takeoff angle and beyond

[altius]

3PO Remember the old Indian proverb - Young bulls should keep their heads down until they become old bulls.

Oh and folks I have now worked out what Roman is saying about the left arm - and he is right - but you will have to get from the old bald bull himself because I am just going to see who is the first to get it.

[KYLE ELLIS]

3PO Remember the old Indian proverb - Young bulls should keep their heads down until they become old bulls.

Oh and folks I have now worked out what Roman is saying about the left arm - and he is right - but you will have to get from the old bald bull himself because I am just going to see who is the first to get it.

In regards to what Altius? Takeoff or just after takeoff? Or both
Why don't you tell us since nobody has figured it our since he posted his manifesto like 3 years ago. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[tsorenson]

I think that a lot of the confusion regarding Roman's (aka Agapit) 6.40 model boils down to the distinction between the takeoff phase and the first support phase; where one stops and the next begins. This is the best I have been able to understand it: Agapit asserts that there should be an immediate lat-pull action with the bottom arm after takeoff, and some people have disagreed with this. The fact that is sometimes lost is that Agapit's takeoff phase includes a strong punch with both hands and drive knee up and through the free takeoff, which gets the pole moving forward ("finishing the takeoff"). Only after this has been accomplished and the pole is moving does the vaulter pull with the bottom arm (lat and tricep pull, not bicep) to accelerate the swing and upward motion of the body in the attempt to cover the pole as soon as possible. The bottom arm should not be locked out at the elbow during the first support phase but rather dynamically flexing outward, allowing the swing to flow naturally through the top hand. I could be wrong, and I welcome any clarification by those who know Roman's ideas better. I think Roman's pole climbing drill is indicative of what he believes should be done with the bottom arm...obviously you can't climb to the top of your biggest pole from 4 lefts unless you move the pole strongly forward with an upspringing takeoff, while staying behind the pole, and then pull with everything you've got to pop your COM above your hands...the push-pull action.

Anyone saying that the bottom arm does "nothing" during any phase of the vault is crazy. The bottom arm works constantly: It is working at the takeoff to drive the pole to vertical (upward push) and then working all the way through the swing to stabilize, and to accelerate the swing to its maximum velocity, and finally to pull the vaulter's body in line with the pole and upward during the inversion to maximize the energy return. Having said all this, many coaches overemphasize the straight bottom arm with young athletes, thinking they need this to bend the pole, which creates a block in the swing. I think we all agree that this is not good but to say that the left arm does nothing is going too far. I'm pretty sure Petrov and Bubka did not do the "one-arm drill".

I can see why many don't like the thought of teaching athletes to pull because so many beginners have the "hug mommy" syndrome where they pull themselves to the pole with both arms. This is obviously not good but is not the same as what Roman is getting at.

Great discussion so far,
Tom

[dj]

hye

It’s difficult to know how to approach the question.. and answers we have final “litigated” too here… and I don’t want to answer here in such a way as to create more questions, or even a hint in anyone as to the real “model”. Yes I (we) have had the science since tracing vaults going back to Bell, Roberts, Freeman, Cotton at Florida in the 70’s. then In 1982/83 while I was at Cal Northridge coaching 14 Decathlon/Vault guys, plus Tully, I set up my own film “study” with a sound switch that turned on a light when the pole hit the box and another light that would come on to see where the vaulter was in the swing when the pole (8” from the butt plug) hit the top back of the box.. you could look at the film and see within hundredths of seconds where the vaulter was at the plant or when the pole was “set against the back of the box”. It was clear that a “free takeoff’ was the best with as high of a top arm as possible. Not only did an “under” takeoff “kill” the momentum but “made” the athlete force bend AND every athlete had to go to bigger poles. Then when they would do it correctly the pole was too big and they failed. Off course since they were on a bigger pole and though that it would “throw” them higher they though they needed the under/press technique! Tully was smart enough to know we were right so we continued the course. It paid off in 1984.. although we had not gotten everything done we were looking to do. Which would be Alan’s “model”, Petrov’s “model”.. my model of .. fast consistent run, very high plant, takeoff out.. free.. and free to me even at that time was “just a heart beat before the pole hits the back of the box”.

Do I honestly feel I can add something very valuable to the Petro/Bubka/Alan model?? Something, (science) that could enhance and help us, more of us coach and vault better? That would be the run and pole design… I feel very strongly that the run I have tried to present is science and the best “approach” that has ever been put forth for the approach.. I feel that coaches have been of the “mind set” that an athlete is “born” with speed and that they can’t change it... so they don’t even try.. I also feel they think Bubka was “superman” and that they can’t follow the physics like he did..

Bubka say…..

In pole vaulting the crucial factor is how to transfer energy to the pole, through the complete body of the vaulter; the arms, shoulders, hip, back and legs. But, if the pole begins to bend while the vaulter is yet on the ground, it is impossible to transfer the energy, all the energy is lost and goes to the box. The point is, how to achieve this? The free take off is a very short period of time, we can say no more than hundreds of a second, going from the end of the take off and the moment in which the tip of the pole reaches the end of the box. But this very short time makes a big difference that allows the competitor to greatly improve the results.

In 1983 TAC (USATF) hired a biomechanist to do high speed film analysis.. I sat with him at the TAC conference in Santa Monica before he started filming and he wanted to know what perimeters I felt were most important.. I think he talked with most of the coaches that were coaching our top vaulters, maybe not… also Guy Kochel was the person “in charge” of vault development.. he and I work hand in hand.. he had Bell I had Tully. They were best friends.. we coached from our “model”.. fast consistent run, very high plant, takeoff out.. and “free”… free to me, even at that time was “just a heart beat before the pole hits the back of the box”. Swing as long and fast as possible.. (I had published a paper in 1981.. from film analysis of Volko.. that emphasized a long fast swing from a hang position ( hang position is what sown call the “C”). I feel, actually know the swing has to start as the takeoff toe leaves the runway.

I begin to work from these documents (and still have a 84 and 87 edition) because they confirmed the “physics” of the event.. and they confirmed what Tellez and a few others were teaching in the 70’s.. they will confirm what you have been saying Alan and what Bubka did on his best and correct jumps. Do I think Petrov and Bubka refined and enhanced the physics?? Absolutely.. right athlete, right coach, right poles and right time… why did we not continue to go with Bubka’s success and method?? Some have tried.. but it seems most have not.. and I must “throw” in here that pole designs have played a roll… It’s the chicken or egg phenomenon… if the vaulter vaults wrong… not like this

from Bubka..

The pole bends as a result of the speed and mass of the jumper,therefore, it is more important to concentrate more on moving the pole towards the plane of the bar, rather than being aware of bending it. If the vaulter can put all his speed to the pole, the bending of the pole will happen in a very natural way and this, together with a good height of grip will ensure good results.

If we “force bend” the pole we have to use a bigger pole… if you us a pole you know is big you will force bend to make it to the pit….

Get it…

Say a company “alters” a pole designed to match with the “technique” of a top vaulter.. that vaulter has to continue that technique to use the pole successfully.. or say the same pole because of it’s success with one is given to another athlete.. that new athlete will also change his/her technique to get the pole to vertical and make the pit…

I have experienced this first hand… Toby Stevenson’s “knee drop” matched the sail pattern and position of his pole.. I started coaching a vaulter several years ago that I know was taught by the Alan/Petrov model… saw her jump sometimes weekly her first 3 years of jumping.. no knee drop..

Three/four years later she came to me for coaching.. knee drop just like Toby.. I checked the poles.. called the company.. same pole design as Toby.. just proportionally different based on grip…

Most think I look at patterns when I shouldn’t… but I don’t dwell on it.. if the technique is not changing to “the model” I check the pole.. if the pole is correct I have to fix the athlete.. but nine times out of ten it has been the pole design if they can’t “get” or correct to my coaching..

