INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT BIOMECHANICS, 1988,4, 114-129

Approach Strategies in the Long jump

James G. Hay

The purpose of this study was to determine whether elite long jumpers make
use of a visual control strategy during the final four strides of their approach.
Analysis of existing film records revealed that all subjects adopted a visual
control strategy at some point during their final strides. Data for the last four
strides were insufficient to pennit the actual point to be identified in most
cases. A second study was undertaken to determine the location of this point
and whether it is a function of the error accumulated during the preceding
phase of the approach. The performances of 19 subjects were recorded over
the last 8-10 strides of the approach. On average, the subjects adopted a visual
control strategy on the 5th-last stride. The point at which this strategy was
adopted was apparently unrelated to the error in the accuracy of striding up
to that point.

The purpose of the approach in the long jump is to bring the athlete to the
board (a) with the toe of the takeoff foot close to the front edge of the board,
(b) with as much horizontal velocity as can be controlled subsequently, and (c)
with the body in a position, and moving in such a manner, that a relatively large
vertical velocity can be generated and little horizontal velocity will be lost during
the takeoff.
Lee, Lishman, and Thomson (1982) examined the strategies athletes used
in trying to satisfy the first of these three requirements. Specifically, Lee et al.
sought to establish the extent to which the approach is stereotyped and at what
point in the approach, if at all, athletes begin to use vision to regulate their gait
"to zero-in on the board." To this end, they used a panning cinematographic
technique to record the performances of three female subjects (with personal
records in the long jump of 5.78, 6.03, and 6.54 m) over the entire length of
their respective approach runs. Each subject performed six jumps in the first of
two training sessions and either a further six jumps or six "run-throughs" (ap-
proach runs without a jump) in the second training session, about 1 week after
the first. The positions on the runway of the subjects' feet at the end of each

This paper was originally presented at the XIth International Congress of Bio-
mechanics in Amsterdam, June-July, 1987.
James G. Hay is with the Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, LA 52242.
 APPROACH IN THE LONG JUMP 115

stride, and thus also their stride lengths, were recorded and used in the subse-
quent analysis. Lee et al. concluded that their subjects maintained consistent stride
patterns until they were a few strides from the board, and that they then switched
from trying to produce a stereotyped stride pattern to regulating their strides in
terms of their visually perceived relationship to the board.
According to conventional wisdom on the subject, long jumpers should
strive to develop an approach run that consistently brings them to the ideal posi-
tion for takeoff without modifying their previously practiced striding pattern. The
use of visual control to guide the athlete onto the board is usually rejected or
decried (Popov, 1971;Teel, 1981), occasionally hinted at (Schrnolinsky, 1983),
and only rarely advocated (Lee, Lishman, & Thompson [sic], 1983; McNab,
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

1972). The study by Lee et al. (1982) is thus of some practical significance for
long jumpers and their coaches.
The study by Lee et al. (1982) had several important or potentially impor-
tant limitations. The very small number of subjects, the fact that they were all
of the same sex, and their relative homogeneity with regard to long-jumping ability
precluded the generalization of the results to other groups of long jumpers. This
situation was further aggravated by the design of the experiment, which resulted
in conclusions being based on trials by less than three subjects. For example,
.
Lee et al. concluded that "the less consistent the approach . . the more strides
were visually adjusted at the end" on the basis of trials by just one subject-the
only subject for whom the available data permitted such a comparison. Given
that the findings of Lee et al. (1982) appear to have important implications for
long jumpers (and for athletes who compete in other events or sports that require
an accurate approach), and given that the Lee et al. study had some serious limi-
tations, there is a clear need to replicate their study on an expanded scale.

First Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether elite female and male long
jumpers make use of a visual control strategy during the final four strides of their
approach to the board.
Procedure
Data Collection. In the course of the Elite Athlete Project (and its successor,
the Scientific Services Program) conducted by the United States Olympic Com-
mittee, film records of the performances of elite female and male long jumpers
were obtained at a series of major meets. The film records from four of these
meets were analyzed to obtain the data for the present study.
Fourteen female and 14 male long jumpers were selected as subjects for
analysis. The females included seven (Jackie Joyner, Carol Lewis, Gwen Loud,
Tudie McKnight, Kathy McMillan, Dorothy Scott, and Angie Thacker) who have
competed in world championships and/or Olympic competition in the long jump.
The males included the gold, silver, and bronze medalists at the 1983World Cham-
pionships (Carl Lewis, Jason Grimes, and Mike Conley), the 1972 and 1984 Olym-
pic champions in the long jump (Randy Williams and Lewis), and two others
who had competed in the long jump at the 1984 Olympic Games (Mike McRae
and Larry Myricks). Selection was based on the availability of film records of
at least three trials in a single meet that were suitable for analysis. In one case
 (Joyner), two otherwise suitable trials were e l i i a t e d from consideration be-
cause the subject's approach was so far in error that she had to take off into the
jump from the wrong foot.
At each meet, the performances of the subjects were recorded with a 16-mm
motion-picture camera filming at a nominal rate of 100 Hz. This camera was
placed with its optical axis perpendicular to the midline of the long jump runway
and at a distance of 17.0-20.0 m from that line. The optical axis of the camera
was 3.4-4.9 m behind the board, that is, on the side of the board farther from
the pit. Thus positioned, the camera was able to record the subjects' performances
over the last four strides of the approach and during the takeoff to the jump. Differ-
ences in the position of the camera, indicated by the ranges stated above, were
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

due to differences in the layout of the venues at which the meets were conducted
and to differences in the lenses available for use at each meet.
A series of markers was placed in carefully measured locations along the
near side of the runway or along the inside curb of the running track between
the runway and the camera. These markers served as a basis for determining an
appropriate linear scale.
Data Reduction and Analysis. Films of each of the selected trials were
digitized and the resulting coordinate data were used to determine the horizontal
distance from the toe of the support foot to the front edge of the takeoff board
(the toe-board distance), during the support phase of each of the last four strides
and the takeoff into the jump. The mean and standard deviation of each toe-
board distance were computed for each subject.
Results and Discussion
Toe-Board Distances. The means and standard deviations of the toe-board
distances for the female and male subjects are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respec-
tively. The standard deviation of the toe-board distance was used as a measure
of the variability among trials. In accord with the findings of Lee et al. (1982),
it was assumed that this variability increased as the programmed part of the ap-
proach progressed and as errors in the athlete's performance accumulated. It was
further assumed that any systematic reduction of the variability of the toe-board
distance signaled a change from a programmed (or stereotyped) strategy to a visual
control strategy, that is, one in which the athlete used his or her perceived rela-
tionship to the board as a guide to modifying the lengths of the remaining strides
in order to strike the board appropriately.
The maximum value of the standard deviation of the toe-board distance
recorded for each subject is marked with an asterisk in Tables 1 and 2. In those
cases in which the maximum standard deviation was recorded for more than one
support phase, the value for the earliest of these support phases has the asterisk.
The frequency with which the maximum standard deviation of the toe-board dis-
tance was recorded for each of the last four strides and for the takeoff into the
jump is shown in Figure 1 for (a) the female subjects, (b) the male subjects, and
(c) both female and male subjects. The maximum value of the standard deviation
was recorded for the 4th-last support phase prior to takeoff for 18 of 28 (or 64 %)
of the subjects.
These findings suggest that all of the elite female and male subjects in
 APPROACH IN THE LONG JUMP

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses)
for Toe-Board Distances for Female Subjects (m)

Athlete N 4L 3L 2L L J

Veronica Bell' 5 9.17 7.00

(0.1 5) (0.18)'
Becky Clayton2 4 7.91 5.97
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

(0.13)* (0.12)
Pat Johnson2 3 8.69 6.54
(0.59)' (0.55)
Jackie Joyner3 3 7.93 6.06
(0.20)* (0.15)
Carol Lewis' 6 8.58 6.46
(0.29)* (0.28)
Gwen Loud1 6 8.35 6.24
(0.10)* (0.09)
Tudie McKnight2 4 8.54 6.52
(0.07) (0.1 4)
Kathy McMillan3 6 8.93 6.92
(0.22)* (0.20)
Sheila Nicks2 3 8.04 6.14
(0.56)' (0.51)
Dorothy Scott2 3 9.22 7.03
(0.21)* (0.15)
Meledy Smith2 3 8.32 6.35
(0.12) (0.14)*
Angie Thacker2 5 8.98 6.79
(0.18) (0.20)'
Donna Thomas3 5 8.39 6.38
(0.1 1) (0.14)
Janet Yarborough3 5 8.34 6.36
(0.27)' (0.27)

lUCLA-Pepsi Invitational, 1982;

