19 PLUS
DAVE JOHNSTON
Copyright 1981
By: Dave Johnston
In 1970, Chris Pananiclaou made the first 18 foot pole vault. Our sights then turned to
19 feet. In 1975, when Dave Roberts made 18’ 6 ¼ , 19 plus became more of a reality.
In 1980, we saw more than twenty vaulters clear 18 feet and nine vaulters cleared
18’6 ½ or better. With the refinements that are now taking place in pole vaulting, at
least a dozen of those vaulters clearing 18 feet are capable of 19 feet plus.
The use of better equipment has been a contributing factor. The vaulter now
has greater confidence in his poles, he is gripping higher, using more speed, and utilizing
greater strength to his advantage.
More intense competition is a second factor. A height of 18 feet is now
common. If a vaulter is to be recognized, he must seek and obtain greater heights.
A third factor is the greater distribution of knowledge. Coaches and athletes are
sharing more of their ideas. Television, video, and film loops are common aids and are
analyzed more carefully.
If we are to continue out climb upward, we must now concentrate on a fourth
factor, the utilization of the knowledge we have gained. This means placing emphasis
on three major mechanical/technical areas.
The first of these areas is the “hang” position. When a vaulter grips higher it is
logical to assume that he must hang longer if he is to penetrate to the pit. Even though
this is a logical assumption there has been a great deal of confusion as to how this is
accomplished. Most of us are still thinking “swing” and we should be thinking “hang”.
There is a difference. This difference is of major importance. When the vaulter swings
there is a tendency to pass the pole too early. By doing this he loses his ability to move
the pole forward, or more aptly put, his ability to “penetrate” into the pit. Let me try
and explain further. When you shorten the body’s swing radius (tuck) and begin to
move into the rockback position, there is a decrease in forward pole velocity. We have
know for years that it was to our advantage to stay behind the pole, but it has only been
recently that these limits have been tested. It does not become necessary to change
our complete vault style, we just need to emphasis this area more. A longer lever (the
body) used properly can apply more force than a short lever. By hanging longer and
pushing the pole out in front of the body, the vaulter can swing/hang with the body in
an elongated position causing more force to be applied to the pole.
This is not a new concept. In earlier days vaulters using steel poles utilized this
technique. Earl Bell, who vaulted with fiberglass, demonstrated this type of technique
in 1975 by dripping the lead knee after take-off and swinging with a semi-double leg
action. This action was considered wrong at the time but in actually he was able to grip
higher and still obtain the needed “penetration” to make the pit. Other vaulters have
demonstrated the same technique, not necessarily by design but from necessity, with
positive results. Dave Roberts, in his world record vault of 18’6 ¼ in 1976, is another
example. After the initial take-off his lead knee dropped slightly, only to be pulled back
up later with the trailing leg. With the new array of successful European vaulters, the
examples could go on and on.
To help us further in forming a mental picture of this action, we should think of
the pole as a “bow” and the vaulter as the “arrow”. The vaulter nust hang and stabilize
himself behind (under) the “bow”. Even though there is still rotary movement around
the top hand the force generated should be put into the pole by using the bottom arm
as a “fulcrum”, pushing the pole forward into the pit (penetration). The pushing of the
pole forward has been described by some vaulters as giving the jumper the sensation of
rolling the pole (bow) into the pit. The top arm is being pushed forward and up towards
the crossbar, while the bottom arm is still keeping the body extended and away from
the pole. The higher the grip, the larger the “bow” ; the larger the “bow”, the greater
the amount of force that must be applied to get the “bow” to penetrate. Not only does
a vaulter have to possess good speed, good strength, and good plant technique, but he
must elongate the swing and force the pole in front of the body as long as possible…
“hang”.
This brings us to our second point. It is generally considered that the pole must
be moved to the side of the box to allow the vaulter room to swing and obtain the
rockedback position. Let us study this a little more carefully. When this happens, the
vaulter loses valuable force that should be applied to the pole, because the pole is no
longer going in the direction of the vaulter’s intended flight. By keeping the pole in
front of the vaulter and moving toward the pit, force can be applied longer and more
effectively. This extra amount of force will enable the vaulter to grip the pole higher,
hopefully producing higher vaults. Undoubtedly, this puts the vaulter in a very
precarious position, one that most vaulters had rather not think about. To perform this
action the vaulter must have confidence in his pole and in his own physical abilities.
This brings us to the third phase. The vaulter must come from a delayed “hang”
position, work around the pole and shoot into a vertical handstand position. This phase
has produced mixed results. When Dave Roberts made 18’6 ½”, he came off the pole at
a slight angle, crossing the bar in a parallel position instead of a vertical fly-away
position. This was an outcome of his hanging longer and having to work around the
pole. However, this is not a necessary outcome. We have seen more recently many of
the European vaulters doing the same or similar erratic action at the top of the vault.
Now that several vaulters have had an opportunity to work with the “hang” technique
they are solving many of the problems and performing more effectively and
consistently.
To perform more efficiently off the top of the pole the vaulter must first make
some adjustments. He must mentally see himself working around the pole, not vice-
versa. To work around the pole, the vaulter must rotate his shoulders and then his hips
up the axis of the pole. He must train and develop the timing necessary to perform this
action. This action bares many similarities to a gymnast performing on the high bar.
The gymnast kips and shoots to a handstand. A highly technical move, but in some
ways, very simple. The vaulter, on the other hand, must perform this move while the
pole is moving, which demands the action be perform with an exceptional amount of
speed and timing. It is necessary to program this action into the vaulter by repetitious
training. Repetition in the gymnastics room, working on the high bar, rope or the rings
is the first step. From there, repetitions vaulting will enable the vaulter to put things
together.
In its embryonic stages, this technique has had its drawbacks, but it also has
produced some amazing results as is indicated by the fact that in 1980, nine vaulters
cleared over 18’6 ½”, and even now, weekly attempts are being made at 19 feet.
PVP
Good Morning,
I though I would share my “opinion” of the vault as I saw it in the late 70’s and early 80,81’…
This was published in the British Athletics Journal in early ’81 and later by Track Technique Annual ’81 by TAFNEWS PRESS.
My vocabulary was slightly different than today because of “new” terms but hopefully the “gist” of my points are understandable.
I have “retyped it”, unedited and unchanged from the original (the original was on a type writer. lol ; ) yes dirt and I are running neck and neck for age…
Though I would share and “lay it out there” form some productive technical discussion.
dj
Ps.. I must say this, when I came back to the states from my travels (82-83) I was having a discussion with a vault “expert” and he was telling me about this “new” emphasis of “hang” that he read about (he didn’t know It was my article because Track and Field News had another Dave Johnson) and how he had started to coach the vaulters to “hang and drive longer”!! Actually instead of being excited I realized he had over emphasized/interpreted something that could actually create issues. That is when I realized that my writing would be “in others eyes” and not necessarily in my own. If I had a message I thought I needed to relay to other coaches I needed to do it first hand in person..
So.. discussion would be great here….. I’m sure we will “re-live” other discussions but maybe this will help us “summarize” all the models into .. in my minds eye..
RUN-PLANT-SWING
