THE PERFECT VAULT!
-
VaultPurple
- PV Lover
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:44 pm
- Expertise: Former College Vaulter, College Coach, Pole Vault Addict
- Favorite Vaulter: Greg Duplantis
- Location: North Carolina
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
The Perfect Vault. Greg Duplantis skills with Jeff Heartwigs body. If he was 9in taller then would have been able to use a lot bigger poles. I think It was DJ that mentioned because of box angle 1 inch meant 4 inches hand grip. So if he was 6'3 he would have held 27in higher ie. about 17'8 (assuming he held 15'6) with a 42 inch push off plus box depth. So that with the higher hand hold could be about 21'2".
-
powerplant42
- PV Rock Star
- Posts: 2571
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:58 am
- Location: Italy
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
That is NOT what the discussion is about... did you read the previous posts? What this thread is about is what would we ideally have an athlete with no physical limitations (other than constant size/weight and 10 m/s take-off speed) do in the vault, it is NOT about 'get the strongest, fastest guy in the world and give him Bubka's (or whoever's) technique/vault'.
"I run and jump, and then it's arrrrrgh!" -Bubka
-
KirkB
- PV Rock Star
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
- Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
- Lifetime Best: 5.34
- Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
Chill, PP.
VaultPurple is only looking for a reference point. A reference point doesn't hurt here - it helps.
After all, the perfect vault is not totally agnostic to the size/shape/speed of the vaulter. A perfect vault for a Greg Duplantis is different than for an Okkert Britts. (Even taking ONLY height into consideration.)
To eliminate these factors - and get back on topic - I suggest we just use Bubka's body attributes as the reference point, so that we can focus on just "technique".
I'll try to answer VaultPurple's comments from a different perspective (perhaps a little more constructively!
) ...
VaultPurple, be careful about extrapolating a "rule of thumb". Just because DJ might have said "1 inch meant 4 inches hand grip", you can't extrapolate this "scalability issue" linerally. Instead, it will be a curve - due to the Law of Diminishing Returns.
Take any rules of thumb with a grain of salt.
Kirk
VaultPurple is only looking for a reference point. A reference point doesn't hurt here - it helps.
After all, the perfect vault is not totally agnostic to the size/shape/speed of the vaulter. A perfect vault for a Greg Duplantis is different than for an Okkert Britts. (Even taking ONLY height into consideration.)
To eliminate these factors - and get back on topic - I suggest we just use Bubka's body attributes as the reference point, so that we can focus on just "technique".
I'll try to answer VaultPurple's comments from a different perspective (perhaps a little more constructively!
) ...VaultPurple, be careful about extrapolating a "rule of thumb". Just because DJ might have said "1 inch meant 4 inches hand grip", you can't extrapolate this "scalability issue" linerally. Instead, it will be a curve - due to the Law of Diminishing Returns.
Take any rules of thumb with a grain of salt.
Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
good morning
“one continuous chain”… I think Guy Kochel used the term of.. comparing it to a “row of domino’s”.. the first in the line was the first step on the runway… as soon as that first one ”fell” all the others, if set up correctly fell in order. I remember him setting them up on a table at a clinic once upon a time, with 20 domino’s in a straight line to represent the run and then 5 or 6 “curved” in a “J” to represent the takeoff and flight. I will never forget thinking, what percent is 20 of 25 and that was when I began to confirm “in my head” how important the run is! And starting correctly.
A long time ago I stopped using the “standard” terms used in the vault.. like rock back, tuck and shoot .. etc..
I simply use RUN…PLANT….SWING
That was my PVP Avatar until somehow I messed it up and never corrected it..
I know that “tuck and shoot” has been discussed heavily on here.. but the key, as Kirk has said is not the “stop frame position” it’s the amount of force created going “through” those positions.
I have studied every “type” of vault. Of course a greater/longer swing radius, in a faster amount of time will create more force.. and a greater force is created in the “tuck and shoot” position if the “speed” of the rotation/radius is greater. That is what I have found to happen with ‘successful’ tuck and shot vaulters.. and (including “Stew’) the best tuck and shot vaults were almost always accompanied by a “faster” tuck and shoot. In other words no hesitation. Much like a gymnast doing a “kip” on the floor and “popping” onto their feet.
I would like to say here, hopefully without creating an “out burst” that the knee drop/ swing technique that we see on the top two vaulters at the 2008 games was “created” in part by the pole design.
