If it takes you, say, 27 or 28 meters to atain top speed, that's a 120' runup. But each person varies. I used about 118' in college. When I went out for masters track at 40, my run was barely 90'!
Hey guys…Thanks alot for the input.
When I was training today another question regarding approach effort came to me. How do you breath when doing approaches? I mean, according to what I've heard, in the 100m, most people only take three breaths during the whole race…and by holding their breath they can somehow increase power output. Does this apply to approaches also? Thanks for any comments.
Personally, I never thought about breathing on the runway. I pictured (felt) the entire run/jump/landing in my mind and then just went. In my opinion, once you start your run, thinking about breathing, or taking off, or flight, or landing, is counterproductive. While not as complicated, long jumping is like a golf swing, where the more swing thoughts you have (beyond one), the worse your swing will be. The time for technical thoughts is in practice. Form an image in your mind of your wonderful jump as you stand at the end of the runway, then let it go. If you want one mental cue, I would suggest that it be "fast-then-relax." And I will repeat: whatever gets you to and on the board at high speed prepared to jump is what you should do, regardless of "suggestions" from me, Barto, or your regular coach.
I am pretty much in agreement with Barto.
I always teach a crouch start and a controlled but near-maximal acceleration out of the back. The effort remains high the entire way and there is no obvious 'shifting of gears.'
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.
As for submaximal approach strategies (i.e. starting out slow to build "rhythm") I'm pretty opposed to this also. I think it poses a couple problems. First, it necessitates a longer approach run to get to an optimal takeoff velocity. Any time you lengthen the approach, you're just increasing the likelihood of stride-to-stride variability. Secondly, motor learning research indicates that accuracy tasks (which a jumps approach is if you think about it) are improved with efforts closer to maximum because it is easy for a performer to repeat 100% than it is to repeat 80% (or any other lesser effort).
ELITETRACK Founder
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?
I've noticed that Dwight Phillips kinda does the "coast" thing in his penultimate.
On a side note…I never lower until right before the takeoff contact…I think the whole concept of "long penultimate step/short last step" just introduces breaking forces. You want to be maintaining proper sprinting form until the very last second.
Barto,
With all due respect, our friend Mr Ex. is right.
"What your coaches say is irrelevant. What you feel, what works for you is what matters. Experiment."
can't be…
"Easily the worst piece of advice I have ever heard."
when…
"Your goal is to reach the maximum speed possible while relaxed the last few strides to gather for the jump"
is…
Experimentation and or ignoring one's coach while worthy of discussion, are not as certain to f-up the maximal potential of a jump as attempting to reach the maximal speed possible, relaxing, & "gathering" for the jump.
Barto,
With all due respect, our friend Mr Ex. is right.
[i]"What your coaches say is irrelevant. What you feel, what works for you is what matters. Experiment."[/i]
can't be…
[i]"Easily the worst piece of advice I have ever heard."[/i]
when…
[i]"Your goal is to reach the maximum speed possible while relaxed the last few strides to gather for the jump"[/i]
is…
Experimentation and or ignoring one's coach while worthy of discussion, are not as certain to f-up the maximal potential of a jump as attempting to reach the maximal speed possible, relaxing, & "gathering" for the jump.
CFKA-
You have taken your normal eloquently cryptic messages to new heights. I had to read that 4x before I knew what you were saying. Bravo. The "super ranter" has struck again.
ELITETRACK Founder
…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.
I guess there's always outliers but I personally think that they introduce too much variability. With the walk-in or run-in approach the athlete inevitably begins the approach 2-3 inches off from the true starting position. With the stationary or rollover you can eliminate this. Also, with run-in / walk-in approaches there's not just the increased variability of hitting the 'go' mark right on….there is also the variability of hitting it at the same speed. If you don't hit it at the same speed, you'll be entering the actual running portion of the approach with what amounts to a greater or lesser fly zone.
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.
I personally teach a linear acceleration. This is what I've been taught from some of the best jumps coaches in the world and I've never had a problem with it. It's actually impossibly to accelerate all the way to the board. At least it is if you're running full speed and setting up the penultimate. The penultimate step is a compromise. You're going to lose some speed but you're going to gain the ability to generate vertical impulse. Ideally, you minimize the loss of horizontal velocity during the penultimate. This doesn't however mean that telling athletes to 'accelerate in to takeoff' is a bad cue. In fact, in many cases it works great to keep the athlete sprinting aggressively in to the takeoff as opposed to backing off two steps out and really overdoing the setup.
