Free Take-off???

[lonestar]

The bigest problem with the takeoff is not where you are at, but what you are doing....think about it.

Rick Baggett
WSTC LLC

Please elaborate. Your answer is intriguing but vague. Lets just assume everyone thought about it and still don't know or are not sure. Thanks

I certainly don't intend to answer for Rick, but here's my interpretation of it...

A person can be "on," "under," or "out" on a plumb-line drawn from top hand to takeoff. Just because they are on or out though doesn't mean they're going to have a good jump. If you are running off the ground, reaching for your step (even if it is on or out), not actively pushing upwards or finishing your takeoff by pushing off and following through with your trail-leg, it won't matter much where your step is. A person who takes off under, but is jumping up actively, extending and pushing their hands up actively, pushing off the runway (and or JUMPS) actively, and accelerated through their takeoff actively will probably jump higher than someone who was on or slightly outside that reached for takeoff, decelerated into takeoff, pulls down with their arms, picks their trail leg off, doesn't jump off the ground.

Look at a lot of the American vaulters of the 80's and 90's. Billy Olson, Brad Pursley, Scott Huffman, Dean Starkey, Joe Dial, Hartwig, etc. etc.... On a lot of their jumps they are "under" with regards to a plumb-line, but their takeoff was active and enabled them to jump some very impressive bars. Obviously if they could do the same things with a cleaner step they could exploit the advantages of taking off with an unloaded pole.

[vaultman18]

Thanks lonestar.

[altius]

As coaches we should remember that what is important is what the athlete is TRYING TO DO - that is determined by THEIR model of pole vaulting, that is if they have a model! This model - modified by their physical capacities and moderated yet again by the conditions for every specific jump - will determine the nature of their take off on any given jump . As I explained in BTB1, Bubka was 'under' on his winning jump in 88 because of the latter factor, not because he intended to take off in that way. He would have 'known' as he left the ground that he had a problem, and as film of the jump showed, he set out to 'intuitively' solve the problem -and save the jump.

So what was his notion of an ideal take off? At the Europeans in Munich in 2002 he made it absolutely clear to me that the first requirement was a STRAIGHT - therefore unloaded pole at take off. In Jamaica he had made it clear to anyone who was there and was listening, that he ALWAYS INTENDED to be in the air - if only by a few hundredths of a second - before the pole tip hit the back of the box. To achieve that does require a very dynamic take off at the end of a very fast and precise run - that is why he said he managed it only a few times in his career. One of those occasions is shown on the inside cover of BTB1 -a figure which because of its importance - is repeated again and again in BTB2.

Again as I have stated many times in this forum I use the term 'prejump' to describe Bubka's vision of the perfect take off and the term 'free take off' to describe what he usually managed to achieve. In my view, again stated in BTB1 a free take off could be viewed as a failed prejump!

While I cannot prove that is impossible to take off free when the vaulter is 'under' -I suggest that the further under the vaulter is the more difficult it becomes. So the first thing we should do is insist that young athletes do not take off under - no matter how many elite vaulters have jumped 'good' heights after taking off under. Here it may be worth remembering Petrovs exhortation on the stage at Reno a couple of years ago -"Stop thinking of 6.00 as a good height - start thinking of 6.10 and 6.15".

Finally may I point out that in all of the above I have only been the messenger. While there have been claims that I have misinterpreted the Petrov model I can only say that it is much easier to misinterpret ideas you have only read than something that is presented to you face to face - with the opportunity that gives you to ask for clarification.

[lonestar]

While I cannot prove that is impossible to take off free when the vaulter is 'under' - I suggest that the further under the vaulter is the more difficult it becomes. So the first thing we should do is insist that young athletes do not take off under - no matter how many elite vaulters have jumped 'good' heights after taking off under.

100% agree. I insist on that with every takeoff on every drill and every jump, every day. You MUST NOT be under!!!

I was trying to clarify a point of intentions in my previous post, but agree that it should not be acceptable to take off under, ever. Like Bubka adapted in the 1988 jump, I, through depth-perception taught myself to adapt to being a half-shoe under but extended and elastic enough in the arms to take off with an unloaded pole. Not the way to do it, shouldn't be taught, just saying that it is possible.

[baggettpv]

Yeah guys thats what I meant! I have a 12 year old girl that is learning to PV. Her skills are being developed to take off this way. My high school kids (come to me too late) tho what we are trying to do is maximize and hopefully change what they are doing...This is hard because new Motor skills have to be learned while some learned motor skills need to be extenquished. arggggg if they could have just all learned the same thing!

Rick Baggett
WSTC LLC

[polevaulter08nw]

great stuff, i enjoy reading about this as it is one of my main problems.

[8.19vault]

nice. free take off nice!!

[agapit]

Can the pole be bent before the take-off foot is off the ground?
>I don't think so. As I understand a free take-off the pole can not be in support of the ground at the same time as the vaulter. Hence the word "free"
(there can be varying degrees of a "not free take-off" as well as a "free take-off")

Can the a vaulter's step be under and still have free take-off?
>I feel it would be possible but not desirable. The hands could move back and adjust so as the pole is not in support but the vaulter would not be able to jump up and finish the take-off. This would severely shorten the swing.

I am interested to see what the rest of this board believes.

You are correct. There could be a free take-off (not having a resistance from the pole while on the ground) with a vaulter being “underâ€

[master]

Posted for PVstudent by master.

The discussions on free take-off and pre-jump evoked some considerable heat and controversy in another thread.

I would like to know if the readers consider these sequential frames from slow motion film of Bubka to show a Free Take-Off only, or do they show Bubka performing a Free Take Off with a Pre-Jump?

I am quite clear about what my perception is. If it is not a pre-jump then why do you consider it not to be so?

[golfdane]

Sweet, Master (PVStudent)!!!

My definition of a free take off: Leaving the ground before the pole begins to bend.

My definition of a pre jump: Have a free take-off AND an active take-off that increases the launch angle of the CoG.

[volteur]

Just a few bits.

Photo two shows the beginning of pressure into the pole. The down arrow points to his heel position which moves forward as it lifts and the straight line indicates his back line or spinal line. It would be helpful to have another marker for his toes but you can use the black dots in the background to line it up. The toe has not moved in all four photos except about an inch vertically by the final photo well after intial pole bend occurs.

This is a beautiful takeoff and an example of a free takeoff. I just think the maximal postural extension he achieves gives the impression of leaping upwards.

[baggettpv]

I have been at this coaching thing too long. Sure, you should not be in support of the ground and pole at the same time. You should be actively moving in a manner up onto the pole in as high as a manner as possible. Top hand should be as extended as much as the arm can handle......but geez... can we not come up with a consistant developmental pattern of skill progression that is most efficient (with remediation and modification) to create this? Or even a training progeswion to enable the youth of America to develop into solid technique performers. I think the development of the programs is the most important question out there for the folks. Trying to change someone with somewhat success at a later time is worthless.

Rick Baggett
WSTC LLC