"So we're not going to do it. You ultimately don't go to war with your most important group of people, right? So even though I would argue we identified a problem, and found a viable solution, if the athletes don't want it, fine, we drop it. But I don't regret looking at that. I think that's our job as the governing body."
"World Athletics trialled the idea earlier this year after research found that around a third of long jumps at championships were no jumps, and that reduced the interest of fans. Absolutely from the emotional reaction of the crowd, they lose energy with no jumps. So we said, Can we solve that exam question?' And so we created the concept of a wider take-off zone'. We trialled that solution, and it actually trialled well. When it was tested at two events earlier this year, World Athletics found that the number of no jumps dropped to just 13% and spectators enjoyed the new format."
"The idea of introducing a wide take-off zone was to reduce the number of foul jumps because athletes would no longer be required to try to hit a narrow board before jumping into the sand pit. However, the Olympic long jump champion Miltiadis Tentoglou described the proposal as dog shit because it took much of the skill out of the event, while Carl Lewis called it an April Fool's joke."
World Athletics abandoned proposals to introduce a wide take-off zone for the long jump after strong athlete opposition. The proposal aimed to reduce foul jumps by removing the need to hit a narrow take-off board. Trials showed the change decreased no-jumps from about a third to 13% at two test events and improved spectator engagement. High-profile athletes criticized the change, claiming it removed skill or was inappropriate. World Athletics' chief executive said the governing body identified a problem and a viable solution but will not implement the change when athletes clearly oppose it.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]