The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

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
rainbowgirl28
I'm in Charge
Posts: 30435
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 1:59 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, I coach and officiate as life allows
Lifetime Best: 11'6"
Gender: Female
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Casey Carrigan
Location: A Temperate Island
Contact:

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby rainbowgirl28 » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:24 pm

Robert schmitt wrote:I've been thinking about this. This is just a rambling of what I'm thinking about 7-10 years down the road. But I might be able to create a situation where I could Sponser 1 or 2 vautlers through my chiropracitc office. They would have access to all chiro services, I could hire them also so they would have some income and a flexable training schedule. I have a network pf PT's, Nutritionists, and massage therapists, also I could provide a apartment. Western WA there are several Vault opportunities with Pat Lacari at UW, Rick Baggget, Club northwest, a indoor facility in Bellingham. I have year round access to our local HS track. I don't know how hard it really is for an emerging elite or If it is something worth pursing that's why I'm kinds of "throwing it out there" and seeing what you think.


Keep me posted when you are getting closer to being able to do so.

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

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby dj » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:42 pm

hye

I have “expanded” my data.. Hopefully we can all begin to see a pattern..
That pattern will/should match what I understand to be Allan’s “model” and Roman’s “model”… if you follow the “physics” and don’t miss interpret or “stretch” an action out of proportion. A “free takeoff” ..

quoted by Bubka ..
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.


And I think this is exactly what Alan, Roman, Petrov and others believe.. including myself, who has been teaching the vaulter to “jump” actually “impulse” just like my Long Jump takeoff and be up on the toe leaving the ground as the pole slides the last 4 inches into the box.

This is the absolute position to be in at the takeoff.. I have been demonstrating this action myself for years, even yesterday with a 12 foot pole.. gripping 11-6, running from 44 feet.. I takeoff “out”, leave/leaving the runway and let the pole "slide" the last 6 to 8 inches while reaching as high as possible with my top arm…

I guess I need to film it.. but I’m still afraid my technique is not up to par… it helps me teach the beginners… after that? NOT..

I can tell you what the “athlete” has to know and “feel”… you can’t just takeoff out without the “physics’ to make it work.. not even Bubka, Tully, Bell or Roberts.

That “physics” includes the right speed to grip ratio, the right “posture/position” over the last 6 steps and the right “accuracy” from 6 stride in..

You guys knew I would get this back to the Approach Run/”MID”!!! Right..

Under is bad.. free is good.. under is because of the run and the last 6 steps.. (light bulb.. I hope)…….

The next thing on here that we have to deal with very seriously is the amount of pole bend and “why”.

I think I will save that until we all can go over these numbers…

Unfortunately some numbers were used in some studies and some were not.. for example the extension of the plant arm at the plant/takeoff.. I’m pretty sure Mike “tried” to have his at the max (reaching as high as he could) everytime.. even in the early 80’s.. we worked on it.. I even worked on that with Cotton, Simpson and others in the 70’s.. It is an advantage to have as great of an angle “before” the pole hits the back of the box, as physically possible.

Added numbers……………

Tully.. 5.71 jump (5.85 max height COM)’84 the max height COM was @91cm past vertical..
Pole…5.00 pacer…grip 4.97m.. Flex…12.7…Standards…60cm
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
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...
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
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact………….0.12sec
Maximum bend……………………………………….28.5%
Minimum effective pole length………………………3.48m/11.4ft
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend….
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………..0.54sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.58sec

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Tully.. 5.81 jump (5.84 max height COM)’84 the max height COM was @66cm past vertical..
Pole…5.00 pacer…grip 4.99m.. Flex…12.7…Standards…55cm
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
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...
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
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact…………0.10sec
Maximum bend……………………………………….33.2%
Minimum effective pole length……………………...3.33m/10.9ft
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend…
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………..0.56sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.64sec
………………………………………………………………………………………………

Lytle.. 5.71 jump (5.87 max height COM)’84 the max height COM was @93cm past vertical..
Pole…5.00 pacer…grip 4.89m.. Flex…?…Standards…55cm
Length last two steps………………..pen..2.19m...last…2.22cm
Speed last two steps…………………pen..9.62m/s..last..9.39m/s
pole angle at plant………………………………....28.9 degrees
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...
takeoff toe in relation to grip…………………….. 23cm/8" under

………….numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG……………………………7.75 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG……………………………....1.88 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG……………………………..7.98 m/s
Takeoff angle…………………………………………13.6degrees !!!
Pole bend %…………………………………….…….3.0%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 0 inches
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway………….…..30.7 degrees
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact…………0.12sec
Maximum bend……………………………………….30.6%
Minimum effective pole length……………………...3.40m/11.1ft
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend…
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………..0.48sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.56sec

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Bell.. 5.61 jump (5.81 max height COM)’84 the max height COM was @78cm past vertical..
Pole…5.10 pacer…grip 4.90m.. Flex…13.9…Standards…60cm
Length last two steps………………..pen..2.32m...last…2.19cm
Speed last two steps…………………pen..9.28m/s..last..9.62m/s
pole angle at plant………………………………....30.6 degrees
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...
takeoff toe in relation to grip…………………….. 19cm/7" under.

………….numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG……………………………7.26 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG……………………………....1.79 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG……………………………..7.48 m/s
Takeoff angle…………………………………………13.9degrees !!!
Pole bend %…………………………………….…….1.2%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 7cm/2 inch
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway………….…..31.7 degrees
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact…………0.12sec
Maximum bend……………………………………….28.0%
Minimum effective pole length……………………...3.53m/11.6 ft
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend…
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………..0.50sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.54sec

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Olson.. 5.51 jump (5.71 max height COM) Pepsi’84 the max height COM was @62cm past vertical..
Pole…5.00 Catapole…grip 4.84m.. Flex…15.6…Standards…60cm
Length last two steps………………..?
Speed last two steps…………………?
pole angle at plant………………………………....28.3 degrees
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...
takeoff toe in relation to grip…………………….. 26cm/10" under.

………….numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG……………………………7.69 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG……………………………....1.71 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG……………………………..7.88 m/s
Takeoff angle…………………………………………12.5degrees
Pole bend %…………………………………….…….4.2%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 7cm/2 inch
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway………….…..29.9 degrees
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact…………0.12sec
Maximum bend……………………………………….35.5%
Minimum effective pole length……………………...3.18m/10.4 ft
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend…
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………..0.50sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.56sec

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Bubka.. 5.85 jump (6.12 max height COM)’87 the max height COM was @105cm past vertical..
Pole…5.10/5.20 pacer…grip…5.10m.. Flex…?…Standards…?cm
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
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...99.4%
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
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact………….0.12sec
Maximum bend………………………………….........27.1%
Minimum effective pole length……………………..3.73m/12’2.7”
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend…..61.7degrees
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………..0.49sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.55sec

……………………………………………………………………………………….

FS Babalouie .. 5.80 jump(5.86 max height COM)’87 the max height COM was @ 62cm past vertical..
Pole…? pacer…grip 5.10m.. Flex…?…Standards…?cm
Length last two steps………………..pen..2.21m...last…2.18cm
Speed last two steps…………………pen..9.31m/s..last..9.67m/s
pole angle at plant…………………………………....27.3 degrees
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...90.9%
takeoff toe in relation to grip…………………….. 46cm/18.1" under..

……….numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG……………………………7.56 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG……………………………....2.40 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG……………………………..7.93 m/s
Takeoff angle…………………………………………17.6degrees
Pole bend %…………………………………….…….6.2%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 15cm/ 6.1”
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway………….…..29.5 degrees
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact………….0.11sec
Maximum bend………………………………….........32.5%
Minimum effective pole length……………………..3.48m/11’5.1”
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend…..61.3degrees
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………..0.51sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.62sec

…………………………………………………………………………………….

Tully.. 5.75 jump (5.81 max height COM)PRE 87 the max height COM was @66cm past vertical..
Pole…5.00 pacer…grip 4.92m.. Flex…?…Standards…?cm
Length last two steps………………..pen..2.14m...last…2.00cm
Speed last two steps…………………pen..9.34m/s..last..9.43m/s
pole angle at plant………………………………....29.2 degrees
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...97.1%
takeoff toe in relation to grip……………………..26cm/10.2" under..!!!!!!!!!!!!!

…………numbers at takeoff.. toe leaving the runway….
Horizontal Velocity of CG……………………………7.78 m/s
Vertical Velocity of CG……………………………....2.38 m/s
Resultant Velocity of CG……………………………..8.14 m/s
Takeoff angle…………………………………………17.0degrees
Pole bend %…………………………………….…….2.1%
Takeoff toe in relation to top grip……………...……. 10cm/ 4.3”
Pole angle just as toe leaves the runway………….…..30.4 degrees
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact……………..0.12sec
Maximum bend…………………………………….…28.0%
Minimum effective pole length……………………3.57m/11’8.4”
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend…62degrees
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………...0.48sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.50sec

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Tully.. 5.70 jump (5.88 max height COM)TAC 87.. the max height COM was @115cm past vertical
Pole…5.00 pacer…grip 4.97m.. Flex…?…Standards…?cm
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
Vertical extension of plant arm at plant…………...96.5%
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
Impluse.. duration of takeoff foot contact………….0.12sec
Maximum bend…………………………………….…27.4%
Minimum effective pole length…………………3.59m/11’9.4”
Angle of pole cord to vertical at maximum bend…66degrees
Time of max bend after Takeoff……………………...53sec
Total time of jump……………………………………1.58sec

………………………………………………………………………………………


Hopefully I got most of the numbers correct… I have found occasionally by doing the math that there was a typo or miscal’ in the studies…


When I go back over the numbers yes a “free takeoff’ is a huge factor, HUGE, but equally I also know to have a chance for a "free takeoff" the run has to be "on"/correct at the “MID”.. and this is something that can be practiced and corrected.. IF, but we are not, we spend the time to do it..

The next issue is the amount of pole bend.. WITH the correct run/plant/takeoff-impluse…

The data shows us that a vaulter can “load”/bend (shorten the radius) the pole incorrectly (mainly by taking off under and “loading” the pole DOWN.. instead of with an “upward” movement and naturally the way Bubka and Petrov describe it) and have a decent jump if the other numbers are pretty good..

If the takeoff is correct a pole bent 30% (remember a shorter radius, all other things being equal, is easier to move to vertical with the same “swing force”) will come out of the bend without “hesitation” and as strongly as a slightly less bend. which in the long run will allow for a higher grip and higher vaults... there is no doubt in my mind if we get "close" to matching these things, including the right pole and right grip... we can have several jumpers at world record heights.. several...

One of the reasons this "loading" phase.. and HOW is so important is... if you are “loading” up instead of down.. there is less “gravity” or down force on the pole... so to speak and the body is already “in motion” “UP” and will actually take less "force" to keep it in motion (kinda like a "tail wind on the runway)and/or accelerate the mass more giving that mass more of a “catapult”..

Boy that sounds “out there” but I know what I mean.. hopefully others will also…

what i would like to mhave is the data from the women and also Tim Macks 5.90 '04 trials jump..

i might be able to get Macks from he or B...

also i do have numbers for a womens 16-1 jump.. and when women started jumping the "physical" ability data showed they could jump approx.. 17-3

i charted that somewhere and shared that with Steve Chappell years ago...

Later

dj

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

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby dj » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:00 pm

hey guys and girls..

did everyone lose interest in the "numbers" or are you taking time to go over them????

i though there would have been at least some comparisons.. made???

i have two of the Tully jumps.. set to post and give some of my thoughts but don't want to do that until i know there's some interest or understanding going on...

i will say here.. Alan you are correct "we" don't get the free takeoff concept.. I spent a fun but very frustrating time at the Florida Relays.. 4 sections of vault... high school boys and girls and college/open men and women.. i did not see one vaulter or their coach "get it right".. EVERYONE was too busy moving to bigger poles.. the next pole.. the next pole.. to even jump correctly or coach correctly.. too many poles and too many "different poles" and the big pole mentality has got us by the B%%%%%..

the vaulter takes off incorrectly and over bends… goes to bigger pole instead of correcting takeoff.. then on a second jump corrects the takeoff.. but has to force bend to get the pole to “move”.. goes back to bad technique.. repeats the cycle.. like the cat chasing her tail…. When they catch it they want know what to do with it…

i have to admit in the USA's defense most of the rest of the world has the big pole mentality also... and as you see the rest of the world get access to more poles easier, you will start to see them "lose" the ability to run - plant and swing correctly.. and find it harder to takeoff "free"..

why.. because if you are always moving to bigger poles you will always "press" on the run.. feel you have to force bend the pole and reach under every time......

Right now i don't think we can get to where you wanted us to go Alan.. not from here...

i think it's time for me to move on to my next 'career"..

dj

ps.. i will post some more numbers if there is interest.. also we need to ask Peter fro the women and Mack's 2004 jumps...

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: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby tsorenson » Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:28 pm

dj,

Thank you for taking the time to research and post these numbers, it obviously involved a lot of time and effort. I have been looking through them thoroughly, but have not posted any responses because ADTF's thread seems to be looking for input from athletes/coaches working with people gripping over 16'. (I was really excited the other day to get my grip back above 14' for the first time since 96, and none of the kids I am coaching right now are gripping any higher, yet) However, studying dj's data has given me some thoughts that seem worth sharing:

Someone mentioned in the other thread that studying "freak" data points is not always useful, but in my opinion, accurate data is useful, period. If these numbers were combined and compared with many other vaulters at all levels, then signifigant trends would emerge. Everyone would certainly need a consistent method of getting useful, accurate data without having high-speed film, expensive software, etc. Maybe it's not practical at all to expect this level of cooperation in our modern era...maybe this can only be achieved in a totalitarian system like the former USSR...? Then again, look at the human genome project...many "competing" scientists throughout the world working together for years with their eyes on the prize, and it worked (for better or worse).

Have you thought about creating a spreadsheet for your data to make it easier to compare various categories of numbers? Maybe you've already done this...it would be easier than viewing it on a message board. Maybe there could be a shared online spreadsheet where coaches could add numbers for various athletes in order to create a useful data pool. Graphs and charts can easily be generated by Excel and other spreadsheet programs which show trends in a graphical format more easy to grasp for everyone...just a suggestion. Probably this has already been done but not necessarily shared publicly? I have seen a lot of charts from McInnis, et al but they don't always go into the detail that your numbers do.

Regardless whether anyone is interested in sharing data to the level that you have, thanks for your efforts. You never know when the next young Bubka (or his/her coach) might be reading this stuff and learning from it. As ADTF said, it is uncommon to have people looking 10 years into the future, but that's what it takes!

Tom

User avatar
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 Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby Pogo Stick » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:59 pm

tsorenson wrote:dj,
Someone mentioned in the other thread that studying "freak" data points is not always useful, but in my opinion, accurate data is useful, period. If these numbers were combined and compared with many other vaulters at all levels, then signifigant trends would emerge. Everyone would certainly need a consistent method of getting useful, accurate data without having high-speed film, expensive software, etc. Maybe it's not practical at all to expect this level of cooperation in our modern era...maybe this can only be achieved in a totalitarian system like the former USSR...? Then again, look at the human genome project...many "competing" scientists throughout the world working together for years with their eyes on the prize, and it worked (for better or worse).


You can find some Bubka's data in this tread:
http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=18874&hilit=jagodin&start=12#p135372


When you mentioned USSR... In many pole vault reviews form '80 published in Legkaya Atletika (their equivalent to Track&Field News) was lot of numbers, especially of Russian/USSR vaulters. I bet Agapit still had some issues at home. ;)
-- Pogo

"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory." W. Edwards Deming

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

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:00 pm

What does this data show? It shows commonalities for the men.

Total Time for vault 1.45 to 1.60
Total Time to max bend .45 to .55
% of pole bend between 27 to 33%

How do we use these numbers.

If you vault takes longer than 1.60 seconds you have a passive moment find it and fix it.
If your vault takes less than this your probably gripping to low and moving through the vault too fast.
If it takes you longer than .55 to get to max bend your either over gripping or on too soft of a pole.
If it takes you less than .45 your either under gripping or on too stiff of a pole


If we are taking commonalities of the vault and what is needed despite style or what not. These are the factors. It does not take into account how they jumped, but basically all the vaults posted fell into these numbers.

If you want to measure your vault and how effective it is go by these numbers. If timed up right on the right pole you may produce a 1.40 flyaway and go 6 meters if gripping 5 meters or higher.

Now this leads us into the technical issues that everyone loves to talk about. Your run up, pole carry, plant and takeoff must be in such a way that allows you to rotate a pole that allows you as the vaulter to match these figures.

Let's put it this way... If you want to run fast in the hurdles and you need to average 2.60 to the first hurdle and 1.10 between hurdles (just match not really that fast) everything you do technically must be done with those figures in mind. If you do a hurdle or start technique that puts you at 2.75 and 1.15 you will never achieve your hurdle time. Same with the vault. If you do anything that puts you outside these parameters you will never achieve the goal you wish to.

Now how can everyone use these numbers. Well look at the data it didn't matter how high someone was holding or how high they jumped they all met these numbers. This is the key rather your jumping 5.20 or 6 meters. This is the factors you must follow.

DJ if people don't get it they never will. I'll give you a call I need to ask a few questions.

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

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby dj » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:10 pm

Good morning PVP

I think here’s where we need to take a slightly “different” look at the numbers…

by ADTF Academy » Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:00 pm
What does this data show? It shows commonalities for the men.

Total Time for vault 1.45 to 1.60
Total Time to max bend .45 to .55
% of pole bend between 27 to 33%



The total time more like 1.43 to 1.50
To max bend .49/.50
% of bend 30/31, actually 33% would be ok/good.. IF the vaulter took of “UP”/impluse ( or the way Bubka did on his best) and the pole was made correctly so that it doesn’t break with the 33% bend.. ie.. pattern, type of glass, mandrel size…


How do we use these numbers.

If you vault takes longer than 1.60 seconds you have a passive moment find it and fix it.
If your vault takes less than this your probably gripping to low and moving through the vault too fast.
If it takes you longer than .55 to get to max bend your either over gripping or on too soft of a pole.
If it takes you less than .45 your either under gripping or on too stiff of a pole


1.60 in time usually means the takeoff was hugely incorrect.. pole was too stiff or the pole bent incorrectly… those are the main issue creating total time.. all else being equal

If it takes you longer than .55 to get to max bend your either over gripping or on too soft of a pole.


This actually happens when the pole is to stiff not to soft… a soft pole.. when planting correctly will create less “resistance” bending quicker to max bend.. or break.. if it takes longer to max bend, all things being equal, the pole is too stiff.

What you have to do is look at the velocities, horzontal and vertical.. the distance travelled “IN” and “UP from takeoff to max bend and you will find the answer. On T-Macks 5.90m trials jump, which he was basicly “defamed” for.. put the numbers together BETTER, not worse than most.. even Bubka.. when I get to post them you will see this…

If you take the numbers for that jump.. speed, horizontal and vertical velocity.. grip, takeoff angle swing speed and height above grip and put a bigger pole in his hand… these numbers will change.. 1. the takeoff angle.. 2.less distance travelled “IN” horizontally in the same .49 seconds.. greater angle of takeoff 3. the time to max bend.. and/or less % of bend.. meaning a longer “cord” to move to vertical..

Bottom line is unless he could put more “energy” in at the plant/takeoff he wouldn’t couldn’t move a stronger less bending pole or a higher grip to vertical and finish the jump… the length of the pole cord at maximum bend is a very important factor.. as is amount of bend that will effectively let the vaulter maximize there other assets..


If we are taking commonalities of the vault and what is needed despite style or what not. These are the factors. It does not take into account how they jumped, but basically all the vaults posted fell into these numbers.

If you want to measure your vault and how effective it is go by these numbers. If timed up right on the right pole you may produce a 1.40 flyaway and go 6 meters if gripping 5 meters or higher.

Now this leads us into the technical issues that everyone loves to talk about. Your run up, pole carry, plant and takeoff must be in such a way that allows you to rotate a pole that allows you as the vaulter to match these figures.



I posted, I think, a video of Daniel and T-Mack that shows (when all other numbers are equal) what happens when a pole is either a stronger flex, according to the in put of energy at the takeoff, or is designed to create a less than “symmetrical” flow of energy.

Both vaulters were gripping 16-4 and jumping 5.90… both took approximately 1.47 seconds to complete the jump to max COM above the bar.

Daniel was faster on the last two steps.. the takeoffs were about the same…

Tim’s time to max bend was .49.. Daniel .60.. Tim’s takeoff angle to max bend was lower than Daniel.. Tim’s pole cord was closer to vertical at max bend than Daniel. Tim had more Max bend than Daniel 31% to 28%.. which mean’s Daniel was closer to the bar at max bend.. Daniel had less bend and “Tucked” and “shot” and finished (from max bend of the pole) the jump in .87 seconds.. Tim with more bend finished in .98.. . both with the same total time… both had similar height above grip.

I am in the process of getting the “numbers” from Tim’s 5.90-2004-trials jump and if anyone can get them from peter.. or other jumps from Peter.. including Daniel and the women.. those numbers could add to this discussion tremendously.

I know all this can be confusing unless you have studied the “numbers” from the perspective I gained by sitting on the floor with Tully with a ‘spread sheet” with these numbers side by side.. and from looking at 100’s or actually thousands of vaults with these issues of “physics” going through your head.

One key element is that Daniel had a longer “cord” to move to vertical than Tim because he did not bend as much. That is where the extra speed he had was used.. to move the longer cord, created from less bend, to vertical.

This verifies what I said about Tim’s 5.90 jump and “why”… Daneil had less bend.. more time to max bend, longer cord to move.. greater takeoff angle.. and could only get the pole to vertical because he hit the takeoff with more speed.. If Daniel would have used a pole that bent the way Tim’s did and go through the “numbers” the way Tim did.. because of the superior speed at the plant he could have griped higher.. and jumped proportionally higher with the same numbers……

dj

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

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:41 pm

Have you ever heard of the term Benchmarks?

I do not see the videos posted anywhere of the vaults you are referring to with Tim and Daniel. If you are talking Ryland I have seen him vault and there may be more things going in the first half of the vault that slows him to max bend than the stiffness of pole. However, as you put it total time of his jump is under 1.50. This is what I am trying to determine for people what are the benchmark numbers to go by in a vaulter trying to jump over 5.50?


I still have not seen your time analysis of Mark for the 2008 and 2009 videos I posted. Would enjoy seeing your times for his jumps on your system. I know his speed and data myself, but I would enjoy seeing your data for him as well under your parameters. Still a work in progress, but I will bet this goes against your theory that the smaller the bend the stiffer the pole the more time it takes to reach max bend.

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

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:01 pm

I just looked at the videos from the 2009 US Championships. Guess what everyone out of that training group (same as Daniel's) had roughly the same data. Total time near or at 1.5 sec and total time to max bend near .6, but they still were in the benchmark figures.


Maybe it could also be the technique being taught. You never posted any data on Jeff Hartwig. Did he match up to these numbers like Daniel, Grande, and Miles? I have the videos from the Trials somewhere I will have to find them and do the time calculations.

User avatar
IAmTheWalrus
PV Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:31 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current College Coach, Aspiring to be Elite Vaulter
Lifetime Best: 5.06m

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby IAmTheWalrus » Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:19 pm

I think the video comparing Tim Mack and Daniel Ryland can be found on the first page of this thread:

http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtop ... =2&t=18941
-Nick

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

Re: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:22 pm

so you measure max bend % meaning back flat to the ground.

So you time to a position not to the actual max bend spot. These may not always be the same. Once the pole starts unbending the max bend has already been achieved. If the vaulter is back flat to the ground at this point is a technical issue and matching it up with pole. Timing to a body position and calling it the time to max bend is a calculation error.


Your data is flawed.

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: The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

Unread postby KirkB » Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:14 pm

ADTF Academy wrote:so you measure max bend % meaning back flat to the ground.

So you time to a position not to the actual max bend spot. These may not always be the same. Once the pole starts unbending the max bend has already been achieved. If the vaulter is back flat to the ground at this point is a technical issue and matching it up with pole. Timing to a body position and calling it the time to max bend is a calculation error.

Your data is flawed.

I don't see where DJ refers to "flat back". But assuming that he does ...

ADTF, you are technically correct ... that timing to a body position is NOT the same as timing to max bend. However, the flat back position is the easiest frame to pick out of a series of frames on a vid. To try to decipher exactly what frame has the exact "max bend" will lead to data errors, as it's too subjective. I would rather just call it what it is ... "time to flat back" ... and say that in that context, the data is NOT flawed. As long as every measurement ... for every attempt of every vaulter ... is determined by the same criteria ... then that's all that really matters.

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


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests