Pole Vault Manifesto

[OH-IOvaulter]

Well with the lack of proper pedicure establishments in communist Russia, I suppose its understandable that very few vaulters have ever truly achieved it.

[volteur]

how good is that one!

i like this little 3 sec slow-mo of the takeoff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FILObFtp ... re=related

[altius]

"Kinda creepy having to grow your toenails that long to achieve a free takeoff but you gotta do what you gotta do."

Im beginning to think you are kind of wierd.

[baggettpv]

Compare Kory Tarpenning to anyone else that holds 5.10. His takeoff angle is higher than most other elite at the time but his speed transition was not balanced with the takeoff angle.
6 left Long jump at 25', 9 left at 25'. Does this info mean anything to you? Volter?
It's called jump transition in the LJ. See you have 2 variables speed and takeoff angle. I read science somewhere in your posts..
Oh well..

Rick Baggett
WSTC LLC

[baggettpv]

Just returned from my 2nd District championships here in America. No vaulter showed similar techniques. Many landed near the box. My guys and girls all made it thru to state and looked similar.
Oh well again.

Rick Baggett
WSTC LLC

[golfdane]

nice work Golfdane. Linthorne says long jump is around 22 degrees and pole vault is around 18 degrees. I'm interested to know what triple jump is: 15-20 rings a bell. Those 4 degrees are heaps though.

You think?? IMO, it points to the notion, that the legwork should indeed be very close to that used in LJ, since the polevaulter hasn't the luxury of using his arms to increase take-off angle.

But the pole vaulter does gain lift from planting the pole correctly. If the left hand has acted as a pivot as it should then the top of the pole is moving very quickly as the pole tip drops into the box. Taking off with this pole momentum provides a lot of extra energy.

Nope... Try convincing a highjumper, that his arms should be fully extended prior to taking off (as Bubka's arms are when his take-off foot hits the ground (not leave)). It is not a quick motion like longjump or highjump. The arms are moved in a fluid motion over +2 steps (in Bubka's case). There is no quick motion that would provide any increase in the trajectory of the CG. Check the 3sec Bubka video earlier in the thread, and convince me, that this arm-action should provide significant lift (take note, that the upgoing motion of the arms has stopped PRIOR to Bubka taking off (in fact, is he completely flatfooted)).

I am in no way advocating, that the polevaulter should try to take off on the same trajectory (angle) as a longjumper. I'm advocating, that the take-off technique should be almost similar to a longjumper without the arms, thereby giving a slightly flatter takeoff, but still a jump (not run through).

[volteur]

Compare Kory Tarpenning to anyone else that holds 5.10. His takeoff angle is higher than most other elite at the time but his speed transition was not balanced with the takeoff angle.
6 left Long jump at 25', 9 left at 25'. Does this info mean anything to you? Volter?
It's called jump transition in the LJ. See you have 2 variables speed and takeoff angle. I read science somewhere in your posts..
Oh well..

Rick Baggett
WSTC LLC

No increase in distance from 6 left (is that 12 steps?) to 9 lefts in long jump. Something is wrong. Is that what you mean?

Is it an incorrect top/high speed/ position so he cannot transition some of his horizontal into vertical lift? It took me three years to move from just over 7 meteres as a junior to 7.70 as a young senior. In the end it was mostly about my body position in the lead up to takeoff. I couldn't get totally to upright for the jump. Anyway i use about 10% of my long jump 'pop' in pole vault. Most of my energy was taken up with trying to stay extended as i ran over my takeoff position.

[volteur]

But the pole vaulter does gain lift from planting the pole correctly. If the left hand has acted as a pivot as it should then the top of the pole is moving very quickly as the pole tip drops into the box. Taking off with this pole momentum provides a lot of extra energy.

Nope... Try convincing a highjumper, that his arms should be fully extended prior to taking off (as Bubka's arms are when his take-off foot hits the ground (not leave)). It is not a quick motion like longjump or highjump. The arms are moved in a fluid motion over +2 steps (in Bubka's case). There is no quick motion that would provide any increase in the trajectory of the CG. Check the 3sec Bubka video earlier in the thread, and convince me, that this arm-action should provide significant lift (take note, that the upgoing motion of the arms has stopped PRIOR to Bubka taking off (in fact, is he completely flatfooted)).

I am in no way advocating, that the polevaulter should try to take off on the same trajectory (angle) as a longjumper. I'm advocating, that the take-off technique should be almost similar to a longjumper without the arms, thereby giving a slightly flatter takeoff, but still a jump (not run through).

I think we are seeing pretty much the same thing. After all there isn't a lot of difference between triple jump and long jump in terms of angle (although precision is important in high performance). What is different is the intention behind it. Long time the intention is to get maximum air time. In triple the intention is to optimise the airtime so as the next phase can also be optimised. (and not just coped with). Vault also has a second phase. If one maximises the first phase of either vault or triple then the subsequent phases suffer substantially. Optimising the first phases means there is a chance to optimise the second phase as well. Linthorne's graph is illustrating this.

Oh and the pivoting pole it actually gives you some up lift when you learn to go with it.

And it's run through with extension. Just running through would indicate flat, not lifting the horizon. Running through with full extension would look like Edwards hop takeoff or Bubka's takeoff or just about any top vaulter really. It isn't that possible to actually jump up at full speed with a big pole, but you can run off with full extension without spending to much energy vertically.

[golfdane]

Oh and the pivoting pole it actually gives you some up lift when you learn to go with it.

Yeah, when the pole is hitting the back of the box.

It steals polespeed, and you might end up in the pocket if you don't have a take-off that is active (if you rely primarily on the lift created by the pole). IOW, create lift actively on your take-off by jumping, and experience less braking (the lower the pole-angle when the pole hits the back, the more it brakes) and therefore increased polespeed (which usually allows ou to grip higher) and lift from the pole.

[dj]

to vaultman18

good "reporter" vaultman18.. edit the info to fit your point..

this was my response after i got everyones attention.........

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

that jump would not be considered a free takeoff.. BUT because of the penultimate.. to give an "up" impluse and a soft pole he made it a good jump...

my point was this.. what would i do to help him jump higher? just telling him to "get a free takeoff" would not work.. you have to correct his run.. and make him faster so he could takeoff out..(the petrov/kochel version) create more "force" at takeoff, hold higher and jump pretty damn high..

[vaultman18]

good evening

You have recanted on your statement on Alan's idea of the take-off being a"foot out" and thats great. But why the hell did you say that in the first place? Of the time I spent with him he never proposed that to me or our camp. What is your idea of a free take-off? As I recall you never responded to my "Free Take-off???" thread either. As I recall during the Bjorn Otto video thread you claim he had a free take-off.

i stated why i "said that in the first place".........

where is the jump that CB posted? the jump at the top of that thread doesn't look like what i commented on.. he is under and flat footed...

as far as "free takeoff" i have always stood by what petrov has written on the takeoff.

vaultman18 you can insult someone else’s intelligents and support anyone you like but unless you know "why" and the "facts' you will not make progress as a coach.

dj

DJ you said in the Bjorn Otto thread he was "free" now your saying he is "under and flat footed". I don't have the power to change the threads so I guess your idea of the free take-off is evolving.

Believe me I know the facts. And I have made much progress as a coach and I thank Alan for that, as well as Roman. I was exposed to something last summer that few coaches are. I listened to Alan and Roman discuss all of this and more in my kitchen for two days.

Alan is my friend and I am tired of you slamming him. But I have never insulted you intelligence. I have never needed to. If you want to continue this I suggest it be over private message.

[dj]

good morning

i think alan and i agree "in the big picture" pretty much on all points.. we just have had different approaches to get there.

dj