Talk:High jump/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Link destroyed

The link to the Fosbury Flop (high jump technique) now goes to a Dutch music group with that name. They have made a page with an already existing name... Who can fix that? 217.149.204.176 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Why is Fosbury Flop the main page? It seems strnage to capitalise flop. I think we should make the Flop version the redirect and make the Fosbury flop the main page. Or is it standfard to capitalise Flop? David D. (Talk) 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading graph?

I notice that the graph on men's high jump records over time does not have a zero point for the y axis (jump height). This serves to magnify and draw attention to the upward trend in jump heights. However, graphs which use this method should generally include a note that they have been cropped to provide additional detail, to avoid misleading the reader. (Such graphs, for instance, are widely used by political hucksters and other scam artists for misleading purposes). Shouldn't we add such a note? Kasreyn 04:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah. I think that where it starts at the baseline, it should be obvious that it is skewed. Plus, no one is trying to fool anyone here. Sfahey 03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad in links

There seems to be an ad in the links. Does anyone agree with me on that? Should it be deleted? 24.211.218.200 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be definately deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.234.215 (talk) 20:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Human limits

Is 2.50 meters possible? Three meters? How high does a roo jump? No info on those in the article. 195.70.32.136 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Might add some stuff on that for comparison. Interesting idea. Cls14 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Men (indoor)

The introduction says that Sotomayor is the indoor world record holder with 2.43, but the "Men (indoor)" section lists Thränhardt as number one with 2.42??? 67.8.55.66 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Danielle Mendham

Can anybody confirm the GBR national record held by this woman? I'm just curious, because 2.05 is quite high, and you'd think you'd find some information about an athlete by that name if you just typed it into Google. But nothing. --Flosch (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1st paragraph remarks

1. For the men, both indoor and outdoor records are mentioned. For women there's only Kostadinova' outdoor record but Bergqvist's indoor record is missing.
2. For the women the record itself is missing (the height).
Can anyone fix this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Competition Format

There should be a section describing formats for competition - how many attempts people get at each height, how and when the bar moves up, etc. 24.115.47.16 (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. For example, the article on Cornelius Johnson mentions that while he took 4th in LA in 1932, he would have won silver under the present tiebreaker rules. But what rules were those? -Dmh (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

More recent history

Does anyone know about more recent history of the sport. I'm most curious why there is such a decline in the heights athletes jump nowadays. With the exception of Voronin in 2000, the highest recent jumps are at 2.38; what is going on? 77.4.102.58 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Standards?

Are there standards, such as how far apart the uprights are placed? How is a competition conducted? What are the rules? What governs when the bar is raised, and by how much? 206.53.196.75 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic style

This article reads nothing like an encyclopedia. Someone (I if I have time?) should try to address that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.149.61 (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it took a year, but I made a few steps in this regard. This once-fine article had two sections that alone clearly don't warrant the same size headings as "History" or top performers. Now, either I or someone else could add sections to complete the new "technical aspects" heading (take-off, landing, etc.). Sfahey (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

MANY aspects of the article need work. Very incomplete presentation of "high jump"

"high jump" has culture much larger than just the contemporary Olympic-directioned competitive sport.
Evidence for historical remarks should be called forward. The rules in some sectors have a history that is not yet present in the article.
In some nations in organizing high jumping, letting the head get over the vertical projection of the bar first would have been counted as a foul.
The modern controversy and history of the thickness of the sole of the allowed shoe is a device history important to last 50 years of modern sport high jumping.
The high jump bar has a history that affects records.
Age-graded gender-distinct records have been important in the high jump culture in the last 50 years. The simplistic absolute world record focus is a prejudice in the article.
Para-high jumping could be more present.
The Watussi high jumping and its cultural position has been noteworthy and is the subject of a book by UK author John Bale. Some world records were foundationally inspired by the fact of those stories and events.
Barefoot and one-shoe jumpers are part of the shoe story of the high jump in human history.
Assist mounds and assist stones and assist weights have been part of the noteworthy history of high jumping.
Noteworthy changes from flat dirt, piles of leaves, sand pits, sawdust pits, segmented open-foam pits, encased foam pits, airbeam pits ... have an important notewothy strand that needs attention for an encyclopedic treatment of the high jump.
The jumping an amount that is so much over one's head has been a noteworthy aspect of the high jump.
The author of a book on Straddle seems not to here; he has a wealth of key information that has should occur in the article. Belly Roll: the Straddle Style of High Jumping and its Impact on the Sport of Track & Field by Geoffrey Nelson.
The 300 page book by the a Russian coach needs to be brought into the article.
Theories of training specifically for the high jump is much undercovered in the article so far.
Severely colorful noteworthy high jump moments are missing from the article.
Team high jumping could be noted.
Endurance high jumping is not covered.
Orthopedic comment on age jumping is not covered.
Injury types that occur in high jumping is not covered.
The article is severely prejudiced toward the top end of only organized Olympic-destined absolute-height high jumping. There is so much more to the high jump than such focus.

Joefaust (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling

Danielle Frenkel is the right spelling, see her facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/danielle.frenkel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.184.171 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikitables

Try sorting these wikitables, they will get messed up. Can someone fix it? Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User 129.29.227.4

Can someone block user 129.29.227.4? I understand that it is the IP address for the United States Military Academy, but they have had a history of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.193.143 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2007‎ (UTC)

The above unsigned comment was given a false signature and then deleted, both vandalisms by 129.29.227.4. --83.255.61.40 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Record attempt after a win?

It would be nice to clarify the rules explicitly regarding this question: can a competitor who has already won keep jumping to try for a record?—172.56.37.62 (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a Master official, yes. A competitor is still in the competition until they reach three failures in a row. There is nothing special except that after there are no other competitors, the jumper can choose the height(s) they wish to make attempts at. Often when records are involved, they will choose a height that will allow them to tie or beat a record. It is extremely rare when two or more competitors are still in competition when they are jumping at record heights. I don't see anything missing in the article about this. Trackinfo (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; it is just that what you explain above is left completely implicit, if not unspecified, in the article (while tie-breaking is explained twice, once under Rules and once under Declaring the winner); I think it would be nice to add an explicit sentence or two about record attempts.—172.56.37.215 (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusing lead section

The lead section is currently highly confusing. There needs to be a distinction made between on one hand the history of high jumping and on the other hand today's competitive jumping and its rules. Also, the records mentioned are recognised by who? (IAAF). And also the Rules section; whose rules? (IAAF). --83.255.55.91 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Jenner discussions

We have discussions about the policy going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification and about the other usages of Jenner's identity at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. There is a lot of discussion to read at both locations. Trackinfo (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Avdeyenko silver in Rome?

There are sources saying Paklin took 2.35 on his second attempt and Avdeyenko on his third attempt. This should define Paklin as the sole silver medalist, at least according to the general tie-breaking rules outlined in this article. Was there another set of tie-breaking rules at hand in Rome in 1987? In that case I think this should be sourced.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Paracel63:The rules then were the same as now and the tie for silver here is correct. The first tie-break rule is who had fewer misses at the most recent height, which is how Sjoberg won with his first attempt at 2.38, but the second tie-break rule is not who had fewer misses at the previous height (2.35) but who had fewer misses at all previous heights attempted (2.20-2-35). Avdeyenko had two previous misses, both at 2.35, but Paklin also had two previous misses, one at 2.35 and one at 2.29 (both cleared 2.32 first time). The pair are tied for silver because they both had two misses at the final successful height of 2.38, and then both also had two previous misses. L1975p (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@L1975p: FYI this question was multi-posted and was also answered at Talk:1987 World Championships in Athletics. The current rules do relate to clearances at the previous height, thus under current rules Avdeyenko would actually be a bronze medallist. To quote directly from the current rules:

Placings. If two or more athletes clear the same final height, the procedure to decide the places will be the following:

(a) The athlete with the lowest number of jumps at the height last cleared shall be awarded the higher place.

(b) If equal on (a), the athlete with the lowest total of failures throughout the competition up to and including the height last cleared, shall be awarded the higher place.

(c) If equal on (b), the athletes concerned shall be awarded the same place unless it concerns the first place (in which case it will trigger a jump-off). SFB 21:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait...actually maybe you're right if by "last" rule (a) means the final height, not the previous height? Not sure why they would vary the language as it is more ambiguous that way. SFB 21:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sillyfolkboy:Yes It's still the same rule as back then, Avdeyenko and Paklin would still tie for silver. Rule (a) "height last cleared" in this case is 2.38, both tied. Rule (b) "total failures throughout", four failures each, still tied. L1975p (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for crossposting (noted above). I think I read that the tiebreaking was different for a winner than for other places. We have the (maybe) cryptic statement that Avdeenko and Paklin had to rejump at the indoor championships earlier the same year (where they had to break a tie for victory). In Rome it was not a matter of gold tie break (so no need for rejump). In both cases I think they had the same total number of jumps (if I remeber correctly).--Paracel63 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Straddle

I accept that you'll not often see any technique other than the Fosbury Flop these days.

But a competitor in this week's Commonwealth Games decathlon - Dale Garland of Guernsey who came 5th overall - straddled, and did so quite effectively. Thus it's not completely gone from top level competition, so should the reference to it be amended to be slightly less "past tense"? AndyofKent 10:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the straddle is surely not absent. You will see the straddle in senior meets, in grade school, in deomonstrations.

The biomechanical analysis by experts have come up with the straddle being within 2 cm of the flop in theoretical potential. For some body types the straddle wins over the flop. For some the flop wins theoretically. The article is prejudicially focused on one sector of high jump. Joefaust (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The straddle has been shown to have marked efficiency advantages in the take off phase but is generally believed to be less efficient in terms of bar clearance. Dr Jesus Dapena has written a lot of information on this and demonstrated that there is no earthly reason why the straddle should not be every bit as effective. It also depends on athlete type and build. Heavier, stronger athletes who can establish good hip flexibility can benefit significantly from the powerful take off phase of the straddle, whereas more slightly built jumpers with good speed can benefit from using the "flop". Foot contact times vary considerably - the straddle having a longer contact time and allowing the stronger athlete to transition from horizontal to vertical extremely efficiently. The take off phase - which is almost always overlooked in favour of bar clearance technique in these articles - is by far the most important aspect of the high jump. Everything which happens after that is basically pre-determined. The trajectory of the centre of gravity depends entirely on the take off. If you haven't done that properly, it won't matter what you do over the bar, you won't make it.

But in reference to bar clearance technique, a jumper like Rolf Beilschmidt could achieve almost flop levels of efficiency over the bar using the dive straddle, developed by V.M. Dyachkov and popularised by jumpers like Valeriy Brumel. The conclusion of all this research is that the two techniques are pretty much equal in overall efficiency and should be decided by athlete type. However, the major reason why the flop has become virtually universal is that it is much easier to learn and produces results more quickly. The straddle requires a longer learning phase and more patience. Flanker235 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

But Imperial units are necessary?

For istance, not for IAAF. What do you think about? User Jojhutton insert totally in the article (same thing in pole vault). --Learasmus (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For the American audience, which makes up a significant percentage of the english speaking world, we need to use Imperial measurements. Otherwise, the American's do not understand the measurements. Trackinfo (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We now have the T&Fcalc template which makes the conversion more accurately. This gets significant with Sotomayor's world record, which has been erroneously reported (until I changed it tonight) as 8' 0 1/2" while mathematically it comes out at 8' 0.4567" In Athletics, we round all decimals down, making the calculator give the proper measurement at 8' 0 1/4" Trackinfo (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No international level competitions and no world marks are done in anything other than metric. Even the British use it. Feet and inches are not needed. Even top American jumper Jamie Nieto has said Americans should just learn metric and forget feet and inches because nobody else uses them. Flanker235 (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Brill bend

i notice there is nothing about the Brill Bend in this article. Debbie Brill independently developed a version of the flop and is generally recognised as being a pioneer in the event. David D. (Talk) 04:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Debbie is a girl and among boys there's also this one : http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/results/newsletter/200006/quande.html ONaNcle (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Debbie Brill was a great jumper and I have little doubt that she developed her own technique independently. However, she was only 15 by the time Dick Fosbury hit the headlines with his gold medal in Mexico City. The article is more about the technique. Whether it was invented by someone else (shades of the Stairway to Heaven lawsuit) or not will always be contestable but there is absolutely no doubt that it was Fosbury who popularised it. Flanker235 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Measuring heights

States in the article that the jump is measure from where the jumper took off to the top of the lowest part of the bar. As fair as I am aware it is taken from the floor directly below the lowest part of the bar, not where the athlete took off. Can anyone tell me otherwise? Cls14 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's assumed that area is level. I will clarify this sentence. Sfahey 02:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The measurement is taken from the lowest point of the bar - the middle point - where it sags the most. The measurement is taken from the point immediately below and not where the jumper takes off. Flanker235 (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

indoor vs. outdoor jumping

Why is there an indoor and outdoor version of this sport? Is there any historical information on the reasons for this? It seems kind of strange. Jecowa (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it comes from the fact that, with good reason, track records are kept separate since they are consistently slower on the smaller, indoor tracks. There should not be much, if any, difference between records for field events. Sfahey (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not entirely correct since weather plays a distinct part in high jump - wind being a notable enemy and rain being another. There are those like Kajsa Bergqvist and Heike Henkel, whose best performances were indoors. In this respect, there is no correlation between track events an field events. Flanker235 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

National records

Are they outdoor or indoor records?? Cause Thränhardt never did 2.42 outdoors, only 2.37. Dabean (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdoors, but indoor jumps also count in high-jumping. Thatlot!! (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They are recorded separately. Flanker235 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Pointless reference to elite level

"At the elite level, athletes run towards the bar and use the Fosbury Flop method of jumping, leaping head first with their back to the bar."

This is an irrelevance. Almost all jumpers - elite or otherwise - use the so-called "Fosbury flop" technique today. Unless anyone can come up with a reason why it should stay, I recommend it be removed. Flanker235 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the world record is misstated in the box article in the right column, and in the 3rd paragraph of the main article. It is stated at 3.45 m. I believe it is actually 2.45 m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.92.57 (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Women's two metres club update

I am not competent to do this. I tried but I can't make it work.

The detail which needs to be changed is the German section which now goes to nine athletes, the latest being Marie-Laurence Jungfleisch who jumped 2.00 metres to win at Eberstadt this year. Would someone mind changing this please? Cheers, Flanker235 (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner

Caitlyn Jenner's 1976 world best is continually being reverted to another athlete's lesser performance. This last time, the stated reason was "unsourced or poorly sourced." However, the source for Jenner's 2.06 jump is http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/je/bruce-jenner-1.html, accepted elsewhere on Wikipedia. It appears to me that there is some dangerous misgendering afoot.

Wikipedia accepts that Caitlyin is a woman. There's no reason to belittle her accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:808C:2100:307D:1615:B850:199F (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In 1976 she competed officially as a man. So what is your intention?Montell 74 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey IP, how about not erasing completely the achievements of actual female athletes from 1976? That seems like a pretty good idea to me. ¡Boz zio! 15:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between legally a woman and biologically a woman. Flanker235 (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Changes to run up?

I note there is a comment that flop jumpers alter their run up with increasing height. As a former jumper and coach, I have never heard of this or seen any reference to it. A high jump run up is like a golf swing; it is practiced, refined and practiced more until it is as near perfect and consistent as it can be. Each step is measured and marked precisely and you can see tape and chalk marks all over a competition surface. Golfers do not change their swing appreciably with distance. They change the club. They might change the effort/power. For the same reason that a golfer wouldn't change their swing in competition, high jumpers don't alter their run ups in competition unless there is a serious need to do so. I also notice that this refers specifically to flop jumpers. In this respect there is no difference whatsoever. Altering run-up length in competition is a last resort. Flanker235 (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on High jump. 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:

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) 06:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on High jump. 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:

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) 17:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on High jump. 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:

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) 12:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Top lists in other techniques

Is there verifiable information on techniques used in jumps?

I was thinking that it would be great to have top5/top10 (depending on data available) lists of jumps in each of different techniques (Scissors, Eastern cut-off, Straddle, Western roll; there is also "somersaulting high jump" however the technique of jumping off of two feet is banned so it's hard to pull it off) to compare techniques and to complement fosbury flop list (all time 25). This would be interesting because there was no other athletics discipline that went through so much evolution. 213.149.62.148 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is some reliable source which has compiled such lists, why not add them in a new section - even if it is limited to the best result with each technique. Canada Jack (talk)

Brill Bend and fosbury flop technique

invented by Debbie Brill.
difference between brill bend and fosbury flop.
"which came first?" debate. http://www.drmichaeljoyner.com/dick-fosbury-who-innovated-what/ there is a video of her performing it at the age of 13 in 1966
Here it says (https://www.si.com/vault/1971/02/22/554323/she-gets-her-back-up) "The Brill Bend is not to be confused with the Fosbury Flop."
Here (http://rethinkingathletics.blogspot.hr/2013/11/on-flops-and-bends.html) we have 1963 competition in Montana shows a young guy named Bruce Quande jumping in the flop style. 213.149.61.247 (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Somersaulting in high jump

Somersaulting is not banned in high jump, however, the technique of jumping off of two feet is - so it is very difficult but not impossible to pull it of. Are there any information on those jumps? Results (on any level, but official competition)? 213.149.61.252 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

US LJ'er who used to do a mid-air forward somersault? It was in the early mid 70s - a New Zealander competing for Washington State: John Delamere. Also Bruce Jenner used it for awhile. 213.149.61.247 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Other techniques

ca. 1960 Bob Avant was using a "reverse flop", i.e. a facing forward flop (ran fairly straight at the bar , took off on his foot closest to the bar, just like all straddlers, but then went up with the arms and head first, with rest of torso and feet following. It was in effect a straight dive, chest/stomach facing the bar all the way.) 213.149.61.247 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

head-over-first ILLEGAL

There is nothing in the article about it, as is also the case with 2 feet jump (which was legal at first and later illegal). This one was illegal and later legal. This is to complement history of fosbury flop. There are rumors (testimonies from people involved in athletics) of people using it as early as 1930s (Germany) but head-over-first was illegal at the time. 213.149.61.247 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Two feet jump

It is clearly stated in the article that jumpers must take off on one foot. But was that the rule since the beginning? Or was it maybe in early years up to jumper (until when)? It should be made explicit in the article 'cause it's essential information. 213.149.61.252 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

standing high jump (1900-1912) 213.149.61.247 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Split history in jumping technique era's

Perhaps it's an idea to split the history paragraph into the different jumping technique era's, such as underneath (not sure whether the years are correct, though roughly they are.):

Beginnings (1790 - 1875) --> two legged lift over bar
Basic Scissors (1875 - 1892) --> standing jump and straight run-up
Eastern Cut-off scissors (1892 - 1912) --> scissors with rotation
Western Roll (1912 - 1930) --> early straddle technique
Straddle (1930 - 1960) --> basic straddle technique
Dive Straddle (1960 - 1978) --> advanced straddle technique
Fosburry Flop (1968 - current) --> the currently most common technique used

Although there are still some jumpers using the Straddle technique, it's safe to say that this technique has become extinct. Therefore, it's possible to give a 'from - to date' to the technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.152.62 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Basic scissors aka "Scissor kick"; eastern cut-off style aka "sweeney style" (developed by Mike Sweeney); straddle aka "straight leg straddle"; bent leg dive straddle (Bengt Nilsson is one of the prominent users) (source: https://pinoyathletics.info/2013/07/03/evolution-the-high-jump/) 213.149.61.247 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The linked site is not a reliable source though (see WP:RS). GermanJoe (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

An interesting sidenote to this discussion: When Dwight Stones set his first WR - the fisrt flop world record - in 1973, of the 18 attempts he took at the competition, 4 were with the straddle technique. All his attempts starting at 2.18 and higher were with the flop technique. Canada Jack (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

first photograph

why does the first photograph, supposedly demonstrating high jumping technique, show the jumper missing her jump? if you click on the photo, the photo even says she is 'failing.' there are a bazillion photos you could use of successful jumps. it seems very odd to use that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c55:4b00:1c7:b5a4:d636:57f2:ff56 (talk • contribs)

Fair point. I've switched it for the Nicole Forrester one, which has a better view of the supports and mats as well. SFB 20:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Technical aspects

The technical aspect were grouped into two large chunks of information. I have added a clearer step by step explanation of what is going on technically during high jump without taking away from the previous explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhedSnead (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

National Records

The table of national records is incomplete (>100 records missing). Therefore I suggest applying the World Athletics limits of 2.20 m and 1.88 m respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A547:2E5C:0:50A7:16CC:2B5F:48FF (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Men's national records are up to date as of December 2020. In the next days, I will update the Women's records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A547:2E5C:0:50A7:16CC:2B5F:48FF (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Women's national records are now up to date.

Many national records are incorrect

As I pointed out in the post above, the list of "national records" has a great many incorrect marks, as some editors seem to think marks set indoors can stand as national records. But a glance at the list of national records maintained by World Athletics shows that only outdoor marks are considered for national records. A quick glance showed numerous incorrect entries, and this was just on the men's side. The women's list starts on page 604, same link.

A quick glance on the women's side... Sweden's record is 2.06, not the indoor 2.08... Germany 2.06, not 2.07...Romania 2.02, not 2.03... Again, the World Athletics list is only accurate to 2009... but none of these claimed records were set since, they were all indoors set previously to 2009. Canada Jack (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need a second evaluation by Montell 74 or Trackinfo who are more into statistics. In general, I find your table very helpful, but only if there is an indoor top 25 as well. You might find time at the weekend and we're all satisfied.89.0.167.174 (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

World Athletics is not good enough for you? The indoor marks have to go, you can build separate lists, but you can't co-mingle them. Canada Jack (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the co-mingle lists AGAIN - If you agree that the combined lists need to be replaced by indoor lists, then solution is not to re-insert the problematic sections. Solution is to create indoor lists. I've done the heavy lifting in creating the all-time outdoor lists, someone else can work on the indoor lists. Canada Jack (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. The material I removed is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and has to go - we can't leave it on the page until something replaces it - it has to go! Stop reverting this!Canada Jack (talk)

Do you want to say there had been original research – even by IAAF (World Athletics) – since 2000? Wikipedia follows reliable sources, even though World Athletics doesn't run an absolute top list, there is no reason (since 2000, Rule 260.18) why Wikipedia shouldn't. .2A0A:A546:46E0:0:49A6:14DE:77DD:81DB (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

World Athletics Rule 260.18. Except in Road Events:(a)The Record shall be made in an IAAF certified athletics facility or event site which conforms to Rule 140 with or without roof. The construction of the track, runway, landing area and/orthrowing circle used shall comply with the specifications in the IAAF Track and Field Facilities Manual. For Indoor Records,see also Rule 260.21.[[1]]2A0A:A546:46E0:0:49A6:14DE:77DD:81DB (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You are arguing that we decide - not World Athletics - what National Records are? Are you serious? That is so blatantly Original Research, I really don't know what else to say.

I did a quick survey of the National Records per World Athletics - and the list we have here is WRONG and it is time to fix it.

Indeed, the individual National Record pages here on wikipedia match what World Athletics says - the German national page has Thrahardt's 2.37 as the record, confirming what I said, even the Swedish national page lists for the pole vault the mark that Duplantis set OUTDOORS of 6.15m - not his superior indoor mark of 6.18m, the current world record - as the national record. (And, no the outdoor mark was set AFTER the indoor mark, so this is not a case of a page not having been updated.)

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what that rule from 2000 means.

First, and most obviously, the rule applies to WORLD records, NOT national records! If this was not so, where all the indoor marks on the lists of national records? They aren't there because indoor marks don't qualify for over-all national records, some however can qualify for world records! Which is all the rule says.

Secondly, it is not a blanket "okay" to any mark set indoors that it is somehow "equal" to a mark set outdoors. It simply means that the presence of a roof in and of itself does not disqualify a mark from being recognized as a world record, as it did previously. THAT'S ALL. All the other rules and specifications still apply, which is why virtually no running records can be set indoors (few such facilities have 400m tracks), and many field events may not qualify either, especially in the high jump, depending on the surface conditions. Which is why Thanhardt's mark was not eligible to stand as a world record back in 1988, even though it initially was considered to be a record. The pole vault is one of the few events where the specifications almost routinely match, hence there have been something like 10 world records set indoors the past 20 years.

To put a finer point on it, many high jump performances done indoors would never qualify for a world record, the roof notwithstanding, as other conditions for the meet may not match the specifications required for a regular outdoor meet. And, again, Carlo Thranhardt's 2.42 is the classic example of that. If someone jumped 2.46 today under the conditions Thranhardt did in 1988, he may get credit for an indoor record, but he wouldn't get a World Record as it would not be up to spec. Yet, by your reasoning, that person would hold the World Record and be placed on top of this bogus "absolute" list. Wrong.

Bottom line, the list of National Records has to be substantially revised. "even though World Athletics doesn't run an absolute top list, there is no reason (since 2000, Rule 260.18) why Wikipedia shouldn't." Yes there is a reason. Because it's Original Research. We are granting athletes "national records" the sport itself fails to grant. Which is blatantly wrong and blatantly Original Research. Canada Jack (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Canada Jack (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see you disputed my claim that Conway's 2.40 and Thranhardt's 2.42 were incorrectly listed as National Records for their respective countries. To your credit, you subsequently realized that I was correct, and took the comment down.

But the larger point here is something you seem not to grasp: There are 1) World Records; 2) Indoor Records. There is no such thing as 3) Absolute Records. In a similar vein, there are 1) all-time outdoor lists; 2) all-time indoor lists; there is no such thing as 3) all-time absolute lists.

The rule change in 2000 simply means in certain circumstances, World Records can be set indoors. It doesn't mean that events held indoors and out are "the same," just that in some cases you can set a World Record indoors. That's it. Only 2 events, I think, have set World Records indoors - the pole vault (men's and women's), and the women's 2,000m.

I will soon swap out the "absolute" lists with separate indoor and outdoor lists. Otherwise we have an Original Research situation which can be taken to arbitration if you prefer. Canada Jack (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't call it original research, but see what you mean. I absolutely agree that you separate the lists. This would also be nice in other field events on Wikipedia. Massive thank you so far, you did put a lot of effort in these tables.2A0A:A546:A32:0:CC5C:1EA0:6408:528D (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Great - and the second improvement would be to list the top 25 performances along with the top 25 athletes on the same table. I think it is better than listing the marks below the table, this presents the marks in a much more obvious way. We can see, for example, how a particular athlete dominates an event. Will be interesting to see how dominant Duplantis is on the all-time indoor and outdoor lists, for example. I can start doing some of this, and I recognize that the tables I created sure can be improved - it's not my forte, creating tables. Canada Jack (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As for fixing the National Records list, we definitely have to do that. But I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a subhead under "National Records" saying records are set outdoors, but also noted are marks set indoors that are superior or equal to the national record in question. So for Germany we could have Thranhardt 2.37, then a line under... Thranhardt did 2.42 indoors in 1988, etc Canada Jack (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Good work on cleaning up my mistakes, 2A0A. Just as a head's up, I am working on a similar approach to the pole vault... so keep your eyes open. if Duplantis does something amazing in Stockholm, maybe it'll make the list! Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Russian Olympic Committee flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of the Soviet Union (1936–1955).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)