Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

This is a forum to discuss advanced pole vaulting techniques. If you are in high school you should probably not be posting or replying to topics here, but do read and learn.
User avatar
vault3rb0y
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2458
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:59 pm
Expertise: College Coach, Former College Vaulter
Lifetime Best: 5.14m
Location: Still Searching
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby vault3rb0y » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:26 am

KYLE ELLIS wrote:Renaud always sinks right after takeoff which tells me he is probably trying to grip too high and takeoff too far out. I still can't believe the push-off he obtains because the sink looks very passive.



Keep in mind that this "sink" can be interpreted in two ways. He could be sinking because his take off is at a low angle, or he could be sinking because he adds a great amount of energy followed immediately by a high energy transfer, nearly stopping before it is complete (this creates the illusion of "sinking" because he goes from moving the pole with a large pole bend and a powerful swing, to not much pole speed and the pole releasing). Renaud i believe is somewhere in between these two, but close to the latter. To me, the reason he sinks is that he leaves the ground with very little friction or energy loss followed by an extremely quick, and short-lived, swing. The swing is so quick that it keeps a high amount of energy transfer into the pole, and subsequently keeps the pole bent and moving pretty quickly. So at this point, he has kept his effect grip height low and is moving the pole well. But the pole stops abruptly, and at this low effective grip height it appears that he "sinks" after take off. Even though he tucks, by the time he does so, he has moved the pole so far that it can just.... barely..... make vertical. He hardly has any horizontal energy left during his bar clearance, which also contributes to a higher differential, all the energy goes up. The huge differential he has comes from an efficient plant (measured by energy possible by take off angle, into conversion to the pole) and an extremely quick swing. This combination moves the pole so quickly, that with a low grip, he doesn't have to move it too far for it be at vertical. Then, boom, huge differential. But, this only works with a low effective grip hieght and/or HUGE energy transfer early in the vault. It has to be large enough to move the pole so far, that by the time you begin your passive phases, it does matter, you are already at vertical. It really is limited in terms of overall jump hieght, because you can only grip so LOW and swing so FAST. High differentials are great, but eventually you gotta raise your grip. If you have that big passive phase, raising your grip ends up very difficult.
The greater the challenge, the more glorious the triumph

dj
PV Enthusiast
Posts: 1858
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:07 am
Expertise: Coach
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby dj » Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:57 am

Hey Barto,

Your points are meaningful, well taken and lead to good dialog.

If you extrapolate by adding the two strides, 2.10 + 2.04 = 2.14 and divide by two = 2.07 = average stride times 4 = 8.28 + 4.14 = 12.42 + 4.37 = 16.79(55’2”) @ a six step “MID”.. (give or take, +/- 20cm)

Based on a 5.10m grip 56 feet (17.16m) would have been the norm. but if he hit these marks, 2.10m and 2.04m on his last two steps and had a 57’/17.47m “MID” that would mean his other 4 steps would have been 2.28m/7’5” compared to 2.10m/6’11” and 2.04m/6’8”, which wouldn’t be reasonable.

I think he did “run himself close” (he was only 10cm under) and had to “chop” which we have seen him do on many occasions. He was one of the “athletes” with speed that could be out a foot at the “MID” and “turn it on” and be “ON” and faster at the takeoff. When he did this he had so much pole speed he obviously had to hurry to get off the pole before he “blew through”. This is why (in my opinion based on the numbers and the video’s) he was many times “erratic” on the top part of the vault.

I do know the first time I saw him in LA he was gripping 5 meters and hitting between 55 and 56’. The second time he was gripping 5.10m and jumped 19-8ish? Those “MID” marks I’m aware of also, (were verified this past weekend by Steve Chappell) because Bubka asked Steve and Steve Miller to “catch” his mark at that meet at around 17 meters.

That night Steve asked me what my chalk marks were on the side of the runway and I pointed him to 56 feet which is approximately 17.20. Bubka hit 17.30ish on his jumps with the 5.10 grip. By the way he did that with a run two strides shorter than his normal run. The reason he needed the 17 meter “MID” was because of the run change and he knew that he needed to be around 17m to 17.50m to be “ON”.

And back to your point, I think he did ‘get them down” and had to chop and probably lost some speed that would have enabled him to grip higher and jump higher.

So in summary… I feel, actually know, that speed is directly proportionate to stride length and stride frequency, with faster speeds having proportionately longer strides. And I do know that faster speeds (all things being equal) allow for proportionately higher grips, and I do know that it takes proportionately higher grips to jump proportionality higher.


dj

ps. I’m not sure the other “data” posted here is correct?? It seems it was “directed” with some info left out just to “prove” a bigger flex will “throw” you higher. This is not what the data from the McGinnis studies has shown or the studies I got from Germany. There has been a higher correlation of “continuous swing speed” and height above grip than from bigger flex = bigger air, even with Bubka’s jumps as well as Mack’s.

This is miss information, myth, that we should not perpetuate. Especially with young vaulters who will think they have to be on big poles with a high grip, regardless of the “force”, based on speed and proper take off, they can produce. This is where we are creating a safety issue encouraging a high grip without the necessary force.

pss.. I need to make a strong response to a note I recently received on the “MID” chart… The Chart is a six step (“MID”) mark to GRIP… do not CHANGE it to a “MID” to takeoff mark.

simply use it as a “tool” to keep the SPEED to GRIP ratios within reason.

Jeff Hartwig was very emphatic in the safety meeting this week that having the run “ON” before you get on the runway is the key to safety and allthough many if not most coaches and athletes have gone to a 4 strip “MID” it was pointed out and agreed to in a small coaches meeting later on that you can be stretching the two strides before a 4 step “MID”, be “ON” but still not have the same speed and can’t jump properly with the grip you have. AND it was agreed you could do the same with a 6 step “MID” BUT it was also agreed that if you were off at 6 you could either stop the run or you had a better chance to adjust at 6 with little or no chance to adjust from a 4 step (2 left) coaches check mark.

AND I might add the chart (GRIP to “MID”) is one if not the best safety tool “on the Planet” as my friend ladyvolspvcoach would say!!!

User avatar
jcoover
PV Pro
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:32 pm
Favorite Vaulter: Nicholas Panozzo
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby jcoover » Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:18 am

Another thing about Renaud - if we take a snapshot of the point at which his pole tip hits the back of the box, his toe might very well still be on the ground, and most likely usually is. That being said, however, I'm willing to bet that if he stood at 4.50m and put his pole in the back of the box his step would be pretty far "OUT". The angle that he puts his torso is pretty incredible, and leads to this. Just an interesting note I thought, that he has a significant OUT step, but usually not a free takeoff.

Here's a good reference for looking at it in super-awesome slo motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14OTSJeMQXY
"We can, by God, let our demons loose and just wail on!" - John L Parker

KYLE ELLIS
PV Lover
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:31 am
Expertise: former college vaulter, Current college coach
Lifetime Best: 5.26
Favorite Vaulter: bubka
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby KYLE ELLIS » Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:46 pm

jcoover wrote:Another thing about Renaud - if we take a snapshot of the point at which his pole tip hits the back of the box, his toe might very well still be on the ground, and most likely usually is. That being said, however, I'm willing to bet that if he stood at 4.50m and put his pole in the back of the box his step would be pretty far "OUT". The angle that he puts his torso is pretty incredible, and leads to this. Just an interesting note I thought, that he has a significant OUT step, but usually not a free takeoff.

Here's a good reference for looking at it in super-awesome slo motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14OTSJeMQXY


I think he would easily achieve a free takeoff if he wasn't taking pressure with his left arm at takeoff, what do you think??
On a whole new level 6-20-09

User avatar
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: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby KirkB » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:50 pm

It's hard to criticize a 6.01 jump ... since he's done it and we haven't ... but I think for a tuck/shooter, Lavillenie is the best in the world right now (a bit of an understatement ... and a bit too obvious ... but he deserves the props nonetheless).

Jeff, you're right about his "out" takeoff ... very unusual for a non-Petrover. His body angle is VERY good! Sets himself up for a very nice pre-stretch and downswing. Too bad he tightens his bottom arm, and too bad he tucks.

Kyle, I'm unsure of what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that he feels the need to be on the ground when he tightens his bottom arm ... so THAT'S why his takeoff isn't "free" ... and if he WASN'T tightening his bottom arm, then he could get off the ground before the pole hits. That sounds backwards to me.

I could be wrong ... hard to tell even with freeze-frame ... but it looks like he lets his bottom arm relax JUST A BIT on takeoff, THEN tightens it up as he stretches into the C. :confused:

Keep in mind that with a 6.01 PR he has very little reason to revamp his technique ... but it is interesting that he's not overly bending the pole pre-takeoff ... and (in my mind at least) not overly pressing with the bottom arm pre-takeoff ... unlike the typical tuck/shooter. I attribute his success in this regard to his striving for a good body angle on takeoff ... and striving for a high plant.

My guess is that his bottom arm action is a secondary consideration ... not first and foremost in his mind on takeoff. This is good IMHO, becuz any bend pre-takeoff is going to have leakage. I think he's solved that one ... or he's at least APPROACHING an optimal (Petrov) takeoff!

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

KYLE ELLIS
PV Lover
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:31 am
Expertise: former college vaulter, Current college coach
Lifetime Best: 5.26
Favorite Vaulter: bubka
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby KYLE ELLIS » Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:33 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UwBaf8f98

Compare the two, I think Renaud is taking off further Away, but because he is pressing up and forward with a tense bottom arm then he gets pulled towards the box more than Bubka. I see more of an upward extension with Bubka, plus Bubka's bottom arm is right in front of his chest when the pole starts to bend... Renauds is nearly 2 feet infront of his chest, and also is tense... This is what I meant by taking pressure with the bottom arm.
Renauds pole tip is moved further forward, Bubka's is more up. This is why I think Bubka can perform a free-takeoff while still being connected to the pole, and Renaud is out and is going to go into the innevitable sink right after takeoff.

And Kirk you act like Renaud and his coach are searching this forum for technical advice??? :P
On a whole new level 6-20-09

User avatar
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: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby KirkB » Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:24 pm

KYLE ELLIS wrote: ... And Kirk you act like Renaud and his coach are searching this forum for technical advice??? :P

Kyle, it's comments like this that make me question your eyesight ... or more. I see Lavillenie's 6.01 for what it is, and I see Bubka's 6.00 for what it is. To my eyes, Lavillenie is shorter, and he doesn't JUMP as much on takeoff ... so of course his takeoff POLE angle is lower ... so of course you'll see that as "sinking" ... which really means just not "rising" as much. I agree that Lavillenie also reaches FORWARDS more at takeoff ... in order to get a higher, earlier plant (IMO) ... but I DON'T see the connection between the REACH of his bottom arm at takeoff and the PRESS of his bottom arm in his stretch to the C. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's NOT pressing on takeoff ... only AFTER takeoff. In fact, if he DID press on takeoff, I don't think he'd get the good body angle that he gets. (I shudder to think that you're going to argue that he gets his good body angle from pressing!)

I don't see why you think that the 2 (the press and the lack of free takeoff) MUST be connected? :confused:

Perhaps we're back to whether a STRAIGHT bottom arm on takeoff implies a STIFF bottom arm or not ... like on the Bubka thread a couple years ago. You can't tell from just watching a video. You have to ask the vaulter his intent!

As far as your tongue-in-cheek comment re him reading PVP ... you're reading w-a-a-a-a-a-y too much into this. All I'm saying is that we can be be armchair quarterbacks all we want, but Renaud and his coach have a plan ... a GOOD one, albeit not along Petrov lines ... and have performed quite well by following their plan ... so we should look for the GOOD in what they've done ... not pick it apart. If we were to do half of what he's doing RIGHT (with his lightening speed), we'd both be over 5.50+. That's not to say that I'm leaning away from Petrov ... it's just to say that I recognize that there's more than one model that you can use you to clear 6.00+ ... Lavillenie has PROVED it!

A "tense bottom arm" doesn't "pull you towards the box". On the contrary, it pushes you AWAY from the box!

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

dj
PV Enthusiast
Posts: 1858
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:07 am
Expertise: Coach
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby dj » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:58 pm

ding

thought i would "throw" this back up with the data thread

dj

dj
PV Enthusiast
Posts: 1858
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:07 am
Expertise: Coach
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby dj » Sat May 08, 2010 4:51 pm

Becca

Good morning,

Now that I have some “numbers” from the WC and have had a little time to compare what I have collected for 30 plus years to those numbers, I want to make one last post to urge everyone, coach, athlete, beginner to world class to take a very serious look at two very valuable points I have been trying to make.

One.. the six step “mid”/check point is an absolute must to be understood and used by every coach and vaulter in the world. Nothing from the start to a completed plant can give you the “why”... as well as this mark.


Two.. everyone needs to understand “what” happens to every vaulter 80/90% of the time from the start of the approach...to the “mid” (first half of the run..) when they are in the heat of battle, going for a PR, gripping higher or trying a bigger pole.. what happened to T-mack in 2000 that was “fixed" in 2004. This happens to everyone, including Isi and from the numbers looks like others had the problem “on a fast runway”.

… I hope I can “plug” these numbers into the MID MARK CHART numbers and compare them to these numbers from Bubka and Tully and more readily explain the significance and correlation of these numbers to the 6 step mark and the relationship it has to success or failure.

I can’t and will not say this (the 6 step “mid”) is the “holly grail” that determines everything that happens at the point of takeoff, (what happens at the take off from the numbers i'm calling "it")and why things happen and “fit” together as a “chain” of action-reaction.. and promotes the “continuation” of energy, but the correlations and the physics of speed can and has identified where you should be “exactly” 6 steps prior to that point.

If I can really make my points clear enough you can begin to understand “why” a free takeoff, or a correct takeoff with the correct IMPLUSE.. that “impulse” and the positions Bubka's COM was in, the height of his plant and his ability, with his speed that was hardly faster than other vaulters BUT.. he had a huge resultant velocity, a “freer” higher plant for his physical body height.. that made him the world record holder.

Bubka’s run was trained, practiced and developed with Petrov’s guidance.. and is was also part intuitive because of the training and the athlete that he was… the 6 step “mid’ process can “tighten” the run up so it becomes more calculated and intuitive for an even better result.

and a point i need to make here is this... you can look at the 6 step "mid" to determine what "may" happen from that point in.. and still have plenty of time to "focus" on the jump.. but with the advantage of knowing what to look for.. based on that mark.. in or out or on...

we all have variuos methods that help us help the vaulter reach for perfection. On the run and in the heat of battle.. i always tell the vaulter to "push" out of the back because i knoiwmthey will be running faster and attacking.

By the way I’m not “adding” the “mid’ here because the other one was closed I’m adding it because these numbers tell you where the “mid” should have been or was.. on each vault.

Bubka was the best at “it”.. and it is in these numbers. You can coach, left hand, free takeoff, pre-jump, high plant, swing, get vertical.. and numerous other “Q’s” that are all good.. but the key element is planting as high as you can reach… with a monster impulse that combines horizontal and vertical velocities with a huge “resultant” velocity. This is accomplished by combing these two with a very fast time and distance to maximum bend, the data says .49 or faster AND the flat back position has to be at the same time as max bend.

I have no doubts that “it” is what Alan has been trying to say with pre-jump and free takeoff.

This position at the plant can be correlated with 99% accuracy to the 6 stride mark. if you hit the right “mid, for you and your speed and grip, your chances of being successful will go way, way up in accomplishing the correct plant/takeoff. The “it”.

Hope I can shed more light on “how” and “why” with these comparisons…This will involve combining and utilize the WC data, some of the discussion from the MID MARK thread and this “Numbers” thread.

First if you look at Bubka’s % of reach at the plant it was 99.4%.. Mike’s two in 1984 were at 92% and two in 1987 at 96.5 and 97.1.. we had started trying to change after Peters info (which had reach above shoulder.. that told us Mike was not getting fully extended at the plant/TO.

This number speaks volumes.. first the pole angle is greater with the plant/reach at 100%. Second, if the reach is at 100% the takeoff would not be under, or AS under with the same takeoff point, higher the reach (taller the athlete) the closer in the takeoff point. this position is contingent on an accurate 6 step mark/point on the runway.

This, along with the “impulse” is the “physical” description of a “free takeoff”…. This “action” is what sets up all the other possibilities of penetration, swing, the amount of pole bend combined with grip and flex, the “speed” of the vault and ultimately the potential maximum height above the grip.

From the numbers thread we can compare Tully’s jumps and Bubka’s jump.. four Tully jumps with approximately the same COM height result but one faster than the other, one with a very different maximum pole bend (but same pole) and one more “under”, different “resultant” velocity and how that has to relate to the takeoff factors.

Actually they all are a result of the takeoff action…

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NUMBERS SPREAD SHEET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAULTER..*****TULLY*******BUBKA**TULLY****TULLY***TULLY
****************1984********1987******1987*******1987*****1984****
****************5.71M******5.85M****5.70M*****5.75M******5.81M***
GRIP...**********4.87M******5.10M****4.97M*****4.92M******4.99M***

UNDER..********15CM/5”***10CM/4”***6CM/3”*****26CM/10”*22CM/8”*

TOP.HAND
EXTEND.%******92%*******99.4%*****96.5%******.97.1%****92%*****

TAKEOFF
ANGLE*********14.7*******16.4*******18.9********17.0******11.6*****

TAKEOFFDIS.***4.00M*****4.37M””***4.21M******4.09M*****4.09*****

HEIGHT.COM
ATTAKEOFF..***1.32M*****1.29M*****1.35M******1.24M*****1.31M***

STRIDE.2...******2.13M*****2.10M*****2.21M******2.14M*****2.17M***
STRIDE.LAST.***2.06M*****2.04M*****2.08M******2.00M*****1.98M***
STRIDEAVG.****2.095M****2.07M*****2.14M******2.07M*****2.075M**

SPEED2..********9.35M/S***9.46M/S****9.47M/S****9.34M/S***9.56M/S**
SPEEDLAST..****9.43M/S***9.54M/S****9.09M/S****9.43M/S***9.64M/S**
SPEEDAVG.*****9.39M/S***9.50M/S****9.28M/S****9.38M/S***9.55M/S**

HZVELOSITY.***7.61M/S***8.04M/S****7.63M/S****7.78M/S***7.96M/S**
VTVELOSITY.***2.00M/S***2.37M/S****2.62M/S****2.38M/S***1.64M/S**
RESULTVEL.****7.87M/S***8.38M/S****8.07M/S****8.14M/S***8.12M/S**


POLEBEND%*****28.5%*****27.1%*****27.4%******28.0%****33.2%****
TIMEMAXBEND*.54SEC****.49SEC****.53SEC*****.48SEC****.56SEC***

PENETRATION.***.91M*****1.05M*****1.15M.*****66CM*****.66CM***
MAXCOM..*******5.85M****6.12M*****5.88M.*****5.81M*****5.84M***
TIMEMAX.COM.**1.58SEC**1.55SEC***1.58SEC***1.50SEC****1.64SEC**


Bubka’s jump was slightly less “under”, on all but one.. slightly faster on all but one BUT had a greater “resultant” velocity and super “pole speed”.

Tully’s reach at the plant was not in the data of his first 5.71m jump (5.85 max COM).. his hand was .58 above his shoulder. Based on his reach height at 6-4.. he should have been at about 4 meters (13-2ish) at the plant if he was “on”.. he was 15cm/5” under which would mean 3.87/12-9.. TO. With a grip of 4.87/16’… His other 1984 jump was .60 above the shoulder. Based on the numbers I determined he was only at 92% reach at the takeoff compared to Bubka at 99.4%.

Height of the center of mass at the takeoff (impulse)did give some good “feed back’. A lower than normal COM at the takeoff means they had not completed the “impulse” to be going up..

Interestingly the lowest of mike’s COM at the plant was on a jump that he had a good “vertical” velocity and his best resultant velocity. On first thought you would think he must have “jumped” (impulse) ok?? But he was not only “low” but he was under by 10” with the plant only 97.1% up. This means he was “snatched” from the ground and the strength of the pole “pulled” him up.. he also had a 17degree TO angle, which is ok or actually high. His penetration was only .66cm. another indication of being under, not fully extended and no “impulse”.

The stride lengths were reasonably close over the last two. Mike’s were slightly longer which tell me he was still over striding. And since I know where his mid was on most of these jumps I can do a very sound correlation.

On mike’s fastest jump he was 9.55m/s for the last two steps compared to bubka’s 9.50 on his jump. Mike had a very low vertical velocity because he was 8” under AND didn’t have the top plant hand higher when the pole tip hit the back of the box.. he didn’t have “position’ or impulse.

Bubka’s resultant velocity was WAY higher.. and this is where you have to look at the speed, the “Impulse” and the 6 step mid…

Mike cleared 19-2 on this jump.. but had a 33% bend, caused by a low, flat, reaching takeoff. He only penetrated .66cm.

The step lengths tell you if the athlete was stretching and where the 6 step “mid” probably was.. I knew mikes “mids’ so I know why the strides were that long and that he stepped under by reaching.. because of the 6 step “mid” point he lost the ability to plant correctly, to impulse correctly.

