PoleVaultPower.com

The past couple of years I have moved my hand grip up several feet starting from 10'6" all the way up to 14'6", I am currently on 15'1" poles gripping around 14'5"-14'7". My issue is that the last 2 years I have been jumping on poles, gripping down 6 inches from the top so now It feels weird holding at the top of poles, as if the poles are going to break holding higher? Does anyone have any advice on how to move up grip and penetrate holding higher both physically and mentally? I have a 28 inch push off, but I really need to be holding higher if I want to compete at a higher level. Thanks for the help!

There is no reason why a pole would break from holding it too close to the top. It will only break if you bend it too much (or if it has a nick in it somewhere).

Instead of worrying about this, focus on landing well into the pit on each vault. Do this by always by keeping your standards at 80. If you stall out, then move your grip down (or improve your technique). If you blow through the pole (land past the middle of the coach's box) then raise your grip or move up a pole flex.

And if you're capping out a pole (already gripping at the top, so can't raise grip any more), then move up to a longer pole.

These should be your only criteria for raising or lowering your grip.

I think a 28" pushoff is quite good for a 4.90 vaulter - it shows that you've focused on technique over grip. That's good. But if you can add 4" to your grip, and still get a 28" pushoff, then you've just increased you PR by 4"!

Just be careful not to let your pushoff DECREASE when you raise your grip. A year from now, I expect that you'll have a higher grip and an even better pushoff!

But (as you say) now is the time to start inching your grip up even more. You've moved it up from 10-6 to 14-6, so there's no reason that you can't keep going. You did it before - so you can do it again.

And it's not too early to start thinking about getting on some longer poles once you cap out the ones you have now.

Kirk

Thanks a lot. I will update how things go after the next couple practices. Summit in 2 weeks!

This may help.

http://www.polevaultfactory.com/PoleVau ... Point.html

I call the distance from take off to switch point the "transit". When you move the grip up you also change the pole take off angle, lowering it, and the transit distance, lengthening it. Now, if you have basically a good vault, which it sound like to you, you have to basically change your swing at the take off and over the distance you've added to the transit. You have to be more patient at the take off. You have to work on reaching the trail leg back more before kicking into the swing to cover the new added distance and still retain elements of your older swing timing with a lower grip.

If you don't, you will enter what I call swing progression and the vault will stall and/or fail. This is to say that if you swing forward in the same way with the same rate as with a swing timing for a shorter grip you will swing forward too fast in time. This will move your center of mass up too fast, causing the system to stall. It also decreases the compression force of gravity on the pole compounding the effect.

I like most everything that's been said here, both by Willrieffer and by Alan Roark (in the link).

I like the emphasis on safety (standards never any closer than 24", and I like the differentiation between a shorter pole/grip and a longer one, and how the timing is different for each.

The only additional point I would like to make is that even though the timing is a bit slower with a longer pole and higher grip, you need to be careful that there's no PAUSE between takeoff and the start of the swing (what Coach Dave Butler calls the "stretch" part of the vault, or what Coach Alan Roark refers to as the "travel" part or what Willrieffer refers to as the "transit" part).

Willrieffer makes the correct point about this (I"ve underlined the most important point):

willrieffer wrote: ... You have to work on reaching the trail leg back more before kicking into the swing to cover the new added distance and still retain elements of your older swing timing with a lower grip. ... if you swing forward in the same way with the same rate as with a swing timing for a shorter grip you will swing forward too fast in time. This will move your center of mass up too fast, causing the system to stall.

Reaching the trail leg back is an ACTIVE motion - it's not just a PAUSE in the stretch position. According to Agapit's Theory of Continuous Motion, you MUST always stay ACTIVE - no PASSIVE vault parts!

I think Willrieffer's advice covers this concern - just make sure you follow his advice and DON'T just PAUSE in the stretch (during the "travel" or "transit").

Kirk

Kirk,

My model for this is again Lazero Borges.

OP see the "Swing in Slow Motion" video on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v6L4p0bNaE

Excellent continuous motion. Notice that with Borges as with Bubka and Lavillenie that the angle of the hips tilts down towards the runway.

I don't recognize everyone in the vid. Can you tell me who they are?

Kirk

willrieffer wrote:You have to work on reaching the trail leg back more before kicking into the swing to cover the new added distance and still retain elements of your older swing timing with a lower grip.

Is this fact? Has reaching the trail leg back been published, endorsed or theorized by any credible expert? Has Petrov, Parnov, or Botcharnicov ever used this. I think not. They have said to point the toe down, but not "reach the trail leg back".

KirkB wrote:Reaching the trail leg back is an ACTIVE motion - it's not just a PAUSE in the stretch position. According to Agapit's Theory of Continuous Motion, you MUST always stay ACTIVE - no PASSIVE vault parts!

I cannot find anywhere in the Continuous Chain that it says to "reach the trail leg BACK". But Agapit does say not to push he chest through the shoulders.

Borgess allows the knee to bend similar to Tarasov to add energy into the whip kick. Are you advocating this now Kirk?

I do not remember the bent knee whip kick bug do remember the penetrating chest being part of the "Bryde Bend" the last time that I read it.

grandevaulter wrote:

willrieffer wrote:You have to work on reaching the trail leg back more before kicking into the swing ...

Is this fact? Has reaching the trail leg back been published, endorsed or theorized by any credible expert? Has Petrov, Parnov, or Botcharnicov ever used this. I think not. They have said to point the toe down, but not "reach the trail leg back".

GV, the problem is that you're trying to learn how to coach PV by reading a book. I would say this is fact, because I've lived it. No, I didn't read it in a book - I invented it! In 1970-71! I don't mind if you don't consider me a credible expert, but I can say that I cleared 8" under the WR at the time with this technique. If you research my "Bryde Bend" posts, you will find that I've thoroughly documented this technique on PVP.

grandevaulter wrote:

KirkB wrote:Reaching the trail leg back is an ACTIVE motion - it's not just a PAUSE in the stretch position. According to Agapit's Theory of Continuous Motion, you MUST always stay ACTIVE - no PASSIVE vault parts!

I cannot find anywhere in the Continuous Chain that it says to "reach the trail leg BACK". But Agapit does say not to push he chest through the shoulders.

Agapit's Theory of Continuous Motion doesn't get into specifics about how to stay ACTIVE through all vault parts - it just states that there must not be any PASSIVE inactions.

Don't confuse Agapit's Theory of Continuous Motion paper with his 640 Model. They were written at least 10 years apart, and I have never advocated the 640 Model (in fact, I've challenged it). In his 640 Model, Agapit advocates immediately swinging after takeoff (no stretch). I honestly don't understand how that might be beneficial, except in theory.

As Willrieffer and Roark explained, the stretch (aka travel or transit) part of the vault is essential to landing safely in the pit with standards all the way back. You just have to be careful not to delay your swing by stretching for too long - just a split second is enough (like Kjell Isaksson, but maybe a bit more of a stretch).

grandevaulter wrote: Borgess allows the knee to bend similar to Tarasov to add energy into the whip kick. Are you advocating this now Kirk?

No, I'm not advocating bending the trail leg knee "to add energy into the whip kick". I actually consider that to be inefficient, compared to keeping the trail leg straight. Yes, this is different than what Altius advocates. No, I don't care what he advocates or what Borgess does or did.

grandevaulter wrote: I do not remember the bent knee whip kick but do remember the penetrating chest being part of the "Bryde Bend" the last time that I read it.

There is no bent knee whip kick in the Bryde Bend. But there is a straight trail leg whip kick in it.

Yes, the penetrating chest was also part of the Bryde Bend - to a fault. I now advocate driving the chest through but IMMEDIATELY whipping the trail leg after that, without any hesitation whatsoever. (I regret not vaulting this way back in the day, except for the one day I increased my PR by 10" and cleared 17-4 on May 22, 1971 with this technique, not realizing that I had less of a pause on that day.)

You're going to have to brush up on my Bryde Bend, GV.

Kirk

Hey guys,

I think we're getting away from the topic at hand here. I think the Advanced Technique Forum is already full of topics comparing (i.e. arguing about) technical models. I recall reading the Bryde Bend topic several years ago (2009?) and Kirk definitely advocates a whipping the trail leg back. I subscribe to the 640 model, and I do not recommend doing that. Gradevaulter clearly is not an advocate either. It's pretty difficult (as these other threads prove) to arrive at a consensus on the minutia of vault technique. However the OP was asking about moving up to longer poles, and to him I would say that if it feels uncomfortable, there's probably a reason.

OP: Your pushoff is great, but it's possible you are overbending the longer pole when you hold at the top, or that the pole is just not moving fast enough. A stiffer pole, or better yet, a higher jump angle at the takeoff might help. It's tough to say without seeing you vault, but I personally have found that if I had to change my technique, at least significantly (i.e. pause or drive more at takeoff) then I'm not using the correct pole.

I hope this helps.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:I think we're getting away from the topic at hand here. I think the Advanced Technique Forum is already full of topics comparing (i.e. arguing about) technical models.

Agreed.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:It's tough to say without seeing you vault,

Totally agree, OP should attach film.

Further more I think we may have been fooled by the OP. There are probably less than 50 high school vaulters in the USA that are jumping 17' 2" and even fewer that are gripping down 6" down on a 15' pole to do it. That being said, someone good got him there. Why ask us? (real world, practical assessment). I'll retract this statement and apologize if the OP puts up a video and verifies the 17' 2" result.

KirkB wrote:GV, the problem is that you're trying to learn how to coach PV by reading a book.

Thank you for pointing out "the problem" with what you think I'm trying to do. In reality, I'm coaching real young athletes from a working model to a basic model and they are beginning to perform an advanced technical model. It's a lot of fun. I'm not coaching imaginary or make believe athletes that may or may not exist from questions they pose on the internet. I do enjoy discussing these topics with you and others, I see the entertainment part of it.

grandevaulter wrote:

KirkB wrote:GV, the problem is that you're trying to learn how to coach PV by reading a book.

Thank you for pointing out "the problem" with what you think I'm trying to do. In reality, I'm coaching real young athletes from a working model to a basic model and they are beginning to perform an advanced technical model. It's a lot of fun. I'm not coaching imaginary or make believe athletes that may or may not exist from questions they pose on the internet. I do enjoy discussing these topics with you and others, I see the entertainment part of it.

Thanks for this reply, GV. I didn't mean to offend you by my comment. It's just that I think there needs to be a mix of practical knowledge acquired by standing beside the pit (or even better - by landing IN the pit ), and theoretical knowledge acquired by reading books like BTB2 (and PVP).

I actually think you have both, but your comments are usually about your book-learned knowledge from Altius' classic (and what he taught you in person).

Keep up the good work!

Kirk