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?
As I said above, unless you are really loafing the approach, you shouldn't be able to accelerate through the penultimate step. You really just want to maintain speed as best as possible while putting the body in to a position that it can jump up from.
ELITETRACK Founder
Is there any data out there on approach speeds broken down like a 100m dash? I would be interested to see some segment speed breakdown and where the jumper is actually the fastest? Although the jumper will ultimately relax their run and "coast" into the penultimate, I have always felt like the volatility of the last step always "felt" like an acceleration off of the board (decreased ground contact time and shortening of the stride). Or would the accelaration pattern steadily rise then almost end in a sin wave with a peak speed, dip for the penultimate and then re-establishment of velocity with the take-off step?
"As I said above, unless you are really loafing the approach, you shouldn't be able to accelerate through the penultimate step. You really just want to maintain speed as best as possible while putting the body in to a position that it can jump up from." — Mike Young.
Let's see —- I said to get up to speed, relax, prepare ("gather") for the takeoff.
I cannot figure out whether we are dealing with differences of technique or differences in language here.
i have some segment breakdown info for the 3 8m jumpers in england…
they all run around 10.5+ mps over the last 11m-1m at the baord, however the final 1m before baord they all slow down considerably. There is one 7.95m jump where from 6m-1m he was travelling at 10.6mps and for the final 1m before take off was at 9.7mps, a big drop off, but because of good lift, he still jumped far.
Our other guy on the other hand, slows down only slightly over last 1m and jumps about the same distance…its all very interesting…
"As I said above, unless you are really loafing the approach, you shouldn't be able to accelerate through the penultimate step. You really just want to maintain speed as best as possible while putting the body in to a position that it can jump up from." — Mike Young.
Let's see —- I said to get up to speed, relax, prepare ("gather") for the takeoff.
I cannot figure out whether we are dealing with differences of technique or differences in language here.
Was this directed to me? My comment was directed to Winnesota.
Incidentally, I think if you used the term gathering in your post previously I think that's where others probably had beef. To many, gathering connotes slowing down, excessive lowering and / or disruptive arm motions.
ELITETRACK Founder
Is there any data out there on approach speeds broken down like a 100m dash? I would be interested to see some segment speed breakdown and where the jumper is actually the fastest? Although the jumper will ultimately relax their run and "coast" into the penultimate, I have always felt like the volatility of the last step always "felt" like an acceleration off of the board (decreased ground contact time and shortening of the stride). Or would the accelaration pattern steadily rise then almost end in a sin wave with a peak speed, dip for the penultimate and then re-establishment of velocity with the take-off step?
There are several published papers by Hay and Yu on approach speed in the TJ and LJ. They pretty much all indicate that even the very best jumpers decelerate over the last 5m of the approach. As I said before, the process of setting up takeoff efficiently is a compromise where one must strike the balance of minimizing deceleration while still positioning the body such that it can apply sufficient vertical impulses at takeoff.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="ex400" date="1192222485"]
"As I said above, unless you are really loafing the approach, you shouldn't be able to accelerate through the penultimate step. You really just want to maintain speed as best as possible while putting the body in to a position that it can jump up from." — Mike Young.Let's see —- I said to get up to speed, relax, prepare ("gather") for the takeoff.
I cannot figure out whether we are dealing with differences of technique or differences in language here.
Was this directed to me? My comment was directed to Winnesota.
Incidentally, I think if you used the term gathering in your post previously I think that's where others probably had beef. To many, gathering connotes slowing down, excessive lowering and / or disruptive arm motions.
[/quote]
Well, I guess it is a language issue, then. I am "old school" in my language because….well, because I am old. My use of "gathering" (the normal expression in my era) is identical to your "a compromise where one must strike the balance of minimizing deceleration while still positioning the body such that it can apply sufficient vertical impulses at takeoff." Incidentally, in coaching HS and younger jumpers, I don't think I have ever had one exhibit "excessive lowering," but I frequently have to work to correct large deceleration in the final strides.