Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

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
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sat May 31, 2014 9:54 am

Will:
I cannot agree with everything here. First, gravity vector swing relation has nothing to do with, well, anything else. Which is to say it cares not if you take off high or low, but only about the vaulters orientation in time. I could say that often it appears to me that Lavillenie's vault is about as low as a low path vault could be, but that isn't a measured assessment....


Will I would really appreciate hearing exactly everything about my post you do not agree with as your methodology for attacking problems are very similar to mine. Stay on every point like a pit bull until you completely understand it. For me Lavellenies method is about keeping his COG low during the swing for as long as possible. In order to do this it would have to begin almost immediately in Lavellenies swing. Your post have said this as well. I have read in your post were you have said you were not sure when this effort began. I am trying to show you that I believe Lavellenie makes this effort IMMEDIATLY in his take-off and swing! His swing is already a very short on before he tucks. Thoughts?
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

User avatar
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sat May 31, 2014 10:09 am

Will:
I could say that often it appears to me that Lavillenie's vault is about as low as a low path vault could be, but that isn't a measured assessment....
:yes:

This is my point as well I am suggesting that from the very beginning the way he takes off (with much less knee drive only lifting his knee to a 45 degree angle. Examine above photos) going into take-off helps keeps that swing path as low as a low path vault could be. This is a Major important point to clarify Will! Thoughts?
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:00 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current High School Coach
Lifetime Best: 15'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: All of them...

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby willrieffer » Sat May 31, 2014 10:55 am

PVstudent wrote:Thank you Willreifer for the video reference to Joe Dial.

Joe I agree found a way to solve his unique set of pole vault physical challenge problems quite a way back.

But whether his technique was optimally mechanically efficient is quite another question.

The evidence, "real data" I put up earlier in this topic are all based on time series sampling of complete vaults durations (including approach run) in time interval minimum sampling frequencies across the studies I reviewed ranging from 50hz to 150hz. The tables simply summarized some of the critical events in the time series so I don't think your criticism of my input is legitimate or valid.

Note that you identified the issue as "efficiency" in the comparisons using mgh and 1/2 mv2 and merely took starting (take-off)and end point (bar height) when purporting to discuss efficiency. Also I will be churlish and remind you that nowhere did you account in your calculations for the contribution of rotational kinetic energy, nor did you make any allowances for the obvious losses in rolling friction of the pole on the bottom and with the side walls of the planting box. These are minor carps on my part. Nevertheless as the saying goes "kettle be careful calling the pot black!"

One must discuss the ratio of Total Energy of Output / Total Energy of Input to discuss efficiency per unit body mass of the vaulter nor can one ever have an efficiency ratio greater than 1.0! These are Physics 101 errors and now you want to discuss a "Chaos Theory" based analysis of elite level pole vaulting?

Also I don't think you have yet worked out Why Igor Trandenkov had more potential energy at take-off than Bubka (Hint: Which is the taller of the two vaulters?)

I pointed out also that if the tables are looked at carefully enough, within the limitation which I identified by supplying the actual Formulae that were applied and used in the summative processing of the time sampling results (differential and integral calculus being used in raw data processing).

I did not use these words but left the information implicit in the formulae provided in the caption for table 1) that the overall efficiency of the vaulter when the process is fractionated (split) in defined intervals can differ within the total process. At least that is what the tables lead me to conclude.

Now, this current series of time capsule snapshots of the gradual evolution of Renaud Lavillenie's technique since 2009 that I drew to readers attention.

You are telling me that the emperor is not wearing new clothes in 2014 in terms of the extent to which he drops his right lead leg?

I am suitably chastised. But frankly I don't honestly believe that I am lying to myself or anyone else!

No, my nose is not getting longer. It only does that when I am truly aware and so acknowledge to myself that I have lied!

It remains to be confirmed conclusively that the evidence I put up is making me delusional or is an illusion in the eye of the beholder!

I am not at all arguing there are many possible ways to skin a cat or that there is one best way to pole vault prodigious vertical heights across cross bars.

Again a whole set of assumptions Willreifer is making on my behalf do not give readers a true reflection of my intention, only I can do that. If my information has not got across my intended message then that is poor communication on my part. I accept blame for that.

At the same time, you Willriefer as a reader have some responsibility in making a "fair" attempt at interpretation but also must accept personal culpability in any misrepresentation of the facts in so far as they can be established to be facts.

I remind all that Science without facts as it's building blocks is the equivalent of building a theoretical pole vault model on wishful thinking and hot air!

I look to at the evidence before me and seek the answer to the 2 of the critical coaching technical questions that Renaud Lavillenie has been addressing.

My argument is that he has been primarily addressing the drop of the (right) lead leg and is now displaying so much less and on some occasions no lead leg drop in (2014).

Secondly I observe that Renaud is getting a faster and greater amplitude of take-off leg swing .

Thirdly I observe the estimated (by "experienced coach eye") total system of centre of mass rises continuously whilst displacing forward without exhibiting a clearly discernable drop in its height immediately after Renaud has taken off in the first phase of his vaults. This, I contend ,is contrary to what is being claimed by some contributors to this thread.

These are my qualitative assessments of what I observe but Willriefer's, and another whose analyses, are equally qualitative ,I continue to reject on prima fascia (limited by qualitative assessment of available evidence) grounds and assert that:

Renaud Lavillenie displays in his 2014 performances, as revealed by videotape evidence and some anecdotal sources (which are confirmed and references to the material published on this site), does not show a lowering of total vaulter or system COM in the first phase of pole support to the same extent as in 2009 and in some case shows no lead leg drop at all!

Have the "radical" technique proponents" actually and carefully examined these videos against the premises on which they base their judgments and upon which their claims of "radical" technical developments by Renaud being the primary causative agents of his improvement are being made?

So far neither Willreifer nor PVdaddy has given us any actual information based on fact to clearly identify and suggest what these so called "radical" elements are let alone attribute any substantive physics based rationale in regard to their "radical" technical development claims.

Unfortunately, I am exhausting my time on yesterdays news and am bored going back 40 years to ideas from the Rip Van Winkle era of flexible pole vaulting which is detaining me in the Sleepy Hollow of Nostalgia and Mists of Rhetoric for far too long!

I am content with my efforts to awaken the sleepers, but I've set my time machine for the 21st century and whoosh there goes another failed attempt at raising the bar!


We have a measurements versus logic and reasoning argument...

1)My take off energy to height assessment is linear. So it's a very wide point linear assessment of what is going on in the vault.
2) Your point/state measurements are similarly along a linear approximation method. You provide more points. But that does not mean all the information is there nor is all revealed, it simply means you have more point data on a limiting number of factors, or there are factors which are left out. PB model analysts limit themselves to a certain fraction of the evidence, and calculate. The limits come out in their intent. What is the pole state? Have I ever seen you show pole energy state calculations? No. You limit yourself to angular analysis. So you are still doing point state line calculations that ignore a major vault factor.
3) The vault is progressed on two curves, the vaulters CoM movement, and the connect point on the pole. Curves are hard. Calculus in fact is mathematical limit studies of point line analysis to curves. That is calculating lines to curve points, and line triangles to curve areas. This is why one of my main argumentative points here is, no one, neither you nor me, is using differential calculus analysis.
4)CoM trajectory is something valid to be concerned about, as we both have argued. Almost all vaulters go up all the time sans the plant/take off example of someone like Dossevi. The rate is what is important and(here comes differential calculus), relates to pole state. And still to really get to the heart of the matter as I argue you're going to have to know a lot about the CoM change rate versus the pole compression rate. You have shown little to anything on that, and neither have I, however the difference is in how much we are concerned on its effect in the vault. As a PB model adherent, its no great surprise that you aren't that interested in the pole state in time. That leads to the analogy that you are linearly focused on the vaulter. That is not particularly a bad thing and where all the evidence is that it yields an impacting model, yet it is what it is, and as it neglects pole state it comes to a point where it finds pole state vaulters....vexing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus

And so you make an argument about Lavillenie's CoM point state concerning its height. Well, until the end, height is not all the matters. His CoM is never going to lower, but its rise rate is effective on the whole system! This leads to why I've said there is probably a curve bounded area for CoM placement in time to achieve vault completion, with high and low boundaries, and that its possible the boundaries are also possibly indicative of efficiency. And you've still never once made any comment at all about the gravity vector on pole rate compression, effective of CoM rise, and relative to the angular displacement and gravity relation of the vaulter.

We're "taking past each other". I've made comments to this effect. This whole response is to that effect. You want me to answer you in a certain way, and I want you to answer me in a certain way...and we can't seem to, either one of us get there. Let me call myself biased based on some of the easy to see intent in responses here. A great philosopher once said, "We give to everyone all the respect we can muster until they prove they deserve otherwise..." - Steve Albini. So lets say I have a bias based on perceived acquaintances and a political need for protectionist bias...

Keep trying. I'm actually glad you're here. You make it...challenging. And that inspires a sense of admiration. Good job, sir.

To answer some questions...

1) Vaulter rotational energy. There is a very real problem is separating what is induced by the vaulter post take off from what is vestigial and carried from the run up/take off horizontal moment entering pole braking. Thus, if you simply measure the rotational moment and add it to any other value, you are going to get a conflated addition. This is why I just did not pay a lot of attention to the dense work you provided as I didn't see any attempt to address the issue. IF you will, please clarify. Possibly this is all on me...

2) Efficiency ratio greater than One. Well, it would be a problem if I did not provide the math to show what I was doing which was comparing take off energy to vault height potential energy to get a ratio of the take off to total. Nothing is "hidden". The math is all "out there". I work as much to the transparent as I can. PVDaddy did another calculation which gave another viewpoint in the matter. I think anyone that can follow rather simple math can see what was done. You have pointed out time and again there is more energy at the end than at take off. "Let's look at that!". We did...and excuse me but to anyone in the know I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You are, if nothing else, sophisticated.

I will give you the point state on Tradenkov versus Bubka, I guess. I don't know the height difference (and where I admitted missing starting state CoM was a huge mistake) , or mass rate differential (you know, one looks more "top heavy"*, and where again since v squared is so dominant it creates an attitude bias). Give it another go, would you, with horizontal velocity included. Just, you know, keep it concise. I have a terrible tendency to see density for density's sake. My bad. All on me, sir. Terribly revealing of myself on this. On the one side its drivebys, and on the other density bias based on first principle intuitions. Again, my bad. Sorry.

Will

* This would seem to lead to a very odd conclusion. That building muscle mass over CoM, simply raising the CoM in this way, would give the vaulter an advantage? Really? Is that really what I'm thinking? OR again maybe everything is way way more complex than that...

User avatar
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sat May 31, 2014 3:08 pm

PVstudent may be a decent Biomechanist in some respect but, his post in regards to Physics have shown he is not even close to being on the same level with Will, myself and others. For example when he blasted us for showing our result in joules when Joules/Kg, when the Kg cancels out in the end. Much of what he post is a distraction from a very simple fact Lavellenies method is more efficient and throws the entire conversation of on a tangent and is not all that pertinent and waste a great deal of time. He has many of you mesmerized with his Pole charts etc and is looking for every excuse to try to disprove that Lavellenies method is much efficient during pole support. Honestly PVstudeny, I question whether you can even do Basic Physics yourself? WE kept it simple ,by comparing KE to PE and determined Pole support efficiency. Show us All the rest of the crap you insist on including and distracting us with in a Final equation please? There is such a thing as being an overcomplex, over educated idiot, when a simple approach is much more effective and easier to grasp. You criticized our math and Physics. Please show us how to do it? Including all the factors you insist on. If you truly understand Physic this should not be that hard for you to do?
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

Decamouse
PV Great
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:43 pm
Expertise: Masters vaulter, coach, USATF Official
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Kate Dennison
Location: Bohners Lake, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby Decamouse » Sat May 31, 2014 5:12 pm

I guess you again restate how PVDaddy (you) are the smartest thing to look at pole vaulting since -- ever-- Lets keep these as discussion as discussion - If you want to call me names or try and belittle others on this site - I really could give a dam -- no RL does not have zero knee drive - it does come up further than 45 - just look at enough slow or stop frames -- does it drop some yes - does it straighten "no" -- so does it make his swing more efficient or is he "dropping/cocking" it so he can pull it up aggressively to help with the impressive rockback --- I would say until someone ask his coach and RL himself -- what or why -- we are just all putting our opinion forward --
Plant like crap sometimes ok most times

User avatar
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sat May 31, 2014 7:13 pm

Decamouse, I never once called you a name. You claim to be an advanced engineer so why did you ask me earlier to solve your Physics riddle? You may/should have been able to solve it yourself ? However you conveniently left one data point out of your question/riddle that made it IMPOSSIBLE! Fortunatley for me I was able to think outside the box of your question and realize I had already solved for that data point. That missing data point was post take-off swing efficiency. WE had already solved for that with Lavellenie (It was Wills way of comparing PE/KE that I applied. I think that's why he did it that way. I realised that as long as I applied that equally to the data you provided I could determine the answer. However, after going over my work I realized that I accidentally imputed the wrong mass for Lavellenie and that my answer was in fact incorrect!
The answer based on the data you provided is that both vaulters would vault the same height. If you and PVstudent are so thorough, analytical and knowledgable about Physics
why did you not catch that? Instead, you said I was wrong because I did not consider recoil efficiency differences in the different poles.More Data that you never provide in your question! So I assumed same recoil efficiency for both vaulters. My question for PVstudent is that if he is knowledgeable about other factors (small but perhaps somewhat signifigant) that should be concidered, many of which were provided by Canag (such as that we should begin with the COG height of the vauter. Which I believe actually works even more so to making Lavellenie more efficient.) why not include these factors in his final efficiency equation for us all to behold? This should be easy for him to do. Perhaps he is smart enough to know that no matter how he slices and dices it Lavellenie will end up on top! Well he did! The answer to your riddle, based on the data you provided is that both vaulter will vault the same height. It took time for me to answer your question yet you cannot/will not provide me the same common courtesy in answering my question? Here is my work for your question:

Decamouse: Here is something to think about - two vaulters - same height and speed (lets even say same COG) - Vaulter A weighs 70Kg - Vaulter B weighs 90Kg -- clearly vaulter B has a higher force input at take-off -- if they both have the same efficiency of swing and grip height -- what happens




Ok lets assume both vaulters runway speed is 9.5 M/S and the amount of energy added by their swing represents 25% of their potential energy (same swing efficiency) which is 34% of their Kinetic energy.



Kinetic Energy at take-off for Vaulter A (70 KG): KE= 1/2MV squared = .5*70 kg* 9.5 M/S*9.5 M/S= 3159 Joules

Kinetic Energy at take-off for Vaulter B (90 KG): .5*90* 9.5*9.5 = 4061 Joules

Potential Energy for Vaulter A (70 Kg) = 1.34 * KE= 1.34* 3159 Joules= 4233
Potential Energy for Vaulter B (90 Kg)= 1.34 * 4061=5442 Joules

Potential Energy = Mass*Gravity* Height or PE= MGH

Gravity=9.8 M/S/S

PE= MGH so H=PE/MG

H for Vaulter A (70 Kg) = 4202/70*9.8=4233/686= 6.17 Meters

H for Vaulter B (90 Kg) = 5401/90*9.8= 5442/882= 6.17 Meters
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

Decamouse
PV Great
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:43 pm
Expertise: Masters vaulter, coach, USATF Official
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Kate Dennison
Location: Bohners Lake, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby Decamouse » Sat May 31, 2014 7:13 pm

RL Frames knee drive and swing Page 001.jpg
Takeoff
RL Frames knee drive and swing Page 001.jpg (39.37 KiB) Viewed 3818 times
RL Frames knee drive and swing Page 002.jpg
Swing
RL Frames knee drive and swing Page 002.jpg (45.07 KiB) Viewed 3818 times
RL Frames knee drive and swing Page 003.jpg
cover
RL Frames knee drive and swing Page 003.jpg (45.4 KiB) Viewed 3818 times
Plant like crap sometimes ok most times

Decamouse
PV Great
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:43 pm
Expertise: Masters vaulter, coach, USATF Official
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Kate Dennison
Location: Bohners Lake, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby Decamouse » Sat May 31, 2014 7:37 pm

PVDaddy -- did not say you did - but if - you have belittled others -- you can throw out what if's but if someone else does - then it is not answering you question -- I am not a bio-mechanic, physics major -now - engineer - guilty -- I am pretty sure I am not even close to being in the top 1000 pole vault coaches (for one I do not do it full time - I do not set every part of training schedule) -- I am an Engineer that loves Track and Field - still try to compete - volunteer coach - just because I have been very fortunate to meet and have a chance to absorb knowledge from some of the better people in the world - I do I thing I qualify as a competent coach -- you can call out and consistently - yes consistently - criticize others -- I am also a moderator so you occasionally have to say - enough of the BS -- so PVDaddy - what are your creds to call out some of the more established people -- now lets get real - do not come back with you did not answer my question -- show me what backs up your opinions -- there have been other vaulters that have lowered knee or let leg extend after takeoff and pulled it back in -- trick is to have the takeoff hit - the rest of it time up on the right pole at the right bar -at the right time -- Is RL more efficient - I would hazard a opinion that the top part may very well being -- but just like everything you throw out - it is an opinion of some guy on a pole vault web site -- none or at least the majority of us are not full time paid elite coaches of the top guys in the world -- not saying that makes them the best coach either -- lots of established College and High school coaches consistently have good vaulter that show improvement and upside -- yelling louder or belittling does not make one more knowledgeable
Plant like crap sometimes ok most times

User avatar
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sat May 31, 2014 7:55 pm

Decamouse:
no RL does not have zero knee drive - it does come up further than 45 - just look at enough slow or stop frames --

I believe his knee drive in his world record (I have not looked for this in every vault, just this highest one) vault is very minimal and is only the natural result of his running motion at best. I believe he makes a conscious effort to keep it Minimal so that he assures himself of beginning from a low as COG as possible in what is already a very short swing prior to tuck. I believe this provides a greater/ shorter pole chord for the 3 inch shorter man to rotate the same grip height as Bubka to vertical. I believe it also provides what I would describe as a sling shot effect through his very low "quasi"double leg swing path to immediate tuck. Look again at the knee drive and jumping efforts of Both vaulters in these two great jumps. I do not believe they are even close! Also note the chest forward driving effort and outcomes of both vaulters. you will have to pause lavellenie's video many times as it is not recorded in slow mo:

Sergey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UwBaf8f98 Renauld: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvA7AZEyciM
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

User avatar
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sat May 31, 2014 8:13 pm

Decamouse: Care to put up the same frames of his world record vault? What date did this vault take place? WE know that has been making some changes in his technique with a new coach. Specifically toward free takeoff. I would not describe this vault you are illustrating as a free take off. He also does not cover the pole nearly as effectively in this vault.
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

Decamouse
PV Great
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:43 pm
Expertise: Masters vaulter, coach, USATF Official
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Kate Dennison
Location: Bohners Lake, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby Decamouse » Sat May 31, 2014 8:39 pm

This is discussion - It starts with I believe -- And yes we need to look at various vaults and why that one worked -- we used to set up video at takeoff location - with arc lines on the building behind so we could better analyze the vault -- I will see about stop framing the WR -- right angle is so important or you can end up with correct feedback -- lets just throw in another factor -- is it possible that advances in track surfaces, equipment, poles - could possibly aid by 1/2 of one percent - this is the whole issue - lots of variables - would be nice to break down to two factors -- do not believe that is possible - but discussion is good
Plant like crap sometimes ok most times

User avatar
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sat May 31, 2014 9:32 pm

This is discussion - It starts with I believe -- And yes we need to look at various vaults and why that one worked -- we used to set up video at takeoff location - with arc lines on the building behind so we could better analyze the vault -- I will see about stop framing the WR -- right angle is so important or you can end up with correct feedback -- lets just throw in another factor -- is it possible that advances in track surfaces, equipment, poles - could possibly aid by 1/2 of one percent - this is the whole issue - lots of variables - would be nice to break down to two factors -- do not believe that is possible - but discussion is good


You do realise I started every sentence with I believe right?

I believe his knee drive in his world record (I have not looked for this in every vault, just this highest one) vault is very minimal and is only the natural result of his running motion at best. I believe he makes a conscious effort to keep it Minimal so that he assures himself of beginning from a low as COG as possible in what is already a very short swing prior to tuck. I believe this provides a greater/ shorter pole chord for the 3 inch shorter man to rotate the same grip height as Bubka to vertical. I believe it also provides what I would describe as a sling shot effect through his very low "quasi"double leg swing path to immediate tuck. Look again at the knee drive and jumping efforts of Both vaulters in these two great jumps. I do not believe they are even close! Also note the chest forward driving effort and outcomes of both vaulters. you will have to pause lavellenie's video many times as it is not recorded in slow mo:

right angle is so important or you can end up with correct feedback :yes:

is it possible that advances in track surfaces, equipment, poles - could possibly aid by 1/2 of one percent


Yes it is. I believe you test poles is that correct? Do you know how much more efficient they have become?

Do you feel Lavellenies technique is quite different than Bubka's during pole support?
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests