The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

This is a forum to discuss advanced pole vaulting techniques. If you are in high school you should probably not be posting or replying to topics here, but do read and learn.
swtvault
PV Pro
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:08 am
Expertise: Part time semi elite vaulter--5.35 season best in 2009
Lifetime Best: 5.52
Location: Onsted, MI

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby swtvault » Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:38 pm

Coach hood would advocate jumping "out not up." he was against having too flat of a takeoff. I think his whole thing was based on not sacrificing horizontal velocity to create vertical impulse. I think that he intended to say the same thing as those who say to jump up or say you should have an upspringing takeoff. As always though, words can be very ambiguous and open to interpretation on an individual basis. It's my opionion that he wanted you to spring off the ground but not be flat.
Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.

Stockdale Paradox

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:32 am

agapit wrote:
I don’t believe you “put” (store) energy into the straight pole, no. The straight pole resist, like any physical object would (rock or telephone pole for example), resist the forces generated by the impulse of the body (mass x speed) and that resistance changes the speed vector of the body’s COG (center of gravity) from horizontal to vertical, lifting the body up towards the bar. No energy does not disappears, some energy loses are converted through friction into the energy of heat.When the force generated by this impulse exceed the strength of the straight pole, it would break, but straight pole does not give you energy back in a way fiberglass pole or a rubber band does, right? The energy is stored in a fiberglass pole as it would be in rubber band and is not stored at all in the straight pole in the way that you can get it back, other than small “vibrating” bend that recoils so fast that is impossible for the vaulter to be in upside-down position in time to catch that recoil as people do on fiberglass poles.


*EDIT Man I Wrote a lot Sorry*******

The difference between the objects you picked a rock or a telephone pole is they are fixed objects that will not move or rotate. I am referring to an object that is constantly in motion with the vaulter it just doesn't bend or flex. In fact even the rock or telephone poles does accept the energy, but equal and opposite states they just return back the energy with more mass/stability behind it than you can so you lose that fight. A pole on the other hand is not stationary it is allowed to rotate freely minus friction in the box/hole. Yes the energy established and applied at takeoff would and should aid in the rotation of the stiff pole, but only if directed correctly. It is this rotation that becomes the important factor. The bending and unbending of the pole is secondary IMO. To increase the potential starting grip of the vaulter only. As I mentioned though if in doing this you have to bend the pole to such a percent that the energy needed to unbend and lift the vaulter is significant or the mechanics used to catch the ride are not adequate the secondary gain from the unbending process is lost. If such force/action is not directed correct with the grip than backwards rotation or not enough forward rotation occurs and the vaulter fails to rotate safely into the pit. The same thing with the imaginary pole cord on a pole that bends. Same concepts IMO hold true and same relative positions should be seen, but as you put it at a different timing in relationship to toe off the ground. Why did a stiff pole vaulter want to stay close to the pole and its axis of rotation thru a majority of the vault and especially on the top of their jump? To be in position to have the COG move to maximal height above their hands. If the hands shift to significantly back towards the runway it is hard to achieve a piked position that will allow you to rotate over the crossbar effectively and the secondary lift achieved I will explain shortly will disappear. To me most of it goes back to as a coach do you believe a vaulter can and does lift (using a muscle contraction) themselves in the air or should they aim towards staying in line with the pole and follow the line of thrust as a projectile?

Watch Warnerdam's jump and notice the height/position of his hips/COG over his hands..... Its almost as high in relative relationship as a 6 meter jumper that used a bent pole the difference is he had to start with a much lower initial grip cause the stiff pole didn't bend. I am not saying the bent pole does not enhance this. Of course it does.... I am saying the principles are the same the bent pole just enhances it as is seen with Issakson. Yet Warnerdam was still able to get the same high COG position with no secondary uncoiling action.... WHY? There was still energy stored in the object that was release as potential energy through the line of thrust. How much and to what significance, great question... My opinion is enough and more than we as humans can create with our little biceps. Any over activation of the traps will probably pull your hands outside that said line of thurst thus is not an effective muscle group to use if the point is to stay in alignment. Just cause you can use a group of muscles doesn't mean you should. To aid in the process we need to take into account the use of centripetal forces generated in the swing to lift the hips high without the use of a pole that bends and the same movement with a pole that bends. I'm not saying its all just the potential energy still in the pole. It's a combination of factors. I am saying the relative positions hit should be more similar for a woman because of the pole lengths they are using. A guy on a 17' pole gives a false image IMO because bending a 17' pole down to lets say 80% looks like a lot more bend in comparison to a 14' pole to 80% its original length yet they are the same relative bend percentage. From an appearance and watching it perspective the launch factor does not look as significant as a vaulter who comes from a lower position and is lifted but the final position is near the same. Why? How much did the uncoiling process actually help?

