Effective Clearance?

[lonestar]

They will also see that a take off which is under - again approximately 80% of vaulters - must have a negative effect on the swing and therefore the efficiency of the jump.

Just 80%??? Damn Alan, I think you're being generous!

[dj]

I know that the revisionist historians out there will immediately claim that this has all been 'common knowledge' for at least the last fifty years. If this is so I will simply ask, 'why those experts have not been spreading the word all this time and so preventing the vast majority of young vaulters from going down technical dead ends?' IE Taking off under, taking off flat, not finishing the take off in their haste to invert, swinging into a tight tuck under the pole, etc!

good morning

Taken from the petrov article that becca posted………..



Take-off and penetration

The efficiency of this phase depends on the vaulter’s skill in the drop/take-off junction, on whether he is able to begin the push before the pole is set against the box. The pole must be smoothly transferred to the plant position when the vertical take-off plane is crossed. The technically correct movement demonstrates the right acceleration of the pole by the moment the vaulter reaches the vertical take-off plane.

The left arm is not trying to bend the pole; it plants it firmly towards the bar and then transfers the effort to the right hand, so that the pole is bent by the impact of the vaulter’s speed and mass. The vaulter, alert to the resilience of the pole, must perform all the subsequent actions on the pole as on a rigid support.

The primary purposes of the support-pushing part of the jump are as follows:

1. to perform the drop and plant with minimal losses in horizontal speed at the angle of 20-22º, i.e. at a tangent to the future swing on the pole;

2. maximum transfer of kinetic energy to the pole by means of the impact made by the “pivotalâ€Â

[altius]

GOOOOOD MORNNNING VIEEEETN............! Sorry -- wrong war!

Because I must get the finished proofs of "Beginner to Bubka and Isinbayeva too!" to the printer by Friday of this week I do not have the time at this minute to answer the issues and questions dj poses. However I will try to get a decent response together at the weekend. If before then, dj, you could specifically clarify the aspects of the Petrov/Bubka model that you believe I have misinterpreted it would be helpful. At the moment I feel as though I am trying to deal with a cloud of mist.

[colby41]

good luck with finishing the book...

we're all anticipating great things!!!

[altius]

" If before then, dj, you could specifically clarify the aspects of the Petrov/Bubka model that you believe I have misinterpreted it would be helpful. At the moment I feel as though I am trying to deal with a cloud of mist." ?????????

[dj]

good morning

The importance of the swing to modern vaulting was dealt with in some detail in Chapter 21 of BTB - it will be revisited in greater detail in the new version of that book. However in essence the swing is the key to flexible pole vaulting - as it was in the stiff pole era. In fact it would appear that Petrov gained many of his critical insights from study of stiff pole vaulters, especially Warmerdam. Among several important insights, the latter said, "So the vault becomes a giant swing carried on and on" and "Novice and expert alike will profit in coordinating their efforts into one action of a giant swing". The swing is critical because stiff pole vaulters clearly could not store energy in the pole and had to use a continuous chain model of energy input/technique to keep the pole moving forward.

Given that elite stiff pole vaulters could manage a differential of 30 inches -and Doherty quotes 39 inches for the best he knew of - clearly the swing was a major factor in the overall success of the jump.

Unfortunately when the flexible pole arrived vaulters became obsessed with bending it - not driving it up and forward as the stiff polers had to do.

The above is not a correct statement.

So as I suggested in BTB, coaches would do well to think of the flexible pole as simply an infinite series of straight poles – (I think this was said by petrov) first shortening and then extending through the vault - and build the key elements of straight pole technique into their methods. This means a take off which is out not under, a long whipping swing, and a shortening of the body - but not a tuck -as they continue the swing into inversion.

Alan

This thread was about “effective bar clearanceâ€Â

[HHSPVCoach]

Wow! I had to look back at the first post in this thread to remember what it even started being about. Now it's rapidly turning into a slamfest. Becca, can we put a stop to this one before it gets any worse?

BTW, PR is 12'6" (way back when) holding about 12'6", so only about a 8" push, but hey at least it's on the positive side. One of the college kids I coach now has about a 30" push, I'm quite proud of that one.

[PVDad2]

I would very much like to continue the discussion about the relationship between the swing-up and the "push-off". For me, this is like a new revelation that somehow the height-over-grip distance has its roots in the swing-up. I want to know how important this is in getting the vaulter to jump higher in this phase. I had always considered that the pushoff had to do with the technique of getting closer to the pole/staying as close to the chord of the pole and a relation of the vaulter jumping on lower flexs (unbending more quickly/powerfully to lift the vaulter). And if a significant part of the flyaway is attributable to the speed/power of the sing-up, what can a vaulter do to better expoit that?

[altius]

Yes it is off topic folks but I hope you will understand that I cant let the last post by dj go unchallenged. Note my first post was on topic because as dj rightly pointed out the swing is the critical factor in ensuring a good differential -ie an effective clearance as defined above.

Well there are gaps in the mist now so it is possible to identify the issues a bit more clearly. However post modern deconstructionists argue that it is always the reader who gives meaning to the written word – not the writer. This means of course that everything I write will be interpreted by every reader in the way that best suits them, their beliefs and their prejudices – so no matter what I write I am likely to be misinterpreted by someone! Of course this happens to every writer and it has certainly happened to Petrov, whose material always has to be translated from Russian or Italian in the first place – leaving even more possibilities for misunderstanding!

In fact one reason that I feel confident to act as a messenger for Vitali is that both I and my offsider John Gormley – a biomechanist by trade incidentally - have spend a fair amount of time with him, both in Australia and overseas. I have also been fortunate to spend time with Bubka discussing major issues of technique as well as watching Alex Parnov, Roman Botcharnikov, Maurice Houvion and Andre Krysinski--- working as coaches. This personal contact goes a long way to resolving the inevitable misunderstandings that can occur when reading any material - as I suggested above.

dj asks does Petrov endorse my ideas? Well since they are his ideas in the first place, he should! What evidence do I have – well at Reno 05 he asked for two copies of BTB and when I next met him he thanked for getting his ideas out to a wider audience – as he said his poor written English prevented him from doing so. What else – well in Nov 06 he gave me four video tapes of his gymnastic program and asked me to produce a dvd for sale to anyone who wanted it - that was done, as Sean Brown can testify. Next he gave me a copy of his gymnastics book which had been poorly translated into English and asked me to rewrite it for him. –not sure that will ever be done! Finally – only in the context of acceptance/endorsement – when I left Formia in November 07 he insisted on paying for my rail ticket, and before I left he kissed me on both cheeks - just the European fashion folks – gave me a big hug and thanked me for supporting his ideas. Endorsement?? I suppose it depends on where the reader is coming from!

Now to BTB – it seems to have caused some angst among several US coaches even tho it has sold in Russia/Iceland/ France/ Taiwan/ Japan etc etc. and been well received. However note that if I had thought it was that great why would I bother to rewrite it -I could have simply done a reprint!! Anyway that is done now and 1000 times better. However I would suggest that anyone who wants to chip me about my promotion of it should try investing 25K and 1500 plus hours of work to write a book – give it a go – no one is stopping you. However a word of warning – While you can throw stuff together on PVP in the certain knowledge that within a few weeks the topic will be passé and few people are going to read it that critically anyway – and besides if you like you can change your opinion and say something else a month later. YOU CANT DO THAT WITH A BOOK – what you have said is what you have said! There is no chance to come back and say -well I didn’t quite mean that!!

OH – why was the book written? Well after watching many youngsters put themselves in danger at 3 Summits in a row and then learning of the three unfortunate deaths in the US a few years ago I felt I needed to put something forward -in part because my good friend Steve Chappell was worried that the event could die in high schools if things were not done.

To more immediate issues. If you read my first post you will see it was supporting the importance of the swing - it was your post dj, that raised this – but I was supporting what you had said. I was simply pointing out that the idea came from the stiff pole era -they had no choice but to swing hard –and that one of Petrov’s great contributions was that he saw those principles could be transferred to the flexible pole. Here I must say that whatever you may claim dj there is very little evidence to support the notion that US coaches and athletes understood these ideas before Petrov. I have repeatedly asked for evidence –film of athletes –writings by coaches - and all I have seen is one quote you provided from Guy Kochel. I thanked you for that but asked for more if you recall -I would certainly like the name of the book it came from.

Re definitions. I never invented the term “the free take offâ€Â

[altius]

Sorry November 06!

[ladyvolspvcoach]

PVDad2 off the ground the "swing" is the only way to continuously put energy into the vaulter/pole system. So it is critical to the developing a differential at release. You also have to roll your hip into the top hand in order not to let gravity grap your feet and legs and pull them away from the pole. Of all the 6 meter vaulters Tim Mack had the largest differential. You might want to take a look at some of his jumps particularlly his 590 at the trials in '04.

Additionally, there seems to be (at least) two camps with respect to understanding the purpose of and action of the bending pole. If I applied 150lbs of dead weight to a 15 150 and bent it 30%, then released it. It would only elevate the dead weight about 8 (maybe) inches. So the pole isn't actually "throwing" (ok you said lifting) the athlete. Basically it is simply reducing the vaulter's weight somewhat enabling him/her more easily move up the pole!

[ladyvolspvcoach]

PVDad2 off the ground the "swing" is the only way to continuously put energy into the vaulter/pole system. So it is critical to the developing a differential at release. As you've said you also have to roll your hip into the top hand in order not to let gravity grap your feet and legs and pull them away from the pole. Of all the 6 meter vaulters Tim Mack had the largest differential. You might want to take a look at some of his jumps particularlly his 590 at the trials in '04.

Additionally, there seems to be (at least) two camps with respect to understanding the purpose of and action of the bending pole. If I applied 150lbs of dead weight to a 15 150 and bent it 30%, then released it. It would only elevate the dead weight about 8 (maybe) inches. So the pole isn't actually "throwing" (ok you said lifting) the athlete. Basically it is simply reducing the vaulter's weight somewhat enabling him/her more easily move up the pole!