Eyes at takeoff

[altius]

"I don't believe that the vault can be taught as phases, but a continuous action. " While I agree with much of what you have written here I must disagree with this statement. Yes it is a continuous action but like all of the disciplines in our sport, it can be taught in phases. This is in fact the essence of my approach to teaching the vault. However athletes must lways experience the whole movement from the very beginning - i.e. jumping over a bar - and then understand how all of the 'phases' can be improved in isolation and then blended into the whole movement. This has long been understood as the 'whole - part -whole method' of teaching techniques in many sports.

Incidentally one should never 'teach' the lowering of the hips in any of the jumps - you can set up learning situations that help athletes develop this aspect of technique - but you should NEVER attempt to teach lowering of the hips - it has to be -like many aspect of skill in sport -non conscious.

[KirkB]

In both the HJ and LJ a penultimate step should be taught as to lower the center of gravity, while maintaining speed, in preparation to put the last step down "through" the ground to jump up. In the case of the HJ there is no take off board, but of course in the LJ there is such. And, most coaches teach their LJers not to focus on the board; the LJers wants to be "tall" at take off. This, I believe, is what is lost in the pole vault. It too is a jumping event where lowering the center of gravity while maintaining speed is important.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but I wouldn't describe this as "lowering the center of gravity". Instead, I would call this a "gather" on the penultimate, similar to a high jumper but more similar to a long jumper. In my case, I recall shortening the last step - not lowering my CoG. But any way you describe it, your CoG is going to lower a bit, isn't it? And no, I definitely didn't cue on "lowering my CoG". Rather, I cued on making that last step QUICK and SHORT. Not much different than doing a layup in basketball, in my mind. I know this isn't very scientific, but as an avid basketball player, that's kinda how I thought about my takeoff. And I think my takeoff angle was more acute than most, due to this cognizant action.

... it is this coaches belief that most poles break because the vaulter takes off low as a result of looking at the box.

I don't see where you draw that conclusion from. You not only state that "most poles break because the vaulter takes off low", but then you follow that up by saying "as a result of looking at the box". Where's the scientific evidence of this? I can name 101 different reasons for a pole to break, and "taking off low" isn't one of them.

Further regarding where to look at take off, I teach a progression that includes a jumping take off extending off the toe at which point the swing will begin. At this point, the vaulter will look to the top hand. ... Looking to the top hand is one of those cues.

I remain confused. Are you saying to look at the top hand as it passes in front of your eyes (while planting)? Or are you saying looking up at the top hand at the precise moment of takeoff. This not only sounds ridiculous, it sounds almost impossible! Are you really saying that this is what Bubka did? Wouldn't his neck be bent back at a ridiculous angle for him to see his top hand on takeoff? I'm totally confused by the plausibility of what you're saying here.

Kirk

[vquestpvc]

I must admit I learn a lot about vaulting reading posts here and also posting. However, the thing I am continuously learning is absolutely how complicated so many individuals believe the pole vault to be. If I were to take all the information that is presented here and attempted to disseminate it to my athletes, they would all be tilting their heads in the way a dog might be listening to its' owner saying blah blah blah Spike blah blah blah.

As a high school coach I deal with a myriad of athletic talent and therefore, must keep it simple. Recently, I had a 10th grade girl standing 5'4" who could not long jump 10' or high jump 4'. However, through a simple approach to teaching the pole vault, she was about to clear 8'-6"; certainly not world quality, but qualified her for our district meet which elated her. Ultimate point being: if a specific "technical model" is suggested (I personally use elements of the Petrov/Bubka model) then it should be fairly simplistic because in high school we only have a 3-4 month season.

Of the elements of the P/B model, I greatly emphasis a free take off which incorporates a jumping action. I would certainly agree with Altius when he suggests that a jumping action should be a "non-conscious" thought much like a basketball layup. However, it will not happen very frequently (if at all I believe) in the long jump or pole vault unless it is consciously worked on in practice. Why are many of the worlds best jumpers Europeans? Because they work on a complete technical approach to jumping which includes the penultimate step instead of just running fast and jumping hard as do most American athletes. And quite frankly, it is entirely impossible to jump up effectively without lowering the center of gravity or lowering the hips or whatever one wants to call it; something basketball players learn quickly, but many jumpers completely overlook.

Of course Kirk, I never conducted a scientific study to determine what specifically breaks a pole, however, after 30 years of coaching the pole vault I have noticed (and believe) that many vaulters are "under" because they "steer" to the box and therefore take off low which physically can bend the pole on the lower portion where it is not intended to bend as well as the upper portion. But tongue in cheek, I bet you have researched all 101 reasons you note. Look forward to that 101 reason list; 15 would be fine.

[KirkB]

Of course Kirk, I never conducted a scientific study to determine what specifically breaks a pole, however, after 30 years of coaching the pole vault I have noticed (and believe) that many vaulters are "under" because they "steer" to the box and therefore take off low which physically can bend the pole on the lower portion where it is not intended to bend as well as the upper portion. But tongue in cheek, I bet you have researched all 101 reasons you note. Look forward to that 101 reason list; 15 would be fine.

Here's my Top Twenty-One - in no particular order:

1. Pole too soft for vaulter's current technique.
2. Vaulter not allowing for a "margin of safety" in bending the pole. Should move up to bigger pole before it over-bends.
3. Sudden technical improvements by vaulter - vaulter fails to move to a bigger pole.
4. Increase in vaulter's takeoff speed, without a corresponding increase in pole size.
5. Significant increase in vaulter's grip, without a corresponding increase in pole size.
6. Significant increase in vaulter's weight, without a corresponding increase in pole size.
7. Sudden improvement in "gathering for takeoff" - extra oomph on jump breaks pole.
8. Scratch on pole from spikes causes flaw - pole breaks on fault line of flaw.
9. Manufacturing flaw - pole breaks on fault line of flaw.
10. Sudden weather improvements (especially tail wind) cause extra speed, causing extra bend on takeoff.
11. Bad weather (rain or cold) forces vaulter to smaller pole; vaulter over-bends it.
12. Increase in vaulter's weight, without a corresponding increase in pole size.
13. Vaulter suddenly has an "under" takeoff - puts too much force on pole.
14. Bottom arm pressure pre-takeoff (with an "under" takeoff point).
15. Bottom arm pressure post-takeoff forces pole to bend more than usual.

16. Vaulter looking straight ahead on takeoff - should have been looking at top hand.
17. Vaulter takes off too low.
18. Vaulter looking down at box during takeoff - forcing his CoG to lower.
19. Pole bends on lower portion when it should have bent on upper portion.
20. Coach gave vaulter wrong advice - taught vaulter how to bend the pole instead of teaching him proper technique.
21. Vaulter broke pole on purpose - on a dare, or just for the fun of it.

I leave the remaining 80 reasons for other vaulters and coaches to add.

Kirk

[vquestpvc]

Sorry, but after the redundancy, there are actually only 6 reasons. Nice try Kirk. And actually, #17 should have been moved to #1; oh, which would also include 18 and 19.

[KirkB]

Sorry, but after the redundancy, there are actually only 6 reasons. Nice try Kirk. And actually, #17 should have been moved to #1; oh, which would also include 18 and 19.

What? No smilies? Where's your sense of humor?

I COULD put your bread-and-butter reason to the top of the list, but I did say that they were in no particular order.

#6 and #12 were my only dupes.

Kirk

[vquestpvc]

No sense of humor? Did you note that I've coached track for over 30 years? And, I did respond to your silly post. But, no "smiley" faces here as that belongs to a different generation; or really cool dudes.

[KirkB]

Kirk

[golfdane]

That is what he said and that is what he meant. Too many vaulters take off flat because they are still looking down as they leave the ground - pretty hard to jump up when you are looking down. You should know where you are without looking at the box - if you have an organised run up - see the appropriate chapter in BTB.

Exactly. Focus on where you wanna go. Any longjumper trying to focus on the board, ain't gonna go very long. Any vaulter focusing on the box when taking off, is destined for a flat take-off. Bottom hand is pretty damn close to where the focus should be, in my honest opinion.

If the planting action is sound, will it take strong sidewinds to blow the pole off course.