← Blog

Why does a high jump approach always have an odd number of steps?

It is not superstition. An odd step count is what falls out of alternating feet meeting a fixed requirement at the plant.

Watch enough high jump and a pattern shows up in the step counts announced before a jump: seven, nine, eleven, never six or eight or ten. It looks like superstition. It is arithmetic.

Every stride swaps the foot

A run is a sequence of alternating footfalls: left, right, left, right. If an athlete starts an approach with a specific foot moving first, the foot that lands on any given step number is fixed by nothing more than whether that step's number is odd or even. Change the total count by one and the foot landing on the last step, the plant step, swaps to the other foot, even though every stride in between looked completely normal.

High jump needs a specific foot down at the plant, the one that lets the athlete curve into the bar and rotate the right way over it. Given a fixed starting foot, that requirement is what fixes the parity of the whole approach at odd rather than even. It is not a rule anyone invented. It falls out of counting.

Why this matters more than it sounds like it should

• An athlete who adds one hurried step mid-approach, without meaning to, does not just get a slightly different run-up. They arrive at the plant on the wrong foot entirely, which is a much bigger problem than a step being slightly short or long.
• A coach troubleshooting a suddenly bad plant should count the actual steps in the clip before assuming the technique broke. A miscount explains a jump that looks wrong for no visible reason far more often than people expect.
• Growth spurts and fatigue both change stride length without changing stride count, which is a separate and much more common problem. Losing a step entirely is rarer, and worth ruling in or out first because it is the easiest one to fix.

What the Film Room sees, and what it does not

The high jump analysis reports hip rise as a share of body height, takeoff angle, and knee fold and extension, all read from the plant onward. A miscounted approach shows up in those numbers as a sudden, unexplained drop, because the athlete plants on the wrong foot and the whole takeoff changes shape. It reads exactly like a technique regression.

It reads that way because the Film Room does not count steps and has no idea which foot was supposed to be down at the plant. If the numbers suggest a jump has gone wrong for no visible reason, counting the steps in that same clip, frame by frame, is worth doing before assuming anything about technique changed at all.

Related

Try it: Long jump takeoff analysis from a phone video