Talk:Fosbury flop

Sensationalist language

"At this point in history, almost all jumpers use the Fosbury Flop. Dick Fosbury revolutionized high jump as anyone knows it and made one of the largest impact in this sport ever."

This sounds like amateur writing.. no sources are cited for the proclamation that "almost all jumpers use it", and the reference to having made "the biggest impact in this sport ever" is not put into perspective. Needs a clean-up by someone who actually knows about high-jumping (not me) :) EuroSong 15:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Although the quality of the writing could certainly be improved, the truth of the statements put forth are essentially indisputable. Even a peripheral sports fan (like myself) knows about this, and it can easily be corroborated.Semblace 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the statements are untrue. I'm saying that the writing needs to be more moderate, more factual, and if possible to cite sources. OR... something like "Before year XXXX, the average height of professional jumers' jumps was 2.5 metres - but after Fosbury invented his manœuvre, this was increased overnight to 2.8 metres by people who utilised the new move. This brought about a revolution in the sport, and since that time, every jumper has jumped using this method, since it was evidently superior to the old method".

Or something like that. As I said though, I know practically nothing about high-jumping, so it should be written by someone who actually knows these details. But I can still see that the language as it currently stands sounds sensationalist and without facts. Not that I am disputing the facts, see? EuroSong ^talk 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion could also use physics to explain why the technique is more efficient. It allows the jumper to clear the bar while the jumper's center of gravity does not. I expect that this technique allows the jumper the greatest flexibility in manipulatingthe location of the center of gravity. The first jump technique I learned in grade school was the scissors jump. Using that technique it clearly forces a jumper to accelerate their center of gravity well over the bar such that the body can clear it. The western roll technique was better but not as efficient as the flop. --Rocketsci55 13:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

@"the truth of the statements put forth are essentially indisputable": I know, or at least I know everyone says it is, but that's not what matters. What matters is if good solid references can be found to back it up. Just thought I'd point that out. Shinobu (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with an article like this is that it is always going to be about bar clearance technique, which is actually only a part of the story. Dick Fosbury's technique started from the first steps of his run up and not from his centre of gravity passing under the bar. Where he differed from the previous straddle technique was that he used a sprint approach, the jump itself being almost an exaggerated running stride. The critical phase of the high jump is the take off. The straddle take off has been demonstrated to be more efficient (Dapena), while the "Flop" clearance has generally greater efficiencies than the dive straddle, which was the ultimate refinement of that technique. To this end, a considerable amount of this article needs to be re-written simply because the focus is wrong. Come to think of it, just about everything in it is wrong. Flanker235 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Factual error

I'm not sure the truth of these statements is 'essentially indisputable'. Fosbury did not invent the style of jump although he popularised it. This from the official Olympic Website backs up my contention...."unbeknownst to Fosbury, the first person to use the flop technique was actually a jumper from Montana named Bruce Quande, who was photographed flopping over a bar in 1963". Please note, I'm not saying he deliberately made false claims, merely that he wasn't actually the originator.

Factual error? Not really!!

Can anyone find any proof at all, such as an actual copy of the photo showing Bruce Quande going backwards over the bar in 1963? My guess, Quande may simply be an urban myth, and the jump and photo may never have occurred. Without that evidence, it's clear that Fosbury alone should be the acknowledged originator of the technique that bears his name.

What about this? (First google image search for "Bruce Quande high jump") Jeff (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does not currently claim Fosbury was the first. Indisputable is he was the first one to win an Olympic Gold medal with the technique and thus was responsible for popularizing it and thus the spread of the technique over the next few years. Trackinfo (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Back vs front facing down

Just wondering why curving over the bar backwards is better than doing it facing down. Isn't the back more flexible forwards? I'm sure there will be a good reason, so adding that info may improve the article. EdX20 03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BACKWARDS Vs FORWARDS OVER THE BAR:

The typical landing attitude in the Flop is that the shoulders and neck hit the mat first, with the chin tucked into the chest. Then the back and hips impact the mat. The jumper often ends up with his knees up towards his chest looking up at the sky. If you try to perform a similar landing from a face down flop, you will injure your neck and back. (Try bringing your feet up behind you to touch the back of your head!)

In a front dive the jumper has to basically somersault over the bar in order to turn completely over and land on their back. This involves even more rotation over the bar (or "flipping") than the Flop does, arguably using more energy and taking more time.

In the Flop the lean away from the bar prior to take-off (delivery) causes the rotation ("flipping") over the bar. The knee and arm/shoulder drive produce rotation around the vertical axis to complete the already partial presentation of the back to the bar produced by the curved approach. In order to perform a "face down flop" you would have to thrust your drive leg (and arms/shoulders) backwards at take off. This is enormously less efficient and less productive than driving these masses forward in the existing direction of travel. In the flop momentum of all the body parts is efficiently resolved through the drive leg (ie force into the ground changes the direction of existing momentum -try polevaulting without a slot in the ground or an inflexible pole!)

If accomplished, such a move would allow a face-down layout over the bar, ending in a dangerous face down landing as described above. Once laid out over the bar, the only way to accelerate rotation is to bring parts of the body (=mass) closer to the centre of mass. Think of the way a gymnast "tucks in" to speed rotation in the somersault and opens out to slow down rotation. Tucking in while face down over the bar is going to involve bringing knees and elbows in towards the abdomen. While the elbows might miss the bar, the knees are going to cause problems! In every other style but the flop the trailing leg causes contact problems with the bar and the face down dive is no exception.

Interestingly, in my experience, kids who are used to mucking around, diving onto mats and who attempt to dive over the bar work all this out in their heads quite quickly and end up turning more sideways to the bar, doing an arm-leading straddle, head before hips over the bar, similar to some of the great jumpers of the past!SlipperyJim (talk)SlippeyJimSlipperyJim (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See the Rocketsci55 entry at the top of the page to learn why the Flop is better than the forward roll. On the other hand, the Fosbury Flop apparently requires a better padding. I remember seeing a big poster in the Winter Stadium in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) Russia in the early 70's: "Because of the risk of injury, the execution of Fosbury Flop is strictly prohibited". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.52.103 (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought that I'd actually added some comments about the physics & biomechanics and expanded the area he was alluding to.SlipperyJim (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Eastern cut-off is inbetween the scissors and the flop and is taught as a progression towards the flop. It starts off like the scissors, including straight line approach, but the athlete lays back flat out, pretty much parallel to the bar, without much chance to arch over. It has many of the disadvantages (such as landing on your back if unlucky!) and few of the advantages of the flop. When you start to produce rotation around the axes without having run a curve appraoch, you begin to approximate a flop style, although the twisting stresses on the joints can be enormous and cause injury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlipperyJim (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The dive straddle is already an exaggerated forward roll. Flanker235 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You tube link removed.

1 link removed - TV advertisment footage - No clear indication from clip information/ uploader profile , that uploader has rights to the footage or is associated with the advertiser or production entities responsible for the footage Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Move Comment Removed to Here

The following note had been inserted on the main article page: "The Fosbury Flop is also used as a Professional Wrestling move, occasionally performed by AJ Styles. It involves the wrestler running from one side of the ring to the other and performing the move from the inside of the ring to the outside, most of the time landing on one or more wrestlers waiting on the outside."

Development of the Technique by Dick Fosbury

I had the great pleasure of attending a seminar presentation by Dick Fosbury on 13th May in Glasgow, Scotland. He showed us old home movies from the early '60s (very high quality) showing him and his team mates high jumping and hurdling. Most interesting to me was that the technique came before the deep foam matting was widely available. There were a number of shots of him landing on deep piles of wood shavings. Dick told us that they always tried to take a pitchfork to the pile to fluff it up and soften it!

He was working with a hurdles coach but was one of the worst in the squad (with more footage to prove it). The coach let him do all of his strength and fitness training with the hurdles squad but left him alone to develop his weird high jump technique.

As an engineer he can appreciate how the physics of the jump works, but he developed it instinctively and not completely efficiently. Dick's recollection of the curved approach so fundamental to the technique is hazy but he reckons that it may even have been to do with the way the other kids queued up to perform the scissors jump!

At the end of the evening Dick handed round his medal from Mexico and let us all hold an Olympic gold medal while he spoke about it. It looks very shiny but has been re-plated recently. A cool guy indeed. SlipperyJim (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, my problem was I could never get the flop to work for me. So I changed to the Western Roll, which disappointed me. My performance improved nevertheless, but it was my senior year in HS. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Who invented the technique?

As far as I found out, the first athlet who used the flop in championships was the Austrian athlet Fritz Pingl. He became Austrian high-jump champion in 1957, using the flop technique. For details, see page 6. But as Austrian athlets were not among the worlds strongest (Pingl reached just 1,97 m), that technique became not popular so early.--77.119.129.225 (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Take off

I would dispute this comment:

"The approach (or run-up) in the Flop style of high jump is characterized by (at least) the final four or five steps being run in a curve, allowing the athlete to lean into his or her turn, away from the bar. This allows the center of gravity to be lowered even before knee flexion, giving a longer time period for the take-off thrust."

If we are going to talk in relative terms - and the use of the word "longer" implies that we are - then there has to be some sort of exact comparison made. There are studies which have shown that the flop take off involves a much shorter contact time for the take off foot than for other styles like the straddle. The transition phase of the jump - i.e.: the part where the hips go from their lowest position, usually in the second last stride - is a longer transition in the flop. That may contribute to improved efficiency by partially unloading the take off leg but that is not where the thrust comes from. It comes only from the take off leg. The take off is a principal point of divergence from earlier techniques because it is a speed technique. Power equals strength time speed. A straddle approach is slower but relies on greater strength. A flop take off requires greater speed but puts a lesser premium on strength to achieve basically the same result. Since Wiki doesn't allow original research, I would refer to a number of different articles which can be found with a little searching.

https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/657/580

www.indiana.edu/~sportbm/p391-presentations/hjevo-isbs.ppt

http://journals.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/10515.pdf

Still looking for something which is specific on foot contact times. It's out there but I'll have to find it. Flanker235 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This claim is absurd

While in flight the athlete can progressively arch shoulders, back and legs in a rolling motion, keeping as much of the body as possible below the bar. It is possible for the athlete to clear the bar while his or her body's center of mass remains as much as 20 cm below it.[2]

Regardless of the fact that it is cited, this claim is simply impossible. No biomechanist would back it up. I refer you to the articles by Dr Jesus Dapena, University of Indiana, Dept of Kinesiology who explains in this video, that the C of G could theoretically pass under the bar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reI165sqh-I That is nothing like the claim made in the article which is, at best, sensationalist and at worst, simply wrong. Flanker235 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Pointless reference to elite jumpers.

As with the general article on the high jump, this reference to elite athletes is pointless. Before Fosbury, everyone used the straddle, whether elite or not. It's an irrelevance and ought to be removed. Flanker235 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fosbury Flop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626054216/http://www.docstoc.com:80/docs/25717712/Biomechanical-Analysis-of-the-High-Jump to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25717712/Biomechanical-Analysis-of-the-High-Jump

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Over emphasis and misleading claims on bar clearance

I realise that to the uninitiated, this seems to be the most obvious feature of this technique but if we are to convey a good understanding, there needs to be a better balance. This situation is not helped but a patently absurd claim that the CoM can oass as much as 20 cms under the bar. I don't blame to person who included this but it is wildly exaggerated and not supported in any serious studies. In the study linked to below, Dr Jesus Dapena (formerly of the Biomechanics Laboatory at Indiana University) reports that the flop clearance has as much as 5-7 cms advantage over a dive straddle but loses approximately the same at takeoff due to the greater efficiency of the straddle in that area:

https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/657/580

He does not offer an absolute value but does comment in the following video link that it is theoretically possible for the CoM to pass under the bar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reI165sqh-I

Dr Dapena's comments in no way validate the claim in this article and given his expertise in the area, I think the previous reference and comments pertaining to it should be removed as they are simply misleading. There is already a public perception, as seen on many YouTube videos, that the flop gives you something for nothing and this tends to perpetuate that. If anyone can come up with a good reason why it should stay, with some reliable supporting evidence, then I would have no objection. Otherwise, I'll give it two weeks from today (14 Nov) and it will be removed.

More pertinently though, Dr Dapena points out that the most important aspect is, in fact, the run up phase. He also points out that after take off, the flight path of the CoM is predetermined and cannot be changed.

At the end of the first article, Dr Dapena points out that the greatest single advantage of the flop technique is that it is easier to learn than the straddle. He does not advocate any other area of superiority and in fact says that some jumpers would be better off using the straddle. Flanker235 (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The following sentence has been altered to reflect better information:

The athlete can clear the bar while his or her body's center of gravity remains as much as 20  cm below it.

Flanker235 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Fosbury's run up

The article claims, without citation, that Fosbury used a C shaped run. None of the vision I have seen, nor any of the interviews I've seen with Fosbury or his coach, the late Berny Wagner, support this claim. He may have tried it at some point during the development of his technique but by the time he came to prominence, he was using a fairly clear J curve:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX3bCh8v1FE&feature=emb_err_woyt

If someone can find a reference to his use if a C curve, the claim can stay, under qualification, otherwise it should be removed. Further to that, the claim that people use a C curve today also needs citation or it should be removed. Flanker235 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The following sentence has been removed due to lack of referencing:

Some athletes prefer to run all of their strides in a curve known as a "C" shape approach. This was the approach used by Fosbury himself but can lead to errors and inconsistencies in speed, foot placement, angle of approach, and body attitude at take-off.

Flanker235 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)