Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

[PVDaddy]

Were have you been PVstudent? From the beginning I have been claiming that the Major difference between Bubbka and Lavellenie occur Post Take off during the Pole support Phase and yes their respective techniques are ideed radically different here! I have much more I could add if I wanted to take the time to dissect all these charts and other claims such as Bubka at 6.5, when I remember hearing about Japanese Scientist claiming 6.35 or 6.40 max during his famous Jump. A definition of effective height would also be helpful for many here.

[PVDaddy]

PVstudent the subject of the thread is Swing Efficiency Comparison between Bubka and Lavelinne ! Will and I claim that the Lavelennie method is more efficient then Bubka's. You claim he is not. Show us were we all went awry! Prove it with sound physics and valid data Genius! Waiting patiently. Show us YOUR math and YOUR Physics (Can you do it yourself?) and NOT YOUR made up data.

[Decamouse]

Lighten up PVDaddy -- or maybe use bigger font yet! These quotes are from Lavillenie coaches presentation at the 2012 Vertical Jumps Conference - "Do mistake the fundamentals of the vault with the individual style" and Goals for 2010 - "Long Left Leg in Swing and rockback" - he also talks about adding strength to overcome weaknesses -- all aimed at narrow the differences some are discussing. Some of the points about improved efficiency are areas discussed as needing improvement

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

[altius]

Decamouse - I think you meant that Lavellenie's coach said. "Do NOT mistake the fundamentals of the vault with the individual style". Unfortunately many EXPERTS do not understand the difference between a TECHNICAL MODEL based on the principles of BIOMECHANICS and any athletes STYLE which reflects their individual characteristics. I attempted to clarify that issue in my dreaded book but I suppose you actually have to coach athletes to really understand how individuals can come out looking different even though they are being taught to use the same model. Perhaps the best examples I have are the twins Chris and Tom Lovell, who apart from being left and right handed, were virtually identical physically but differed enough in their STYLES to be easily recognisable when they vaulted. Any one who has a copy of the BTB dvd can immediately see this. But then anyone who has seen Sergei AND Vassilly Bubka, Tarasov, Trandenkov, Markov, Isinbayeva, Feofanova et al will know how different they look - but they are all trying to follow the TECHNICAL model that Petrov developed with his team of coaches in the former USSR.

Finally does anyone honestly believe that an aspirational coach pole vault - at least one based in Europe (because the USA is a special case - with many creative individuals prepared to pull new models of pole vaulting out of the ether) WOULD NOT study the Soviet system and ESPECIALLY Bubka and base their TECHNICAL MODEL on one that had been used to set a multitude of world records???? If I am able to travel to Europe this summer I will try and meet Lavellenies coach to find out exactly where the roots of his ideas came from (I TEND TO PREFER DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES WITH THE ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED - THAN TRYING TO GUESS WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BELIEVE) - good coaches in any sport can always tell you how, when and where they were influenced and who by. Certainly Petrov could - and did! Two of his technical inspirations were Chuck Warmerdam and Dave Roberts of the USA.

[Decamouse]

Altius you are correct -- when I was typing the info from a pdf of his presentation I did not type "not" -- Presentation or a pdf of it is one think - talking to them does help --

Since I can not attach a pdf here - I will attach to my website on the PV page

[PVDaddy]

Oh,I learned the big font technique from PVstudent. He uses it routinely when responding to most of my post. I expect more to follow. Yes, this is all about maximizing efficiency with the best technique.

You already answered the question about their swing efficiency in the question. So,to answer your question: Assuming they both have equal abilities to transfer their energy to their poles in their take-offs, the heavy vaulter produces more kinetic energy, therefore more potential energy.Therefore, the heavier vaulter, vaults higher. We are comparing two vaulters with different Heights, Mass and speed and vaulters with radically different swing techniques and determining which vaulter was more efficient from the moment their toes left the ground. It is possible that one vaulter may have a more efficient take off.

Now think about this Decamouse : A real life event. Two vaulters have the same grip height. Let's assume the same take-off efficiency as well. Vaulter A. is 3 inches shorter than vaulter B. and runs .45 M/S slower going into take-off, than the Taller, faster vaulter. Vaulter A. weighs 69 Kg. Vaulter B. weighs 80 KG. Is the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter at a mechanical advantage to the taller, faster, heavier vaulter? Bare in mind that the velocity factor for Kinetic Energy according to Physics is at an exponent of 2! The exponent for mass is only 1. The shorter vaulter has a lower plant angle. Is it easier for the shorter vaulter to rotate the same grip height to vertical? Is it easier for the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter to jump higher?

What if I told you that they were two of the best vaulters the world has ever seen?

What if I told you that their swing techniques were drastically different?

What if I told you the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter has the world record?

Did the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter gain the edge in the run-up, the take-off, or the pole support phase and why?

If on average with Elite vaulters, 82% of the energy to vault comes from the run-up and only 18% on average comes from the pole support phase, does this make this achievement more or less remarkable and why?

[PVstudent]

This should take readers to the web site from where they can download the Phillipe D'Encausse presentation.

http://www.polevault-symposium.de/?page_id=377

Of course they could also take the time to watch

Phillipe D’Encausse plus Renaud Lavillenie in their indoor training venue and hear Renaud's Comments re his former coach Damien Inocencio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSg9mA ... detailpage


The hoary old chestnut "Style" and "Technical Model" confusion is still continuing to "blindsight" some coaches. They just can't see the wood for the trees!
Phillipe, in the video calmly and gently reminds us of the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) in coaching especially at the elite level (this is my paraphrasing of the take home message of the interview and his presentation). Readers may see it differently but "C'est la vie!"

PVdaddy no surprises. You have come steaming in true to form. Where did I say that Bubka was more efficient than Lavillenie in the initial phase of the pole support immediately upon loss of ground contact?

I have not even been able to get past this first part of the issue because it needed to be clarified before proceeding onwards into the first pole support phase. If it is from this place onwards in the sequence of events that you are claiming Lavillenie is using a "radically" different technique then put up your facts supported by the scientific data and physical principles that demonstrate not only the "How, Where and the When(in time) but the why you consider it to be radical!

If you are going to use new need terms, such as for example "stall swing or swing window", then define them indicating how they might be measured to bring some objectivity into the discussion.

You have been doing the math (no problem there) but you have had to ask what "Effective Height" is? It is the peak height achieved by the vaulter at the apex of the flight trajectory following pole release! That is so obvious I didn't think it needed to be spelled out, my bad!

As for me making up data, your comment is patently untrue as is easily confirmed by consulting the original sources which I referenced and I also provided some visual co related evidence of some of the performances to which the data refer! But again you choose to ignore the evidence and misrepresent my actual statements! Need I say more.

Finally, I think I have been more than openly generous to readers of pole vault power by sharing biomechanics knowledge and data.

The only secret I have is that I have practiced coaching and studied human motion and motor control for over 50 years.

Despite that experience I continue each and every day to study motion of humans across the full age, gender and cultural contexts of work and play! Each day I learn more, and at my age am forgetting more also!

So my biomechanics secret is I don't have any. I just work at it as a any authentic student should do everyday and do so with passionate interest.

I am merely a student and as such want to learn but find it very irritating and frustrating when this the advanced section of PVP gets clogged up with so much misguidance and misinformation. Coaches, as do I,want to know about what works and what doesn't work in getting their charges to vault higher with safety!

Hypotheses, without facts upon which to base them along with non practitioners (or beginner coaches) promulgating grandiose theories concerning elite performers and performance issues in the Advanced Section is, frankly, very uninteresting, boring as well as irrelevant. The clock of old father time continues to count the life seconds I have left. I would like to be able to contribute to advance our knowledge and not waste my limited time dealing with issues that were abandoned long ago as leading us all up "blind alleys".

Please coaches and elite vaulters put some interest back into the advanced section for this avid student and PVP supporter by feeding in the questions and sharing of your experience and understandings of today's real world of pole vaulting .

Biomechanics Bulldust and Riding of Personal Hobbyhorses is waste of time and counterproductive .

Apologies, but that was just a grumpy old man on a rant! I feel much better now.

[PVDaddy]

Yes KISS! Now your talkin my language! No disrespect intended here PVstudent, but, I have a hard time understanding your post or some of your points as they are very technically worded and confusing for me and many times seem to get off topic or do not simply get to the heart of the topic based on simple logic and reasoning. Maybe I'm just to simple? You do a great job of providing supplemental information that many of us have not seen and I am sure everyone is greatly appreciative. I am. By the way I was not able to access either link you provided? While we are on this topic of simplicity. I see greater simplicity in Lavellenies technique. I am not even close to concluding that it is not suitable for instruction to the masses from beginner on up. That remains to be seen. First of all it must be correctly and simply described. The plant motion does seems unorthodox and roundhouse, coming far from behind the hip (mostly do to the wide hand spacing), but, the low COG double leg swing path ,with little to no knee drive, or re-extension of his hands, going immediately into double leg tuck and double leg extension seem quite simple to me. Teaching it and doing it may be another matter all together though.
Are you going to show us your Pole support Efficiency calculations comparing Bubka to Lavellenie?

[PVstudent]

PVdaddy I have corrected the errors in copying the video url. and checked that both sources you had difficulty with do in fact work. At least from my computer in Australia they do.

2) But it does exist. The question is how and why, which I have tried to answer. You make an assessment that there are several detrimental aspects to the method and I agree. But you still have not really answered the question. Does he get more energy to offset the detriments? I mean I have to think he beat a bunch of PB model vaulters to get to and win the U23 at 5.75m. Real world examples keep cropping up that present the real problems to the idealism of some. So we would need to see an assessment of the added biomech potential of his drive into the pole under braking versus any sort of pre take off and set that against the detrimental losses. Very difficult to do. Almost impossible. Maybe if you had someone proficient in the variety of take offs. Possibly if you had some very good instrumentation and analysis software. And so it seems to me is all your work...

3) Somewhere there's probably a French biomech guy like you guarding their methods...

I have been open about my methods. Indeed there have been some French Engineering Scientists who have moved beyond the limitations of simple energy exchange analyses and published their work. Here is a reference you can follow up...no secret about their work. Here is one to start you off and there are other from the Bordeaux University Group concerning momentum, linear and angular, of the vaulter in interaction with the pole length, stiffness and storage of elastic potential energy. Also this material has been around for more than a decade!

J Morlier, M Cid - ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive, 1996 - ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de

Here is the result I obtained eons ago from a vaulter (PB of 5.40m) illustrating a pre - jump take-off.

Explanation of pre-jump.jpg (72.96 KiB) Viewed 9426 times

Below is the record obtained on, Steve Hooker no less, by investigators in Western Australia.
Again published so that anyone can access the information and is available on the internet in dowloadable PDF format.

Hooker Force Platform Data from 8 steps approach in training..jpg (74.42 KiB) Viewed 9426 times

Finally, a study again freely available to all, from arguable the best and most reputable and prolific biomechanists studying pole vault in the World showing very clearly why energy must be dissipated in the Jagodin exercise. This is a superb study demonstrating to me, at least that the equipment and methodology used verified with precision and accuracy the operation of Newtons Laws of Motion. The study has been examined here on PVP and the conclusion the authors made opened to question? Quite rightly so in my opinion, note only my opinion.

Arampatzis and Schade study of Jagodin Exercise.jpg (43.63 KiB) Viewed 9426 times

The other publications and presentations by the German Group, based in Cologne, have been published. This group of scientists have been commissioned (not sure of this as fact) by the IAAF to conduct Pole Vault Studies at a number of World Championships for example Helsinki. Their reports from these championships are also available free on the internet.

For those with the basic knowledge to read and understand these publication they are a "goldmine" of verified and reproducible data upon which coaches can rely in formulating and evaluating their "Idealized Practically Usable Pole Vault Coaching Model". Again only an opinion.

Readers will make up their own minds about who is being secretive and about what. My view is that the literature on the biomechanics of pole vault can provide you with data on which to test your hypothesis from first principles.

In the final analysis, how the conclusions reached are translated into practice is all that really matters. Coaching methods that carry high predisposing risks to the vaulter, and carried out by a coach with or without knowledge of those risks is simply not acceptable no matter how well intentioned a coach may be.

Better to argue the case here than in a courtroom after a catastrophe!

Granted that Dossevi can vault the successful way he does. I simply reassert that the technique he uses is not one that could "in this coaches wildest dreams" be used as an Ideal Coaching Model. To adopt his technique as a universal teaching model, is in my opinion, and that is all it is, would be a certain recipe for disaster. From first principles of physics alone the technique is obviously inefficient.

[PVstudent]

This is an example of just why I am exasperated in relation to this thread:

You already answered the question about their swing efficiency in the question. So,to answer your question: Assuming they both have equal abilities to transfer their energy to their poles in their take-offs, the heavy vaulter produces more kinetic energy, therefore more potential energy.Therefore, the heavier vaulter, vaults higher. We are comparing two vaulters with different Heights, Mass and speed and vaulters with radically different swing techniques and determining which vaulter was more efficient from the moment their toes left the ground. It is possible that one vaulter may have a more efficient take off.

The second sentence and third sentences, really... how do you know this to be true? You are making so many unsupported assumptions here that the statement has no value. The third sentence does not follow empirically or logically at all!

Just review the following in regard to the effects pole lengths, grip length, stiffness and recoil characteristics can have on the possible outcome when the initial constraining pole and vaulter parameters are defined! I show only 3 examples that should reveal why your statements and conclusions here are just untenable.

Engaging some one in an argument based on invalid premises and using hypothetical numbers to attempt to prove your point is invalid, uninformative and wasted effort for all concerned.

Effect of pole length on vault height 1.jpg (68.76 KiB) Viewed 9419 times

A second example in regard to pole effects that must be considered the same individual.

Effects of pole stiffness when take-off and pole support parameters held constant.jpg (45.04 KiB) Viewed 9419 times

Here again is another set of possible constraining parameters that influences the vault outcome, especially for elite vaulters.

Effects of same take-off parameters used with stiffer pole and vaulting attempt at greater bar height.jpg (77.35 KiB) Viewed 9419 times

Experienced and advanced level coaches know all this as do the best of elite level vaulters.

It is how these parameters , and a host of others, are managed during competitions under the prevailing environmental conditions existent on the day, time, place and perceived importance of the outcome to be achieved that underpins the art of coaching and pole vault performance. Science merely informs but does not always produce the optimal outcome desired in the actual performance.

[Decamouse]

I tried this earlier this morning but obviously did not submit properly - PVStudent graphs since posted - show part of the point - optimal pole selection - back to the Vaulter A and Vaulter B - same speed and hgt etc but B is 90Kg versus A being 70Kg

B will have more available force at take off because of his mass (both Velocities are the same) -- but as the pole unbends B requires a higher end load (forces pole can exert at a given shortened chord length) since gravity is applied to his 90kg - so if they are both on poles rated 15 kg above there wgt -- it is not equal -- if you look at the ratio A is about 21% above wgt and B is 16% above -- gets more tricky - since end loads on the big long poles do not agree wit the wgt ratings - you would need that data to compare apples to apples -- a 520 with a flex of less than 13 could have a end load in the area of 15 kg larger than the weight rating (most short poles and light wgt poles have less than their rating)

If the efficiency at the top is not the same or suffers, you are losing some of the potential return on the energy put into the pole (bent or shortened) -- my point - real hard to compare with only part of the data -- what you can say is Lavillenie cleared the higher bar - there is also an optimal grip hgt and stiffness (end load) - long noodle versus a shorter stouter pole

[PVDaddy]

The second sentence and third sentences, really... how do you know this to be true? You are making so many unsupported assumptions here that the statement has no value. The third sentence does not follow empirically or logically at all!

How do I know what to be true? What sentence does not follow logic? Specify?


PVstudent, What exactly is your Point? KISS. The question never specified Pole stiffness now did it? From the question one would have to assume the same percentage of stiffness relative to the weight of the vaulter and that both poles are both equally optimally selected for each vaulter and that's what I did. You add new variables and throw them into the mix as if they were included in the original question?.

By the way back to the original question and purpose of this thread, Swing Efficiency. You claim Lavellenies swing efficiency (Pole support Phase) is not as good as Bubkas. Are you gong to provide the data. Physics and math to demonstrate your point for all of us to see?