Good morning
I started writing a response to this post a few days ago.. not in opposition but in total agreement with what is being said. I held up posting because it has still been going very well. I have not and do not want to “change’ what Golfdane, Kirk and PP are saying. My post got lengthy and I didn’t want to put info in that may seem to change the direction of the post. That’s why I have waited… But it seems we have found a way on here (PVP) to “discuss” issues to a good conclusion with a more open mind and we seen to have a better understanding that how each one of us uses the English language to “describe” what we see may seem “different” on initial perception (it's even different from coach to coach on the same staff.. doesn't it get frustraing that you can say something to your athletes 1000's times and another coach walks up and says..@#$%$#@.. and they get it and change on the spot!!!!) but actually we are trying to come to the same conclusion and vault “picture” based on physics.
Right or wrong I feel the best I can do is share my thoughts and experiences.
It is said we learn more form our failures than our successes. I don’t think so. Our failures simply tell us that isn’t where you ever want to go again, whereas our successes tell us that is “always” where we want to go. We don’t tell our children to repeat “our failures” we demand they follow our successes and try to “roll model” the best.
Good morning
Hopefully this will fall in line with what is being said… I do agree
I want to “throw” in some info based on the “Chart”.
This is not a “Chart" Chat...
; ) 
but because of the math and physics I think it is relative.
If you will notice on the chart the “height above the grip” is proportionate as you go up the numbers. A 12’3” grip usually produces a 12 foot vault (on average). A 14 foot grip will produce a 15 foot vault on average. Etc.
What I equate this to is the amount of swing “force” a vaulter has with that “swing distance, times the swing speed”. Just like a gymnast, the highly skilled can swing fast and put enough force into the swing to release at the top and go four to five feet above the high bar, do some flips and comeback down and “re-grip’ and go again.
The vault has a little addition to this… we “run” into the swing, which gives us (some) of the “energy” to swing. It depends on how fast we ran and how efficient we were in transferring (the plant) from the run into the takeoff as to how hard/fast we swing (distance x time) and that is what creates the height above grip.
Of course the first thing most of you just “thought” is I can “beat the chart”. Bubba! I love you man. Face your demons… NF ?dafox.
If you are a 16 foot plus vaulter I would predict that you could hold 12 feet and maybe jump 13-6/14 feet. Earl Bell and Mike Cotton could grip 11’4” (on a stiff pole) and jump 13’6ish!! I think Bubka held around 14’/4.20m on a stiff pole and did a “pop-up” that would have resulted in a 16’/4.80 jump.. but I don’t think his intent on those “pop-ups” was anything more than “penetration” based on his fitness, speed, runway conditions and plant efficiency for THAT day.
These are athletes that have PR’s quite a bit above what they can perform with a grip way below there max. The “Average” height above grip is proportionate to the speed and athletic ability of that vaulter at that time.. which is there PR time.
Sorry to “write a book” here.. but I’m am only trying to increase our understanding of the event. Plus this is my day off and I write better in the morning and have some free time.
The forces put in with the run and plant is proportionate to the “height” above the grip obtained. Does this mean the pole does not “throw you”, not necessarily. I am of course on the “side” that says it is a “swing” not a throw.
When I first started “the chart” I looked at my own “statistics” 14/14-4 grip and a 15-6/16 foot vault. I wasn’t a vaulter, hardly bent the pole.. ran fast and tried to swing into a “back flip”. Then I looked at the “height above grip” of the steel and aluminum vaulters from Ganslen’s books. I could not believe, at first, that the ‘stats” (height above grip) were the same for steel and fiberglass.
I though “oh shoot” this will disprove my theory and destroy what I had hoped would be a “masters thesis” for me in the future. Remember you had to “publish” to get the college jobs to move up the ranks of national and international coaches….
So what could I do?? Well you have to give your work the “test”. It has to stand up to the laws of physics. I studied Ganslens work, I studied Ecker, all the Russian literature, German literature, Tom Tellez, I even went to a Fred Wilt clinic!! We had a hard time understanding if Fred was following “physics” or just “the harder you work at something” right or wrong you will get better. But Fred is the first one I can remember that said and wrote that you have to “Jump” onto the pole to bend it!!! (alla free takeoff.. jump up.. extend the arms and swing and bend and go..) I have that article somewhere. That was 1969.
But in the long run I think it all worked out well. The “chart’ stands up pretty well to the physics of the event.
Your “hand grip” is based on the amount of “speed” or force you need (on average) to move that grip (pole speed) to vertical. That “pole speed” corresponds to a swing “distance’ and "swing speed" which will result in the “height” above that grip or radius point.
Does it prove or disprove that it is a “swing vault” and not a catapult”? not at all. I have seen Joe Dial and Scott Huffman seemingly get “shot” off the top of the pole. It looked like they were at least five feet above the grip. Were they catapulted? I found it hard to believe they were not! But what I found when I analyzed those jumps, was there swing was faster. Just like when Tim Mack and Bubka had their best ‘height above the grip” the swing from Takeoff (toe leaving the runway) to maximum height of the Center of Mass..... was
faster. 
Tuck vaulters? Catapult? Non-catapult? I have done the timing on Jeff Hartwig’s jumps. It seems that every one of his “best” jumps were FASTER through the tuck. Just by hundredths of seconds but faster non the less. Does that mean the faster rotation through the same distance create more height above grip?
I can open a whole “can of worms” that begs the question of does the unbending pole add force or “catapult” the vaulter or does the un-bending pole simply “lighten the load” of the force of gravity on the vaulters mass so the fast swing will produce a great height above the grip?
Dave Roberts said in his Hall of Fame speech that it is “gravity” that dictates if you can get you a** out of bed each morning and go to work. All based of your “force” and motivation. It is gravity and the forces that you can apply that will determine how high you can Pole Vault.
Side bar……….
ie. Why can a sprinter run faster at altitude? There body measurements (leg length) don’t change, their "trained" or built in “frequency” doesn’t change. Where is the change? Stride length.. is the answer. Why are the strides longer at altitude? Because each stride has a “maximum amount of force” that that athlete can apply and because altitude lowers the “pull of gravity’ on the Mass, each stride will produce a great distance in the same amount of time, therefore fewer strides for the same 100m distance. Now you arrive at 100 meters in 44 steps instead of the normal 45. If you run a 10.00 hundred meters in 45 steps you just eliminated approximately 2.20 meters from your time.. doing the math you would run .19360 faster.. or 9.8064.. hypothetical of course. Do this… Get a S-Chain link from the hardware store. Tie a 7 foot piece of small diameter rope to the S link. Then tie a “shoe” to the other end. Take a 15/16 foot pole and slip the non rope knot part of the S-link into the top end of the pole. Put the butt end of the pole in the box… stand on the left side of the runway (for right “handers”) with the pole leaned down where the shoe just touches the run way. Put a crossbar up to 20 feet. With your right hand on the pole as high as you can reach when the pole is vertical you will rotate the pole as fast as you can to vertical in the box.. swinging the shoe (on the opposite side of the pole so you don’t get hit in the head) and see if you can swing it from the top and over the crossbar…
This is a fun “challenge’ game for your vaulters that introduces them to physics at the same time (Greg Hull and Brian Yokohama might remember this from a camp at Long Beach State)
I don’t really have any real “gems” of philosophy to through in here… but when I first worked in the Inner-city schools in LA I was given a saying, “if it looked like a D… and walked like a D…. and Quacked like a D…. yada, yada, yada… I found out very quickly from my 7 am PE class, that all “looked” like D…….s that our own perception of a D…. was generally based off of our “experiences’ and not the cold hard facts.. I found out very quickly that most of these kids had 3.0 plus GPA’s with plans to go to USC, UCLA, Temple, Stanford and even Harvard. These kids took “early” morning PE (a graduation requirement) so their schedule was free the rest of the day for the “real subjects” that meant there future.
The vault has many “exceptions” but physics is the real “D…. That is why we look at your best vaults or the best vaults in the world to “copy. Your best vaults are “closer” to the correct physics than your poor vaults. That is why the “physics’ has to be applied to the “picture” you may have of the technique (D….) before you can come to a conclusion.
I do know I haven’t spent enough years to totally eliminate “exceptions”. I don’t think Tully totally “hit” the physics. If he had I’m sure he would have jumped 20 feet. I believe we can say Bubka, with Petrov, may have gotten the closest. Even with him some of us seen to find that “he came off the pole to early..” but according to physics and the “Total Chain’… coming of early is much better than coming off late. Coming off “late” means you have stopped the swing and killed the carry through of “speed time distance’ giving you flight time (motocross).
Gripping to high kills “pole speed” which in turn seems to lower how high we can go above grip.
Well I have “rattle the cage” enough this morning…
Lets see where we can go from here…
What is correct? Physics…
Later
dj
