I believe having the board is important. If the idea is to jump across a stream or a chasm, and you take off a couple of feet too soon, it doesn't count as jumping ACROSS if you fall into the stream or chasm, does it?
Just because we CAN mark the jump off point, does not mean we SHOULD. Obviously this can be debated!
I might return to golf if you could get them to make the hole 2 feet across, instead of making me sink those pesky putts. I can drive my way to the green, but those 3 putts killed my score! I could be another Jack Nicklaus! I did aim for the stars, but too often landed in the sand traps. Can't we make those with grass instead of sand? I'd JUMP for joy, with or without the extra two feet the long jumpers are getting.
Once upon a time, man discovered it was beneficial to form into tribes. Then man discovered it was beneficial to select its leader by picking the smartest or wisest or strongest. Then a group of smartest/wisest/strongest/bravest was formed as advisers for the leader. Then man discovered the need for education, which promoted sports and competition as ways to develop society. The most successful cultures for thousands of years were the ones which promoted and honored these concepts. Then in the late 20th century a group of idiots decided to change all those fundamental concepts. And look where we are now and where society is heading....
But is the long jump rule change really a lower standard? Previously, you could jump a long way and not get credit for it because you took off behind the line. Yes, I'm sure there was a skill in managing to jump right at and not past the line; however, that skill is separate from and irrelevant to who can jump the farthest. Penalizing someone for jumping before the line is like penalizing them for not having appropriate clothing. It's a side issue, not the real skill involved.
I have never participated in the long jump as a member of a track and field team, so I cannot claim any particular expertise. But it does seem to me that the event requires two separate athletic skills, the length of the jump, and the ability to time the takeoff just right. Both are historically skill sets that a jumper must master to win.
This is admittedly an imperfect analogy, but there are events, such as the javelin, in which the contestant must also make sure that his feet do not cross a line. And, if a pole, vaulter or high jumper, clears the bar with several inches to spare, they are not credited with the additional height, even though we can probably measure it today.
Those are just my non-expert thoughts but I thank you for contributing to the conversation with your opinion.
I haven't done track and field events since I was a lot younger, and long jump wasn't my thing. I did some running and I also 'put' the 'shot'. Performance standards (there is also a line in the shotput event) on these events are purposeful; they impose discipline and judgment around brute force, transforming it into skill. It is actually the point that in the midst of running full tilt, or spinning around with a heavy ball under your chin, that you can judge where and when to jump or throw. It is not two separate pieces; it is exactly the integration that intensifies the challenge.
Just try it, in your back yard, and see the difference in what you can do.
My suggestion would be for the dumb-downers to re-name their idea as a "free-for-all" or "melee" jump, or some other "hey whatever" nomenclature, and leave the long jump unaltered for athletes who appreciate the challenge.
I did long jump in high school. One thing lost is that the cost of technology. The less technology used the more even things remain from beginners to Olympics. I still see cinder tracks at small schools around us. a few hundred dollars for new equipment per event add up.
For the long jump there is a lot of running, measuring and recalibrating approaches in order not to scratch. Also, even the most gifted physically can choke, that dynamic adds a lot to sports. The best athletes have an ability to calm the nerves and hit the top. Hitting a broad area removes that from jumping. Make sports easy for people to pick up and get into, but still hard for the top athletes but interesting to the fan.
I can see why people who are involved in the sport want to keep the board. However, casual fans just want to know how far the athlete can jump, not how precisely he can initiate the jump. Admittedly, it is subtracting one of the skills that goes into lump-jumping, but that subtracted skill is sort of beside the point of what the competition is measuring.
Making the hole in golf larger is not a good analogy. Accuracy in putting the golf ball, along with accuracy in hitting the ball from the tee or anywhere else on the course, is practically the whole point of golf.
A better analogy is having cameras and a computer call balls and strikes in baseball. Umpires WERE necessary in the past, but technically are no longer needed for this part of the game. Now, replacing umps with cameras would seem to eliminate the value of pitch-framing by a catcher -- but is that really an essential aspect of baseball?
Eloquent. But your comparisons strike me as dubious.
Is the point of long-jumping simply to see how far someone can jump? If so, why not measure just that and only that?
Or is the point of long-jumping to see how far someone can jump given certain not especially logical elderly constraints on how the length of jumps are to be measured? If so, stick to the status quo.
In other words, you pose a false dilemma. It’s not ONLY about ‘enforcing or eroding standards’. It’s arguably about improving them. As constantly happens in many other areas, not least measurement itself!
With regard to the long jump, the solution is easy. Make the run-up distance an equal part of the final evaluation, but as a counterweight, so that a jumper who jumps 10 yards with a 20-yard run up beats an athlete who jumps 10 yards with a 25-yard run up. If we have the technology to mark take-off points exactly this should be logically just as easy to do.
The "do-over" mentality is harder to address because it is, at bottom, based on an extremely insidious but appealing assumption: It is now assumed that a person's actual quality of performance generally has more to do with factors <i>outside</i> the individual's control than factors <i>within</i> it -- the "do-over" treats failure is a product not of poor performance but of unfair standards, and it is a universal part of human nature not to want to be held responsible for our failures. Moreover, it's a deceptively plausible assumption as well -- after all, is this not why different weight categories exist in many competitions, or why people object to gender-dysphoric men wanting to compete in women's sports? Because we recognize that no amount of training or personal commitment will overcome disparities of inherent advantage?
Before people will be willing to enforce difficult standards, they have to be convinced that there will be a benefit to them in doing so, even if they themselves don't or can't meet that standard. Distressingly, harsh lessons from reality (like Boeing's increasingly poor safety record) may be the only way to do this once the rot gets to a certain point.
