MODEL TECHNIQUE ANALYSIS

SHEET FOR THE HORIZONTAL

JUMPS PART I - THE LONG JUMP
By Günter Tidow

Re-printed with permission from Modern Athlete and Coach

1.1 The run-up

When developing “set v alues”f ort echniquesi nathleti

cev ent
s,t hefirstt
ask
must be the i dentif
icat i
onoft he“ specifi
cc har
acteri
sti
cs”ofther espect i
ve
technique. If one compares the long jump run-up, which consists of about 20 to
22st r i
des ,wi thsprinti
ng,t he“tec hno-mot or”di
ff
erencesdonotseem t obever
y
significant. At most, variations in three elements could be mentioned:

 The knee lift in the forward swinging phase is normally more marked.

 The subsequent extension of the knee joint and plant of the foot (support
on the ball of the foot) should, according to the Soviet philosophy of long
jumping (see Ter-Ovanesyan 1966) resemble slipping into slippers. (as an
example, the world record holder Galina Chistyakova (URS) obviously
tries t
oreal i
z et his“setv al
ue”.)

 During the last third of the run-up, many jumpers try to emphasize the
stride rate.

A graphic presentation of the minimal deviations, however, does not seem to

make sense. This is particularly true if one tries to find stylistic differences in
either male or female athletes who compete in both the sprints and the long
jump. Consequentially, it would be rather difficult to show these differences in the
cases of Carl Lewis (USA), Larry Myricks (USA) or Jackie Joyner-Kersee (USA).

Thus, as far as run-up technique is concerned, the reader may be referred to the
Analysis Sheet f or“Spr i
nt s”
.Ther efor e,i fonef ollowst hecl assi caldifferentiat
ion
of the long jump into run-up, take-off, flight and landing, a treatise on long jump
technique should begin with the take-off. In fact, this is done in almost all
athletics manuals. However, most authors (see Krejor/Popov 1986; Popov 1982;
Bauersfeld/Schroeter 1986; Schmolinsky 1980; Jonath et al. 1980) point out a
“har dl
ynot iceable”changei nr hyt
hm,al ower i
ngoft hecent reofgr avit
y( CG)and
a corresponding change in stride length during the last three approach strides.
Ont heot herhand,agr aphicpr esent at ionof“ longj umppr epar ati
on”i seither
missing altogether or follows classical sprint behavior to a great extent.
If one considers that, of all the field events, the long jump is the only one where
there are considerable differences between the optimal and the actually realized
angles of take-off - even with world class athletes these differences often amount
to 50% (see Hay 1983, Hay 1981, Nigg et al. 1973 and Balireich 1970) — the
necessity and significance of optimizing the take-off becomes obvious.

From the point of view of physics, the (long)j umpi t

selfi
sa“ crookedt hrow” .A
shot putter, for example, can orientate the pre-acceleration path of the
implement ’
sCG t owar dthe optimal angle of release. The flight distance in the
long jump is very highly dependent on the horizontal velocity of the run-up,
therefore, the long jumper must, first of all, achieve a maximally high horizontal
velocity of his or her CG. The next objectives are to combine, at the moment of
take-off, a maximally high vertical impulse with a minimal reduction of horizontal
velocity, and to preserve the product through optimal flight behavior.

As run-up velocity increases, however, the relative span of time available for the
process of redirecting the CG to a diagonally rising trajectory is reduced.
Although the time of board contact (approximately 120 ms) is almost identical,
the difference between a short run-up (consisting of only five steps with a velocity
of about 6 m/sec) and a full run-up (with a velocity of 11 m/sec) is that the CG
passes the support point (i.e. the take-off foot on the board) in the latter case with
a velocity almost twice as great. Therefore, the technical and conditional
requirements of the long jump become more demanding with increasing sprint
capacity.

Furthermore, if one considers that the take-off alone is responsible for the
quadrupling (!) of the flight distance of a run-up stride of 2.20 to 2.40m — the
horizontal velocity and height of the CG remaining nearly identical — the quality
of the redirection work which greatly influences the take-off angle becomes
apparent. Thus, an abrupt stringing together of run-up and takeoff without
transition or a neuromuscular innervation pattern in the take-off phase which
resembles the sprint is not very probable.

The peculiarities mentioned, such as change of rhythm, lowering of the CG and

changeoft hest ridelengt h,shoul dleav e“ mov ement-mor phol ogicaltraces”,
which means that they shoul dbev i
sible.Obs erv
ati
onoft hewor l
d’ sbestmal e
and female long jumpers, however, seems to contradict this. Even with a closer
look, except for a hardly perceivable change of the running rhythm, no
considerable deviations from sprinting behavior can be detected. This seems to
confirmt hest atementbyBauer sfel
d/Schr oter(1986)thatonl y“..
.mi nimal
structuralchanges”canbeseen.Thi ngsar ecompletelydi fferentifonec ont
r as
ts
“synchr onopt i
cal l
y ”cor respondi ngphas esoft hesprintwi tht hoseoft he long
jump run-up. It is ideal if this is done with the same athlete (see Figure 1).

The unlimited direct comparison, as far as time is concerned, makes the

detection of significant deviations and structural changes possible. Normally,
these deviations and changes cannot be seen with the naked eye because of the
very short duration of each stride 200 ms) and the very fast and diametrically
opposed changes of the joint angle.

Since, in contrast to this, only very small differences — if any — can be detected
in the third last stride, “
ideal
-typical”di
agr amsand descriptions relating to the
relevant phases of long jump technique begin with the penultimate run-up stride.

1.2 Take-off preparation: the penultimate stride of the run-up

If one considers the movement behavior during the penultimate stride in run-up
direction — that is from the left to the right — presented in Figure 2, the following
differences from sprinting technique should receive attention or be mentioned:

 In contrast to sprinting, the rear support during the penultimate stride is

performed with only an incomplete extension. This conserves energy in
the take-off leg and introduces the lowering of the hip and CG. The trunk
is also straightened.

 During the flight phase of the penultimate stride, which resembles a

“fl
oatingst r
ide” ,thebackwar dswi ngingphas ei sshor t
enedbya
premature bending of the hip and knee joints. A high heel kick, which is
typical of sprinting, has been dropped since the premature flexing of the
knee, for example during the horizontal position of the lower leg, is no
longer continued.

 The lowering of the pelvis reaches its maximum at the yielding landing of
the swing leg. The foot of the swing leg is planted heal first, resulting in a
flat foot contact. This behavior, which is known from the straddle as
“lower ing” ,l
eadst ot he“swingl egsquat ”
.
1.3 Take-off preparation: the last run-up stride

Even the last stride of the run-up, as shown in Figure 3, exhibits some
considerable deviations from sprint behavior. The following points of observation
are particularly worth mentioning:

 Fr om t heswi nglegsquat( whosemai nc haract eristicisthe“si

tting”ont he
swing leg while the trunk is straightened) the long jumper, through an
incomplete extension of the knee of the swing leg during the support
phase, applies a more horizontal impulse leading to a comparatively flat
trajectory for the final stride. Since the take-off leg, whose heel is not
kicked up at the back, prematurely and actively strides out, i.e. opens, the
result are three phase elements which are considerably different from their
respect i
v emov ement sinspr int
ing:the“ push-of f”
,t he“fl
ightphase”( wi
th
straddl edl egs)andas li
ght“ backward i ncli
nationoft hetrunk”
.Thet ake-
off stride could also be calledan“ uphillstep”ora“ pawi ngstep” .

 The result of these actions is that the long jumper hits the board with a
slight backward inclination of the body. Here, the take-off foot is planted
qui cklywi thanact i
ve“ pawing”mot ion.Thet ake-off leg is extended, and
the pre-tension of the muscles reaches down, even to the sole of the foot.
Thej umper ’
sheel mak esf i
rstcont actwi tht hegr ound,butt hef r
ontpar tof
the foot is pressed down quickly and actively (see Klimmer 1986). The
board contact, whose main characteristics are a marked front support, a
slight backward inclination of the trunk and a slight twist towards the side
of the takeoff leg, marks the finish of the take-off preparation phase.