2TAC (U.S. National) Championships, 1983;
Y.S. Olympic Trials, 1984;
*Largest standard deviation in each case.

of the approach. They also suggest that, in a clear majority of cases, this visual
control strategy was adopted during or before the 4th-last stride of the approach.
Lee et al. (1982) stated in the abstract accompanying their paper that the
initial, accelerative phase of the approach (during which athletes attempt to pro-
duce a stereotyped stride pattern) ended "about 6 m from the board." Their paper
contains no other reference to the distance from the board at which this phase
ends. For the 28 subjects of the present study, the mean of the mean values as-
sociated with the maximum recorded values for the standard deviation of the toe-
 Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses)
for Toe-Board Distances for Male Subjects (m)

Athlete

Vesco Bradley2

Mike Conley4
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

Mark Freeman2

Jason Grimes4

Jake Howard4

Ray Humphrey

Gordon Laine4

Tim Leach3

Carl Lewis'

Mike McRae3

Larry Myricks3

Mike Powell3

Ed Tave'

Randy Williams3

'UCLA-Pepsi Invitational, 1982;

'TAC (US. National) Championships, 1983;
SU.S. Olympic Trials, 1984;
'TAC Championships, 1985;
'Largest standard deviation recorded in each case.

board distance was 7.40 m. (The corresponding values for the female and male
subjects were 7.48 m and 7.32 m, respectively.) However, because some of the
*
subjects probably adopted a visual control strategy one or more strides earlier
in their approach than the 4th-last stride, these mean distances are probably un-
derestimates of the true mean values. It thus appears that the point at which elite
female and male long jumpers adopt a visual control strategy is generally much
farther from the board than the 6 m, or approximately 2 112-3 strides, reported
by Lee et al.
 APPROACH IN THE LONG JUMP
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

Figure 1 - The frequency with which the maximum standard deviation of the toe-
board distance was recorded on each of the last four strides of the approach for (a)
the female subjects, (b) the male subjects, and (c) all of the subjects, in the first study
(4L, 3L . .. etc., refers to the 4th-last, 3rd-last ... etc., stride of the approach;
J refers to the takeoff into the jump).

Within the limits of the available data, there appears to be relatively little
difference between elite male and female athletes with respect to their adoption
of a visual control strategy (Figure 1). In both cases, a clear majority of the sub-
jects adopted a visual control strategy during or before the 4th-last stride of the
approach. All of the remaining female subjects and three of the five remaining
male subjects adopted a visual control strategy during either the 3rd-last or 2nd-
last stride. The last two male subjects adopted a visual control strategy during
the last stride of the approach. Given the number of subjects involved, little sig-
nificance can be attached to the observed differences in the point at which the
minority of the female and male subjects adopted a visual control strategy. These
differences seem more likely a function of the small sample size than of a real
difference between athletes of different sexes.
Summary
Given that a reduction in the variation in toe-board distances indicates that a visual
control strategy has been adopted, the results of this study support the conclusion
of Lee et al. (1982) that long jumpers adopt such a strategy during the final strides
of the approach. The results also indicate that this is true not only of female long
jumpers of above-average ability (like two of the three who served as subjects
in the Lee et al. study) but also of elite female and male long jumpers.
The results do not agree with those of Lee et al. with respect to the dis-
 tance from the board at which a visual control strategy is adopted. Unfortunately,
while the results clearly disagree with those of Lee et al., the available data for
the last four strides are insufficient to permit the actual point at which a visual
control strategy is adopted to be identified in the majority of cases. A second
study was undertaken with the express purpose of answering two important ques-
tions left unanswered by the data of the first study.

Second Study
The purposes of this study were (a) to determine at what point in the approach
elite long jumpers adopt a visual control strategy, and (b) whether the location
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

of this point is a function of the magnitude of the error accumulated during the
programmed phase of the approach.
Procedure
Data Collection. Twelve female and seven male long jumpers, who competed
in the finals of their respective long jump events at the 1986 TAC (U.S. National)
Championships in Eugene, Oregon, served as subjects in the study. Three of the
females (Jennifer Inniss, Carol Lewis, and Dorothy Scott) and three of the males
(Mike Conley, Carl Lewis, and Larry Myricks) had competed in world champi-
onship andlor Olympic competition in the long jump.
The performances of the subjects were recorded with two motion-picture
cameras filming at a nominal rate of 100 Hz. These cameras were placed at right
angles to the midline of the runway and at a distance of 18.3 m from that line.
The optical axis of the first camera was 14.3 m behind the board and was used
to record the subjects' performances from the 9th-10th-last stride to the 4th-last
stride of the approach. The optical axis of the second camera was placed 4.9 m
behind the board and was used to record the subjects' performances over the last
four strides of the approach and during the takeoff to the jump. A series of mar-
kers was placed in carefully measured locations along the inside curb of the run-
ning track between the runway and each camera. These markers served as a basis
for determining appropriate linear scales.
Data Reduction and Analysis. The data were reduced and analyzed in the
same manner as previously described with reference to the first study.

Results and Discussion

Reliability. The reliability with which the standard deviations of the toe-board
distances could be determined was estimated by digitizing the trials for four sub-
jects twice and comparing the resulting standard deviations. For each subject,
the difference between the first (test) and second (retest) determinations of the
standard deviation was computed for the toe-board distance for the 10th-last stride,
the 9th-last stride, and so on. These differences ranged from 0.00 to 0.03 m.
However, because the best available estimate of the true value of the standard
deviation for a given stride and subject is the mean of the test and retest values,
these differences are equivalent to errors of up to 0.015 m. The mean error for
all strides and subjects was 0.005 m. These results suggest that measurements
of the toe-board distances were sufficiently reliable that standard deviations of
these distances could generally be determined to 0.005 m.
 APPROACH IN THE LONG J U M P 121

Toe-Board Distances. The means and standard deviations of the toe-board

distances for the female and male subjects are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respec-
tively.
Adoption of Visual Control Strategy. The maximum value of the stan-
dard deviation of the toe-board distance recorded for each subject is marked with
an asterisk in Tables 3 and 4. In those cases in which the maximum standard
deviation was recorded for more than one support phase, the value for the earliest
of these support phases has the asterisk. The frequency with which the maximum
standard deviation of the toe-board distance was recorded for each of the last 8
to 10 strides and for the takeoff into the jump is shown in Figure 2 for (a) the
female subjects, @) the male subjects, and (c) both female and male subjects.
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

These results indicate that all of the elite female and male subjects in this
second study adopted a visual control strategy at some point in the final strides
of the approach. They also indicate that a clear majority of the subjects (14 of
19, or 74%) adopted this strategy on or before the 4th-last stride of the approach.
These findings are both consistent with those obtained in the first study.
The mean toe-board distance for the stride on which each subject recorded
the maximum standard deviation ranged from 2.08 m (Williams) to 19.11 m
(Jefferson). The overall mean of these distances, that is, the mean of the means,
was 10.71 m, almost double the 6-m distance reported by Lee et al. Even then,
because the maximum standard deviation recorded for one of the subjects (Jeffer-
son) was for the first stride recorded on the film-and because the maximum varia-
tion in this subject's striding might thus have occurred on an even earlier
stride-this 10.71 m figure may still be an underestimate of the true value.
An examination of the frequency distributions of Figure 2 suggests that
the stride on which female long jumpers adopt a visual control strategy may be
more widely and evenly distributed than is the case for their male counterparts.
The mean distance from the board at which a visual control strategy was adopted
for the females (9.7 m) was considerably less than that for the males (12.5 m),
but this seems likely to have much more to do with differences in stature and
speed than with differences in strategy. The mean number of strides before takeoff
at which a visual control strategy was adopted was 4.7 for the female subjects
and 5.1 for the males.
Magnitude ofAccumulated Error. Lee et al. (1982) noted that their sub-
jects "varied between sessions in the number of strides adjusted" and that "the
less consistent the approach run (i.e., the greater the buildup of the standard er-
ror of footfall position down the track), the more strides were visually adjusted
at the end" (p. 452). (Note: Although Lee et al. refer throughout their paper
to standard errors, an examination of their raw data-kindly made available by
Lee-indicates that the reported values were actually standard deviations.) In sup-
port of this conclusion, they cited the results obtained by subject FM for whom
a maximum standard deviation of 0.39 m was recorded for both the 9th-last and
7th-last strides on Day I, and a maximum standard deviation of 0.18 m was record-
ed for the 2nd-last stride on Day 11. Both of the other subjects performed six
jumps on Day I and six run-throughs on Day I1 and, because an approach run
with a jump is a distinctly different task from an approach run without a jump,
no similar comparison could be made of their data.
Seven of the subjects in the first of the present studies were also subjects
in the second study. The maximum standard deviation recorded for each of these
 Table 3-Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) for Toe-Board Distances A
N
N
for Female Subjects (m)
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

Athlete N 10L 9L 8L 7L 6L 5L 4L 3L 2L L J

Jodi Anderson 6 21.12 19.00 16.78 14.49 12.29 10.13 8.07 5.99 3.94 1.85 0.06
(0.23) (0.25) (0.26) (0.28) (0.30)' (0.27) (0.23) (0.18) (0.14) (0.08) (0.03)
Yvette Bates 3 20.21 18.19 16.22 14.14 12.13 10.12 8.24 6.20 4.23 2.09 0.06
(0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.08)' (0.08) (0.06) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.01) (0.03)
Veronica Be11 4 19.86 17.74 15.48 13.19 10.94 8.66 6.52 4.39 2.22 0.06
(0.25) (0.26) (0.30)* (0.29) (0.29) (0.26) (0.22) (0.19) (0.16) (0.04)
Dorothea Brown 5 19.17 17.27 15.37 13.41 11.41 9.48 7.59 5.72 3.82 2.00 0.11
(0.53) (0.54) (0.56) (0.56) (0.57)* (0.56) (0.54) (0.50) (0.45) (0.31) (0.15)
Wendy Brown 6 21.33 19.20 17.05 14.86 12.64 10.52 8.47 6.37 4.26 2.23 0.10
(0.18) (0.17) (0.21)* (0.19) (0.20) (0.18) (0.18) (0.16) (0.15) (0.08) (0.07)
Sheila Echols 5 20.68 18.70 16.63 14.42 12.32 10.02 7.98 5.88 4.01 1.95 0.06
(0.13) (0.15) (0.16) (0.16) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) (0.17) (0.18)* (0.14) (0.02)
Sonya Fridy 3 19.92 18.09 16.02 14.10 12.02 10.04 8.06 6.16 4.09 1.96 0.06
(0.22) (0.21) (0.20) (0.20) (0.21) (0.22)* (0.14) (0.09) (0.06) (0.09) (0.02)
Jennifer lnniss 4 20.43 18.33 16.13 13.92 11.72 9.65 7.64 5.65 3.80 1.96 0.05
(0.09) (0.07) (0.11) (0.12) (0.15) (0.16) (0.21)' (0.20) (0.14) (0.05) (0.03)
Carol Lewis 4 19.72 17.55 15.33 13.08 10.83 8.60 6.34 4.19 2.01 0.02
(0.43) (0.46) (0.45) (0.48) (0.48)* (0.48) (0.47) (0.33) (0.12) (0.01)
Dorothy Scott 3 21.09 19.03 16.73 14.47 12.09 9.79 7.31 4.89 2.25 0.12
(0.16) (0.16) (0.20) (0.20) (0.18) (0.20) (0.22) (0.23)* (0.08) (0.07)
Meledy Smith 3 19.89 17.99 16.10 14.07 12.15 10.11 8.19 6.22 4.33 2.02 0.16
(0.15) (0.17) (0.18) (0.19) (0.23) (0.23) (0.24) (0.30)* (0.30) (0.21) (0.08)
Sabrina Williams 5 21.42 19.30 17.19 14.95 12.81 10.50 8.54 6.36 4.34 2.08 0.07
(0.06) (0.08) (0.05) (0.06) (0.05) (0.06) (0.07) (0.09) (0.10) (0.12)* (0.06)
5
Largest standard deviation recorded in each case. The third decimal place has been used to distinguish between standard deviations that
are equal when expressed correct to two decimal places.
 U
>
n
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

Table 4 I
Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) for Toe-Board Distances
for Male Subjects (m)

Athlete N 9L 8L 7L 6L 5L 4L 3L 2L L J P
0

Mike Conley 4

Mike Davis 3

Tyrus Jefferson 4

Dannie Jackson 4

Carl Lewis 3

Larry Myricks 3

Craig Stewart 3 19.51

(0.21)

* Largest standard deviation recorded in each case. The third decimal place has been used to distinguish between standard deviations that
are equal when expressed correct to two decimal places.
 Stride

Y.1.
IN = 7 ) Ibl
h
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

Figure 2 - The frequency with which the maximum standard deviation of the toe-
board distance was recorded for each of the last 8 to 10 strides of the approach for
(a) the female subjects, (b)the male subjects, and (c) all of the subjects, in the second
study (lOL, 9L ... etc., refers to the 10th-last, 9th-last .. . etc., stride of the a p
proach; J refers to the takeoff into the jump).

subjects, and the stride for which it was recorded in the two meets involved, are
presented in Table 5. The name of each subject listed in this table is followed
by a symbol to indicate whether the results for that subject are (a) consistent with
the conclusion reached by Lee et al. (1982), that is, a large maximum standard
deviation was associated with an earlier stride in the approach than a smaller maxi-
mum standard deviation, (b) not consistent with the conclusion reached by Lee
et al., or (c) inconclusive.
The data presented in Table 5 provide little if any support for the conclusion
reached by Lee et al. These data were consistent with the conclusion of Lee et
al. in two cases, inconsistent with it in three cases, and inconclusive in the re-
maining two cases.
Further analyses were undertaken to determine whether there was a sig-
nificant relationship between the maximum standard deviation recorded for the
measured toe-board distances (the magnitude of the accumulated error) and the
stride for which that maximum was recorded. The Pearson product-moment cone-
lation coefficients obtained for the female subjects, the male subjects, and all of
e subjects of the second study were, respectively, -0.23, 0.58, and -0.06.
 APPROACH IN THE LONG JUMP

Table 5 .
Meet-to-Meet Comparison of Maximum Standard Deviations
of Toe-Board Distances and Strides for Which Recorded

First study Second study

Athlete Max SD (m) Stride Max SD (m) Stride

Females
Veronica Bella 0.18 3L 0.30 7L
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

Carol LewisC 0.29 >4L 0.48 5L

Dorothy Scottb 0.21 >4L 0.23 2L
Meledy Smithb 0.14 3L 0.30 3L
Males
Mike Conleya 0.14 L 0.26 5L
Carl ~ e w i s ~ 0.23 3L 0.20 4L
Larry MyricksC 0.15 >4L 0.21 5L

'Consistent with Lee et al. (1982) conclusion;

b ~consistent
~ t with Lee et al. (1982) conclusion;
clnconclusive.

None of these coefficients was significantly greater than 0.00 at even the 0.10
level of significance.
These several findings suggest that, whether comparisons are made of the
performances of one subject on two different occasions or of several subjects
on one occasion each, that is, whether a longitudinal or cross-sectional approach
is taken (Hay, 1985), there is little to suggest that the point at which a visual
control strategy is adopted is related to the magnitude of the error accumulated
up to that point. Given that the greater the accumulated error, the sooner the ath-
lete is likely to become aware of it and the sooner he or she is likely to begin
taking corrective action, this conclusion appears contrary to what might reason-
ably be expected. For this reason, and because the volume of data on which the
conclusion is based are still limited-for the longitudinal approach, a total of only
six cases in the Lee et al. and present studies combined-it may well be desirable
to reexamine this issue when further data become available.
Norms. Given the results of the present studies, and those of Lee et al.
(1982), it seems clear that a fast and accurate approach, that is, one in which
the toe of the takeoff foot is placed close to the front edge of the takeoff board,
with minimal loss in the athlete's horizontal velocity, requires the athlete to

1. Adjust the position of the start mark to account for the prevailing environ-
mental and competition conditions and to accommodate changes in physical
condition due to warm-up and/or fatigue;
2. Perform the programmed part of the approach with little accumulated error
in the position of each foot placement relative to the takeoff board;
3. Use visual control to adjust the lengths of the final strides of the approach
 so that whatever error has accumulated in the preceding strides is eliminat-
ed, with no resulting loss in horizontal velocity.