Maybe this will or won't help. Lets say the objective is to rotate the pole to a position that the final release and line of thrust puts the hips in a position to clear a crossbar set at 60 cm. You want rotational energy to be as close to zero as possible at this point. If too much is still there and your late to release over rotation and a blow though on a stiff pole. Raising grip will mean more energy needed to rotate and with everything else be equal athlete will move closer to that zero goal. Same holds true with a pole that bends except that cord talked about is imaginary. Raising grip and flexing pole to the same percent means the imaginary pole cord at each moment will be slightly longer and energy needed will be greater moving closer to the goal of zero energy at the goal position. So is the energy in the pole cord really zero at that moment? NO!!!!!

None of that takes into account once the vaulter and pole cord pass zero rotation is now going down the back side of the arch and an acceleration is created. This acceleration is the magic thrust I was hinting towards. The acceleration of the stiff pole/imaginary pole cord as it moves past complete inversion till it hits the angle of release of the vaulter. This is new energy created as the pole falls back to earth with the vaulter attached. As with any object that is performing a rotational movement there are forces pulling along its axis outwards. How much? Enough that could and to me if the athlete stays in connection will aid in the body moving past the hands thus helping to reach a high piked position. Obviously I have no data to prove this its just my theory. A combination of this and the forces pulling on the body from a correct long swing to inversion work together to move the vaulter past the hands in line with the poles line of thurst to reach the resultant piked position. Not the biceps, traps or other muscles the vaulter has. As I say that in relationship to an athlete who overly bends the pole and rotation stops and the pole simply tries to lift them into the air. The rotation of the pole back down the hill doesn't exist in this extreme situation and that athlete can't receive this energy.


agapit wrote:I am not arguing, I am just trying to more clearly understand how is it the same on the straight pole as compared to the fiberglass?


I know you are not and I am not offended by any means. As with any of this all our opinions are theory. Understanding the logic or thoughts of others can in fact increase our own beliefs or help grow them into something stronger. Thats why I use selective reading on this site and most of the books I read monthly. Everyone has an opinion doesn't mean I should change mine or you should change yours. In fact a good chunk of people probably won't understand everything I put and will probably pick up one point they disagree with and try to argue. This is why at the end of the day a forum is not the best place to talk theory. As I said I was bored :D.

agapit wrote:You are describing secondary acceleration (unbending of the fiberglass pole) that is desirable for an athlete to “catch”, if she could get in the position to catch that recoiling energy. Wouldn’t this make the method on fiberglass pole significantly different from the straight pole because no one was trying to catch a secondary acceleration on the straight pole?



I never said it wasn't desirable or wanted. I did say it makes staying into alignment harder. The faster that reaccelerating of the unbending process is the more force that is applied on the athlete in numerous directions which usually will cause the athlete to fall out of alignment. Issakson is a prime example for me of pole bent but not significantly and he utilized and was able to stay in contact with it and thus used that additional help to raise his COG higher. Did it raise them higher than Warnerdam I would say yes significantly higher well that depends on what you consider a lot more? I have no clue what their pushes where and what their reported hypothetical push like it is said for sergey.

You use the word she so I am guessing you are referring to Mary. This is theory time she is far off what I would consider a model to demonstrate my theories. Hollis from 2008 was the closet I got to someone able to handle many of the theories and jump a higher bar I have worked with. An injury in 2009 destroyed that progression and outside influence moved him further and further away from my vision in the remaining years working with him. Funny thing is the athlete who I had utilize many concepts the best was a near 5' tall college woman I worked with who ran just under 15 seconds in the 100 (no lie Becca jumped against her), she was able to grip way down on a 13' 120 and went near 12' walking down the runway. Was an NAIA All-American!!!! Got side tracked, though Mary is getting better each year she has many inconsistencies from her past that limit her from doing many of the topics I talk about. Those are in the process of being corrected in the years to come. She is however demonstrating some of them which has allowed a vaulter who unfortunately tends to block out can still safely move a 14'6 grip (highest she has ever held and got into the pit safely, but not normal grip). Those inconsistency I won't bring up here because its not what this is about sadly do not allow her to catch the ride so she can't get the lift we want yet. Soon!!!! 15'2 clear with 14'2 grip minus 8" so 1'8" clearance over grip isn't terrible for a woman especially when you take into account she is only jumping at roughly 80% of what I want. Anyways back to the topic at hand.

agapit wrote:Another point of difference that may need to be explained is takeoff actions. On the fiberglass pole some vaulters are trying to bend the pole (to store more energy) and also to move the takeoff foot (in the air) way behind to generate a whipping kick by the foot, most coaches call it a “swing”. A good example of this whipping kick would be Janice Keppler and drills she is doing to achieve that. Some coaches like Don Hood (Billy Olson, Tim Bright, Brad Pursley at Abilene Christian University) and some other coaches for example advocate a flat direction of the takeoff, so the pole bends more and therefore stores more energy for later use. None of that was possible on the straight pole. No one was trying to bend the straight pole or “whip-kick” with the foot or perform a low angle takeoff. It seems these are few points of significant difference, yes/no?


