2011 International Conference on Future Computer Science and Education
Analysis on Assessment Indices of Take-off Techniques in Long Jump
Ding Wei
College of Physical Education
Shandong University of Finance
Ji nan, China
dongw1234@yahoo.cn
Abstract—The main methods I used are documentation method,
shooting and kinetic Biomechanics analysis method. And in the
study I offer the take-off effect index in order to diagnose the
take-off leg effect by considering training practice and drafts
center of mass ascent angle index in takeoff support period,
and did research on the two new indices definition and
application. This papers provides reference for accurately
diagnosing our country’s long jump technique, perfecting
training plan and improving jumpers’ performances.
Keywords-long jump,take-off technique,the assessment
indices
I. CONTRODUCTION
Objectively analyzing and assessing long jump take-off
technique have great significance for directing jumpers to
improve their take-off technique and improving their
performances. Recently, we have assessed some kinematic
indices such as horizontal velocity conversion rate and flight
angle which often are used in take-off technique, but the
result is not ideal. And lots of experts and scholars also
dispute this issue[1]. This study tries to analyze kinematic
characteristics of jumpers’ in the take-off phase in order to
raise new kinematic indices on diagnosing take-off technique,
meanwhile to provide reference for more accurately
assessing take-off technique.
II. RESEARCH OBJECTS AND METHODS
A. Research objects
We chose the Top 8 excellent women jumpers who took
part in the National Track and Field Championship in Shi
Jiazhuang of He Bei province in August, 2007 as our study
objects.
B. Research methods
1) Documentation Method
I have obtained 200 articles related to the study by
making use of our institute network and library in order to
completely understand and grasp the current research
situation.
2) Shooting Method
I shot the women jumpers’ live performances in the Shi
Jiazhuang National Track and Field Championship in August,
978-0-7695-4533-2/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ICFCSE.2011.33
2007. I took fixed point and fixed focus shoot during the
whole competition. Besides, I shot the scale.
3) Biomechanical Analysis
I analyzed the films by SBCNS2 Software provided by
Shandong Sports science institute’s biomechanics laboratory .
III. RESULT AND ANALYSIS
A. The confirmation and applicationoft take-off efficiency
index
1) The objective basis for studying out take-off
efficiency index
During many-year sports practice, I frequently wondered
what the take-off leg really do at the time of take-off. By data
analysis I found out that the energy of the top jumpers before
take-off nearly equaled the energy of the top jumpers
immediately after take-off, and the energy of the jumpers
hardly varied before take-off. In the long jump the take-off
leg was found to only change the direction of the top
jumpers’ nearly constant approach speed[2]. On the whole the
take-off leg didn’t substantially do mechanical work.
However, the research also indicates that from the local point
of view, at the moment of take-off landing of the cushioning
phase the center of mass was behind the take-off board,
which produced obvious braking between take-off foot and
take-off board. Therefore, some energy was lost in
cushioning phase. In the stretch phase the take-off leg active
stretch offset the energy loss of cushioning phase.
So on the whole the energy value between before take-off
and after take-off was basically consistent. But from the local
point of view, the take-off leg really did some mechanical
work in the stretch phase.
Kinetic energy can be represented by the formula:
KE=1/2MV²,where “m” is the mass of jumper or object and
“v” is the velocity. The metric system, where “m” is in
kilograms and “v” is in meters per second. After a jump and
in the air, the jumper’s body has some potential energy. This
is measured in the form of gravitational potential energy,
PE=mgh where “m” is the mass, “g”is the acceleration due to
gravity at the Earth’s surface, and “h” is the height that the
center of mass is raised. In metric units ,“g”=9.8m/s².
So
.(D .(I3(RUPYDs PYIsPJK ˄˅
102
 Efficiency is defined as the resulting energy divide by the strength training , the knee joint’s extensibility training and
initial energy, i.e. stamping and swing harmony training.
¨ PYIPJKPYD˜ YIJK
YD˜ ˄˅
If (efficiency) is about 100%, then the jump is elastic
and if  is much less than 100%, the jump is inelastic.In the
above formula, energy conversion efficiency can be regarded
as nice performance of horizontal velocity conversion
efficiency at the time of take-off. And the take-off effect
largely depends on the situation of this energy conversion.
Therefore, it can be viewed as take-off efficiency indices of
diagnosing jumpers’ take-off technique.
2) The Application of Take-off Efficiency Index
Table 1 indicates that all of the Top 8 jumpers’ take-off
efficiency values didn’t reach 100%. By researching and
analyzing, we found that the jumpers rarely have and defect
as 96% while the jumpers of ˘96% showed all kinds of
technical matters and defects.
As shown in Table 1 that the last four jumpers’ take-off
efficiency value  ˘ 96%, which reflected their technical
defects of take-off. And the original data analysis has also
confirmed the point: Zhang Yuan’s take-off landing angle is
too small and in cushioning phase her energy expenditure is
excessive; Jin Yan’s stretch was not adequate in take-off
stretch phase, and the power wasn’t transferred effectively.
In addition, both of Huo Weiwei’s and Zhu Yanyan’s swing
legs didn’t actively work in the whole phase of take-off and
supporting and their swing amplitude was too small. These
factors resulted in inadequate energy compensating which
was obviously different from the energy expenditure of the
cushioning phase. Consequently I suggest that the four
jumpers should improve techniques or stress weak links
training according to their respective defects, such as
And we found in Table 1 that the Top 4 jumpers take-
off efficiency value 96%,which indicates that their take-
off techniques are perfect and their speed and strength were
exerted adequately. And the two qualities were balanced
appropriately.
Among the jumpers Wang Lina’s approach speed is
slower, so her approach speed utility rate didn’t reach 95%,
which confirmed her approach speed reserve to a certain
extent at the time of take-off and then ensured that the take-
off leg can adequately complete the action of take-off and
stretch. The situation indicates that the jumper easily take off
at a moderate approach speed and the value of take-off
efficiency is 96%, but his or her long jump performance is
ecumenical. Reason analysis:1.Intentionaly controlling
approach speed. 2.Speed quality is not ideal. My suggestion
is that the jumpers should strengthen approach consciousness,
cultivate favorable approach rhythm and stress the training of
speed quality in order to increase the ability of absolute
speed reserve.
And we can find that the Top 3 jumpers’ approach
speed are proper. Their approach speed utility respectively
reached 95% or exceeded 95%[3]. Although their absolute
speed reserves decreased, which is a challenge to fully
complete the stretch action for the take-off leg to a certain
extent, jumpers who have perfect stretch power quality can
benefit from this and can show satisfactory performances.
My suggestion is that the jumpers should stress training of
speed and strength quality coordination so as to establish
new balance between speed and strength to improve their
performances[4].

TABLE I. A FEW ANGLES DURING THE TAKE-OFF SUPPORT PERIOD [q] AND TAKE-OFF EFFECT INDEX

Angle The lifting angle The cushioning

The lifting angle The take-off The take-off
of cushioning angle of knee
of stretch phase flight angle effect index
Name phase joint
Gun yingnan 8.55 19.34 22.20 9.4 99ˁ
Chen yaling 6.41 15.01 21.47 13.0 97ˁ
Zhong mei 3.49 16.50 20.10 17.1 97ˁ
Wang lina 6.85 18.22 16.48 15.6 96ˁ
Huo weiwei 5.47 15.91 19.98 10.8 95ˁ
Zhang yuan 6.10 15.80 17.82 11.7 95ˁ
Jin yan 4.32 17.20 20.40 14.0 93ˁ
Zhu yanyan 5.26 16.22 19.35 16.1 94ˁ
5.81 16.78 19.73 13.46 96ˁ
gradients. The gradient is an important index for reflecting
B. The assessments about lifting angle of center of mass in
jumpers’ technique characteristics in the long jump[5].
the take-off phase
In this study the angle between the line from the center
Relative research shows that athlete’s center of mass is of mass location at the time of landing (Point A) to the center
rising continuously in the takeoff phase and its track is a of mass location at the end of cushioning and the horizontal
unidirectional rising curve. In the buffering phase and stretch line is called center of mass lifting angle in the cushioning
phase the upward curves of center of mass appear phase, i.e.  in Figure 1. And the angle between the line from
respectively different steepness and jumpers have different the center of mass location at the end of cushioning (Point B)
to the center of mass location at the time of jumping (Point C)

103
and the horizontal line is called center of mass lifting angle The lifting
of stretch phase, i.e.  in Figure 1 angle of
0.87 ** 0.88** -0.81** 0.69
cushioning
phase

It can be seen in Table 3 that in the cushioning phase the

lifting angle of center of mass is highly related to the vertical
velocity and vertical height when the cushioning ends
(r=0.87) and is negatively correlated with the stretch time(r=-
0.81). This illustrates that the rising angle of center of mass
can indicate the jumper’s takeoff leg buffer action capability.
The stronger the jumper’s buffer action capacity is , the
smaller the relevant knee joint cushioning extent is.
The strong buffer action makes the cushioning extent of
knee joint diminish and the loss of horizontal velocity reduce
Figure 1. The schematic diagram on lifting angle of center of mass while the horizontal velocity conversion capability has been
enhanced. Consequently it can be seen that the center of
1) The lifting angle of jumper’s center of mass in the mass vertical displacement increases, vertical velocity
cushioning phase increases at the end of cushioning and the lifting angle of
As shown in Table 1 that the jumper’s center of mass is center of mass enlarges, which give stretch a big advantage.
continuously rising in the cushioning phase, and the average 2) The lifting angle of center of mass in stretch phase
value of lifting angles of center of mass is 5.81° while the After going through cushioning phase, the jumper’s
angle of jumper’s knee joint is diminishing and the value is stretch makes the jumper’s takeoff leg extensor extend. And
minimal as the process of cushioning ends. And the average the extensor gets explosive and restrained contraction, which
value of diminishing extent is 13.46°. This point also can be is formed by energy conversion and reserve. Consequently
seen in Table 2. the lifting angle of center of mass in the phase of stretch can
assess jumper’s takeoff leg explosive and restrained
TABLE II. KNEE JOINT [q] capability and jumper’s stretch technique rationality.
In landing In cushioning In flight
instant end instant instant TABLE IV. CORRELATION
160.5 147.55 166.2 The take-off The take-off flight The stretch
knee joint S 3.75 4.69 2.38 flight angle vertical velocity time
Table 2 illustrates that in the cushioning phase jumper’s The lifting
angle of
center of mass is constantly rising as the takeoff leg is stretch
0.84 ** 0.79 ** -0.56 *
cushioning and the angle of knee joint is constantly phase
diminishing. This indicates that the process of cushioning is As shown in Table 4, in the phase of stretch the lifting
positive and active. In the process the takeoff leg is opposing angle of center of mass is remarkably negative correlation
to the great impulsive force caused by landing as it is with the time of stretch, and it is positively associated with
positively cushioning instead of knee joint simple bending the take-off flight vertical velocity(r=0.79)and the take-off
and shifting forward the center of mass. In the cushioning flight angle(r=0.84).This indicates that improving jumper’s
phase of “ opposing while concession” the takeoff leg stretch technique is beneficial to raising the lifting angle of
extensor muscle is stretched and the kinetic energy is center of mass in the phase of stretch and is advantageous to
converted into potential energy and stored. Meanwhile the raising jumping angle and increasing jumping vertical
center of mass is constantly rising. And with the end of velocity, which is playing an important role in improving
cushioning, the center of mass vertical velocity and vertical jumper’s performance.
height have reached some value, which opens the way 3) The relations between the center of mass lifting angle
positively to stretch. in the cushioning phase and in the stretch phase
Table 5 illuminates that the lifting angle of center of
TABLE III. CORRELATION
mass in the cushioning phase is remarkably positive
The center
The center correlation with the lifting angle of center of mass.
of mass The Meanwhile, they are remarkably related to the stretch time
of mass
vertical The lifting
vertical
movement stretch angle of and vertical velocity at the end of cushioning. This indicates
velocity in
cushioning
during time stretch that the center of mass lifting angle size in cushioning phase
cushioning phase can impact on the angle size of stretch phase. Furthermore,
end instant
period
the two angles sizes codetermine every factor of long jump
grade, thereby determining the long jump distance.

104
 Hence, jumper’s jumping technique rationality can be
reflected by the two lifting angles. It can be seen in Table 3
that Guan Yingnan and Wang Lina’s center of mass lifting
angle value obviously exceeded the mean respectively. This
shows that their technique features excel other jumpers’.
If the lifting angle of canter of mass is too small in the
cushioning phase while the lifting angle is too big in stretch
phase, this shows that jumper’s buffer capability is week.
Although the lifting angle of center of mass is fairly big in
stretch phase, perhaps bigger buffer extent still will reduce
horizontal velocity. It is not worthwhile doing it.

TABLE V. CORRELATION SUMMARY

The center of The center of All of the Top 8 jumpers’ take-off efficiency value didn’t
The stretch
mass vertical mass lifting reach 100%. However, the jumpers whose 96% nearly
velocity in angle of
time
cushioning end cushioning
don’t have any defects while the jumpers of ˘96% showed
instant phase all kinds of technical matters and defects.
The center of In the take-off phase, the center of mass lifting angles of
mass lifting angle cushioning phase and stretch phase are important indices of
-0.55 0.87 ˉ
of cushioning
phase reflecting jumpers’ take-off technique rationality.
The center of
mass lifting angle -0.56 0.71 0.69 REFERENCES
of stretch phase
[1] Q.Yang: Liaoning Engineering Journal, Vol.41(2002) No.4, pp. 66-67.
Analyzing the two lifting angles’ correlation, we find that (In Chinese)
if center of mass lifting angle in the cushioning phase is [2] Mackenzie’s: U.S.A Track Coach, Vol.178(2006), No.3, pp.5865-
smaller while the lifting angle of stretch phase is bigger 5868.
which indicates that jumper’s cushioning capability is better [3] G.X. Zhao:Track and Field, Vol.75(2002) No.10, pp. 12-15. (In
Chinese)
while the jumper’s stretch capability is feebler, thereby
[4] J.Y.Yu, Olympic Track and Coach ( People's sports press, China
affecting jumping performance, or indicate that too much 2001 ) (In Chinese)
velocity conversion in the cushioning phase will affect [5] Y.H. Wu: Chinese sports science and technology journal,
stretch performance. Vol.36(2000), No.9, pp.34-36. (In Chinese)
[6]

105