THE TAKE-OFF IN THE LONG AND

TRIPLE JUMPS
By Warren Young and Wayne Marino

Warren Young, working on his Master thesis and Dr. Wayne Marino, associate
professor in biomechanics at the University of Windsor, Canada, discuss different
approaches to the takeoff with conclusions that can be applied in practical
coaching. Re-printed with permission from Modern Athlete and Coach.

The objective of the long jump takeoff is to produce the necessary forces to
project the body the greatest possible horizontal distance in flight. The objective
of the triple jump takeoffs is the same but is complicated by the requirement of
performing two takeoffs immediately following the landing from the hop and the
step. In both jumping events, the actions of the jumper during the takeoff can
greatly influence the distance that the centre of gravity (C. of G.) travels in flight.
This distance can be calculated from the following equation:

where:

 HV = horizontal velocity at the instant of the takeoff

 VV = vertical velocity at the instant of the takeoff
 g = 9.81 m/sec2 (acceleration of gravity)
 h = vertical distance between the C. of G. at the instant of the takeoff and
the instant of Ianding.

For a given individual, the value of h would be relatively constant since it is

largely a function of the landing technique. Therefore, the distance that the long
jumper achieves from one jump to the next is largely determined by two variables
— HV and VV at the instant of the takeoff. The magnitude of these two variables
determines the magnitude of the resultant velocity of the C. of G. at takeoff, and
the angle at which it is projected (angle of takeoff).

The final distance achieved in the triple jump is also determined primarily by the
HV and VV at the takeoff for the hop, the step and the jump.
Examination of equation 1 reveals that flight distance will be increased if either
HV or VV at takeoff is increased. So how can the jumper influence these velocities
at the takeoff? There are two extreme approaches to the takeoff.

APPROACHES TO THE TAKEOFF

1. Speed approach — the jumper attempts to hit the board with maximum
speed, producing minor changes in stride length of the final few strides,
and a relatively short takeoff time.

2. Height approach — t hejumper ’

sr un-up speed is reduced just prior to the
takeoff, the stride length of the final few strides changes significantly, and
thelas tst r
idei slengthened( “
reachi ng’fort heboar d),in an attempt to
gain maximum height. As a result, this approach produces a relatively long
takeoff time.

In the speed approach the jumper emphasizes HV at takeoff, whereas in the

height approach VV is emphasized at the takeoff. Some jumpers may emphasize
neither HV or VV at the takeoff, but consider both to be equally important. The
question that arises for the coach is: which emphasis or approach to takeoff (if
any) produces the best performance?

A long or triple jump takeoff always results in some loss of HV. In addition, it
appears that if a jumper attempts to increase his VV at the takeoff (and height of
the jump) from one jump to the next, a greater loss of HV will result. Conversely, if
an attempt is made to minimize the losses of HV from the takeoff (i.e. effectively
increase HV at the takeoff), a smaller VV at the takeoff is produced (10). In order
to determine which takeoff approach produces the best results, this tradeoff
between the takeoff velocities, and which velocity can be manipulated easiest by
the jumper, must be considered.

One way of approaching this problem is to manipulate the two velocities and
observe the influence on the distance jumped, as determined by equation 1.
Using realistic data as a guide, we compared different conditions to a 7.21m
jump. We found that a 10% increase in HV accompanied by a 10% decrease in
VV at takeoff from the standard condition, produced a 3% increase in
performance. On the other hand, increasing VV by 10% produced a 5% decrease
in performance when accompanied by a 10% reduction in HV at takeoff. This
indicates that for a given percentage change, HV at the takeoff is the more
influential variable. In addition, if HV at the takeoff is decreased by 10%, VV at the
takeoff must be increased by 18% just to maintain the distance. These findings
would also apply to the triple jump takeoffs.

So, if a jumper reaches for the board and increases the losses of HV, a
proportionally much greater increase in VV at the takeoff must be achieved to
jump further. This may not be possible, since it has been found that individual
jumpers cannot vary their takeoff forces by more than 3% under a variety of
conditions (12). Since VV at the takeoff is determined by the vertical impulse
produced by the takeoff (impulse = force x time), the jumper would have to
increase the time of the takeoff significantly if reaching is to be effective.
Furthermore, this increased time would have to occur during the thrusting phase
of the takeoff when VV is being developed, not during the amortization phase.
Whether this can actually happen is presently unknown.

Research has shown that there is a positive correlation between the run-up
speed and the performance in the long jump (2, 7, 12) and in the triple jump (3).
Also, better jumpers produce shorter takeoff times (1, 2, 6, 7) and low angles of
takeoff (6, 7, 9). This suggests that good jumpers can be distinguished from
ordinary athletes by horizontal speed factors rather than VV at the takeoff.
Therefore, the current evidence suggests that the speed approach to the takeoff
is preferable to an emphasis on height. Our experience with the jumpers at the
University of Windsor tends to support this conclusion. In the triple jump, total
losses of HV from the three takeoffs have been reported to be about 30% (4).
Therefore, any technique that minimizes the losses of HV from the takeoffs
should have a large influence on overall performance. One such technique used
involves hip extension so that the heel of the landing foot is placed closer to the
C. of G. of the jumper at landing, rather than well in front of it. The faster the foot
movement backwards relative to the C. of G. at the instant of landing, the less
will be the braking force and the loss of HV at the impact. Coaches have
suggest edt hatthist ypeof“ac ti
v elanding”canbemostef f
ect iveifthel andi ng
leg is first extended maximally, allowing a quick backwards movement before the
impact (13).

FREE LIMB MOVEMENTS

The jumper can produce forces at the takeoff other than those produced by the
takeoff leg. Just as the arm swing in the vertical jump can contribute to the
vertical impulse by about 10% (8), the free limbs can also contribute to the
performance in the horizontal jumps. Since force is equal to the product of mass
and acceleration (F = m x a), the greater the acceleration of the swinging limb,
the greater the resulting force will be. When the knee is driven forwards and
upwards during the takeoff, it produces a ground reaction force that tends to
increase the momentum (mass x velocity) of the jumper. However, if these forces
are to be most effective, the maximum acceleration of the limb should occur at
the point where it is moving in the desired direction. For example, if the maximum
acceleration of the leg occurs too early, there will be little force produced
vertically. When the leg decelerates towards the end of the swing, the ground
reaction forces decrease. It appears that this deceleration will effectively lighten
the load on the takeoff leg, and therefore should occur while the leg is extending
(11). The same principles apply when considering the effect of the double arm
swing, sometimes used in the triple jumping.
The free limbs also produce forces due to a transfer of momentum. The law of
conservation of momentum states that in a system of moving bodies, the total
momentum in any direction remains constant, unless some external force acts on
the system (5). This means that, as a swinging limb decelerates at the end of its
motion and loses momentum, a parallel increase in momentum of the rest of the
body must occur to conserve the total momentum. The greater the deceleration,
the greater the transfer of momentum. Again, the timing of the maximum
deceleration is important so that momentum is transferred in the desired
direction. An analysis of Bob Beamon’ swor ldrecor dl ongjump( 9)revealed not
only that the maximum accelerations and decelerations of the free limbs were
greater than those of lesser skilled performers, but also that the timing of the
movements produced forces in the desired direction. This emphasizes the
importance of the timing of the free limb actions.

CONCLUSIONS AND COACHING IMPLICATIONS

Since the HV at takeoff has a large influence on the final distance jumped, long
and triple jumpers should make every effort to minimize losses of HV produced by
the takeoff. A quick takeoff may produce a low angle of takeoff because the
jumper has less time to generate a vertical impulse, but this should produce
better results than reaching for the board. Triple jumpers have the potential to
improve performance substantially by using active landings to conserve
horizontal speed. Using the speed approach to the takeoff, the jumper should at-
tempt to improve VV at the takeoff through conditioning methods.

On the other hand, a jumper using the height approach may attempt to account
for the deficiency in HV by emphasizing sprint training. Although improvement of
sprinting speed should be a primary concern for all jumpers, there is less
potential for improvement in this area due to genetic limitations such as
anatomical structure and muscle fiber composition. Therefore, we recommend
that jumpers emphasize horizontal speed with quick takeoffs and aim to increase
VV at the takeoff through strength and power training. This approach requires that
jumpers have the ability to exert large vertical forces in a short time.

Another requirement, especially of triple jumpers, is the ability to absorb large

forces at the impact with the ground, so that a quick takeoff can be
accomplished. The only training method that can simulate these requirements of
the takeoff is plyometrics. We have found a variety of depth jumps, box drills,
multiple hopping and stepping to be particularly useful. Whether the training drill
produces light or relatively heavy loads on the leg extensors, jumpers should
always emphasize quick takeoffs with minimal flexion at the joints.
It would seem impossible to teach athletes the optimum timing for effective free
limb actions during the takeoff. However, jumpers might benefit from an
emphasis on a good running technique with a large range of motion of the arms
and legs. This would allow a longer distance over which to accelerate the limbs,
so that peak velocities and accelerations would be high. It would also allow the
maximum acceleration of the leg and arms (in double arm swing) to occur early
enough, so that deceleration can occur at the appropriate time.

Since the takeoff time for the hop can be as short as 0.12 seconds (3), a double
arm action should not be used in order to avoid a prolonged takeoff. It is not used
in the long jump where greater distance and VV at the takeoff is required and the
takeoff time is longer, so it should not be necessary for the hop where sub-
maximal vertical forces are required. Whether the double arm action should be
usedf orthest epandj umpwoul ddependont heindi vi
dualat hl
ete’
sabi li
tyto
complete it effectively in a short time.

Since this action is potentially useful, triple jumpers may benefit from training
designed to increase the speed at which it can be performed. In any case, the
double arm swing should be executed with some flexion at the elbows to
minimize resistance to the speed of movement.

If the arm swing was performed with straight arms, the moment of inertia of the
arms would be relatively large, inhibiting a fast rotation around the shoulder
joints. To increase the chances of completing the double arm swing quickly, the
arms should be well back before the landing and should have started their for-
ward and upward motion at the impact. Hopefully, this discussion of the
biomechanics of takeoffs will give coaches direction in the setting of training
schedules.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.Bosco,G.
,P.Luht
anen,andP.V.Komi .“ Ki
neticsandKi nemat
icsoft
heTak
e-
of
fintheLongJump.“Biomechanics V-B, 1976: 174-180.

2. Fl
ynn,J. E.“ Ci nematographicStudyoftheKinemat icandTempor alAnaly si
sof
the Take-off in the Running LongJump.”Track and Field Quarterly Review, Vol.
73, No. 4, 1973: 222-229.

3. Fukashiro, S., Y. limoto, H. Kobayashi

,andM.Mi y ashita.“ABi omechamical
Study of the Triple Jump. ”Med. Sci. Sports Ex., Vol. 13, No. 4, 1981:
233-237.

4. Fukas hi
ro,S.
,andM.Mi y ashi t
a.“
AnEst i
mat ionoft heVel ociti
esofThr ee
Take-off Phases in 18-M Triple Jump.”Med. Sci Sports Ex., Vol. 15, No. 4, 1983:
309-312.

5.Hay ,J.G.“TheBi
omechani
csofSpor
tsTec
hni
ques.
”Pr
ent
ice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, 1978.
6.Luht anen,P.,andP. V.Komi .“Mechanic
alPowerandSegment alCont r
ibuti
on
to Force Impulses in Long Jump Take-of
f.
”Eur. J. Appl. Physiol., 41, 1979: 267-
274.

7. Nigg, B., P. Neukomm, and J.Waser .“ Messungeni m Wei

tspr
ung an
Weltklass espr inger
n.”Leistungssport, 3, 1973: 265-271.

8. Payne, A.H., O.J.Sl at er,andT.Telford.“

TheUseofaFor cePlatformi nt he
Study of Athletic Activities. A Pr
eli
minaryInv
est
igat
ion.
”Ergonomics, Vol. II, No.
2, 1968: 123-143.

9.Pl agenhoef ,S.“ABiomechanical Analysis of Beamon, Williams, and an

Average College Long Jumper.
”Track and Field Quarterly Review, Vol. 73, No.
4, 1973: 214-221.

10.Ramey ,M.R.‘
UseofFor
cePl
atesf
orLong-JumpSt
udi
es.
”Biomechanics 11,
1973: 370-380.

K.
11. Shibukawa, M. ,S.Tadda,andY.Hashi har a.“ABiomechani calAnalysisof
the Segmental Contribution to the Take-off of the One-Leg Running Jump for
Height.”Biomechanics VIII — B, Vol. 4B, 1983: 737-745.

12.Siluyanov ,V.,andR.Max imov .“SpeedandSt rengt

hint
heLongJump.
”
Soviet Sports Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1978: 71-73.

13.Simony i,G.“VitoldKreyer’
sTrai
ningofSov
ietTr
ipl
eJumper
s.”Track
Technique, 1980-1: 2505-2507.