I say this from experience, Earl was the first “knee drop” world record holder I know of.. I, along with Kochel, determined that it was the pole and physics that was “creating” the swing technique. We were being (criticized) told at the time if we wanted Earl to reach world class potential we had better change him. I looked at every film I could get my hands on into the wee hours of the night at my office in the old “armoury’ at ASU and drew 100’s of ‘stick figures” of Earls vaults by projecting them onto a drawing pad taped on the wall, trying to find the answer. There was a direct correlation between what he did, the way the pole bent and why it was an advantage to ‘lengthen” and lower the center of mass at this point in the swing. What made this more “lucky” than good was me finding a “Steel” vaulting teaching tape (16 mil) in the PE department film room (I was a graduate student/coach at the time) that had been made in the 1950’s, I believe, at USC.. this tape had the hands sliding together, the long swing and even High bar training for pole vaulters.. pretty kool..
When I drew those vaulters on the drawing pad (I would move the projector forward and back to get the proportions equal) I could take tracing paper (I’m an art major) and compare Earl to them, frame by frame.
I didn’t find anything wrong with what he was doing so we left him alone and got him faster, stronger and meaner.. He jumped a world record in 77”
Since then I have had vaulters with variances in the swing “look”, including Dave Roberts “dropping his knee” on his first world record vault in Gainesville. Dave was a “classic” knee driver but because of the “physics’ and the combination of grip, pole and application of force he “looked” like he dropped the knee. I say “looked’ because we have discussed that point many times and Dave was of the “opinion’ that he didn’t drop the knee at all, that the rest of his body had “caught” up with the lead knee making it “look’ like he had dropped it.. I personally saw a subtle “pump” where he usually held the knee up. That was the frames that I focused on when I drew his “stick figures’ on my pad with the projector. During my analyzing is when I began to pay the most attention to what the “pole” was doing at that point and the point forward of that where at the “bent” pole hit the top back of the box.
Side bar…(Not to divert the thought but the greatest negative to taking off “under” seemed to be the forcing the bent pole into the back of the box early stopping ‘forward’ rotation of the pole and penetration.. if I remember correctly on most of Bubka’s best vaults, even with a big bend his poles didn’t hit the box at that 8” marker… the same for Tim Mack on his best vaults.)
Hopefully in some form or fashion this post can add “thought” to the “perfect’ vault process.
The vault has been and will continue be a continuing evolution. just as it is a “continuous chain..” or a “hand full of dominoes.”
Some coaches and athletes have added much more “clarity” during our journey. And I have been lucky to be around some really good vaulters and coaches, and contrary to popular belief …. I’m not even a “vault” coach. (and some will say we have know that all along).. hehehhe.
As coaches and athletes we must never feel we have reached our peak in Knowledge, Tools, Skills and Experience. Be analytical but logical… follow the “Application of Force.” Eliminate “weaknesses’ in your coaching and in your athletes right from the first step.
Always keep one ear turned “in all directions.” You/we may not know where that next piece of ‘clarity” will come form.
It’s the “POLE” vault so consider all parameters.
dj
PS somewhere and some way the 1" deeper box and 4" grip was mentioned.. this is a "ballpark" number based on my experience... but this is also from a box that is "even" with the runway at the front "lip" but 1" deeper at the back.
the difference between this and a box that is "level" but a quarter inch deep… is major.. why?? because of the increase of the 105 degree angle.. the first box increases the angle the second does not.. you do not receive the same benefit from the second box.
why?.. because the open angle allows the pole to penetrate further before it hits the “top” back of the box. if you are penetrating deeper you can raise your grip..
there have been boxes over the years that were “deep”. Both types of deep. At Johnson City, Tenn the box was almost 1 inch deep. Everyone thought, wow.. I can get on big poles and raise my grip.. the same thing in Boston. In reality that didn’t work and a lot of vaulters NH..ed because they really didn’t understand why and what type of a “deep” box can make a difference.
And to add "fuel" to the fire.... vaulters that vault "incorrectly" and take off "under" bending the pole before the takeoff.... gain a lot more from a deep box than vaulters that takeoff "free."
At this point you may be thinking “why don’t we get the rules changed to increase the angle of the box! then Bubka’s record will surely go!” … been there and done that.. the draw back is this…what would happen is vaulters would probably start ‘flying over the back of the pit, get hurt or die.. we couldn’t get pits big enough, the liability issues would be staging and I’m not ready to “kill a vaulter.”
Most people don’t know this but there was a “rules change” that had been passed by the USATF rules committee that vaulters could set the standards at 48 inches.. I got a phone call for my vote since I was on the “vault development committee at the time. I raised the issue of vaulters going over the pit.. I personally have never been afraid of “landing in the box.” landing in the box is either really bad coaching or an athlete that refuses to listen to the coach. Going over is a matter of physics. I have done that “badly’ three times.. all three times it was because I had more speed than I had grip.. simply because of a lack of practice time.
First the standards do not need to be that deep for records to be set.. I think I calculated, once upon a time, that given the parabola of the body coming of a vertical pole that 21”/55cm was about perfect.. anything inside that might (with a little error) put you in the box or anything deeper would not allow for maximum height.
When made aware of my concerns the committee dropped it to 32” or 80cm. don’t remember when that was in relationship to Bubka’s records. Some of you historians come up with a rules change date for me..
“one continuous chain”… I think Guy Kochel used the term of.. comparing it to a “row of domino’s”.. the first in the line was the first step on the runway… as soon as that first one ”fell” all the others, if set up correctly fell in order. I remember him setting them up on a table at a clinic once upon a time, with 20 domino’s in a straight line to represent the run and then 5 or 6 “curved” in a “J” to represent the takeoff and flight. I will never forget thinking, what percent is 20 of 25 and that was when I began to confirm “in my head” how important the run is! And starting correctly.
A long time ago I stopped using the “standard” terms used in the vault.. like rock back, tuck and shoot .. etc..
I simply use RUN…PLANT….SWING
That was my PVP Avatar until somehow I messed it up and never corrected it..
I know that “tuck and shoot” has been discussed heavily on here.. but the key, as Kirk has said is not the “stop frame position” it’s the amount of force created going “through” those positions.
I have studied every “type” of vault. Of course a greater/longer swing radius, in a faster amount of time will create more force.. and a greater force is created in the “tuck and shoot” position if the “speed” of the rotation/radius is greater. That is what I have found to happen with ‘successful’ tuck and shot vaulters.. and (including “Stew’) the best tuck and shot vaults were almost always accompanied by a “faster” tuck and shoot. In other words no hesitation. Much like a gymnast doing a “kip” on the floor and “popping” onto their feet.
4. Should the drive knee stay 'Petrovian'?
I would like to say here, hopefully without creating an “out burst” that the knee drop/ swing technique that we see on the top two vaulters at the 2008 games was “created” in part by the pole design.
I say this from experience, Earl was the first “knee drop” world record holder I know of.. I, along with Kochel, determined that it was the pole and physics that was “creating” the swing technique. We were being (criticized) told at the time if we wanted Earl to reach world class potential we had better change him. I looked at every film I could get my hands on into the wee hours of the night at my office in the old “armoury’ at ASU and drew 100’s of ‘stick figures” of Earls vaults by projecting them onto a drawing pad taped on the wall, trying to find the answer. There was a direct correlation between what he did, the way the pole bent and why it was an advantage to ‘lengthen” and lower the center of mass at this point in the swing. What made this more “lucky” than good was me finding a “Steel” vaulting teaching tape (16 mil) in the PE department film room (I was a graduate student/coach at the time) that had been made in the 1950’s, I believe, at USC.. this tape had the hands sliding together, the long swing and even High bar training for pole vaulters.. pretty kool..
When I drew those vaulters on the drawing pad (I would move the projector forward and back to get the proportions equal) I could take tracing paper (I’m an art major) and compare Earl to them, frame by frame.
I didn’t find anything wrong with what he was doing so we left him alone and got him faster, stronger and meaner.. He jumped a world record in 77”
Since then I have had vaulters with variances in the swing “look”, including Dave Roberts “dropping his knee” on his first world record vault in Gainesville. Dave was a “classic” knee driver but because of the “physics’ and the combination of grip, pole and application of force he “looked” like he dropped the knee. I say “looked’ because we have discussed that point many times and Dave was of the “opinion’ that he didn’t drop the knee at all, that the rest of his body had “caught” up with the lead knee making it “look’ like he had dropped it.. I personally saw a subtle “pump” where he usually held the knee up. That was the frames that I focused on when I drew his “stick figures’ on my pad with the projector. During my analyzing is when I began to pay the most attention to what the “pole” was doing at that point and the point forward of that where at the “bent” pole hit the top back of the box.
Side bar…(Not to divert the thought but the greatest negative to taking off “under” seemed to be the forcing the bent pole into the back of the box early stopping ‘forward’ rotation of the pole and penetration.. if I remember correctly on most of Bubka’s best vaults, even with a big bend his poles didn’t hit the box at that 8” marker… the same for Tim Mack on his best vaults.)
Hopefully in some form or fashion this post can add “thought” to the “perfect’ vault process.
The vault has been and will continue be a continuing evolution. just as it is a “continuous chain..” or a “hand full of dominoes.”
Some coaches and athletes have added much more “clarity” during our journey. And I have been lucky to be around some really good vaulters and coaches, and contrary to popular belief …. I’m not even a “vault” coach. (and some will say we have know that all along).. hehehhe.
As coaches and athletes we must never feel we have reached our peak in Knowledge, Tools, Skills and Experience. Be analytical but logical… follow the “Application of Force.” Eliminate “weaknesses’ in your coaching and in your athletes right from the first step.
Always keep one ear turned “in all directions.” You/we may not know where that next piece of ‘clarity” will come form.
It’s the “POLE” vault so consider all parameters.
dj
PS somewhere and some way the 1" deeper box and 4" grip was mentioned.. this is a "ballpark" number based on my experience... but this is also from a box that is "even" with the runway at the front "lip" but 1" deeper at the back.
the difference between this and a box that is "level" but a quarter inch deep… is major.. why?? because of the increase of the 105 degree angle.. the first box increases the angle the second does not.. you do not receive the same benefit from the second box.
why?.. because the open angle allows the pole to penetrate further before it hits the “top” back of the box. if you are penetrating deeper you can raise your grip..
there have been boxes over the years that were “deep”. Both types of deep. At Johnson City, Tenn the box was almost 1 inch deep. Everyone thought, wow.. I can get on big poles and raise my grip.. the same thing in Boston. In reality that didn’t work and a lot of vaulters NH..ed because they really didn’t understand why and what type of a “deep” box can make a difference.
And to add "fuel" to the fire.... vaulters that vault "incorrectly" and take off "under" bending the pole before the takeoff.... gain a lot more from a deep box than vaulters that takeoff "free."
At this point you may be thinking “why don’t we get the rules changed to increase the angle of the box! then Bubka’s record will surely go!” … been there and done that.. the draw back is this…what would happen is vaulters would probably start ‘flying over the back of the pit, get hurt or die.. we couldn’t get pits big enough, the liability issues would be staging and I’m not ready to “kill a vaulter.”
Most people don’t know this but there was a “rules change” that had been passed by the USATF rules committee that vaulters could set the standards at 48 inches.. I got a phone call for my vote since I was on the “vault development committee at the time. I raised the issue of vaulters going over the pit.. I personally have never been afraid of “landing in the box.” landing in the box is either really bad coaching or an athlete that refuses to listen to the coach. Going over is a matter of physics. I have done that “badly’ three times.. all three times it was because I had more speed than I had grip.. simply because of a lack of practice time.
First the standards do not need to be that deep for records to be set.. I think I calculated, once upon a time, that given the parabola of the body coming of a vertical pole that 21”/55cm was about perfect.. anything inside that might (with a little error) put you in the box or anything deeper would not allow for maximum height.
When made aware of my concerns the committee dropped it to 32” or 80cm. don’t remember when that was in relationship to Bubka’s records. Some of you historians come up with a rules change date for me..
Last edited by dj on Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
Here are additional thoughts on “THE PERFECT VAULT”
A 20’4” vault that is…
Bar..............................20’4”...– 6.20m
Six Step Check................57’0”...– 17.37 meters
Grip............................16’11”...– 5.15m
Takeoff........................14’8”...- 4.47m
Standards at ..................60cm
The time for the last six steps is 1.35/1.29 seconds or approximately 9.5/10mps.
The maximum bend will be approximately 30% and will occur one half (.50) of a second after ‘takeoff. The vaulter will be “half way’ thought the swing, from the takeoff point to the vertical setting of the standards with the back “flat’ to the runway.
The complete vault from take-off to maximum height above the bar will be completed in 1.42/1.44 seconds.
The vaulter will “increase” his trajectory elevation by 58/60cm for the first “half’ of the swing or to maximum bend. What I call “Flat back to the runway”..
If someone wants to do the math for me.. the ‘bottom’ of the triangle is 2.535 meters and the vertical (90 degree) length is .58cm.. I can figure the Hypotenuse.. but somebody do some math for the “angle’ “up” of that Hypotenuse… which will be the angle of the trajectory of the top hand grip.
I have this diagram in a JPEG file but don’t know how to post it…
I’ll email it to you Kirk or Andy_c if you want to post.. davidfjohnston@yahoo.com
dj
A 20’4” vault that is…
Bar..............................20’4”...– 6.20m
Six Step Check................57’0”...– 17.37 meters
Grip............................16’11”...– 5.15m
Takeoff........................14’8”...- 4.47m
Standards at ..................60cm
The time for the last six steps is 1.35/1.29 seconds or approximately 9.5/10mps.
The maximum bend will be approximately 30% and will occur one half (.50) of a second after ‘takeoff. The vaulter will be “half way’ thought the swing, from the takeoff point to the vertical setting of the standards with the back “flat’ to the runway.
The complete vault from take-off to maximum height above the bar will be completed in 1.42/1.44 seconds.
The vaulter will “increase” his trajectory elevation by 58/60cm for the first “half’ of the swing or to maximum bend. What I call “Flat back to the runway”..
If someone wants to do the math for me.. the ‘bottom’ of the triangle is 2.535 meters and the vertical (90 degree) length is .58cm.. I can figure the Hypotenuse.. but somebody do some math for the “angle’ “up” of that Hypotenuse… which will be the angle of the trajectory of the top hand grip.
I have this diagram in a JPEG file but don’t know how to post it…
I’ll email it to you Kirk or Andy_c if you want to post.. davidfjohnston@yahoo.com
dj
-
Pogo Stick
- PV Pro
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:42 pm
- Expertise: Former "College" Vaulter, Masters Vaulter
- Lifetime Best: 4.70/15'5
- Favorite Vaulter: Władysław Kozakiewicz
- Location: Vancouver, Canada; Split, Croatia
- Contact:
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
dj wrote:If someone wants to do the math for me.. the ‘bottom’ of the triangle is 2.535 meters and the vertical (90 degree) length is .58cm.. I can figure the Hypotenuse.. but somebody do some math for the “angle’ “up” of that Hypotenuse… which will be the angle of the trajectory of the top hand grip.
I have this diagram in a JPEG file but don’t know how to post it…
dj
.58cm is probably typo. For .58m, hypotenuse is 2.600m. For .58cm the the length of longer cathetus and hypotenuse will be basically the same (2.535m).
-- Pogo
"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory." W. Edwards Deming
"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory." W. Edwards Deming
-
KirkB
- PV Rock Star
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
- Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
- Lifetime Best: 5.34
- Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
Here's DJ's diagram:
I reduced it to 18% of full size, to fit within the 600 x 600 pixel limits that PVP has.
Kirk
- PV "PHYSICAL MODEL" - DAVID F. JOHNSTON (c) 2008 (reproduced by permission of the author)
- 20-4 6.15 meters trajectory Physical Model flat (18%).jpg (63.45 KiB) Viewed 9379 times
I reduced it to 18% of full size, to fit within the 600 x 600 pixel limits that PVP has.
Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
good morning
thanks Kirk...
Pogo the angle i was looking for is from frame 13 to 21... what is commonly interpreted as the takeoff angle...
can that be calculated with the dimensions we have??
dj
PS.. i was PM" ed and asked if that is the "Model" for a new world record... how would i approach getting an athlete there?
the Answer is...while i'm teaching the correct pole carry, drop, plant and swing technique i'm also doing the majority of my running sprint workouts on the track with a pole in the hands of the athlete... doing all the "correct" sprint drills with and without the pole.. i'm doing a lot of my own version of the 20/20 drill based of off the Six Step Chart ... working on the correct acceleration to the Six Step Mark.. I will us three levels of the Chart for 1000's of pole runs (just as Tully did)those levels would be "one over" and "One under" my "Target" of a 58 foot "MID" Six Step Mark (from the chart).. so i would have the athlete do pole runs with a 57 foot mark... a 58.. and a 59. I time many of these and work on acceleration... posture... getting the feet down over the last six and planting into a small towel on the track..
rather than teach from the crossbar backwards... i feel it is more productive to teach from the first step forward... you trully don't know the potential of the athlete unless you know their run potential.. being an "application of force' event you have to know how much potential force you have to work with...
of course you have to assume (or teach/train) the athlete has the speed to run those approach runs correctly and at the correct speed and from a 20 step run.... Tully ran a 57 foot Six Step "MID" prior to the 1984 games.. with the correct speed, posture and acceleration into the plant on the track... so we knew he was ready and capable (under the right condition) to use at least a 56 foot Six Step Check Mark and grip 16-8 and jump 19-6... which he had done in a meet just prior to that... unfortunately he didn't have a big enough pole that day... and only jumped 18-11 with the standards at 80.
In addition to teaching the run correctly, and i agree with what i posted of Petrov's and how he describe the pole carry and the three phases of the run, i have all "speed" athletes pull the sled once and sometimes twice a week.. sometimes with heavy weight, for power and position, and sometimes with light weight for speed and technique..
PSS.. the Six Step (MID) chart was mentioned again in a beginning thread.. a statement was made that the chart was for the coach not the athlete... that is incorrect.. it is a "tool" to help the athlete have a faster more consistent, more correct run... the athlete should set the correct run that fits there ability up on the track themselves if they don't have a coach.. it is best to have someone to watch you and give feed back.. but you can set up a camera.. and get tremendous benefit from the "positives' built into the chart...,
thanks Kirk...
Pogo the angle i was looking for is from frame 13 to 21... what is commonly interpreted as the takeoff angle...
can that be calculated with the dimensions we have??
dj
PS.. i was PM" ed and asked if that is the "Model" for a new world record... how would i approach getting an athlete there?
the Answer is...while i'm teaching the correct pole carry, drop, plant and swing technique i'm also doing the majority of my running sprint workouts on the track with a pole in the hands of the athlete... doing all the "correct" sprint drills with and without the pole.. i'm doing a lot of my own version of the 20/20 drill based of off the Six Step Chart ... working on the correct acceleration to the Six Step Mark.. I will us three levels of the Chart for 1000's of pole runs (just as Tully did)those levels would be "one over" and "One under" my "Target" of a 58 foot "MID" Six Step Mark (from the chart).. so i would have the athlete do pole runs with a 57 foot mark... a 58.. and a 59. I time many of these and work on acceleration... posture... getting the feet down over the last six and planting into a small towel on the track..
rather than teach from the crossbar backwards... i feel it is more productive to teach from the first step forward... you trully don't know the potential of the athlete unless you know their run potential.. being an "application of force' event you have to know how much potential force you have to work with...
of course you have to assume (or teach/train) the athlete has the speed to run those approach runs correctly and at the correct speed and from a 20 step run.... Tully ran a 57 foot Six Step "MID" prior to the 1984 games.. with the correct speed, posture and acceleration into the plant on the track... so we knew he was ready and capable (under the right condition) to use at least a 56 foot Six Step Check Mark and grip 16-8 and jump 19-6... which he had done in a meet just prior to that... unfortunately he didn't have a big enough pole that day... and only jumped 18-11 with the standards at 80.
In addition to teaching the run correctly, and i agree with what i posted of Petrov's and how he describe the pole carry and the three phases of the run, i have all "speed" athletes pull the sled once and sometimes twice a week.. sometimes with heavy weight, for power and position, and sometimes with light weight for speed and technique..
PSS.. the Six Step (MID) chart was mentioned again in a beginning thread.. a statement was made that the chart was for the coach not the athlete... that is incorrect.. it is a "tool" to help the athlete have a faster more consistent, more correct run... the athlete should set the correct run that fits there ability up on the track themselves if they don't have a coach.. it is best to have someone to watch you and give feed back.. but you can set up a camera.. and get tremendous benefit from the "positives' built into the chart...,
-
Pogo Stick
- PV Pro
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:42 pm
- Expertise: Former "College" Vaulter, Masters Vaulter
- Lifetime Best: 4.70/15'5
- Favorite Vaulter: Władysław Kozakiewicz
- Location: Vancouver, Canada; Split, Croatia
- Contact:
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
dj wrote:good morning
thanks Kirk...
Pogo the angle i was looking for is from frame 13 to 21... what is commonly interpreted as the takeoff angle...
can that be calculated with the dimensions we have??
dj
The function you need is tangent.
tan A = 0.58/2.535 and angle is atan(0.58/2.535) which is 12.9 degree.
-- Pogo
"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory." W. Edwards Deming
"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory." W. Edwards Deming
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
wow.. 12.9 degrees!!!
when compared to the 18/20+ degrees, or higher, that has been discussed as the "best" takeoff angle!!! that/this is ... mind boggling...
my numbers are mere "increased" percentages of Vaults that i have tracked from Peter McGinnis' work over the years.. including vaults by Tully, the top six jumpers at the trials in 1984, a few Bubka vaults that Peter "tracked' and several vaulters from 2004 including all of Tim Mack ...
i took all the "averages" of the "best" jumps.. not just highest jumps.. but the jumps that looked easier with the most air (compared the film to the printed data)... grip, Six Step Check.. trajectory.. where the max bend was... etc.. multiplied each number by the percentage to give me a 20-4 vault and this was the "answer'!!
thanks
dj
when compared to the 18/20+ degrees, or higher, that has been discussed as the "best" takeoff angle!!! that/this is ... mind boggling...
my numbers are mere "increased" percentages of Vaults that i have tracked from Peter McGinnis' work over the years.. including vaults by Tully, the top six jumpers at the trials in 1984, a few Bubka vaults that Peter "tracked' and several vaulters from 2004 including all of Tim Mack ...
i took all the "averages" of the "best" jumps.. not just highest jumps.. but the jumps that looked easier with the most air (compared the film to the printed data)... grip, Six Step Check.. trajectory.. where the max bend was... etc.. multiplied each number by the percentage to give me a 20-4 vault and this was the "answer'!!
thanks
dj
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
In my experience, takeoff angle is the least understood and most overrated aspect of vaulting technique.
First of all the "ideal" takeoff angle changes radically with grip height (and therefore takeoff point).
Secondly, takeoff angle is resultant upon correct (or incorrect) posture and mechanics at the plant. Trying to change takeoff angle by itself would be much like trying to change the distance a long jumper travels from jump to jump without changing any aspect of technique. The angle (and the distance the LJer travels) are both outcomes derived from the other parameters of the jump (1) impetus applied to the ground 2) technique used to generate impetus)
my 2 cents
First of all the "ideal" takeoff angle changes radically with grip height (and therefore takeoff point).
Secondly, takeoff angle is resultant upon correct (or incorrect) posture and mechanics at the plant. Trying to change takeoff angle by itself would be much like trying to change the distance a long jumper travels from jump to jump without changing any aspect of technique. The angle (and the distance the LJer travels) are both outcomes derived from the other parameters of the jump (1) impetus applied to the ground 2) technique used to generate impetus)
my 2 cents
Facts, Not Fiction
Re: THE PERFECT VAULT!
Hello
Barto,
I agree completely… grip, pole stiffness, body posture and the “force impetus”, on “that’ jump plays a major roll in the trajectory or what we have been calling angle.
That is why I have had real difficulty when “science’ has stated that the takeoff angle is “way to low” on some vaults and vaulters, somehow based on a preconceived idea of what a “perfect” takeoff angle should be.
I have held the idea for a very long time that world records in the long jump would come from an athlete that has a slightly "lower" angle and more “speed’ transferred at the takeoff.
I think the same will be true in the vault, with the body going “stronger’ toward the back of the pit, or flatter, and the stiffness of the pole creating the “trajectory.
The two most important factors being the “impulse” or transfer of speed and how high the vaulter can raise the mass (reach) just before takeoff.
dj
Barto,
I agree completely… grip, pole stiffness, body posture and the “force impetus”, on “that’ jump plays a major roll in the trajectory or what we have been calling angle.
That is why I have had real difficulty when “science’ has stated that the takeoff angle is “way to low” on some vaults and vaulters, somehow based on a preconceived idea of what a “perfect” takeoff angle should be.
I have held the idea for a very long time that world records in the long jump would come from an athlete that has a slightly "lower" angle and more “speed’ transferred at the takeoff.
I think the same will be true in the vault, with the body going “stronger’ toward the back of the pit, or flatter, and the stiffness of the pole creating the “trajectory.
The two most important factors being the “impulse” or transfer of speed and how high the vaulter can raise the mass (reach) just before takeoff.
dj
Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests