takeoff angle and beyond

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
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: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby KirkB » Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:00 am

dj wrote: ... 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”..

Is THIS what you mean?

Lukyanenko.jpg
Lukyanenko.jpg (12.46 KiB) Viewed 5568 times

Talk about an extreme example! By THAT point in the swing, I was definitely hanging on firmly with both hands ... becuz the pole had "turned into a highbar" by that time!

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

EIUvltr
PV Pro
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:38 pm
Expertise: Ex-collegiate pole vaulter B.S. Exercise Science ACSM personal trainer
Location: Homewood, IL
Contact:

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby EIUvltr » Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:21 am

altius wrote: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!!!!!!!


Twas a joke.
"If he dies, he dies"

tsorenson
PV Pro
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:17 am
Expertise: masters vaulter, former college vaulter, volunteer HS/club coach, fan, parent
Location: Bend, Oregon

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby tsorenson » Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:30 pm

No offense intended, Kirk or anyone else, we obviously are all "crazy"...about the pole vault. I always enjoy reading your contributions.

My point is: the bottom arm action is the most disputed and most misunderstood aspect of the entire event. Any posts made on this discussion board are read by athletes and coaches trying to understand and/or reinforce their knowledge. To me, an expert such as yourself saying that the bottom arm does nothing is almost as bad (by bad I mean confusing) as saying that it should be jammed rigidly into the pole to initiate the bend...as a coach I am constantly searching for the best points of emphasis and "keywords" to help athletes understand what they are striving for. The fact is, the bottom arm's role and position is fairly complex and dynamic and can't necessarily be simplified into "do nothing" or "lock it out".
I'm sure that any comments made about doing nothing with the bottom arm are meant to say that often it is best to de-emphasize the left arm's role with young athletes so that they can learn to swing naturally...eh? Just trying to clarify.
OK, time to leave the computer and go to vault practice! It's sunny with a nice tailwind...might be a big pole day.
I'm going to take a break from this discussion for a while to hopefully learn by listening (reading?) to others' thoughts. It's funny how many of the experts don't want to talk about it anymore...

Cheers
Tom

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

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby dj » Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:50 pm

hye

this is "sort off' the grip... but it's too late in the vault and the elbow is not out....

i would tend to think that.. yes he is stabilizing/guiding with the left hand.. but also since the left elbow is not out i would think he is using it as a 'fulcrum" from the force being generated from a strong trail leg swing... and.. he may be "intuitively" pressing slightly with the left/lower hand to keep the pole bent and moving.. medal re-shapes itself (as do some pole patterns) faster than glass.. so it is logical, and physics.. for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.., if the pole is "pushing" to straighten, the vaulter is "pushing" to resist until he can get in position to exit the pole where he wants to go.. in this event (pole vaulting) that is vertical... same reason we have "tuck and shoot" as a technique.. the vaulter spends and "un-equal" amount of time on the "load" or the penetration phase and has to "tuck and shoot" to catch up... has to use stiffer poles because of the “force” on the bottom.. uses a bigger pole to keep from blowing through and ‘force” bends to use the bigger pole.. and the cycle repeats itself until we have a “technique” set in place.. just like the knee drop/pump. Physics should win most times.

………………………………………………………………………………………….
the takeoff.. is the most critical juncture in the vault… and Alan I’ll give you credit for trying to beat everyone over the head with a “free” takeoff.. BUT it’s not just “free” that makes it correct. George Moore, in the 70’s when Bubka was ten, said (not his exact words.. I need to find the article) that the transfer of momentum from horizontal to vertical at the plant/takeoff is the most important part of pole vaulting. If an athlete can’t master the plant/takeoff he will never be world class.

I have been going back over the ‘science’.. a couple of Tully vaults and a Bubka vault. Interesting comparison, they have the same speed on the last two steps.. Tully’s COM was slightly higher at plant, Mike was taller. Mike was way “under” for him.. Mike and Earl averaged around 2 to 4 inches under, Mike was more than that according to the “science”.

Even though Mike’s COM was higher at the plant.. the next instant (frame), of extension of the top arm, Bubka was higher!!! Mike was under and had gotten “snatched” from the ground.. but at the next frame, instant of takeoff (toe leaving the ground) Mikes pole was bent 1% and Bubka’s 1.6%?? Bubka was under by 10cm/4 inches. The rest of the swing, after they were off the ground, was.. tit for tat…

Interestingly on Mike’s jump, partially because he was under he had a lower takeoff angle, 11.6 degree, and bent the pole 33%. His grip was 4.99 and he still cleared a 5.80 bar with a max COM of 5.85.

Bubka cleared 5.85 with a grip of 5.10 and a max COM of 6.12m a TO angle of 16.4 degrees and only bent the pole 27.1%.

Next… I have a 5.70 jump of Tully, under by .15cm (only 2” more than the Bubka jump) a grip of 4.87cm and Max COM of 5.85 (higher than the 5.80 jump with a lower grip!) His angle of takeoff was 14.7 degrees and pole bend was 28.5%.

First of all he was on the SAME pole.. same flex!!… don’t jump to conclusions… yes he was one grip lower which would “seemingly” make the pole stiffer.. but honestly not even close to the degree that YOU are thinking.. the way the pole was made that would only put the top of the grip 2” closer to the “mid point” of the sail piece… minor to the real picture.

It was the WAY and where he took off. In discussing the “free takeoff” I have always gotten that we are talking about the “where”, always, and not the how.. until you have done the math, studied these numbers…( and I haven’t “studied” them enough or pulled them out since 1988.) thrown out your/my own “biases” created over a 40 year coaching career and put it to a test.. you may be closer but you still may not “get it”.

I have the utmost respect for the scientist that give us this information and they are at the top of their field. They can help us “draw conclusions” and get us closer to a “final answer” but unless they (us, coaches included) have actually jumped at a world class level or coached athletes that have, we will not get close enough.

Petrov and Bubka can if we match the science to their practical knowledge and “feel”. I have been fortunate to work reasonably close to 3 world record holders and/or their coaches and a gold medalist.

I have sat in the floor with Mike Tully with the “numbers” spread out on the floor. Going over each, deciding where the focus should be first, the meaning of the numbers by his “feel”, physics and his athletic ability.

Honestly we have never had a “conference”, that I know of, where the science met the athlete and it was accepted by the majority and bias or ego didn’t get in the way and kill the effectiveness of the event. Mike Tully (the absolute best “test pilot” before Bubka) went to some sessions but he was never going to “share” to much, first because he wanted to beat you and second there were always those that “had a better way”.

I know Tom Tellez had it right and worked with several of the top vaulters in the world at the time. I know Guy Kochel had it right with Earl and others he coached. I know Greg Hull had/has it right and showed that with Nick Hysong. I know Bemiller has/had it right.. I think at some point all of them, me included, got tired of the “brick wall” that didn’t follow the physics and have said, go ahead, beat your head against the wall…

Back to the numbers.. THE IMPLUSE at the takeoff is more important than the position. Yes the impulse is negated by an “under” takeoff by varying degrees.. but you must absolutely have an “upward” impulse at the takeoff to maximize your potential AND to know what size (and bend characteristics) pole to us.. AND size of pole based on transfer of the horizontal energy will determine the “technique” after you leave the ground.

As the toe left the ground, where Bubka, has 1.6% bend, Bubka’s trail leg toe was 2 inches in front (toward the box) of the top grip. Mike’s was 2 inches with 1% pole bend.

Mike had less pole bend at this point even though he had taken off a little more under than Bubka..

No real conclusions can be drawn from this frame without the “surrounding” physics/numbers.

Bubka’s pole angle at this point (toe leaving the ground) was 29.6 degrees, Tully at the same point 29.8 degrees..

Here’s some key info if we put it in context with all the data.. In first “lite” based on Tully jumping the same max COM, one with a lower grip and less pole bend, 28.5% to 33%, you might want to think that less pole bend is better.. and I have seen that thinking start to dominate the “masses” going back to Bubka’s later years.

This is not correct “thinking”, when you match the physics with the correct takeoff position, and that position is out and with a strong “up” impulse, you will not only bend (load) the pole correctly it will come “out of the bend” correctly with the athlete moving up as if they were catapulted up. A larger (30+ degree ish) bend is advantageous from a physics stand point .. IF THE TAKE-OFF IS CORRECT .. because you can grip higher and produce higher jumps with the same energy input.

A correct takeoff includes a penultimate. The ladies, Murer, on the vids that were just posted were not bending the pole very much, not as much as I think they should, but they also came off the top.. somewhat “flat”. I feel this ‘angle’ on top is not created because they didn’t swing back far enough but because they ‘stretched” the last step. They stretch the last step because they are out to far at the MID and can’t “get the feet down” to promote the “up” impulse that is needed. If they did that correctly they could bend more, grip higher and still “feel” the kick on top of the pole.

Tully bent the same pole 33% because of a bad takeoff but still cleared a 5.80 bar with a 5.84 COM. If he took off correctly with the same input of speed he could grip higher, maybe on a slightly bigger pole, still bend 31% and have the same proportions to grip to COM he had on the 5.70 jump. Which by the way is where we were headed in 1988 when Bubba saw Tully jump 19-2… Based on the math and the changes from the correct impulse at the takeoff and with the speed he already had we were looking at a 17 foot grip and a 20 foot + jump…

Of course the athletes, Bubka, included that were faster than Tully could use the same science and jump even higher.

One of the keys and variables is matching the grip and pole strength (flex –design) with the correct impulse and speed. Tim Mack was not a “pole squash’er” he matched the variables (verified by his height above grip) on his best jumps as good/better than anyone that has vaulted.

Here’s some numbers to support the “impulse” as the key factor. and a "free" takeoff Alan..

Tully.. 5.70 jump at take off.. toe leaving the ground (5.85 max height COM)
Horizontal Velocity of CG………7.61 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG………....2.00 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG………..7.87 m/s


Tully.. 5.80 jump at take off.. toe leaving the ground (5.84 max height COM)
Speed last two steps.. pen..9.56..last..9.64
Horizontal Velocity of CG………7.96 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG………....1.64 m/s (remember he was under and “snatched” from the ground.
Resultant Velocity of CG………..8.12 m/s

Bubka .. 5.85 jump at take off.. toe leaving the ground (6.12 max height COM)
Speed last two steps.. pen..9.46..last..9.54
Horizontal Velocity of CG………8.04 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG………....2.37 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG………..8.38 m/s



dj

User avatar
altius
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
Location: adelaide, australia
Contact:

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby altius » Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:18 am

Twas a joke. Too serious to joke about! real sports scientists dont joke about anything!
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

baggettpv
PV Master
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:04 pm
Location: Oregon City, Or
Contact:

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby baggettpv » Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:52 am

The pre jump is explained definitly in my description of the takeoff on http://www.youtube. Deal with it.

Rick Baggett
WSTC

baggettpv
PV Master
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:04 pm
Location: Oregon City, Or
Contact:

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby baggettpv » Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:02 am

and I want to reinforce the idea that it's not where you are but what you are doing.
The Taleoff is what I am talking about.

Rick Baggett
WSTC
Good coaching is good teaching.

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

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby dj » Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:05 am

good morning,

here is a third Tully jump that was in the direction we were trying to vault. It wasn't that he couldn't do it or that we were not trying.. only a few vaults were filmed and most of the time when he was doing things right he was on the wrong pole withthe wrong grip and blew through..


Tully.. 5.70 jump at take off.. toe leaving the ground (5.88 max height COM)
grip 4.97.. takeoff.. 6cm/2" under..
Speed last two steps.. pen..9.47..last..9.59
pole angle..30.3 degrees
at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway
Horizontal Velocity of CG………7.63 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG………....2.62 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG………..8.07 m/s

interestingly the resultant velocity was higher on the 5.80 jump????

pole bend was 27.4% and took place .53 seconds after takeoff...
Bubka's max pole bend on his 5.85 jump took place at .49 seconds.. the same as Tim Mack's 5.90 jump in the 2004 trials........

dj

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: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby vault3rb0y » Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:12 am

These numbers are awesome DJ, and i find myself creating answers and explanations in my head for some of their correlation. But I'm not a biomechanics PhD and i'm "shooting in the dark" when it comes to my logic, because I've never worked through numbers like these with someone that knows what they are doing. If you had the time to write out possible correlations and explainations, and either post it here or in a new thread, or even a PM, that would be such a huge learning experience for "young bulls" like me.
The greater the challenge, the more glorious the triumph

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:13 am

This forum is fun.....

So many great topics and ideas all jammed into one posts so no one really understands anything.

Why can't we bring back the old round table discussions and bash this out once and for all... Oh yeah its easier to hide behind a computer. Secondly, who would be invited? Bekah here is your chance assemble a round table if you can...

In the many years some of us have been been conversing, everyone seem to use their own verbiage and won't admit there may be other ways to mean the same thing or if one word may be off than they are completely wrong. Coaches advance in their learning and execution on that one athlete who it works. If their wasn't Bubka would we really know the name Petrov as well as we do now? Yes he worked with others but why couldn't they duplicate what Bubka did? Same coach same verbiage, but not the same results.

All this theory is great and those that know me know I love it and dig it and can talk as much theory as the next guy. However, in practice we find this to be quite different. To perform these topics and actions on a 14' pole is not hard, even a 15' pole. Doing them carrying over 9.4 m/s with a grip over 5 meters takes more than just theory it takes balls!!!!!!!

I will add a new topic to this broad discussion: Are top athletes today mentally strong enough to hand this technique? When you feel very little support on the bottom hand I'm sorry there needs to be a lot of trust (generic word being used) or stupidity. Can we say Hooker or Walker had/have trust? Walker going for it landed in the box and Hooker WR attempt at the WC came about 5 inches from landing in the box. These two are the most recent who had that mental ability to just go for it. I don't see many others out there who are even mentally strong enough to give the model a shot gripping over 5 meters. Can you name any?

I think the correct thing we need to keep in mind is this. If you have athletes who can only grip 4.90 what is the best model to produce a shot at the WR? If you have athletes who can only grip 5.00 what is the best model to produce a shot at the WR? If you have athletes who can only grip 5.10 what is the best model to produce a shot at the WR?

Have you ever even worked with someone who could grip this high? Or is all your suggestions theory based or do you have any personal experience gripping that high or working with someone gripping that high? We are lucky there are a handful of guys and maybe ladies on this forum who have... These are the people I want to here from and discuss with. I'm currently working with 4 guys who are either jumping over 18' or have jumped over 18'. We battle constantly with what to do to get more grip without losing pole and swing speed. Without the grip your never really going for the WR IMO. Please don't take this personal, but if you have theories great go post them and let others agree or destroy them, but when it comes to real data and experience some of you need to just listen and ask questions not try to state facts.

Have not decided if I will attempt to add to this discussion because once again what are we even talking about anymore?

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:26 am

DJ,

Great data but I am wondering if you can expand it for us meaning.

Give exact marks... YOu said under 5cm well what did you guys what to be at what was he at? What was he gripping? Do you know length of PS and TO step? What was total time of jump from toe off till Max height? I know you posted this data before.

This is the stuff that I want to see and compare to Mark. I even brought it up to the USATF High Performance in regards to how we had the Renaud on our soil and no one got any data from him jumping at Milrose. No film, no speed information, nothing.

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

Re: takeoff angle and beyond

Unread postby dj » Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:19 pm

I will create some ‘continuity” with what I have posted… but it will be impossible for us to present and understand the “science’ by using this forum.. to much room for misinterpretation, lag time between questions and answers.. too many “speculative answers with only part of the data.. even with the data I have (47 plus items for each vaulter from the last two steps to max height over the bar) I don’t have it all… wind conditions?? Although Bubka;s was indoors..



Tully.. 5.71 jump (5.85 max height COM)
grip 4.97m..
Length last two steps…………...............……..pen..2.13m...last…2.06m
Speed last two steps…………................………pen..9.35m/s..last..9.43m/s
pole angle at plant………………………....………....29.7 degrees
takeoff toe in relation to grip…………………….. 15cm/5" under..

numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG…………………….......………7.61 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG………………………..…....…....2.00 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG……………………........………..7.87 m/s
Takeoff angle……………………………………...........……14.7degrees
Pole bend %……………………………………..........…...….1.5%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 3cm/1 inch
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway……………..31.0 degrees
Maximum bend……………………………..........………….28.5%
Time of max bend after Takeoff…...…………………..54sec
Total time of jump………………………….......…………1.58sec

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Tully.. 5.81 jump (5.84 max height COM)
grip 4.99m..
Length last two steps……………....................…..pen..2.17m...last…1.98cm
Speed last two steps……….....................…………pen..9.56m/s..last..9.64m/s
pole angle at plant………………….........……………....28.7 degrees
takeoff toe in relation to grip…….....……………….. 22cm/8" under.!!!.

numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG…………………......…………7.96 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG………………………….....…....1.64 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG……………………….....……..8.12 m/s
Takeoff angle……………………………………........……11.6degrees !!!
Pole bend %……………………………………..........…….1.0%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 7cm/2 inch
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway………….…..29.8 degrees
Maximum bend…………………………………….........….33.2%
Time of max bend after Takeoff…………..…………..56sec
Total time of jump………………………………........……1.64sec
………………………………………………………………………………………………

Tully.. 5.70 jump (5.88 max height COM)
grip 4.97m..
Length last two steps…………..................……..pen..2.21m...last…2.08cm
Speed last two steps…………...................………pen..9.47m/s..last..9.59m/s
pole angle at plant…………………….......…………....30.3 degrees
takeoff toe in relation to grip…………....………….. 6cm/2.4" under..

numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG……………………….......……7.63 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG…………………………......…....2.62 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG……………………….....……..8.07 m/s
Takeoff angle………………………………………........…18.9degrees
Pole bend %…………………………………….….........….0.7%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 1cm/
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway…………..31.2 degrees
Maximum bend……………………………………..........…27.4%
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………...53sec
Total time of jump………………………………….....…1.58sec

………………………………………………………………………………………

Bubka.. 5.85 jump (6.12 max height COM)
grip 5.10m..
Length last two steps…………................……..pen..2.10m...last…2.04cm
Speed last two steps………….................………pen..9.46m/s..last..9.54m/s
pole angle at plant………………….....……………....28.6 degrees
takeoff toe in relation to grip……..……………….. 10cm/3.9" under..

numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG…………………....…………8.04 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG………………………....……....2.37 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG………………………...……..8.38 m/s
Takeoff angle……………………………………......……16.4degrees
Pole bend %…………………………………….….......….1.6%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 2cm/
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway…………..29.6 degrees
Maximum bend………………………………….............27.1%
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………..49sec
Total time of jump………………………………….....…1.55sec

dj


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests