東京大学教養学部体育学紀要 (1"5)", 39〜 46

WORLD RECORD LONG JUル IP:
THREE DIIⅥ ENS10NAL ANALYSIS OF TAKE‑OFF MOTIONSOF POWELL AND LEWIS
Senshi FUKASHIRO',AkinObu WAKAYAMA絆 ,and Kando KOBAYASHI・・ Department of Life Sciences,The U」

versity of Tokyo

Komaba 3‑8‐ 1, MegurO, Tokyo 153, Japan

Phos、 +81‐ 3‐ 5454‑6865 Fax:+81‐ 3‑5454‑4317°Institute of Sports Medicine and Science
・

ABSTRACTIn the final of the Long Jump at the III World Championships M.Powell set a new world
record:8.95m. C.Lewis also exceeded the previous world record with a leap of 8.91m. The
purpose of this study was to indicate quantitatively the kinematical characteristics of the
take-off motions of Powell and Lewis. Three dimensional analysis of take-off motions wasdone by using three high speed cine/video cameras
There was a significant correlation between the run-up velocity and the jumping distancein the finalists. In the regression line, the data of Powell and Lewis showed almost identicalvalues which located at the end of the line. Considering those projection angles in most elite
long jumpers, the jumps of Powell and Lewis may be described as 'high'(23.1deg) and 'low'(18.
3deg) jumps, respectively. Powell achieves a greater vertical velocity (3.7m/s) and higher angleof take-off by using the hip rotation, the trunk inclination, and the'locking' placement of thefoot in take-off: Lewis on the other hand relies on the shoulder rotation, an'active' landing
technique, and a lower angle of take-off which facilitates a relatively high horizontal velocity.
Key words: long jump, world record, 3D cinematography, take-off kinematics

A part of this paper was presented as the men's long jump in New Studies in Athletics 7,53'56,
1992. Also, this paper was originally presented at the XIVth Intemational Congress ofBiomechanics in Paris, July,l993.

truk.shiro. W.kayama. KobaYashi

INTRODUCTION

A long jump consists of four phases; therun-up, the take-off, the flight and the landing.
The run-up in preparation for take-off and the
take-off motion are important in order to get ahigh performance @yson 1968). Thus, the mostof previous papers have focused their analyses

men's Long Jump final including tleir bodyheights and weights.

Filming protocol and data reduction. The
jumps of all the finalists were filmed fromrun-up to Ianding using two 16mm cine-cameras(100 f/s) and a high speed video-c amera (200f/s) as shown in Figure 1. The films were thenon those two phases. The characteristics of the
run-up in preparation for take-off in the elite
long jumpers under competitive situation were
found in the following reports; Hay et al.(1986),

Hay (1988) and Hay et al.(1990). On t}re other
hand, the take-off motion was examined by
Luhtanen et al.(1979) and Ridka (1986).
However, those data were sampled under
non-competitive condition. Few scientific data
have been reported on the take-off motion of
the top international class. Although Hay et al.
(1986) analyzed the motion during take-offphase in elite male long jumpers under thecompetitive condition, their focuses was put
only in the movement of the body center ofgravity.
In the final of the Lonc Jump at the III WorldChampionships M.Powell set a new world
record and won the event with a distance of 8.
95m . C.Lewis also exceeded the previous world
record with a leap of 8.91m. We have filmed
their jumping motions on the spot by usinS
three high speed cine/video cameras.
The purpose of this study was to indicate

quantitatively the kinematical characteristicsof the take-off motions in the elite world classlong jumpers; Special concerns being tocompare between Powell and Lewis.
METHODS

Subjects. The subjects of this study were seven
finalists in the men's long jump at the III WorldChampionships held in Tokyo in 1991. Threesubjects attained their personal bests in thismeet. A new world record of 8.95m was set by
M.Powell. Table I gives the full results of the:臨・ C1100千 ′s

H5V:2oor′ ,Fig.1 CameraL:プ
positionand calibration for DLT.

' 16mmC: high speed cine camera, HSV:
high speed video camera.
analyzed using Direct Linear Transformation
method. The kinematical data were sampled ateach 10ms from the film by using Motion
Analyzer System (NAC). As an example,
Figure 2 shows the jumping motion of the newworld record jump by Powell and its stick
pictures in sagittal and frontal planes. The body
center of grayity (CG) was calculated from thecenter of gravity for 15 body segments

according to the Miura et al.(1924),which is thesame as Dempster's (1955). The data wereWorld Reord l-o!g Junp:Thre€ DmeDsioml Anaty:i. Of Takeofi Moliors Of Pou'ell lA'is￨

1

Fig.2 The jumping motion and the stick pictures in sagittal and frontal planes in the new world
record jump by Powell.

Fig.3 The selected kinematical parameters on take-off motion.
' RV: run-up velocity, X1: horizontal initial velocity, 21: vertical initial velocity,
a: projection angle, c: inclination of the trunk, d: knee angle of supporting leg, e1: hip angleof supporting leg, f: hip angte of swinging leg, a: shoulder rotational angle,

b: hip rotational angte, z: jumper's moving direction'

Fukashno. Wak.yaDa. Kobayashitamlysis leight le:nt

(r)

(r)

8221

)

(cI) (鮨

8221

173

65

800

(■

)

F

OE1

3 25

5

gd田 1剛 ∞R

ROl1

8 02

18,

78

O

D8vid out,ERI

IUS

3 13

191

85

7̀lovam1 8VV̀Etl,1 1lA

3 43

17,

70

uRS

8 34

180

,3

4

8

Diet口 ,1

Vladl■ lr oCII聰 響

7991

FALL
LINE

Fig.4 The displacement of CG during take-off

for Powell and Lewis.
Table 1. The full resull,s of fre rerf s long juEp fi0al andsnd their body heiSht and rei8ht.
rt99l/8/30, Cloudy, Ielpe.ature:27t, [u!idity:83I1986). In the regression line, the data of Powellsmoothed by the digital filter of 10H2. The bestand Lewis showed almost identical values
which located at the end of the line. Figure 4

jump of each finalist was observed as shown in

Table 1. The following parameters \Mereselected in the present study (see Figure 3).

I. displacement and velocity of the CG: RV,
X7, Zl, aII. rotation of shoulder and hip: a, b, a/bIII. inclination of trunk: c
IV. motion of supporting leg: d, e1, e2
V. motion of swinging leg: f
The data of ttre item of III, IV and V wereobtained in sagittal plane. The angles of ttre
item II in the transverse plane were, on t}teother hand, standardized as ttre angle related tothe jumper's moving direction (arrow:z in
Figure 3) in the transverse plane not to depict
the absolute angle of that plane. Also, theangles of the item II were standardized as theangles by the right take-off Ieg in order to avoid
the confusion in discussion. The angle of a/b initem II was difference between a and b.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Displacement and velocity of CG

There was a significant correlation (r=0.94)
between the run-up velocity (RV) ald theofficially recorded jumping distance (Table 2)
as was indicated in many previous studies (Hayshows the trajectory of CG during take-off for

Powell and Lewis. The preparatory phase fortake-off influences the jump lengtl and themain aim of this phase is to secure low positionof the CG in the beginning of take-off (Ridka
1986). Although the height of CG of Powell andLewis at touch-down and take-off coincided
well with those of the other elite jumpers (Hayet al. 1990), the following characteristics wererecognized in each displacement of CG forthem. At touch-dowr! Powell's CG (0.91m) in
the vertical position was lower than that (0.
98m) of Lewis; on tlre other hand, at take-off it
was much higher for Powell (1.23m) than Lewis(1-19m). The take-off of Powell was alsocharacterized by great initial vertical velocity(3.7m/s) and the greatest decrease in thehorizontal velocity of CG (1.91m/s) among
take-offs for the finalists (Table 2). As a result,
Powell showed the greatest projection angle(23.1 degrees) and his highest CG point during
flight was 1.93m. The projection angle and theinitial vertical velocity of CG by Powell also
showed greatest value comparing with those of
the other elite world class jumpers (Hay et al.
1986).

Referring the IAAF report of 1988 Olympic

World Rα Drd Long JunlP:

DlnlesiolEI Analysls Of Take OfF Mo6oos Of Pcwcnい ″ヽ

Table 2. Displacement and velocity oF CG in men's finalists
つ腱
ｅ■
ｋ
■

luo-up r:lnithl z:lnitial Decrease o[ Proiection Proiectlon
relocity yelocity yeloclty hoaizontsl angle an8[e

0.248

128

012

0 60

0 11

0.005

0,170

0.351

k8

︐︐ ∞ ２． ∞︐ ︐爛 一柳親抑

￨

0 11

∞

0.7田

,￨

0.12

2 82

犯輌期抑″導刹 認％

卜 Ｆ

0.038

3 47
3 13
3 40

0.214

0 12

3 34

つ０﹈

361

‑1 39

一０ロ

10 20
10 42
10 44

3 22
3 57

２８２
０
２２
２２
︲

1031

B TUDOR
D euLBERT
G EVttGELISTI

３
２

D IMF

1058

370

lx,a lX,Yl(deg) (de8)

３
︲０
４６
■３
７５ ６ 口５

11 00

︲
６９
∞８

1100

C LEWIS
L ttRICKSsec) (■ /sec)/sec) (● ′２２
７８

H ЮttLL

(●

︑
り
＾
ｅ
Ｓ
ｔ

velocity(r/sec)

‑3 11

0 11

‑0 01

0 12

※ r:correlatlon cleflelent to perfomnce※ ネ:Pく 005,￨￨:Pく 001

Tabic 3.Rcsults of thc sclcctcd Paranlcters oll tak●

O Oゆ

000"¨
(d・

D

…

ｍ０

●81

"

ｏ

●● Э

●●

0

い0

︐

お

Ｓ Ｓ Ｓ

一

ｍ
ηｒ ２ 田︐
８ っ︐一 一 刹 Ш

■

珈″

●

■

一

︐

籾悩

ロロ

ｂ

節２郎ち ■η 獅
︐
４η
３５２り・
︲
︲
慶
ｍ
曖
７
ｍ
７
︲
︲
円︒
Ы 一
４即
︲
７観一一 鰤３ｎ ｍ６
３︲２ ︐ Ｗ︐ ３
８８︲・ ︐ るる ■ １●０２４４４４

５％

８

■η ３
靭回
︐
質 ４
︲ Ｚｂ ″
４ 硼一一コ蓼 ツ︐ち■∞ ＝

ａ２
︐

︐
切

お３
ヽ一
︐
︐
０︐
■ ● ４■ ８ ︲

０ ６６
︲
︲

巧力″゛

2R CLEW S,R しMYRI●KS

②
●

隣 ・
●

¨

d●

"
い 0 0 0

Ｏ

O

:Lp‐

ＤＯｍ

Sい L● ●●

‐off motioll

tRilLrbl.-oflk!,Lt ft br.-ofi k!
m:T
To: T1k {fi'chdo*..

Games, it is obvious that Powell's jumping
underwent a great improvement between the1988 Olympic Games and the 1991 Worldbe said that Powell's winning jump in Tokyo
was technically similar to Beamon's jump in
Mexico City 0AAF 1990).
On the other hand, the run-up velocity ofChampionships. During the three interim years
he increased his speed capacity and polished his

Lewis: llm/s was almost same as those of his

take-off technique so that he was able toprevious big games (Hay et al. 1986, IAAF

achieve a greater vertical velocity. His run-up1990). And the take-off of Lewis was

velocity and projection angle at take-off
increased from 10.6m/s and 17.9 degrees

characterized by smallest value in tlte decrease

respectively (1988 in Seoul) to 11.0m/s and 23.1

greatest initial horizontal velocity (9.72m/s) indegrees (1991 in Tokyo). In this respect it could

the finalists (Table 2). Therefore, Irwis gotof horizontal velocity of CG C1.34m/s) andl.ukisliro. Wa\aya a. Kobayashi

relatively low projection angle (18.3 degrees),relying instead on a high horizontal velocity.
His highest CG point during flight was only 1.
71m. Considering that the projection angle inmost long iumpers ranges from 17 to 24 degrees(Hay 1986), t}le jumps of Powell and Lewis may
be described as'high'(23.1 degrees) and 'low'(18-3 degrees) jumps, respectively.

b: Rotation oJ the hip: Powell's hip angles, 18
degrees at touchdonn and -35 degrees attake-off, resprectively, were ttle largest values in

the finalists. Thus, Powell's hip rotation (A53
degrees) during take-off showed about 2 times
larger those of the other finalists (A10 to A30
degrees).

a/ b: Rotttion of thz tn nk (betuteen shoulder

The projection angle in transverse plane isshown in Table 2. The CG of Powell moved
almost straight to the fall line. On the other
hand, the CG of Lewis using right take-off leg
moved relatively right direction that his
projection angle in transverse plane was thegreatest one (3.43 degrees) among men's
finalists. However, the effective distance of adiagonal line (8.93m) was not so large
difference compared to the official distance (8.

and hif): The delta rotations of the trunk
during take-off for Powell (A74 degrees) and91m).

large run-up vetocity led to the large trunk
rotation during take-off.

Take-off motion

The displacement and velocity of the CG
during take-off was depended upon thecharacteristics of take-off motion. Table 3
showed the data on take-off motion for eachjumper.

a: Rotttion of tfu shoulder: Although theshoulder angles at touchdown showed about -20
degrees in most of the jumpers, there was a

Lewis (A70 degrees) were relatively larger thanthose of the other jumpers (A44 to A57 degrees).

The rotations of the trunk for Powell andLewis were mainly depended on their hip andshoulder rotations. The delta rotation of tIe

trunk.was sigrificantly correlatd with theofficial jumping distance (r=0.86) and with the
run-up velocity (r=0.83). It might be said that thec: Inclination of thz trunh: at touch-dow!
Powell leant his trunk further backwards (13degrees) than the other finalists. Also, the delta

inclination of the trunk during take-off for
Powell was the greatest (A23 degrees) among
the finalists; whereas, Lewis maintained histrunk erect position. There was a significant
correlation between the trunk inclination angle
at take-off and the officiat jumping distance (rlarge range from -4 to 20 degrees at take,off.
The shoulder rotation (A40 degrees) during=-0.76). Furthermore, the delta inclination of the

take-off for Lewis was largest and the Powell'correlated with t}le decrease in the horizontal
velocity of CG during take-off (r=0.77) and withthe delta hip rotation during take-off (r=0.93).
These relations might indicate that jumper
should decrease ttre trunk inclination and the
hip rotation in order to maintain the horizontal
velocity of CG during take-off.

s (A21 degrees) was the smallest in the finalists.

There were significant correlations between
the shoulder angle at take-off and the
projection angle (r:0.76), between the shoulder
rotation during take-off and the projection
angle (r=-0.89), and between the shoulder
rotation during take-off and t]Ie initial verticat
velocity of CG (r=0.83). These results might
indicate that the jumper should not rotate hisshoulder during take-off in order to get thegreat projection angle.

trunk during take.off was significantly

d: Knee angle of a subboning /99'.' Powell'sknee extension of the supporting leg during
take-off was greater than Lewis's. The knee
angles of the take-off leg at the instant oftouchdown, maximum flexion and take,offWorld Record lnog Jump:Three Dimensional Aratsis Of TaLeOff Motions Of Pwell Iflis

were 171, 148 and 1?1 degrees respectively for
Powell and 165, 140 and 171 degrees for kwis.
In all finalists, the maximal knee flexion angleof a supporting leg during take-off wassignificantly correlated with the initial verticalvelocity (r=0.84) and with the projection angle (r=0.85). In other words, tie smaller the knee

take-off (Hay 1986). In the first, the foot may bebrought to the ground with abackward-sweeping movement. In this way it
assists in limiting the loss in horizontal velocity
experienced during the take-off. This is usuallycalled as 'active' landing technique. The second
technique, a 'locking' placement of the foot,horizontal velocity (r=0.77).
e2: VelociE of a sub|orting /eg: The angularvelocity of the supporting leg for Lewis showed
the greatest values at touchdox,n and at
take-off; -476 d/s and -481 d/s, respectively. The

involving forward nor backward movements
relative to the CG at ttle instant of touchdowL
This technique is believed to facilitate anincrease in the vertical velocity of CG at
take-off. It could be inferred from these datathat Powell achieved a greater vertical velocity
and higher projection angle in take-off by using
the 'locking' placement of the foot; Lewis on
the other hand relies on an 'active'landing
technique and a lower angle of take-off whichfacilitates a relatively high horizontal velocity.
It may be possible to apply these technique tocoaching for improvement of the take-off

angular velocity of the supporting leg at

motion.

flexion of supporting leg was, the greater was
the projection angle.

el: Motion of a eattorting lag.' The delta
angular displacement of a supporting leg during

take-off for Lewis (A61 degrees) was thegleatest in the finalists. The motion range ofthe supporting leg during take'off wassignificantly correlated with the initial

touchdown was smaller and the greater was the
projection (r=Q.$l). This result supported theof the foot (Hay 1986) which was discussed

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was supported by the JAAF/IAAF
Biomechanics Research Team in the III World

later.

Championships in Track & Field at Tokyo.

effect on the technique of a 'locking' placement

f: Motion of a swinging leg: The delta
angular displacement of a swinging leg during
take'off ranged from A79 to 4104 degrees in the

REFERENCES

finalists. There was no significant correlation
between the swing motion of a free leg and thethe seated operator. WADC, Technical Report,other parameters.
Reuiew on tfu ttke-off motions of Powell and

55-159.

Lewis: The take-off motion oI Powell wascharacterized by the geat hip rotation, thegreat inclination of trunk, and the extended
knee of supporting leg during take-off. On theother hand, Lewis's was characterized by theshoulder rotation, the motion of t}le swinging
leg, and the flexed knee of a supporting leg
during take-off.
Generally, tlere are two types of techniquefor planting the lead foot in preparation for

Dempster,W.T. (1955). Space requirements of

Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,pp.

Dyson,G. (1968). The mechanics of athletics.
London: University of London Press.
Fukashiro,S., & Wakayama,A. (1992). The men's long jump. New Studies in Athletics.7,53-56.
Hav,J.G. (1986). The biomechanics of the long
jumpers. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews,
74,407-446.

Fukashiro. Wakayama. Kobayashi

IIay,J.G., Miller,J.A.Jr., & Canterne,R.W.
(1986). The techniques of elite male long
jumpers. Joumal of Biomechanics,19,855-866.
Hay,J.G. (1988). Approach strategies in the longjump. International Journal of Sports
Biomechanics,4,l 14-129.

Hay,J.G., & Nohara,H. (1990). Techniques usedby elite long jumpers in preparation for takeoff.

Journal of Biomechanics,23,229-239.

IAAF (1990). Scientific research project at theGames of the XXIVth Olympiad -Seoul 1988
Luhtanen,P., & Komi,P.V. (19?9). Mechanicalpower and segmental contribution to force
impulses in long jump take-off. European
Journal of Applied Physiology ,11,26? -2? 4.

Miura,M., Ikegami,Y., & Matsui,H. (1924).
Calculation of the center of gravity bysegmental method (in Japanese). Journal of
Health and Physical &lucation and Recreation,
24,51? -524.

Ridka,E. (i986). A mechanical model of the longjump and its application to a technique of
preparatory and takeoff phases. International
Journal of Sports Biomechanics,2,289-300.