Pole Vault Manifesto

[agapit]

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.

The moon landing was possible 300 years ago or one billion years ago, however the technology was not there to make it a reality. It is possible for me to clear world record this evening but the probability of this event is 1/1000000000…00000 or less. So could someone clear 20’ 36 years ago? It is very improbable. I did not see anyone who had the technical model, knowhow - “technologyâ€

[KirkB]

[quote="agapit"]The moon landing was possible 300 years ago ... however the technology was not there to make it a reality.

... So could someone clear 20’ 36 years ago? It is very improbable. I did not see anyone who had the technical model, knowhow - “technologyâ€

[vaultman18]

I hope your bold 6.40 prediction also bears fruit!

I don't think it was a prediction.

[powerplant42]

I have been reading and thinking a lot lately...

Please realize that I am not about to 'attack' the concept of a free take-off, only try to understand it more.

All we want are active phases, right? Where energy is ADDED to the system. How is it being added in the moment between take-off and pole-strike? Isn't it only redirecting?

Another question... about the swing. Particularly about swinging with a completely straight body...

If a vaulter swings with an entirely straight body to cover the pole, how can 'hip drive' energy be added? You can't shift your hips up, only push down on the pole. What I am coming to think is that there must be a balance between the straight body swing (to cover the pole) and the tuck and shoot, because both are disadvantageous (in my mind currently)...

And I still do not completely understand the pull-push concept. From what I have come to think, it is a very natural action where the vaulter pulls the pole towards themselves with the bottom hand in an attempt to speed up the swing. It eventually ends with the pull-turn and push-off. Is this correct?

[agapit]

I have been reading and thinking a lot lately...

All we want are active phases, right? Where energy is ADDED to the system. How is it being added in the moment between take-off and pole-strike? Isn't it only redirecting?

The energy is not added at that time that is why you would not want to prolong this phase beyond a free take-off!

Another question... about the swing. Particularly about swinging with a completely straight body...

If a vaulter swings with an entirely straight body to cover the pole, how can 'hip drive' energy be added? You can't shift your hips up, only push down on the pole. What I am coming to think is that there must be a balance between the straight body swing (to cover the pole) and the tuck and shoot, because both are disadvantageous (in my mind currently)...

Why would you want to "cover" the pole? Do you "cover" the rope (in gymnastics) when you are trying to swing and reach as high as you possibly can? Isn’t it because you were told all your life that you need to “cover” the pole and catch the recoil of the pole, you want to do it? Do you think a vaulter on rigid pole would be able to complete the vault if she would “cover” the pole?

I may present this unorthodox model during my next clinic or conference. Keep your eyes open. I do not know if it would be in Reno, though. I think that now they only invite active party members to politburo sessions. Nothing new under the sun. LOL.

Apologize guys, but I am going on a sabbatical from posting and I do not know for how long.

Cheers!

[powerplant42]

I understand much more clearly now, but am still not completely sold on not 'covering' the pole... but is a pre-jump prolonging the take-off too long in your opinion? AAAAH don't go away! At least come back soon! I want to fully see the light!

[KirkB]

Apologize guys, but I am going on a sabbatical from posting and I do not know for how long.

Agapit, this forum is more fun when you post! I crave your wheat! See ya when you return from your sabbatical!

It's amazing that there's still confusion between the free takeoff and the pre-jump. I could review all of the threads related to that - and there's several- but I'd probably still be confused. I think the only way to settle this once and for all is for Altius to clarify it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the pre-jump was mentioned in BTB2 with the intent to clarify things, but it just seems to have muddied the waters. At least on this forum.

Altius, since it's your definition, can you please tell us - once-and-for-all - whether the pre-jump and the free takeoff are identical? I'm not sure what page # it's on in BTB2, but at least I've bought the book (unlike SOME people ), and I can refer to whatever page #'s you send me to!

Re whether there's any advantage or not to having a time-gap (and distance) between the time you takeoff (when your toes leave the ground), and the time that the pole hits the back of the box, if you're jumping (with a vertical component) to reduce the pole angle, this would be an advantage, right?

And let's face it, you can never hit your takeoff mark exactly, 100% off the time. So isn't it preferable to err on the side of being a little bit out, rather than a little bit in?

Kirk

[golfdane]

The energy is not added at that time that is why you would not want to prolong this phase beyond a free take-off!

Not like this japanese guy from the Junior World Championship (not sure which of the two japanese):
http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1p1hfS01-X1C7yhaQ3jz_-HUKEcvXzRtm1NjHvrn-kNEzbKbEHLE7o4z5iTrQnZYBu

[powerplant42]

A free take-off is an unloaded take-off. A pre-jump is an extension of the free take-off where the pole tip has not yet hit the ground (or back of the box) when the athlete is in the air. That is exactly what altius will say about the definitions. The only reason that I am questioning the pre-jump (EDIT* while rereading I just realized I was saying 'free take-off' in my previous few posts instead of 'pre-jump', woops! ) is because I want to know where Roman stands on the issue.

What I have come to think about the pre-jump: it does not add energy, only redirects it with less losses of energy and puts the vaulter-pole system in a better position at pole-strike (the bottom hand is the fulcrum instead of the ground... think about it). Also, if you train for a pre-jump, you will have a much better chance of hitting a free take-off. I will say from personal experiences, that I feel the most powerful in my short run sand vaults when I've got a nice pre-jump.

As for the 'covering the pole' argument... I have thought about this much more than about the pre-jump. It is obvious that Warmerdam does not ever 'cover the pole'. He could not possibly push-off as high as he did with only his arms, so it must be his swing that is mostly responsible (just restating things we should already be aware of). His swing is redirected once he is pointing at the bar, and his kinetic energy carries his angle a little further back to pointing just over the bar. SAID... I am beginning to believe that the only reason that Bubka 'covers the pole more' is so that his swing is redirected UP more, because THE BAR IS HIGHER IN RELATION TO HIS GRIP! Although I could be completely wrong...

[agapit]

SAID... I am beginning to believe that the only reason that Bubka 'covers the pole more' is so that his swing is redirected UP more, because THE BAR IS HIGHER IN RELATION TO HIS GRIP! Although I could be completely wrong...

Bravo! See you all later!

[powerplant42]

This is tantalizing!

[vaultman18]

SAID... I am beginning to believe that the only reason that Bubka 'covers the pole more' is so that his swing is redirected UP more, because THE BAR IS HIGHER IN RELATION TO HIS GRIP! Although I could be completely wrong...

Bravo! See you all later!

Ha Ha ! What a long sabbatical almost a whole day.