Pole Vault Manifesto

[agapit]

Pole Vault Manifesto
Future world record holders
Be aware

It has happened already. The 6.40 (21 ft.) horizon for men and 5.50 (18 ft.) horizon for women are open.

When Scott Huffman told me in 1997 that after observing Ockert Britz's performance in Europe he was convinced that Ockert will set a WR that year. By the way, Ockert is one of the noted pillars of modern pole vaulting. I told Scott that in order for Ockert to set WR he would need to drastically amend his vaulting model or start running at 10.2 m/s at the take-off point. We actually bet on it. However, I would like the uncollected winnings of the bet to go towards our good memories and our friendship.

When Tim Lobinger, by the way another noted pillar of modern pole vaulting, first vaulted 6m setting German National Record, Bubka created a controversy by saying that 6m mark was a historic achievement for the previous decade.

Bubka and Petrov opened the new horizon in modern pole vaulting, however like most pioneers, without the full realization of their remarkable achievement.

The 6.40 Model so far has produced 6.15, however most experts at the time agreed that 6.30 and even 6.40 was a real possibility. It is possible, that Bubka’s comment regarding Tim Lobinger’s achievement was a result of his awareness of possibilities and past expectations realized by Bubka 10 years earlier. Unfortunately, Bubka did not pursue aggressive record setting beyond early 90s, perhaps due to his preoccupation with PR and business projects. But even at 36 years of age, far away from his top physical performance he showed potential of the new model by a stellar win of his 6th in a row World Title in Athens 1997.

The current 6.05 Model has consistently produced 5.90 and on special occasions 6.00-6.05.

It is absolutely surprising, that the 6.40 Model is a complete mystery for the vaulters despite of its debut in the mid 80s of the past century, more than 20 years ago.

We observed in the mid 80s all vaulters slowly change to a vertical pole carry “introduced” by Bubka. In the late 80s early 90s we observed several vaulters switching to “Free Take off” (Tarasov, Gataulin, Trandenkov followed by many). In the late 90s we have attempted to switch to the 6.40 Model with Lawrence Johnson, however due to different obstacles it was only partially successful. In 2004 the current Olympic Champion Tim Mack and Silver Medal Winner Toby Stevenson both showed glimpses of the 6.40 Model, however no one since Bubka completely realized or took full advantage of the 6.40 Model.

Understanding of the 6.40 Model requires some unconventional thinking, where conventional views are questioned, analyzed dismissed or reassessed.


The 6.40 Model Framework


Energy.
The height clearance in pole vault directly depends on the amount of energy generated by a vaulter minus energy loses on friction. The total energy is generated in two phases; ground phase where the energy is reflected in the amount of speed and off-the-ground phase where energy generated by a vaulter's upper body and is difficult to measure without special video equipment and tenso-box weight measuring equipment.

Time.
The time of the second off-the-ground phase in witch the energy could be generated is limited (~1.4sec) and in large predetermined by the grip height on the pole.

Power.
In any given attempt, a vaulter can generate limited amount of energy during the second phase. The energy predetermined by the current physical ability of a vaulter to produce a pick power output multiplied by the limited duration of the second phase. Pick power output is a variable and can be increased through training.

Active Phase.
An active phase is a phase during witch a vaulter adds energy to the vaulter-pole system.

Passive Phase.
A passive phase is a phase during which a vaulter redistributes existing energy within vaulter-pole system without adding energy to the system.

Plant.
The purpose of the plant is to put a pole with minimum energy loses in the position at the take-off where a vaulter will not experience pole resistance during the take-off.

“Free Take off”.
Take-off during witch the vaulter does not experience pole resistance is a free take-off.

“Free Pole Drop”.
“Free Pole Drop” serves two purposes. It eliminates pole gravity resistance on a vaulters body during the run-up allowing speed maximization and allows the bottom of the pole to descend into the box at the time for completion of the “free take-off”.

Auto Feedback.
The auto feedback is an essential part of the 6.40 Model and it occurs when increase in energy output by a vaulter directly leads to a desired outcome (higher bar clearance). This process creates subconscious demand for a higher physical output by a vaulter and is absolutely essential part in training process of 6.40 Model.

Continuous Chain.
The continuous chain concept is a concept that constructs a pole vault model without any passive phases and is the core of 6.40 Model.

Height Clearance.
The height clearance consists of two variables; grip on the pole and the “push” (the distance between the grip on the vertical pole and the bar).

Optimal Grip.
In any given attempt there is a unique optimal grip height on the pole. When the optimal grip height is exceeded it increases passive phases decreasing total energy output and subsequently decreasing the clearance height. However, optimal grip height is a variable that can be increased through training.

Pull-Push Phase.
Pull-push arm phase begins immediately after the take off and ends upon release of the pole. The pull-push phase is a one continuous action and it replaces all off-the-ground phases of the 6.05 Model (hang, chest penetration, left arm push, rowing, rock back, pull through and all other technical variations).

Take-off angle.
In a long jump the take-off angle is individual for each jumper. In long jump the optimal take-off angle is determined by balancing between benefits of a larger take off angle (45 angle in vacuum) and speed loss that occurs during the angle generation. In pole vault the balance is between three components; the larger take-off angle, speed loss and minimization of passive phases. There will never be an answer of what the exact take-off angle should be. It is individual not only for each vaulter, but for a particular attempt. However, there are more benefits in preserving the speed in pole vault allowing the pole to lift the body of a vaulter after take-off because this type of lift generates less friction forces than leg-ground system would generate to achieve the same take-off angle. So we expect for the take-off angle to be flatter in pole vault than in long jump and the determining balance will be between the take-off angle and minimization of passive phases, where flatter take-off angle leads to increase of passive phases.

Natural Swing.
The natural swing of the body in any model begins immediately after the take off foot leaves the ground. In 6.40 Model the natural swing is enhanced through an immediate pull-push phase.


The Core Advantages

1. Free take-off allows for a grip and pole stiffness increase avoiding shoulder, back and hamstring injuries. This is essential for sport longevity and creating positive auto feedback between physical input and performance outcome.
2. Free take-off allows maximization of the effectiveness of the jump and delaying of the natural swing.
3. Immediate pull-push action increases the energy generated through the natural swing.
4. Streamlining of the model allows for a consistent performance during superior physical outputs such as during adrenaline rush, hype and similar conditions by creating instant positive auto feedback between the physical input and performance outcome.

It has been difficult for people to recognize and comprehend elements of the 6.40 Model because people are looking at outcomes produced by a vaulter not the intentions of a vaulter. For example, there could never be a vault without passive phases or with an immediate pull-push action, but certainly that is what any vaulter should attempt to do and train.

Training

The important difference in training of the 6.40 Model is that a vaulter would train only active phases with an intention to eliminate passive phases completely. The passive phases do not have to be trained at all instead all precautions have to be taken to avoid any kinetic or psychological reminders of passive phases.

Common Passive Phases

1. Pushing pole with the left arm. This is done for only one reason to redistribute kinetic energy stored in the vaulter’s body to the bend of the pole. This action does increase the bend of the pole therefore allowing for further penetration of the vaulter-pole system towards vertical. However, this action inherently cannot ad any energy to the vaulter-pole system. Here is the trap. For many people the connection between the final energy of the vaulter-pole system and the final clearance height is not obvious. Pushing the pole with the left arm obviously takes precious time from already limited time of the second phase. The lost time equals the lost energy in the second phase. For a second imagine a swing on the rope where instead of pulling with left arm and then right arm a vaulter would do nothing or push against the rope. A vaulter that is being introduced to the 6.40 Model can easily imitate a correct pull-push action on the rope, but would swear that it cannot be done on the pole. The truth is, this is exactly what should be attempted on the pole. If a vaulter tries to do it on say 10-foot grip it would be easy, but difficulty to imagine the same action on the competition grip send shivers through the vaulter’s nerves. When I realized this in 1985 it did send shivers through my nerves. However, this is exactly the reason why Bubka says that the left arm does not bend the pole but the kinetic energy on the vaulter-pole system bends the pole. Do not waste your time pushing the pole with the left arm and avoid any references or reminders of it in training or imitations. For this very reason using a sliding box reinforces this error. I would avoid sliding box exercises.

2. Lowering of the right leg after take-off is another passive phase. Yury Volkov, one of the most accomplished coaches (somewhere over thirty 18ft vaulters during 70s, 80s, 90s and even 2000 Olympics Vaulter from Mexico, including world record holder Vladimir Poliakov, Konstantin Volkov Silver Medal at Moscow Olympic Games, Vladimir Krupsky (5.80 in 1982), Denis Petushinsky, founding of Donetsk Vaulting School, Irkutsk (Famous Siberian) Vaulting School, Kiev Vaulting School, most extensive database of vault exercises, swears by the need to lower right leg after the take-off. Current Olympic Silver Medal Winner Toby Stevenson does lower the leg, Billy Olson was lowering the leg, Igor Potapovich was lowering the leg and there are some other examples. I have studied this for almost 20 years and I am still not sure. I must say that Yury Volkov attempted to coach almost every athlete to do this action and none did it on purpose. Yury Volkov told me once that his friend an accomplished mechanic engineer built a mathematical model of the vault and the lowering of the right leg was a very beneficial action for the pole penetration. I agree with that, however, at the same time this action interrupts natural swing redistributing energy to the pole bend and showing lose of the vertical speed of the system center of gravity (the most important variable in determining the final clearance height). This speed must be picked up on the way and according to my calculations and observations increase in penetration (grip) does not justify the lost of the vertical speed. So I must say that I lean against this passive phase as a training objective, however at times I did it myself as a compensatory action much like I pushed the pole with the left arm on occasion. Toby Stevenson cleared 6m like that compensating to achieve higher grip. I must say that in the long run, thinking about 6.40, this could be an excessive action that would prevent energy maximization.

3. Achieving an upside down position during the rock back, falling back on the shoulders, and beginning the pull with the right arm. This action could not even exist in the real vault, so why train it. If it did exist you must assume that the vaulter vertical speed is equal to the pole recoil speed (Sep 27th, 2007. I must clarify this by saying that the center of gravity must move faster than it would if the only force that contributed to the vertical speed of the COG was the force of the recoiling pole. This is where the action of the vaulter contributes additional energy beyond the recoiling force of the pole. Obviously having a moment of tension in the right arm does not produce additional energy, it receives the energy from the pole. Well the interesting thing is that the right arm would receive the same amount of energy from the pole whether it is straight or flexing inputting more energy into the system and increasing the vertical speed of the Center of Gravity). This may pass for 5.80 but will not even come close on 6.40. The center of gravity must move faster than recoiling pole. This is when vaulters report that they were working ahead of the pole. Actions similar to so-called “pocket” or getting tension in the right arm are absolutely unfounded. Look at the American Record Holder Scott Huffman and his Famous “Huffman Roll”. Scott never got completely upside-down, but he was always working ahead of the pole. So did Bubka in his famous third 1988 Seoul Olympic Games ugly, but Gold Attempt at 5.90.

4. Chest penetration is a compensatory action that redistributes rather than creates energy in the system. It helps pole penetration, but it does delay pull-push and for this reason alone must be abandoned if a vaulter inspire to ever clear a world record height (for men) or 5.20 (17 ft) for women.

Hard Ball

Perhaps you begin to see the light and appreciate the absolute psychological horror of the 6.40 Model and required continuous energy input action on the pole in order to clear the World Record Height.

This requires remarkable movement consistency, pure athletism and pure faith in laws of mechanics.

LEAGAL DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT ANY OF THIS WITHOUT PROPER COACHING SUPERVISION. IT MAY REQUIRE SEVERAL YEARS OF CONTINUOUS TRAINING BEFORE DESCRIBED IN THIS MANIFESTO METHOD COULD BE PERFORMED BY ANYONE.

More to follow…

agapit

[ladyvolspvcoach]

Excellent post! I have been familiar with the Continuous Chain Method for some time now, thanks to Roman Batcharnakov.

[VaultBrad]

awesome post! i have, since i saw alan launder andd vitaly petrov speak in reno, switched the way i think about the vault to the 6.40 method, so that when i begin to vault again i can train my body to do so. i really like the "continuous chain" concept, it makes so much sense.

[Erica]

This is a great post and reinforces everything I am coached to do, everything I attempt to do, and everything I try to discourage when I talk to vaulters about vaulting (getting "vertical," staying down and driving the chest forward.)

IT MAY REQUIRE SEVERAL YEARS OF CONTINUOUS TRAINING BEFORE DESCRIBED IN THIS MANIFESTO METHOD COULD BE PERFORMED BY ANYONE

My only question is how many years is "several"?

[wacky274]

I am very interested in hearing more about this, where can I find more information?

[wakesurfvault]

So are you saying that getting vertical is bad??? 'Cause if so, that makes absolutely no sence to me.

[Erica]

If you look at #3 under common passive phases, it talks about "vertical" a little bit, but may not be very clear on why it is not desirable to attempt to do this. When a vaulter slows their forward and upward momentum in order to "get back" or "drop to the shoulders" they have a passive phase in which they must then wait for the pole to lift them while they are in that "vertical" position.

If more focus is put on generating speed and power at the takeoff with the correct angle, and contunuing and maintaining that speed through the entire vault, there will be much more upward progress and continuation of that progess, resulting in a higher vault. Many elite vaulters can make it look like they are getting completely vertical, but this is the result of the angle and the momentum generated at takeoff and continued through the swing. It is not because of an attemp to get upsidedown. Like the article mentioned, there are elite vaulters that obviously don't get upside down, and it does not limit them. Look at video of Markov and Feofanova.

So basically, try to generate as much momentum as possible so that when you swing your feet are higher in the air with more momentum behind you, instead of trying to get to your back and wait to be lifted.

[USMC Vaulter]

Did anyone else notice the following two things

Toby Stevenson cleared 6m like that compensating to achieve higher grip. I must say that in the long run, thinking about 6.40, this could be an excessive action that would prevent energy maximization.

and
[quote="Agapit"]Look at the American Record Holder Scott Huffman and his Famous “Huffman Rollâ€Â

[wakesurfvault]

So basically it's not an actual attempt to get to "vertical" its just the momentum generated from the swing that carries them to vertical. Is that what you're saying??

[ladyvolspvcoach]

Check out this link. It should help clearify some of the confusion. http://www.neovault.com/article_launder1.asp

[agapit]

So are you saying that getting vertical is bad??? 'Cause if so, that makes absolutely no sence to me.

I do not say that getting vertical is bad. I say that that center of gravity should rise faster than pole recoil.

A lot of thinking...

[agapit]

This is a great post and reinforces everything I am coached to do, everything I attempt to do, and everything I try to discourage when I talk to vaulters about vaulting (getting "vertical," staying down and driving the chest forward.)

IT MAY REQUIRE SEVERAL YEARS OF CONTINUOUS TRAINING BEFORE DESCRIBED IN THIS MANIFESTO METHOD COULD BE PERFORMED BY ANYONE

My only question is how many years is "several"?

Usualy 18-24 months is sufficient.