 During the two last strides described, the trunk is passive, so that the
dynamics of the strides leads to a slight backward inclination. This means
that the jumper does not actively lean his body backwards, but his
swinging leg presses his pelvis upward and forward, and the take-off leg,
which strides out quickly and actively, overtakes the trunk.
1.4 Take-off

The take-off is the most essential part of long jump technique. However, the take-
off can only be successful if its preparation, as described above, is performed
correctly, so that the loss of horizontal velocity is minimized. Correspondingly, the
CG should reach its lowest point at the moment the takeoff foot hits the board
and when the trunk has a slight backward inclination. (see Nixdorf and
Bruggemann 1983). Ift hisi sthecase,t heCG’ spat hofacceleration, which is
directed forward and upward, will be as long as possible. Consequentially, the
action of redirection, mentioned above, begins immediately after the foot plant.
Prerequisite for this are a pre-tension of the take-off leg, from the muscles of the
sole of the foot up to the ischiocrural hip extensors, and an actively pawing foot
plant.

The subsequent amortization, caused by the pressure of landing, is therefore not

anac tivey i
el dingoft heankl e,kneeandhi pjoint,butapassi ve“compul si v
e
fl
exing” .I
not herwor ds,att hemomentofboar dcont act,thet ake-off leg functions
as an (elastic) lever redirecting the pelvis and the CG to the diagonally ascending
path of acceleration (see Figure 4).
An explosive extension movement of the joints, which is supported by a
synchronous, energetic swinging and a sudden stopping of both the arms and
the swing leg for impulse transmission, leadst
ot he“tak e-of
fpost ure”.

The variations observed in analysis of the take-of

fsoft hewor l
d’sbestl
ong
jumpers can be divided into four categories (see Figures 5.1-5.4).

The first category is characterized by the double arm swing (see Figure 5.1). In
the last 30 years, Greg Bell (USA), Irv Roberon (USA), Igor TerOvanesyan
(URS) and Robert Emmiyan (URS) have applied this arm swing technique. A
direct relation to the hang-style does not exist, even though it would be a
sensible anticipation as far as the parallel arm action in the flight phase of this
technique is concerned. The effectiveness of the double arm swing itself is
beyond doubt. In the high jump, it is a well established part of both the straddle
and modern flop techniques. Referring to impulse, which for the long jump take-
off should also be primarily vertical, the double arm swing would seem to be
logically consistent.

The reason for not choosing the double arm swing as an ideal-typical model is
that, from the point of view of co-ordination at highest speed, it is very difficult to
switch smoothly from the normal sprint arm action during the cyclic run-up to the
double arm swing.

A second category is represented in Figure 5.2. This variation can be seen with
all jumpers who apply the hitch-kick technique and anticipate the active forward
kick of the lower part of the swing leg at the take-off. The advantages and
disadvantages of this dynamic element, which is only possible through a
premature release of the knee joint locking, will not be discussed further here. In
any case, the take-off posture demonstrated in Figure 5.2 can only be attributed
to those jumpers applying the hitch-kick technique.
A third category, thecl assi cal“c ounterar ms wing”,isshowni nFi gur e5.3.Asf ar
asf li
ghtt ec hniquei sc oncer ned,thisfigureis“ neutral”
.Thi smeanst hatthet ak e-
off posture itself does not allow for any conclusions regarding the following
mov ement s.Thus,f r
om t hepoi ntofv i
ewofwi shingt oest abli
shan“ ideal-typical
setv alue” ,nomor efit
tingdr awingcoul dact uallyhav ebeenf ound.

If one compares Figure 5.3 with Figure 5.4, however, it should become clear why
- in spite of certain reservations (the right arm is not clearly bent) the latter figure
ischosenas“ i
deal -t ypi
cal”.Althoughi ti
sgener all
yv erydi ff
icul
tt ogetan
impr ess i
onof“ dy nami cs”from (st at
ic)pi ctures,itshoul dbepossi bleinthis case.
It may be that this impression of dynamics is caused by the extreme dorsal
flexion of the ankle which cannot be shown in the other figures in the same way
because of the lack of pictures.

The erect posture of the trunk, (see figure 6.2), the slightly elevated head, the
‘
‘hi
gh’’shoul dergirdle,t hehor i
z ontallylockedandbentswi ngl egandt he
completely extended take-off leg, including the hip joint, are, however,
exemplary.

The contrast between the take-off posture chosen as ideal-typical and the
posture identified by Schmolinsky (1980) as having the corresponding function
wil
lpossi blyhel ptomakecl eart heaspec tsof“dy nami cs”ment i
onedabov e.

Strictly speaking, the movement behavior of the right arm, is the running-in-the-
airst yle’sanalogy of the swinging arm to the hitch-kick swinging leg. In this case,
the athlete also performs an anticipative extension of the arm, which prepares
the contra-rotational movement of the arm during the flight phase.

Sincet
he“fl
i
ght-of
f”post urewaspl annedt obechos enas‘flight -neutral”,t
his
phenomenon shows the limits of the generalization aimed at. In order to avoid an
unnecessary amount of information, no alternative take-off posture is given here.
The same principle will be considered when discussing the landing posture.

1.5 Flight

In the following the flight phase behavior for both the running-in-the-air style
(without accentuated hitch-kick element) and the hang style are presented
graphically and described. Primarily, in order not to over-stress the capacity of a
one-page analysis sheet, the 2 1/2 step technique of the running-in-the-air style
is chosen instead of the 3 1/2 step variation. (From the point of view of
terminology it is interesting that, because of a different way of looking at things, in
the English speaking countries one step less is counted in each case). Thus the
3 1/2 step technique, used by Carl Lewis and Larry Myricks becomes the 2 1/2
step running-in-the-air style, and the 2 1/2 step technique presented in the
following becomes the 1 1/2 step running-in- the-air style.

The advantages and disadvantages of the individual flight techniques will not be
discussed in detail here. The mere fact that both techniques are dealt with is an
indication of their relative equality. Although, from the point of view of learning
theory, there is a lot to be said for the running-in-the-air style (for example, this
style indirectly influences the take-off posture in a positive way and it also allows
a better balancing of the forward rotation produced at the take-off), hang style
jumpers led, by Robert Emmiyan, are at least equally successful.

Fundamentally, a final assessment of the superiority of the one or the other flight
technique does not seem to be possible without corresponding aerodynamic
examinations of the accompanying values of air resistance which differ relative to
the respective phase. Furthermore, the individually different rotation impulses
(produced during take-off) could be an intuitive selection criterion. In other words,
the athlete chooses his flight style because of the type of take-off impulses he
produces.

When analyzing the flight behavior oft hewor ld’sbestl ongj umper s,thenumber
ofv ar i
ationsont hebasi ctechniquesat t
r ac t
sone’ sattenti
on.Noot herat hl
eti
c
event has a similar wealth of variations. Without being able to discuss details in
this text, this variability i
mpli
esei therar el ativei nsigni
ficanceoft he“ fl
i ghtact
ion”
or the current inability of experts to identify a single optimal technique.

In thef ol
lowing,anat tempti smadeatcont rastingquasi“ pure-blooded”el ements
of the running-in-the-air style with those of the hang style. Since the individual
figure drawings shown are transition phases which can only be observed for a
short period of time, the respective following phases are also presented as an
optical aid.
1.6 “Fi
rstst
ep”

After the take-off, both hang style and running-in-the-air style jumpers show a
release of the take-off posture leading to the so-cal l
ed“ f
irstst ep”
.This“fir
stst ep”
is characterized by an opening of the knee joint angle of the swing leg. While, in
the case of the hitch-kick, this is done in a thrusting way, this movement is active
in the running-in-the-air style and tends to be smoother and more passive in the
hang style (unless the hang style jumper also applies the hitch-kick). It must be
added here that there are variations of the hang style which show only an
incomplete “ fi
rsts t
ep.Duet ot hef actthatt hef ollowing“hangst age”is
anticipated within the take-off posture, these jumpers cannot profit from the
important swinging leg action.

