Using Bottom Hand Pressure

[Chaebo]

I recently had a thread I discussed the use of bottom hand pressure in an up and back motion with KirkB. (I teach it, he doesn't to make that clear.) I am still working on making changes to my coaching techniques and probably always will.

I am including clips of one of my vaulters to show a basic idea of my coaching. (Please Critique) This is an effort to improve both my vaulter and myself as a coach.


My fear of changing to a method is that the vaulter will not penetrate on the same poles as he has been using.

This is a sophomore about 135lbs. jumping on a 14' 160 & 165 his PR is 13'.
http://youtu.be/vQzb7eux2Vo

This vault although at practice shows his hips rising although he doesn't complete the final phase.
http://youtu.be/mom8B3UbgpQ

Finally a 6 step (3lefts) rigid pole jump at practice,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-xO7bkVHM4

First Ever 13' competition jump
http://youtu.be/Q2vTv_OLe9g

We are currently looking to make 13'6 and even 14' in the upcoming events if things keep going as practiced but, we are still having the issue of swinging to vertical. Is this a result of pushing up with the bottom arm. We do not teach top hand pressure. Also, in the videos it appears that his best vaults come when his bottom arm is extended furthest away. Is there something at the takeoff such as the step or extension that is causing this to appear this way? Where do you suggest we go from here? Thanks I look forward to hearing from anyone.

[KirkB]

I will start by looking at his 6-step straight pole vault ...

I don't think there's any question that in THIS vault, he should NOT be pressing at all with his bottom arm.

Are you with me so far?

In THIS vault, what advantage (if any) would there be in pressing with his bottom arm? Will it speed up his swing or slow it down?

Kirk

[Chaebo]

I completely understand, I also understand most of the concepts behind not using the bottom hand. But, how is space created if there is not atleast an initial pop of the bottom hand at the point of which the vaulter leaves the ground.

It will completely destroy the swing and does not create a space at all.

[KirkB]

I completely understand, I also understand most of the concepts behind not using the bottom hand. But, how is space created if there is not at least an initial pop of the bottom hand at the point of which the vaulter leaves the ground.

It will completely destroy the swing and does not create a space at all.

Here's your homework for tonight - read this thread - "Is Pushing with the Bottom Arm Good or Bad?" http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16585&p=121272

It was a hot topic of discussion on PVP back in Jan/Feb 2009, with 12 pages of commentary.

Not too much sense in repeating too much of this - most of your questions are answered by this thread. However, it's STILL a controversial topic, so you're not alone in your confusion. Even back then, only 48% of all respondees voted that there should be no push with the bottom arm at all.

Here's a couple fresh ideas that may not be in that thread (I forget) ...

1. You are right in asserting that the pole MUST BEND on takeoff. You refer to this as "creating space". However, the idea isn't to "create space". The idea is to get the best (most powerful) swing you can. Don't worry - the pole WILL BEND without that "initial pop" that you THINK is necessary. The "bending of the pole" is what will "create the space" between the bottom hand and the vaulter. It is NOT the "creating of the space" that will "bend the pole"! It's the other way around!

2. Whatever you do, you do NOT want to kill your swing. Applying any pressure - forwards or upwards - with the bottom hand is almost GUARANTEED to slow down your swing! To do otherwise would be to defy the laws of physics. Tell me why you think otherwise, and tell me why your thinking is compliant with the laws of physics.

Hint: The pole is not a PERFECT column. It's an imperfect column, meaning that it's not 100% straight. It has a weak side. The impact of the top hand hitting at the top of the pole (A) in unison with the butt of the pole hitting in the box (B) is sufficient to cause it to bend. "A" pushes towards "B" while "B" pushes towards "A". The force of "A" pushing towards "B" is so great that something must give - so the pole bends.

As an imperfect column, it will bend in the direction of the least resistance. As you know, this is the "natural bend" side of the pole. If the pole was a perfect column, it would not have a natural bend side.

Maybe think of the alternative, and you might realize how ridiculous the alternative is. Suppose the pole DOESN'T bend, because the pole IS a perfect column. So instead of bending, the force of "A" towards "B" does NOT result in any bend. What will happen? What will happen to the 48% of vaulters who say that there should be no push on the bottom arm at all?

Now ... answer the same question, but for a theoretically STIFF pole that has absolutely no give or bend at all, and no weak side. What will happen to the vaulter in this case?

One last question: In the theoretically stiff pole scenario (when the vaulter KNOWS that the pole isn't going to bend), should he STILL be giving it an initial "pop"? If so, why?

I think if you answer all of these questions honestly - to your OWN satisfaction that you're following the laws of physics - then you should be able to draw your own conclusions.

Kirk

[Chaebo]

I meant to post this prior to reading but got so wrapped up in it I read one page and didn't even realize i somehow started on page 11.

But, Anyways here is my train of thought. Note I am by no means a person who considers themselves a great physics person (Couldn't spell the proper name)

My thought and goal with pushing the arms up and back was to create space, and create a high pole bend. My belief was that the high pole bend assisted in the transferring of energy through the system. The advantages of a high pole bend were as followed

- Increased speed on the down swing. (Due to the upward pressure of the bottom arm)
- A continued pole rotation from continous pressure being pushed toward vertical
- Increased "Lift" from the pole. And an increased "Pop" once in vertical. (Due to the energy being transferred into the pole and being pushed toward the top rather than being lost in the box)
- Increased space and hips being kept in a neutral position to allow for more room to swing to the I position in turn speeding up the rotation.

Also, A reason I am very open to the idea of not using the bottom hand is because I have played around on short approached 3 to 5 lefts not using the bottom and the pole bent and i was able to swing to vertical. (Yes, I still vault) I am still very young as you can see in the video of my vaulter. I am the short fella spotting him. (Irrelevant)

But, I like to play with these ideas myself and plan on doing so not because I want to become some elite vaulter..... NOT in the cards but because i want to become a better coach. And I am a hands on learner. Which is kind of why i am making the push for knowledge so young. But, again im goin off on tangents. While doing my vaults i was able to get to roll in the poll and get to vertical through the effects of a powerful swing. But, I was not comfortable with how deep I had my standards so I tried pushing slightly and was able to still get to vertical and have my standards back around 80' jumping 13'6 from 4 lefts.

Now to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
A rigid pole can not be given the initial pop because it doesn't bend. And you would have to revert back to the old straight pole style which I am aware is the basis of petrov's teachings. But, where i get confused is the conference in Reno with Petrov discussing the importance of the bottom arm saying the bottom arm should be the focus to generate energy through the system. (I believe I may be miss understanding something here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUQaWfAx48 @ 26:30 (Which I am sure you have watched time and time again.)

I also became confused on reading one of the Continuous Chain Model done by Roman. Where he lists the phases you may add energy into the vault but doesn't list core and legs through the swing phase as one of them. He does state the Arms used in the rock back phase. But, according to the double pendulum model of Petrov's vault isn't the core and legs through the swing phase the primary source of adding energy to the system after the vaulter has left the ground?


Now, Im going to go and finish reading that thread. Thank you for the help thus far.

[altius]

I believe hat you should be concentrating on more fundamental issues such has the plant and take off instead of worrying about 'bottom arm pressure'.

Also NEVER use a tap. I thought we had killed that idea years ago.

[Chaebo]

I have recently gained a lot of knowledge of the studying videos, reading articles, forums, etc. I am currently trying to understand and devise a plan to under go these changes in my coaching and even vaulting for that matter since this has made me curious as to see what I maybe capable of STILL. I feel personally that drawing a full understanding of the vault will help me do so. I also like to be able to help create a mental image and instruct my vaulters with cues to visual aids such as video informing them as to why we do certain things. And with the vault being a chain of events I would like to be able to explain my goals from point a (Prior to the runway) to point c (On the mats.)

As for the tap, I do not even touch the vaulter unless something goes heywire. I always want to be there to try and protect my vaulters.... Safety first right!?

[KirkB]

...

Sorry, I posted this by mistake, instead of my reply. My bad.

Kirk

[KirkB]

I'm probably not going to be able to convince you of any of this, because of your lack of understanding of physics. This is not meant to be a put-down in any way - there's a lot of vaulters (even some very good vaulters) that don't understand physics well enough that they're willing and able to use it to their personal advantage - so you're not alone.

I appreciate you willingness to listen and learn, and I don't think your lack of understanding is due to having a closed mind. Rather, I think that you truly don't "get" the physics principles involved. I'll TRY to explain some of this to you, but I'm just a little skeptical that I can convince you by what I call "physics logic". To me, there's no other type of logic, but the types of objections that I hear quite often defy physics, and I'm hearing some of this from you too.

But as long as you're open and willing to listen, I will TRY. Here goes ...

My thought and goal with pushing the arms up and back was to create space, and create a high pole bend. My belief was that the high pole bend assisted in the transferring of energy through the system.

I'm not sure what you mean by a HIGH pole bend. You seem to imply that the bend is going to be higher on the pole if you apply pressure on your bottom arm, and that a higher bend is better than a lower bend. Are those your assumptions?

My first point is that the type of bend that's "optimal" (high, low, or middle of the pole) is best controlled by the manufacturing material and process, and the mfrs are quite clever in the way they wrap their poles for optimal bend. Certainly there's been changes in the way the poles are wrapped over the 6 decades that fiber has been used, and there's also differences from brand to brand and from model to model. However, I suggest to you that there's no advantage to you to make the pole bend even MORE optimally - the mfrs already have that issue covered. You are right that the pole WILL bend DIFFERENTLY when pressure is applied by the bottom arm.

However, I doubt very much that it will bend more OPTIMALLY because of any bottom arm pressure. I'm going to stop here on this point, because it's actually a red herring - there is no advantage whatsoever in making the pole bend "higher". If that was the case, the mfrs would simply change their wrapping formula to build that idea into the pole.

Sorry, I don't follow the physics that must exist for your following 4 points to be true.

The advantages of a high pole bend were as follows:

- Increased speed on the down swing. (Due to the upward pressure of the bottom arm)

Any pressure on the bottom arm will SLOW DOWN the swing - according to the laws of physics.

- A continued pole rotation from continuous pressure being pushed toward vertical

You WILL bend the pole more by any bottom arm pressure, and this will allow the pole to roll forwards more/easier. However, bending the pole isn't the objective. The objective is to (a) make the swing as quick and efficient as possible; (b) get the CoG up as quickly and efficiently as possible; (c) invert as early and as efficiently as possible; (d) extend as efficiently as you can, in unison with the straightening of the pole.

So if you just want to roll the pole towards the pit, and you don't care about your body position when the pole is vertical, then just press with the bottom arm and "hang low". In fact, hang low with BOTH legs. This will give you the biggest bend. You will not swing much; your CoG will not raise up much; and your will not invert much. But you WILL roll the pole to vertical, and you CAN get onto bigger poles this way. BUT have you ever seen anyone clear a bar just by rolling the pole to vertical - when their hips and CoG are still under their shoulders, and their legs are even lower? Of course not! Unless you're clearing a bar well under your grip!

- Increased "Lift" from the pole. And an increased "Pop" once in vertical.

This totally defies the laws of physics. Once the takeoff foot leaves the ground, the vaulter-pole system has a fixed amount of energy in the system. There ARE ways of increasing this total/fixed amount of energy, but merely pressing on the pole with the bottom arm isn't one of them. I'm assuming that you feel you get the increased "lift" and "pop" due to being on a bigger pole - or bending it more. As I explained in the previous paragraph, you may very well get more "lift" or "pop" by bending a bigger pole (or bending it more), but your body will NOT be in an ideal inverted position to take advantage of this increased "lift" or "pop" because you will be "behind the pole". That is, you will not have your CoG high enough or your body inverted enough to take advantage of this increased "lift" or "pop". Best case will be that you will have to tuck to wait for the pole to rotate to vertical, and worst case will be that you don't even get into a tuck - so you will have no choice but to flag out.

(Due to the energy being transferred into the pole and being pushed toward the top rather than being lost in the box)

Huh? Once the takeoff foot leaves the ground, there is no energy being "lost in the box". Short of sound, heat and friction, the vaulter-pole system doesn't lose any energy "in the box". And the amount of sound, heat and friction lost by the butt of the pole against the box is negligible - not even worth quantifying.

- Increased space and hips being kept in a neutral position to allow for more room to swing to the I position in turn speeding up the rotation.

By "allow more room to swing" I'm not sure if you mean "room" as in "space" or "room" as in "time". And I'm not sure what you consider a "neutral position" of the hips. If the former (space), then that's not an objective of the swing. The objective is to swing quickly and efficiently. If the latter (time), then all the time in the world isn't going to help you get your hips up if you've killed your swing by bottom arm pressure. Conversely, the quicker you can swing and rotate to an inverted position, the better position you'll be in to take advantage of the pole straightening out. If you can't get to this inverted position in time, then you will either tuck or flag - or both.

A reason I am very open to the idea of not using the bottom hand is because I have played around on short approached 3 to 5 lefts not using the bottom and the pole bent and i was able to swing to vertical.

Cool.

... i was able to get to roll in the poll and get to vertical through the effects of a powerful swing. But, I was not comfortable with how deep I had my standards so I tried pushing slightly and was able to still get to vertical and have my standards back around 80' jumping 13'6 from 4 lefts.

I'm a bit surprised at this. I'm thinking that there was something else going on that helped you clear the bar with standards at 80 other than pushing slightly. Remember that landing deep into the pit is only one objective. Another is to raise the CoG quickly and efficiently, and another is to get inverted quickly and efficiently. Perhaps you sacrificed one of these other objectives in order to land deeper into the pit? I don't know - just guessing, based on the laws of physics. I see that you say that you were "able to get to vertical" while pushing, but I guess I'd have to see a vid to know what else was different then.

Also, I'm not sure why you weren't comfortable with your standards at 80? That's the ideal setting, as far as I'm concerned.

... A rigid pole can not be given the initial pop because it doesn't bend. And you would have to revert back to the old straight pole style which I am aware is the basis of petrov's teachings.

Correct.

So what's the problem?

... where i get confused is the conference in Reno with Petrov discussing the importance of the bottom arm saying the bottom arm should be the focus to generate energy through the system.

I did watch and listen to that Reno vid, but I honestly found Petrov's interpreter VERY hard to understand. So I'll let someone else with better ears and patience reply to this point of yours. My best guess (which might not be a very good one) is that he might have been referring to the role of the bottom arm (both arms, actually) in getting the plant up as high as possible - rather than referring to any post-takeoff role?

I also became confused on reading one of the Continuous Chain Model done by Roman.

This is another whole topic or thread. Due to the length of this reply, I'd prefer to leave the topic of the Continuous Chain Model to another post on another day. It's not that it's unimportant - it's EXTREMELY important. It's just not anything I can do justice to in a couple sentences. Again, I'll leave this for someone else to answer. Maybe even Agapit?!

Sorry for the long reply. I hope we're making progress?

Kirk

[Chaebo]

I don't believe I am a physics loser but not a genius. Anyways I have gotten about 6 pages in thru the forum u sent me earlier and i must say I have learned a lot. And I thank you. I understand and I can draw a mental image of how everything is coming together. Through all of this I looked at many other articles and come across one from Altius (who I am ever so glad blessed us with his presence.) He described my ability to invert perfectly in a short document discussing the Continuous Chain. I was able to invert with A LOT of pressure in the bottom arm because I took off under...... UP to 2ft. Under at Times and my bottom arm compensated for the HORRIFIC Steps.

I'm not sure what you mean by a HIGH pole bend. You seem to imply that the bend is going to be higher on the pole if you apply pressure on your bottom arm, and that a higher bend is better than a lower bend. Are those your assumptions?

Yes, This is what I was taught and part of the base I started from.

'm probably not going to be able to convince you of any of this, because of your lack of understanding of physics. This is not meant to be a put-down in any way - there's a lot of vaulters (even some very good vaulters) that don't understand physics well enough that they're willing and able to use it to their personal advantage - so you're not alone.

You are very wrong..... I am very convinced and I understand the physics fairly well and can see them in action even more so when watching video. I

- Increased speed on the down swing. (Due to the upward pressure of the bottom arm)


Any pressure on the bottom arm will SLOW DOWN the swing - according to the laws of physics.

The belief I had hear was that after take off the arm would move above the head removing all possibilities blocking the hips. (Hence the back and up pushing of the bottom hand rather than out and forward)


The next couple answers you gave me all refer back to correcting this concept above so I will not go into further rambling about it.

Chaebo wrote: ... i was able to get to roll in the poll and get to vertical through the effects of a powerful swing. But, I was not comfortable with how deep I had my standards so I tried pushing slightly and was able to still get to vertical and have my standards back around 80' jumping 13'6 from 4 lefts.


I'm a bit surprised at this. I'm thinking that there was something else going on that helped you clear the bar with standards at 80 other than pushing slightly. Remember that landing deep into the pit is only one objective. Another is to raise the CoG quickly and efficiently, and another is to get inverted quickly and efficiently. Perhaps you sacrificed one of these other objectives in order to land deeper into the pit? I don't know - just guessing, based on the laws of physics. I see that you say that you were "able to get to vertical" while pushing, but I guess I'd have to see a vid to know what else was different then.

Also, I'm not sure why you weren't comfortable with your standards at 80? That's the ideal setting, as far as I'm concerned.

You simply just misunderstood me here. I was not comfortable with my standards until I used bottom hand pressure which I then was able to move my standards back to 80. Now I will say that it was not as extreme pressure as I used in a full vault and some of the success again probably contributes to being a bit under If i recall I think i would be 3 to 6 inches under when I did this on my 3 and 4 lefts approach.

Sorry for the long reply. I hope we're making progress?

HAha No worries, I am loving every minute of this. The longer the replies the better. I will read every last word of them. As for progress YES we are very much so.

[altius]

As for the tap, I do not even touch the vaulter unless something goes haywire (sic). I always want to be there to try and protect my vaulters.... Safety first right!?

Safety first WRONG! SAFETY comes from your teaching your vaulters to run. plant and take off properly so that they develop sufficient energy to roll the pole forward and they can land safely on the pad. The tap allows them to paper over the cracks in their technique - cracks that are pretty obvious in the vaulter should have shown film of. If something goes wrong there you are both likely to get hurt and in that position you can never really see what your athlete is doing - you are too close! You really should come to a clinic with me, you might learn something about the process of coaching -not just the technique.

Note also longer posts are not necessarily better because you need a sound understanding of the event to get anything from them. Many of the longer posts on pvp in recent times have muddied the water instead of clarifying key issues. Go back to absolute basics with your vaulters - especially repetitive practice of the plant. Now I am not going to debate this with you - you can accept it and act on it and become a better coach, or you can indulge your ego by attempting to justify what you are doing. Your choice, but remember one of my favourite statements - "A coach has a thousand careers, an athlete only has one". You can mess up many of your thousand at the start -as unfortunately we all do - or you can take on board the wisdom of someone who has learned from his mistakes - and those of others - over the past 55 years.

[altius]

Sorry old son -as we say to our children when we used to paddle their bottoms - it is for your own good!!!!