The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

[agapit]

David, as to empirical observation of being “under” and therefore directly or indirectly justifying it as a norm or an efficient method has no logical connection really. I would go so far as to say that there is no ideal clearly identifiable takeoff point. The notion that the takeoff should be “under” the grip is absolutely unsubstantiated and has been accepted by everyone as a statement of faith rather than objective science. Just ask anyone why takeoff point should be under the extended top arm and see what bizarre explanation they will offer. Accepting this as true, people put towels on the runway to prevent vaulters from being “under”.

DJ wrote that: “by "physics" the athlete should have an upward "impulse".. arms fully extended” Hmm whatever that means as far as the impulse concern, but the arms actually are never fully extended until a vaulter leaves the ground in a free takeoff, so measuring the takeoff point under extended arms is to measure it at an artificial position that does not really exist or is desirable, I refer to arms being fully extended as the pole tip contacts the back of the box, as DJ put it. To ask a vaulter to do this is the same as to ask a basketball player to have a ball as high as possible with fully extended arms before he leaves the ground (during completion of the jump sequence) in a dunking contest. We all know that this is biomechanically, if not impossible, highly undesirable.

The real objective of the correct point of the takeoff is that takeoff should be at the position where the athlete could complete his/her jump of the ground without resistance from the pole (why it is important mechanically and biomechanically, and there are two distinct reasons as one deals with pure mechanics and the other with muscle and nerve system reaction based on the body position and resistance it experiences, is not the place to explain this here) so, let’s assume that we all agree that completing the jump before the pole resistance is most preferred option.

In order for a vaulter to complete the jump before pole resistance a vaulter should be far enough from the point where the pole would exert the resistance. I personally prefer not to watch actual takeoff point, other than for safety reasons in the beginning of a training session or a competition, when trying a new runway, run up distance or jumping in extremely windy or wet conditions. What is more reasonable is to monitor whether the pole exerted resistance on the athlete (initial bend of the pole, visible on the video, for example) before the jump was completed. For example on the video if we can see initial bend of the pole before the foot leaves the ground that indicates that the takeoff was not completely free (note that absence of the free takeoff does not mean a vaulter could not clear a height).

Again, the point of the Discussion brought by David is mute and irrelevant, since the position he refers to as “vertical” “under” the grip is completely artificial and should not be considered at all as a reference point, in my humble opinion, but rather whether the jump has been completed before initial bend of the pole or not.

Now when you start monitoring the relevant thing – free takeoff, you start to think what actually causes a vaulter to not being able to complete the jump “free” and it is not the position of the foot that requires adjustments as you all have experienced by simply changing the run up distance up or down.

[dj]

Roman

actually we said the same thing... "impulse" is a jump.. and the hands are fully extended "as"/when the pole hits the back of the box..

in all the scientific studies Bubka had the greatest amount of "top arm extension" at the point of Takeoff and generally he has the greatest amount of "resultant" velocity.. meaning a combined in/horizontal and up/vertical... that is from the jump impluse combined with the last stride acceleration.

dj

[altius]

Agapit "The real objective of the correct point of the takeoff is that takeoff should be at the position where the athlete could complete his/her jump of the ground without resistance from the pole (why it is important mechanically and biomechanically, and there are two distinct reasons as one deals with pure mechanics and the other with muscle and nerve system reaction based on the body position and resistance it experiences, is not the place to explain this here) so, let’s assume that we all agree that completing the jump before the pole resistance is most preferred option."

That is the nub of the whole issue in an excellent post. In fact amazing for someone who can hardly speak English! But don't think that even this most rational approach will change entrenched positions - you only have to look at the great political divide in the USA to see that. At least Stalin kept politics simple!!!

However then the question opens up -as it surely will - What are the advantages of the 'free' take off? And that in turn will need to be explained to folk who have never heard or it - have never read previous posts dealing with it - do not understand the biomechanical advantages it brings, or even looked at Chapter Twenty Six of BTB2 to see what they can disagree with.

[agapit]

Roman

actually we said the same thing... "impulse" is a jump.. and the hands are fully extended "as"/when the pole hits the back of the box..

in all the scientific studies Bubka had the greatest amount of "top arm extension" at the point of Takeoff and generally he has the greatest amount of "resultant" velocity.. meaning a combined in/horizontal and up/vertical... that is from the jump impluse combined with the last stride acceleration.

dj

DJ if you examine Bubka and other vaulters you will see that the top arm is "straightened by the pole" and in case of free jump in the air and not on the ground and in case of “not free jump” in the later phase of the takeoff cycle and definitely not when the hip is aligned with top arm and the takeoff foot. And jump is not an impulse. The impulse is velocity multiplied by mass. The jump simply redirects the speed vector by adding vertical “component” to that speed vector.

The old argument for the top arm being straight is to create a larger pole/ground angle at the takeoff and it still true that larger angle is more efficient in decreasing mechanical resistance of the pole, eating up the impulse of the vaulter generated during the run up, however, the concussion that the top arm must be absolutely straight is an inaccurate observation and actually irrational. One of the arguments, but by no means the only one, for the free jump is that it creates a larger pole/ground angle at the moment pole first begins to resist, which is mechanically when that angle is measured.

[david bussabarger]

to pv great from vault apostste:
as I have previously stated, I attempt to follow the scientific method by visually analysing as many elite vaulters as possible and then coming to conclusions based on the reseaech ( empirical data ). In constrast the great majority of responders on this site are what I would call neoplatonists. They believe absolutely in one largely hypothetically ideal model ( belief is not based on empirical data but on physics and biomechanics theories ). the empirical or real world evidence indesputeably shows that a large number of elite male vaulters take off under( now that otto has cleared 6m.s this includes 6 6m. vaulters who typically take off under ). By the way, all vaulters that I say typically take off under, is based on at least 3 to 4 different vaults and in some cases many more, for instance, my assessment that galfione typically takes off about 18" under is based on 4 different vaults, including his superb 6m. clearance ( so I am not cherry picking ). I do not advacate that vaulters should take off under ( I advocate that the vaulter should not take off too far out or too far under in relationship to the functional boundries of both extremes ). I do not know if any of the vaulters who take off under are doing so intentionally, but I doubt it. more than likely they do it naturally by instinct. It does not matter if it is by design or not. In most cases I have found that vaulters who have a natural talent for the vault execute many aspects of technique by instinct. So I think it is wrong to try to force fit them into any particular technical model ( I use the dictionary definition of the term model which defines it as a standard or example for imitation or comparision ). this point of view dovetails nicely with my conclusion, based on empirical evidence, that there is no one ideal technical model. rather,many aspects of technique,with few exceptions, have become highly standardized amoung elite male fg. vaulters. at the same time many other elements of technique vary significantly from vaulter to vaulter without detracting from performance level ( this includes the take off point ). finally, when developing a vaulter, it is my point of view that the base of the vaulter's technique should be built on the standardized aspects of the vault. the remaining variable elements of the vault ( such as the take off point, handspread on the pole, the exact action and position of the lead leg during the take off, forward arm action and position during the take off, the duration of the swing , the rock-back style,etc... ) should be designed around the vaulters natural tendencies.
















9

[agapit]

to pv great from vault apostste:
as I have previously stated, I attempt to follow the scientific method by visually analysing as many elite vaulters as possible and then coming to conclusions based on the reseaech ( empirical data ). In constrast the great majority of responders on this site are what I would call neoplatonists....

David I do not call you names What are your recommendations? Just go with the flow and forget about models, any models? What should we try to do? Do you know or do you just blow hot air?

P.S. When they asked Bubka about Tim Lobinger setting German Record of 6m, he replied (politically incorrect) that 6m was a big deal 10 years ago, creating huge controversy in the German media. That was 7-8 years ago or more. Today in the US men are lucky to clear 19'. Why is that? And the only one that does consistently is closer to the “look” (not sure what model, if any, they follow) of the 1990s than anyone else.

[ADTF Academy]

P.S. When they asked Bubka about Tim Lobinger setting German Record of 6m, he replied (politically incorrect) that 6m was a big deal 10 years ago, creating huge controversy in the German media. That was 7-8 years ago or more. Today in the US men are lucky to clear 19'. Why is that? And the only one that does consistently is closer to the “look” (not sure what model, if any, they follow) of the 1990s than anyone else.

In all do respect I'd take that one step further and say Vaulters in the World are lucky to clear 19'. Why is that? It's not just a problem in the US. Why is vaulting as a whole down? Yes the top is the top, but the depth in the world is down? Did the whole world forget how to vault or is certain things no longer taking place that allows the average man to jump high? Just saying.

[agapit]

I think I got it! I think David says that some people will be under or over and some will stick left arm and some won’t and there is not difference, but whatever works. It’s like Baba Watson winning Masters without ever having any formal instructions! Well, all others who clearly ahead of him empirically, do have a particular method/model they follow and coaches that advance a particular elements of golf technique.
Good luck!

P.S. I wonder what you write in your books as your profile indicates?

[agapit]

P.S. When they asked Bubka about Tim Lobinger setting German Record of 6m, he replied (politically incorrect) that 6m was a big deal 10 years ago, creating huge controversy in the German media. That was 7-8 years ago or more. Today in the US men are lucky to clear 19'. Why is that? And the only one that does consistently is closer to the “look” (not sure what model, if any, they follow) of the 1990s than anyone else.

In all do respect I'd take that one step further and say Vaulters in the World are lucky to clear 19'. Why is that? It's not just a problem in the US. Why is vaulting as a whole down? Yes the top is the top, but the depth in the world is down? Did the whole world forget how to vault or is certain things no longer taking place that allows the average man to jump high? Just saying.

Why do you think the world results are down? Could it be because the best vaulter and current Olympic Champion is 18" under and all mimic what he does and 25 years ago they had a better model to mimic?

[IAmTheWalrus]

to science wizard from ivy league educated vaulting zealot

My largest objection in this entire discussion, is your preposterous claim that you are using science, while none of the rest of us are. I will be the first to admit, that there are some aspects of vaulting technique that I accept based on intuition, or the extrapolation of the principles of classical mechanics, to claim that watching video and "observing" makes you a scientist is ludicrous. I've seen like 6 seasons of the show House, can I perform your next medical procedure? If you really want to make this a scientific discussion, then you need to recheck the scientific method and realize that you aren't controlling for variables or setting up any experiments of your own. Your evidence can barely be considered correllary, its no better than those articles you read that say things like "People that do cartwheels 3 times a die are less likely to have a stroke." What you are observing are natural tendencies. Pole vaulting is perhaps the most unnatural event in all of sports, and even the most experienced vaulters still succumb to the natural human instinct to try and be closer to an object you are jumping onto (in this case the pit). In addition, most (not all) elite vaulters produced stellar performances at a young age and because of this early success may not have continued training fundamentals in the same way that another, less successful vaulter might. People fight biomechanics all the time (Like pitchers in baseball with a strange delivery). Yes they are successful, but by placing themselves at a biomechanical disadvantage, they are limiting several factors (usually velocity and durability).

You are correct in your observations, but you are drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from them. I respect people who disagree with the p/b model, and I even enjoy discussing technique with them, but it is your claims of scientific backing that I cannot agree with. Here is my conclusion based on your observations:

"Any plan is better than no plan" - No matter what technique you practice, if you master it, you will have success. If we are to continue with our high jump analogy, a world class western roller is still an excellent high jumper.

In addition, I would make the inference, that your "data" shows that there are many ways to "skin a cat." I would agree with that, you can get to 19' a 100 different ways, and some might be easier than the p/b model, I'm not sure. But we want to "skin a lion," and for that I believe only the p/b model (of all current models) is capable of that. I would explain your findings graphically as such. If you are not familiar with the mathematical concept of an asymptotic function, it is one in which the function approaches a given value, but never actually reaches it (more precisely the distance between the line of the function and the value decreases to 0 as x increases to infinity). With this concept in mind, imagine if you will a graph of different vaulting models where the x axis represents the time invested training in that model, and the y axis represents maximum clearable height. The slopes of the functions may be fastly different, with the petrov model possibly lagging a bit at the start due to the intense repetition required to overcome some natural tendencies. However every function on the graph will approach an asymptote, a height where you have completely maxed out an athletes physical capabilities. I believe strongly that the p/b model is going to have the highest asymptote, the closest we will come to reaching our vaulting potential, at least given the models on the table, will be through the p/b model. I'll even go on to say that we haven't come that close yet. That Otto could possibly be a world record holder, slow as he is, if he experienced less pole resistance at takeoff, that Lavillenie could shatter the record if he moved a straighter body faster on the pole.

That being said I would also like to address the fact that the pole vault is a complex dynamic event, and that the vaulters state at any given time is dependent almost entirely on his previous state. The practical application of this is that if you screw up the takeoff, the rest of your vault is not going to be a perfect p/b vault. As has been discussed many times on this forum, there is a finite amount of time one has with which to execute a vault, therefore any additional time spent in one phase must undoubtedly result in a decreased amount of time in another phase. This is one of the largest contributing factors to things like the tuck, which is performed by a large number of vaulters who are trying to execute the p/b model (mysef included). Ideal technique may vary greatly from jump to jump given certain constraints. As coaches we have all seen vaulters who have a very "pretty" vault, but jump relatively low heights over their grip. I would surmise that a large number of these occurances are a result of people attempting to go through a particular position, or execute a particular aspect of technique despite the fact that earlier movements diminished the advantage of said technical element (and example would be someone who gets to a vertical position after the pole has straitened).

With this in mind, it is striving for that ideal technique that is the backbone of our technical training. Certain things may vary from jump to jump (think of it as a tolerance, or a margin of error), but the more precision we have, the more we can minimize these variances, the closer we are to the ideal technique we are striving for, and the better we will ultimately perform.

In conclusion, I ask you to remember who else is on these forums and what their purposes are. Theoretical discussions are great, and I love to pass the time by reading and contributing to those posts, but I think that many of your posts, especially if interpreted the wrong way, can be harmful to young coaches and athletes. I love science, and have been very upset by your loose interpretation of it. I was even more offended when you compared our beliefs to religion, especially given that I was recently (about a year ago) swayed from my steadfast belief against the bottom arm pull, and no practice is to fantastic success. However, you might be on to something there, because I think that absolute belief in your coach, when he or she is a knowledgeable coach with a plan is very advantageous to an athlete, just like I think a coach who truly believes in what they are coaching is more effective in training an athlete. I'd be happy to debate technique point by point with you or anyone, but please make the distinction between debating technique or technical elements, and just making claims without adding any real substance. Basically, think about coaches and athletes. Are your comments going to help them coach more effectively or perform better? Might the just add confusion and uncertainty? You aren't going to impress anyone on here with your "scientific analysis" unless you can add real substance to the conversation.

[superpipe]

Another "like" button request.

[agapit]

With this in mind, it is striving for that ideal technique that is the backbone of our technical training. Certain things may vary from jump to jump (think of it as a tolerance, or a margin of error), but the more precision we have, the more we can minimize these variances, the closer we are to the ideal technique we are striving for, and the better we will ultimately perform.

I second this and third and fourth