PoleVaultPower.com

To have the correct understanding of the event, one needs to firmly understand that the height of the bar clearance depends on the amount of energy an athlete able to generate in the run as well as the work on the pole, period! All technical talk is irrelevant unless it relates to generating more energy or at the minimum preserving already generated energy.

Another important observation is that the second part of the event, off-the-ground phase, is limited in time and possibility to generate energy during that phase is determined, in order of importance, by efficiency of use of the limited time and the athlete's gymnastic ability.

Technic at some point of perfection does not bring additional benefits to the result, so the growth potential, as we all would expect for 100m dash, long jump or 800m run, really depends on development of relevant physical abilities of an athlete. However, irrational technic can inhibit the physical development and the rational technic can stimulate it!

So, the core of m640 model is first, to use the m640 model as a stimulator to establish "positive feedback loop" for development of relevant physical abilities of an athlete such as speed, jumping ability and gymnastic ability and second, minimize all unproductive, passive phases in the event to achieve continuous energy input by an athlete from the first step to the release of the pole.

If you think that this is trivial, widely accepted by everyone truth that more speed, better jump and better gymnastic ability will lead to higher results, I encourage you to observe that most current pole vaulting schools, abandoned, for example, long jump as a training tool and as a measure of physical progress of an athlete and utilize only rudimentary gymnastic training in the training process. It is not because of lack of the desire or understanding, but because the current pole vault methods, inhibit connection between physical development of these abilities and the main result and with the connection inhibited these tools get abandoned as only marginally effective.

In my observation it is a worldwide phenomenon and that, in my opinion, explains why 19'-19'4" are still considered significant, just like Bubka never happened.

So, I have created http://www.m640.com to help, the best I can, to break out of this stalemate.

Its hard if not impossible to do it alone, so join in!

Agapit, I agree with MOST of what you say re the 640 Model - in theory. And in THEORY, if bending at the hips during the swing is bad, then would you say that the OPTIMAL technique is to not bend at the hips at all?

In practice, would you agree that SOME bending of the hips is necessary? and if so, how much?

I do not see any vaulters - not even Bubka - swinging without SOME bending at the hips. So do you consider Bubka's technique sub-optimal in this respect?

My personal belief is that OPTIMAL technique is achieved when there are no passive parts to the vault. This includes stretching too much in the "C" (a major flaw of mine on long run competitive vaults but not on my short run practice vaults), and NOT utilizing the power in your trail leg to swing in unison with our upper body muscles (NOT a flaw of mine). I know a pause is the C is passive (bad), but do you also consider any bending of the hips as sub-optimal (bad)?

By extension I would stick my neck out and say (for the first time on PVP) that driving the lead knee up and HOLDING IT UP is also passive, therefore also sub-optimal. I am not advocating that the lead knee NOT be vigorously driven up and towards the pit (that would be PASSIVE), and I have observed many very good vaulters - starting with Wolfgang Nordwig in 1972, and as recent as the 5.50+ vaulters at the Texas Relays last weekend - drop the lead knee and raise it again to varying degrees. That is certainly a non-passive action, and it clearly adds energy to the system.

However, the main reason I'm not personally advocating that technique is that I could never have done that myself and still rotate my hips up above my shoulders fast enough to "stay with the pole". Others can (arguably, because I see them pause in a slight tuck, waiting for the pole to roll forwards), but I couldn't. I regard myself as what I refer to as a "mere mortal". So what's your position on what should be done with the lead knee?

I realize that I've asked quite a few questions here, but I believe that they're all related enough that they can be answered "as a whole" - or at least without getting off topic on any one aspect of the 640 Model's THEORY v. PRACTICAL application of physics.

Kirk Bryde

Good questions!

I have answered already on http://www.m640.com your question about bending at the hips during the rotation. I encourage you to join and entertain, amuse yourself with the content, although it is limited now, but growing weekly.

Bending at the hips does not require training it is an auto corrective action and it depends on many factors chief of which gymnastic ability of the athlete, but the amount of hip flex varies even attempt to attempt. We flex at the hip to shorten the pendulum of a body to speed up the rotation in order to be on time in the inverted position to complete the jump. Obviously a stronger gymnast will be able, as practice shows, finish the rotation with a straighter body.

Now if you specifically train to bend at the hips, then you would have questions like: “how much is optimal bend at the hips”, etc. So the intention is to flip with a straight body and then when spectators tell you that you have bent at the hips, confirm on the video that indeed, despite you not believing it, you have bent at the hips. If it does make sense?

As to lowering of the driving leg, I did not publish the description on m640.com yet, but I intend in April. I just say that my coach Yuri Volkov, as I mentioned before on PVP, vigorously advocated this because of a advice he received from his friend accomplished engineer. His justification was that lowering of the leg, lowers the COM (center of mass) and therefore allows for further penetration of the system i.e. higher grip.

I will publish my thoughts on this on http://www.m640.com as I consider it a valuable information. For now, I will say that this action is absolutely passive and does not add any energy into the system without question. Also, lowering of the leg is a strong indicator of a “soft takeoff jump” or near absence of the jump. In addition it slows down the natural rotation of the body, which is again good for keeping COM lower for system penetration, but you pay for all that on the top, since you did not add more energy to the system, the COM is lower, the rotation is slower and the limited time is wasted.

Jake Blankenship in my opinion is the closest one I know in the world to m640 model today and yes he lowers his leg and yes his takeoff jump is “soft”. His push at this time is 1.05m!!!, but what about 1.40m? It has been done before!

Come join http://www.m640.com

Cheers!

Agapit, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your 640 Model is well-founded on physics principals, and I do agree with most (if not all) of your theory. Like I've mentioned before, where I have difficulty is in the practical application of it. Perhaps you hint of my problem when you suggest that:

agapit wrote: ... a stronger gymnast will be able, as practice shows, finish the rotation with a straighter body.

I was a fairly good gymnast, but by no means an elite gymnast. So perhaps that's why I have difficulty with the practical application of your 640 Model.

I can say with confidence that Isakkson and Tamminga were VERY good gymnasts. I will check out Blankenship's vids soon.

Re the dropping of the lead knee, you have reinforced what I have thought about this "style" (slight deviation from the Petrov Model), but I must say that I'm surprised that you consider it passive. I thought you would classify holding the lead knee up as passive!

agapit wrote: ... lowering of the leg ... slows down the natural rotation of the body, which is again good for keeping COM lower for system penetration, but you pay for all that on the top, since you did not add more energy to the system, the COM is lower, the rotation is slower and the limited time is wasted.

I absolutely agree with this! I didn't think of it as "not adding more energy to the system" before, but now that you mention it, that MUST be true! Why else would vaulters using this style have to tuck-and-flag?

I will read your free http://www.m640.com articles with relish!

Did you say that it was open for beta now? Does that mean that it's temporarily free until there's sufficient content to make it subscription-fee based? I tried to login, but could not. How do I do that? Do I have to send you credit card or Paypal information first, even though it's temporarily free? I'm reluctant to do that.

Cheers!

Kirk Bryde

KirkB wrote:Agapit, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your 640 Model is well-founded on physics principals, and I do agree with most (if not all) of your theory. Like I've mentioned before, where I have difficulty is in the practical application of it. Perhaps you hint of my problem when you suggest that:

agapit wrote: ... a stronger gymnast will be able, as practice shows, finish the rotation with a straighter body.

I was a fairly good gymnast, but by no means an elite gymnast. So perhaps that's why I have difficulty with the practical application of your 640 Model.

I can say with confidence that Isakkson and Tamminga were VERY good gymnasts. I will check out Blankenship's vids soon.

Re the dropping of the lead knee, you have reinforced what I have thought about this "style" (slight deviation from the Petrov Model), but I must say that I'm surprised that you consider it passive. I thought you would classify holding the lead knee up as passive!

agapit wrote: ... lowering of the leg ... slows down the natural rotation of the body, which is again good for keeping COM lower for system penetration, but you pay for all that on the top, since you did not add more energy to the system, the COM is lower, the rotation is slower and the limited time is wasted.

I absolutely agree with this! I didn't think of it as "not adding more energy to the system" before, but now that you mention it, that MUST be true! Why else would vaulters using this style have to tuck-and-flag?

I will read your free http://www.m640.com articles with relish!

Did you say that it was open for beta now? Does that mean that it's temporarily free until there's sufficient content to make it subscription-fee based? I tried to login, but could not. How do I do that? Do I have to send you credit card or Paypal information first, even though it's temporarily free? I'm reluctant to do that.

Cheers!

Kirk Bryde

Kirk, I thought about membership arrangement and decided that I will not make the content free, but price it at a level of a lunch at Panera Bread, so it is $9.95/mo in beta, but you can cancel if you do not find it exiting.

As to the lowering of the drive leg it is absolutely passive. And it is not because I consider it to be passive, it is passive because the laws of physics. Like I said it does not contribute additional energy to the system, but it does change (lower) the position of COM.

“Holding” of the drive leg is not passive or active, because that is where the leg is at the conclusion of the proper takeoff jump, that setting leads to the immediate acceleration of COM and the rise of COM. Lowering the leg after the takeoff does lower COM and does slow the natural rotation which is good for making it in to the pit, but is not for the ultimate COM height. I encourage you to watch Silva doing just that because of the errors in her plant/takeoff.

I have not watch the video of Isakkson ever I do not know if they exist, but I have studied his “kinograms” (sequence images) a lot, because we had access to it back in Russia. You should consider that if we are talking about human limit at 9.8-10.00 m/s on the last 5m (people) being 6.40m, the heights he cleared are way below this limit, so deviations in execution could be considerable.

And to your questions why vaulters tack-and-flag, is because they have no choice. They have to tack (shorten their lever, to speed up the rotation) because they have wasted so much time after the takeoff that they have no other way to be in the position to complete the “vault” (I prefer to still call it a jump).

I thought about it for years and I think that the trap is the flexible pole, because of the shock absorbing qualities of the flexible pole, they allow for all these shenanigans and people get caught in utilization of the pole rather then physical development and stay there for their careers. To avoid the traps one should have a very clear understanding of the objectives for each desirable action.

P.S. I would not call m640 a theory, but rather technology, because i have practiced this with every athlete I ever coached.

Gift to Roman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K-HZaXRpSA

Isaksson clearing, I believe, a WR of 5.49 or something like that.

I'll stay on the sidelines while y'all discuss matters. -6P

joebro391 wrote:Gift to Roman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K-HZaXRpSA

Isaksson clearing, I believe, a WR of 5.49 or something like that.

I'll stay on the sidelines while y'all discuss matters. -6P

Thank you for the video! It made me feel richer. Technology is amazing!

joebro391 wrote:Gift to Roman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K-HZaXRpSA

Isaksson clearing, I believe, a WR of 5.49 or something like that.

I'll stay on the sidelines while y'all discuss matters. -6P

This video is a perfect illustration of the purpose of this post. Isaksson demonstrates nearly perfect technic, except perhaps some small issues in the plant/takeoff. It was worthwhile for us to study his jump (in picture frames) back in my russian days.

Here is my comment:

My guess is, he is holding about 4.60m grip, give or take, and using probably 165 LBS pole with 1.10m push. He generates enough energy to clear 5.50m with nearly perfect technic.

Today Jen Suhr using 4.60m grip and probably 165 LBS pole. Men’s grips today are reaching 5.15m+/-, that is nearly 2’ higher grip then Isaksson used in his jump. If you have a trained eye, you could see considerable adaptation of Isaksson to the timing of the pole, but perhaps I am jumping too far ahead (the explanation will be offered at a later time on m640).

m640 is not about the technic! If you read the original post you will see that I mention technic as far as it has defined and limited benefit for the development. m640 is about creating conditions where relevant physical development is not inhibited, but stimulated by creating a “positive feedback loop” I describe in http://www.m640.com introduction.

“The positive feedback loop, as I call it, where more physical input produces direct improvement of the result is a powerful stimulator. This cannot be achieved in a complex technical model, but the model that is simple, with a few parts and timing requirements and is directed on the use of the physical input and not timing, rhythm, utilization of the pole or even efficiency.” - m640

m640 is concerned about the technic in as far only as it has no bottlenecks that would inhibit physical input and growth.

When I begin to coach an athlete, first thing I tell them not to worry about the technic and that technic is the easiest part and is certain to be sufficiently perfect within 18 month. They do not believe me, but we proceed and that is what happens. I tell them that the real challenge is to develop a physical output and make sure that technic is stable enough to hold.

It is painful for me to watch that many elite athletes at mature state of their careers and often until retirement still concerned about the technic. Do you think Bubka, in preparation to 1997 World Championship sixth consecutive win, was concerned about his technic or more concerned about how to, at the age of 34, master enough physical output and make sure his tendons hold?

Let me tell you a story. In February 2001, I came to Lawrence and said that I do not think it is useful at this time to jump in practice, because rehashing all the technical elements that are already sufficiently perfect is redundant and we just could not reach desired intensity in practice. He agreed and we stopped jumping in practice 4 weeks before he set American Record. We only had 2 competitions that we used to test new levels of physical output and see if the technic is stable enough to hold. It was stable enough for the american record and three worthwhile jumps at 6.16m in Atlanta at 2001 US Indoor Championship.

To joebro391, I do not have these videos neither does Lawrence, but I have seen them, including 6.16m attempts, so I know they exist. If you use your magic and find those, I will be forever grateful.

Here is another recent example of the development fueled by m640 technology.

http://vimeo.com/64001605

Do you think technic did this in 9 month (we really did not start purposeful training until September 2011)? No, no, no and no, no!!! It was the physical development uninhibited by irrational technic and stimulated by simple, straightforward method of jumping with the pole - the m640 technology.

It is absolutely a revolutionary chasm to put the technic behind and if you were wondering what is coming next in pole vaulting, you are reading it. People will realize this and practice, developing their own technological variations, but the core will be similar to as I describe it in m640.

Jake Blankenship in my opinion is the closest one I know in the world to m640 model today

Roman, not to deviate from the current conversation, but would you say that Marvin Reitze, from South Carolina, represents the 640 model pretty well too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1QAK9t1jjI

IAmTheWalrus wrote: ... Marvin Reitze, from South Carolina, represents the 640 model pretty well too?

Nice jump, but he does pause in a "pike" (not quite a tuck, but similar) before he extends.

With the Petrov Model, there should be no pause whatsoever - there should be a continuous flow from the swing through the extension. The hips should ALWAYS be rising.

What would be the difference (if any) with the 640 Model, Agapit?

Kirk Bryde

joebro391 wrote:Isaksson clearing, I believe, a WR of 5.49 or something like that.

Here's Isaksson's 3 outdoor WRs in 1972 ...

Apr 8, 1972 WR 5.51 (Austin, TX)
Apr 15, 1972 WR 5.54 (Westwood, CA)
May 23, 1972 WR 5.59 (El Paso, TX) - tied with Bob Seagren

Perhaps someone can recognize the stadium from one of these 3?

Kirk Bryde

agapit wrote:It is absolutely a revolutionary chasm to put the technic behind and if you were wondering what is coming next in pole vaulting, you are reading it. People will realize this and practice, developing their own technological variations, but the core will be similar to as I describe it in m640.

Agapit, I'm buying what you're saying here - 100%. That is a GREAT philosophy!

I know that Isaksson never over-analyzed his vaulting technique. As he told Track & Field News, he "just jumped". I think he just swung "naturally" after years and years of gymnastics and PV training.

I wonder if that's what Bob Seagren did in 1972? (See "14 Year Gap ..." thread http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27786&start=48)

Kirk