Pole Vault Manifesto

[nitro]

I'm no expert on any of this but on B2B it said that one of Bubka's jumps some physicist determined that Bubka would have successfully jumped 6.40 on one of his jumps. So i think that is what they are talking about

[volteur]

Agapit, i think im echoing kirk here but some questions. When was back in the day? 25 years ago? Is this when Petrov first showed his model through Sergei? When did he first envisage this model? I'm wondering when Fosbury first envisaged his model that would take high jumping into an entirely new range of height. We saw it in 1968 and although high jumping is technically simpler than vaulting, we saw Bubka first internationally in 1984? Also assuming the natural evolution of concepts we all go through over time, how much further on now is Vitaly seeing than he did back then?

cheers

ps if Bubka is the prophet then what is Petrov? And what are you?

cheers

[master]

25 years ago puts us at 1984, when Bubka set his first WR (5.85). That's 55 cm under 5.40 (almost 2').

So do you mean that he had hip height on 5.40, or did it in practice, or what?

Or do you mean that he demonstrated 5.40 technique back then, even though he didn't literally jump that high? If that's the case, did he swing in a straight-body, or did he bend at the hips? If so, how much?

I think this video may be what people refer to. (As a side note, did you mean 6.40?)

- master

[golfdane]

25 years ago puts us at 1984, when Bubka set his first WR (5.85). That's 55 cm under 5.40 (almost 2').

So do you mean that he had hip height on 5.40, or did it in practice, or what?

Or do you mean that he demonstrated 5.40 technique back then, even though he didn't literally jump that high? If that's the case, did he swing in a straight-body, or did he bend at the hips? If so, how much?

I think this video may be what people refer to. (As a side note, did you mean 6.40?)

- master

I just love that jump. He's so much higher than anyone has jumped, and there's still room for improvement (his alignment at the top end).



What if he had shot the arrow straight????

[powerplant42]

He described the power at the top of that jump as an almost uncontrollable force...

[agapit]

... I bet you after you are done, you are going to be at the altar.

Cheers!

Only sinners need to repent at the altar.

I'm singing in the choir.

Haven't you noticed?

Kirk Bryde

Maybe you are in a choir, but it is a choir of idle worshipers.

[agapit]

... The 6.40 model is already 25 years old. The reason I called it 640 model, because we have seen jumps by the Prophet at 640. Back in the days the only question was whether it is going to be 6.30 or 6.40m ...

25 years ago puts us at 1984, when Bubka set his first WR (5.85). That's 55 cm under 5.40 (almost 2').

So do you mean that he had hip height on 5.40, or did it in practice, or what?

The model was introduced to the public in 1983. This was one of the reasons he was selected to go to Helsinki World Championship without being well known or winning National Championship. It took several years to realize the fruits of this new model. But in the short 4 years by 1987 we could see the 6.20-6.30-6.40 clearances. We have seen some of it in training some of it competitions. In my firm opinion 6.15 is a huge underachievement for Bubka in terms of the height he was able to clear, but financially it was a better decision to inch up World Record in small increments.

Now, if you did not see that a human was able to clear 6.30-6.40 as early as late eighties/early nineties, do not read any further. Do not waste your time. Read other posts, bend some poles or chart mid marks.

And you are right 19’ is about 2’ under what was already possible 15 years ago. The question is why?

Cheers!

[KirkB]

... did you mean 6.40?

Yeh, my bad. I went back and editted that. Thanks for catching my mis-step!

... Now, if you did not see that a human was able to clear 6.30-6.40 as early as late eighties/early nineties, do not read any further. Do not waste your time. Read other posts, bend some poles or chart mid marks.

Well, in 1972, Dr. Richard Ganslen asked me "What are your thoughts on the future of modern pole vaulting?", and I told him that "a 20' vault is possible today", so I guess if we add at least a foot for pole technology improvements from the mid-70s to the mid-80s (you gave me until the late eighties), I was on the money.

Those are direct quotes from his book "Mechanics of the Pole Vault".

I based that prediction on my Bryde Bend technique being used by somebody with better runup speed than myself. Someone like Seagren, Johnson, Smith, or Isaakson (Roberts wasn't fast enough). Each of these athletes were WR holders in the day, with sub-optimal technique once they left the ground.

... And you are right 19’ is about 2’ under what was already possible 15 years ago. The question is why?

Why was 21' possible 15 years ago?

I can't really answer that, but I can answer why 20' was possible 36 years ago ...

In a nutshell, Technique, Training Methods, and Psychology.

My observation back then was that the WR holders of the day could vastly improve their technique to take better advantage of the laws of physics; they could take their sport more seriously by training a helluva lot harder (year-round intensive training of specific body parts - year-in and year-out), and they could undertand their own personal psyche better and condition their mind to control their body parts (attitude, perseverance, determination, burning desire to excel - mind over matter ...) and then applying that understanding to their training.

Just IMHO.

Kirk

[agapit]

... did you mean 6.40?

Yeh, my bad. I went back and editted that. Thanks for catching my mis-step!

... Now, if you did not see that a human was able to clear 6.30-6.40 as early as late eighties/early nineties, do not read any further. Do not waste your time. Read other posts, bend some poles or chart mid marks.

Well, in 1972, Dr. Richard Ganslen asked me "What are your thoughts on the future of modern pole vaulting?", and I told him that "a 20' vault is possible today", so I guess if we add at least a foot for pole technology improvements from the mid-70s to the mid-80s (you gave me until the late eighties), I was on the money.

Those are direct quotes from his book "Mechanics of the Pole Vault".

I based that prediction on my Bryde Bend technique being used by somebody with better runup speed than myself. Someone like Seagren, Johnson, Smith, or Isaakson (Roberts wasn't fast enough). Each of these athletes were WR holders in the day, with sub-optimal technique once they left the ground.

... And you are right 19’ is about 2’ under what was already possible 15 years ago. The question is why?

Why was 21' possible 15 years ago?

I can't really answer that, but I can answer why 20' was possible 36 years ago ...

In a nutshell, Technique, Training Methods, and Psychology.

My observation back then was that the WR holders of the day could vastly improve their technique to take better advantage of the laws of physics; they could take their sport more seriously by training a helluva lot harder (year-round intensive training of specific body parts - year-in and year-out), and they could undertand their own personal psyche better and condition their mind to control their body parts (attitude, perseverance, determination, burning desire to excel - mind over matter ...) and then applying that understanding to their training.

Just IMHO.

Kirk

So, Kirk in this post there are many words. What are you saying? That the athletes should be tougher, smarter and faster?

Where’s the wheat?

Cheers!

[KirkB]

So, Kirk in this post there are many words. What are you saying? That the athletes should be tougher, smarter and faster?

Where’s the wheat?

Cheers!

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the tools necessary to be tougher and smarter already existed in 1972. I already said that vaulters back in my day were fast enough.

I even gave you names.

Earlier, you [mistakenly] chided me for being a naysayer of what was possible 15 years ago. You didn't expect my answer, but I gave it. Not as an idle 2008 prediction, but as a public, indisputable, irrevocable 1972 prediction: "a 20' vault is possible today". Ignoring that prophetic statement, you then asked a follow-up question: "you are right 19’ is about 2’ under what was already possible 15 years ago. The question is why?". I told you why. Not only that, I added 21 years to it! You then asked "Where's the wheat?"

Now you chide me for being too wordy. Yet you know that the number of words is irrevelent. In fact, less is more. If you state a truth, you don't need many words. You only need enough words to make your point. I think I did that.

Do you want less words or more words? I'm confused.

You're a hard guy to please!

In the spirit of fair play, here's 3 questions for you: "Do you acknowledge that 18’ (Papanikolaou's record, which was broken in 1972) is about 2’ under what was already possible 36 years ago? If so, why? If not, why?"

You only have to answer 2 of them.

I'll be doing a word count on your answer!

The wheat is coming. The BTB2 book is ordered. RainbowGirl, have you shipped it yet?

Cheers back to you!

Kirk

[agapit]

[quote="KirkB]
In the spirit of fair play, here's 3 questions for you: "Do you acknowledge that 18’ (Papanikolaou's record, which was broken in 1972) is about 2’ under what was already possible 36 years ago? If so, why? If not, why?"

[/quote]

Can anybody help me understand what Kirk is asking? (9 words)

[powerplant42]

He's basically just saying, 'Was 20' possible 36 years ago?' in a really wierd way, and he wants to know why or why not.