Pole Vault Manifesto

[KirkB]

... it is connected to something, and perhaps putting it backwards may trigger other muscles to fire or relax unconciously to help OR HINDER in an inversion, however it is not a necessary action.

I agree.

I don't agree. But with the addition of "OR HINDER" to 3P0's quote, I now agree.

Kirk

[PVDaddy]

Kirk, I said that the the upperback, neck and head should be violently thrust back as a group (Read ny previous 3 post about this) and you then misquoted me by changing that to just "flinging the head back". I also said that the majority of the pulling should begin when the pole begins to uncoil. I know what Vaultman said. You refuted my statement and said that I entirely missed his point and then you contradicted your own self when you said that the left hand should only be used as a stabalizer and then ended up agreeing with when you said the majority of pulling should occur during uncoil. So what is it Bud? Doesnt matter to me anymore cuz the hipocrasy has already gone.

[KirkB]

I said that the the upperback, neck and head should be violently thrust back as a group ... and you then misquoted me by changing that to just "flinging the head back". ...

Daddy, don't mean to rile you, but you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying that whether you're referring to JUST the head "flinging back", or the entire UPPER BACK, NECK, AND HEAD, you're still misunderstanding Bubka's intent, and you're still misinterpreting his vid. Further, if you think that this is as per the 640 Model, then you're misunderstanding the 640 Model - as described by Vaultman and by Agapit. The motion that Bubka is performing has never ... ever ... been described as you described it, and there's a reason why: That's not what's happening!

... and then [you] ended up agreeing with [me] when you said the majority of pulling should occur during uncoil. ...

I'd like to see my quote re this in reference to the 640 Model. Show me where I said that. Remember that I'm parotting what Vaultman has described the 640 Model as being ... NOT what I personally believe to be "proper" technique. Perhaps you're mixing these 2 distinct viewpoints?

... you said that the left hand should only be used as a stabalizer

Just to be perfectly clear, I assert (in the Bryde Bend) that the bottom hand should ONLY be used as a left-right stabilizer ... NEVER a forwards-backwards stabilizer. Like stabilizers on an airplane.

If you're not already clear about this ... this is one of only a couple vault parts where the Bryde Bend POSSIBLY differs from pure Petrov. I certainly emphasize THIS ... and an extreme pre-stretch and downswing ... with more emphasis than in the Petrov Model.

Kirk

[PVDaddy]

It was clear that I was not trying to interpret what Vaultman was saying or the 640 Model. Its your Imagination and crazy assumptions (although I believe your true motives are obvious). the majority of the pull is taking place as the pole begins to uncoil (Ive made that clear so many times!) and the pulling back action that Roman illustrated would be felt most as its uncoiling (Bending away from you) not as its being loaded (bending toward you). You said that the pull should accelerate toward the end of the swing in your post. I enterpreted that as meaning that the pulling action would increase at the end of the swing and the uncoiling of the pole certainly has already begun well before that. Covering the arc of the pole with the upper back, neck and head all in alignment does not seem to me to be out of sync with most accepted PV theory even if it is done in the most Rapid manner possible and I believe that it will become the norm when it is all said and done. I also believe that this action greatly adds to the Power and speed of the pull. Remember Newtons law of physics concerning equal and opposite reactions that you like to qoute Kirk? I am taking a break from PVP as it has lost its purpose for me.

JOE

[vault3rb0y]

Well if you want to apply newtons law.... a whipping on the head and neck will have an effect across the axis of C-9, the connection of your cervical vertebrae to the thoracic vertebrae. So really, by whipping your head and neck posteriorly, if anything it would hypothetically push your thoracic vertebrae (aka your back) anteriorly. In reality, this action is counteracted by the antagonist muscles of the neck and back, and the action is controlled.

Instead, By whipping your neck and head backward, you are only throwing your spine out of alignment, typically over-arching your back which drops your hips and legs. This is why you see a lot of HS'ers that throw their heads back, end up flagging their feet right toward the bar. The action that you are hoping will help your inversion actually causes it's demise. It also puts your body in a poor bio mechanical position to maintain the energy you've put into the pole, because the energy goes into moving parts of your body instead of moving your WHOLE body upwards. INSTEAD if you focus on moving your hips quickly up the pole, and allowing your shoulders to drop toward the mats, your spine stays aligned and you can still aggressively invert and pull on the pole. Take a look at any free-hip circle exercise on the high bar. Their shoulders drop as aggressively as possible, and their spine stays essentially in line from cervical to lumbar.

Now that that's over.... I have a question that actually pertains to the 6.40 model we should be discussing: If an aggressive pull is performed, even as a lat pull, how is it possible to still transfer the energy from an inversion completely through your top hand? Or is the argument that the speed of inversion outweighs the negative effects of not completely transferring energy through your top hand? This seems to be the contradiction i see between the petrov model I know and the 6.40 model, yet they are presented as one in the same.

[baggettpv]

Boy, you guys are really picking on a small piece of the pie especially when it comes to the level of the kids we normally deal with. Teach them right from the beginning and these questions won't arise. Back to the sand pit.....

Rick Baggett
WSTC

[KirkB]

... the majority of the pull is taking place as the pole begins to uncoil ... and the pulling back action that Roman illustrated would be felt most as its uncoiling (Bending away from you) ...

Clearly, you are confused about when a pole "uncoils". A pole "coils" when it "bends", and it "uncoils" when it straightens. When the pole is bending away from you, it's still bending - not uncoiling. Think of coiling/uncoiling a rope and you'll get the analogy.

... not as its being loaded (bending toward you).

Even if you've got coiling mixed up with uncoiling, I'm astonished that you think that the pole is being "loaded" when it's bending TOWARDS you.

... You said that the pull should accelerate toward the end of the swing in your post.

Here's my exact quote ...

... as the bottom arm begins to pull, it should pull at an accelerating rate ... and FOLLOW the initiation of the swing by the trail leg whip. Not INITIATE the swing.

I said NOTHING about "toward the end of the swing". As you can see here, I said "FOLLOW the initiation of the swing". In the BB, the trail leg whip BEGINS the swing. This is the start of the dowswing.

I enterpreted that as meaning that the pulling action would increase at the end of the swing and the uncoiling of the pole certainly has already begun well before that.

The end of the swing is the end of the upswing. I assert that the pulling action should BEGIN ... and ACCELERATE ... near the end of the downswing ... approximately when the trail leg passes the chord. A bending pole does not begin to uncoil until AFTER it's fully bent. This is roughly when the trail leg passes the chord ... which is when the downswing whips thru to the upswing. The trail leg BEGINS to accelerate far before the bottom arm pull BEGINS to accelerate.

... Covering the arc of the pole with the upper back, neck and head all in alignment does not seem to me to be out of sync with most accepted PV theory ... even if it is done in the most Rapid manner possible ...

If you've read this somewhere ... and want us to believe this ... then you'll have to quote your source. Preferably a scientific paper. BTW, your previous arguments about "violently throwing the upper back, neck, and head back" don't jibe with the way you worded it this time.

I think 3P0 explained this very well ... in elegant biomechanical detail.

... I believe that it will become the norm when it is all said and done. I also believe that this action greatly adds to the Power and speed of the pull.

So write a book about your theory. Put your money where your mouth is. You can even start your own thread, and expound upon your technical model. Just don't put it in the Advanced Forum. For the record, I did exactly that a couple years ago. I had a particular technique that I've shared with all PVP readers ... in the Bryde Bend thread. PVP is open to all theories ... but you'd better be prepared to back up your theories when you get quizzed on them ... and not get riled when people disagree with them.

I am taking a break from PVP as it has lost its purpose for me.

That's a good idea.

Kirk

[altius]

[quote="PVDaddy" I am taking a break from PVP as it has lost its purpose for me. A good idea - as someone once observed - the mind is like a parachute, it only functions properly when it is open.

[Tim McMichael]

The relative timing of the pull and swing should be very close to what a gymnast does when he swings to inversion on a high bar. This is complicated by the fact that the hands are not parallel with one another, thus the trail leg is influenced most by the top hand. When rebounding out of a forced stretch, the active part of the movement must take place at the same instant the muscles reach maximum tension; otherwise all of the power is lost. The timing is, therefore, dictated by the timing of the takeoff leg reaching its maximum amplitude. The conscious initiation of the pull has to start a fraction before this so that nothing is lost to reaction time. This means the pull and swing have to be actuated only a fraction of a second after takeoff.

[KirkB]

Tim, I get what you're saying, and if that's what Agapit is saying, then I get that too.

What you've just described is an excellent model for a straight-pole vaulter to use. But does it apply to bent-pole vaulting?

There's 2 key differences in bent-pole vaulting that I don't get yet (in relation to this 640 Model).

1. The chord of the pole is much shorter than the grip. That's why bent-pole vaulters can grip so much higher than straight-pole vaulters.

2. The pole (bent-pole or straight-pole) must rotate to vertical in order for the vaulter to extend efficiently off the top. The ability to rotate to vertical is dependent on the grip (for straight-pole) or the chord (bent-pole). So in bent-pole vaulting, getting an optimal bend is important.

Considering these 2 key differences, I'm still not seeing how it's optimal to pull with the bottom arm immediately after the pre-stretch.

It seems to me that if you pull this early (and if you're REALLY strong - in the extreme case), you'll pull yourself into a back uprise ... which is totally going to screw you up on the pole ... you'll slow the pole's rotation, and you'll stall out.

Furthermore, if you pull this early, then it seems to me that you're NOT going to have that long, low trail leg swing that's going to add energy into the pole ... energy that will accelerate the whip ... but will also aid significantly in keeping the COM low enough so that the pole can rotate faster.

It is possible that we're all talking about the same thing here, but words may be getting in the way of what we perceive as "optimal technique".

Tim, let's continue using your highbar analogy is an excellent reference point ... for straight-pole vaulting. But let's now think about a theoretical highbar that has the bend of a fiberglass pole - bending a meter or more (shortening the distance between the 2 uprights by a meter or more). For the moment, forget about the bottom arm and bent lead knee ... just think about a symetric 2-handed hang and 2-legged swing in this analogy.

Now think about when the trail leg (both legs on the highbar) and the pole (highbar) must aid in the whip, in relation to the pull of the bottom arm and the pull of the top arm (both arms on the highbar). Is it not AT THE CHORD ... THE WHIP?

It seems to me that all 4 of these "things" (top arm, bottom arm, trail leg, pole action) must come together somewhat simultaneously, at approximately the instant in time just before the trail leg passes the chord ... on the highbar and on the pole. This point in time (and this action) is also known as the "whip".

From being straight on takeoff, the pole bends to the chord. This takes a finite amount of time. A split second, admittedly, but still a certain amount of time. Sufficient time for the vaulter to finish his takeoff (to and thru the pre-stretch), and then enough time to start ... AND FINISH ... the downswing. These are sequenatial actions ... easily separable, and easily performed one after the other (with sufficient talent and practice).

During the downswing, the vaulter is not only swinging his trail leg down and forward, he's also transforming his body from a "C" to an upright "I" ... the "I" being when he passes the chord. It is at the chord that I think the top arm and trail leg should have already reached their max acceleration. This max acceleration is "the whip".

I agree 100% that during this WHIP, the bottom arm must pull ... exactly as per a highbar giant, and exactly as described by you, Tim. And in my mind, the bottom arm should optimally pull JUST BEFORE THE CHORD. The culmination of the top arm and trail leg is what produces the whip ... and the bottom arm pull (timed "properly") accelerates it even more. In turn, the whip produces the maximum bend (aka the chord).

What I don't get is how (in the 640 Model) the bottom arm needs to lead the top arm and trail leg in this quest. Why is that better than the top arm and trail leg initiating the whip, and the bottom arm THEN accelerating it?

I guess it comes down to each person's definition of when exactly we think the pre-stretch is finished, and when the top arm (let alone the bottom arm) should begin to pull. If we could at least see eye-to-eye on that, then maybe the timing of the bottom arm pull would become more apparent.

Funny, but I'm thinking right now that the only difference here might be in that split second when we're drawing our trail leg back to an extreme C. You did that in your Drive Model (aka Dial Model) and I did that in my Bryde Bend. If that split second of time is eliminated (eliminating the extreme C ... which I would not do, as it' allows the chest penetration needed for the pole to rotate optimally even with a high grip), then the pull of the top arm (roughly in unison with the trail leg) is the same in all models!

Tim, I'm sure that you understand what I'm trying to say ... whether you agree with it or not. I know that you have the personal experience with the extreme C to understand my viewpoint. Could you possibly put this in your eloquent English, as per your last post? And clarify anything that I still don't "get"?

I believe that we're both trying to understand the 640 Model and its merits according to the Laws of Physics ... in relation to our own personal experience with our own "models". And I think it's possible to understand different models without agreeing with them. I'm trying ... but I don't think I'm quite there yet. You may be closer than me.

Kirk

[Tim McMichael]

It seems to me that if you pull this early (and if you're REALLY strong - in the extreme case), you'll pull yourself into a back uprise ... which is totally going to screw you up on the pole ... you'll slow the pole's rotation, and you'll stall out.

At this point in the vault energy is flowing into the pole. (A liquid metaphor is probably not accurate from a pure physics standpoint, but illustrative of what I mean.) At this point you have a dynamic system where energy is fluid. It is moving between the vaulter and the pole, and it has to take the path of least resistance. This means that no matter how hard you pull, you cannot do a back uprise, You will only accelerate your trail leg and increase the rotation of the pole. These are the only paths the energy can take.

What I don't get is how (in the 640 Model) the bottom arm needs to lead the top arm and trail leg in this quest. Why is that better than the top arm and trail leg initiating the whip, and the bottom arm THEN accelerating it?

I don't get it either. What you describe here is exactly what produced the best results for me. I pulled hard with the top arm to maximize the speed of my swing, then transferred the pull to the bottom arm to maximize the pole speed, then transferred back to the top hand at the end of the jump for that last couple of inches. I can't see how pulling with the bottom arm early gives you anything extra. The trail leg is linked to the top hand like a giant rubber band being stretched between two anchor points. It only makes sense to actuate the rebound from these ends.

During the downswing, the vaulter is not only swinging his trail leg down and forward, he's also transforming his body from a "C" to an upright "I" ... the "I" being when he passes the chord. It is at the chord that I think the top arm and trail leg should have already reached their max acceleration. This max acceleration is "the whip".

This is exactly my argument for the heretical idea that a tuck is not detrimental as long as it is done after that maximum swing speed is attained. The conservation of angular momentum is, after all, a law. This is relevant because it is also a fact that a lower COM causes the pole to rotate faster. It follows that the "I" position should be reached as late in the jump as possible. The later the vaulter covers the chord, the faster the pole rotates. The extreme "C" allows this to happen. The swing is more powerful, and the COM stays lower longer. The problem is that in the most extreme deep "C" vaults this means that a tuck is necessary or the pole is going to run off and leave you behind. I'm sorry to stray into this again. I can't help it. I want to add a point that I have not mentioned yet. Just food for thought that I have been chewing on for about two decades. After the pole starts to straighten, the chord is still rotating. The rotation is slowing because the chord is lengthening, but ideally you still have about five feet of penetration left to get to the bar. A tucked position keeps the COM low for that last bit of rotation, thus increasing pole speed. The reason Dial has the world record push off is not because he was so strong that he could just throw himself higher at the end of the jump. What he did have was the fastest pole speed in history. This is no exaggeration. When he was gripping 15'9" on a 17'4" 200, he was getting launched into the air like a rag doll. It was truly amazing to watch him blast 19'8" in practice with that grip on that pole. And he did this with an extreme tuck that left his hips well below his shoulders for almost the entire vault.

[Barto]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/phot ... 3414582896

That is a 13'9" pole. Grip ~13'1" bar at 14' (4.27m)

Take off was ~11'3

If you have ever seen Erica jump you are watching the best modern example of the "Dial Model".