The maximum standard deviation of the toe-board distance recorded over

several trials for a given athlete can be considered a measure of that athlete's
ability to complete the first two of these three tasks. If the maximum standard
deviation is relatively small, the athlete is above average at performing one or
both of these tasks; if it is relatively large, he or she is below average in this
respect.
Although data on just 25 subjects (6 from the first study who were not
subjects in the second and who recorded their maximum standard deviations be-
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

tween the 3rd-last stride and the board, and 19 from the second study) are in-
sufficient for the purpose of establishing population norms, they can nonetheless
be used to obtain initial indications of the population distribution. Using these
data, the deciles (or every 10th percentile) for the maximum standard deviation
of the toe-board distance are as follows: 0.08 m = 100%; 0.14 m = 90%; 0.18
m = 80%; 0.21 m = 70%; 0.21 m = 60%; 0.22 m = 50%; 0.23 m = 40%;
0.25 m = 30%; 0.35 m = 20%; 0.46 m = 10%.
These data suggest that for elite long jumpers, a maximum standard devia-
tion of 0.20 m or less is very good and one of 0.25 m or more is poor. (Note:
The difference of 0.05 m involved here is 10 times greater than the mean measure-
ment error-see previous discussion of reliability. In addition, correlation of the
maximum standard deviation with the range of the toe-board distances for the
corresponding support phase, r=0.96, p < .001, revealed that a difference in
the maximum standard deviation of 0.05 m was equivalent to a difference of 0.13
m in the range of the corresponding toe-board distances.)
Coach's Checkmark. Authorities on the jumping events in athletics have
long recommended the use of marks, placed along the side of the runway, to
help the athlete control the accuracy of his or her approach poherty, 1963; Han-
sen, 1947; Orton, ca. 1905; Schmolinsky, 1983; Tisdall& Sherie, ca. 1934; Web-
ster, 1925). In recent years, the use of a so-called coach's checkmark has also
been advocated (Doolittle, 1982; Henson, 1986; Teel, 1981; Tellez, 1980). This
is a checkmark placed some distance before the board so that the coach can judge
the accuracy of the approach without the confounding influence of adjustments
that the athlete might make in the final strides to the board.
Although it is generally recommended that this coach's checkmark be placed
four strides before the board (Doolittle, 1982; Henson, 1986; Teel, 1981; Tellez,
1980), the results of the present study suggest that it might be better placed one
to two strides still farther from the board. (The combined results for the female
and male subjects of the present study-see Figure 2-indicate that the maximum
standard deviation of the toe-board distance was recorded on or before the 5th-
last and on or before the 6th-last stride in 63 and 37% of the cases, respectively.)
Correction Strategies. Once an athlete detects that errors have been made
in the approach, there are various ways he or she might adjust the lengths of
the remaining steps to correct for these errors. The corrective adjustment that
each subject made during each of the final strides, expressed as a percentage of
the total adjustment made, was computed using,
Adjustment (%) = ( Si - Si-l) 100 %
(S,, - SJ)
 APPROACH IN THE LONG JUMP 127

where S is the standard deviation of the toe-board distance, i is the ith-last stride,
and J is the takeoff into the jump. The results obtained in this manner are presented
in Table 6.
In 8 of 19 cases the maximum adjustment was made during the last stride,
that is, from takeoff into the last stride to touchdown in preparation for takeoff
into the jump. In a further 9 cases, the maximum adjustment was made during
the 2nd-last stride. The mean adjustments for these two strides were 32.3 % (last)
and 35.3 % (2nd-last). Thus, on average, more than 67% of the total adjustment
was made during the last two strides of the approach. In contrast, 9 of the 19
subjects made adjustments of less than 10% during the first stride after the one
for which the maximum standard deviation of the toe-board distance was recorded.
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

These results are contrary to what might have been expected. With most
of the subjects adopting a visual control strategy at least five strides from the
board (Figure 2c), it seems odd that so many of them did not make the major
adjustments in the lengths of their strides until what would appear to be the most
inopportune time-the time when they were adjusting their body position in prepa-
ration for takeoff.
There are at least two possible explanations for this unexpected finding.
It may be that making major adjustments in stride length soon after errors have

Table 6
Percentages of Total Corrective Adjustment Made on Each Stride

Stride
Athlete 8L-7L 7L-6L 6L-5L 5L-4L 4L-3L 3L-2L 2L-L LJ

Jodi Anderson
Yvette Bates
Veronica Bell
Dorothea Brown
Wendy Brown
Sheila Echols
Sonya Fridy
Jennifer lnniss
Carol Lewis
Dorothy Scott
Meledy Smith
Sabrina Williams
Mike Conley
Mike Davis
Tyrus Jefferson
Dannie Jackson
Carl Lewis
Larry Myricks
Craig Stewart

*Maximum value for each subject. Negative values indicate that the standard deviation of
the toe-board distance increased during the stride concerned.
 been detected has a more serious detrimental effect on an athlete's horizontal ve-
locity than does making these same adjustments a few strides later. If this is the
case, the central importance of horizontal velocity to success in the long jump
(Hay, 1986; Hay, Miller, & Canterna, 1986) might well dictate that maintaining
or increasing horizontal velocity take precedence over losses due to inappropri-
ate preparations for takeoff. It might also be that the subjects of this study were
simply not very skilled at taking appropriate corrective action on the basis of visual
information and tended to leave it later than they should have. Such an explana-
tion would be easy to understand, given that the concept of using visual control
to correct striding errors in the long jump is relatively new and probably few
if any of the subjects of this study train specifically to improve their abilities in
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

this regard.
Summary
1. All of the subjects adopted a visual control strategy during the final strides
of the approach. This finding effectively extends the previous finding of
Lee et al. (1982) to include elite athletes of both sexes. (The conclusions
reached by Lee et al. were based on an analysis of the performances of
three female subjects, of whom only one would normally be considered
an elite long jumper.)
2. On average, both female and male subjects adopted a visual control strategy
on the 5th-last stride of the approach. The average distance from the toe
of the support foot to the front edge of the board with five strides remain-
ing was 9.7 m (females) and 12.5 m (males)-considerably more than the
6 m reported by Lee et al. (1982).
3. There was little to suggest that the point at which athletes adopt a visual
control strategy is related to the magnitude of the error in the accuracy of
their striding up to that point.
4. The data suggest that a maximum standard deviation for the toe-board
distance of 0.20 m or less is very good, and one of 0.25 m or more is poor.
5. A coach's checkmark might be better placed five to six strides from the
board rather than the four strides generally recommended.
6. Surprisingly, more than 67% of the total adjustment to correct for prior
errors in striding was made during the last two strides of the approach.

References
Doherty, J.K. (1963). Modem Track and Field. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Doolittle, D. (1982). The long jump-Demonstrated by Carl Lewis. Track and Field
Quarterly Review, 82, 10-11.
Hansen, J. (1947). Athletics. London: Methuen & Co.
Hay, J.G. (1985). Issues in sport biomechanics. In S.M. Perren & E. Schneider (Eds.),
Biomechanics: Cuwent interdisciplinaly research @p. 49-60). Dordrecht, Nether-
lands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Hay, J.G. (1986). The biomechanics of the long jump. In K.B. Pandolf (Ed.), Exercise
and sport sciences reviews (Vol. 14, pp. 401-446). New York: Macrnillan.
e techniques of elite male
 APPROACH IN THE LONG JUMP 129

Henson, P.L. (1986). Long jump technique and training. Track & FieEd Quarterly Review,
86(4), 24-25.
Lee, D.N., Lishman, J.R., & Thornson, J.A. (1982). Regulation of gait in long jumping.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Peifonnance, 8,
448-459.
Lee, D.N., Lishman, P., & Thompson [sic], J. (1983). Visual guidance in the long jump.
Track and Field Quarterly Review, 83, 13-14.
McNab, T. (1972). The long jump approach run-Problems of accuracy. The Athletics
Coach, 6(2), 12-13.
Orton, G.W. (n.d., ca. 1905). Athletic training for school boys. London: The British
Sports Publ. Co.
Downloaded by Northern Illinois University on 09/18/16, Volume 4, Article Number 2

Popov, V.B. (1971). Long jump (in Russian). Moscow: Physical Culture and Sport.
Schmolinsky, G. (1983). Track and jield. Berlin: Sportverlag.
Teel, B. (1981). The long jump. In V. Gambetta (Ed.), Track andfield coaching manual
(pp. 155-165). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.
Tellez, T. (1980). Long jump. Track and Field Quarterly Review, 80, 8-10.
Tisdall, R.M.N., & Sherie, F. (n.d., ca. 1934). The Young Athlete. London: Blackie
& Son.
Webster, F.A.M. (1925). Athletics. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Ron Canterna, Jon Feuerbach,
Walter Herzog, John Miller, Hiroshi Nohara, Nikki Robinson, Debborah Smith, and Todd
Wigginton, who assisted with data collection, digitizing of the films, and development
of the computer program used in the study; and to the United States Olympic Committee
for financial support.