Pole Vault Manifesto

[volteur]

Maybe i expected more? Maybe i expected someone, anyone, to think outside the pole vault square. I don't want status i just want people to think so i throw ideas around that lead to discussion. Petrov is like understanding art, not so easy to define using science so i continue my quest of understanding.

I'm happy to not post anymore, there are plenty of other ways i interact within athletics, coaching little kids, coaching keen teenagers, coaching adults already on their own personal missions, talking on various fourms around the world and discussing ideas with my coach and mentor as well as with my peers.

It seems like PVP is a whole series of ideas that Altius says something like this ' check out ch 5 PVP, or check out pages 242-3 of PVP. I would love for him to jump in and apply his much vaunted knowledge yet in this particular thread he hasn't.

Intellectual honesty is a very important thing and i don't see it being played here by many.

vaulterboy, of course it lengthens the radius. It is what occurs as the radius becomes ffully straight that is important. It is what the increased length of the lever arm leads to - increased angular momentum. Maintaining this momentum after takeoff is difficult because we tend to lose some of this momentum if our axis shortens. Sometimes it has to shorten to account for a late plant yet ideally would not if the plant was on time and fully extended.

cheers

[golfdane]

If you take the example of say bending your trailing leg before your wing
then there will be less angular momentum from the swing. Why?

Trying to decrease the time it takes to get inverted (curling up), will lengthen the c-pole (you are not loading the pole as much), thereby losing polespeed. It would be a shame to get inverted really fast, and not able to get the pole beyond vertical. Extending the lead leg after takeoff would lead to a slower inversion (but easier to load a pole that is a wee bit to big for you). Trying to get fully inverted and kip too long after the pole has started to release the stored energy (c-pole extending), is definately not an easy task (leads to inconsistent passage over the bar).

Sure, I've seen world class jumpers do both, but I also sense they didn't/don't perform to their full potential. Some will be able to adjust each jump individually due to dexterity and increased spatial intelligence (and overcome shortcomings in physical ability), but in the end, would they benefit more from consistency in technique. Perfection in polevaulting comes from doing many simple task exceptionally well. Screw up one, and the rest will suffer.

IMHO, are you clouding the issue. I have a really hard time trying to fathom what you want to say, and what your ideas are.

[ashcraftpv]

remember to keep things civil people. If you're not adding to the topic at hand, don't post.

[volteur]

Where am i coming from? Well so far a disagreeance with the pre-jump on this following basis:

The pre-jump indicates that there is a period of time after leaving the ground before the pole begins to bend under the pressure from the vaulter. This is a natural follow on for me and i assume most when they do stiff pole drills. There is a sense of jumping onto the pole with this stuff.

The free-takeoff indicates an ideal where at takeoff there is no resistance from the pole. It is an ideal and in Sergei's own words not often achieved. To achieve it there is an instantaneous connection in time between the end of the take off and the initial loading of the pole. In agapit's words the time lag is 'zero'.

In a beginner this happens infrequently, however over time, in training off two and four strides this occurs more often and is still highly repeatable up to 8 and 10 strides. At full runup it is less likely to occur and at full runup with maximal effort in a big competition less likely again.

There are mechanisms within the takeoff that can compensate for the natural occurence of being 'late' at takeoff and minimise this resistance for as long as possible. These mechanisms to me are explained through the concept of the free take off but that same understanding is actually blocked through the idea of the pre-jump. It blocks the concept of running into C position with flexible arms that compensate for the pole to allow the body to continue forward motion.

ok?

[master]

(posted by master for dj)

john can you post this for me in PVP under the manifesto thread.......

i think it goes to what i, at least, have been trying to say..

smooth/fast acceleration into the "MID" - good takeoff.. great swing..
and the thought:

"compress the pole into a high bar........ kip and shoot into a handstand."

and concerning the approach..

come out of the back........

get your feet down......

hit a big, high, aggressive plant.........

thanks

dj

[vaultman18]

Where am i coming from? Well so far a disagreeance with the pre-jump on this following basis:

The pre-jump indicates that there is a period of time after leaving the ground before the pole begins to bend under the pressure from the vaulter. This is a natural follow on for me and i assume most when they do stiff pole drills. There is a sense of jumping onto the pole with this stuff.

The free-takeoff indicates an ideal where at takeoff there is no resistance from the pole. It is an ideal and in Sergei's own words not often achieved. To achieve it there is an instantaneous connection in time between the end of the take off and the initial loading of the pole. In agapit's words the time lag is 'zero'.

Volteur I believe you have mis spoken here. You are referring to a comment made by Bubka to a direct question from Alan. Bubka did not say he rarely had a free take-off he was actually referring to a pre-jump.
I believe we went through this before when someone said basically what you just did. Maybe vault3rboy can explain.
To say that Bubka did not often achieve a free take-off is nonsense. On the inside cover of BTB2 there is a picture of Bubka at take-off on his first ever 6 meter jump. I think anyone who has seen it would agree his foot is clearly off the ground 4 inches or so with the pole completly straight.

By the way if you are serious about all this I suggest you read Alan's book. Then come back and attempt to debunk his position on this matter. To come on here and call him out without all the information is childish.

[dj]

hey

are you guys interested in fundamentally sound technique or just to argue for the sake of arguing...???

i'm a little "miffed" because i feel i have made some pretty good points, just in my last couple of post, and no one will even respond!? seems you only want to "hang" with the pack? who made responses in PVP personal to begin with... does "tit for tat" resolve anything??

is anything/everything i say here in polevaultpower so removed from the "physics of the event" or how any other coach or athlete thinks a vault is perfromed, that no one has anything to say..?!! or are my responses so basic or my "MID" chart so accrute that "it has to be magic" that everyone is prompted to feel "it could be that simple?"!!!

dj

[PVstudent]

Maybe i expected more? Maybe i expected someone, anyone, to think outside the pole vault square. I don't want status i just want people to think so i throw ideas around that lead to discussion. Petrov is like understanding art, not so easy to define using science so i continue my quest of understanding.
My response, (based on staying at Formia on 4 different occassions and working alongside observing, discussing, coaching with Petrov. The longest visit was as as a resident in the centre for 4 months and spent every day with Petrov . Also worked with Petrov when he visted Australia.) you are correct Petrov is a master of the art of coaching. You are 100% wrong in relation to the basis upon which he has founded his coaching skills and obtained his scientific knowledge that underpins his art. He is university educated and has a deep knowledge of the physics of pole vault honed by a lifetime of practical experience with pole vault and pole vaulter's of all levels of proficiency.

I'm happy to not post anymore, there are plenty of other ways i interact within athletics, coaching little kids, coaching keen teenagers, coaching adults already on their own personal missions, talking on various fourms around the world and discussing ideas with my coach and mentor as well as with my peers.

My comment: I do hope you do explain to the parents of the younger children that your concepts of physics, as you have expressed them on this forum, are quite unique in the pole vault world. As vault3rboy indicated some readers don't think your quite on the same page, or planet in my case, whenit comes to the physics of the event. However, you make simply be as we say in Australia "s*#& stirring". Stirring the pot is all very well but are you being intellectually honest or just trying to have a laugh?

It seems like PVP is a whole series of ideas that Altius says something like this ' check out ch 5 PVP, or check out pages 242-3 of PVP. I would love for him to jump in and apply his much vaunted knowledge yet in this particular thread he hasn't.

You are wrong BTB1 & BTb2 have created discussion, debate and caused many practitioners to reflect upon their practice as coaches and vaulter's. I think, even though many disagree with the content and concepts the books are intellectually honest and attempt to provide clearl the rational basis for the ideas expressed. Can you honestly claim the same?

Intellectual honesty is a very important thing and i don't see it being played here by many.

I am questioning your intellectual honesty on this forum. I think it is time for you to come clean, declare who you are and let's see some evidence that can convince myself and others that you are genuine in your purported seeking of knowledge and understanding!

vaulterboy, of course it lengthens the radius. It is what occurs as the radius becomes ffully straight that is important. It is what the increased length of the lever arm leads to - increased angular momentum (. Maintaining this momentum after takeoff is difficult because we tend to lose some of this momentum if our axis shortens.(My comment:Not necessarily true!) Sometimes it has to shorten to account for a late plant yet ideally would not if the plant was on time and fully extended.
My comment: not necessarily true - you are making assumptions here that need to be clarified.


Master and DJ Thank you both for putting up the video clip of Mike Tully.

I think it provides an excellent concrete example related to the Agapit Manifesto in relation to the 6.4m jump that male vaulters in the elite eschelons aspire to. The technique employed is not, in my view, that which will ultimately be evolved to achieve this goal. However it does get us back to the concepts Agapit, Petrov, Altius,Tim, DJ and others have been discussing. Run, take-off, swing and energy transfer are all there to be evaluated are all there and hopefully bring the thread back on track.

Again, thank you DJ for trying to put us back on track

[vault3rb0y]

Honestly.... its impossible not to get upset and frustrated when we are not all on the same page. Its like trying to bake a cake with someone who doesnt know how to use an oven.... if we dont have the basic building blocks down and agree on them, we can never coherently respond and communicate to one another. It seems pretty obvious to me that the physics of the vault are concrete and evident through laws and application, and there should be no debate over that. Anyone who doesnt agree with that "level" of vaulting needs to "stay out of the kitchen" until they do understand it. You can borrow my high school physics book if you like. If we can all get the basic foundations agreed upon, we can logically talk about the best ways to apply and expand them.

To me, petrovs model and a continuous energy transfer makes perfect sense, and what is technically desireable is physically possible. You are right PVstudent i did have that short and sweet debate with Alan a while back, and i misunderstood him the same way. The difference is, i recognized my mistake, re-analyzed my thinking and corrected myself.

Maybe to expand on the ORIGINAL discussion now- I feel a pre-jump will benefit the super athletes, but not many others. I dont know many other vaulters other than bubka that jump at a high enough angle without sacrificing speed to gain more advantage from a pre-jump than from sticking with a free take off. I even believe Agapit may have hinted on this at one point as well.