The heel of the take-off leg (which is behind the body) is slightly kicked up at the
back in a similar action to the backward swinging phase of sprinting. Though the
leg posture is very similar, there are great differences as far as the arm action is
concerned. In the running-in-the-air style, the arm on the side of the swing leg
begi nsaf or
war d“ windmi lli
ng”mov ement .Att hes amet ime,t heopposi tear
m
performs a forward and downward movement parallel to the swinging leg (which
is still in front of the body). Thus, consistent with the image of circling windmill
wings, both arms rotate in the same direction, but the leading arm is 180 degrees
ahead of the following arm.

In comparison, the arm action in the hang style is quite different (see Figure 8).
Since here the jumper must perform a double arm swing, the counter-swinging
arm movement realized in the take-of fposturemust ,fir
stofal l
,be“ eli
mi nated”.
Correspondingly, the opposite arm locked in front and above must be lowered
towards the swinging leg. At the same time, the arm on the side of the swinging
legismov edt owardst het runkwher ei tvi
rtually“ waits’’fort heopposi tear m.
1.7 “Theswi
ng-l
egst
ance”

It one considers the following figure drawings, which develop smoothly from the
‘‘fi
rststep’’
,it becomes apparent that the jumper, for a very short time, reaches a
“one-legst and’ ’intheai r
,thel ongi tudinalax isoft hebodybei ngverti
cal l
y
aligned. In the running-in-the-air style, this one-leg stand is caused by the active
backward movement of the extended, or almost extended, swing leg which is
overtaken by the take-off leg as it is brought forward for compensation.

In the running-in-the-air style, this backward movement of the extended swinging

leg and the forward movement of the bent take-off leg are very important. This is
because the best way to balance the forward rotation mentioned above is by this
“appar ent ”rotat
ion.Thus,t her unni ng-in-the-air jumper utilizes the mechanical
principle of counteraction: The leg which is actively moved backwards (in the
forward sense of rotation) with a relatively high moment of mass inertia causes a
corresponding re-action of the trunk. The forward movement of the other leg (in
the backward sense of rotation), which is performed with relatively little torque,
prevents a neutralization of the effect striven for. Parallel to this, the arms, which
are as extended as possible, continue their forward wind-milling action.

In the hang-st yle,ther efore,the“ swing-l

egst ance”i sachi evedt hr
oughapassi v e
lowering of the swing leg and not through the use of the hip extension muscles,
as is the case in the running-in-the-air style. Since the flexed take-off leg, which
is still backward, performs no active forward movement, the lowering brings
about a parallel position of the longitudinal axes of the thighs. The arm on the
side of the take-off leg, which is simultaneously lowered or moved backwards,
now also reaches a positionpar all
eltothe“ waiti
ng”opposi t
ear mi nt he“ one-leg
stand” .Thus,dur i
ngt hehangst yle,theone-leg stand is that phase starting from
whi chl egsandar msc anbeus ed“ joi
ntl
y”andpar alleltooneanot her .
Correspondingly, this action could also be calledthe“br
ingi
ngtogetherphas
e”(i
n
the case of the hang-st yl
e)cont raryt ot he“ov
ertaki
ngphase”or“passi
ngphase”
in the case of the running-in-the-air style.

