Drawing an analogy of tibia length and the prosthesis length..........
Quote from Wikipedia:
A controversy over the effects of running blade length arose at the 2012 Paralympic Games, as Brazilian runner Alan Oliveira and USA runner Blake Leeper changed to longer running blades within a few months before the 2012 Paralympic Games, leading to marked improvement in their running times. Pistorius complained after the 200m race that the blades provided artificially lengthened running strides, which would be an infringement of the IPC rules, regardless of that the blades were within the allowable height limits for the athletes concerned.[29] His complaint was supported by single-leg runners including Jerome Singleton and Jack Swift, who called for the T43 double blade and T44 single blade classes to be separated in future events, as single blade runners were unable to adjust the height of the prostheses, and must always match the length of their biological leg with a running blade.[30]
The improvement in running time and the wide broadcast of the race results provided a public demonstration of how the blade length affects performance. Pistorius' stride length was actually 9 percent longer (2.2m vs 2.0m), but Oliveira took more strides (99 vs 92). The combination of stride length and stride rate led to a clearly unusual performance with the longer blades.[31] Pistorius' management issued a statement saying that Pistorius is always 1.84 meters tall, regardless of what prostheses he wears, and that the decision to maintain this height for his running blades was an issue of fairness.[32]
(source Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics_of_Oscar_Pistorius'_running_blades#How_the_blades_work)
also, for basketball its better to have shorter femurs, u will jump higher.. so if the ratio is differnet, does it mean you might jump higher?
Author
Topic: Biomechanically beneficial to have longer tibia? (tibia femur ratio > 0.8?) (Read 2084 times)