SINK IN THE POLE...

[joebro391]

Okay guys, here's the topic today. Does a vaulter get more energy from a pole by taking the recoil if the top of the pole sinks, or if it smoothly rises after take off??? Perhaps it must first be explained how a vaulter 'achieves' a sink in the pole???

I've always been told that it's bad to have a sink in the pole. This one guy, i don't remember who, , once told me this

the top of the pole should never move down. watch the really good vaulters it rises all the time. (this is also better for your poles long term health).

.
I thought that sounded right. And honestly, it still does. When i stop and think about it, it fits in perfectly with the continuous-chain technique. It just sounds a lot smoother. I was getting a sink in the pole because i was supossedly gripping too high. So started vaulting with grips that i could easily vault with, to continually rise with the pole, and NOT get a sink. HOWEVER, can anyone actually explain WHY it's such a good thing??

THIS IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT: I was re-reading Kirk's 'Bryde Bend' Thread, and came across this:

The pole still had to “sink” a bit more, before it would reach its shortest chord. This is similar to the bounce of a lacrosse ball. When you drop the ball to the floor, it will compress, flattening on the bottom. It will then expand – causing it to bounce back up off the ground (to a point a little below where you dropped it from). The pole works this same way – it hits the box; it’s compressed; you swing to the chord; it’s compressed some more; it “bounces”; and then it recoils. It’s during the time of this bounce that a couple interesting things can and do happen.

And this also got me thinking. From what i've seen, you get a lot more 'return' from the pole when this happens, as stated in Kirk's lacrosse ball example. The first vault that came to mind, was Bubka's 5.92 Jump in the 1991 World Championship in Tokyo. NOW, from what I can see, bubka USUALLY rose with the pole, without the sink. But he still did it, and cleared tramendous heights WITH A SINK.

So what I want, is everyone to pool together their thoughts, on what causes the top of the pole to sink, and then come up with arguments, FOR and AGAINST 'continuously rising with the pole' and having a 'sink' in the pole. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, the only problem with a sink, is that you don't penatrate as much, into the pits (a bit dangerous, perhaps??) So let's hear what everyone has to say about this. REMEMBER TO BACK UP ALL STATEMENTS AND 'THEORIES'. -6P

[KirkB]

6P, I'm glad you put this thread into the INTERMEDIATE forum. Hopefully, as I alluded to in your Blog (on the Training forum) today, you can distinguish between these 2 items:

Item #1. A sinking of the pole that occurs naturally, agnostic to any model.
Item #2. An OVER-SINKING of the pole, due to over-bending (crushing) of the pole.

You quoted both VTV and myself above, so to clarify (and VTV can provide further clarification, I'm sure) ...

VTV and I are both only talking about Item #1 as being "good". And we're both only talking about #2 as being "bad".

VTV's recommendation to make sure that your pole continuously rises is in concert with the Petrov model, and the continuous chain theory. His recommendation is good, and I agree. Altius (BTB2) and Agapit (Continuous Chain Theory) would also agree with that.

My explanation of the sinking phenomonon is agnostic to ANY model. It is definitely not related to my Bryde Bend technique. It's just another way of saying that the pole isn't going to suddenly begin to recoil the microsecond that you stop applying force to it (by your swing). This is what you've either misunderstood, or taken out of context.

Part of your confusion may be that much of what I wrote in my BB thread failed to distinguish between how I vaulted in 1971 vs. 1972, and how I vaulted in my short runs in 1971-72 vs. my long runs in 1971. These particulars are still mostly unwritten (other than my posts in the past 6 weeks), since I only realized the precise differences in mid Oct 2008 (strange but true). So please don't take everything I've written thus far as my final recommendations on "optimal technique".

You are better off to just take the Petrov model (BTB2), and work with that. VTV and I both agree with that model. If you must know, I'll tell you that the only additional contribution (recommendation) that I have to the Petrov model that was unique to the BB is my trail leg backswing. But even that is ADVANCED technique, so I won't explain it any further than that in this thread. Actually, that vault part is already quite well explained in the BB thread (with the exception that I didn't distinquish between my 1971 - good - and 1972 technique - bad). Confusing, I know!

OK, take it from here. I just wanted to make sure you didn't make some huge leaps in logic on this topic before it even gets off the ground!

I think what you really want to discuss is Item #2 - the SINKING that occurs because the pole is too soft (or maybe you're jumping incorrectly?), and you're blowing thru and NOT continuously rising (as per VTV's continous motion comment). But that's a DIFFERENT type of sinking from Item #1.

Kirk

[joebro391]

Yea, what i was doing, a few weeks back, was getting the bad, 'over-sink', from 2 things:
1) Over-gripping
2) Crushing the Pole

Like i said above, i've since started using lower grips, on much stiffer poles...so i guess it's done with haha. I got the flu kirk; but i'm not sure if my head's pounding from all this vaulting-logic, or from the fever hahaha

[powerplant42]

From what i've seen, you get a lot more 'return' from the pole when this happens, as stated in Kirk's lacrosse ball example.

But, if the pole does indeed recoil 'a hundred times more forcefully' like you said in your blog, how will the COM rise faster than the recoil?

Or, if the pole unbends more slowly, then there is not nearly as much of a propensity for the vaulter to get something out of the pole.

Item #1. A sinking of the pole that occurs naturally, agnostic to any model.

VTV's recommendation to make sure that your pole continuously rises is in concert with the Petrov model, and the continuous chain theory. His recommendation is good, and I agree.

VTV and I are both only talking about Item #1 as being "good".

Uh, did I miss something? You're referencing 2 different 'sinks'... please clarify #1!