1.
8“Secondst
ep”and“hangphase”

When, in the running-in-the-ai rstyl

e,the“ leadi
ngar m”aswel last he( opposit
e)
take-off leg, which has been brought forwards and is extended, again have
reached an almost horizontal position, they are locked for a very short moment in
a parallel position. Here, the 180° angle between the arms is reduced to
appr ox i
mat ely90° ,sothatt he“fol
lowing”ar misdi rect
edv erti
callyupwar ds
(figure 11). Since the swinging leg moved backwards — similar to the backward
swinging phase in the sprint — is flexed again behind the trunk in order to
prepare the subsequent forward movement, the result is a sequence drawing that
isv erys imilart othe“ hurdl eseat”.Thisdr awingischar act eri
sti
coft he“ second
st ep”.

During the hang style, the synchronous and parallel rotation of both arms in the
forward sense of rotation which after having reached the vertical position is
delayed or even interrupted — at ypi
cal“ hang-phase”i scr eated,whi chi s
responsible for the name of this flight technique. While the arms perform their
“double-arm cir cle”
,whi chi sdirect edbackwar dand upward, the previously
extended swing leg is flexed at the knee joint up to an approximately right-angled
positi
on.Thi sr esultsina“ knee-st and”i ntheair(figure 12). All the following leg
and arm actions of the hang style are performed parallel and simultaneously.

The“ C-li
ke”ov er-extension of the spine during the hang-phase, which is
demanded by some authors and demonstrated by some jumpers, has
deliberatel ynotbeenc hosenas“ i
deal -typical”
.Suchahy per lor
dos ation,
particularly in the case of very long jumps, would have to be maintained for a
rather considerable time, and does not seem to increase performance.
Independent of this, such an overextension would reduce again the moment of
mass inertia, which is relatively high in the case of an erect trunk. This, however,
would contribute to an increase in the angular velocity of the forward rotation
around the latitudinal axis.
1.9 Landing preparation

Int hedescendi ngsegmentoft hef lightcurv e,the“ secondst ep”oft her unning-
in-the-air st
y l
eandt he“ hangphase”i nev it
ablyl eadt ot hepr epar ationf or
landing. In order to achieve this, in the running-in-the-air style, the rear arm
catches up to the leading arm waiting in front of the body in a horizontal position.
The flexed swing leg, which has been kept behind, also joins the take-off leg
locked in front of the body. The results of these synchronous actions are a
parallel position of both the arms and legs and a trunk that is pressed slightly
forwards (figure 13).

To minimize landing loss, the legs should be kept approximately horizontal,

which means that the feet should be a little higher than the flight curve. From the
pointofv iewoff orwardr ot
ationitistheneas iert oac hieveanopt imal“divi
ngi nto
thes andangl e”byasl i
ghtopening of the hip angle. In any case, the lifting of the
already lowered legs or the closing of the hip joint, in order to achieve an
identical optimal landing angle against the forward rotation, is disproportionately
more difficult.

In the case of the hang st yle,thej umperf or msa“ bundl e”byact ivel
yflexi
ngat
the hip joint, actively swinging through (or forward circling) both arms and
bending the trunk forward. Here, the knee joints remain flexed. The position
achieved during the preparation of landing, therefore, is very similar to the flight
phase of the sail style (figure 14).

If one compares the resulting initial positions of both techniques, it becomes clear
that, in the case of the running-in-the-air style, only a slight opening of the hip
angle is necessary for a so-cal l
ed“ space-gai ning”landi ng,wher eas,int hecas e
of the hang style, a relatively wider opening of the hip angle and an extension at
the knee joints are needed.
Apart from this, the very different movement behavior of the arms determines
what“ landingposi ti
on”i st akenatl ast
.

1.10 Landing
Anal ogoust othe“ take-of fpos ture”t het ypeofl andi ng,i .
e.the“ landi ngpost ure”
resulting from the above, should also allow no conclusions regarding the flight
technique. Analysis of landing behavior reveals (among long jump specialists)
four categories of variations. These categories can be differentiated according to
the behavior of the arms. Roughly speaking, at the moment of breaking the sand
the arms are either parallel in front of the body (see figure 15.4), laterally beside
the body (see figure 15.1) or behind the trunk (see figure 15.2). As a fourth
variation,someat hlet
esper for mt he“ counter-arml andi ng”(seef igure15. 3).

When considering the advantages and disadvantages of each category,

difficulties are caused by the fact that the special literature (see Hoster/Dedier
1973; Ballreich/Kuhlow 1986; Krejor/Popov 1986; Teel 1981) disagrees as to
what i st he“best ”l
andingpost ure.

Accor dingt obi omechani csex per

ts,an“ economi callandi ng”( Bal i
reich1970)i s
characterized by an optimal compromise between the maximization of the
horizontal distance, which means the distance between the first contact of the
feet with the sand and the CG, and the minimization of the vertical distance —
which is the perpendicular distance between the CG and the sand surface at the
analogous moment.

Thi smeanst hatthef lightcurveshoul dbe“ util

ized”t othegr eates tpossi ble
degree because this automatically results in a deep sinking of the CG. According
to this, a landing with the arms held beside the trunk would be optimal. If the
arms are held that way, their partial CG’ s are maximally low (see figure 15.1).
The lateral position of the arms, however, means that — in comparison with the
“arms- behind-posi t
ion”— the horizontal distance to the point of breaking the
sand is smaller. If this argument is considered, the landing posture favored for
example by Carl Lewis, which is characterized by the arms being kept in front of
and above the body, must be classified as less economical. In the case of this
drawing (see figure 15.4), the horizontal distance between the CG and the point
of breaking the sand is relatively the shortest. Furthermore, the sinking depth of
the CG is principally reduced compared wi tht he“ lat
eral
-arml anding” .

Lastly, the counter-arm landing technique is a special case because, normally,

this technique introduces or indicates a lateral fall (towards the side of the arm
hel dinf ront).I
nt hiscase,i nc ompar isonwi tht he“ l
ater
al-arml andi ng”,t heCG is
also significantly further above, which again results in a reduced falling depth on
the descent of the flight curve.

From this follows a relative equality of the landing postures with the arms kept
beside or behind the trunk — unless one thinks that a lateral landing is principally
more effective. The fact that the landing posture with the arm kept behind the
trunkhasbeeni ntegr atedintot he“ anal ysissheet ”which is a kind of synopsis of
the details and criteria mentioned, has possibly been caused by a subjective
preference.

However, it should not be overlooked that arms that are swung far backward
have two advantages which have as yet not been mentioned: First, this
counteracts a forward rotation that would increase the loss on landing until the
last moment; second, an energetic, active and high amplitude forward swing of
the arms at the moment the feet contact the sand can prevent the jumper from
falling backwards (see figure 16 on the following page).

Thef ollowing“ Anal ysisSheet - LongJump”is an attempt at summing up the

technique models and the attributed phase characteristics together with the
individual points of observation and the corresponding criteria of evaluation for
both the running-in-the-air style and hang style. Since only a single page is
available for this, everything appears closely- packed, and some aspects could
not be included. In spite of this, the remaining number of details is so high that
the following procedures are recommended when using this analysis sheet:
 1. Full consideration within the cognitive learning phases in order to acquire
the“ stat
ic”,“setv alue” ,t
hephasest r
uc ture,thespecifict erminologyand
the evaluation criteria.

2. Fault-centered, i.e. selective, identification and evaluation of individual

items in technique training without the support of video or other monitoring
systems.

3. Complete, successive assessment of the given points of observation

during the video supported slow motion and single picture analysis. Here,
primarily the respective (phase-adequate) degree of approaching the
required optical values is checked.

In order to take into account the aspect of dynamics, within the flight phase of the
running-in-the-air style (indicated on the analysis sheet by R.A.) and hang style
(H.S.) the drawings subsequent to the positions being described have also been
presented (in black). However, in each case, the points of observation and
evaluation criteria refer to the white drawing. If the continuous tense is used (for
ex ampl e“ openi ng”)t hen the black drawing, showing the end result of the
proces s ,isincluded.I nor dert oav oidt he“left-right-pr
obl em”,thet erms“ l
eadi ng
orf r
ontl eg/ arm”and“ f
ol l
owi ngorr eararm/ l
eg”hav ebeenused.
REFERENCES

BALLREICH, R.: Weitsprung-Analyse. BerlinMuenchen-Frankfurt/M., 1970

BALLREICH, R./BRUGGEMANN, G.P.: Biomechanik des Weitsprungs. In: R.

BALLREICH/A. KUHLOW (Ed.): Biomechanik der Sportarten. Vol. 1:
Biomechanik der Leichtathletik. Stuttgart 1986, 28-47

BAUERSFELD, KH./SCHROETER, G. (Heads of the group of authors):

Grundlagen der Leichtathletik. Berlin 1979

BAUERSFELD, K.-H./SCHROETER, C. (Heads of the group of authors):

Grundlagen der Leichtathletik, 3rd ed.. Berlin 1986

BECKER, S.: Zur Praxis des Techniktrainings in den leichtathletischen

Wurfdisziplinen. In: MECHLING, H./SCHIFFER; J./CARL, K. (Ed.): Theorie und
Praxis des Techniktrainings. Koeln 1988, 71-76

FRIBERG, O./KVIST, M.: Factors Determining the Preference of Take-off Leg in

Jumping. In: Int. J. Sports Med. 9 (1988), 349-352

HAY, J.: Fundamental Mechanics of Jumping. In: GAMBETTA, V.: Track and
Field Coaching Manual. West Point (N.Y.) 1981,148-154

HAY, J.: The Horizontal Jumps: A Report on the USOC Elite Athletic Project. In:
Track Technique 1983, 2746-2747

HOLZAMER, J.: Weitsprung - Aspekte der Leistung. In: Die Lehre der
Leichtathletik (LdLa) (1980) 30-31, 891-894; 923-926; 971-974

HOSTER, M./DEDIE, C.: Zur Biomechanik des Weitsprungs. In: LdLa 37 (1970),
1457-1460

HOSTER, M./DEDIE, C.: Vorteile der Laufsprungtechnik (Hitch-kick). In: LdLa 9

(1972), 306-308

KLIMMER, H.: Wie springt man richtig ab? Fine Untersuchung. In: LdLa (1986),
28, 1311-1314 and 29, 1343-1346

KOLLATH, E.: Biomechanische Analyse weitenbestimmender und

gelenkbelastender Groessen beim Weitsprung. In: LdLa (1982), 30, 1275-1277

KREJOR, V.A./POPOV, W.B.: Die leichtathletischen Spruenge. IN: Fizkultura i

Sport. Moscow 1986 (Translated by P. TSCHIENE)

NIGG, B./NEUKOMM, P./WASER, J.: Messungen im Weitsprung an Weltkl ass

espringern. In: Leistungssport (1973), 4, 265-271

NIXDORF,. /
BRUGGEMANI ’,G.P.:Zur Absprungvorbereitung beim Weitsprung -
Eine biomechanische Unrersuchung zum Problem der
Koerperschwerpunktabsenkung. In: LdLa (1983), 37, 1539-1541
POPOV, V.: Der Weitsprunganlauf In: LdLa (1982), 38, 1573-1574

SCHMOLINSKY, G. (Head of the group of authors): Leichtathletik, 10th ed..

Berlin 1980

SCHWIRTZ, A. et. al.: ZurAnlaufgestaltung im Weitsprung der Frauen. In: LdLa

45/46 (1988), 1557-1560

TEEL, B.: The Long Jump. In: GAMBETTA, V.: Track and Field Coaching
Manual. West Point (N.Y.) 1981, 155-165

TER-OVANESIYAN, I.: Ueber den Weitsprung. In: LdLa 9 (1966), 255/257f.

TIDOW, G.: Modell zur Technikschulung und Bewegungsbeurteilung in der

Leichtathletik. In: Leistungssport (1981), 4, 264-277