PoleVaultPower.com

I'm writing this post out of recent ponderings about the vault. We always say that vaulters need to be strong, fast, kinesthetically aware, etc. But when? Do we need to be kinesthetically aware on the runway? Do we need to be fast when we're inverted? These could be argued. Nevertheless, the athletic characteristic "strength" does come into play pretty heavily in certain parts of the vault, the swing for example. However I believe the role of strength in the plant is very misunderstood.

We vaulters tend to make assumptions about the sport and sometimes never delve deeper to figure out the intricate workings. This is exemplified by the majority of us limiting ourselves by not using the 6.40 model for the last 50 years. Another feature of the vault which I believe is greatly overlooked is the role of shoulder flexion (NOT PUSHING UP ON THE POLE, that is a combination of shoulder adduction and extension) following takeoff. At plant a great amount of energy is directed back toward the vaulter through the pole into the hands. We used to refer to this as getting into "the pocket" but this term has become synonymous with a passive takeoff, so could call it the hang drive if you want, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you understand that this force must be resisted by the shoulder flexors (and to an extent the elbow flexors) or else you'll get clothes-lined something fierce and probably end up on your back in the box (if you want to try this just run down the runway and plant and go completely limp except for your hand muscles). Up to this point I believe most people tend to agree with what I just wrote.

HOWEVER, any powerful movement using the amorisation phase and conversion of kinetic energy into elastic energy is subject to muscle dampening and therefore energy loss. If a vaulter is not strong enough in his/her shoulder flexors to resist the pole, there will be an overstretch of the anterior muscles, energy will bleed out of the system, and a powerful elastic rebound will become impossible(Think about trying to do a depth jump off of an 8 foot platform compared to a 18" box, which jump do you think will be higher?). This is common in younger vaulters and I believe is a reason why certain coaches are flabbergasted about why their vaulters can't swing well even when they run fast, plant tall and takeoff on. The truth is the vaulter is probably too weak. If you can't resist a force strongly, then it will take longer to slow it down and consequently it will take longer to accelerate in the positive direction (in this case shoulder flexion). In the pole vault we don't have the luxury of time.

This is where I'm gonna get a bit radical. I believe that the role of isometric exercise for the shoulder flexors could be of great help here. Since isometric exercise is not subject to the proprioceptive inhibition that dynamic work is, much greater force can be developed. This can be helpful in the development of starting strength and eccentric strength as well. Some limitations are that it has regional specificity, meaning it only strengthens a small ROM, and can also hinder concentric speed of movement. However due to the very small range of motion the shoulders go though prior to the initiation of the swing, and the relative "slowness" of it (compared to the speed in terms of degrees/second that throwing a baseball takes) I believe these limitations are inconsequential. Therefore, isometric strength training in the relevant joint angles for the plant could assist in slowing down the speed of eccentric movement which in turn shortens the range of motion which increases the amount of kinetic energy converted to elastic energy and speeds up the concentric portion. This will greatly speed up the beginning of the swing and everything that follows.

A few more benefits of training the shoulder flexors isometrically rather than dynamically are:
1. Isometrics tend to result in less mass gains.
2. Isometrics do not take as much time (one set of 6 second reps with about 5-10 seconds of rest in between reps is generally accepted as sufficient)
3. Isometrics expend less energy than dynamics.
4. Isometrics result in less muscle soreness.

EIUvltr wrote: ... this force must be resisted by the shoulder flexors (and to an extent the elbow flexors) or else you'll get clothes-lined something fierce and probably end up on your back in the box (if you want to try this just run down the runway and plant and go completely limp except for your hand muscles). Up to this point I believe most people tend to agree with what I just wrote.

HOWEVER, any powerful movement using the amorisation phase and conversion of kinetic energy into elastic energy is subject to muscle dampening and therefore energy loss. If a vaulter is not strong enough in his/her shoulder flexors to resist the pole, there will be an overstretch of the anterior muscles, energy will bleed out of the system, and a powerful elastic rebound will become impossible ...

I'm not buying any of this. Maybe I don't understand, but I didn't resist by the shoulder flexors and I never got clothes-lined ... and I never ended up on my back in the box.

Since I don't agree with your first paragraph, I can't agree with the second one ... which is dependent on the first. I do understand that you're a 640 Model proponent ... and your thoughts align with that. However, if you don't agree with the 640 Model premise that you should swing immediately upon takeoff (takeoff foot leaving the ground) ... then the rest of your assertion doesn't hold water.

Anyone targetting the pre-stretch ... letting the chest drive in whilst your body passes thru the C ... will have experienced that you just need to squeeze your top hand on the pole, and your swing will start when the top arm is stretched all the way back. I suggest that any attempt at [prematurely] resisting during the pre-stretch is what will cause leakage ... which is the exact opposite of what you're saying. It's better to let your fully extended top arm "hit" at the C.

Just my opinion.

Kirk

I guarantee you that if you somehow hooked up an electromyography machine to yourself, you would find a lot of activity going on all over your body at takeoff. I believe that if you are strong enough and a good vaulter, then this will become involuntary which is probably why you never noticed that you did it. A hard body will store energy more efficiently than a lax one, so if you hit takeoff with your shoulders completely relaxed there will absolutely be leakage.

EIUvltr wrote:I guarantee you that if you somehow hooked up an electromyography machine to yourself, you would find a lot of activity going on all over your body at takeoff. I believe that if you are strong enough and a good vaulter, then this will become involuntary which is probably why you never noticed that you did it. A hard body will store energy more efficiently than a lax one, so if you hit takeoff with your shoulders completely relaxed there will absolutely be leakage.

Can't argue with that ... much. My main point is that the "hit" that the top shoulder takes (or should take) is more efficient if it's at the C ... and not on takeoff. That is, the resistance with the top shoulder should be "just hanging on and squeezing" ... rather than preventing the shoulder from driving thru. If you want to minimize leakage, that is.

Kirk

could you clarify what you mean by "Top shoulder?"

Yeah, not so sure I follow everything you are saying EIUvltr. There's always gong to be a loss of energy in the vault. You obviously want to minimize it, but not to the point of giving up the most powerful position in the vault, The "reverse C" position in the take-off. You must move at the shoulders to attain this REQUIRED position at take-off:

superpipe wrote:Yeah, not so sure I follow everything you are saying EIUvltr. There's always gong to be a loss of energy in the vault. You obviously want to minimize it, but not to the point of giving up the most powerful position in the vault, The "reverse C" position in the take-off. You must move at the shoulders to attain this REQUIRED position at take-off:

I absolutely agree. However just like everything else, there can be too much or too little of something. Many young vaulters simply cannot summon the strength to eccentrically resist the pole at takeoff and get into a correct Reverse C. They may LOOK like they are in one since their joints are at the correct angles, but due to insufficient strength, much of the energy will have already left the system before the concentric portion of the swing begins.

Let me take this opportunity to say that I do believe there are more muscles at work at this point in the vault than just the shoulder flexors. I realize that a strong static contraction of practically every muscle on the anterior portion of the body has a LOT to do with the effectiveness of the storage of elastic energy. BUT, I do believe that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I believe that link is the shoulder flexors in a lot of athletes.

Nikonov and Verkhoshansky found that with an increase in proficiency in the pole vault, the rate of strengthening of the shoulder flexors increased and the rate of strengthening of the elbow extensors decreased. This implies that there must be some overloading of the shoulder flexors in the vault which means there is no way they can just be passively stretched after takeoff.

EIUvltr wrote:

superpipe wrote:Yeah, not so sure I follow everything you are saying EIUvltr. There's always gong to be a loss of energy in the vault. You obviously want to minimize it, but not to the point of giving up the most powerful position in the vault, The "reverse C" position in the take-off. You must move at the shoulders to attain this REQUIRED position at take-off:

I absolutely agree. However just like everything else, there can be too much or too little of something. Many young vaulters simply cannot summon the strength to eccentrically resist the pole at takeoff and get into a correct Reverse C. They may LOOK like they are in one since their joints are at the correct angles, but due to insufficient strength, much of the energy will have already left the system before the concentric portion of the swing begins.

Let me take this opportunity to say that I do believe there are more muscles at work at this point in the vault than just the shoulder flexors. I realize that a strong static contraction of practically every muscle on the anterior portion of the body has a LOT to do with the effectiveness of the storage of elastic energy. BUT, I do believe that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I believe that link is the shoulder flexors in a lot of athletes.

Nikonov and Verkhoshansky found that with an increase in proficiency in the pole vault, the rate of strengthening of the shoulder flexors increased and the rate of strengthening of the elbow extensors decreased. This implies that there must be some overloading of the shoulder flexors in the vault which means there is no way they can just be passively stretched after takeoff.

I 100% agree with you. Most young vaulters lack sufficient overall strength, especially in the legs, to learn the pole vault properly and efficiently. I feel very strongly about overall strength conditioning, especially the legs and core, is a requirement to seriously learn the vault. This will allow the technique to be learned much more efficiently, if at all for some aspects of technique. There's obviously a balance. You must focus more on technique, but realize that vaulting alone will not give you the strength levels to allow you to be more technically efficient.

I want to bring up an important point, Roman talked about trying to swing as soon as possible due to delays etc. in the vault. If you had someone toss you a med-ball above your head and you had to catch it and throw it back as soon as possible, would your arms not go back pretty far to try to whip it back? The only way to prevent the arms from going back it to tense them prematurely anticipating the impact of the ball, the only problem is that you would have a difficult time trying to throw the ball back. Now if you are 180lb and running 9.8MPS at takeoff, and have a free takeoff with the correct arm position- I am going out on a limb and say that by the time you realize you are in the air you are probably in a fully extended "C" position and it is time to swing. So for athletes who are highly trained and have done thousands of reps practicing a correct free takeoff, I would think that to them it will feel as if they need to swing as soon as possible. I myself have been close to a true free takeoff maybe 3-4 times, and each time there is this weird feeling of "Ok I have to swing now", because you don't feel the force of the pole and the need to fight throught it. Kind of catches you off guard.

Also worth noting as that the time between takeoff and swing seemed to decrease through out Bubka's career to the point that when you watch him in real speed it looks as if he does swing as he takes off.

EIUvltr wrote:could you clarify what you mean by "Top shoulder?"

The shoulder of the top arm and hand ... which is holding onto the pole the highest. The top shoulder is the one that needs to be elastically pre-stretched in the C.

It's also the one that should feel the hit of the pole when it hits the back of the box.

The question at hand ... as I understand it ... is whether your intent should be to feel this 'hit' with a fully stretched shoulder (chest driven forwards ... trail leg stretched back) ... or whether you should resist letting your shoulder be pulled back by the hit of the pole in the box ... so as to start swinging earlier ... and (if I understand EIU's original post correctly) to minimize leakage of energy thru lack of rigidity in the shoulder.

Further ... assuming that I correctly understood the first part of this ... to strengthen the shoulder girdle thru various isometric excercises so as to cause the shoulder to be more rigid immediately after takeoff.

Kirk

EIU, consider the type of strength that a vaulter needs as similar to that of a highbar specialist. These are strong, wiry guys ... with the emphasis on wiry. They do NOT have the bulky biceps ... or shoulders ... that a rings specialist has ... nor do they need those muscles.

The reason why a highbar specialist can do all those weird and wonderful tricks on the highbar is becuz they use the LEVERAGE of their limbs to SWING in a long position ... hardly ever bending their elbows to do any "muscle moves" ... unlike a rings specialist that does all types of iron crosses and front levers that require more BRUTE strength.

So why is this important to know? Becuz when you swing on a pole, you should swing like a highbar specialist ... with a long top arm ... and use your LEVERAGE against the pole (top arm only) to bend it ... not by resisting the arm from getting pulled back into the C ... but from allowing the "natural" ... long-armed ... action to happen. Yes ... you want to do this with a stiff, rigid body ... but your body can be stiff and rigid and STILL let the top arm/shoulder go thru to the C. This actually requires good FLEXIBILITY ... in addition to strength ... to do properly. This flexibility that I'm referring to is actually just about the exact opposite of the type of RIGIDITY that you're proposing.

Kirk

KYLE ELLIS wrote: ... by the time you realize you are in the air you are probably in a fully extended "C" position and it is time to swing. ...

Therein lies the rub ... I don't see how you could possibly have "finished your takeoff" ... in other words gotten to the elastic pre-stretched C position ... IMMEDIATELY after takeoff. The only athletes that I've ever seen in the so-called C on takeoff are the ones that prebend the pole before they leave the ground. It takes a finite amount of time ... no matter how short of a time ... to get to the C after takeoff ... and if you swing too early, you lose the advantage of the elastic pre-stretch into the C.

Please bear in mind that I'm referring to my particular preferred "style" of the Petrov Model. This is certainly not the 640 Model ... where Roman says you MUST swing immediately after your takeoff foot leaves the ground ... and it's certainly not the other extreme ... the style of someone who emphasizes the "drive phase" of the vault (I wouldn't even call THAT style as within the bounds of the Petrov Model ... at all). Mine is not an extreme "style". It's neither a drive vault ... where you jump into the C with a mostly forwards jump (minimal lift in your jump) ... and purposely introduce a passive pause before you start to swing. I've done that on some bad jumps ... and they're not what I'm proposing. At the other extreme is the 640 Model ... immediately swing with no pre-stretch whatsoever. I consider my "style" as a happy medium ... not too much drive before you swing ... but some.

At the risk of repeating what I've said many times on other posts, this driving in of the chest to an elastic pre-stretch is NOT a PASSIVE motion if done correctly. This action needs to be super-fast ... fast into the C and then pop right back out again ... with no pause whatsover. I think this idea follows Kyle's medicine ball analogy quite closely.

There's a scientific reason why the timing of the pre-stretch to the C needs to be minimized (IMHO) ... the longer you take to pre-stretch to the C, the more time that gravity will take hold of you and prevent you from swinging UP. This will result in too low of a swing. Instead, you ALWAYS need to be moving in an UPWARDS direction.

I will add something to the theory of continuous motion now ... you not only need to be continuously moving ... but ONCE YOU PASS THE C POSITION, you ALSO need to be doing everything within your power to be moving UPWARDS.

You may think that if THAT'S true, then why not go all the way ... why not always be moving UPWARDS IMMEDIATELY after your foot leaves the ground? My answer is that you can do that ... but you won't be able to grip as high and still move the pole to vertical. Consequently, you'll be on lighter poles that don't time up as well ... or as strongly ... as a stiffer pole with a higher grip ... OR ... if you insist on stiff poles ... you'll simply be gripping so low that you won't be competitive.

Coincidentally, I see this as a fault that Isaksson had ... which is basically the same fault that I see in the 640 Model. Kinda ironic, since he was a short guy that set the WR several times! Go figure.

Kirk