Big Bend vs. Smaller Bend

[ashcraftpv]

I always thought that this loading phase was so that you could get into the pit better. Otherwise, when you swing right off of the ground, the pole doest really get a chance to travel forward towards the back of the box. That way, the pole will not reach vertical, and you'll be left hanging over the box. If i'm wrong, can someone clarify for me what exactly allows the vaulter to move the pole and travel into the pit better?

The pole rolls to vertical by applying constant pressure with the top hand to the pole, not from pushing with your bottom arm. You can do this throughout your swing, if its done properly. Watch bubka's 6.01m jump

http://www.thepolevault.republika.pl/video/full601.mpg

he swings right off the ground, but he does it right! There are lots of things you can do wrong to not roll the pole past vertical, including swinging right off the ground in the wrong way.

[ADTF Academy]

Excellent Start Thus Far. Here is my stance agree or disagree. I hope I simply give you something to ponder.


Part I


This topic though separate from the other question I posted is linked and related. First I need to briefly address pole rotation about its axis in the box to the back of the pits.


Firstly, Pole rotation occurs based on the force applied to the pole during takeoff and the angle at which it is applied storing such energy into the pole used during its rotation. Look first at straight pole vaulting, as an example when you do drills such as a one hander. The pole does not bend. I am sure you have come to the realization that if you keep the same approach steps and you continue to move up the pole you will reach a point when you can not safely roll the pole over (rotate it into the pits) unless you move your steps back and get a longer approach so you can produce more speed at takeoff hence increase the force you can apply into the pole. Now with this increase hand hold on a big enough pole does the pole bend at all. NO, but it will still rotate how come. Take any pole that won't bend and do this it won't matter what pole it is, it will still rotate with that hand grip and approach steps. The energy and direction you apply into the straight pole during the takeoff makes it possible for the pole to rotate. Now there becomes a time when you can't hold any higher. If your hand grip moves up any higher the pole won't rotate completely. We will call this your magic pole cord. The height you can hold at a specific approach distance with a given speed will apply enough force in the appropriate direction at takeoff to rotate it.

Secondly, your COM position in relative terms to the pole during its rotation matters significantly. What is meant by this is the following. When your performing the above pole rotation simulation where is your COM in terms of the pole; is it next to it (as close to the pole as possible) or are you hanging from it so your COM is away from the pole cord. Here is where these two statements differ. With any cord or straight object does it take less energy to rotate such a cord if weight X is spread out along the cord length (as close to it as possible) or hanging from the top of it down towards the ground (away from the pole cord).

SPREAD OUT ALONG THE CORD. If you stay away from the cord and hang on it will take a great deal more force/energy to rotate the cord and your Mass. It will take less force/energy to rotate the same cord if your COM is as close to the pole as possible during its entire rotation past vertical. If you can keep your COM as close as possible to the poles cord during its rotation then you can increase your hand hold on such a cord to its maximal magic hang hold height for that specific approach steps and speed you can generate over such distance.


Now here is where I think the mind set of many vaulters and coaches has changed. The pole bend should not be the main focus; the pole cord rotation should still be as it was with the old straight pole vaulters. What I mean by the pole cord rotation is this. During a vault of lets say a pole that bends. I would contend that if you change your mindset from a bending pole to a series of straight pole cords your ideal behind not only the pole bend, pole rotation, the sweep and in fact the entire vault would change. The straight pole cords is in terms of at every instants during the vault rather the pole is straight or is bending from the tip of the pole to your top hand a new straight cord is established. If the pole is straight and never bends this is a straight pole you can visual see. If the pole bends the pole cord is imaginary but still there. As the vault moves along and the pole begins to bend and then begins to unbend, the pole cords are constantly changing based on the amount of bend you have in the pole. The bigger the bend the shorter the pole cord length at that instant of the vault. So does this mean a bigger bend is preferred?

NO!!!! Heres why. How does the pole bend, I contend it bends based on the design by the manufactures and the force and direction at which you apply that force with the TOP ARM at takeoff. If this force/energy you can apply during the takeoff is sufficient for the pole you are using and its flex number the pole will bend automatically. If the pole and flex number is too great the pole will not bend as much. If the pole and flex number is too little the pole will over bend. Your speed at takeoff and takeoff angle will determine how much force/energy and direction it is applied while determine how and when the pole bends automatically. This concept is enhanced by the terms of the free takeoff, prejump and continuous takeoff, which has been talked about a ton and I will not go into it anymore now, but I will say learn why and how and perform these concepts.

Now what about that mystical bottom arm and the so called locked out concept so many though they don't want to claim they or their athletes use that is running rampant. Here is why we teach it is not wanted. Think about this for a moment. Earlier we talked about wanting to get your COM as close to the pole cord as possible. Let’s say you’re on a pole with a flex rating you can bend and it bends on its own. During the bending poles entire rotation it has numerous invisible pole cords that are consistently changing during its rotation. Now I mentioned that a pole cord will rotate the closer you are to it. I contend this concept holds true rather the pole cord is visible (straight pole vaulting) or invisible (a bending and unbending pole).

Now what does the bottom arm do. I will agree with anyone that says it can be used as a force production tool. I would agree that you can increase the size of the pole bend by jamming that bottom arm into the pole so that it gets this big bend in it. I would also agree that this would reduce the length of the imaginary pole cord I am referring to. BUT will your COM be as close to the pole cord as possible or will the bottom arm keep you pushed away from the pole cord so you are more in a hanging position. Even though this increased bottom arm pressure shortens the pole cord your hanging from it your COM is not along its axis.

Likewise, why is this bigger bend caused by the bottom arm not desired? Well usually the locked out bottom arm needs to be accompanied with a locked out top arm or your hips are sucked through prematurely and your sweep is weak. Now the locked out bottom arm creates a huge bend in the pole and likewise locked out top arm drives the apex of the bend of the pole into the pits. Now I contend that if this apex of the bend moves significantly past vertical the pole is no longer simply rotational concept it becomes a lifting and rotational concept. Sense such a vaulter stayed away from the pole cord and the pole apex has moved significantly passed vertical the pole must lift the vaulter as well as rotate passed vertical.

The energy you put into the pole that was supposed to be used for its rotation is now being used to not only rotate the pole, but lift your weight as well. Now if this energy is not enough to not only lift the vaulter but continue its rotation then it lifts you straight up and never past vertical. Hence you hear the common generic statement "Man you crushed that pole," and yet landed near the box or the apex was pushed so deep that when it rotates it one couldn't lift you quick enough so the pole rolls over and its new vertical is actually facing towards the back of the pits and not the traditional vertical you think of. You land in the back of the pits and you try a stiffer pole and get rejected. Resulting in consistent frustration.

Who recalls a tremendous 6.40 Model that was posted a little while back? I believe these concepts where the main reasoning behind his statements (though I am not speaking for him) that during takeoff the pressure of the bottom arm should be a pulling action. I would add a pulling action in the direction of the shoulders. Why because you need to get your COM as close to the poles cord as possible during every aspect of the vault in order to one continue the poles rotation and to two use the poles direction of force (along the imaginary pole cord) to your advantage to reach inversion before the final unbending process of the pole. You must move (sweep) quicker than the unbending process staying ahead of the pole to get the full benefit from the unbending pole, which is yet another topic in itself.

You can test this in the following way. Perform a one hander. This time place your bottom hand on the pole. If you’re not active with the bottom arm the hands will run away from you. The pole running away from you will also be caused if you will have your bottom elbow facing down. This will result in a pressing action or straightening action. Top hand moves forward, shoulders move backwards and bottom hand pulls down the length of the pole. If on the other hand you applying more or less a pulling action with the bottom hand in the direction of the shoulders you will keep your COM as close of possible. This means you need to have your elbow facing up. I tell my athletes to think of it like a chicken wing. The bottom elbow is pressing upwards not pulling down or out to the side. You can not cause the bottom hand to deviate from its positioning creating an opening for the head to fit into.

Now how, why and what this adds is beyond the scope of this question.


I will address one point that was made though. The LOAD PHASE or HANG PHASE concept.

I contend this is not in terms of the pole and its loading/bending phase or in terms of the hang phase on the pole.

I contend this is in terms of loading your body with energy in the stomach and quad. How you may ask? First have you heard of a stretch reflex? If not a simple way to teach the concept. Tap your forefinger on the table as fast as you can till it gets tired. Then with your palm firmly on the table lift your forefinger as high as you can and release it. It will snap back down onto the table with a tremendous amount of force more so than you could generate when you tapped it on the table. What you did was stretch out the tendon which stored it with a great deal of energy and then when you released that stretch reflex it snapped back to the table.

I contend this is what should be accomplished during the load or hang phase. As you apply force/energy into the pole during your takeoff the pole is applying force back on your Top hand, keeping it behind your driving chest due to a positive takeoff angle. How far your top hand will will be behind your chest will depend on the flexibility in your top arm shoulder and hip flexor. During your final stride you applied force into the ground behind you stretching out your lower portion of the body. This stretch of the upper and lower portion of the body referred to by many as the inverted C position is the focus of the hang or load phase.

Now the other reason I don't preach an over active pressing action with the bottom arm rather it is in an attempt to lock it out with a forward rowing motion or the new term many are using pressing it upwards with significant force above you is because in order for the stretch in the stomach and quad to be accomplished your chest must be leading. If you have too much pressure with bottom hand in any direction that limits your chests ability to be leading you will limit the amount of energy you can store into your stomach as well as limit your ability to get your COM in line with the poles imaginary cord. My contention is your bottom arm will be a straight as the poles bend will allow automatically. As the pole bend opens up your bottom arm will straighten out automatically. Though this was the concept talked about in the 6.40 model I will not get into it. I will only say if you simply allow it to open up your not continuously applying energy into the pole. Reread the 6.40 model and you will know what I am suggesting you do during the sweep as the poles bend opens up away from you in order to keep your COM as close to the poles imaginary pole cord as possible.

Now the Stretch Reflex when released snaps the pelvis back into alignment which releases the stretch reflex of the quad which in return whips the trail leg foot back into alignment with the spine and pelvis creating angular momentum used to reach inversion. How this is accomplished and what to do after this point is once again beyond this post. Sorry!!!

As far as when the sweep begins that is another topic in itself for another post.

I know this is a lot of information to digest and some of it may be a tad confusing sorry hard to make all the points I want on a message board without a board and marker to use to show diagrams. I hope this at least gives you something to think about.

[ADTF Academy]

Part II


In Part I I talked about the poles rotation about its axis in the box to the back of the pits. I also talked about the pole cord that is visable and constant for a straight pole and invisible and every changing for a bending pole. I made the contention that the closer your COM is to this pole cord the easier and more efficient the pole rotates about its axis in the box to the back of the pits. In Part II I will address why the smaller bend is perferred.

Smaller and Bigger are relative terms to each of our imagination. What is small to one person is big to another and vsaverse. Overall this question and poll that I made is about as generic as a lot of the statements that are being made in the vault today.

My personal thought on Big vs Small bend comes in terms of a concept I talked about in Part I. Does the apex of the bend move significantly past vertical during its bending process. If yes than Big Bend if no than Small Bend. I know many like to use degrees. My contention is this degree of bend on what length pole. A 17 foot pole will bend technically past 90 Degrees and yet its apex in the bend will still not go significantly past vertical. Look at Bubka's jumps. Did the apex of his bend go past vertical. Now on a lets say 14 foot pole if you reach near 90 Degrees I would say you jammed that apex deep into the pits. I personally beleive degrees are misleading and give you a false sense of being ok. I hear people say as long as the pole bend doesn't get past X degrees I will be safe. I contend that if the pole needs to lift your weight the chance of a break in the pole is 10 fold or more.

I will first briefly readdress the comments I made on the apex moving signifcantly past vertical. On this Big Bend as I call it. With the apex moving beyond its axis I contend that it moves from a Class 2 Lever to a Class 3 Lever. In the Class 2 lever system (Small Bend) Force has been applied by the hands on the top of the pole creating the energy to rotate the pole, your weight or COM should be for most of the vault till vertical should be inbetween your hands and the pole tip in the box. The pole tip being the fulcrum or pivot point. An example would be a wheelbarrow. To dump the contents out you simply have to apply enough force with the hands to rotate it completely over its axis and once past vertical the contents fall out.

During a Class 3 lever system (Big Bend). The bend apex has moved past vertical changing the dynamics of the lever system. Now the weight is hanging onto the top of the pole. The energy you put into the pole is no longer being applied through the pole by your hands, but has moved to the apex of the bend and becomes the force production tool. And the pole tip is still the fulcrum. Now it becomes more of a whipping action like a fishing pole rod and your the dead weight on the end.

I am not a big fisherman myself, but I would contend that with a fishing pole you can purchase at any store that if you continue to put weight by the hook on the end of the pole and snap it back to cast it. I would guess there would become a point when you applied to much weight onto the end and when you try to snap the fishing pole forward it would buckle and break.

People what do you think happens in the vault on these big bends. You have moved the focus from a Class 2 lever system of Rotation to a Class 3 lever system of Lifting. Though I am not a physics teacher or engineer I would contend that it takes more energy to perform a Class 3 Lever than a Class 2 Lever. Simply put when using a fishing pole in order to launch your hook a great distance you need to apply a tremendous amount of energy over a very quick period of time for the hook to go a great distance.

Conversely, how many times have you see people get this big bend in the pole and it appears as though it takes them 8 years for the pole to uncoil. They did not put enough energy into the pole for an effective Class 3 lever to work. On the other hand how many times have you seen someone with very little to no bend int he pole get to the top very quickly. Because the energy the stored in the Class 2 Lever was sufficent to rotate it.


Besides the huge point just mentioned. I have another issue with the Big Bend. It is in terms of what you need to do to accomplish the BIG Bend. I know many are changing the phrase locking out the bottom arm to Applying UpWards pressre with the bottom arm. But if it is straight it is locked out no matter which direction you so call say your applying force. Unless that pole bends naturally big enough for your bottom arm to be near straight it shouldn't be. Here's why. I would contend that this straightening of the bottom arm causes a sinking action to occur for this simple reason. When your bottom arm is locked out it becomes a what. A FULCRUM. Now based on our previous conversation I would contend for the time you are so called loading the pole with this big bend you have actually turned it into a Class I lever. The weight (your body) hanging from your top hand. The fulcrum or pivot point being your bottom hand and the force tool is the lower portion of the pole getting jammed into the back of the box.

Now I was always under the impression that as a vaulter the final mission is to get our hips as high above our shoulders as possible once the pole as past vertical anywhere from 45 cm to 80 cm behind vertical. We must swing as quickly and effeciently as possible in order to beat the poles rotation past vertical so that we are in the best position possible to clear the maximal height inbetween 45 and 80 cm beyond vertical. So then how is applying backwards pressure against our shoulders in the direction of the runway suppose to help us sweep efficently and quickly. I would contend that it does create a bigger bend in the pole that would I guess give you more time to reach inversion.

However, the point has already been made this bigger bend creates a Class 3 Lever which is a whip which uncoils and snaps very very very quickly. So in all honesty you have actually speed up the pole rotation because of this big bend if you could apply enough energy and the chances to beat it are very slim because your first motion was backwards pressure after takeoff. Secondly if you didn't apply enough energy the whip is so slow that you don't benefit from the big bend anyways and on the top of the pole you are very passive. The common thing I see with this big bend is the huge bend loading and then a quick move to inversion before the pole has had an opportunity to begin to roll over. They are therefore launched straight up and not in a rotational manner and land very close to the box. They get upside down quickly and launch with a huge flyaway but can't control the uncoiling speed correctly and lower the room for error to make the height.

Now with the class 2 Lever (small bend) its rotation and launching of the vaulter over a max height at 45 to 80 cm beyond vertical uses more of a rotational theory. Contrepical and Centrifugal forces are at work during any rotation. Though the bending pole's path is not the same as a straight pole which resembles a circle. The bending pole's path is more of a parabola. Either way they both hold the same characteristics. Towards the top of the parabola the pole will rach a maximal height and then it will descend back to the pits beyond vertical. During this class 2 lever as your body swings around the shoulders (yes thats right I said the shoulders not top Hand) you create a tremendous amount of torque through the shoulders joint durin the rotation. If this is timed up correctly and you have reach this position before the poles unbending process is near completion. You can use this torque/force to one begin tranversal rotation around the pole so you can move towards the runway side. If this is timed up correctly you can peform your final so call pulling action (more along the lines of letting your body raise into the air) as the pole thrust what ever energy it has left during its final rotation. At that moment the pole will roll over vertical and begin its path to the pits.

For those of you that are unfimiliar with centrifical and centrifugal forces. Any time an object is spinning or rotating for that matter. Forces are pulling the object to its axis while counter forces are pulling away from its axis. This keeps the object in balance and on a set predetermined path. Once either end of the object/rod (for use of better words) is released the forces being applied on it will launch the object in the direction the forces were being applied.

As an example look at the hammer throw. The athlete spins and spins and spins building up angular momentum and angular velocity. eventually the athlete lets go of the hammer at one end and the hammer is launch in which ever direction the final forces were being applied. The centrifugal forces were working in favor of throwing the hammer to its maximal distance.

This same concept can be used on the top of the pole if the timing is correct and you let go of the pole at the correct time. I think of it like a bow and arrow. If your on top of the pole and completley straight (the arrow) and the bow (the pole) snaps or finishes its uncoiling process and you let go you will be launched into the air.


Now back to the intial question of Big Bend vs. Small Bend.

My contention is mechanical both make sense. Logically speaking though with a BIg Bend you must compete against two systems. One a rotation and second a lifting. It takes a great deal more energy to accomplish these two systems then only one. A small bend is only a rotation and sense your attempt to keep your COM as close to the pole cord at all times the rotation is easier and needs less energy to rotate so all additional energy you can store in the pole will be use for one purpose the bow and arrow effect on the top of the pole.

Just like mentioned in the past do not attempt this at home unless you buy into it 100% and train your body and mind to perform this. It is radically a different way to think then has been preached to most over the past few years. Heck I was even taught lock out that bottom arm get as big of a bend as possible so we can get on bigger poles and they can lift you over higher heights. Well you can only get on so big of poels and they can only lift you so high. Personally this is pole vaulting not pole lifting. Being launched and rotated is a lot more fun than simply going for a ride and being lifted. If your not active from the moment you take off till the moment you clear the bar your missing out on your maximal potential.

I hope this has stired some thought in many of you. I am sick of typing now so digest it and let me know what you think.

[maurie]

It's obvious that you have put a lot of research and thought into your message. It is, however, difficult to fully understand what your are trying to say.

This is why. Pole vaulting is essentially an event of physics. All attempts to describe or discuss the event are somewhat ineffective because there is not a common nomenclature. For example, one coaches "swing", is another coaches "sweep" or "tap swing" or "tap slam." We know that there is a distinct technique that results in a tap swing. But are we all talking about the same thing? I don't think so. We refer to the front side or back side of the pole, well, is that the runway side or the pit side? It depends on who you talk to.

If coaches and athletes want to move the event in the right direction they need to be able to effectively communicate. We may not get a consensus on technique, but we should be able to develop common terms that would enable us to discuss technique.

[Rhino]

Great read! I have been no-heighting a lot lately, and believe it is related to taking off too flat. This seems to put me into the bending-and-lifting mode rather than rotational. Anyway, your post got me to thinking and maybe redirecting my focus. Thanks!

[dj]

sorry becca i'm putting this on two threads..... because it is very important to this discussion as well.......

dj

Poles..

I think it is time we take a long hard look at poles and how they are affecting pole vaulting.

Last week at a meet in florida I watched two teams of men and women ( 4 groups of vaulters) coached by three coaches that coach very much alike and off course coach their own team members alike and very close to the petrov model and physics.

What happened was something I have watched for 30 years, tested with mike tully in 1983-1988 and was actually able to test again 3 years ago.

The only poles that the coaches could get the coaching results they were asking for technically, was from those athletes using the spirit pole. Those jumpers had fewer “issuesâ€Â

[Lax PV]

Great post.. and an interesting point of view as well.

I think that the pole has some to do with it, and I also think there is an element of truth to "it's not the arrow, it's the indian." Obviously there are exceptions to both, but you bring up an excellent point that WRs, World Champs, and Olympic Champs are, at least a lot of the time, on Spirits.

Now, if you go and talk with Earl Bell, he will tell you a lot about the phyisical properties of a pole and what makes it good, and what makes people like or dislike it. A conversation I find to be very interesting. His elite vaulters use a variety of pole brands, and they arevery talented athletdes. Some are on Pacer, some Essex... although I am unsure if any of them rutinely jump on spirits, but the Bell athletics crew did make up half of the crew that went to the Olympics in Athens a couple years ago.

Personally, I love spirits. I think they feel easy to jump on, and for the most part, I feel in control of things when I am in the air. But is this because this is what I am used to jumping on? The first time I jumped on a Spirit, I hated it. So I guess my thought is, regardless of what pole we are on, different people jump different ways, and what works for some, might not work for others... what do you all think?

What poles do you like? And is there any characteristics about your jump that you feel comes from that? (i.e. dropping your drive knee, extending your drive knee, tuck and shoot??)


P.S. I jumped on a 15' Essex that was weight rated and had a flex number similar to what I jump on, but it felt like a tree trunk, so I personally didn't think that it was 'easy' to get on... anyone else think this?

[ADTF Academy]

Once again DJ makes a great post.

Pacer, though a wonderful and well thought out company has taken advantage over the past few years of the so called American style of vaulting. I have heard many refer to this style as Power Vaulting. Locking out the body hand and rowing the apex of the bend deep into the pits. Though now many don't say row now a days they say excessive upwards pressure with the bottom hand.

Well, here is my stance on Pacer and the many pole designs they offer. They have excellent engineers and support staff. They research their products very well and are constantly finding different ways to produce poles to help this type of vaulter and that type of vaulter jump higher. They realize the way vaulters in America were jumping and designed poles to aid in power vaulters ability to use their specific model and make up for technical errors they may have and are unwilling to fix or mechanical differences that stress the pole differently than other models. Then they realized we as coaches and vaulters were beginning to go back to the eastern European model. So they turned around and are now coming out with a new series of poles and don’t forget the series of poles that are made for female vaulters.

Is this in any way shape or form wrong or unethical? NO!! In fact it is ingenious and I commend them for the business mindset and wiliness to be creative and experimental.

I believe they noticed that vaulters were over stressing the bottom of the pole by jamming the pole into the back of the box and producing a class 3 lever. They lowered the sail piece (lower bending point) to compensate for this point and cause the pole to bend very quickly at the bottom of the pole to limit some of the sinking that would occur if the sail piece was higher as it is on a Spirit. It also limits the bend from moving significantly past vertical. Because the bending process happens quicker and lower they do not sink as much and likewise the pole uncoils quicker so that the stress on the pole is not as great as it was on a Spirit for these types of vaulters who would over bend the pole and it would uncoil very slowly or break.

The pacer designed pole can handle the stress being applied on it by the Power Vaulters and the lower sail piece adds to limiting the class 3 lever system from occurring as much. The force tool is now lower and close enough to the fulcrum (the pole tip in the box) that it can better handle the weight of the vaulter hanging on the top of the pole. It lifts them with greater ease and puts them in a position to clear the height at hand.

However, due to the lower sail piece and force point it uncoils with a great deal of speed. Therefore the vaulter must resort to a tuck and shoot style because they can not beat the poles uncoiling velocity. The pole begins to runaway from the hands and the shoulders are lifted quickly running into the legs resulting in a tucking action. Then the vaulter waits till he or she can finally move their hips and they then get launched into the air to clear the bar and land deep into the pits.

Next, what happened was vaulters begin to read that the tuck and shoot was incorrect and a bad habit. They attempted to find new ways to get upside down quicker. So the only way to do this was to get upside down before the pole begins to uncoil so that the hips are moving above the shoulders before the pole exerts a great deal of force on the hands and pulls the shoulders into the legs. So what did they do, they began sweeping right off the ground to get inverted as quickly as possible. They get upside down so quickly then they wait for the pole to snap and uncoil quickly launching them straight up into the air. The only problem is the pole isn't rolling over. It isn't rotating is it simply bending and uncoiling to a straight up position. The vaulter must then reach for the cross bar applying force backwards in the direction of the runway which is never wanted. So even at higher heights the pole goes backwards towards the runway and doesn’t rotate completely to the pits.

The vaulter is launched straight upwards. The problem is the landing zone is beyond vertical. They land near the box or in it for that matter. Heck even some of our governing bodies attempted to slow this down by moving the minimal spot you can have your standards set because they even saw the issue that was taking place. I personally hope they move it back even further or institute the rule that has been talked about if you land out of the safe land zone box three times in a meet you are pulled from the meet. I would rather have infront of the box, but that is my two cents.

Next, Pacer came out with multiple versions of the basic FX pole. Each one is for a special type or style of vaulter.

To me they have done the same thing the golf industry is doing. Instead of fixing your swing (vault) you can simply buy the latest golf club (pole) that is design to compensate for your technical flaw. This is in fact a great selling point and excellent for the novice/beginner and recreational golfer (vaulter).

A great example is the carbon poles and the new one; I think they are called the S-Series Carbon Poles. They are supposedly lighter and less weight for the vaulter to carry. Well according to the Eastern European model if you have a correct pole carry you should not feel the weight of the pole in your hands as you perform the approach and plant? Therefore if this is the case and you perfect the plant correctly then the weight of the pole shouldn't matter. The carbons are for those that wish not to perform the pole carry and plant correctly.

We can go on and on about the different poles they make. Different inner wall thicknesses for those that over stress and bend the pole so they don’t break or even changing the overall diameter of the pole so someone with smaller hands can use them are just a few examples. I personally think they are a very smart and ingenious pole company with a great deal of knowledge and expertise. I commend them for that.

However, I believe in one model and performing that model correctly not simply making style differences and saying oh well that’s just my style or that’s just his style its ok. No its not. If you believe in the model your using do everything you can to perform it correctly from the start till the finish and no deviations in between.

Here is a question we will never know. I wonder if the top vaulters in the World who use Pacers are using the same design that they sell to the average vaulter who purchases their pole or are they special made to meet their specific recommendation. I wonder where the sail piece of the poles the elites jump on is? I wonder how their poles are made, is it more like a Spirit Design with a more full complete bend with the sail piece more in the middle of the pole wrapped in a pacer label or do they get the same pole Joe Blow gets when he orders them? We will never know.

This is why for me personally I believe in one pole for male or female. I chose the pole that best supports the model I use and that’s the Spirit pole brand. On the other hand I think Pacer is good for some vaulters and should be used, I just don’t personal use them for my jumpers.

I would recommend you figure out what type of vaulter you are and make your decision accordingly. If the Pacer and one of their brands matches what you’re trying to accomplish then purchase them. Make an educated decision not one because someone told you once that the Pink Pacer Mystic Poles are for females so you should go out and buy them for that reason alone. If you can make an educated reasoning or someone can give you an educated reasoning then so be it buy them.

[achtungpv]

I heard that the Pacer carbon design (stiff bottom, high sail) was specifically asked for by some elite Russian vaulters...who would be practicing the "model".

If you want a symmetrical bending pole, maybe you should look at Nordic. From the few vaults I've seen, this seems to be how they are designed and per capita probably more elites have jumped high on Nordics than other brands.

[gtc]

I to used to imagine a perfect model before each attempt. And in my imagination the pole always fit the model fine.

[maurie]

I fundamentally understand what you are attempting to describe, however, please make a few clarifications.

Class 1 lever (as described by you) has the weight on the top hand, big bend and the bottom hand is a fulcrum.

Class 2, force applied by the hands on the top of the pole, you wrote, "your weight or COM should be for most of the vault til vertical should be in between your hands and the pole tip in the box." Small bend, pole is rotating on it's axis.

Class 3, Big bend, the apex of the pole bends beyond vertical, weight on top of the pole and the force tool is moved to the apex of the pole. Pole is lifting more than rotating.

Please define for me what you mean by "force tool," and where is the force tool for class 1 & 2 lever systems.

You are making a discrimination between "weight on top of the pole (class 1 & 3)" and force on top of the pole (class 2). Force is mass times acceleration, so you lost me on this one.

Concerning Part 1; Are you suggesting a limp bottom arm to allow the vaulter to stay as close the pole as possible? If so, then how do you apply "force by the hands" (plural) in a class 2 lever system?

I really like what you are doing here, good stuff.

[ADTF Academy]

For the most part correct let me try to restate what I mean by the Levers and how they are developed in the vault and how we aim to use or not use them. Man I can’t believe I am giving away all my secrets, for free. 


Class 1 Lever - Example Seesaw

During the plant the vaulter applies tremendous pressure with the bottom hand (either upwards or locked out straight the direction doesn't matter). This results in the bottom hand become a fulcrum. The force tool then becomes a pulling down action of the top hand resulting in the bending of the pole because the other end is fixed in the box and can not lift up as it would in a normal seesaw. Watch any video of a vaulter with a huge locked out bottom arm they appear to sink. This is because they are trying to force the pole to bend using a Class 1 Lever system. Without meaning to or knowing they are doing it they are pulling down with the top arm. For us and the system we use a downward action is in the opposite direction that you want to go. We want to rotate the pole from the moment we leave the ground till we clear a bar, why would you pull down. Now it does occur if you realize it or not if you have a huge bottom arm. This was the focus of the tuck and shoot vaulters of the 80’s and early 90’s.


Class 2 Levers - Example Wheel Barrow

Force applied on the pole by the TOP HAND ONLY not both hands. The bottom hand has a different job all together. The relaxing [lack of forward or upward pushing pressure] of the bottom hand allows your COG to move in front of the top hand as your running speed is decrease and the energy generated during the run is relocated/transferred into the pole. This allows the trunk of your body to get along the axis of the pole cord created during the poles rotation rather the pole cord is visible (straight pole) or invisible (bent pole). Allow your COG to get along the pole cord allows for that pole cord to rotate easier and more efficiently.

[Now what I don't mean is for there to be a rotation of the body under the top hand right off the ground. If you plant under this would cause your lower body to be sucked under right after you took off the ground and not allow for enough forward rotation first. This is why the concept of the free takeoff is vital. If you allow yourself to finish the final stride completely your body will lock into an upright position with your chest leading as it should with any takeoff rather it is long jump or pole vault (as well as with normal running mechanics), as the pole tip strikes the back of the box and the energy generated during the run (your running speed) is applied to the pole through the top hand and the pole will begin to bend naturally, if the pole you are using and the speed you generated is greater than the predetermined flex rating of the pole.] [I know that may seem impossible or totally against the logic being used for a long time. That is why this is a continuous chain model and multiple events needed to occur simultaneously in order for it to work properly. You must continue to apply energy into the pole during the entire vault from takeoff to clearance. Read on. I will post some videos next week demonstrating how the pole will bend with no bottom arm during a simple 6 and 8 step (3 and 4 lefts) approach drill similar to that of a one hander except both hands are on the pole. You will see clear as day that as the young lady builds up enough running speed during her approach that when she takes off the ground the energy is applied into the pole and it begins to bend and she will still rotate the pole completely and not get sucked completely under at takeoff and will land safely in the pits. She will not be jerk, sink or jarred at all during the entire drill even when holding from very high hand holds for such a short approach. I will also post a video of her doing it incorrectly where by she is applying to much force with the bottom hand and thus a sinking action occurs. She won't be able to hold as high and when she does she will actually get rejected and fall backwards towards the runway. Or heck watch videos of mostly all the top high school girls jumping over the past few year. I will bet they all have little to no bottom arm at all yet they are jumping 13.5 to 14.5 feet in the air. How come! I would make the point that I think the position of their bottom arm is incorrect and I will explain why next]

Back to the class 2 lever. The top hand is the force producing tool that is using the energy generated during the approach to apply it to the pole at a given takeoff angle based on your reach height and if you finished the final stride or better yet performed a slight pre jump. If you allowed the chest to move past the top hand and locked into the correct position and with correct use of the bottom hand (will talk about this later) and you didn't apply any backwards pressure by locking out the bottom hand then your COG will be in front of your top hand and along the invisible (bent pole) or visible (straight) pole cord. The fulcrum will then be the pole tip in the box (the place the pole cord is rotating over). Like a wheel barrow the weight or load is in the middle in the basket and the wheel is the axis or fulcrum and your hands is the force tool to lift the contents. As the wheel barrow rotates the contents fall out completely once the wheel barrow passes vertical.

Now here is the difference with the top hand being the force producing tool in a class 2 and class 1. In the class 2 levers the force is being applied upwards from the moment you takeoff the ground and your top hand continues to drive the pole upwards, which causes you to be lifted during the entire rotating and potentially bending process. There is never a sinking or appearance of a sinking action at all as there is and will be in a Class 1 lever.

[Now the position and use of the bottom arm. This is where what I suggest turns radical to most and only one other coach I have heard talk about the same concepts and that was Agapit in his 6.40 model. We know that a bent pole must eventually unbend. We know that when this occurs it puts tremendous pressure on your top hand pulling it in the direction the pole is unbending, upwards in most cases. If you believe me when I said that in order to rotate the pole with its greatest efficiency you need to have your COG as close to the pole cords axis as possible, than my next statement to you would be that you want to limit the pole cords ability to runaway from you. Now how and what is the only way you can do this.

It is by performing a bottom hand pulling action in the direction of the shoulders from the instance you take off the ground. Also the bottom hand elbow must be pointing outwards and never be pointing down. If the elbow is pointing down it will allow the pole to runaway from you later in its rotation as the bottom arm straightens out due to the increasing bending in the pole that occurs. You will then have very limited ability to keep the pole cord close to you. Now some of you will think a bottom arm pull will cause the pole to stop rotating. Here is what we are trying to do with the bottom arm pull. It is to only keep the shoulders in line with the pole cord. There is no way from this position that anyone could generate enough force to cause the pole to unbend or rotate backwards the muscle groups are not used that way. I doubt anyone in the world is strong enough to counter the force generated during the approach unless you run very slowly, but even in that case the pole wouldn't bend and you would simply be keeping yourself right next to the pole and its rotation would be easier.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you are pulling your bottom hand in the direction of your shoulders than your shoulders must counter it with a force in the direction of your hands. This force and counter force keeps the shoulders in a stationary position along the axis of the pole cord. This differs from that of a BIG Bottom arm in a Class 1 Lever in respects to during the forward or upwards pressure of the bottom arm you are applying a force through the pole but the pole will also apply a force back on you in the direction of the shoulders pushing them backwards behind the hips and top arm which is never wanted in any kind of swinging motion that needs to occur during the second phase of the vault. [Once again I will try to post a video of a young lady performing what I call Open Hand One Handers from the right, left, back and front view. You will notice that when the pole is straight she attempts not to let the pole runaway from her from the moment she takes off till the moment she lands in the pits and with a bent pole she more or less attempts to do the same thing. If the elbow is pointing down once she gets past vertical the pole will runaway from her and her hips will be launched backwards. I am sure many of you have seen this happen when someone does a Load drill and simply rides the plant into the pits.]


Class 3 Lever - Example Fishing Pole

This is the back half or product of the class 1 lever used during the takeoff. If the class 1 lever is used and done correctly the pole will bend massively because the pole tip is held in the box. [Now becomes a secondary issue with to row or not to row. If the Class 1 lever plant was performed. All emphasis was on Bending the pole and very little on rotating it. In order for this system and pole bending to rotate you must row it into the pits or it will simply uncoil and launch you backwards as happens when someone is rejected. They get to much bend and the pole doesn't rotate it unbends and throws you backwards. If you use or appear to use a class 1 lever as it was described above you must row your hands or the pole will never rotate period.] Now because of this rowing of the hands the apex of the bend will move significantly past vertical so that when it unloads the top of the pole will be pointing on the other side of vertical and you will be launched onto the back half of the landing surfaces.

Now once the rowing of this big bend created during the Class 1 lever has occurred the Class 3 Lever takes over. The force producing tool is the unbending pole at its apex. Your hands and COG is the dead weight on the end of the pole and its fulcrum is the tip in the box because that is where the pole is whipping over. Like I talked about earlier if your weight is too great and the force is too little the pole will either break or not whip over the top completely. IT will simply uncoil to a certain point, usually above the box, and stop rotating into the pits. If the force is too great and the apex was not deep enough you will be launched straight up and land near the box. If the force is too great and the apex was deep enough you will be launched deep into the pits. The only way it is safe is if you rowed the apex of the bend deep enough so you land in the middle of the pits on every jump. But then you must time up this whipping action so that you let go at the right moment to clear the bar (you only have 80cm behind the box to clear it. On the other hand you only can be 45 cm behind the box to clear it as well. It makes timing up this whip difficult and precision is needed.)

Personally this is why I feel the generation of vaulters whom wanted these big bends loaded them with as much energy as possible and even coached to pull down with the top arm to bend the pole. Than they were told to row there hands as hard as possible to push the apex deep into the pits. They were then coached to tuck into a ball and rotate as quickly as possible and then shoot out the back side to clear the bar. Hence, Tuck and Shoot vautlers. They could not and didn't want to become inverted or they would land to deep into the pits and never clear a bar.

Personally I feel you can only be one of two types of vaulter.

A Class 1 Lever vaulter to load and a Class 3 Lever Vaulter to clear a height [tuck and shoot]

Or

A Class 2 Lever vaulter to do both. [Swing vaulter]

Right now I feel many have come to the conclusion that tucking and shooting is incorrect in wanting to achieve maximal vertical heights, which makes a Class 3 lever system wrong and should be avoided. That’s why you now here you don’t want to row and push the apex deep into the pits. Yet they still want to use a Class 1 Lever loading system. The room for error with this logic is astounding and dangerous. That’s why at Reno I couldn't watch most vautlers jump. To me it is as clear as day. To others they don't see it.

A quick story to illustrate my point about a jumper I watched late Saturday evening. A coach whom I don't know was preaching get that bottom arm out get it out as well as you must get inverted so swing quickly if you want to clear this height. 1st two attempts I witnessed a big bottom arm and a quick sweep and the vaulter almost land in the box. On the third attempt it was like he didn't listen to his coach, his bottom arm loosened up a bit and he got into the pole cord the pole rotated and he got inverted and cleared the height. Next thing I saw was the coach getting on the athlete for not having his bottom arm all the way out. Next height came and the same thing occurred for the first two jumps and finally for the third he didn't listen again and cleared the height and once again the coach got pissed and told him to get that bottom arm out.

Man I wasn't even the athlete and I was getting frustrated I wonder how he felt.

Sorry for the long answer and post again. For me I dislike it when people don't completely answer a question. Plus if I don’t then I would have received the response, “what do you mean you want a bottom arm pull after takeoff?â€Â