Assuming you weren't being facetious, I see several problems with this
approach:
1. Unless the jumpers somehow declare an estimated upper limit to their
upcoming jump and the placement of bars is adjusted accordingly for each
jumper, some of the bars would be placed much higher than many of the less
talented athletes could jump, resulting in the jumper essentially crashing
headlong into a plane of bars on pegs. Even though the wall of bars is not
very solid, seems to me the prospect of this might cramp the jumping style
of many jumpers and inhibit their performances.
2. The falling upper bars could knock off lower bars that were cleared,
thus erroneously lowering the mark.
3. Since their knees are bent at that point, some jumpers' heels appear to
extend under the bar a bit at the point where their hips are passing over
the bar. This could result in the jumper kicking off a lower bar while
legitimately clearing a higher bar. Again, no good.
Kurt Bray
> I find it strange that no one so far has suggested what
>would obviously be the most efficient method of conducting
>the high jump. It would, however, require the modification
>of the present upright and bar setup.
>
> The uprights would have supports for the bar located
>at two-inch intervals over a range of heights. Bars would
>be placed on these supports simultaneously. One might
>have as many as 20 bars at a time.
>
> The athlete approaches the bars and jumps as high as
>he (or she) can. The bar considered to be cleared is the
>one which is not knocked off, nor are any lower knocked
>off. Thus one jumper could clear 7' while another would
>clear only 5' 5" without doing any resetting. A jumper
>would get a total of three attempts. Since he (or she)
>would be jumping at many heights simultaneously, there
>would be no reduction in the number of jumps from what
>is currently used.
>
> Dave Carey
>
> (who else?)
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
