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.
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 5:38 pm

david bussabarger wrote: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.


Professors:
Well stated, I have taken the opportunity to review some of your writings on the event and sport and I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your contributions over the years: I can only imagine some of the athletes and the events that the collective minds have witnessed. I am thankful for the insight and the opportunity to challenge my own beliefs surrounding the discipline and sport in general.

I would further question for my own understanding what is a generally desirable take off angle?
at one extreme there would be 90deg vertically, of course some momentum would carry the vaulter forward.
at the other would be 0deg horizontally and would simply represent the vaulter elevating the top hand?
Currently, we are using a reference point beyond the pit which would represent close to a 30deg angle from the horizontal plane at eye level for a 6' vaulter: the vaulters' cue is to "takeoff" toward the vantage/reference point.

Additionally, I am looking closely at the recent posts in re: to the push off and the fact that it is simply a continuation of the upward momentum of the vaulters' rotation around the hand grip as the primary source of velocity in the push off.
V
PURSUITOF2016

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 5:49 pm

as to the pre-jump, again, what vaulters actually do takes precedence over what the vaulter intends to do. If you claim the reverse the you are basically saying that wishful thinking is
more important than reality.
again, if you study large numbers of elite male vaulters ( this includes the members of the super elite 6m. club ) good luck finding a vaulter who successfully utilizes a pre-jump action.
as I have previously stated it is relatively easy to determine whether or not a vaulter has executed a pre-jump action. just stop the action just when the vaulter leaves the ground and examine the position of the top arm relative to the head. given that the vaulter has good posture during the final strides and the plant has been executed correctly, if the top hand is behind the head the pole was at the back of the box before the vaulter left the ground.( no pre-jump ).
This is a significant problem with many aspects of the petrov/bubka model. that it bases many of it's ideas on educated speculation. Many of these ideas, in turn, have little or no basis in reality.

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 7:53 pm

Professor/Coach:
dj wrote: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.

Agreed, while not always achieved, the free take off will allow, a maximum amount of energy to transfer into the vault system/swing. I would additionally state that the fiberglass/carbon pole can provide the vaulter with a buffer to the collision/moment of inertia: a buffer greater than that of the non flexible (less flexible) predecessors. Additionally, the free take off provides this type of buffer as well: this is due to the fact that less energy is required to begin the rotational movement of the hand grip/pole to the vertical position.

dj wrote: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!


I can accept this premise, basically our goal is to move the pole to vertical (rotate the hand grip around the central axis of the plant box/plug end) with a maximum functional velocity, while simultaneously the vaulter swings/rotates around the hand grip. The vaulter should strive to train in a manner to swing around the grip to vertical with the greatest amount of speed and force.

Additionally, given the aforementioned the vaulter/coach must determine the most effective grip.

This is indicated by the vaulter being able to direct the swing energy up and over the bar with the greatest functional height.
Grip too high (limited only by the vaulters run speed and the vaulters ability to transfer run speed to pole/hand grip rotation) and the pole rotation slows and the subsequent ability to swing to the greatest height potential AND safely land in the pit is diminished.
If the grip is too low, the vaulter can still "blow through" a pole that does not bend nor flex at all. The vaulter simply overcomes the grip height too easily and the pole rotates past vertical more quickly than the vaulter can swing to vertical(even when swinging in the most efficient and fastest manner possible.

"Push Off Height" taken in this context is less of a function of the force of the push off. It is more of a function of the rotational velocity of both the vaulter around the hand grip and the hand grip of the pole around the plug end in the box.

Further these precepts apply whether the pole is flexible or non-flexible: the flexible pole has changed the path of the hand grip rotation from a circular arc that begins by going up and then horizontal into the bar, to a path which resembles an exponential curve going in (shortening the chord) and then up as it returns to it's original shape and length.

dj wrote: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.

Got it... No Spoon, No Spring ;)

dj wrote: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


Thank you Coach!!
V
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 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:21 am

david bussabarger wrote: 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'.



I think these figures if correct sum up my point exactly. The other points well honestly I didn't read the article and just cause you can get something printed doesn't mean its true or everyone should follow the thoughts. However, Yes as the article stated the swing is the primary aid in moving the COG above the hands I never once said the energy remaining was. However, the potential energy stored in the stiff pole rotating over the time (summarized by coachjvisnon who is probably in physics or something). This is what I am referring to.

The reality is most athletes can't catch the ride of a bent pole to even gain its advantages. To say well a guy had a 3'11" push on a stiff pole and another guy got a 4' push on a bent pole the bent pole must be a better tool to throw you. A 1" improvement is not much to live by in fact most of the elites are getting mid 3' pushes MAX the same the elite stiff pole guys were getting.

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 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:43 am

david bussabarger wrote: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.



Two points you can't apply straight vertical forces only you would have to come to a dead stop. Secondly if the athlete is maintaining running mechanics and doesn't lean back and reach they can only apply so much vertical force they will be limited naturally. If they start to appear like a High Jumper than yes more vertical forces, but even HJ's only apply something like 40 degrees? I'd have to look up the exact numbers.


Second point is in the concept of running itself. Should running be done with a straight line generated with the COG or is there a wave affect that exists in running mechanics? There should be if you're running with a purpose of producing the top speed you can. If that is believed than what is the angle at which force is applied in basic running mechanics at toe off? I will triple check Ralph Mann's and others data when I get to campus but I believe it is around 10 to 12 degrees (I will update shortly) on each step. I will agree the vaulter should be near 16 to 20 degrees at takeoff. If both these figures are in fact correct we are raising our angle of attack roughly 6 to 8 degrees...... A long jumper on the other hand raises their angle of attack even higher.

A natural penultimate that allows the athlete to cycle the legs quickly into takeoff is what is needed. An exaggerated one like LJ or HJ takeoff is not. Watch a triple jumper and see how much they drop prior to impact or how much it looks like they more run off the ground. 6 to 8 degree lift over normal running mechanics isn't much of an increase in the greater scheme of things. It is more of an exaggerated front side lift to create that extra 6 to 8 degrees of lift over normal running mechanics than thinking to full out jump with a massive penultimate movement. On the other hand I feel people that do to try to jump or those with poor running mechanics are the bigger issue.

DJ this is a time I will totally support you...... Fix the way you run and your take off angle will take care of itself. If you're running mechanics are done with very steep pushing behind you motion and huge back side mechanics it will cause low hips with the pelvic bone tilted forward (butt out) you will not be in a position to apply any vertical impulse at all. If your running mechanics looks linear or a lot of sinking and running low to the ground sorry you can't jump. The flat takeoff is typically caused due to poor running mechanics and flat running not the inability to want to jump. THEY CAN"T JUMP!

I'm a speed development guy that spends a great deal of time in the fall working running mechanics and gait adjustments. Once I get an athlete firing on the right cylinders. To me the takeoff is an exaggerated run off the ground. 6 to 8 degree of extra lift is peanuts.

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 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:10 pm

As to the question of whether not there is a catapultic action in fg. poles:
1. when fg. poles where 1st invented ( by Herb Jenks ) there where no rules specifying what poles had to be made of. In other words you could use any material you wanted.
2. the springing action of fg. poles was an accidental by-product and it took some time for vaulters to start getting any appreciable pole bend. If you look at sequences of G. Davies, the 1st man to set a world record with a fg. pole ( 15-10 1/2, 61 ) and J. Uelses, the 1st man over 16' in 62, they both only bent the pole about 25 degrees at maximum bend. J. Pennel, the 1st man over 17' in 63, was the 1st fg. vaulter to really maximize bending the pole. He typically bent the pole around 90 degrees at maximum.
To recount my own experience as a vaulter, I cleared 11'-9" in 66 using a rigid pole as a sophmore in H.S. I was gripping about 12'-5" or even with the bar at 11'-9". In 67 I had the good luck to get a fg. pole that was just right for me and I could bend. Virtually the first time I used the pole I was shooting 1' to 1'-6" above my handgrip although it took some time before I could actually clear a bar that far above my grip. By the end of the year I cleared 14'-1/4" at the state meet to take 2nd and became the 3rd missouri H.S. vaulter ever over 14'. I was gripping only 12'-9" on that vault. The point of the story is that anyone who has developed proficient technique with a fg. pole will tell you that fg. poles have a real catapultic effect.You can literally feel the pole shoot you up if your technique is correct. On the otherhand as my vaulting career progressed I began to notice that on my best vaults my swing and rock-back always felt smoother and more continuous and I also got better push offs on these vaults. So I began trying to improve my swing on a more consistent basis. Although I was never fully satisfied with the results I was able to improve my best push off to 2'-11", fairly good for the time period.
My conclusion from all of this is that BOTH the SPRING OF THE POLE and the SWINGING ACTION of the vaulter contribute to the push off action. Over the years fg. vaulters have tended to focus on exploiting the catapultic action of the pole while being largely ignorant of the impotance of the swing. I contend that better devlopment of the swing, in combination with the springing action of the pole should produce better push off distances than achieved so far with fg. poles.

User avatar
altius
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
Location: adelaide, australia
Contact:

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

Unread postby altius » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:18 am

" I contend that better devlopment of the swing, in combination with the springing action of the pole should produce better push off distances than achieved so far with fg. poles.[/quote]

You make that statement as though this were a new insight and that there are thousands of dumb bunnies out here who do not understand this fact.

If you were to take the time to check out this topic on PVP you will find numerous posts - several hundred by dj alone I suspect - stressing the importance of the swing. If you read Chapters 5 and 7 of BTB2 you find first a chapter looking at the critical elements of stiff pole vaulting - with a great emphasis on the importance of the swing, then one that looks at the relationship between stiff pole and flexible pole vaulting and therefore emphasises the importance of the swing in both moving and bending the pole. Chapter 7 also suggests that instead of talking about any catapulting effect one should instead think about the 'straightening speed' of the pole - which although a function of many things is primarily dependent of the ratio of the athletes body weight and the stiffness (poundage or flex number) of the pole and the way the vaulter interacts with it.

Then take a peek at chapter 27 which looks at the swing into inversion in great detail. would be happy to post that chapter if it will help - unfortunately without illustrations unless someone can tell me how to resolve that issue. Always remembering that I am technologically challenged.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

tsorenson
PV Pro
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:17 am
Expertise: masters vaulter, former college vaulter, volunteer HS/club coach, fan, parent
Location: Bend, Oregon

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

Unread postby tsorenson » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:48 am

David Bussabarger,

I have been enjoying reading these recent threads. Thanks for your contributions; I fully agree with your last post regarding the importance of the swing. As would Petrov, ADTF, Altius, and Agapit, and most other PV coaches. I believe that you and others are still missing the main concept of the Petrov/Bubka method. I will attempt to summarize:

SPEND MOST OF YOUR TIME WORKING ON THE THINGS YOU CAN CONTROL, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS ON THE GROUND!

A good push is a naturally occurring reaction to a well-executed inversion.
A good inversion is a naturally occurring reaction to a well-executed swing.
A good swing is a naturally occurring reaction to a well-executed takeoff.
A good takeoff is a naturally occurring reaction to a well-executed pole drop.
A good pole drop is a naturally occurring reaction to a well-executed approach.
A good approach is a naturally occurring reaction to a well-executed stride pattern and pole carry.

Work from the ground up with the young vaulters if you want them to become elites. Easier than trying to fix the approach of an elite to get them to the WR, just because some coach early in their career let them take off under because they were so focused on the top end, or thought it was OK to take off under just because someone with a 5-meter grip can jump 19' when they are 18 inches under.

Just because you strive to take off free every day, doesn't mean that it will happen, especially on your biggest pole and highest grip. However, if you train to take off as far as possible from the box with good posture and mechanics (this requires stiff pole training), you will push your grip as high as possible and capitalize on the benefits of a free(er) takeoff. The top hand position relative to the body is important, as you have stated. The key to the free takeoff is not just moving the step out, it is a whole series of movements that result in no resistance against the upward and forward motion of the body and pole during the takeoff, so that your COM can move forward far enough to get into the pit, while the pole moves and you swing as fast and furious as possible, with no delay. Most people tense up massively when they hit a free takeoff, negating the benefit and making it dangerous. Petrov, Launder, Baggett, and others have described a training method to develop vaulters that can take utilize a free takeoff safely and effectively (even while under, despite your claim that this is impossible).

Every professional golfer fails to hit a hole-in-one on every shot, even though that is what they are striving for.
Baseball players don't always hit the ball, even though they practice every day to do just that.
Replacement referees don't always make the right call, even though they try their very best (although I am a Seahawks fan so that's ok with me! ha ha)
Elite vaulters don't always have a free takeoff, even though they try, because they didn't emphasize it enough as they learned how to vault.

Cheers,
Tom

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 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:33 pm

In response to tsorenson,
I agree that the run, plant and take off are the most critical parts of the vault. If these phases are executed correctly the rest of the vault should be relatively easy to develop. the take off, in particular, is the most critical factor affecting the development of the swing. The main point I was trying to make in my last post is that BOTH the SWING and the SPRING of the pole determine how far a vaulter can vault above his/her top hand. This was in response to adtf academy's post ( and a few other posts ) that seemed to claim that theire is no catapultic action in fg. vaulting. the fact that both factors contibute to push off distance make the fg. vault hyper complex. just think about how much golfers obsess about the complexities of the golf swing. the mechanics of the swing in fg. vaulting is far more complex. then ,on top of that, you have the bending and springing action of the pole to factor in. The variables are almost endless, which means the possibilites for refinment and improvement in technique are also almost endless. So I think there is still alot of room left to improve push off distance.
As to the pre-jump and free take off, as I have stated many times before, the claim that "pursuing" these techniques leads to superior results is not backed up by empirical evidence ( real world evidence ). Again whatever a vaulter actually does is the salient point, not what he/she is tying to do. for instance, lets say a given vaulter wants to take off out (because it is believed that it is superior to taking off under ), but always ends up taking off under anyway. The desire to take off out is irrelavent in terms of the results. In science reality always trumps "theory". that is if you have a "theory" that states that taking off out will produce superior resluts than taking off under ( although the p/b model doesn't exactly say this it does infer this ) then this should be reflected in the real world, but it isn't. That is if you excude Bubka's marks as a kind of exception to rule ( or a single anomally ) , there is barely any difference between the best marks achieved by vaulters who typically take off out and those who typically take off under.

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 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:38 pm

in reply to altius:
If you were to read the ELUSIVE BAR published in 1973 and written by bruce caldwell and myself you will find the importance of the swing is the central theme of the book. bruce and I where probably the earliest technical analysts in the U.S. to recognize the importance of the swing in fiber glass vaulting ( I don't know what other over seas analysts were thinking at that time as I had no access to any writtings of theirs at this time ).
as to your comment about my use of the term catapult effect, as I said before you have no monopoly on vaulting terms. You are free to use whatever terms you like and I will do likewise.
It is true that the stiffer the pole you use ( which typically increases the recoil speed of the pole ) the more you increase the springing power of the pole. all things being equal this will lead to greater push off distances. however It is important to note that from about 1961 to 67 virtually all the best vaulters in the world used roughly "equal weight " poles. It wasn't until 1968 when Cata-poles where put on the market ( and given to all the top vaulters in the world ) that G. Moore, the head of Cata-pole, began pushing the idea that vaulters should use the stiffest pole possible and vaulters began following his advice. durinig the period when the best vaulters were using "equal weight" poles several of these vaulters ( Pennel, Seagren and Vaughn ) achieved push offs in the 3'-6" range. This is a good push off distance for an elite vaulter today using a pole rated 25-30lbs overweight. My conclusion is that these vaulters had to have much more efficient swing technique than today's elite male vaulters. I believe that today's elite vaulters place too much emphasis on bending the stiffest possible poles to maximize the catapultic action of the pole. further the modifications in technique that permit vaulters to do this impair the development of the swing. It is my point of view that priority should placed on developing the best possible swing . The stiffness of the pole used should be a natural product of correct overall development of technique rather than an end in itself.

User avatar
IAmTheWalrus
PV Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:31 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current College Coach, Aspiring to be Elite Vaulter
Lifetime Best: 5.06m

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

Unread postby IAmTheWalrus » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:51 pm

In science reality always trumps "theory". that is if you have a "theory" that states that taking off out will produce superior resluts than taking off under ( although the p/b model doesn't exactly say this it does infer this ) then this should be reflected in the real world, but it isn't.


No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Theory is CENTRAL to science. Watching video does not make you a scientist. You have to be active in the process. Just because something exists does not mean it exists at its ideal state. A Leaf can convert solar energy to chemical energy, but I would rather power my house with solar panels.

Let's take an example from thermodynamics. The Carnot cycle. The Carnot cycle is theoretically the most efficient thermodynamic cycle. You will not find it in the real world, and it certainly does not occur in nature, but as steam turbines become more and more efficient, the Rankine cycle begins to more closely emulate the Carnot Cycle. The Carnot Cycle is the target, one that will never be achieved, but as the theoretical maximum, engineers know that the smaller the closer the get to achieving Carnot like results, the more efficient their engine. Applying these concepts to the pole vault, we can come up with a theoretical maximal efficiency technique based on maximal use of the vaulters energy. Mathematical models and simulations could be used to determine the most efficient technical model based on minimal energy losses, however, due to the complex nature of the pole vault and the lack of pole vault research funding, we'll have to settle for piece-wise examinations of the vault and biomechanical simplifications. Despite our limitations in creating a deterministic model, intuition and basic physics allows us to examine the vault and come up with a technical model that capitalizes on the vaulters ability to add energy to the vault while minimizing losses. The ideal petrov model jump may never actually happen, (it is rare if not a non event that a athlete ever performs any motion "perfectly"), however the closer an individual is to replicating the petrov model, the more efficient the vault.

That is if you excude Bubka's marks as a kind of exception to rule ( or a single anomally )


But you CAN'T exclude Bubka. He's the BEST representation of p/b technique. He's also cleared 6m a RIDICULOUS number of times, and with clearances that most elites can't get over 5.70. You seem to include and exclude other vaulters into the petrov model category in whatever way best supports your case. You've refused to accept several vaulters (such as gibilisco and tarasov) as petrov vaulters at times, and then excluded bubka as an anomaly. Let's go with the strictest definition of the Petrov model, which will leave only Bubka. If Bubka is the only true petrov vaulter, then I don''t see how your analysis has shown anything, there simply isn't enough data. The fact remains that the Petrov model (or any model for that matter) is very difficult to perfect, there are always going to be deviations from ideal. Therefore your analysis is at best inconclusive. Your metric is arbitrary; If I did my own analysis looking at the technique of vaulters who have cleared 6.10m, I think the results would be quite obvious. Your Petrov model sample is either too small (Bubka), or contains vaulters who deviate far enough from ideal, that their deviations, rather than the model they follow, could be the reason for their performances not being higher. Unless you have a controlled experiment that you then collect data from, your analysis is incomplete at best, and meaningless at worst. Just because no one else has perfected the model the way Bubka has does not mean that disprove the model as an ideal technical model (granted I am not attempting to prove that the petrov model is ideal in this statement, I am merely refuting your conclusion).

whatever a vaulter actually does is the salient point, not what he/she is tying to do


I also have a problem with this, for two reasons.

1) From a COACHING perspective, an idealized model is essential. Even if the model is "wrong" or "suboptimal," better results will be achieved if the vaulter has discrete technical goals. Yes vaulters can achieve the same results with different techniques, and yes vaulters don't always execute their technique correctly, but what you seem to be suggesting is that they just "go jump high." Athletes need technical direction as well as measurable results. Even if there were several best ways to vault, it would still argue that is in the coach's and athlete's best interest to purse a singular technical model. I know the petrov model well, and anyone who wishes to train with me can trust that my instruction will help them to achieve better results, vault safely, and does not conflict with what is physically possible. I would be much less successful in training someone to tuck and shoot or block out with the bottom arm, and my lack of conviction would cause distrust in my athlete.

In have read several times over in various training publications that HAVING A PLAN, EVEN IF ITS NOT PERFECT IS BETTER THAN NOT HAVING ONE.

2) Separating results from intention is fine for the takeoff point, but once you get beyond that point the vaulters actions become incredibly hard to discern from constraints place on them by the pole. For example (from the 6.40 model threads), it is possible to watch a vaulter and see their arm move away from their body, despite the fact that they are in fact in the midst of a muscular contraction of the lower arm pulling during the swing. Once again, as a coach, it is imperative to know what the athlete is attempting to do, otherwise your technical analysis may contradict the actual physical situation and confuse the vaulter.

The most important point that I am trying to make is this:

We can discuss, ad nausuem, the merits of a free takeoff, or whether the pertov model is ideal, or even whether their is an ideal technical model, but at the end of the day, coach's need to coach their athletes within a certain paradigm. Your claim that their is no ideal technical model offers little to know substance to any discussion aimed a coaching athletes to achieve better performances, it only states that people have done, what they've done, how they've done it.

How do we do better... that's a discussion I don't mind wasting my time on.
-Nick

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 » Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:50 am

good morning,

physics has not changed....

we get better by applying more force in the same or less time... and in the pole vault it is the matter of transferring that force from horizontal to vertical with the use of a pole...

Tim Mack's 5.90 '04 trials jump was/is one of the best jumps ever that used the physics, wasn't "perfect" but got the perfect result… and just maybe got a little help "fighting gravity" with the unbending pole.

google it, study it.. copy it.. NUMBERS and all (percentages of).... and you will be as close as you can get to any "model".

Run fast, hold high and use a big stick......

dj


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests