appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

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.
david bussabarger
PV Nerd
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:35 pm
Expertise: former elite vaulter, author of vaulting books and many articles on vaulting technique.
Lifetime Best: 16-9, 1971
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Brad Pursley

appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby david bussabarger » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:33 pm

1. I despute the claim that mack moved his take off point out. based on videos, including the 04 oly. trials and all his vaults in the 04 oly. games, mack consistently took off about 9" under.
2. It is my point of view, that whatever you call it, the vaulter should not leave the ground before the pole contacts the back of the box. this is tanamount to jumping on the pole.
3. that said, I have no problem with the concept that the vaulter should leave the ground before beginning to bend the pole. however there is indesputable proof that the vaulter can initiate the bend of the pole while still on the ground and still achieve outstanding results ( mack, stevenson, galfione, brits, ecker and so on )
4. examples provided by me of vaulters who achieve outstanding results taking off as much as 18" under is not "cherry picking". I simply provided the best possible examples.other vaulters who immediately come to mind are otto, quinon and krupski. given the time to do more rearch, I am sure I could come up with many more examples. in addition many elite vaulters take off under successfully at least some of the time. for instance, I have many videos of vigneron successfully taking off under. I have a video of hooker clearing 6m.s taking off slightly under. and, I have video of bubka clearing a w.i.r. 19'-11/2" in 84 taking off about 12" under. It is an incredible vault with hudge top end height.
the point here is whether or not the vaulter is trying to take off under, there is indesputable proof that outstanding results can be achieves by doing so. in addition, based on this evidence, studies that claim that the farther under the take off point, the greater the lose of take off velocity must be flawed. otherwise it would be impossible for the previously mentioned vaulters to achieve such outstanding results taking off under.

Branko720
PV Whiz
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:49 am
Expertise: Club Coach
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby Branko720 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:22 pm

Sir you have yet to answer my question. What is the difference between jumping on a stiff pole and a flexible one (ie, fiberglass or carbon)? And what is the advantage of a fiberglass pole?

Would you tell a vaulter jumping on a stiff pole (not fiberglass) that they should take off under? Please respond.

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: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby IAmTheWalrus » Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:23 pm

tudies that claim that the farther under the take off point, the greater the lose of take off velocity must be flawed. otherwise it would be impossible for the previously mentioned vaulters to achieve such outstanding results taking off under.


I accept your premise, I reject your conclusion. It is flawed logic to state that because an athlete performs well, he could not have been hindered in any way. The fact of the matter is that according to a biomechanics report from the 2009 WC, Steve Hooker was able to jump 5.90 while running 9.24 m/s. This is not an extraordinary velocity for an elite vaulter, in fact it is less than one tenth of a meter per second above the average according to the author. There is data of vaulters (including Lavillenie from this repot) running in excess of 9.5m/s. Therefore, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that substantial decreases in velocity(.3m/s), which can result from taking of inside, can occur on jumps in which the resultant height is beyond elite as per the previous definition by david. From this I believe we can conclude that jumps of 5.80m or even 5.90m do not represent maximization of athletic potential, and that most elite caliber jumps taking place today, occur despite numerous flaws (including inside takeoffs).

In conclusion, an athlete can jump elite level heights with an inside takeoff, but studies showing a decrease in velocity due to inside takeoffs indicate that said athlete will never jump as high as their physical capabilities would allow with an inside takeoff.

P.S. I think special attention should be given to Gripich who was able to achieve near elite (per David's definition) height with a velocity of only 8.73m/s. I feel that this data only further supports the idea that 19' just isn't that high any more (see 6.40 model threads for more on this).

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Develop ... _19911.pdf
-Nick

david bussabarger
PV Nerd
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:35 pm
Expertise: former elite vaulter, author of vaulting books and many articles on vaulting technique.
Lifetime Best: 16-9, 1971
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Brad Pursley

Re: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby david bussabarger » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:20 am

to I am a walrus, from vault heretic:
I would agree that vaulters all have flawed technique ( including bubka ) and all are imperfect athletes. we live in an imperfect reality. the difference ( philosohically ) between the supporters of the b/p model and myself, as I see it, is that the b/p model supporters are neoplatonists while I am a realist. you ( I am assuming that you are a b/p supporter ) believe absolutely in what I consider to be a largely hypothectial ideal technical model who's truest incarnation is s. bubka. I eschew all this and prefer to systematically study reality as it is ( I attempt to follow the scientific method ). I draw my conclusions purely based on the empirical data developed from my research ( the largest available spectrum of elite male fg. vaulters I have in my video collection, as well high quality s.m. videos available on the internet ). as to the take off point, I do not recommend taking off under ( or for that matter any other specific take off point ), I only have pointed out the indesputable fact that many elite male fg. vaulters have been highly successful while "consistently" taking off under. I have just read that otto has become the 18th 6m. vaulter and the 6th member who typically takes off under ( according to what I read on this site, he is also one the slowest 6m. vaulters,a 2ble wamy! ). If you disregard bubka, who is in a class by himself performance wise, your chances of achieving 6m.s or better (which in the real world is a superb vault and probably always will be considred as such) do not seem to be reduced much simply because you may take off under. I also think ( heresy of heresies ) that there may possibly be some advantages to an underneath take off point . I believe there has to be some logical explanation as why it has persisted throughout the history of the fg. vault ( if it is such a disadvantage it should have become an evolutionary dead end long ago and vanished ) and why vaulters using it can vault as high, give or take a few centimeters ( and excluding bubka ) as vaulters using the "ideal" outside takeoff point. and there seems to be no end to this trend ( vaulters taking off under continue to keep pace height wise with those who take off closer to the supossed "ideal " ). Based on these facts I again state that the studies that indicate velocitiy lose absolutely occurs in evey case with an underneath take off must be flawed. After all , it wouldn't be the 1st time that a supposed scientific study turned out to be flawed.

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

Re: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:57 am

david bussabarger wrote: Based on these facts I again state that the studies that indicate velocitiy lose absolutely occurs in evey case with an underneath take off must be flawed. After all , it wouldn't be the 1st time that a supposed scientific study turned out to be flawed.



My thought on this very concept stems from typically an under step is thought of as meaning reach. Putting on the breaks this is what most consider to occur on an under step. Correct posture and under there is no braking step so there is not a decrease in velocity. Therefore it must be stated on discussion like this was it an under step with correct mechanics (maintenance of velocity) or was it an under step whereby the athlete applies the brakes on impact.


Second in relationship to the pole at the moment of impact velocity is taken. Instantaneous velocity. What happens after impact is another story. Reality of the fact is we have very little to no data on instantaneous velocity. We all know the 10 to 5m velocity data of athletes. We have little data on the actually velocity of the athlete at the moment of impact. Being under doesn't affect instantaneous velocity in its purest sense except unless the previous comment holds true and it was a reach. What is affect is the angle at which such force is and can be applied if under or impulse. This is one of those grey areas where we have a lot of theories but little to no data to prove it. In addition, the ease of rotation of the pole/vaulter system is greatly affected on an under step. Elites can feel the under step and make corrections in the timing of the rest of the jump to overcome an under step. Novice vaulters can't in most to all cases. Hence my comment early that what you see in a video may or may not be what the athlete was trying to do. It was what occurred on that jump you saw. So unless Otto comes out and says yes I in fact try to take off under on every jump..... How can you say he wants to takeoff under?

david bussabarger
PV Nerd
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:35 pm
Expertise: former elite vaulter, author of vaulting books and many articles on vaulting technique.
Lifetime Best: 16-9, 1971
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Brad Pursley

Re: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby david bussabarger » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:12 pm

to adtf acad. from nesfastus nefestum:
I doubt that any vaulter ever intentionally strives to take off under ( or ever has ). however, the fact remains that it has , for whatever reason, always been a highly successful variation and I believe always will be. the technique of the fg. vault progresses in 2 ways:
1. by intentional design
2. by a natural evolutionary process based on mutations of techique that prove to be benificial.
it appears to me that taking off under is an instinctual benifical mutation. that being said, both ways of possible improvement are subject to the same law of evolution. that is survival of the fittest. If a given variation of technique ( whether it is executed intentionally or instinctively ) proves to coninue to be effective ( particularly at the highest levels of competition )it should continue to persist. If it cannot produce competitive results it should die out and disapear( as has happened with many inferior variations of technique/execution used by early fg. vaulters ). one of the most intertesting facts about the under take off point is that has persisted amoung the very best vaulters of all time despite the ardent effort, over the years, to discredit it and eliminate it ( while also ardently promoting an idealized outside take off point ).
I agree that in order to successfully execute an effective take off using an under take off point all the other elements of the take off must be executed correctly. In addition, the plant must be completed earlier because full contact with the pole occurs at an earlier point in the take off.
thanks for your revealing and interesting info. on the studies on take off velocity.
n.n.

User avatar
vaultman18
PV Pro
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:07 pm
Expertise: College Coach, Former College Vaulter
Favorite Vaulter: Tim Mack
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby vaultman18 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:34 pm

david bussabarger wrote:I doubt that any vaulter ever intentionally strives to take off under ( or ever has ).


Are you serious? You don't think vaulters ever tried to be under? I think it has been well established that an under take off was actually desired on a widespread bases early on in FG vaulting. I know for a fact it is still taught at many high schools all over this country. My college coach advocated it to me in the mid 90's along with a big bottom arm. So for you to say you don't believe vaulters ever strive for it is laughable. The practice is intrenched throughout the US and is a major factor for the mediocrity we are experiencing. You say you don't advocate an under take off but, your very first post gives the impression that you actually do. Some coaches and athletes will inevitably read that post and believe taking off under is ok or it will confirm what they already believe.

david bussabarger
PV Nerd
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:35 pm
Expertise: former elite vaulter, author of vaulting books and many articles on vaulting technique.
Lifetime Best: 16-9, 1971
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Brad Pursley

Re: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby david bussabarger » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:04 pm

to v. pro from iblis:
based on my own vaulting experience, which goes back to 1963, I agree that very early in the fg. era there was debate as to whether an under take off point was better than an outside take off point and vs versa. however it is my experience that by the early 70's ( which coinsided with isaksson's rise in the vault world ) the question had pretty much been decided in favor of an outside take off point ( which issakson used ). note, a great many people thought issakson's technique was close to ideal at this time, which strongly influenced the debate on the take off point. after this point in time I am not personally aware that any one avocated taking off under ( although the under take off point continued to be used by a reasonable percentage of elite vaulters, which continues to this day ). of course it is possible that that there continued to be a few coaches who advocated an under take off point.
however I would be suprised if anyone continued to do so because they would probably be ostrascized from the vault community ( look at how angry people like you are at me for simply stating the irrefutable fact that many elite vaulters, incluing 6 members of the 6m. club typically take off under ). and I will state again, although I doubt that it will do any good , I do not advocate an under take off point . I avocate that the take off point should be mostly determined by the vaulter's natural tendencies ( however it is my additional recommendation that the vaulter should not take off too near the functional extemes of an under or out take off point ). do I make myself clear? or are you just too closed minded and dense to understand ( remember, you started with the insults).

User avatar
vaultman18
PV Pro
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:07 pm
Expertise: College Coach, Former College Vaulter
Favorite Vaulter: Tim Mack
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby vaultman18 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:21 pm

david bussabarger wrote:are you just too closed minded and dense to understand


I am neither closed minded nor dense. I do not understand why you have taken this tone. You started these threads and put them up for criticism. If you didn't want to be questioned that is fine but a public forum is not the place to avoid being questioned. The tone you have decided to take is amateurish at best.

david bussabarger wrote:( remember, you started with the insults).


I did? When exactly? Could quote what I said that was insulting?

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

Re: appendix to the take off point in fg. vaulting

Unread postby altius » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:42 pm

If it were not for the fact that there is evidence of a David Bussabarger writing articles on the vault before he appeared on PVP one would have to suspect he is part of a vast hoax - probably initiated by Becca - in an attempt stir the readers of PVP out of their lethargy. There can be no other logical reason why someone would come out with a version of 'science' that denies all the evidence that has accrued on the vault over the past sixty years. So come on Becca - Admit the con!!! Is David your uncle??? Perhaps it is all just an advertising ploy for "From Beginner to Bubka", because there will be folks out there bemused by all the bull dust and who may be looking for some serious answers to serious questions about this great sport.

As I suggested elsewhere, many of the questions folk are faced with -such as did Galfione take of under -OR NOT - can be resolved by looking at the fabulous images on the dvd that Sean Brown has available. This surely better evidence that the mere claims of someone living in noddyland - there -an insult you can respond to if you wish. But take a back look through the posts to see who really started the childishness???
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests