Pole Vault Manifesto

[powerplant42]

Aaaah but what if they don't have a high bar!? That is my current situation, and it will most likely not change too soon unless I make one at my house... but the other athletes at my school will probably not be using that. So what can I tell them as a coaching queue? I understand where you're coming from, but 'shoot' seems a little too general/oversimplified. I know we want athletes to be concentrating on single things like 'shoot', but how does one 'shoot'? I can drive my hips or drop my shoulders independently of one another during a vault, but I must do these actions together, in harmony*! In your experience does the athlete understand 'shoot' to be what we are looking for?

[KirkB]

Every coach/athlete group develops their own vocabulary to a certain extent.

What are you gonna do? I told you to stay outta the meatgrinder.

And so on.

The word "shoot" comes from "shoot to a handstand" on a high bar. I can't honestly say that's a common gymnastic term, used by "real" gymnasts. I don't know. It's just what we called it.

I'm certainly not proposing that you use unfamiliar terms, so if "shoot" doesn't work for you and your team, no problem.

Whatever key word or key phrase you choose, it's just a short form of a longer explanation, once the athlete "gets it". I didn't understand "meatgrinder" when I first heard it, but it wasn't a new concept to you-know-who, so she "got it". Sometimes, a single word is better than repeating the same word over and over again. Less is more.

BTW, I honestly didn't know what "cover the pole" meant. I had read it in many, many other posts, but didn't know what it meant until you explained it above. I only "covered the pole" when it began to rain.

In my day, we just said "stay with the pole". If you don't "stay with the pole", then your hips will drop, and the recoil of the pole will drop you onto the bar.

We didn't use the term "roll the pole to vertical" (or whatever) either. We just referred to "keep the pole moving forwards" - or something like that.

No high bar? But you promised to test out my "Split/Hinge/Whip" drill !!! What are you gonna do? !!!

Kirk

[powerplant42]

Yes I have tried the SHW drill before, but that is a discussion for a different thread on a different day.

I am also beginning to believe that the TIME that is gained from using a flexible pole is a factor in 'covering the pole'. One has more time and freedom to move on the pole. This idea is not yet complete in my head. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[KirkB]

... the TIME that is gained from using a flexible pole is a factor in 'covering the pole'. One has more time and freedom to move on the pole.

[powerplant42]

What I now refer to as the 'inversion paradox' (cool name, right? ) has become quite clear in my mind over the past few weeks. There is no such thing as an 'inversion'. You could call it that (and perhaps it is easier to say this to athletes), but that is not exactly what it IS. There should be no attempt to invert (as in get upside down) by the vaulter. There is only a swing and redirection of swing energy (which continues adding energy to the system). The amount of 'upside-downness' or 'inversion' (which could also be referred to how 'covered' the pole is) is a function of how flexible the pole is, as is the relative bar height. The latter is for two reasons. The first is where most people stop: more energy can be stored in the pole. The second one is the one that most people miss: the more flexible the pole, the more time there is to swing, so it becomes easier to redirect swing energy more upward (invert more and drive up). Does this seem to make sense? This is all interconnected.

[KirkB]

... The amount of 'upside-downness' or 'inversion' (which could also be referred to how 'covered' the pole is) is a function of how flexible the pole is, as is the relative bar height. ... Does this seem to make sense? This is all interconnected.

It makes some sense, but not entirely.

I think the part about "... is a function of how flexible the pole is" is the wrong focus. It's not actionable. I would hate for someone to misinterpret what you're saying and simply conclude that they just need a softer pole. That's not it. Further, it's not what the pole does, it's what the vaulter does. I know you know this - it's probably just the way you're wording it that I'm opposing.

I'll explain something in my Bryde Bend thread soon that might enlighten you re some of this stuff. When I do, you'll see why I need to post it there. For sure, you'll see that it's all interconnected.

Kirk

[powerplant42]

Yes, in fact I realized that my words may come across to mean 'use a softer pole' shortly after I wrote them... I will clarify: Flexibility as far as material used... the technology... Does this sound better? I need more thinking time.

[powerplant42]

I will try to explain a little further about using a more 'flexible' pole...

The essential elements of the pole as a propulsive device are the following: Angular chord speed and chord length (the pole itself is quite unimportant). One would obviously not want the chord speed to be enormous as the chord length becomes very short, right? That situation would seem to describe what is commonly known as 'blowing through'. However, this is EXACTLY what we want... If we use a very long pole (19'+) but can maintain a high chord speed by achieving a very short chord length, we can jump very high... but there is a key that I have left until now to do with chord length. Chord length is obviously dynamic because the pole bends, but more importantly UNBENDS. The key is the speed with which the pole unbends or if it even unbends at all. If it unbends very slowly (relative to all the energy that we've created in our run, take-off, and swing) like a fiberglass pole would, we will 'blow through'. However, if a more flexible material can be used to create a pole that will sustain the forces of the run, take-off, and swing, we must consider the possiblities through what I've presented here. I will have more thoughts on this later, and I await your post in great anticipation!

[joebro391]

{sigh} kids these days, and there pole vaulting technique...my head's gonna explode soon hahaha

[IAmTheWalrus]

Powerplant, I don't know if a more flexible material is going to solve that problem. I would seem to me that there are only three ways in which to improve the pole.

1) Improve its efficiency, i.e. how much energy of the energy stored in the pole is returned to the vaulter

2) Decrease the resistance caused by the pole, such as by making the pole lighter (i.e. carbon)

3) Introducing a new form of potential energy. I think the idea of a pole which contains reactant chemicals which when combined rapidly solidify would be cool. Like a giant glow stick, when you bend the pole enough the chemicals release and then you get tossed a mile. You could make a 19' 120 that unbends like a 220 (I'm completely joking)

Seriously though, and perhaps I'm just mistaken, but how does a pole being more flexible alleviate the problem of blowing through. I'm fairly confident that I could vault on a 17' 120, but the pole would not recoil vertically, but instead deep into the pit.

There might be something with the sail piece though, but I'm not sure. On that topic, has anyone found that 16' poles feel much softer than their equivalent 15' pole? Is that because of the sail piece?

Alright, that's enough of my chatter. Peace

[Barto]

Pole technology already far exceeds the physical limitations of humans. We can make a pole return from bent to straight much faster than current production models. The problem is that no human can swing fast enough to vault on it.

[KirkB]

Barto, I don't really understand this. You're only talking about a stiffer pole, aren't you? If not, what makes these poles different than current production models?

Maybe I'm just out-of-date on pole technology, but isn't the formula something like this ...

ENERGY_OUT = ENERGY_IN - LEAKAGE

Since I'm not a biomechanical engineer (or any other type of engineer), I don't know how to include your "speed of recoil" into the formula, but I'm thinking that it's irrelevant. For example, you might have a slow coil and a fast recoil, or they might be at the same speed. But that shouldn't change the formula of ENERGY_OUT = ENERGY_IN - LEAKAGE, should it?

For the sake of argument, let's say you have a pole designed to give you a slow coil and a fast recoil. I can see how that would be helpful, given the limitations of humans. It would allow the vaulter more time to get inverted, in preparation for the fast[er] recoil.

And if you have an equally fast coil and recoil, then you have less time to get inverted.

But I fail to understand why it's the pole that affects the speed of the coil/recoil. In my experience (albeit with "old technology" poles), I had a slow coil and a fast recoil, because of my technique. 100% BECAUSE OF MY TECHNIQUE. I PURPOSELY made the pole coil more slowly and recoil more quickly.

Isn't THAT the solution, instead of improved pole technology? It seems to me that once the pole technology minimizes LEAKAGE, then its job is done, and the rest is up to the vaulter.

Prove me wrong.

Kirk