You state that as if its a good thing? Two points on this:

First:
You say some vaulters are trying to bend the pole to store more energy... So if the pole bends we are storing energy, but if it stays straight it disappears? I look at it this way it takes energy to in fact bend the pole. At takeoff we provide a certain amount of KE. The energy we use to bend the pole is gone. We no longer have it available to help rotate the pole. It takes energy to bend the pole the bending of the pole is an affect. If you use 60% of your energy to bend the pole than you have 40% left to rotate it hence why IMO the term ROW came into play. Oh crap we bent the pole too much and it stopped moving so row your hands as hard as you can to get it moving again. (Side topic for those still trying to read this mess of a post, it doesn't help you swing faster unless the timing is done right but its not most of the time and all you get is a fast moving foot and a butt that SITS IN A CHAIR.)

However, if you use 45% of it to bend it less naturally than you will have 55% left to aid in rotation making the rotation past inversion easier. These are arbitrary numbers of course just trying to make a point which I don't even know if I did :D. Bottom line the bending of the pole is not storing energy it takes energy to in fact bend the pole. However the bending of the pole itself creates strain energy that is used to help unbend the pole and if there is enough left you get that secondary acceleration to lift you as talked about earlier. However, there is no data that shows how much energy is needed to lift a 200 pound man on a pole that has been compressed down to 73% of its initial length. And how much strain energy is created when that pole is flexed down to 73% on a certain pole stiffness rating. We just all know the stiffer the pole when compressed to the same amount it will unbend with a greater acceleration.

Second:
You state the low takeoff, whip kick or attempting to bend the pole in a manner that makes it seem like it should be taught.... I don't think any of those concepts should be taught, looked at or focused on. Watching Warnerdam video I would not say that is a low takeoff by any means. I will say if he had an object in his hands that would in fact flex (fiberglass) it would have naturally and fully. Bending the pole is the effect that occurs when two fixed points (the hand and the box) compress an object that is allowed to flex to a certain degree with ease. The creation or appearance of the "Whip Kick" is merely the delay in time it takes for the natural bending process to occur and compete. If its a stiff pole and no compression this stretch of the body occurs quickly and thus the swing is so called initiated right away. If the pole is very very soft and it compresses very easily than it will take longer for the body to achieve the same elastic state and the initiation of the hips moving into a swing will be delayed in comparison. However IMO if the athlete attempts to artificially enhances this movement by purposely delaying and overly creating the whip kick they may in fact miss the boat and fall behind the path of the imaginary pole cord. This will hurt pole rotation and ability to catch the ride on top.

Back when I worked with high school athletes and woman were first starting to jump I use to shake my head when one athlete and coach would complain, oh my that girl doesn't even have a bottom arm how is she beating me she is such a bad vaulter. yet she was jumping 1.5 feet higher. I would just shake my head and think coach go back to football practice and hit the sleds. I feel bad for the term "fiberglass face" it has gotten such a bad name for itself..... If the pole doesn't ben you should get near a moment of fiberglass face the pole isn't bending get the right equipment of fix their posture. I'm sure they are leaning back or you have a tree trunk in their hands.

As I have said before I look at movements of other vaulters I don't study competitors and break them down in terms of what I would do different. They don't work with me its not worth my time to dream. I have never analyzed Janice's jump so I am not going to say which path she is doing you brought her name up not me. I can't even think of how she jumps I just notice did the bar stay up or did it fall down. As I say that I do not believe anyone should be trying to artificially create a movement that should be naturally occurring if allowed. If the movement isn't there than obviously something you are doing is stopping an action that is suppose to be natural from occurring. A pendulum swinging action on a fixed object is normal. To me that pendulum swing is in fact the whip kick action we want anyways. A tap slam in gymnastics on a giant. Athletes sitting on the bottom trying to bend the pole are just destroy what should naturally be occurring. Personally I don't get it. Rather it was a guy on 5.10 poles or 14' poles or a woman on 15' poles or 11' poles personally I have never taught anyone to sit on the bottom and wait. If your waiting you have already missed the ride. Finish the up spring takeoff load the body with energy and enjoy the ride.

agapit wrote:It’s a good conversation, I believe, because it makes us all aware of the issues and we all could get on the same page, speak the same language, no pun intended. Conversations like that would move our understanding forward, so I think it is very positive!


I agree and its the only reason I responded..... Most other comments I would have just not answered cause they probably wouldn't have added to my comments they would have been the whole how dare you go against my beliefs LOL..... I don't coach your athlete and you don't coach mine at the end of the day I just want to see people having fun and enjoying pole vaulting.

WOW I wrote a lot :( and now its 2:30 am dang you.......

dj
PV Enthusiast
Posts: 1858
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:07 am
Expertise: Coach
Contact:

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby dj » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:00 pm

hye swt

Coach hood would advocate jumping "out not up." he was against having too flat of a takeoff. I think his whole thing was based on not sacrificing horizontal velocity to create vertical impulse.


i think you are very correct about Coach Hood and even other coaches of that era....

logic and "physics" told us that having an "UP" Impulse was the only way to go and just like the long jump, or even more so, it had to be very "subtle" so that the very minimum of horizontal speed was effected…

if you will go back to Peter McGinnis' first science, 1983/84….. you will see what the coaches felt was important.. reason? The top US coaches all shared their ideas several years before he did the first study.

My points at that time was/were

Running speed into the takeoff

Height of the top arm at the plant

Takeoff foot position in relationship to a vertical point of the grip.

Takeoff angle/body trajectory—although that is in most part determined by the stiffness of the pole in relationship to the "force" put in at the plant/takeoff.

Speed of the swing -- in two parts..1 speed to max bend of the pole and 2 time from takeoff to maximum height…

AND the resultant velocity--- which is what tells us whether we preformed the plant/takeoff according to Romans model, although we didn't know Roman, Petrov or Bubka at that time.

Maybe we didn't get "Bubka" results but not from not trying. I know that Dave Roberts, Earl, Mike Cotton from the 70's and Starky, Dial, Hysong, Fraley, Tarpening, and some others were trying to "leave the ground" just before the pole hit the back of the box with an "UP" impulse..

but yes they were still trying to move the hand grip as deep into the pit as they could and still get inverted and go vertical.

dj

PS.. accelerate ... carry as much speed as possible throught the last 2 to 4 steps.. plant high and "out" with an "impluse"... swing as fast as possible up and off the pole.. RUN>>>PLANT>>>>>SWING..

User avatar
agapit
PV Follower
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:59 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby agapit » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:52 am

altius wrote:"A good example of this whipping kick would be Janice Keppler and drills she is doing to achieve that". GOOD -RECOMMEND THE KICK WHIP OF THE TAKE OFF LEG.


If you read my post, I never recommend nor non-recommend the “kick whip” or any other items ;) I just say, these have not been done on the straight pole and it is quite impossible to do. My question is if someone ventures to say that fiberglass pole vaulting is essentially the same as straight pole vaulting what about all these and other items I brought that seem to differ? I just want to understand what people think as far as similarities between the two. Let’s start with obvious similarity that one has to use a pole to jump over the bar, but what about the details, to outline again some of these items:

• To take any special action to “load the pole”, "to store more energy in the pole, whether its direction of the jump or left arm or anything else or not?
• Care or not care that pole bends while foot is still on the ground or not?
• “Kick whip” to delay “rock back” inversion to allow for more penetration of the pole or not?
• “Kick whip” to “speed up”, I assume, the “swing” (sorry for numerous quotations) or not?
• “Cover the pole” to align on the top to “catch” recoiling energy of the pole or not?

These seem to be some, but not all, of the details as far as comparing fiberglass and straight pole vaulting methods. Perhaps in this conversation we could touch an obscured “holly grail”- the new leap in understanding of the event, if there is such a thing at all ;)?

P.S.

To ADTF, I guess I am asking for simple recommendations on these items as you would give to an athlete. For example you need to “cover the pole” to “catch“ the recoiling energy of the pole, etc.
In 1989 there was a theory published in Russia by Nikonov (one of the science/coaches) that increasing the bend of the pole is the objective of the actions of the vaulter. They measured the distance the pole bended from the chord and suggested that the bigger the distance the better the technique. I know Petrov bought into this at the time and was looking for ways to increase this distance. Would you recommend this or not? How about other items on the list?
there is no spoon... www.m640.com

User avatar
coachjvinson
PV Whiz
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:58 pm
Expertise: I have never recognized the concept of limits-I think an athlete who accepts limits is dead-Bubka
Lifetime Best: 0
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: COOP 4.55m and Mondo

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby coachjvinson » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:29 am

agapit wrote:I just want to understand what people think as far as similarities between the two. Let’s start with obvious similarity that one has to use a pole to jump over the bar, but what about the details, to outline again some of these items:

• To take any special action to “load the pole”, "to store more energy in the pole, whether its direction of the jump or left arm or anything else or not?
• Care or not care that pole bends while foot is still on the ground or not?
• “Kick whip” to delay “rock back” inversion to allow for more penetration of the pole or not?
• “Kick whip” to “speed up”, I assume, the “swing” (sorry for numerous quotations) or not?
• “Cover the pole” to align on the top to “catch” recoiling energy of the pole or not?


I have to start off by stating that my knowledge of the historical aspects of straight pole vaulting and vaulters is not strong; however, the principals in training which I was taught and have been mentored in involve what I believe to be a hybrid of sorts drawing heavily on straight pole fundamentals.
Even before the quoted post was submitted, I was pondering a post as several of the topics piqued my interest and were relavent to some of the background reading I have been doing as of late. So I will post a few thoughts on the above quotes and await any and all feedback and criticisms.

agapit wrote:
I just want to understand what people think...
• To take any special action to “load the pole”, "to store more energy in the pole, whether its direction of the jump or left arm or anything else or not?
• Care or not care that pole bends while foot is still on the ground or not?


I am including my thoughts on these two items as they are closely related in principal to the objectives we are trying to incorporate...

Specifically, I would state that the most efficient and productive method to store and transfer energy into the pole and vault system results from transferring the energy of the run utilizing the free takeoff to direct the energy in an upward, angular direction that does not sacrifice the directional velocity of the vaulter's run for vertical jump height.

1)Primarily, this results in the most effective energy transfer into the pole and vault system which is measured and observed not only through load on the pole (bend or flex) but additionally, through the movement of the pole from the position during the plant to its final vertical position.

Further, every vault style and technique is simply managing the collision that results when the pole is planted in the box. Specifically, the energy of the vector (forces) will always be the same for any given vault (with a specific speed and mass varying only due to the variability of an athletes run): the style and the technique are simply the strategies utilized to manage the directional forces (vectors).

2)Moreover, if the pole tip has contacted the back of the box and the foot is still in contact with the ground, there can be a functional loss of potential and kinetic energy into the vault system (synonymous with the transfer of energy in a "head on collision"): the amount of which is determined by how much of the foot is on the ground when the pole begins to flex. Specifically, if the vaulter's foot is flat on the ground and the pole has begun to flex, the primary velocity (speed and direction) is horizontal. In this position, the primary force moving the pole to vertical is simply the vertical extension of the arm, shoulder and top hand grip, as well as a minimal jump (if any) and the primarily circular rotation of the pole on its radial axis: the path of which is only altered by the pole's flex/bend: the rotation of the pole to vertical on the radial axis is the result of the efficiency (whether great or small) of transfer of horizontal energy and movement. Now, you may believe that this is ok or even desirable and a goal to train for: in fact, many vaulters have vaulted well from the aforementioned position and take off.

I must ask,...
"Is this the most fluid and least restrictive manner in which to transfer the energy of the approach run into the vault system."
The premis and postulate of the free takeoff results in the most efficient energy transfer through:
1)Initiating the take off with minimal restrictions of energy transferred into the vault system from the speed and energy generated during the approach run.
2)Shortening the radial arc distance of the pole through a fully extended top hand and a reach height which is greater than that which can be achieved when maintaining contact with the ground during the takeoff/collision.
3)Allowing the moment of inertia and subsequent swing and rotation of the vaulter to fully load and transfer energy to the fiberglass pole.

agapit wrote:
I just want to understand what people think...
• “Kick whip” to delay “rock back” inversion to allow for more penetration of the pole or not?
• “Kick whip” to “speed up”, I assume, the “swing” (sorry for numerous quotations) or not?


This was the part of the current conversations and posts which had me thinking initially. I was reading discussions of the 6.4 model and there was a conversation surrounding the trail leg and the straightness or bend in the trail leg.
My continued postulate is this and is predicated on the aforementioned statements on the efficiency of the free takeoff. Again, every style and technique is simply a strategy employed to manage a collision. Further, if the vaulter has successfully employed a take off that transfers the most energy possible for any given vault, the vaulter will have a fully extended top hand and will have initiated an upward jump impulse which does not compromise horizontal velocity. As a result, the moment of inertia which results from the collision of the pole into the back of the box will affect both the pole and the vaulter: the pole will begin to bend and several things can happen to the vaulter, based on prior training, conditioning and coaching.

1) the most productive thing that the vaulter can do is to have a fluid contact with the pole maintained primarily through the top hand: any efforts to push or press with the bottom hand at this point are counterproductive. The fluid contact that the vaulter has will result in the vaulter having a vertical center line from the top hand to the take off toe, head slightly off to one side and shoulders and hips askew. Further, the vaulter will additionally form the reverse "C" with a spinal/torso rotation due to the top hand being behind the head and the drive knee and hip being forward. This is the body's natural position and response to the collision of the pole and the moment of inertia carrying the mass and COG forward and beginning the swing rotation of the the vaulter around the radial axis of the top hand. The reverse "C" position, the trunk/torso rotation, and a slightly bent trail leg are natural and desirable positions for the vaulter and are the result of the vaulter maintaining a fluid and dynamic posture through the takeoff and the resulting collision. This is the manner in which...
A) the greatest energy transfer will occur from the runway to vault system
B) the vaulter will be in the optimal position to begin to swing.

It is my thought that the vaulter does not attempt to cock/bend the leg to initiate the whip kick; fundamentally, the back/trapezius/shoulder extension and trunk rotation resulting in the reverse "C" position and the stretch reflex of the vaulters trail leg has placed the vaulter in a natural position to initiate the forward rotational movement of the kick/whip and swing forward and around the radial axis of the top hand. Additionally, the pole may have/should have subsequently bent under load in a manner that the bottom arm has room to straighten (possible but not essential nor necessary): this should not be confused with any pressing/blocking action of the bottom arm and shoulders which would slow or impede the swing and rotation of the vaulter.

agapit wrote:I just want to understand what people think...
• “Cover the pole” to align on the top to “catch” recoiling energy of the pole or not?


This portion is personally, interesting as it is the point at which my understanding of the vault is developing: my thoughts are as follows...
1) There are two primary radial axis of rotation: the top hand grip rotating around the pole tip: and the vaulter around the top hand. The two rotational movements rotate in opposite directions; one clockwise and the other counter clockwise
(or viceversa depending on your perspective)
2) The vaulter should strive to rotate around the top hand, after the moment of inertia/reverse "C" position loads the pole, through the following continuous and fluid phases...
A) swing to pike
B) pike to hip extension
(while I am not advocating it, you could substitute pike for tuck: also, pike does not necessarily mean that the legs do not have a functional bend)
3) The vaulter should strive to complete the rotation to vertical ahead of or in time with (but not behind nor after) the poles rotation to vertical and the accompanying recoil so that the vaulter has the opportunity to pull/turn/push with an acceleration that is matched with or greater than that of the recoil of the pole.

Thoughts...
(I realize this may not fully address nor identify the differences between straight pole vaulting and fiberglass vaulting, please forgive the oversight...)
PURSUITOF2016

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:49 am

agapit wrote:If you read my post, I never recommend nor non-recommend the “kick whip” or any other items ;) I just say, these have not been done on the straight pole and it is quite impossible to do. My question is if someone ventures to say that fiberglass pole vaulting is essentially the same as straight pole vaulting what about all these and other items I brought that seem to differ? I just want to understand what people think as far as similarities between the two. Let’s start with obvious similarity that one has to use a pole to jump over the bar, but what about the details, to outline again some of these items:



As usually many of your posts never say anything but attempt to be whitty to start conversation. I get what you attempting to do, but I think the crowd and the manner at which you attempt to do things is sadly not going to work. Assumptions lead to disappointment. I hope I for the very least got a conversation started amongst people.

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:55 am

agapit wrote:P.S.

To ADTF, I guess I am asking for simple recommendations on these items as you would give to an athlete. For example you need to “cover the pole” to “catch“ the recoiling energy of the pole, etc.
In 1989 there was a theory published in Russia by Nikonov (one of the science/coaches) that increasing the bend of the pole is the objective of the actions of the vaulter. They measured the distance the pole bended from the chord and suggested that the bigger the distance the better the technique. I know Petrov bought into this at the time and was looking for ways to increase this distance. Would you recommend this or not? How about other items on the list?



The translation on this I am confused on. This would make it seem that Nikonov and that if in fact Petrov bought into it that the more the pole bent the better? IE Compress the two ends as much as possible so the bend sticks out as far as possible.

I do not agree with this statement. I do think this happens naturally on the longer the pole you jump on. So if by those comments its meant get on a really long pole so when it bends the bend itself is sticking out a great distance.... sure that would be the best way to ensure you potential to go high. But the term increase this distance is leaving me confused on distance where and in which direction. My assumptions could be wrong so I can't answer or begin to think about this logically.

Not clear what you mean sorry.

dj
PV Enthusiast
Posts: 1858
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:07 am
Expertise: Coach
Contact:

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby dj » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:38 pm

This discussion was about the takeoff point but just like most of our "advanced" discussions… drift, quite logically and with my agreement, into more.

The takeoff point "model" should be easy to understand.. you would like to be in a position to "attack" (and don't anyone interpret attack to be a forced bending of the pole) the pole before the pole "attacks" you.. in other words let your speed and takeoff position bend the pole.

As far as the discussion about "putting energy into the pole" that doesn't really happen, not to a "usable" extent that is. What you are doing that makes the fiberglass an important addition to pole vaulting is "shortening" the cord radius so the pole can be more easily "rotated" to vertical. Period!

George Moore did not build a "spring"… he would not have gotten a "spring" past the IAAF. He built an "artificial" bamboo pole. The great advantage to Bamboo was it "bend" quality and again not its "spring" quality. Swedish steel would bend, a little, without breaking.. the bend on all, including aluminum was an advantage because of shortening the radius.. NOT energy put into the pole.

Now the reason we will never agree is the majority of you probably don't believe what I just said is correct… most of you believe the pole is a 'spring"…

It's not… you will jump higher above the hand grip by "swinging" off the pole than you will ever jump by "waiting" for the pole to through you.

As far as pole bend.. more bend to a point is better because of the shortening of the radius.. allowing for a higher grip on fiberglass is the sole reason the record has gone from 16 feet to 20 feet.. the only reason is fiberglass poles and better fiberglass poles.

I determined a long time ago that 30-32% is just about the maximum a good fiberglass pole can be bent and not break.. Tully and Bell bent 27/28% in the early 80's. I got Tully to 30% ish and he jumped higher…

BUTT.. let me "caution" this.. just a big bend is not the answer… a big bend WITH and UP impulse at the takeoff AND a fast swing.. for example Tim Macks 5.90 2004 Trials jump had the best numbers…

.49 seconds to maximum bending of the pole, 30/31% bend and a 1.44 second time to maximum height above the bar.

Dj

User avatar
coachjvinson
PV Whiz
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:58 pm
Expertise: I have never recognized the concept of limits-I think an athlete who accepts limits is dead-Bubka
Lifetime Best: 0
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: COOP 4.55m and Mondo

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby coachjvinson » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:58 pm

Professors:
agapit wrote:
ADTF Academy wrote:
agapit wrote:But let’s be real. Stiff pole vaulting is different from fiberglass vaulting. What about putting energy into the pole and then most importantly receiving the energy back from the pole at the top...


...Overall positions are similar, overall movements are not 100% equals.

Are you saying you don't put energy into a straight pole?...


I don’t believe you “put” (store) energy into the straight pole, no...

...I am just trying to more clearly understand how is it the same on the straight pole as compared to the fiberglass?


Both Agapit and ADTF are correct, there is not a functional nor practical benefit to be gained from a storage of energy (potential) into the stiff pole in and of itself. What I do believe that ADTF is emphasizing as a fundamental principal, which applies to both the flexible and non flexible technique, is a matter of timing.

Specifically, I believe it to be a statement of fact that a vaulter can be in a position to benefit from a "thrust advantage" on a straight pole at or near the top of the vault. The additional "thrust advantage" is due to combined momentums of the dual rotating circular axis of the pole and the vaulter. This is my understanding of the advantage gained due to working ahead of the pole, it is apparent that this advantage is available to vaulters whether on the stiff pole or a flexible pole. Basically, as the hand grip is moving to vertical, the vaulter's rotation around the hand grip should be completed in time with or slightly ahead of the rotation of the hand grip around the axis of the pole tip in the box. Timed correctly, the vaulter can accelerate off the top of the pole,whether straight or flexible: the flexible pole vaulter has the added opportunity to benefit from the recoil as well.

This principal lies at the root of the diminishing returns of over-gripping, simply because a vaulter can move a certain grip past vertical does not necessarily mean that the vaulter has developed the strength, coordination and timing of the swing to be able to push off the top in a productive manner. A foundational goal and training principal is to have an explosive push off: the manner in which this is developed involves working from a grip which allows the pole to move to vertical while the vaulter is swinging to vertical in a quick and powerful manner which will place the vaulter in a positon to have an effective, precise and powerful push off. I would additionally state that if the vaulter can simply move the pole "to vertical" that this in and of itself is not enough: there is a point at which the rotational speed of the pole/grip degrades and the subsequent momentum into the pit is diminished.

Certainly the athlete must continue to train at our near the ceiling of functional grip height: it should simply be addressed in a similar manner to that of the 1 rep max and principals of periodization, intensity and volume. Overtraining can be addressed comparatively with over-gripping and all of the pitfalls that accompany, including a diminished quality of movement and a physiological toll.

I believe ADTF's position has merit that the advantage gained from the momentum of timing the swing with the poles movement to vertical is foundational and takes a fundamental precedent over any gain from the recoil of a flexible pole as well as excessive grip height: hence, a vaulter must first learn to walk before running so to speak. This was the basis of my misunderstanding in our previous dialogue, thank you for your patience as I required a bit of time to catch up. Additionally, If I have overlooked something in my interpretations, please advise and clarify. I have tried to outline similarities between both flexible pole technique and stiff/straight pole technique; Further, I have attempted to edit my previous post in order to further identify similarities which would apply no matter the technique. If I have missed anything or have inferred in error, please clarify as it will assist in my development, understanding and continued repentance ;)

coachjvinson wrote:
agapit wrote:I just want to understand what people think as far as similarities between the two...

...most effective energy transfer into the pole and vault system which is measured and observed not only through load on the pole (bend or flex) but additionally, through the movement of the pole from the position during the plant to its final vertical position.

1)Initiating the take off with minimal restrictions of energy transferred into the vault system from the speed and energy generated during the approach run.
2)Shortening the radial arc distance of the pole through a fully extended top hand and a reach height which is greater than that which can be achieved when maintaining contact with the ground during the takeoff/collision.
3)Allowing the moment of inertia and subsequent swing and rotation of the vaulter to fully load and transfer energy to the... ...pole.

Again, every style and technique is simply a strategy employed to manage a collision. Further, if the vaulter has successfully employed a take off that transfers the most energy possible for any given vault, the vaulter will have a fully extended top hand and will have initiated an upward jump impulse which does not compromise horizontal velocity. As a result, the moment of inertia which results from the collision of the pole into the back of the box will affect both the pole and the vaulter...

...my thoughts are as follows...
1) There are two primary radial axis of rotation: the top hand grip rotating around the pole tip: and the vaulter around the top hand. The two rotational movements rotate in opposite directions; one clockwise and the other counter clockwise
(or viceversa depending on your perspective)
2) The vaulter should strive to rotate around the top hand, after the moment of inertia/reverse "C" position loads the pole, through the following continuous and fluid phases...
A) swing to pike
B) pike to hip extension
(while I am not advocating it, you could substitute pike for tuck: also, pike does not necessarily mean that the legs do not have a functional bend)
3) The vaulter should strive to complete the rotation to vertical ahead of or in time with (but not behind nor after) the poles rotation to vertical...


I am thankful for all of the discussion and information, both current and prior... there is a wealth of knowledge in the preceding manuscripts. Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity as a thought experiment, pure logic: it was later measured and proven by an astronomer half way around the world who measured the deviation of planetary light before, during and after an eclipse. They both were dependent upon one another: one the professor, the other the student.
V
PURSUITOF2016

fishman4god
PV Pro
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:03 pm
Expertise: 4 Time all american 3 college 1 masters,Current high school pole vault coach,current masters vaulter
Lifetime Best: 4.81 m
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Tim Mack

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby fishman4god » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:07 pm

Right on DJ. My high school coach 74-76 and my college coaches all taught a penultimate jump up and in takeoff. So did olsons coach at Abilene as well as many others. So the point that running off the ground was all that was taught is somewhat ambiguous to say the least

david bussabarger
PV Nerd
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:35 pm
Expertise: former elite vaulter, author of vaulting books and many articles on vaulting technique.
Lifetime Best: 16-9, 1971
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Brad Pursley

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby david bussabarger » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:36 pm

I agree with adtf academy that at the most essential level the fg. vault should be based on the mechanics of proficient rigid pole technique. However I am not sure I am clear on the details of his theory. In his 1962 booklet Making The Transiton To Fiberglass Poles, Father J. Coulthard states the following about rigid pole technique: "The run and take off are the preliminaries of the swing which must be continued right through to the end of the vault. The pull merely accelerates the swing. If the preliminary movements in the vault are well timed, the vaulter will shoot up and off the top of the pole with little or no apparent pushing effort. So the vault becomes a giant swing carried on and on". In other words in rigid vaulting the action of the vaulter's swing was the primary force which propelled him up and over the bar. Using this method several rigid pole vaulters were able to achieve push off distances in excess off 3' ( D. Cooper 3'11/2",J. Pennel 3'1/2", J. Welbourne 3'21/2" and R. Morris 3' 4'' ).
Although the specfics of execution differ in fg. vaulting, all elite male vaulters also take advantage of the action of their swing to help propell them up and over the bar. But they also have the added advantage the recoiling action of the pole, which, given correct execution, combines with the swing to propell them up and over the bar. As a result the best fiberglass vaulters have been able achieve push off distances of around 4'.
However, most vaulters and coaches focus exclusively on developing the catapultic action of fg. poles, while unknowingly ignoring the development of the swing. As a result any benifit most fg. vaulters get from their swing is incedental. I believe that greater push off distances should be possible with fg. poles if more attention was given to developing the swing.

david bussabarger
PV Nerd
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:35 pm
Expertise: former elite vaulter, author of vaulting books and many articles on vaulting technique.
Lifetime Best: 16-9, 1971
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Brad Pursley

Re: The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

Unread postby david bussabarger » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:47 pm

As to the springing action in fg. vaulting, what is impotant here is not what the vaulter is trying to do but what the vaulter actually does. If you carefully examine the springing action of large numbers of elite male vaulters ( vaulters who have exceeded 5.80m. ) it is obvious that, with few exceptions, they employ a forward /upward spring off action. This is reflected in the fact that the take off angle of elite male vaulters is typically inbetween that of triple jumpers and long jumpers ( about 18 degrees ). Note, this figure is from P. McGinnis's article in the 2000 ed. of THE JUMPS.
Springing directly upward ( like a long jumper ) at take off in the fg. vault creates 2 problems:
1. The more vertical the springing movement, the more the vaulter detracts from his/her ability to develop inward movement (due to conflicting movement ).
2.Vertical spring abrptly raises the c.g., which causes the lose of previously developed run speed and momentum. It is abit like a car hitting a speed bump.
Therefore it is much more efficient to use a forward/upward springing action, which elite male vaulters do, whether by instinct or desgin.


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest