Bjorn Otto 590 film

[dj]

hey

............. you are very correct and yes we are looking at the same video..

but i "sensationalized" my response because it seems many times readers will only give varied view points if something sounds preposterous..........

the point i have been hoping to make about the "free" takeoff has nothing to do with any person or place.. it only has to do with the physics of the vault.

many/most of the discussions on here about the "free takeoff" have been completely from a "visual" point of view... in other words if it "looks" like a free takeoff it must be.. and it must have the "plus" dynamic we are looking for at the plant/takeoff...

for example... i trust my "MID" chart... and if an athlete hits the proper "MID" should i say for sure the jump will be good? yes and no... good chance.. yes! ... absolute... no! if a vaulter doesn't hit the "MID".. can i say for sure it will be a bad jump? chance yes!.. absolute...no!

there is always one immediate parameter to consider... and it has to be considered in all parts of the vault..

time.. or speed

in the approach i have to consider the time for the last 6 steps taken AND the posture..

on the "free takeoff" we also have to consider the speed of the vaulter and the direction the mass is traveling when we have support on the pole...

i saw dave roberts take off approx. a foot out in 1975? did he vault properly from there? no.. his mass was sinking by the time the pole tip hit the back of the box.. he completed the jump.. 18' .. dave tried to have a "free takeoff" every jump.. but his free takeoff was inches... out. not the extreme i see us taking this. guy kochel said in 1974 that "a proper takeoff should feel like you are 3"/4" out" which means leave the ground just before the pole tip hits the back of the box...

the penultimate, as we see it in this jump and which i consider to be half of a "free takeoff", is supposed to give the athlete the "up" impulse to make a "free takeoff" work better.

physics tells us that, all things being equal, the faster athlete can takeoff further out than the slower athlete.

it concerns me that in the videos of the girls from Australia, they had what appeared visually to be a free takeoff yet they "collapsed" into the pole! what is missing? is it enough speed to carry the "free takeoff" toward the pit more and with the arms extended?

i don't know and don't have that answer.. i just feel when we look at the "free takeoff" we must consider the "physical" dynamic not just the "appearance" of "free".

tim mcmichael.. joe's and jeff b,s jumping was correct.. you guys had the "physical" free takeoff....... could the takeoff be a smig better... yes..

i got this from petrov's comments at the first pv summit he attended...

(roman was the interpreter so he may have a better version.).

"must takeoff before support of the pole" "when american vaulter takeoff like this.. (meaning free) they afraid and bent the arms." "bubka when taking off free must reach the arms higher!"

to me that still sounded like guy kochel.. "you feel like you are 3"/4" out."

can't remember if it was tully or joe or one of the other vaulters of that time but one of them said ...

"the plant is like there is a 6'9"500 lb gorilla standing facing you at the takeoff point.. you have to hit him so hard, with both hands into his chest that you knock him over the back of the pit... and you have to do this while hauling A$$ down the runway."

the penultimate along with the forgiveness of fiber glass has allowed many vaulters, including otto, to jump high... and with more speed he could use the physics a little better and takeoff further out...

is a "free takeoff" desired? yes... but to me a "free takeoff" is a physical action where you "complete the impluse and leave the runway just before the pole tip hits the back of the box ..........with the arms still reaching up."

and knock over a couple of gorilla's

later

dj

[altius]

Definitely not a FREE take off - that is if you accept/understand that a 'free' take off as one in which the pole is not loaded until the athlete leaves the ground. Just another big strong athletic guy who would be jumping 6.10 -15 if he really did have a free take off.

Incidentally which of the Australian Girls are you alluding to dj? The 16 year old who jumped 4.40m this, year taking off a foot out???

[vaultman18]

but i "sensationalized" my response because it seems many times readers will only give varied view points if something sounds preposterous..........

a

You give people who don't know what a free take-off is the idea that if they take off a foot under it is free. It is not no matter how you interpret it.

(roman was the interpreter so he may have a better version.).

I think he has already put his version on here so I will suggest all the readers go to the the "Pole Vault Manifesto" and read and then re-read. Actually I suggest reading all threads by Agapit.

it concerns me that in the videos of the girls from Australia, they had what appeared visually to be a free takeoff yet they "collapsed" into the pole! what is missing? is it enough speed to carry the "free takeoff" toward the pit more and with the arms extended?

What is you point and purpose of this comment? Are you talking about the BTB DVD if you are I know Alan has never claimed that any of the younger vaulters have mastered all the elements of the vault. But they do take-off free or very close.

I have 12 year olds that can take-off out and not sink after take-off. Are they super human? No. Have they ever been told they shouldn't take-off out? No. The point is the longer vaulters are told they are not capable of taking-off out they won't. Not all vaulters can take-off out but none should take-off under.

[dj]

hey

the points i have been trying to make that seem to continue to come back to an argument instead of a discussion of, is the technique of the whole jump "physics" sound? and why or why not?..

instead i'm still getting... well my vaulter jumped this... or that!

again my questions and points..

1. are we only going to judge a free takeoff by it's "visual" appearance? i do believe that petrov feels a "free takeoff" is the only way to maximize the physics of bending/loading the pole ... if the takeoff is after support too much energy goes down the shaft of the pole instead of up and through it..

i believe a "free takeoff" the way allan just described, takeoff before support, is the absolute best way to takeoff.. even thought i have said that before.. this thread seems to indicate i think we should teach otherwise and that some athletes can't perform a free takeoff.. not true... everyone can and should.. but it takes more than the "visual" appearance of free to truly be "physics" sound.

now on the Australia pictures.. and i used those and only those because they had been used for "free takeoff " purposes..

my question, and it's not personal or directed at anything other than physics..

if this is a sample of the "free takeoff," which visually it appears to be, what caused the athlete to "lose" the spacing between the body and the pole? i think we all agree if we follow the petrov model the spacing should be there, with both arms extended. that's a big part of the physics and application of force of the event.

to me the energy benefits of a free takeoff would/will be lost if they lead to anything less than full extension behind and away from the pole cord..

so again.. a free takeoff has to have an active physical component to be correct and fully functional. not just appearance but "impulse".

dj

[altius]

An obvious indicator of a completely free take off is a straight -therefore unloaded -pole at the instant the vaulter leaves the ground. Of course there can be minute gradations of flex and a take off can still be regarded as free, but Otto's pole is clearly flexed a great deal while his foot is in contact with the ground - so it not cannot be a 'free' take off. Whatever else is described is irrelevant.

dj - I would still like to know which Australian girls you are talking about! Until you give us a name it is hard to either agree or disagree with you.

[PVstudent]

Response to DJ for discussion (I am utterly bemused / confused by your interpretation of "free take-off" and lack of the physics explanation for your analyses of the visual images you are referring to.)

the points i have been trying to make that seem to continue to come back to an argument instead of a discussion of, is the technique of the whole jump "physics" sound? and why or why not?..

so again.. a free takeoff has to have an active physical component to be correct and fully functional. not just appearance but "impulse".

Firstly, Otto"s take take-off is visually under and the pole has already flexed from contact with the box before his take-off foot leaves the ground. What from the "physics" perspective you allude to but don't state is operating here? If the pole is actively bending then according to Newton's law (1st) something must bring about this change in pole shape?. What is the physical cause of this change in pole shape?

Secondly there is clearly observable a closed chain of contact between the vaulter's contact foot and the ground, his hands, and the tip of the pole with the box and hence the take-off cannot be defined as free.

By "free" I mean that the pole tip makes impact contact with the rear wall having already perfomed a sliding contact with the box apron some milliseconds before the instant the vaulter's take-off foot toe tip ceases contact with the ground. The vaulter's take-off foot toe tip is located, in spatial terms, vertically below the centre of the top hand grip on the pole. The toe tip breaks contact with the ground at the same instant the pole contacts the rear wall of the box to define the time element at which take-off occurs.

Thirdly what impulse is it that you refer to? I understand impulse to be "change in momentum" and that this is vectorial ie must be described in terms of magnitude and direction.

There are two quotes that I am reminded of in realtion to this topic discussion:

1) "It's plain hokum. If you cannot convince them, confuse them."
(Harry S. Truman)

2) "Nature confuses the skeptics and reason confutes the dogmatists."
(Blaise Pascal)

[dj]

a couple of points...

........................By "free" I mean that the pole tip makes impact contact with the rear wall having already performed a sliding contact with the box apron some milliseconds before the instant the vaulter's takeoff foot toe tip ceases contact with the ground. The vaulter's takeoff foot toe tip is located, in spatial terms, vertically below the center of the top hand grip on the pole. The toe tip breaks contact with the ground at the same instant the pole contacts the rear wall of the box to define the time element at which takeoff occurs.

if this is correct.. which i believe it is.. why should we want to takeoff a foot out and think it's ok.. if you take off a foot out, there has to be a lot of other strong factors just to help make up for the energy loss of taking off that far out............ just like there has to be other strong factors involved when a vaulter takes off that far under (non-free) but turns it into a decent vault.. as otto did.....

would he be better with more speed, a free takeoff and keep the penultimate that gives him the "impulse", (sometimes called a "jump".. the penultimate is what was described as giving carl lewis's body an "upward" lift at the takeoff board to help the body fight gravity.. the penultimate becomes more subtle the faster an athlete runs, as was bubka's case)....free is correct.. more free is not....in my opinion...

the athletes i have worked with over the years that could not get their takeoff out (free) either 1. had been taught wrong from the beginning and couldn't/wouldn't change. 2. had an incorrect pole carry/pole drop 3. had an "out" Mid and continually stretched under. 4. did not have the runway speed to grip as high as they where gripping and would "reach" under and force bend the pole. this limited there progress and made then unsafe and inconsistent.

so again.. a free takeoff has to have an active physical component to be correct and fully functional. not just appearance but "impulse".

no.. i'm not trying to "confuse" anyone.. but we can't "over exaggerate" that one part and expect to make progress.(seems to be the american way.. if a little bit is good then a lot will...) i believe in the "whole - part- whole" method of teaching. the free takeoff is a part of the whole "chain" (agapit) of a whole "action". we can isolate teaching that part but we have to integrate it correctly into the whole "action".

if someone doesn't have a "free takeoff" it is because something happened prior to that "action" that caused it... if something negitive/incorrect happens after the "appearance" of a correct free takeoff.. something had to have happened with the "action" of the free takeoff.. ??? speed, impulse, wrong grip, pole... something..

well not sure that this is progress.. so i will lay it to rest.


dj


ps.. allan i think you had someone put some pics on pvp for you. and another reader said something to me.. "wow that was a nice takeoff but i wonder what caused her to pull in and hug the pole like that..." i looked at them that one time.. maybe someone knows where they are.. and maybe it's not important.

[vaultman18]

http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/vie ... hp?t=12063

This is the link DJ is refering to.

Edited: comments made without thinking. Sorry.

[rainbowgirl28]

Bjorn Otto fans will like this video compilation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJ3w1GeVoo

[newvaulter]

I'm going to have so say that, although I wouldn't call this takeoff 'free' by any means, I love it. Excellent last two steps and penultimate, allowing him to reach high with his top arm and drive extremely well off the ground. Notice him driving UP, as compared with the girl in the above link from Becca, who drives basically straight into the pit.

Awesome. As others have mentioned, he could definitely benefit from coming out four to six inches in his step and hitting the exact same takeoff, though this is where most vaulters tend to not manage to replicate the aggressiveness of a 'safe,' under takeoff.

-newvaulter

[Sebes]

That video was pretty cool. Otto looks strong and fast, he's jumping on big sticks, and it seems like he's having a lot of fun jumping!!! I saw him in Osaka for the World Champs...he looked solid...all the Germans did. The only thing that stuck out to me- regarding that video- was the music: it was some country political song about fighting wars????

[golfdane]