[volteur]

[quote="PVstudent"]

My response, (based on staying at Formia on 4 different occassions and working alongside observing, discussing, coaching with Petrov. The longest visit was as as a resident in the centre for 4 months and spent every day with Petrov .
--how interesting is that? You are an Australian and you went to Formia 4 times including a 4 month stint? When did you go? I might already have met you there.

Also worked with Petrov when he visted Australia.
--how long was he in Australia for?

you are correct Petrov is a master of the art of coaching.
--cheers, it is quite evident isn't it.

You are 100% wrong in relation to the basis upon which he has founded his coaching skills and obtained his scientific knowledge that underpins his art. He is university educated and has a deep knowledge of the physics of pole vault honed by a lifetime of practical experience with pole vault and pole vaulter's of all levels of proficiency.
-- oh i didn't say his he had 'founded' his coaching through art. Where did you make that one up from? As you said he is University training - a 4 year coaching degree with two years specialisation in track and field. Anyway as science progresses it becomes more and more like art. Petrov has progressed very far. Petrov sculpts as he coaches.

My comment: I do hope you do explain to the parents of the younger children that your concepts of physics, as you have expressed them on this forum, are quite unique in the pole vault world. As vault3rboy indicated some readers don't think your quite on the same page, or planet in my case, whenit comes to the physics of the event. However, you make simply be as we say in Australia "s*#& stirring". Stirring the pot is all very well but are you being intellectually honest or just trying to have a laugh?
-- physics is a language. Most kids don't have any experience in that language. May as well speak to them in German. I coach and i use human movement mechanics which fortunately seem to follow the laws of physics. By the way check out some quantum physics. It's taken things a little further. Oh and if i am stirring the pot a little it is just to get some momentum going.

I am questioning your intellectual honesty on this forum. I think it is time for you to come clean, declare who you are and let's see some evidence that can convince myself and others that you are genuine in your purported seeking of knowledge and understanding!
--i am nobody, My name is Peter. How does this help anything? Maybe someone can find some background on me and attack that as well?

--which assumptions did i make about shortening the radius that were not correct? Lets see if you can nail that one?

cheers

ps It's not like i'm talking another language, everyone has slightly different langauages.

pps possibly some of the other people out there who are at least partially agreeing with me can step in and say something? I'm all alone here!

[OH-IOvaulter]

Above is my opinion on arguing for the sake of arguing. As (coincidently) War so appropriately sang: "Why Can't We Be Friends"

[altius]

"Where am i coming from? Well so far a disagreeance (sic) ( are you are sure you are not a yank) with the pre-jump on this following basis:

The pre-jump indicates that there is a period of time after leaving the ground before the pole begins to bend under the pressure from the vaulter. This is a natural follow on for me and i assume most when they do stiff pole drills. There is a sense of jumping onto the pole with this stuff.

The free-takeoff indicates an ideal where at takeoff there is no resistance from the pole. It is an ideal and in Sergei's own words not often achieved. To achieve it there is an instantaneous connection in time between the end of the take off and the initial loading of the pole. In agapit's words the time lag is 'zero'. "

I am sorry to say this - especially since you dont like me mentioning BTB - but the issues you raise are dealt with there -as best as i could deal with them. There are personal quotes from Bubka in response to a direct question about what I termed the pre jump. As vaultman 18 has pointed out there is at least one defining photograph of Bubka in BTB and a pretty good imitation of what I term a prejump demonstrated by a 19 year old girl on the back cover. Also you need to note that the misunderstanding over the free take off and the prejump has been dealt with many times on PVP before you arrived. That is why i am not inclined to join in the debate yet again.

I think the critical point is your statement "there is a sense of jumping onto the pole with this stuff." This also has been touched on several times over the past couple of years. Certainly if you take off flat and a foot out you can do nothing else but jump onto the pole. Again the photos I allude to - along with the shots of 16 year old Mitch Fox doing the pj drill - both in the book and on the dvd - should clarify this because in each case the athlete is driving up through the pole.

In the end it comes down to whether you accept Bubkas comments in Jamaica or not - along with his rationale for a pj -ie it increases pole/ ground angle and as he says this makes a big difference to the result. My own view, again expressed in btb, is that this way of thinking about the take off "encourages an aggressive plant that seamlessly melds the horizontal velocity of the run up into a springing take off".

I understand that you dont have to accept any of this but you need to appreciate that I do not want to continually revist ideas which I have been dealing with since petrov first explained his views on the take off to me in 1986. I know he does not use the term prejump and i know agapit thinks in terms of zero time ( after all he lived in my house for a year so I do have some idea of what he believes -even about driving a T70) but as i have indicated above Bubka was happy to talk about being in the air -even if for only a few hundredths of a second - before the pole tip hit the back of the box.

I have suggested that young athletes can never go wrong in trying to pre jump because even a failed pre jump is far better that a flat take off which is also under. So they should use the prejump drill even if they will never be able to execute it in a vault. But this is all detailed and illustrated in BTB2!

If you are a genuine seeker of the truth about pole vaulting i apologise for my earlier comments -
however if your objective really is to show how clever you are, I wish you would go away.