On the one hand I feel the “model” (physics) has always been in the videos and pictures we watch but has to have the “math” to legitimize itself. Dave Roberts made a comment the other day.. “it’s very hard to see the physics in a picture.. physics takes calculus, vectors, distance x time, only one in five would understand the math anyway.. so the best you can do it’s get them to look at it as application of force.”

A higher plant, better angle to apply force, an out takeoff doesn’t “stop” your momentum nearly as much as being under, being out allows for a more powerful continiuos swing.

Petrov says this….

Opinions regarding various vaulting aspects can differ, however, physical and mechanical principles of the vault are irrefutable.
The system of 2 pendulums changing in length (with the pole as the 1st pendulum, and the vaulter as the 2nd) is the mechanical basis of the pole vaulting technique. The angular velocity of each pendulum is to a certain extent controlled by the distance from the pole vaulter’s centroidal axis to the axis of rotation around the hand and the shoulder-girdle. In the meantime a technical pattern of pole vaulting has been formed. It is based upon biomechanical laws, yet, due to differences in physique, physical fitness, psychological concentration abilities, and coordination skills, certain deviations from this pattern occur, which can be referred to as an individual approach in the implementation of the pattern.

Le’t get back to the science for a moment…

Here is a note that I received from the Biomechanist with my own copy of the science done in 1983/84.. Tully’s original that we worked from had been “stolen” and not returned by a vaulter that had stopped by his house..

April 21, 1985

Dear Dave,

Enclosed is a copy of the 1984 Pole Vault Report for Elite Athlete Project. Sorry for the delay in getting it to you. I’d appreciate any feedback you can give me after reading the report. Of the coaches I’ve talked with, you seeded to have the best handle on how to use the data generated by this project.

Best regards,

I don’t think I was the only one or the best.. I do know that Greg Hull, Jan, Kochel and I, to mention a few..(and I know Tellez) worked from the science…

when Kochel was no longer vault coordinator I was not very involved.. plus I had moved to Texas to coach at SMU and wasn’t able to follow up with Tully on a weekly basis.. the changes we had focused on were on hold, although he jumped well and may have been at his fastest, .. until I returned to California in 87/88 .. the first 3 meets of 88 he jump 18-10/19-0/19-2… then he damaged his Achilles..

Greg Hull managed to stay with it and had success with Nick and a few others.. Jim Bemiller at Tennessee, I can assure you, worked toward the Bubka, Petrov “model”.. and what Tully and I had done or were attempting to do. I shared all the “science’ with B..

The science I have has 47 items concerning angles, speeds, distances etc from the last two steps on the runway until max center of mass above the bar…… I made a spread sheet in early 1984 of 16 vaults.. 4 from Tully, 4 from Bell, two from Olson.. and one from Ripley, Lytle, Buckingham, Prusley and Hintinaus… Lined them up side by side.. found the strengths and weaknesses and the “common” changes that were needed to physics… I have the Data for the 19 foot 1984 trials jump for Tully… he learned the “model” from Tellez but it needed some serious “cleaning” up to become what Petrov/Bubka did with the physics of the event. i/we managed to get the run right by the trials and games.. the plant takeoff wasn’t there and we didn’t get back to that until 1987… in 1987 I got the same data from a Bubka… 5.85 vault that his max COM was 6.12.. that’s when I was able to show Tully why Tellez wanted Mike to learn to run and takeoff like he had seen me do in the long jump.

I attended the first 5/7 pole vault pv summits.. but was never asked to sit in on the elite discussions.. I wasn’t coaching the elite at the time…

I know that a few coaches have stayed with the science but possibly because of the larger group clinics, some experienced, some not.. the knowledge has gotten diluted, splintered, fogged.. think about it.. that was 6 Olympics ago.. in essence 6 “generations ago”.. coaches, some good, were not born or out of diapers yet.. with new technology, video, everyone is a scientist.. and if there has been an “issue” with film it’s that it has replaced the science as a learning base for the new coaches and vaulters… not progress.. you have to put the math with the picture..

Alan your “model” (Bubka/Petrov) is correct… But I think the “exceptions” I took to some of your “comments” were also valid.. but don’t want to rehash and cause us to take steps back…

The video of Tully is still not where we were trying to go… the data shows, although, the speed was as high as the 1987 Bubka 5.85 jump with a 6.12 COM .. and the penultimate was their.. Tully still didn’t create the plant angle or impulse needed to be “Bubka’ like… the Tully video was 5.81 with a COM of 5.84.

Next…

tsorenson » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:27 pm

but it seems more like the pole bends differently due to the position of the left arm, rather than the left arm bending due to the different pole.

I would generally agree with you here… if… I knew the pole patterns were the same, but they were not… Bubka’s pole, plus his higher hand grip on his pole, allows the pole to bend more symmetrical than Isaakson’s pole. The pictures I have analyzed had Isaakson on a Browning Skypole… if you go back in time and check other vaulters of the day.. the pole tended to bend “low” and stay straighter for the top three forths of the pole.. and this wasn't just from the plant takeoff technique.. the pattern justfied/predicted this action...

Of course we could still attribute it to technique… but I have checked the poles, the lengths, dimensions and positions of the sail pieces…

We can even see a difference when the pole is flexed on the factory machine.. vault technique has noting to do with creating those bend characteristics…

I feel the wide grip was partly because of the pole pattern and even knowing Isaakson doesn’t intend to push the pole, even in it’s slightest, I think all vaulters do at the point of transition…

Petrov

The left arm is not trying to bend the pole; it plants it firmly towards the bar and then transfers the effort to the right hand, so that the pole is bent by the impact of the vaulter’s speed and mass.

I personally teach the left hand as simply a ‘stabilizer” and know from physics you need to “transfer” the body weigh/swing force to the top grip and shoulder girdle as quickly as possible, in effect, simultaneously to a free takeoff. The extent (time) of a push with the left hand will depend of the takeoff position.. the “free-er”,… “free” being pole striking just as/after (hundredths as Bubka says) the toe is leaving the ground.. if this (and grip width) is correct the left arm push would be “hundredths”.. and would be less noticeable than a golfers grip during the swing…

The grip width, if too wide, will not allow the vaulter to “push” the left hand toward the bar.. again Bubka was holding a foot higher on poles that had the center of the sail piece about the same.. try bending a fishing rod.. from the tip.. it is interesting when you slide it up and down a “fulcrum”..(the left arm) and find the point that it brings the butt from the floor.. it is in direct relationship as to the “pattern” in the pole…


What can improve vaulting world wide?? #1 of course is the “model” but you can’t consistently vault by the “model” if the run is not correct and consistent.. the run creates the physics of the jump.. and, #2 you can’t jump by the model if the pole doesn’t bend correctly from the plant/takeoff as described by Petrov and Bubka… even a stiffer pole makes a difference.. and if the pole is stiff AND has a slightly different pattern.. it will not feel the same and will force the vaulter to “intuitively” change something…

dj

[IAmTheWalrus]

Isn't the run part of the model? I thought one of the key aspects of the Petrov model, and one of the key aspects to Bubka's success, was that starting with the 1st step, everything was treated as an aspect of the technique. Probably why he was the most consistent vaulter ever.

[EIUvltr]

Isn't the run part of the model? I thought one of the key aspects of the Petrov model, and one of the key aspects to Bubka's success, was that starting with the 1st step, everything was treated as an aspect of the technique. Probably why he was the most consistent vaulter ever.

No.

[dj]

hye

you are correct the run is a part of the "model" but i haven't seen anyone teaching it correctly and most of the time no focus is placed on it at all.. how much discussion is from the plant takeoff to the top and how much is on the run???

my chart with the correct teaching procedures has produced the most speed and best posture on the run of any approach.. from what i have read on the run from the model it's describes what is "correct" but without the means to get there...

dj

PS.. by the way the extent of the effect of a bottom hand “push”/impulse/subtle punch is affected by the grip and where the left elbow is at takeoff/plant.

The bottom grip should be loose but tight… tight from the thumb and trigger finger, loose toward the Pinky”.. with the elbow slightly out this should put any pressure on the ball of the hand.. with the elbow out you can still “rotate”/swing from the shoulders and can’t “press” the pole longer than an “instant”..

[vaultman18]

Oh and folks I have now worked out what Roman is saying about the left arm - and he is right - but you will have to get from the old bald bull himself because I am just going to see who is the first to get it.

I think I have a fair grasp of it. But who knows I may have had "one too many" to really understand .

[KYLE ELLIS]

Isn't the run part of the model? I thought one of the key aspects of the Petrov model, and one of the key aspects to Bubka's success, was that starting with the 1st step, everything was treated as an aspect of the technique. Probably why he was the most consistent vaulter ever.

No.

YES!

[altius]

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
Isn't the run part of the model? I thought one of the key aspects of the Petrov model, and one of the key aspects to Bubka's success, was that starting with the 1st step, everything was treated as an aspect of the technique. Probably why he was the most consistent vaulter ever.


No!!!!!!. from EIUvaulter!!!!! And I thought you were a sports scientist - who presumably has read everything Petrov had written -as a sports scientist would! Dear me!!!!!!!

[KirkB]

Anyone saying that the bottom arm does "nothing" during any phase of the vault is crazy.

Use it only for BALANCE ... or STABILIZATION ... but not to bend the pole, and not to "stay behind the pole". Tom, as you point out in your next paragraph, this is not the same as "nothing". [/quote]

The bottom arm works constantly: It is working at the takeoff to drive the pole to vertical (upward push) and then working all the way through the swing to stabilize, and to accelerate the swing to its maximum velocity, and finally to pull the vaulter's body in line with the pole and upward during the inversion to maximize the energy return.

Having said all this, many coaches overemphasize the straight bottom arm with young athletes, thinking they need this to bend the pole, which creates a block in the swing. I think we all agree that this is not good but to say that the left arm does nothing is going too far.

To be clear, I am ONLY talking about during the pre-stretch to the C when I say the bottom arm should only be used for balance (stabilization).

Unfortunately, some people assume that I'm referring to pre-takeoff or post-C. I'm not. Here's my quote from Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:01 pm http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19430&p=139456:

You shouldn't try to stay "behind the pole" by slowing anything down ... you should instead try to stay behind it by working your body FASTER than the pole is moving. Everything needs to be at hyperspeed! And BTW, as I'm whipping the trail leg thru fast and strong, the bottom arm is no longer passive ... it DOES take on more and more body weight as you approach the chord. At one point in the swing, the pole is somewhat horizontal, and you hip-circle-handstand around it ... VERY similar to a shoot-to-a-handstand on a highbar!

All in all, I agree with you Tom ... but I sense that you many have been pointing at me when you said ...

Anyone saying that the bottom arm does "nothing" during any phase of the vault is crazy.

Kirk

[KirkB]

... I feel the wide grip was partly because of the pole pattern and even knowing Isaakson doesn’t intend to push the pole, even in it’s slightest, I think all vaulters do at the point of transition…

Petrov

The left arm is not trying to bend the pole; it plants it firmly towards the bar and then transfers the effort to the right hand, so that the pole is bent by the impact of the vaulter’s speed and mass.

I personally teach the left hand as simply a ‘stabilizer” and know from physics you need to “transfer” the body weight/swing force to the top grip and shoulder girdle as quickly as possible, in effect, simultaneously to a free takeoff. The extent (time) of a push with the left hand will depend of the takeoff position.. the “free-er”,… “free” being pole striking just as/after (hundredths as Bubka says) the toe is leaving the ground.. if this (and grip width) is correct the left arm push would be “hundredths”.. and would be less noticeable than a golfers grip during the swing…

What can improve vaulting world wide?? ... you can’t jump by the model if the pole doesn’t bend correctly from the plant/takeoff as described by Petrov and Bubka…

Kirk