Dropping the lead knee - time for a retrospective?

[decanuck]

Colwick kinda "falls" into his takeoff - perhaps his way of loading the pole before takeoff? I'm not sure (hard to freeze-frame youtube vids), but it doesn't look like a free takeoff.

I DLed the video and watched it frame by frame. It is absolutely a free takeoff. I'm sure coach Dave Butler insists on at least that. I thought I had seen that vault before--I realize now that Jason must be Dave's "project" that he referred to in his speech in Reno, 2007 (14:08 in video).

One of the nice things about pole vault is that there's a lot of different ways to be good at it. There are ample opportunities to put energy into the vaulter/pole system. Ideally, each phase should flow seamlessly and compound the energy of the last one while setting the vaulter up to exploit all the energy they've just put in. Guys like Colwick (and I don't mean to pick on him) are examples that you can jump high while putting a huge emphasis on one of those phases. I've never seen anyone vault with such an energetic swing, but that swing comes at the cost of a good takeoff.

Remember that the aim of the technical model is to put as much energy into the system AND to realize (exploit) that energy on the front end. The continuous chain of energy is only as strong as its weakest link. Let's not try and reinvent the wheel every time someone shows up in a new car.

[powerplant42]

Let's examine this case by answering the following questions:

What is the progression of importance of phases in the vault? And where is the take-off in relation to the swing?

[KirkB]

Remember that the aim of the technical model is to put as much energy into the system AND to realize (exploit) that energy on the front end. The continuous chain of energy is only as strong as its weakest link. Let's not try and reinvent the wheel every time someone shows up in a new car.

What is the progression of importance of phases in the vault? And where is the take-off in relation to the swing?

While both of these points are MOSTLY true, let's not be so blind as to think that there's no technical STYLES that aren't better than the traditional Petrov model that we're used to.

Remember that this is the main purpose of this thread - to rethink whether or not dropping the lead knee is a good STYLE of the Petrov model.

Both of your statements are mostly true, but slightly flawed ...

Decanuck, it's the SUM of the energy put into the pole that's important. This is a bit different than talking about the "weakest link". Although I ALMOST discounted Colwick's technique, I didn't. And I won't until he either clears 19' or not. Out of all of this year's college vaulters, I would bet on him to be the first to clear 19'. I don't think he's peaked yet! He's only a 22-year-old Jr., and it's still the Indoor season!

PP, the precedent vault part USUALLY dictates the level of success of the subsequent vault parts. Usually. But there are exceptions. With Colwick's double-leg swing, he may be adding SO MUCH MORE ENERGY into the pole - and keeping his CoM SO MUCH LOWER THAN USUAL - that it might (might) more than compensate for his relatively inferior plant/takeoff.

I'm taking the devil's advocate role in this debate, but I'm not totally convinced. I'm just saying that the jury's still out, and will continue to be sequestered until Colwick shows any signs of either peaking out, or continuing to improve upwards to 19'.

And re Hooker, the jury's almost in. It's almost a foregone conclusion now that his latest 6.00+ rampage isn't a fluke.

I do worry about a few things tho, especially re Colwick's style ...

1. I'd hate for young kids to just pick up a pole and try this technique. Especially if they don't have the gymnastics background of Colwick. It won't work very well unless you really understand what you're doing.

2. There's a danger of back injury. His back appears to be hyper-extended so much that (especially if his takeoff is "in" - on occassion) he could hurt himself. Or an impressionable young vaulter could injure himself.

3. Most kids don't have the gut strength to pull (or swing) one leg up - let alone two. If young kids expect that they can immediately vault like Hooker, Lunkyanenko, or Colwick, they're in for a rude surprise. It would be interesting to trace the history of these elite athletes (yes - Colwick is in the elite college vaulter class) back to when they first began their double-leg swing styles, but I would wager to guess that it wasn't something that they learned in their first season. I'm guessing that it took years and years to develop their technique. I KNOW this is true of Colwick (based on coaches' comments on this thread and elsewhere on the internet), and I SUSPECT that this is true of Hooker and Lukyanenko.

I might have a few more concerns that I'll talk about later.

Kirk

[powerplant42]

I don't have much time right now, but I'll just point out that a STYLE is a SET OF WEAKNESSES inside a TECHNICAL MODEL... The double-leg swing is only a STYLE if the athlete doesn't desire to do it!

[decanuck]

Decanuck, it's the SUM of the energy put into the pole that's important. This is a bit different than talking about the "weakest link".

Well if we're going to get really theoretical here, I would say it is not the sum of the energy put into the pole (that would imply vaulters ought to merely bend the biggest pole possible). It's not even the sum of the energy put into the vaulter/pole system (because energy put into a system that cannot be usefully exploited is a waste of effort). It is the total amount of energy that can be realized (used/exploited) by a vaulter during the vault.

If you could normally exploit, say, 80% of the energy you put into a vault, and you found a technique that allowed you to put in 20% more energy but caused you to realize, proportionally, 50% less on the front end, would you do it? Put another way, would you rather have 80% of $100 or 40% of $120?

Putting theory aside for a moment, I'm sure we can all agree that:
- Hooker has a moderate knee drive that drops afterward to varying degrees.
- Lukyanenko has a low knee drive that drops immediately and almost completely.
- Colwick is unique (based on that video alone) and has ZERO knee drive and appears to run/flop right off the ground.

I agree that Hooker's "style" of the Petrov (or, more accurately, Parnov) model is legit. Lukyanenko, from the waist down, appears to be a carbon copy of a straight pole vaulter and I'm not so sure that's legit, but his other technical elements (run, plant, extension, pull/push off the pole) certainly are. Both of these elites put energy smoothly into the vault, and in so doing we can say they follow the model. Colwick does not, and here's why I think so.

Earlier in the thread, you astutely pointed out that Colwick appears to bend the pole twice. That would mean the pole bends, reaches a point of maximum bend, starts to straighten, and is then bent again. Getting back to the theory side of things, what do you think happens to the energy coming out of the pole when it recoils the first time? Where does it go? Is it usefully exploited, or wasted?

And then there's the other three things you pointed out about his technique. Given those, and the above, I don't think that style should be deliberately taught to anyone.

[wurster490]

Sorry for getting off topic, but I was just wondering if anyone knows what size Pole Colwick is using? It doesn't seem to be very long, it looks like it is 15'6'', but I could be wrong. Although what he does with the pole is really awesome, it seems to me that he could have problems gripping 4.90 - 5m with this style takeoff. Once again, I could be wrong, but that is just my interpretation.

[KirkB]

... a STYLE is a SET OF WEAKNESSES inside a TECHNICAL MODEL... The double-leg swing is only a STYLE if the athlete doesn't desire to do it!

PP, I'm surprised that you interpret a STYLE as a FLAW that way. To my knowledge, your definition of the word STYLE doesn't match common usage or BTB2. I'm referring to the word STYLE as Alan Launder has defined it in BTB2. If there's something in there about a style being a flaw, please tell me the page #.

My definition - totally in concert with BTB2, I think - is that a STYLE is a variation WITHIN a technical model - a "deviation from the mean", without any inference of whether the deviation is good or bad. So in the case of Hooker, his STYLE of dropping the lead knee is permissable under the Petrov model, because his technique isn't so much different from the more traditional lead-knee-up style that you'd have to call it a different model. And I would say that his variant appears to be GOOD, based on his indoor 6.00+ rampage!

And to both agree and disagree with Decanuck, I would agree that since Parnov is Hooker's coach, his technique could be called "Parnov technique", if you like. Perhaps Parnov and Hooker can lay joint claim to the drop-lead-knee style, and say that their technique is the Parnov STYLE of the Petrov MODEL (but did Hooker drop his lead knee like that before he was coached by Parnov?). I don't think we can call their technique the "Parnov model" - because it isn't SUBSTANTIALLY different than Petrov/Bubka's. Decanuck, I know you haven't called it that (except by inference) ... but I'm just saying it's not.

Likewise, Lukyanenko and his coach can lay claim to the "Lukyanenko STYLE", if they like. But it's still the Petrov model.

In Colwick's case, I would not call that the Petrov model. It's outside the bounds of anything that Petrov recommends. There's no lead knee drive! It's interesting that his coach is Dave Butler, who's one of the premier Petrov model proponents on the planet. Keep in mind that Jason brought this style with him from HS to Rice, and Butler hasn't changed it to "pure Petrov". It will be interesting to see where he and Jason take this unique technique ... maybe all the way to the NCAA Championships podium!

Right now, I'd just call it an anomoly, just as Scott Huffman's "Roll" was an anomoly. Until a technique is simple enough (and popular enough) to become mainstream for mere mortals, it can hardly be recommended as "proper" or "good" technique. I'm trying to keep an open mind, and I'm VERY impressed with how far he and Butler have taken this unique technique, but that's as far as I'm willing to conjecture right now. If it turns out to be like the Fosbury Flop (or the Brill Bend), then we can all eat our words. But for now, it's just an anomaly to take a closer look at, and to marvel and speculate about ... but not to emulate.

BTW, Decanuck, I agree with your entire post! All your points are good ones!

Wurster, I agree. You can't REACH very high or JUMP very high if you're falling into your plant and have no knee drive on takeoff. And speaking of falling (and speaking of getting off topic), I hope you're healthy again and raring to go!!!???

Kirk

[wurster490]

Once again, off topic, but I have some video from FISU in 2007 and Aleksandra Kiryashova takes off quite similar to Colwick with her "no knee drive". I uploaded her jumps onto youtube. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlln_VL4N20

[Carolina21]

FYI, Colwick is jumping on a 4.90m 200lbs (he was on about a 205lbs, 14.0 flex at the end of last outdoor), gripping about 15'10 , he weighs about 155lbs. For those who question his efficiency, that is about 50lbs over his weight, and his push off is in the 1.1m to 1.2m range (I am basing this off his hip height on his 5.61m jump, which was better than the 5.60 vid posted previously, I would give him at least another 4-6inch of clearance on his 5.60m and 6-8 inches on his 5.61 jump being conservative) Anyways, as someone who jumps with him and Butler on a daily basis, I think 5.80 is definitely within his ability, he will never be pure Petrov technique, but I think his very different takeoff blinds people to how close the rest of his jump is to Petrov style. Watch him from the hips up. Active pole drop, huge elastic drive, whip swing. He does these things better than almost anyone jumping right now. Anyways, just a few thoughts. As mentioned earlier he is a amazing athlete, and this technique would probably not work for many people, but it works very well for Jason and makes him very fun to watch.

[wurster490]

I stand corrected! That's a nice grip, definitely wasn't thinking it was that high, the video makes the pole look relatively short. He is also moving the pole very well. Looking forward to seeing him jump 5.80m.

[KirkB]

JW, a 4.83 grip, clearing 5.61 = 0.98 pushoff. That's a 39" pushoff. Not bad, but not elite-class ... yet.

Add 0.39 clearance (6.00), and that's a 1.37 pushoff, or 54". That's the other extreme ... it ain't gonna happen.
EDIT: I previously had 5.80 in brackets here.

Jason Colwick has already proved himself as THE top NCAA contender, but now, where can he go from here?

I honestly think he could go 5.80. Not with a 4.83 grip ... but maybe with a 5.00 grip.

For example, here's a feasible progression ...

Code: Select all

PR    Grip
----  ----
5.61   4.83
5.65   4.87
5.70   4.91
5.75   4.96
5.80   5.00

These numbers are based on an 86.1% to 86.2% ratio between grip and PR.

As a reference, consider that members of the 6.00 club have a ratio of 83%-85%. (I'd use vaulters in the 5.60-5.80 range if I had the data, but I don't.)

So Colwick's already "beating the numbers", but I don't think he can beat them by too much. (But who knows with his technique!)

Even tho his 4.83 grip might seem impressive for a 5.61 jump, it's not impressive if you scale up to 5.80. And you MUST scale - even if you can beat the numbers!

Now let's fudge this a bit ...

I usually don't like to count hip height over a bar. That gets too theoretical and subjective. Realistically, he needs to clear the bar to claim that he CAN clear it. But for the sake of argument (based on Carolina's post - which I believe), let's add 0.15 to his jump, on the assumption that he's already "clearing" the bar by that much.

Deja vu: Did Bubka clear 6.40, or 6.15?

Code: Select all

PR      Grip
----    ----
5.76   4.83
5.80   4.87
5.85   4.91
5.90   4.96
5.95   5.00
6.00   5.04

This last set of numbers is based on an 84% ratio - the average for 6.00 club members. So he only needs to raise his grip by 0.04 to clear 5.80 (theoretically), and he could clear 5.95 if he's able to raise his grip to 5.00.

His grip will be his limiting factor. I wish him all the best, but if he's not reaching for the sky in his plant, and driving the lead knee up on takeoff, I think it's going to be very difficult for him to raise his grip much (assuming he's maxed out on his runway speed already).

This is all pure speculation, so take it with a grain of salt. It's REALLY not fair to compare him to traditional pure Petrovers, and my ratios may be off since I'm using 6.00 club members instead of vaulters in the 5.60-5.80 range.

I could do another type of analysis based on his pole flex compared to the 6.00 club members, and I might draw completely different conclusions. HE'S ON MONSTER POLES FOR HIS WEIGHT! Reason: His unique technique.

One last thing ... for a fair comparison to Hooker and other elites, you have to give Colwick 4-8 years to work out his technique. Time will tell ...

Kirk

[Carolina21]

I agree with the hip height problem, speculating what someone could clear is pseudo-science at best even for Bubka, because it requires the standards in a perfect spot, both height and depth, for the jump (your best jump ever which happens only once) and the odds of these things all taking place are probably low. However, I truly believe Jason can jump 5.70m with a little room to spare, same grip, same pole, but as you said lets wait a few weeks and see what happens, it only counts if you do it. I think he can still jump higher on his 4.90 poles, and come outdoor he will start making the switch to 5m poles. 5.80m as you say would be stretching it at current grip, but not impossible...

Also, I get a different number. To clear 5.80 with a 4.83m grip, it is a 1.17m push, I think you calc'd for a 6m (1.37m)? No big deal. 1.17 is the top of spectrum, but has been done before, 1.37 as you mention is near impossible, or rather at that point you should be gripping higher.