PROGRESSION · RIDER COMPARISON · WOO EVIDENCE

WHY DOES JOHN GET SO MUCH POP?

John adds something important to the Grant comparison: a rider who produces a much larger release than me without relying on Grant-level takeoff speed.

CONTEXT

ANOTHER RIDER FROM THE SAME HOME SPOTS.

John Barber is another great kitesurfer who rides at Troon and Barassie. That makes his WOO data useful for exactly the same reason Grant's is useful: this isn't a comparison against an anonymous rider somewhere else. These are riders using the same home waters and dealing with many of the same local conditions.

The analysis uses a selected set of jump-detail statistics from the WOO application. Five unique John jumps are used here; duplicate screenshots of Jump 95 are counted once. Where the numeric height was not shown, peak height is estimated from the WOO trace and labelled accordingly.

EXECUTIVE READ

JOHN STRENGTHENS THE POP ARGUMENT.

My Edge and Pop Velocity are already in John's territory. The major separation is the amount of movement through the release.

53.7°My Edge avg.

55.3°John Edge avg.

7.0°My Pop avg.

20.3°John Pop avg.

What this adds: John doesn't need Grant's average approach speed to create a much larger Pop movement. That makes effective release range look even more important in my own data.

AVERAGE MECHANICS

MY SIGNATURE VS JOHN'S.

Edge angle

Andy

53.7°

John

55.3°

Pop angle

Andy

7.0°

John

20.3°

Pop velocity

Andy

31.7°/s

John

29.6°/s

THE BIG CONTRAST

FAST POP IS NOT THE SAME AS BIG POP.

MY JUMP 36

60.8° EDGE · 7.7° POP · 77.0°/s

A very fast release, but over a small angle. This is the sharp, short-release pattern that keeps appearing in my data.

JOHN JUMP 95

63.0° EDGE · 29.9° POP · 37.4°/s

Almost the same Edge, less than half my Pop Velocity, but nearly four times the Pop angle. John moves through a much larger effective release.

WHAT STANDS OUT

FOUR THINGS JOHN'S DATA ADDS.

Pop remains the strongest difference.

John averages 20.3° Pop against my 7.0°. That is close to three times the release angle despite very similar average Edge.

Pop Velocity is not my main shortage.

John averages 29.6°/s and I average 31.7°/s. I can already release at comparable speed. The missing piece appears to be how far that movement travels.

John challenges a simple “speed = height” model.

His sample averages only 24.4 kph takeoff speed. Jump 95 reaches roughly 11.7 m at just 15.3 kph, but with 29.9° Pop. Speed matters, but John's data shows it is not the whole story.

The better model is energy × conversion.

Grant appears to arrive with more energy and convert it well. John appears able to make very effective use of less recorded speed. My data suggests I create load and a quick release but currently convert it through a much smaller angle.

JOHN · SMALL SAMPLE CORRELATIONS

WHAT MOVES WITH HEIGHT?

POP

+0.90Very strong positive association in these five jumps.

JUMP DISTANCE

+0.72Also rises with height.

POP VELOCITY

+0.51Moderate association.

TAKEOFF SPEED

−0.84A warning not to read speed in isolation.

Five jumps is far too small for causal claims. These coefficients are directional clues only.

JOHN'S CURRENT SIGNATURE

LARGE RELEASE. MODERATE SPEED.

John's numbers look very different from Grant's. He isn't arriving with the same average takeoff speed, yet he repeatedly creates a much larger Pop movement than I do.

That makes him an especially useful comparison because he isolates the release question from the high-speed question.

JOHN'S SAMPLE

THE FIVE UNIQUE JUMPS.

Jump	Height	Edge	Pop	Pop Velocity	Takeoff Speed	Distance
Jump 95	~11.7 m	63.0°	29.9°	37.4°/s	15.3 kph	37.5 m
Jump 99	~11.1 m	54.0°	22.4°	32.0°/s	24.2 kph	28.2 m
Jump 61	~10.6 m	57.5°	13.3°	26.5°/s	27.4 kph	11.9 m
Jump 98	11.0 m	47.3°	13.4°	33.5°/s	30.7 kph	11.0 m
Jump 36	11.1 m	54.7°	22.4°	18.7°/s	24.5 kph	5.0 m

THREE RIDERS · SAME HOME WATERS

THREE DIFFERENT JUMP SIGNATURES.

Putting all three samples together gives a much more useful working model than any single comparison.

Metric	Andy	John	Grant
Approx. sample height	12.1 m	11.1 m	16.7 m
Edge	53.7°	55.3°	60.8°
Pop	7.0°	20.3°	22.5°
Pop Velocity	31.7°/s	29.6°/s	46.3°/s
Takeoff Speed	Not captured	24.4 kph	38.8 kph
Jump Distance	Not captured	18.7 m	72.2 m

ANDY

SHARP, SHORT RELEASE

Good Edge. Pop Velocity can be very high. Pop angle remains small. The recurring question is conversion through a larger effective release.

JOHN

LARGE, EFFICIENT RELEASE

Similar Edge and Pop Velocity to me, but much larger Pop. Useful height without Grant-level average takeoff speed.

GRANT

SPEED + LARGE RELEASE

Higher average approach speed, large Pop and higher Pop Velocity. That combination is the strongest complete high-performance signature in the three samples.

WHAT THIS CHANGES FOR ME

THE NEXT TARGET IS A BIGGER EFFECTIVE RELEASE.

TECHNIQUE TEST

DON'T CHASE MORE EDGE.

Keep the useful approach speed, load late and test whether I can move Pop consistently from around 7° toward 10–12° first, then 12–16°, without losing kite timing.

DATA TEST

CAPTURE MY TAKEOFF SPEED.

That closes the biggest gap in the three-rider dataset and lets us separate approach-energy differences from release-efficiency differences.

Data note.

This is exploratory personal-performance analysis, not a controlled biomechanics study. John and Grant each have five selected unique jumps in these comparisons; Andy's comparison sample contains nine jumps. Heights estimated from traces are approximate. Wind, kite, board, water state, tack, rider mass and exact takeoff geometry are not controlled.