Pole Vault Manifesto

[volteur]

thanks Altius, i am a genuine seeker and already feel my understanding of the vault has improved as i hope it always continues to do. having said that of course i want to be as intelligent as i can, you do as do many others. Isn't that what an intellectual forum is, attempting to improve the intelligence behind ones words? It's not my main purpose though.

Just on one point above you made i did say jump 'onto' the pole and not 'into' the pole.

On the issue of the 'zero' time lag. I feel it is more important to have a continuous connection from ground to pole. If that connection has the ideal 'absolute minimum' gap between the takeoff and the pole connect, then to take off too far out has similar negative repercussions from taking off to close (actually not except in the fact that energy is lost).

When an extra large gap is made i see a lot more potential danger. That's probably my main problem with focussing pre-jumping in anything beyond about a 6 stride stiff pole drill. I do like the pre-jump for the stiff pole. At takeoff the pole is in the box but it isn;t until some time after the ground has been left that the vaulter's weight lands on the pole. It's a good drill.

Otherwise, i guess i am looking for complete postural extension just prior to the moment the pole hits, but this doesn't mean already left the ground. I think the timing of the foot to hand support at takeoff is crucial and precise. Too early or too late and it gets pretty obvious what just happened.

In relation to that 19 year old 6m Bubka vault. I can see some slight bend in the pole. I think someone else argued that that is just the pole bending due to its own weight but i would argue that the 'slack' is already taken up between the pole and the ground, Bubka is just minimising the pressure to the pole still at this point in the jump.

possible?

cheers and thanks for the reply

Volteur (peteur )

[altius]

I am only responding because I have been chastised by someone whose opinion I respect for not making a more positive contribution to this debate. So I am going over the same ground for the umpteenth time and hopefully the last time.

The key to all this is whether or not you accept what Bubka said in Jamaica and quoted directly in BTB - and whether you are prepared to accept that Figure 26.10 - a reprint of the photo on the inside cover (which is of better quality) clearly shows that he is in the air while the pole has not touched the back of the box - the key indicator being that his right arm is still covering his right ear. If you dont accept that there is no point in any further discussion - note this chastiser Number One.

Now it is a game of "I have shown you mine - as in my young athletes in BTB2 -26.23a- d (a 19 year old girl admittedly only jumping 4.40 and 26.21a-d again an 18 year old boy only jumping 5.40 -- now you show me yours". I believe they show pre jump take offs while the take off of both Tom Lovell and Laurel Eley, also shown in BTB, are only 'free'.

That is it - I am not going to keep debating this because I know what I believe and I know what my (young) athletes have been able to do. We will just have to agree to disagree -at least until your athletes demonstrate what you believe to be the truth about the take off -and their actions - not your words - can show me the error of my ways.

[golfdane]

Bear in mind, that for a guy like Bubka, 1/100th of a seconds almost equal to 4 inches of between poletip and back of the box.

In regards to the Bubka photo: Yeah, there seems to be a very slight bend in the pole, but it also seems to be concentrated very close to his lower hand. Not a uniform bend. Fig. 26.2 in BtB2. His take-off foot is something like 3 inches of the ground. To me, that is not consistent with the pole having hit the back of the box (but I could be wrong). IOW, it fits the description of a free take-off, although some might say that 1/100th (and it could be slightly more) is virtually a zero lag...... 3-4 inches isn't. 3 inches might constitute as much as 1 inch of the height of your top hand (app.).
Page 238-239, BtB2.

So, the discussion should be: Does the benefit of a better pole-angle (being higher up) trumph the benefit of having the resistance of the pole 1/100th of a sec. earlier (being able to initiate the swing earlier)?

[altius]

So, the discussion should be: Does the benefit of a better pole-angle (being higher up) trumph(sic) the benefit of having the resistance of the pole 1/100th of a sec. earlier (being able to initiate the swing earlier)?

Now that is worth discussing - go for it folks. Have fun:idea:

[golfdane]

Given the difficulty obtaining a zero-lag take-off, and the unquestionable disadvantages of being under, is it IMO desirable to "err" towards the absolutely free take-off (pre-jump).

Off course, it can be overexaggerated to such a degree, that surges of reactive forces, makes it virtually incontrollable. Still, a prejump has IMO a more favorable margin of error. I'd rater want any athlete I coach, to be 4 inches out, than 2 inches under.

If Bubka couldn't coin it consistently (and he admitted to that), should we not emphasize the importance of zero-lag to such a degree, that it becomes the only acceptable result.

What is technically desirable, should be physically possible.

But hey, that's just my opinion, and I am from Denmark, which has virtually no PV heritage on the international scene.

[altius]

What is technically desirable, should - NO - MUST BE - physically possible.



You may be from Denmark but intelligence and goodwill have no boundaries.

[volteur]

Are you talking about Matt Filsell and Wendy Young? Look i only stopped competing 6 or 7 years ago and have been coaching seriously for about 5. I've coached 6 national junior champions and one world youth representative in that time. Oh and i coached myself to the Olympics, although to be totally fair i was under heavy coaching advisement until only 2 years prior to that. Still statistics aside as you clearly win what with Arkell and whatever he jumped before he left Adelaide, Steinhardt, Halliday, Foster, Filsell you have an excellent resume. I know Jimmy Miller very well and he has only had good things to say about you although i think he did prefer Steve Rippon's mechanical explanations.

I'm not necesarily trying to discredit you, i'm trying to find out how this is all really meant to work. Just a few things.

Firstly, i could not find where Bubka refers to a pre-jump in the Jamaica interview, he does refer to a free-takeoff though. He also talks a lot about not being 'late' (although doesn't use that word) with the plant so that the free takeoff has a chance to occur. I'm not sure how you make the leap that he was talking about the pre-jump with that stuff. Moreso he was talking about correct timing and spacing for the free takeoff.

When a shot putter is releasing the shot he has no ability to apply any more pressure from his finger tips into the shot once his feet have left the ground. This is accepted knowledge.

Yet to get maximum pressure prior to leaving the ground one must leave the ground after that point and this is the follow through. This occurs the instant after the shot leaves the fingertips.

Just prior to the shot leaving the fingertips it is at its highest velocity and it's greatest acceleration. The instant it has left it begins to slow down. The same applies to the vaulter.

Any time spent off the ground before loading the pole is such a slowdown. Yet to be late requires some absorption of the poles energy and that is not desirable either.

To follow up on golfdane, the slight bend is at his left hand because that is where the pressure initally begins. It actually kinks around his left hand slightly. The pole below his left hand is virtually straight. So although the pressure into the pole has begun, the pressure is being minimised for as long as possible (until full penetration has occurred?). Ie it has been localised within the pole to delay full bending and therefore to allow the pole to continue through to the vertical plane whilst it is still straight.

So after the free takeoff occurs the 'freeness' can continue to some degree through this minimising of the resistance as it comes on. Possibly delaying the resistance is a better way to say it.

The question i have at the end of this Altius relates not to the timing of the pre-jump but instead to the intention behind it. Where is the athlete trying to go at takeoff with the pre-jump idea in mind?

Bubka's words from Jamaica "if we perform a free take off we can feel the pushing action of the whole body, and we can transfer the speed of the run up and take off."

Where is this pushing action heading with the pre-jump idea in mind?

This pushing would naturally be losing speed from the runup as soon as it loses contact with the ground at the end of takeoff would it not?

[AeroVault]

VaultNinja posted some data from a Dartfish study a while back that related the efficiency of the vault to the pole angle at takeoff. The link is now broken, so if you're out there and can repost it, please do (old link = http://myweb.cableone.net/RITCHFIELD/Po ... rtfish.htm)

If I remember right, vaulters that were consistently preloading their pole and had a lower pole angle were able to invert faster and farther back than vaulters that had more of a free takeoff and higher pole angle. However, the latter athletes still jumped higher and were more efficient with their vault. That study has been the best proof to me that the ability to swing sooner from the under step is not worth a snot.

It makes sense to me that this trend would continue all the way down to the fraction of a second. Strive for the best pole-angle possible. Hopefully we can get some data to back that up.

[volteur]

Hi Aero, i don't to be too picky but a couple of things jumped out.

I don't think preloading the pole is a very good idea, the loading should be ready to go at that instant one leaves the ground and then only progressively.

You mention that those athletes with a lower pole angle were able to invert faster, yet later say you think the ability to swing faster is not worth a snoot. The problem with this is that the swing and the inversion are two separate parts. The ability to swing earlier (or at least at the right time) simply means the vaulter can also swing longer before having to invert. Also a deeper penetration means the vaulter gains the ability to have a longer swing phase. I guess balancing out the penetration with the increase in pole angle is something to be fine tuned. Emphasising one or the other would not be ideal.

The best possible pole angle or the optimal pole angle?

[vault3rb0y]

Problem(s) with the prejump:

Another issue with the pre-jump that i can see if that gravity begins to pull you down even for that 1/100th of a second you are in the air. If you are not physically strong enough to jump at a 30 degree angle while maintaining your runway speed, you might end up with the pole tip hitting the back at an angle of 20 degrees, significantly lower than the 30 you left the ground with. Obviously you are now 2-3 inches taller, but does that outwiegh a sink into the vault? You COULD sacrifice some horizontal runway speed for a stronger take off angle, the reduce this lag, but again you have to be an amazing athlete. Amatuers (approximately 18' and under for guys) in my opinion should strive for a pre-jump for mentality purposes but stick with free take off until they are physically ready for it.

On the side of the pre-jump, however:

I know that a free-take off ideally transfers all of your take off energy into the pole, and that volteur is saying that a pre-jump will only reduce some of your energy the same way being under reduces your energy. But when you hit a free take off, there is a time when your trail leg is coming behind you, and you are "driving" into the vault without actively adding energy. With a pre-jump, ideally when the pole tip hits the back, you have already had enough time to get your trail leg back, and the instant the pole hits the back of the box, you are swinging. A pre-jump is the only way i see for a TRUE continuous energy transfer, thus the 6.40 model. You COULD swing as soon as the pole tip hit the back on a free-take off, but that would mean no swing speed because you are essentially swinging right off the ground to eliminate the passive phase of driving into the vault.

[AeroVault]

VaultNinja is on the road for a few weeks so we may have to sit tight for the results of his coach's study.

I agree that preloading isn't a very good idea. Be careful with wording. I said the ability to swing sooner from an under step is not worth it. The same applies to a step that is on when you block out your bottom arm. I would rather the pole start to bend a little later if it meant I had a steeper pole angle.

Inversion is a result of the swing, so they are not necessarily separate parts, but I think I see what you are saying. When talking about a long swing, distance comes to mind, not time. A longer distance covered in a short time means the swing is fast ! When I said invert faster I was talking about time, since length really makes no sense there. Inverting fast is not always good since it can come from a short swing.

Sooo..... when the pole is bent before takeoff, it tends to rip you off the ground instead of allowing you to jump into it, right? In order to get into position to finish the vault, you have to shorten your swing and invert faster just to keep up with the recoiling pole. The pole doesn't rotate as far to vertical since the swing was shortened, so you lose penetration and end up shallower than the vaulter with a steeper pole angle.

Next, penetration and pole angle are directly correlated. If you have a vaulter not penetrating enough, what do you do? You have them lower their grip (and increase their pole angle at takeoff). Penetration is also correlated to the length and speed of swing. Vault3rboy had the force equation in one of his posts. The optimal pole angle is the highest you can achieve and still rotate the pole to vertical. That will mean different things for different athletic abilities and grip heights.

My question for discussion is this: Is it more advantageous to have a pre-jump and steeper pole angle, or higher grip with only a free takeoff from that same step?

[vault3rb0y]

I think that a pre-jump with a steeper angle is absolutely the right answer, simply because the more time you have to set up your swing before the pole hits the back, the less energy you lose during the swing, and the more energy you can add with the swing. I think that will easily outwiegh the minor higher grip you gain from moving up the pole.