I believe having the board is important. If the idea is to jump across a stream or a chasm, and you take off a couple of feet too soon, it doesn't count as jumping ACROSS if you fall into the stream or chasm, does it?
Just because we CAN mark the jump off point, does not mean we SHOULD. Obviously this can be debated!
Nice analogy, Les.
A very thought provoking article. Thank-you.
My pleasure, Michael.
I might return to golf if you could get them to make the hole 2 feet across, instead of making me sink those pesky putts. I can drive my way to the green, but those 3 putts killed my score! I could be another Jack Nicklaus! I did aim for the stars, but too often landed in the sand traps. Can't we make those with grass instead of sand? I'd JUMP for joy, with or without the extra two feet the long jumpers are getting.
Once upon a time, man discovered it was beneficial to form into tribes. Then man discovered it was beneficial to select its leader by picking the smartest or wisest or strongest. Then a group of smartest/wisest/strongest/bravest was formed as advisers for the leader. Then man discovered the need for education, which promoted sports and competition as ways to develop society. The most successful cultures for thousands of years were the ones which promoted and honored these concepts. Then in the late 20th century a group of idiots decided to change all those fundamental concepts. And look where we are now and where society is heading....
But is the long jump rule change really a lower standard? Previously, you could jump a long way and not get credit for it because you took off behind the line. Yes, I'm sure there was a skill in managing to jump right at and not past the line; however, that skill is separate from and irrelevant to who can jump the farthest. Penalizing someone for jumping before the line is like penalizing them for not having appropriate clothing. It's a side issue, not the real skill involved.
I have never participated in the long jump as a member of a track and field team, so I cannot claim any particular expertise. But it does seem to me that the event requires two separate athletic skills, the length of the jump, and the ability to time the takeoff just right. Both are historically skill sets that a jumper must master to win.
This is admittedly an imperfect analogy, but there are events, such as the javelin, in which the contestant must also make sure that his feet do not cross a line. And, if a pole, vaulter or high jumper, clears the bar with several inches to spare, they are not credited with the additional height, even though we can probably measure it today.
Those are just my non-expert thoughts but I thank you for contributing to the conversation with your opinion.
I haven't done track and field events since I was a lot younger, and long jump wasn't my thing. I did some running and I also 'put' the 'shot'. Performance standards (there is also a line in the shotput event) on these events are purposeful; they impose discipline and judgment around brute force, transforming it into skill. It is actually the point that in the midst of running full tilt, or spinning around with a heavy ball under your chin, that you can judge where and when to jump or throw. It is not two separate pieces; it is exactly the integration that intensifies the challenge.
Just try it, in your back yard, and see the difference in what you can do.
My suggestion would be for the dumb-downers to re-name their idea as a "free-for-all" or "melee" jump, or some other "hey whatever" nomenclature, and leave the long jump unaltered for athletes who appreciate the challenge.
Thanks for your contribution!
I did long jump in high school. One thing lost is that the cost of technology. The less technology used the more even things remain from beginners to Olympics. I still see cinder tracks at small schools around us. a few hundred dollars for new equipment per event add up.
For the long jump there is a lot of running, measuring and recalibrating approaches in order not to scratch. Also, even the most gifted physically can choke, that dynamic adds a lot to sports. The best athletes have an ability to calm the nerves and hit the top. Hitting a broad area removes that from jumping. Make sports easy for people to pick up and get into, but still hard for the top athletes but interesting to the fan.
I can see why people who are involved in the sport want to keep the board. However, casual fans just want to know how far the athlete can jump, not how precisely he can initiate the jump. Admittedly, it is subtracting one of the skills that goes into lump-jumping, but that subtracted skill is sort of beside the point of what the competition is measuring.
Making the hole in golf larger is not a good analogy. Accuracy in putting the golf ball, along with accuracy in hitting the ball from the tee or anywhere else on the course, is practically the whole point of golf.
A better analogy is having cameras and a computer call balls and strikes in baseball. Umpires WERE necessary in the past, but technically are no longer needed for this part of the game. Now, replacing umps with cameras would seem to eliminate the value of pitch-framing by a catcher -- but is that really an essential aspect of baseball?
Eloquent. But your comparisons strike me as dubious.
Is the point of long-jumping simply to see how far someone can jump? If so, why not measure just that and only that?
Or is the point of long-jumping to see how far someone can jump given certain not especially logical elderly constraints on how the length of jumps are to be measured? If so, stick to the status quo.
In other words, you pose a false dilemma. It’s not ONLY about ‘enforcing or eroding standards’. It’s arguably about improving them. As constantly happens in many other areas, not least measurement itself!
With regard to the long jump, the solution is easy. Make the run-up distance an equal part of the final evaluation, but as a counterweight, so that a jumper who jumps 10 yards with a 20-yard run up beats an athlete who jumps 10 yards with a 25-yard run up. If we have the technology to mark take-off points exactly this should be logically just as easy to do.
The "do-over" mentality is harder to address because it is, at bottom, based on an extremely insidious but appealing assumption: It is now assumed that a person's actual quality of performance generally has more to do with factors <i>outside</i> the individual's control than factors <i>within</i> it -- the "do-over" treats failure is a product not of poor performance but of unfair standards, and it is a universal part of human nature not to want to be held responsible for our failures. Moreover, it's a deceptively plausible assumption as well -- after all, is this not why different weight categories exist in many competitions, or why people object to gender-dysphoric men wanting to compete in women's sports? Because we recognize that no amount of training or personal commitment will overcome disparities of inherent advantage?
Before people will be willing to enforce difficult standards, they have to be convinced that there will be a benefit to them in doing so, even if they themselves don't or can't meet that standard. Distressingly, harsh lessons from reality (like Boeing's increasingly poor safety record) may be the only way to do this once the rot gets to a certain point.