This is true for every vaulter…

The accuracy of the 6 step “mid” will “predict” with 100% accuracy your chance to perform the “techniques” you have learned or are being coached to perform. 100%.

Can you over come a wrong 6 step “mid”?? yes to a point.. but only to a point and depending on your overall speed and athletic ability.

Now how the numbers fit the numbers I got from the WC…

From Isi interview.

"I need to find the spark again mentally," the Olympic champion and world record holder said on Sunday after failing to win a medal in a second consecutive global championship.

"To win at this level, you need to be fresh," said Isinbayeva after failing to clear 4.75 metres, well below her world indoor record of 5.00 metres.

"Maybe I am tired emotionally and need some rest," she said. The Diamond League outdoor circuit begins in May. "I am going to talk to Vitaliy (Petrov, her coach) and we will talk about it," she said. "It might mean taking off this summer."

The 27-times world record holder said she did not think the problem was physical.

"It's just something strange that happens to me and I can't get over," she said. "I felt really good physically."

Her problems began with last year's world outdoor championships, at which she did not clear any height in the final.

But she responded to that failure by setting the world outdoor record of 5.06 metres in Zurich days later.

"Every time I feel the pressure of having to be the best," she said. "Win the medals and not let down all my fans, the Russians, myself."

The info I got from the outdoor and indoor (two different sources) was mostly at 4 steps (two lefts). The 6 lefts.. info was in meters and showed Isi at about 15.00/15.20 meters on her good jump and at 15.40/15.50m+ on the failures. She was at 37-6ish on her good jump and 38-10ish on the failures. Lacy was at 15.50ish at 6 and at about the same as Isi’s “out” run’s at 4, 38 feet+. Chelsia was at 27-4ish when she was on.

I can only say that because of the “pressure” of the big meet and fast runways (same thing that happened in Sacramento when most of the vaulters were moving their step back 2 feet and then had a problem of stretching) that many of the vaulters, ones that hit to far out at the “mid”, were coming out of the back faster than usual, taking slightly faster and slightly shorter steps TO the mid, making them out and having to stretch into the takeoff.

The stretch could be so subtle that in the ‘pressure’ the coach or athlete will not catch it. They may even still be fast but stretching. The stretching will make it all most impossible to have “it” at the takeoff.

On Tully’s 5.81 jump he was fast. 9.55m/s.. but he was under by 8”.. and I know he stretched because of the last two stride lengths and I know he hit around 56-2 on that jump!!! There is no reason his stride should be 7cm longer than bubka’s at the same speed.
Even with the speed his vertical impulse was the lowest ever.. stretch… he bent the pole 33%.. yes that is to much bend.. and he didn’t move or penetrate the pole.. BUT it wasn’t because he needed the next pole it was because of HOW he took off.

I’ve seen other vaulters, men and women, do the same many times.. change to a bigger pole.. come out of the back faster, be farther out at the “mid”, stretch even more and bend that pole too much but not move it to vertical at all.

Lacy said they were having trouble moving the poles on a fast runway to vertical. The first thing I do is check the 6 step “mid”. If it is on and not “out”.. then you can look for the problem elsewhere. It’s out 90+ percent of the time.

The relationships are this… from my chart comparing the 4’s and 6…

Bar………..…GRIP……Takeoff………...4.step…6.step….TIME…MPS……STRIDE

15-6/4.70……14-4/4.37….11-8/3.56…….36.0/10.96m…..48-0/14.68…...7.9……6-1/1.85
16-0/4.85……14-7/4.46….12-0/3.66…….36-8/11.18m…..49-0/14.99…..8.1
16-6/5.00……14-11/4.55...12-4/3.76…….37-6/11.44m…..50-0/15.30…..8.3……6-3/1.92
17-0/5.15……15-2/4.64….12-8/3.86…….38-4/11.70m......51-0/15.61…..8.5……6-5/1.96
17-6/5.30……15-6/4.73….13-0/3.96…….39-0/11.92m…..52-0/15.92…..8.7……6-6/1.99m

I don’t know how to explain any better the importance and validity of what I have been trying to say for years. It is clear it can’t be done in threads like this, it can’t be done in writing, or in a book. I have shown the “whys’ and “how’s” in person with coaches and athletes at meets with real live vaulters to some success.. but many(most) walked away and never used it again. That’s been 27 years ago. I “called” misses and makes at 6 steps out at the Mt Sac relays and only called one wrong of 20 plus jumps.. JJ and Anthony C. asked for a copy of my chart after asking how i knew that far out. I know Jan uses 4 steps successfully.

Pole vaulting has been a “passion” and has been great pleasure for me for many years.. but pole vaulting is not how I make my living or is it in the top 2/3 things (hobbies) I have. But I will continue to answer questions and help coaches and athletes who want help.

Since “hands” on is the only way I think this (my) 6 step “mid” process can be “passed on” I will try to continue to make time for those that want to come to me, meets or practices…..

dj

dj
PV Enthusiast
Posts: 1858
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:07 am
Expertise: Coach
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby dj » Sat May 15, 2010 11:11 am

good morning

Two.. everyone needs to understand “what” happens to every vaulter 80/90% of the time from the start of the approach...to the “mid” (first half of the run..) when they are in the heat of battle, going for a PR, gripping higher or trying a bigger pole.. what happened to T-mack in 2000 that was “fixed" in 2004. This happens to everyone, including Isi and from the numbers looks like others had the problem “on a fast runway” at the WC.


i really hate to have to “report” this morning… BUT..

this very thing took one of the two best vaulters out of a competition with a no height… 2 feet below her PR…

she had a very good warm-up jump.. but was a little off on her first jump.. came up a little short and kicked the bar.. next jump tried harder.. but ‘reached under.. and was a little “out” at the mid.. last jump!!! Determined to come really hard and aggressive and “move” the pole.. she hit more than a foot out at a ok/good mid.. ran harder but reached.. way under.. sink, over bend.. no penetration.. high but no way to get away from the bar..

this is one of the two.. just TWO, things we need to fix in American (world) pole vaulting to have higher jumps, safer jumps and less “losing it” because of frustration.

Her coach has, is and will continue to do a world class job.. has and is addressing the approach run issues I’m talking about. .. getting all the pieces in place with new vaulters has a learning curve and she will “get there” big and petty soon.

Think how it would be if he had not addressed the issue and wasn’t even aware of the issue.. and didn’t know it was an issue?? He would walk away thinking,, “maybe she needs some rest”.. or I don’t know why she couldn’t get her step out, her plant up or “move” the pole!!!???

I hope some of you, beginners to world class will follow up with me so I can help you, show you why it is a problem.. one of our biggest problems right now in men’s and women’s pole vaulting.

Vaulters continue to say the reason they were/are successful is because they had a great run and plant!!

dj

dj
PV Enthusiast
Posts: 1858
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:07 am
Expertise: Coach
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby dj » Tue May 18, 2010 8:44 am

good morning..

more numbers..

Conference USA.. Orlando..

the men's winner used 5 lefts/10 steps.. 14-11 grip and a 50 foot 6 step (3 left) "Mid".. by the way he wasn't aware of where he hit.. i monitored it for me not him or his coach...

on his next to last jump he hit 51 feet stretched and "felt" an allready sore hamstring..

many of the injuries we are having are from an inacurate run.. hams from reaching.. shoulder and back from being under..

dj

dj
PV Enthusiast
Posts: 1858
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:07 am
Expertise: Coach
Contact:

Re: Bubka Data 5.85 Meters @1987 IAAF Indoor World Champs.

Unread postby dj » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:05 am

The Numbers…..

Tully 1…

Grip……………………………………..4.92m..
Max COM…5.81m….@.66cm deep@1.50sec

Takeoff………………………26cm/10"..under..
Plant arm…………………….97.1%... up……..
Pole angle……………………………….29.2degrees

Penultimate (next to last step)……………9.34mps..
……………………………length………2.14/7'…
Last………………………………………9.43…..
……………………………length……….2.00/6'6..

Foot note...Body angle @Completion of backward rotation from plant…
…………...76.3degrees@.73sec
………….. and time @ lower hand release…1.15sec


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Tully Jump 2…

Grip………………………………………4.97m..
Max COM....5.88....@1.15m.deep…@1.58sec

Takeoff………………………..6cm/2.4"..under…
Plant arm……………………….96.5%...up….
Pole angle…………………………………30.3degrees

Penultimate…(next to last step)…………….9.47mps..
……………………………..length………..2.21/7'3..
Last………………………………………...9.09mps.!!
…………………………...…length……….2.08m/6'10..

Foot note...Body angle @Completion of backward rotation from plant…
…………...61.8degrees@.72sec
………….. and time @ lower hand release…1.12sec


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bubka…..

Grip…………………………………………5.10m..
Max COM…6.12m…@1.05.deep..@1.55sec……..

Takeoff…………………………10cm/4"...under…
Plant arm………………………..99.4%..up……..
Pole angle…………………………………..28.6 degrees

Penultimate….(next to last step)……………9.46mps..
……………………………….length……….2.10m..
Last………………………………………….9.54mps
……………………………….length……….2.04m

Foot note...Body angle @Completion of backward rotation from plant…
…………...80.8degrees@.81sec
………….. and time @ lower hand release…1.10sec




Notes…. The 9.09 number on Tully number 2 was confusing.. I couldn't find the answer to why? And Peter though that maybe there was a "data" error… He never had time and it wasn't important to 're-do" the numbers…

I know Tully's jumps pretty well. On this Jump I know he was running well but was out at his "MID"… I logged all our training and competitions… and based on that, the "numbers" indicate he "stretched" his penultimate.. too much but did try and cut the last step to be "on"….. given that.. he still has a "freer" takeoff than Bubka.. a greater pole angle, because of his reach and height…BUT he wasn't nearly as extended with the plant arm as Bubka!!!

This combined with how you get to a free takeoff and what you do WITH a free takeoff is the difference in Petrov/Bubka (I got from the Reno talk) thinking and what we had been thinking but were now beginning or in the process of changing.

Knowing Tully's thinking compared to Petrov's help me put many of the numbers in context.. and I found you couldn't "jump to conclusions" without checking all the numbers…

Just like me saying Tully had a "freer' takeoff than Bubka… I can "brag" that but that an $3.95 will get you a coffee at Starbucks….

Yes based on the women's numbers they can and should be jumping higher… I indicated before that from the beginning of the women vaulting their world record should be at least 17-3..

But… again we need to look at the whole picture… if a vaulter is running fast BUT
1. Stretching…
2. Taking off too far under from vertical
3. Doesn't have the plant arm extended
4. Doesn't have posture and an "impulse" the speed doesn't mean much at all..

Does this sound like Alan…; )

Notice I put a foot note… for good reason…

First I know Tully was "blowing" through with a "freer" takeoff… although he had a low plant and a kind of "flat" takeoff… so he had to "come out of the jump" (swing) early just to make the bar.. hence no full swing and less vertical body going to vertical on the swing…

But Bubka "came out of" his jump early also BUT swung faster from the takeoff so his body angel was nearer to vertical when he did release the bottom hand from the pole!!! so

This goes back to what Petrov said in Reno…
Plant as high as you can..
…….as free as you can..
…….stretch the arms "higher" than you can AT the takeoff…….
……and swing absolutely as fast as you can..….

Yes we have the numbers to jump higher…

And yes some men have "muscled' the pole (force bending…running from short runs) and have jumped higher than the speed numbers indicate… BUT there are some prices to pay for that… first your "plateau" (jump height) will be lower than if you vault "freer' WITH your speed… Number two… you will always be inconsistent and depending how "jacked" up ypou are you will continue to nee the next bigger pole.. number three injury… you will be injured more than well…

A pole should never "feel" too strong on a good vault… you should feel the pole is too soft… always… you are supposed to "load/bend" the pole with the natural weight of your body with a correct takeoff… using a "big" pole forces you to "press bend" and depending on how hard and how long you press the pole will 'over' bend… giving you and your coach the wrong signals… I'm going through that with my jumpers right now… ones that I did not start in the event.. They have learned over the years to move there run back a foot after each vault and go to a bigger pole.. this is because they always have started with a big pole, step under by a foot.. force a big bend… to them meaning move back get a bigger pole.. they continue that until they can not longer make the pit and are out of the competition… for these athletes that has been at 4/4.10 meters….

I have covered a lot here..

Point one… is we have to look at several numbers, not just speed and not just speed on one step… point two… I think this answers another thread about the most important part of vaulting… I believe it has always been the plant takeoff, with a BUTT… decamouse made this point but followed with "chicken and egg"… run or plant/plant or run.… has to be the run… the first step… that’s where the "chain" starts….

Hope this is helpful not only for this thread but the vault in the USA in general..

dj


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests