ideal technique in the fiberglass vault

[CoachEric]

Perhaps the propensity to deny the Free Takeoff as a tenet of ideal pole vault technique stems in part from the difficultly to coach/execute it.

A belief that the Free Takeoff is mechanically flawed, incompatible with a vaulter’s physical ability, dangerous, or inconsistent - which could originate from generally misunderstanding the concept and the inherent fear in pole vaulting - is then reinforced by confirmation bias as countless vaulters achieve relative success without it.

However, I don't think there's actually much disagreement on this thread about whether the free takeoff is correct. And if there was, it looks pretty well squashed.

For my two cents, executing a free takeoff is based on sprint mechanics, which are primarily influenced by pole carry and plant motion. And it should be noted that not all vaulters possess the athleticism to execute a free takeoff at high speed, therefore attempting to coach a less capable athlete primarily on this precept would be a mistake.

PVStudent, thank you for bringing informed, level-headed dicourse back to this forum. Awesome stuff.

[KirkB]

And it should be noted that not all vaulters possess the athleticism to execute a free takeoff at high speed, therefore attempting to coach a less capable athlete primarily on this precept would be a mistake.

I can understand why some vaulters may not be able to JUMP off the ground on takeoff, due to physical limitations, even though they can run down the runway at high speed. So I can understand why they can't do a pre-jump.

But to do a free takeoff, the main issue is to ensure that your step is "on" rather than being "under" (or "out"), isn't it?

So as long as your takeoff step is "on", why can't all vaulters leave the ground at the instant that the pole strikes the box? Isn't it just a matter of being "on your tippy-toe"? What's so difficult about that?

Sorry if I missed something that's obvious.

Kirk

[dj]

Good morning,

There really should not be an issue..

Physics is the model..

Petrov described it, Guy Kochel described it in 1974 as "feeling" 3 or 4 inches out, with the top hand as high as possible ..just before the pole hit the back of the box.

Everything is action- reaction and application of force..

The problem is we "over" describe! Again a stupid way to say it..

If you takeoff 6" out with a stretched step and no " up" Impluse you have a problem no matter how "free" you brag to your buddies it was!

You can take off at what looks like 4" under, with the correct posture, a sweet penultimate, "tap" Impluse and have a result (application of force-transfer of momentum) that out shines the best "picture" of the action.

Form follows function!

Dj

[david bussabarger]

pvstudent,
I don't think I can give you an answer that is going to satisfy you. But I'll try again. Based on my studies, I have concluded that there is no advantage to any specfic take off point as long as the take off point is within "functional " limits. It is my experience that most vaulters with a natural gift for the event will also have certain natural tendencies in terms of technical execution. So,typically they will have a natural tendency to take off from a certain point. I stongly believe that coaches should work with the vaulter's natural tendencies as much as possible because one specific model will not produce good results for all vaulters ( neither will pushing one specific take off point ). The coach should be concerned with shaping the elements of the vaulter's technique which apply to all proficient execution. When it comes to the take off specfic universal fundimentals are:
1. The vaulter must strive to sustain top speed and drive through to the beginning of the take off action.
2.The execution of a correct curl /press plant is critical to the success of the take off.
3. The vaulter should stive to keep his/her posture vertically erect on the final strides of the run and during the initial stages of the take off.
4. The vaulter's body should be squared up to the plane of the back of the box as the take off begins. Note, if handspread is too wide, the vaulter's shoulders will automatically be twisted as he /she begins the take off.
5. The vaulter must vigorously spring off the ground in a FORWARD/UPWARD direction. Note, the average reported take off angle of elite vaulters is 18 degrees, strong evidence that elite vaulters spring in a forward/upward direction and not directly upwards as professed by p/b advocates.
6. The vaulter should strive to move as continuously as possible over the take off foot during the take off., so the take off becomes a combined run off/spring off action.
7. The torso should actively press inward in coordination with the spring off action.
8. Other aspects of the take off such as the position and action of the lower arm and the position and action of the lead leg after leaving the ground can vary from vaulter to vaulter
I hope this is of some help, Dave

[david bussabarger]

Kirk,
I believe that the fundimental principle behind all proficient vaulting, regardless of the type of pole used, is that the vaulter must strive to convert the forward linear momentum of the run into vertical momentum using his/her actions during the execution of the vault. In proficient fg. vaulting converted vertical momentum combines with the recoil of the pole to propell the vaulter up and over the bar. Fg. vaulters who do this the best achieve the highest push-off distances.
If this premise is accepted as true, then it is obvious that the vaulter will achieve the best results by moving nonstop through the vault. Any concious delay at any point in the vault will significantly decrease the effciency of the conversion process.
This is particularly important during the r-b. The hips should continuiously rotate upward through to the completion of the r-b and on into the vertical extension. There is no need to wait for the recoil of the pole at the end of the r-b because on proficient vaults the recoil of the pole always begins well before the r-b is completed ( this fact is based on the analysis of hundreds of elite vaulters ).

[KirkB]

Kirk,
I believe that the fundimental principle behind all proficient vaulting, regardless of the type of pole used, is that the vaulter must strive to convert the forward linear momentum of the run into vertical momentum using his/her actions during the execution of the vault. In proficient fg. vaulting converted vertical momentum combines with the recoil of the pole to propell the vaulter up and over the bar. Fg. vaulters who do this the best achieve the highest push-off distances.
If this premise is accepted as true, then it is obvious that the vaulter will achieve the best results by moving nonstop through the vault. Any concious delay at any point in the vault will significantly decrease the effciency of the conversion process.
This is particularly important during the r-b. The hips should continuiously rotate upward through to the completion of the r-b and on into the vertical extension.

Fully agree.

There is no need to wait for the recoil of the pole at the end of the r-b because on proficient vaults the recoil of the pole always begins well before the r-b is completed ( this fact is based on the analysis of hundreds of elite vaulters ).

OK. That's my observation as well. I think that's why they must "muscle-up" to catch up to the pole.

But do you believe that tuck-shooters must wait for the pole to roll closer to vertical before they shoot?

If not, then why the obvious pause on MOST tuck-shooters?

I'm also wondering what your take is on the muscular movements needed to execute a proper tuck-shoot. I personally consider these muscular movements inefficient, causing energy leakage. Do you agree with this, or do you have a different POV?

Kirk

[dj]

Good morning,

One of the reasons I did the side by side of Daniel and Tim was that I had observed one of Jeff Hartwigs vaults of 5.95? having the same "timing" of T-Mack's 5.90 trials jump and one of Bubka's jumps with similar timing that I had compared to Tully's in the '80's. Bubka's jump had a grip of 7-10cm higher, similar pole bend but in the 1.45 to 1.47sec to complete as these jumps.

Jeff being the Tuck and shooter peaked my interest as did Daniel comparing to Tim. When I did "Jeff to Bubka to Tim" and found the same "Take-off to max height time", very similar pole bends, grips, plant heights, etc .. what? Was different? They had the same swing speed (continuous time) but in different "segments'.

Tim and Bubka had almost identical "takeoff to max bend/flat back" times of .49 .. 1.47 minus .49 means .98 FROM "flat back" to maximum vault height of the COM. Tim and Bubka's numbers were almost the same in proportion. The "speed" on their better jumps were 9.3 for Tim, 9.5 for Bubka. Bubka's early max bends were more like Tim's, 30%... later they ranged in the 27%/28%. Stiffer poles with less grip (but still high grips in others standards) and less bend. That indicated that when he had the best speed, best run and best takeoff that he would "blow through" and have his max height deep into the pit. More grip, more bend would have produced huge jumps.. but of course the athlete, to grip very high has to have the confidence that the run (speed and consistency) and plant is "on" to grip very high.

Tuck and shoot jumpers "learn" to "stay down" to move the pole toward vertical (for innate safety) before they "kip and shoot" as high above the grip as possible. Shorter vaulters can potentially "rotate" faster than tall vaulters. Jeff put the two together on several occasions.

Daniel took .61 to flat back.. the pole had already reached max bend before the .61 and was starting to straighten. This is the "conundrum" and for those vaulters that think you actually get "kick" from the pole it can't happen in this instance because it has already "kicked" with you down and not on "top" of it. Daniel tucked and swung really fast which gave him height above the grip, just like swinging from the top of a high bar and releasing and finished the max height in 1.47 just like Tim and Bubka. The problem Daniel was faced with was that he had speed. When he used his speed he still had the "drive-pole push at the takeoff and the tuck and shoot vault. This resulted in him having to go to BIG poles that would bend as much and slow down his penetration so he could vault.. that made him "push"/hang more and the pole to straighten faster creating failure.

The tuck and shoot vaulter has more difficulty putting all the "pieces" together (grip, speed, pole flex-bend, standard setting.. etc) which can lead to inconsistency. Tuck and shoot/drive the bottom also creates a pole problem… when the adrenalin is up the "press-hang" at the takeoff will always force the vaulter to go to big poles.. when the vaulter has to "over press" to get the pole moving it will die quickly and un-bend so fast the vaulter cannot tuck and shoot fast enough to catch up.

I feel tuck and shooters are "created, being created" with short-slow run vaulting.. high grips, stiff poles and of course "force" bending at the takeoff in an effort to "penetrate" to the pit or force load the pole.

I feel vaulting with speed, with an out, high takeoff , right grip and pole for the speed at takeoff and swing as fast as you possible can is the best most efficient way to vault.

This 19 foot vault was headed in that direction…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA7Dapjsh9A

T-macks 5.90 2004 trials jump was headed in that direction.. the 6.11 Bubka jump recently posted on Facebook is maybe the max of the "physic" technique.

Run – Plant – Swing… with the correct grip and pole..

Some vaulters don't have 9.5 speed into the takeoff but have found that if they bend the pole 30% and takeoff correctly they can grip higher and jump higher. They still attempt to follow the "bubka' , Kirk, Alan physics….

[PVstudent]

David you are correct I am still dissatisfied.

This is due to us not sharing sufficient mutual depth of understandings of the language and jargon to ensure the discourse is clear, reasonable, accurate and objective.

This does not mean that I don’t respect your opinions even though I find them difficult to interpret.

Much of what David stated in his responses to me I find on first examination to characterise the pole vault take-off phenomenon at a purely descriptive level of observation and is, in most aspects, in accord with my perceptions.

It is when David attempts to go to a deeper level and provides mechanical interpretations of the observed phenomenon, the Free Take-off in particular, that our perceptions and hence explanatory descriptions and deeper understanding diverge.

The communication difficulty this has caused to sensible discourse has been exacerbated when I wanted to dig even deeper to the causative level of perceptions, based on photographic sequential and still image representations of the take-off motion, as the evidential bases upon which the mechanical causative agents of the phenomenon could be identified and discussed.

David’s generalised critique and interpretation of the Petrov /Bubka Technical Model of Pole Vault challenged in particular the foundational conceptual premise of the Petrov / Bubka Model of the “Free Take-off”. His responses are difficult to counter or agree with because of their gross generality.

The discussion was, and continues to be, doomed to founder on the rocks and pitfalls of observational generalisations because of the broad canvas view of the phenomenon outlined by David in his responses to my very specific questions.

Before I go any further, I want readers to be perfectly clear that I am in no way implying or attempting to impugn David’s reputation by what follows. In this section of my response to David I will attempt to elucidate and define the problem I face in testing David’s critique of the Petrov/Bubka conception and realisation of a “Free Take-Off.”

I hope it will also help readers see more clearly why I am still dissatisfied by David’s statements in defence of his position in regard to the specific principles and concepts claimed to underpin the “The Free Take-Off” as coached by Vitali Petrov and exemplified in performance on the World stage by Sergei Bubka for 20 years.

My challenge to David, was for him to show why the principles underlying the concepts under-pinning a “Free Take-Off” are wrong!

Due to David and I not sharing sufficient mutual depth of understandings of the language and jargon to ensure clear, reasonable, accurate and objective discourse, the points on which we agree or disagree may have become obscured.

I would like to use this portrait by Jonathon Yeo, a highly successful self taught artist based in London England, to illuminate the level of analysis and causative explanation issues that create the gulf in interpretation in our perspectives as to
“Why the Petrov / Bubka realisation of the ”Free-Take-Off” concept is, or is not, an ideal set of precepts upon which to base real life coaching and performance of Elite Level Pole Vaulters!”

That the Petrov/Buka Model is wrong was directly implied and implicitly inferred by David’s critique in the opening address in this thread on PVP.

Jonathon Yeo Collage smaller version.jpg (103.95 KiB) Viewed 8964 times

1 Look briefly at the portrait do you think you know the identity of the person represented?

2 Now, quickly look again. Is this an oil painting, a watercolour painting or is it something else?

3 Now look again and for a little longer this time. What material did the artist use to make the portrait? What were the primary sources that provided the material he used to construct this portrait representation of the person you identified in question 1?

4 If possible increase the size of the image and look again. What behavioural characteristic of the person did the artist convey to us by his choice of subject content on the materials he used to construct the portrait?

5 Re-examine the portrait and focus specifically at the subject’s cap as it is represented in this portrait. Can you make a judgement about what you believe the artist’s belief was about the portrait subject’s moral behaviour?

6 Re-examine the portrait once more. Do you agree or disagree that the artist intended to convey a value judgement about the person’s character and that he disliked the subject? Look again at the details. Do you agree that the artist summed up his opinion (value judgement in this case) of the subject as being “A ????-Head!”

I hope what has happened as you looked repeatedly at the portrait, and as the bias of your looking was subtly changed, the depth of perceptual awareness and understanding of this artist’s portrait of an easily recognised sportsperson reveals information not apprehended on initial glance.
A quick glance was sufficient to recognise the identity of the person portrayed.

As the acuity of the look became more focused the artist had not only produced an immediately recognisable representation of a person but revealed that he, the artist, loathed and despised the behaviour and character of his subject.

Within the portrait, as the analysis took place, objective evidence emerged to reveal, in the artist’s choice of method and use of the material in constructing the image representation of a specific person, that allows the viewer to recognise and perceive much more just the identity of the subject. The image is information rich informing us about both the subject and artist. It also relies on whether the attitude behind our looking and our motivation to examine closely fully reveals what is objectively there physically.
Our subjective qualitative judgement about both the subject and the artist is also important in bringing objective and subjective evidence into our cognitive and perceptual awareness.

The level of understanding the objective evidence and depth of explanatory analysis as the primary sources of my dissatisfaction with David’s declared position.

I agree with David’s general observation that many, I even concede that I too would expect the vast majority of vaulter’s achieving 5.80m and over, vaulters will display quite a disparate range of take-off foot positional locations with respect to the rear wall of the planting box and a vertical line projected from the top of the top hand to the run way surface.

However to be more specific, I counter with the assertion based on the observation that the most frequently successful vaulters in the top 5 ever in the history of the vault clearing greater than 6.00m multiple times, have used technical means of take-off based on the precepts underlying the “Free Take-off”.

Why do I agree with David’s observation?
Vaulters do succeed in clearing heights greater that 5.80m with take-offs that are not given the identifying classification “Free Take-Off” as David suggests. No doubt or disagreement about this whatsoever on my part.

However, it is the inference David draws from the observation I believe is false purely based on biomechanical reasons apart from the obvious empirical pedagogic experience based evidence of some coaches working with elite athletes at the very highest world competition standard.

When he has responded David has made informed input but I would claim it is a gross level of analysis and opinion. David can recognise a “Free Take-Off if, and when he sees one. At least this is what his responses convey in my reading of them.

If his critique is to be accepted then I and others are implicitly assuming he has used other criteria as well as the simplistic yardstick related to position of the toe of the take-off foot location vertically placed below the top of the top hand he delimited as applying to the reference sample of vaulter’s currently jumping bar heights greater than 5.80m.

David’s opinions I do not treat lightly. Opinions he quite courageously presents reflect his considerable expertise and astute visual acuity as well as broad experience of viewing pole vault performance.

In his latest response to me he has outlined some of the descriptive observational criteria in his assessment of the movement and postural characteristics he uses to make the identification of a Free Take-Off as opposed to any other take-off.

This is fundamentally what I requested David to do with specific videos and still images I put up to check that we were in fact looking at the same images and to check that the criteria we used in making observational level assessment agreed/ disagreed on what images were representation of (a) Petrov/Buka Model Free-Take-Off or (b) Other forms of take-off or (c) cannot be decided on the basis of the image presented.

This first step might have given us a clearer assessment of respective cognitive and recognition criteria agreement.

In many respects, from David’s latest reply, we have considerable common ground at the recognition level analysis of Free Take-Off.

It is not at this description and identification level analysis where the evidence for and answers to his critique can be found.

My request to David was that having identified what the specific examples represented by giving them a classification Free Take-Off, Not Free Take-Off or Undecided, he could then go on to explain why “The Free Take-Off conceptual construct “ is wrong.

There are many reasons to explain why David’s observations of many elite vaulters making successful clearances without free take-off are correct.
I suggest the data also demonstrate a “unimodal skewed distribution in the “under” direction with respect to the vertical line from the top hand for both male and female elite vaulters.

Whilst these athletes take off in a “Dynamic Functional Range” it does not follow that within this range the particular vaulter will be consistent in doing so over the prolonged time of a career or even within a single competition. Nor does it follow that because the large majority of observations show the mode of the “Dynamic Functional Range” to be in an “under” direction ipso facto they are executing an optimum take-off!

David’s most recent response, as I read and interpret it, leads me to believe that he is more of a believer in the efficacy of the free take-off than his Devil’s Advocacy stance in starting the thread would have us believe!

Thus far David the ball is in your court and it still remains for you to “falsify” the specific concepts of the Petrov/Buka Model of the Free-Take-off.

Perhaps you wish to adopt a less extreme point of view compared to your stated position at the opening of this thread?

I think I have said as much now as I want to. I appreciated the last response directed to me because it showed there is common ground between us at the observational level of analysis.

However there is a deep chasm separating us when we bore down below the broad brush strokes level. When we dig into explanations of the Why to explain the indications and contraindications in support for, or against the efficacy of a free take-off as the gold standard for all vaulters regardless of their idiosyncrasies and personal styles or preferences the chasm is perhaps less deep but just as wide.

I suspect that neither of us will shift ground to breach the divide. So David, I thank you for providing a stimulating thread but will move on as my respite from coaching is rapidly drawing to a close and my time for this discussion has expired.

[david bussabarger]

Kirk,
The 1st thing that has to be done is to agree on a definition of the term tuck/shoot. It is my observation that vaulters with a tight tuck can complete the r-b in different ways. For instance, the tuck may blend into a piking action at its completion. Good examples are Manson, Buller, Gibilisco and Vigneron. Others complete the r-b by bending the the lead leg well past and outside of the top arm ( Lavillenie Dial and Miles ). Vaulters I to be consider true tuck shooters complete the r-b in a tucked position with the feet facing vertically ( Hartwig, Pursely,Wojiechowski, Galfione and Whitt ).
Different r-b "completion" styles will, I think, naturally affect timing differently. For example, tuck vaulters who complete the r-b in a piked positon can easily move continuously on into the vertical extention. The other 2 styles automatically cause a distinct change in movement when moving from the end of the r-b into the vertical extention. That is, even if the vaulter does not intentionally delay at the completion of the r-b, the transition between the end of the r-b and the beginning of the extension will be a bit choppy. To make things even more confusing, some of these vaulters emphasize delaying ( Hartwig ) and some do not ( Pursely and Galfione ), but visually there is not much difference.

[dj]

hello

i guess, bottom line, do i feel the Bubka, Tellez, Shannon, Tully, Issakson presents itself as the "best" way to jump? yes off course, Physics wins out..

Any other technique and you are "adjusting"/settling and for whatever reason, you have decided that you do not want to or can't "maximize" your potential by running as fast as you can.

Now we are getting vaulters to the emerging elite level that HAVE speed but CANNOT jump with speed. The runs are "atrocious" long, over striding!!! And coaches are yelling about posture, get your plant up, get a "free " takeoff!!!

You will not "match the physics" until you run…RUN, do I need to say it louder, and put the "physics" into the equation to jump correctly.

The sad part of what is going on today in the US is the short run vaulters and coaches, the slow over-stride approach run coaches and vaulters are "winning" and "dogging" everyone else, either with peer pressure or "we win so we must be right" into following their "miss guided" philosophy!

When will a vaulter, or coach get a vaulter that will "run fast, hold high and use a big stick" as Kochel said in 1974 or just "toe the make and haul a$$!

Why can't we go back to the 70's thought process that said create as much "controllable' speed as possible three steps from the plant!



dj

[david bussabarger]

Pvstudent,
I would like to know the scientific explaination behind your view that the free take-off is ideal. Also, even if it is granted it is ideal, why it should be imposed on vaulters who instincts are to not use a free take-off?

[CoachEric]

why it should be imposed on vaulters who instincts are to not use a free take-off?

Because it is a result of a good approach run, posture, pole carry, and plant motion. It is not a coaching cue.

It is ideal because a free takeoff creates the highest possible pole angle prior to weight transfer onto the pole, and it minimizes energy loss during conversion of horizontal to vertical force vectors. Pole compression prior to takeoff represents lost energy. As DJ puts it - "physics."