Re: Fourteen Year Gap in Modern PV Technique in the 1970s?
Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 7:28 am
Thank you Coach Eric and KirkB for your thoughtful responses.
I apologise, in advance for the length of my response.
I do have some considerable experience of coaching in the real world. (PM me if you want to check out my track record and credentials).
My concern, as a student of the event, is to become as clear as possible in my understanding about what actually happens in pole vaulting as opposed to what often gets assumed and presumed to happen.
If, in my practice of the Art of Coaching my observational and analytical skills are deficient then I am compelled to rely on best guess along with intuition based on my experience and study which is of course unique to me.
I don’t know it all, but I hope I have over the years acquired some rudimentary understanding of pole vault techniques and that I continue to learn something different or new every day.
Whilst I may appear to you to be a “stickler for terminology” the issue I raised is fundamental to my understanding of the Plant. I recognise the need for simplicity. If in oversimplification the conceptual basis is lost, misunderstood, misinterpreted or simply wrong or understanding is flawed I will continue to progress my knowledge through sensible PVP discussion and debate.
This contribution is not simply theoretical but founded, I would like to believe, on very practical experience and a rationale founded primarily based on mechanics.
CoachEric » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:36 am
“I think you would agree though, that it is highly beneficial for the vaulter to attempt to minimize torque thoughout the pole carry and plant motion. This is done by maximizing the role of acceleration due to gravity on the pole. Yes, there is inherent variability in every vaulter and in every vault. No one's technique is perfect. Yet we use ideas like "weightless pole” to communicate the concept to athletes who are striving for perfection.”
I most certainly agree with your concept of minimizing torque except that when I observe a “vaulter attempting the approach run pole carriage and plant sequential motion, I try to determine whether the vaulter had minimized all unnecessary torques.
Unnecessary torques in the Approach Run and Plant
I define unnecessary torques as torques that individually or cumulatively result in deleterious effects upon the timing, precision and accuracy of the pole sliding contact along the floor of the plant box until the pole tip makes initial contact against the the rear wall.
I will deal with a few common actions seen in the first step of the approach run resulting from deleterious torque application and control.
Each example is evaluated as being undesirable because it results from the application of unnecessary forces and torques that reduces first step consistency, vaulter confidence and the reliance placed upon the predictability and efficacy of the start of the approach run.
In each example the vaulter has a much lower mechanical advantage and efficiency and higher energy expenditure due to unnecessary, mistimed and graded muscle activation that produce un-required body motion and inertial effects that need to be corrected in the first few steps.
Much of the first phase of the approach run effort is wasted making compensatory adjustments for these technical errors that diminish efficiency and control of the pole translation and elevation. These errors also reduce available ability and capacity to build up initial runway horizontal speed of the total vaulter-pole system.
(Motion caused by unnecessarily deleterious torques when attempting to initiate a consistently repeatable and reliable first step of the approach run)
• At the initiation of the first step increasing or decreasing the pole angle with respect to the horizontal during or prior to the stepping foot making contact with the ground.
• Drawing the hands towards the rear simultaneously with the stepping leg moving forward.
• Leaning the trunk forward excessively to initiate the weight shift for the first step.
• Preliminary pumping of the pole up/down or forward and back prior to, at the start of, or after the initiation of the first step.
• Hunching the shoulders to “lift or hold the pole up” as the step is being made (The pole should not be lifted but suspended from the shoulders. The suspension is caused by the vaulter allowing the downward pull and slight rotation effect of gravitational force acting on the pole centre of mass, which is located eccentrically forward from the vaulter’s mass centre and shoulders, to assist in overcoming initial inertia in the intended direction of the run.)
• Pushing the whole pole unit forward so that both hand grips are out in front of the rest of the vaulter’s body prior to or just as the first step contacts the runway.
• Repetition of forward and rearward steps before actually making the first step with that same leg...Skip step and or jump start out from the start position are very common destabilising actions that interfere with developing highly reproducible, reliable consistency in making the first step. Fundamentally these first start step modes types demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the control of pole torque can be used to facilitate overcoming initial inertia in the intended direction of the first step.
• ad infinitum
Note: All of the actions examples above weaken or break the first link in the sequential causal chain of actions that finally determine whether the pole can slide at the right rate, angle and momentum in the planting box to result in the optimum take-off for that vault attempt.
When working with pole vaulters who have moved to 10(American terminology 5 lefts) – 12 - 14-16+ step approach runs some working phrases and cue words that I have used, depending upon the individual vaulter, their age, pole vault experience, pole vault knowledge and practical knowledge as demonstrated by their performance and depending of course on what the major problem is that I have observed with respect to the first step might be:
1. Pole up to stay up front. (Counteraction for tendency to lean back and over lengthen the first step because the pole is held too low or leading hand held out too far from the chest, or lower hand is too far forward in front of the hips, or some combination. Lean back can also be the result of the pole being held elevated too close to the vertical.)
2. Pole Pals who start together, stay together and arrive on target together. (In the initial step there should be minimal (preferably no rotation of the pole independent of the vaulter. The vaulter and pole rotate at the same rate about the support foot axis. This is applicable also in second run step contact and flight phase to ensure the arm and leg motions become synchronised with the appropriate phase offset. The phase offset is necessary because the pole suspension carry by the arms does not allow the usual reciprocation action of the legs to be counterbalanced by a reciprocating action of the arms as occurs in arm (of additional external load) free sprinting.
3. Don’t be a pole vault Jerk! Pole vaulters are smooth dudes!
(Many of the beginners try to produce an explosive type start as though they were trying to do a 100m dash from a standing start. The rate at which both the force and torque magnitudes are applied is so fast the vaulter jerks forward and the pole jerks upward, rotating in the opposite direction to the vaulter.
4. Smooth start speed picks up spectacularly.
5. Start upright to stay upright. (Pole vaulters start as upright citizens but ultimately become inverts!)
6. Rock and Roll (Action of the support leg foot during the first step – the weight of the pole vaulter and pole, acting through the support leg foot, transfers from the grounded heel, by continuous contact, on to the “ball of the foot” as the heel is raised by the vaulter’s graded muscle effort. During this time the total system centre of mass, considered to be behaving as an inverted pendulum, weight force action line passes forwards beyond the leading edge of the support leg base until the stepping leg foot contacts the ground. There is more I could add, but the point is the start and the run acceleration is profoundly influenced by judicious application of torques at the appropriate place and time in each running motion step cycle.)
7. May the pole force be with you... use it or lose it!
Let me illustrate this further in regard to developing the technique requirement to deal with examples 6 &7 above. Sometimes the correction of any of the issues alluded to, will involve some question and answer interaction followed by an isolation practice of a particular element of the start step. I often then use “Old Way, New Way Repetition Coaching Method” to establish vaulter awareness of how the pole induced torque can be used to facilitate initiating the first step and smoothly accelerate the first part of the approach run.
For example: the question and answer with the vaulter reveals that I have observed the pole being lowered slightly and that the vaulter was unaware that this happened or perhaps didn’t know how to use the torque effect of the pole to facilitate the whole of the pole-vaulter system weight shift forwards in the first step! The following guidance exercises might be tried:
• The starting position for each exercise: Stand with both feet together and body vertically upright. The pole tip rests on the ground whilst the properly orientated and correctly spaced hands grip the other end of the pole (note the pole should be oriented “soft” side up). The grip of the right hand is positioned at just below waist level with the little finger resting on, or close to, the right buttock and the pole is lifted primarily with the left hand. The pole is levered into the position that the vaulter determines to be ideal for the start preparation. The left hand is now the uppermost hand and should be positioned approximately in line with the breast bone (sternum) at a position about 15-20 cms forward of the chest. The lower hand should not have changed its height relationship or position with respect to the right buttock. The pole, when viewed by the vaulter, will be aligned diagonally across and in front of the vaulter’s body which is upright and in balance. The pole is inclined from the right hip so that the pole tip is positioned in the same vertical plane as the left shoulder. This becomes the reference preparation position as the initial start position in the following exercises.
• Exercise 1: Assume the start preparation position and with eyes open adjust the pole elevation angle until it is elevated to the angle that the vaulter finds easiest to maintain them self and the pole motionless. Ask the vaulter to keep the pole motionless fixed in that position with respect to the body for say 10 -15 seconds. Repeat this 2-3 times and check that the vaulter and pole reproduce as closely as they can their upright posture and pole elevation angle. Then the coach asks the vaulter whilst keeping his/her body straight to relax their calf muscles slowly. The Coach observes what happens and asks the vaulter to describe what happened? The trials are repeated using the coach /vaulter interactive feedback until on relaxing the calf muscles the vaulter, by keeping the whole body straight and without moving the pole in any way, allows the muscle relaxation to let them self be inclined forward about the transverse ankle axis until the right foot has to step forward to stop the forward rotation of the total vaulter-pole system acting as a single inverted pendulum unit.
• Exercise 2: The same exercise process but performed with eyes closed.
• Exercise 3: The same exercise as exercise 1 (eyes open) but when the pole is in the elevated ready position, release the fingers gripping the pole and adjust the pole elevation angle until the start ready position can be held motionless with minimal effort! The skin webbing between forefinger and thumbs of each hand should be able to provide sufficient pole support and control if the pole is properly suspended from the vaulter’s shoulders by the arms.
• Exercise 4: Repeat exercise 3 (eyes closed). When the exercise can be performed smoothly, with minimal effort and with control awareness the vaulter will have experienced the reciprocal relationship between muscle applied resisting torque to the action inducing torque due to the pole weight force.
• Exercise 5: Repeat Exercise 4 (eyes open) and walk forward 5-6 steps. Repeat and jog forward 5 – 6 steps. Repeat and run smoothly forward comfortably paced. Note during these exercises the trunk should be held erect to the extent that the vaulter can just feel the pole exerting a pulling sensation against it and not allow any bending forward from the waist to occur.
For advanced coaches this is probably old news.
What may be noteworthy is that the methodology focuses on the elimination of undesirable forces and torques at this vitally important stage of the vault.
Hopefully, I have made the point about how to use the action inducing effect of pole torque on facilitating the first step of the approach.
There are a whole array of exercises and drills that are used according to the particular technical issue that needs to be addressed. The exercises and drills ought to be selected on the basis of the evidence from the vaulter’s real life actions rather than application of recipes that are non specific or do not address the issue/s for that particular vaulter at that particular time.
Throughout the approach run and in initiating the plant the principle of utilizing controlled pole torque to assist the pole declination and total system acceleration is judiciously and continually applied by the vaulter.
I generally use the same method to introduce the Plant action.
The teaching procedure starts with feet together and then progresses to a single step from the rearward placed right leg stepping forward as the plant is initiated using pole torque assistance.
There are some important torque issues that also need to be resolved in using an arm motion pattern that reduces the natural pole “Yaw” so that as the pole elevation angle declines the pole moves into the same vertical plane as the mid-line of the vaulter by the time pole tip touch-down contact occurs within the planting box. The plant is an action occurring, as it must, in three dimensions and is most certainly not torque-free.
(The process of teaching the plant action pattern, plant integration into the approach run, the plant action modifications to cope with winds, wet and cold conditions, how hand grip orientations , over/ under grip, grip spacing etc., make planting easy or difficult, all have to be considered but well beyond the scope of this response.)
However, if “Free-Drop” Plant means that:
“The plant is made with minimal use of resisting and un-necessary forces and torques so that the net result is a pole plant of sufficient control in timing, sliding impulse, rate of contact rotation and precision of pole tip placement in the planting box to optimise the vault take-off for the particular vault attempt”
then I could reluctantly accept the wording “Free – Drop”.
I think that “Free” and “Drop” are misnomers that falsify the actuality of what vaulters should be attempting to do in the plant.
The where, when and how to eliminate unwanted motions, learning to inhibit or switch off unnecessary muscular efforts, is the instructional process the vaulter needs most help with. In this process ”Freeing” the vaulter from errors in action sequencing, timing gradation and directing of muscular effort and not merely allowing the pole to be accelerated about the pivot hand solely by the effects of gravity is in my view the primary coaching objective. This is the "Hard and Harsh" part of coaching in the real world. There is no perfect one way that will do the job for every individual.
There is little that is “Free” or “Dropping” anywhere in real world pole vault plant action.
When the velocity of the pole tip is appropriately synchronised to the body segmental actions of the vaulter effort and matches the resultant velocity outcome on the total system the vaulter will often report that the plant felt easy, the pole moved freely with minimal effort, the pole helped forward acceleration into the take-off and take-off confidence was high and certain.
I think the concept “maximizing the accelerating role of gravity acting on the pole” is simply a wrong description for what pole vaulter’s actually do, which is I suggest is to Optimise the Role of Gravity Acting on the Pole especially when initiating and controlling the plant action motion sequence.
If a pole vaulter were to simply maximize the accelerating role of gravity acting on the pole in the plant action they would actually need to project the pole centre of mass as far forward out in front as they could possibly manage whilst still retaining the axis of the pole rotation at the furthermost hand from the vaulter’s shoulder.
Vaulters should not do this deliberately whether they are beginners or World Champions for the obvious reason that their chances of executing the take-off successfully after having done so is dramatically reduced. Even when they get off the ground the probability of rejection back along the runway is high.
The vaulter, were they to follow the maximize principle, would have no reliable means of ensuring the motion of the pole was concordant with the motion of the rest of their body. This would in effect make a successful take-off highly unlikely.
The plant requires integration of the angular and translatory motion velocities of the pole to be temporally synchronised with the sequential body segmental actions and horizontal velocity of the vaulter in direct relation to the height and distance away from the rear wall of the planting box of the pole tip as the plant action is initiated.
I contend that maximizing the effect of gravity on the pole will actually produce increased probability of timing errors, pole placement errors and magnify the uncertainty and preparedness of the vaulter to actually execute a take-off.
I suggest that the fundamental goal of the plant action in pole vaulting is to achieve optimised angular and translatory velocities of the vaulter and pole system so that minimum energy losses occur upon pole impact with the rear wall of the planting box. This optimises the opportunity for the vaulter to take-off with maximum certainty, effectiveness and minimal energy / momentum losses.
The technique mechanics required to do this will be inefficient and more unpredictable in outcome if the pole rotation in the plant maximizes the acceleration effect of pole weight induced torque.
When the vaulter’s plant action is “tuned” to and accords with the velocity and spatial location of the pole tip with respect to the rear wall of the planting box, when initiating and completing the pole planting sequence, a successful take-off is made possible under the constraints existing on that occasion for that particular vaulter. In other words the vaulter has to act under the constraints that really do exist.
Given the runway horizontal speeds, that most vaulters exhibit, simply using “Free-Drop” Plant Technique is fraught with increased uncertainty of plant outcome which results in more frequent plant timing and spatial errors that erode vaulter confidence, predictability and consistency of outcomes.
(It must also be recognised that in the real world of outdoor pole vaulting head winds, gusting winds, tail winds and worst of all intermittent strong wind gust in the lateral direction add further uncertainties and demands that make plant action control a problem of optimisation rather than the reproduction of an invariant stereotypic response that the minimizing / maximizing approach implicitly assumes).
I don’t particularly have a problem accepting that many athletes would have trouble following my explanation. This is the advanced section of PVP so why dumb down?
However, I still believe that understanding the effects of forces producing torques during the pole carriage in the approach that culminates in the plant has consequent effects determining the efficiency in the take-off energy/momentum exchanges.
Also of course understanding and practicing the efficient use of torque pairs greatly simplifies and engenders greater confidence and reliability in executing the plant and achieving its intended goal of increasing take-off effectiveness.
According to what I understand and perceive in the planting of the pole in the box, there is a reduction in the vertical height of the pole tip whilst at the same time the hand grip end of the pole is raised upwards. The amounts of tip decrease in height and grip end height increase are proportional to the perpendicular distance these ends are from the pole rotational pivot point (axis/fulcrum).
The vaulter’s centre of mass is being raised by the upward motion of both arms. The total system centre of mass, when the plant phase is ending, has horizontal forward and vertical motion so that its displacement path is upward and forward as the pole tip contacts the planting box.
I simply ask what is being dropped and how does “dropping” the pole actually ensure that the vaulter is able to take-off with certainty, minimize energy and momentum losses and ensure the vaulter-pole total system translates toward the vertical plane of the cross-bar?
I think the unfortunate word choices “Free-Drop Plant” convey a meaning, to the uninitiated, that is directly opposed to what actually happens in the Plant. Blind faith advocacy of “Free-Drop Plant” opens yet another Pandora’s Box and I suggest will lead many a coach and athlete on a futile search for yet another Holy Grail in pole vaulting.
I apologise, in advance for the length of my response.
I do have some considerable experience of coaching in the real world. (PM me if you want to check out my track record and credentials).
My concern, as a student of the event, is to become as clear as possible in my understanding about what actually happens in pole vaulting as opposed to what often gets assumed and presumed to happen.
If, in my practice of the Art of Coaching my observational and analytical skills are deficient then I am compelled to rely on best guess along with intuition based on my experience and study which is of course unique to me.
I don’t know it all, but I hope I have over the years acquired some rudimentary understanding of pole vault techniques and that I continue to learn something different or new every day.
Whilst I may appear to you to be a “stickler for terminology” the issue I raised is fundamental to my understanding of the Plant. I recognise the need for simplicity. If in oversimplification the conceptual basis is lost, misunderstood, misinterpreted or simply wrong or understanding is flawed I will continue to progress my knowledge through sensible PVP discussion and debate.
This contribution is not simply theoretical but founded, I would like to believe, on very practical experience and a rationale founded primarily based on mechanics.
CoachEric » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:36 am
“I think you would agree though, that it is highly beneficial for the vaulter to attempt to minimize torque thoughout the pole carry and plant motion. This is done by maximizing the role of acceleration due to gravity on the pole. Yes, there is inherent variability in every vaulter and in every vault. No one's technique is perfect. Yet we use ideas like "weightless pole” to communicate the concept to athletes who are striving for perfection.”
I most certainly agree with your concept of minimizing torque except that when I observe a “vaulter attempting the approach run pole carriage and plant sequential motion, I try to determine whether the vaulter had minimized all unnecessary torques.
Unnecessary torques in the Approach Run and Plant
I define unnecessary torques as torques that individually or cumulatively result in deleterious effects upon the timing, precision and accuracy of the pole sliding contact along the floor of the plant box until the pole tip makes initial contact against the the rear wall.
I will deal with a few common actions seen in the first step of the approach run resulting from deleterious torque application and control.
Each example is evaluated as being undesirable because it results from the application of unnecessary forces and torques that reduces first step consistency, vaulter confidence and the reliance placed upon the predictability and efficacy of the start of the approach run.
In each example the vaulter has a much lower mechanical advantage and efficiency and higher energy expenditure due to unnecessary, mistimed and graded muscle activation that produce un-required body motion and inertial effects that need to be corrected in the first few steps.
Much of the first phase of the approach run effort is wasted making compensatory adjustments for these technical errors that diminish efficiency and control of the pole translation and elevation. These errors also reduce available ability and capacity to build up initial runway horizontal speed of the total vaulter-pole system.
(Motion caused by unnecessarily deleterious torques when attempting to initiate a consistently repeatable and reliable first step of the approach run)
• At the initiation of the first step increasing or decreasing the pole angle with respect to the horizontal during or prior to the stepping foot making contact with the ground.
• Drawing the hands towards the rear simultaneously with the stepping leg moving forward.
• Leaning the trunk forward excessively to initiate the weight shift for the first step.
• Preliminary pumping of the pole up/down or forward and back prior to, at the start of, or after the initiation of the first step.
• Hunching the shoulders to “lift or hold the pole up” as the step is being made (The pole should not be lifted but suspended from the shoulders. The suspension is caused by the vaulter allowing the downward pull and slight rotation effect of gravitational force acting on the pole centre of mass, which is located eccentrically forward from the vaulter’s mass centre and shoulders, to assist in overcoming initial inertia in the intended direction of the run.)
• Pushing the whole pole unit forward so that both hand grips are out in front of the rest of the vaulter’s body prior to or just as the first step contacts the runway.
• Repetition of forward and rearward steps before actually making the first step with that same leg...Skip step and or jump start out from the start position are very common destabilising actions that interfere with developing highly reproducible, reliable consistency in making the first step. Fundamentally these first start step modes types demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the control of pole torque can be used to facilitate overcoming initial inertia in the intended direction of the first step.
• ad infinitum
Note: All of the actions examples above weaken or break the first link in the sequential causal chain of actions that finally determine whether the pole can slide at the right rate, angle and momentum in the planting box to result in the optimum take-off for that vault attempt.
When working with pole vaulters who have moved to 10(American terminology 5 lefts) – 12 - 14-16+ step approach runs some working phrases and cue words that I have used, depending upon the individual vaulter, their age, pole vault experience, pole vault knowledge and practical knowledge as demonstrated by their performance and depending of course on what the major problem is that I have observed with respect to the first step might be:
1. Pole up to stay up front. (Counteraction for tendency to lean back and over lengthen the first step because the pole is held too low or leading hand held out too far from the chest, or lower hand is too far forward in front of the hips, or some combination. Lean back can also be the result of the pole being held elevated too close to the vertical.)
2. Pole Pals who start together, stay together and arrive on target together. (In the initial step there should be minimal (preferably no rotation of the pole independent of the vaulter. The vaulter and pole rotate at the same rate about the support foot axis. This is applicable also in second run step contact and flight phase to ensure the arm and leg motions become synchronised with the appropriate phase offset. The phase offset is necessary because the pole suspension carry by the arms does not allow the usual reciprocation action of the legs to be counterbalanced by a reciprocating action of the arms as occurs in arm (of additional external load) free sprinting.
3. Don’t be a pole vault Jerk! Pole vaulters are smooth dudes!
(Many of the beginners try to produce an explosive type start as though they were trying to do a 100m dash from a standing start. The rate at which both the force and torque magnitudes are applied is so fast the vaulter jerks forward and the pole jerks upward, rotating in the opposite direction to the vaulter.
4. Smooth start speed picks up spectacularly.
5. Start upright to stay upright. (Pole vaulters start as upright citizens but ultimately become inverts!)
6. Rock and Roll (Action of the support leg foot during the first step – the weight of the pole vaulter and pole, acting through the support leg foot, transfers from the grounded heel, by continuous contact, on to the “ball of the foot” as the heel is raised by the vaulter’s graded muscle effort. During this time the total system centre of mass, considered to be behaving as an inverted pendulum, weight force action line passes forwards beyond the leading edge of the support leg base until the stepping leg foot contacts the ground. There is more I could add, but the point is the start and the run acceleration is profoundly influenced by judicious application of torques at the appropriate place and time in each running motion step cycle.)
7. May the pole force be with you... use it or lose it!
Let me illustrate this further in regard to developing the technique requirement to deal with examples 6 &7 above. Sometimes the correction of any of the issues alluded to, will involve some question and answer interaction followed by an isolation practice of a particular element of the start step. I often then use “Old Way, New Way Repetition Coaching Method” to establish vaulter awareness of how the pole induced torque can be used to facilitate initiating the first step and smoothly accelerate the first part of the approach run.
For example: the question and answer with the vaulter reveals that I have observed the pole being lowered slightly and that the vaulter was unaware that this happened or perhaps didn’t know how to use the torque effect of the pole to facilitate the whole of the pole-vaulter system weight shift forwards in the first step! The following guidance exercises might be tried:
• The starting position for each exercise: Stand with both feet together and body vertically upright. The pole tip rests on the ground whilst the properly orientated and correctly spaced hands grip the other end of the pole (note the pole should be oriented “soft” side up). The grip of the right hand is positioned at just below waist level with the little finger resting on, or close to, the right buttock and the pole is lifted primarily with the left hand. The pole is levered into the position that the vaulter determines to be ideal for the start preparation. The left hand is now the uppermost hand and should be positioned approximately in line with the breast bone (sternum) at a position about 15-20 cms forward of the chest. The lower hand should not have changed its height relationship or position with respect to the right buttock. The pole, when viewed by the vaulter, will be aligned diagonally across and in front of the vaulter’s body which is upright and in balance. The pole is inclined from the right hip so that the pole tip is positioned in the same vertical plane as the left shoulder. This becomes the reference preparation position as the initial start position in the following exercises.
• Exercise 1: Assume the start preparation position and with eyes open adjust the pole elevation angle until it is elevated to the angle that the vaulter finds easiest to maintain them self and the pole motionless. Ask the vaulter to keep the pole motionless fixed in that position with respect to the body for say 10 -15 seconds. Repeat this 2-3 times and check that the vaulter and pole reproduce as closely as they can their upright posture and pole elevation angle. Then the coach asks the vaulter whilst keeping his/her body straight to relax their calf muscles slowly. The Coach observes what happens and asks the vaulter to describe what happened? The trials are repeated using the coach /vaulter interactive feedback until on relaxing the calf muscles the vaulter, by keeping the whole body straight and without moving the pole in any way, allows the muscle relaxation to let them self be inclined forward about the transverse ankle axis until the right foot has to step forward to stop the forward rotation of the total vaulter-pole system acting as a single inverted pendulum unit.
• Exercise 2: The same exercise process but performed with eyes closed.
• Exercise 3: The same exercise as exercise 1 (eyes open) but when the pole is in the elevated ready position, release the fingers gripping the pole and adjust the pole elevation angle until the start ready position can be held motionless with minimal effort! The skin webbing between forefinger and thumbs of each hand should be able to provide sufficient pole support and control if the pole is properly suspended from the vaulter’s shoulders by the arms.
• Exercise 4: Repeat exercise 3 (eyes closed). When the exercise can be performed smoothly, with minimal effort and with control awareness the vaulter will have experienced the reciprocal relationship between muscle applied resisting torque to the action inducing torque due to the pole weight force.
• Exercise 5: Repeat Exercise 4 (eyes open) and walk forward 5-6 steps. Repeat and jog forward 5 – 6 steps. Repeat and run smoothly forward comfortably paced. Note during these exercises the trunk should be held erect to the extent that the vaulter can just feel the pole exerting a pulling sensation against it and not allow any bending forward from the waist to occur.
For advanced coaches this is probably old news.
What may be noteworthy is that the methodology focuses on the elimination of undesirable forces and torques at this vitally important stage of the vault.
Hopefully, I have made the point about how to use the action inducing effect of pole torque on facilitating the first step of the approach.
There are a whole array of exercises and drills that are used according to the particular technical issue that needs to be addressed. The exercises and drills ought to be selected on the basis of the evidence from the vaulter’s real life actions rather than application of recipes that are non specific or do not address the issue/s for that particular vaulter at that particular time.
Throughout the approach run and in initiating the plant the principle of utilizing controlled pole torque to assist the pole declination and total system acceleration is judiciously and continually applied by the vaulter.
I generally use the same method to introduce the Plant action.
The teaching procedure starts with feet together and then progresses to a single step from the rearward placed right leg stepping forward as the plant is initiated using pole torque assistance.
There are some important torque issues that also need to be resolved in using an arm motion pattern that reduces the natural pole “Yaw” so that as the pole elevation angle declines the pole moves into the same vertical plane as the mid-line of the vaulter by the time pole tip touch-down contact occurs within the planting box. The plant is an action occurring, as it must, in three dimensions and is most certainly not torque-free.
(The process of teaching the plant action pattern, plant integration into the approach run, the plant action modifications to cope with winds, wet and cold conditions, how hand grip orientations , over/ under grip, grip spacing etc., make planting easy or difficult, all have to be considered but well beyond the scope of this response.)
However, if “Free-Drop” Plant means that:
“The plant is made with minimal use of resisting and un-necessary forces and torques so that the net result is a pole plant of sufficient control in timing, sliding impulse, rate of contact rotation and precision of pole tip placement in the planting box to optimise the vault take-off for the particular vault attempt”
then I could reluctantly accept the wording “Free – Drop”.
I think that “Free” and “Drop” are misnomers that falsify the actuality of what vaulters should be attempting to do in the plant.
The where, when and how to eliminate unwanted motions, learning to inhibit or switch off unnecessary muscular efforts, is the instructional process the vaulter needs most help with. In this process ”Freeing” the vaulter from errors in action sequencing, timing gradation and directing of muscular effort and not merely allowing the pole to be accelerated about the pivot hand solely by the effects of gravity is in my view the primary coaching objective. This is the "Hard and Harsh" part of coaching in the real world. There is no perfect one way that will do the job for every individual.
There is little that is “Free” or “Dropping” anywhere in real world pole vault plant action.
When the velocity of the pole tip is appropriately synchronised to the body segmental actions of the vaulter effort and matches the resultant velocity outcome on the total system the vaulter will often report that the plant felt easy, the pole moved freely with minimal effort, the pole helped forward acceleration into the take-off and take-off confidence was high and certain.
I think the concept “maximizing the accelerating role of gravity acting on the pole” is simply a wrong description for what pole vaulter’s actually do, which is I suggest is to Optimise the Role of Gravity Acting on the Pole especially when initiating and controlling the plant action motion sequence.
If a pole vaulter were to simply maximize the accelerating role of gravity acting on the pole in the plant action they would actually need to project the pole centre of mass as far forward out in front as they could possibly manage whilst still retaining the axis of the pole rotation at the furthermost hand from the vaulter’s shoulder.
Vaulters should not do this deliberately whether they are beginners or World Champions for the obvious reason that their chances of executing the take-off successfully after having done so is dramatically reduced. Even when they get off the ground the probability of rejection back along the runway is high.
The vaulter, were they to follow the maximize principle, would have no reliable means of ensuring the motion of the pole was concordant with the motion of the rest of their body. This would in effect make a successful take-off highly unlikely.
The plant requires integration of the angular and translatory motion velocities of the pole to be temporally synchronised with the sequential body segmental actions and horizontal velocity of the vaulter in direct relation to the height and distance away from the rear wall of the planting box of the pole tip as the plant action is initiated.
I contend that maximizing the effect of gravity on the pole will actually produce increased probability of timing errors, pole placement errors and magnify the uncertainty and preparedness of the vaulter to actually execute a take-off.
I suggest that the fundamental goal of the plant action in pole vaulting is to achieve optimised angular and translatory velocities of the vaulter and pole system so that minimum energy losses occur upon pole impact with the rear wall of the planting box. This optimises the opportunity for the vaulter to take-off with maximum certainty, effectiveness and minimal energy / momentum losses.
The technique mechanics required to do this will be inefficient and more unpredictable in outcome if the pole rotation in the plant maximizes the acceleration effect of pole weight induced torque.
When the vaulter’s plant action is “tuned” to and accords with the velocity and spatial location of the pole tip with respect to the rear wall of the planting box, when initiating and completing the pole planting sequence, a successful take-off is made possible under the constraints existing on that occasion for that particular vaulter. In other words the vaulter has to act under the constraints that really do exist.
Given the runway horizontal speeds, that most vaulters exhibit, simply using “Free-Drop” Plant Technique is fraught with increased uncertainty of plant outcome which results in more frequent plant timing and spatial errors that erode vaulter confidence, predictability and consistency of outcomes.
(It must also be recognised that in the real world of outdoor pole vaulting head winds, gusting winds, tail winds and worst of all intermittent strong wind gust in the lateral direction add further uncertainties and demands that make plant action control a problem of optimisation rather than the reproduction of an invariant stereotypic response that the minimizing / maximizing approach implicitly assumes).
I don’t particularly have a problem accepting that many athletes would have trouble following my explanation. This is the advanced section of PVP so why dumb down?
However, I still believe that understanding the effects of forces producing torques during the pole carriage in the approach that culminates in the plant has consequent effects determining the efficiency in the take-off energy/momentum exchanges.
Also of course understanding and practicing the efficient use of torque pairs greatly simplifies and engenders greater confidence and reliability in executing the plant and achieving its intended goal of increasing take-off effectiveness.
According to what I understand and perceive in the planting of the pole in the box, there is a reduction in the vertical height of the pole tip whilst at the same time the hand grip end of the pole is raised upwards. The amounts of tip decrease in height and grip end height increase are proportional to the perpendicular distance these ends are from the pole rotational pivot point (axis/fulcrum).
The vaulter’s centre of mass is being raised by the upward motion of both arms. The total system centre of mass, when the plant phase is ending, has horizontal forward and vertical motion so that its displacement path is upward and forward as the pole tip contacts the planting box.
I simply ask what is being dropped and how does “dropping” the pole actually ensure that the vaulter is able to take-off with certainty, minimize energy and momentum losses and ensure the vaulter-pole total system translates toward the vertical plane of the cross-bar?
I think the unfortunate word choices “Free-Drop Plant” convey a meaning, to the uninitiated, that is directly opposed to what actually happens in the Plant. Blind faith advocacy of “Free-Drop Plant” opens yet another Pandora’s Box and I suggest will lead many a coach and athlete on a futile search for yet another Holy Grail in pole vaulting.