Talk:High jump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

first photograph[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

National Records[edit]

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.

All-time lists need to be cleaned up[edit]

There are several problems with the all-time lists, especially the co-minging of indoor marks with the outdoor marks. First, these are two separate events, indoor and outdoor, and it is Original Research to mix the two - World Athletics never co-mingles indoor and outdoor marks on their lists. There seems to be a conflation of the rule that allows RECORDS set indoors to also stand as overall World (i.e. "outdoor") records. Yes, but this does not mean "IAAF acceptance of indoor events as equivalent with outdoor events."

As far as I can tell the high jump is not necessarily an event that automatically accepts overall world records for marks set indoors, in contrast to the pole vault. Case in point: one of the very marks listed WAS considered a world record, Carlo Thranhardt's 2.42 set indoors in 1988, tying Patrick Sjoberg's record set outdoors the year before. But it was rescinded because of the assistance from the boards used in the run-ups. The point is, unless we can find some source that explicitly says marks set indoors in the high jump can automatically stand as overall records, that note has to go. Unless we know that all the listed marks were in fact done without boards. At the very least, Thranhardt has to go. But far better to eliminate ALL indoor marks.

In short, these top-25 lists have to be tossed out, made all outdoors, as many of the marks set indoors would likely not qualify for a world record if the run-ups were on boards, as in Thranhradt's case.

I further propose to dispense with the unwieldy lists with other performances not on the 25 athlete list, instead putting the top 25 performances in the the top 25 athlete lists.Canada Jack (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a table I've drawn up which eliminates the indoor marks - which are often ineligible for World Record consideration and hence do not belong on the all-time list. And I've combined the all-time performers AND all-time performances, keeping each 25-deep (though in this event, obviously, there are many equal marks).
I propose we do this same approach for all events, as the current approach where lists of "also" marks are look like the fine print of some legal document and besides being incomprehensible, are a complete mess. Take a look at the pole vault page - there are something like 100 extra marks under the top 25 list.
All-time top 25 athletes, top 25 jumps, men's high jump
Ath.# Perf.# Mark Athlete Nationality Date Place Ref
1 1 2.45 m (8 ft 14 in) Javier Sotomayor Cuba 27 JUL 1993 Salamanca
2 2.44 m (8 ft 0 in) Sotomayor #2 29 JUL 1989 San Juan
3 2.43 m (7 ft 11+12 in) Sotomayor #3 08 SEP 1988 Salamanca
2 3 Mutaz Essa Barshim Qatar 05 SEP 2014 Brussels
3 5 2.42 m (7 ft 11+14 in) Patrik Sjöberg Sweden 30 JUN 1987 Stockholm
5 Sotomayor #3 05 JUN 1994 Seville
3 5 Bohdan Bondarenko Ukraine 14 JUN 2014 New York City
5 Barshim #2 14 JUN 2014 New York City
5 9 2.41 m (7 ft 10+34 in) Igor Paklin Soviet Union 04 SEP 1985 Kobe
9 Sotomayor #4 25 JUN 1994 Havana
9 Sotomator #5 15 JUL 1994 London
9 Bondarenko #2 04 JUL 2013 Lausanne
9 Bondarenko #3 15 AUG 2013 Moscow
9 Barshim #3 05 JUN 2014 Rome
9 Barshim #4 22 AUG 2014 Eberstadt
9 Barshim #5 30 MAY 2015 Eugene
6 17 2.40 m (7 ft 10+14 in) Rudolf Povarnitsyn Soviet Union 11 AUG 1985 Donetsk
17 Sotomayor #6 12 MAR 1989 Havana
17 Sjoberg #2 05 AUG 1989 Brussels
17 Sotomayor #7 13 AUG 1989 Bogota
6 17 Sorin Matei Romania 20 JUN 1990 Bratislava
17 Sotomayor #8 19 JUL 1991 Paris
6 17 Charles Austin USA 07 AUG 1991 Zurich
17 Sotomayor #9 22 MAY 1993 Havana
17 Sotomayor #10 23 JUL 1993 London
17 Sotomayor #11 22 AUG 1993 Stuttgart
17 Sotomayor #12 10 JUL 1994 Eberstadt
17 Sotomayor #13 18 JUL 1994 Nice
17 Sotomayor #14 29 JUL 1994 St. Petersburg
17 Sotomayor #15 11 SEP 1994 London
17 Sotomayor #16 25 MAR 1995 Mar del Plata
6 17 Vyacheslav Voronin Russia 05 AUG 2000 London
17 Barshim #6 01 JUN 2013 Eugene
6 17 Derek Drouin Canada 25 APR 2014 Des Moines
17 Bondarenko #4 11 MAY 2014 Tokyo
17 Bondarenko #5 03 JUL 2014 Lausanne
6 17 Andriy Protsenko Ukraine 03 JUL 2014 Lausanne
17 Bondarenko #6 18 JUL 2014 Monaco
17 Bondarenko #7 05 SEP 2014 Brussels
17 Barshim #7 11 JUN 2016 Opole
17 Barshim #8 20 AUG 2017 Birmingham
17 Barshim #9 27 AUG 2017 Eberstadt
17 Barshim #10 04 MAY 2018 Doha
17 Barshim #11 02 JUL 2018 Székesfehérvár
6 17 Danil Lysenko ANA 20 JUL 2018 Monaco
13 2.39 m (7 ft 10 in) Zhu Jianhua China 10 JUN 1984 Eberstadt
13 Hollis Conway USA 30 JUL 1989 Norman
13 Ivan Ukhov Russia 05 JUL 2012 Cheboksary
13 Gianmarco Tamberi Italy 15 JUL 2016 Monaco
17 2.38 m (7 ft 9+12 in) Hennadiy Avdyeyenko Soviet Union 06 SEP 1987 Rome
17 Sergey Malchenko Soviet Union 04 SEP 1988 Banská Bystrica
17 Dragutin Topić Yugoslavia 01 AUG 1993 Belgrade
17 Troy Kemp Bahamas 12 JUL 1995 Nice
17 Artur Partyka Poland 18 AUG 1996 Eberstadt
17 Jacques Freitag South Africa 05 MAR 2005 Oudtshoorn
17 Andriy Sokolovskyy Ukraine 08 JUL 2005 Rome
17 Andrey Silnov Russia 25 JUL 2008 London
17 Zhang Guowei| China 30 MAY 2015 Eugene
This is here for feedback, I will replace the current men's lists with this or a revised version of this list in a few days, and we can start working on doing the same for the women's list and for other pages. Canada Jack (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a very good idea, though we should consider editing a table for indoor performances too. (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Purpose to delete the absolute top 25 when there is an indoor ranking.2A0A:A546:61B0:0:C5BD:AEB1:4903:99A7 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Indoor performances are not necessarily on par with outdoor performances, despite some unsourced claims to the contrary. World Athletics maintains separate all-time lists, these marks are not combined. The one time an indoor mark was considered for ratification was Thranhardt's 2.42 in 1988 which tied the outdoor mark. It was actually ratified as an all-around world record. But it was withdrawn in 1991 for the same reason many indoor performances likely could not be ratified - the temporary boards used in many indoor facilities give assistance.
I don't see why there can't be a separate all time indoor list - World Athletics maintains one as well. Canada Jack (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I just removed all the mixed marks - to repeat, Indoor marks are a SEPARATE event - many indoor marks would not qualify for outdoor records, so it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH to make a combined list. World Athletics maintains separate lists, so should we. As I previously stated, Thrahardt's ineligible 2.42 is a classic example. Someone is confusing the 2000 rule change about allowing marks set indoors as all-around "outdoor" records as some blanket approval - no, individual marks must be made under the set outdoor conditions. So many running records set indoors don't qualify as most indoor tracks are not 400 m. And in the high jump, it depends in the surface used - temporary boarding would render some marks ineligible, which is what happened with Thrahdardt's 2.42.

Please explain why indoor national records are ratified as absolute records, I do not see your argument.2A0A:A546:61B0:0:B120:88C3:9E49:B06D (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
They can't be. And it's amazing to me that this nonsense has been allowed to go on for so long. The page is a complete mess with editors running rampant with OR deciding whatever they consider to be "records." Here are some glaring examples: According to the page here as it stands, the German national record for men is 2.42 by Carlo Thranhradt, the American record is 2.40 held jointly by Hollis Conway and Charles Austin. The Thranhardt and Conway's marks, however, were set indoors. So, what does World Athletics consider to be the records for those countries as of 2009? The German men's record is indeed held by Carlo Thranhradt... but its the 2.37 he did in 1984, not the indoor mark he set in 1988 as per this page! The United States? One person holds the record, not two, and it's Charles Austin with his 2.40 set in 1991. It seems that wikiepdia has granted itself the discretion to declare national records! Because World Athletics does not grant Conway a national record!
Though the listing is from 2009 and needs updating, the Russian record was and should be 2.40, not 2.42. The Czech record is 2.36, jointly held by Jan Zvara and Jaroslav Baba, but wikipedia declares it to be 2.37, held by Baba, and set indoors.
This is the link to the IAAF/World Athletics handbook from 2009 which lists national records in men's high jump from page 503. And, just to be clear, the 2000 rule about indoor records was in effect by then.
Your argument doesn't work, the IAAF listed outdoor records on the occasion of Berlin 2009 because it had been an outdoor event. When you search for Carlo Thränhardt in their database [1] both marks 2.37 and 2.42 are signed with NR. (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
To be absolutely clear, the "2000 rule" simply means that the presence of a roof - in itself - does not disqualify a mark from record consideration. But that does NOT mean that marks set indoors are exempt from the normal criteria in setting records - including standard 400m track, standard surfaces for field events, etc. As previously noted, that 2.42 Thranhardt mark was actually considered a world record... until the surface of the sunup was found to be non-standard, and the record was rescinded in 1991. Canada Jack (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
In 2000, IAAF rule 260.18a (formerly 260.6a) was amended, so that "world records" (as opposed to "indoor world records") can be set in a facility "with or without roof". [2] (p. 546). As of June 2021, Carlo Thränhardt's 2.42 are still the absolute German national record [3].2A0A:A546:46E0:0:49A6:14DE:77DD:81DB (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Many national records are incorrect[edit]

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. (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.[[4]]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)