GRV: Lavillenie - From Stall Swing to World Record

[willrieffer]

I "blamed" myself, my lack of a coach, and time. And as much as you focus on the 'free take off' aspect, that still leaves the double leg, which I also experimented with and left behind.

Will

The exact same advice goes for the double leg swing as it does for the free take off. Countless reps in more controllable conditions are needed for it to be implemented in the vault. I just didn't specifically cite the double legged swing in my earlier post because I don't believe in training a double legged swing the same way I believe in training a free take off. BTB offers great commentary on the double leg swing, but I'll offer up why I don't train it for you, since I doubt you own a copy of BTB. If you don't, I would suggest getting a copy because even if you don't agree with all of it, it'll help you identify exactly WHAT you don't agree with, and it's the most comprehensive PV book ever written. But anyway...

1.) Technical reason: Time wasted. Most importantly, it takes time to drop the drive knee before beginning a double legged swing. The time between the pole making contact with the box and the start of the swing MUST be minimized, because any time spent on the pole that you are not actively converting energy from your muscles into the pole by a long and continuous inversion is WASTED time (a passive phase, as described by the 640m.com model of vaulting. Check that out, too! It's another amazing resource by Roman Botcharnikov). If a dropped knee and double leg swing adds more energy into the pole, it must MORE THAN make up for the energy lost by the addition of a longer passive time phase before inversion begins. I believe that it does not.

2.) Physiological reason: Less force production. A split position between the drive knee and trail leg increases the muscular stretch in the abdominal muscles and the hip flexors. This creates a stretch reflex that activates neurological muscle spindles, which automatically increase the force production of the muscle to protect it from injury from too much stretch. Also, a stretched muscle has an ideal length that it will produce it's maximal amount of force (This is the same reason your bicep is stronger when your elbow is at a higher angle when compared to a lower angle. This is yet a more complicated issue but I'll go into it if you like. *HINT* force = # of crossbridges formed). This allows the contraction of the muscle and inversion to happen sooner, and more forcefully, than if you drop the lead knee, which would take the stretch out of these hip flexor muscles. If a dropped knee and double leg swing adds more force to the pole, it most MORE THAN make up for the loss of force production that is created by a stronger stretch in the hip flexors. I believe it does not.


Now I realize that you said you experimented with the dropped knee and left it behind, and so you don't think the double leg swing is good after your experience. That's all good and well, but be careful not to assume that just because it gave you difficulty, that it must not be the ideal way to vault! I don't believe it is the ideal way, either. But my explanation is based on the reasons above, not on personal experience or distorted and over-complicated physics.

If you're going to dig into the deep and complicated elements of physics, biomechanics, and physiology to explain a model of the vault, you have a responsibility to do so clearly, simply, and in a way that is easily understood by the average PV'er or enthusiast reading it from their couch.

Well, even as I dropped, both, because I couldn't do them, I still look at both for possible advantages/disadvantages. The reason I could do neither, and dropped them, were all my own, and have nothing to do with whether I thought they were good or not. I get the information on them in the middle of a short track season with no coach, try them, and decided I didn't have time to relearn the vault with the season ending meet coming up. That's about it...

[Tim McMichael]

A double leg swing lowers the vautler's COM. That factor outweighs having a shorter trail leg unless the trail leg is very long with a very powerful swing, in which case it is a wash, in my experience. I jumped just as high both ways, and I have seen so many high jumps with a double leg swing and without one that I regard it as a style difference and not a fundamental element of the vault.

[willrieffer]

1.) Technical reason: Time wasted. Most importantly, it takes time to drop the drive knee before beginning a double legged swing. The time between the pole making contact with the box and the start of the swing MUST be minimized, because any time spent on the pole that you are not actively converting energy from your muscles into the pole by a long and continuous inversion is WASTED time (a passive phase, as described by the 640m.com model of vaulting. Check that out, too! It's another amazing resource by Roman Botcharnikov). If a dropped knee and double leg swing adds more energy into the pole, it must MORE THAN make up for the energy lost by the addition of a longer passive time phase before inversion begins. I believe that it does not.

2.) Physiological reason: Less force production. A split position between the drive knee and trail leg increases the muscular stretch in the abdominal muscles and the hip flexors. This creates a stretch reflex that activates neurological muscle spindles, which automatically increase the force production of the muscle to protect it from injury from too much stretch. Also, a stretched muscle has an ideal length that it will produce it's maximal amount of force (This is the same reason your bicep is stronger when your elbow is at a higher angle when compared to a lower angle. This is yet a more complicated issue but I'll go into it if you like. *HINT* force = # of crossbridges formed). This allows the contraction of the muscle and inversion to happen sooner, and more forcefully, than if you drop the lead knee, which would take the stretch out of these hip flexor muscles. If a dropped knee and double leg swing adds more force to the pole, it most MORE THAN make up for the loss of force production that is created by a stronger stretch in the hip flexors. I believe it does not.


Now I realize that you said you experimented with the dropped knee and left it behind, and so you don't think the double leg swing is good after your experience. That's all good and well, but be careful not to assume that just because it gave you difficulty, that it must not be the ideal way to vault! I don't believe it is the ideal way, either. But my explanation is based on the reasons above, not on personal experience or distorted and over-complicated physics.

If you're going to dig into the deep and complicated elements of physics, biomechanics, and physiology to explain a model of the vault, you have a responsibility to do so clearly, simply, and in a way that is easily understood by the average PV'er or enthusiast reading it from their couch.

There are always trade offs. Would you say Lavillenie has problems in any of these two tech areas? I don't think so. I assume proper training can mitigate either one. Agree or disagree?

I am trying to keep things as simple as possible, believe me...

[vault3rb0y]

I would agree that proper training can mitigate the technical component, but proper training will not change the stretch reflex of the hip flexor muscles.

That being said, I agree with Tim that you can be successful both ways. I just do not train my athletes to have a double legged swing, because especially in the early weeks/months of training, usually a dropped drive knee accompanies a flatter-than-ideal take off and a pre-mature movement of the hips.

Lavillenie appears to have learned how to move his hips soon, almost immediately, after take off. This somewhat mitigates the technical criticism I have of the double-legged swing. He is smoother off of the take off than anyone currently vaulting, and I believe it has to do with his exceptional outside step and body angle. This allows him to finish his take off before the pole makes contact, and then begin his inversion soon after. This continues his pole speed despite the high grip height. The smoothness of this transition is what makes him so special, in my opinion.

[willrieffer]

I would agree that proper training can mitigate the technical component, but proper training will not change the stretch reflex of the hip flexor muscles.

That being said, I agree with Tim that you can be successful both ways. I just do not train my athletes to have a double legged swing, because especially in the early weeks/months of training, usually a dropped drive knee accompanies a flatter-than-ideal take off and a pre-mature movement of the hips.

Lavillenie appears to have learned how to move his hips soon, almost immediately, after take off. This somewhat mitigates the technical criticism I have of the double-legged swing. He is smoother off of the take off than anyone currently vaulting, and I believe it has to do with his exceptional outside step and body angle. This allows him to finish his take off before the pole makes contact, and then begin his inversion soon after. This continues his pole speed despite the high grip height. The smoothness of this transition is what makes him so special, in my opinion.

One of the things I've said, which seems to escape some, is that it's very possible that the PB model is a cross between vault efficiency and coachability. Or, Lavallinie's method is not for everyone. As per Tim, I find it would be easier to approximate Lazero Borges to similar effect. I intend to work with my kids to really work the trail leg back to move the CoM back. It just seems easier...

But there is a kid around here, Jefferson Co. MO., who was an 11 sec 100m guy who had a natural double leg that I thought I could have coached to a 16' + state record. But his early pole relation was ghastly. And I did not want to mess with his relationship with his coach.

IF anyone is interested in a very good potential college vaulter PM me. I have video. I have no idea if he's signed, but would guess by his underperformance, not.

Will

[KirkB]

3P0, in another thread, you wrote:

I can't keep up with all of this discussion. It's a couple pages a day! When you guys come to a solid conclusion about what Lavillenie is doing and why, I'll check back (maybe in a month or two). Then I will quickly STEAL the work you're doing on researching this, and apply it to what I already know to hopefully become a better coach . That is only if you come up with something truly new and insightful. But I am not smart enough to come up with the answer on my own, but plenty smart enough to cheat off of my fellow students during the test! haha

I still suspect it's not vastly different from the PB model, he just puts higher emphasis on taking off outside and being connected tighter to the pole on top. So much so that he is content to cut his swing speed and length shorter in order to connect tighter at the top of the vault. Every bit of energy he adds in the vault is conserved, even if he's not adding as much. He holds high by taking off well outside and keeping his COM low, but what he gains in grip height he sacrifices in stiffness of the pole. This is why his push-off differential is not really very high, compared with other athletes who are only 5'9" and have jumped 5.80+. He's an exceptionally tidy vaulter and if I ever coach an athlete who is 5'9" and comfortable leaving the ground where he does, I wouldn't be surprised to see him develop to look similar to Lavillenie even if he trains along PB model elements. But keep at it, publish some good articles, and I look forward to stealing the eventual punchline of this discussion when all the dust settles!

All the best,

Jason

And immediately after you wrote that, on the same thread, PVStudent wrote another of his superb dissertations re the progress of Lavillenie from 2009-2014. Be sure to read that!

Other than that, I think YOU have nailed this - perhaps better than anyone! You have articulated what I've been searching for: an explanation of the differences between Bubka's technique and Lavillenie's. Above (on this thread), you wrote:

... I agree with Tim that you can be successful both ways. I just do not train my athletes to have a double legged swing, because especially in the early weeks/months of training, usually a dropped drive knee accompanies a flatter-than-ideal take off and a pre-mature movement of the hips.

Lavillenie appears to have learned how to move his hips soon, almost immediately, after take off. This somewhat mitigates the technical criticism I have of the double-legged swing. He is smoother off of the take off than anyone currently vaulting, and I believe it has to do with his exceptional outside step and body angle. This allows him to finish his take off before the pole makes contact, and then begin his inversion soon after. This continues his pole speed despite the high grip height. The smoothness of this transition is what makes him so special, in my opinion.

I am now seeing these differences (that you so elequently pointed out) between the 2 as more STYLE and less METHOD differences. Thank you!

I think we (all of us) went on a bit of a tangent, with Will taking the lead. I'm not criticizing Will for this - I'm actually glad he did it, as it made us all scratch our heads and think harder. First, he argued that Lavillenie was INTENTIONALLY taking off under (and that was an integral part of this whole Lavillenie/GRV Method that he was proposing was so radical); then (about the time that Inocencio's INTENT re a free takeoff was revealed on PVP), he argued (via his GRV - Gravity Relative Vaulting analysis and conclusions) that somehow Lavillenie learned how to use the force of gravity in a radically different way than Bubka, by keeping his body lower during his swing.

While there may be some small smidgen of truth to this, I am now coming to the realization (thanks to 3P0 and PVStudent's posts) that Lavillenie's and Bubka's techniques aren't that different after all - perhaps just STYLE differences. To his credit, PVStudent stuck to scientific principles (hard data before drawing conclusions), and countered each of Will's arguments.

My conclusion: I don't think anyone can publish a scientific paper (with a straight face) and say that Lavillenie is radically different than Bubka!

A double-leg swing must always be taken in the context of other comparable vaulters. Lavillenie is by no means as extreme as Jason Colwick (not even as extreme as Wolfgang Nordwig), but in comparison with Bubka, he doesn't drive the lead knee up (or hold it up) as vigorously. Whether we call this a double-leg swing or merely a lazy lead knee on a single-leg swing is more semantics than a distinct PV model, IMHO. Personally, I'm content to call it a lazy lead knee.

So I don't know about you, 3P0, but I'm personally content to wait for the scientific articles that will soon be published about this whole Bubka vs. Lavillenie debate. Now that Bubka's old WR has been broken, you can bet your bottom dollar (or euro) that these articles are in the works!

We amateurs (with the exception of PVStudent) are simply armchair quarterbacks. I look forward to biomechanists of the calibre of Dr. Nick Linthorne (and this includes you, Mr. John T. Gormley) publishing their observations, analysis, and conclusions!

Kirk

[PVDaddy]

Will: T

here are always trade offs. Would you say Lavillenie has problems in any of these two tech areas? I don't think so. I assume proper training can mitigate either one. Agree or disagree?

[willrieffer]

I think we (all of us) went on a bit of a tangent, with Will taking the lead. I'm not criticizing Will for this - I'm actually glad he did it, as it made us all scratch our heads and think harder. First, he argued that Lavillenie was INTENTIONALLY taking off under (and that was an integral part of this whole Lavillenie/GRV Method that he was proposing was so radical); then (about the time that Inocencio's INTENT re a free takeoff was revealed on PVP), he argued (via his GRV - Gravity Relative Vaulting analysis and conclusions) that somehow Lavillenie learned how to use the force of gravity in a radically different way than Bubka, by keeping his body lower during his swing.

While there may be some small smidgen of truth to this, I am now coming to the realization (thanks to 3P0 and PVStudent's posts) that Lavillenie's and Bubka's techniques aren't that different after all - perhaps just STYLE differences. To his credit, PVStudent stuck to scientific principles (hard data before drawing conclusions), and countered each of Will's arguments.

My conclusion: I don't think anyone can publish a scientific paper (with a straight face) and say that Lavillenie is radically different than Bubka!

A double-leg swing must always be taken in the context of other comparable vaulters. Lavillenie is by no means as extreme as Jason Colwick (not even as extreme as Wolfgang Nordwig), but in comparison with Bubka, he doesn't drive the lead knee up (or hold it up) as vigorously. Whether we call this a double-leg swing or merely a lazy lead knee on a single-leg swing is more semantics than a distinct PV model, IMHO. Personally, I'm content to call it a lazy lead knee.

So I don't know about you, 3P0, but I'm personally content to wait for the scientific articles that will soon be published about this whole Bubka vs. Lavillenie debate. Now that Bubka's old WR has been broken, you can bet your bottom dollar (or euro) that these articles are in the works!

We amateurs (with the exception of PVStudent) are simply armchair quarterbacks. I look forward to biomechanists of the calibre of Dr. Nick Linthorne (and this includes you, Mr. John T. Gormley) publishing their observations, analysis, and conclusions!

Kirk

I have not particularly argued that Lavillenie takes off under. I don't remember doing so. I have made an argument about the nature of taking off under and for which Dossevi is the vaulter in question. He enters pole bend before his take off leg even gets to the runway! What is happening? Well, he's coming down the runway and reaches some velocity right before bend. He enters bend and pole braking so he's slowing down. Now he drops the take off foot and drives forward changing the braking velocity and adding energy to the pole system. Is it enough to overcome some of the mechanical disadvantages? I don't know. Is it of interest? I think so.

Dossevi is also a left locker and has that "hanger" look as all of the double and quasi double vaulters exhibit which is more where he coincides with Lavillenie.

Kirk,

You have continually expressed some interest in the subject as you detail your history of looking at some vaulters who seemed outside the popular conceptional ideas of the day, and most times they seem to tend toward double leg or quasi double leg hangers. It's sort of well accepted that there is some sort of an advantage to the method, but it has costs that many vaulters can't overcome.

Some want to keep reducing the differences of Bubka and Lavillenie. Why? The differences in swing mechanics are different than just the leg drop. It's left arm use. It's the tuck and its nature and why he needs to use it at all versus the "straight leg" method. Or, its a different swing with different actions on the pole. Is it better? I don't know for sure, but I think it is...can I prove it. Dunno. There is a bit of another plan in my head, but it will take a while...

Will

[vault3rb0y]

Kirk,

I'm totally content to wait and read the scientific articles on it. John Gormley, if you're planning on writing any article(s) after you gather the necessary scientific information, let me know. I'll help out if I can, even if I only have a measly B.S. in Movement Science.

Remember that in the world of publications and research, money still rules the world. Don't be surprised to see someone publishing what Lav is doing as "revolutionary and game-changing" in order to box it up and sell it to the world. It won't get past peer-review and into REAL scientific journals, but it'll certainly make it's way onto the bookshelves. Doesn't matter if it's scientifically accurate, he's the WR holder and that sells whatever it wants. BTB2 was not only scientifically accurate but also in demand by the public, that's what made it so useful and successful.

Will, all the differences you're citing are style differences, as far as I can tell. If you can prove otherwise, best of luck and I look forward to reviewing it. Be sure to define terms like "Pole Relation", "Swing Mechanics", "Hanger", and "Pole Braking" so that I can understand it more. Those slang terms need to be clarified before coherent communication can take place.

[KirkB]

Don't be surprised to see someone publishing what Lav is doing as "revolutionary and game-changing" in order to box it up and sell it to the world. It won't get past peer-review and into REAL scientific journals, but it'll certainly make it's way onto the bookshelves. Doesn't matter if it's scientifically accurate, he's the WR holder and that sells whatever it wants.

Point taken.

Will, all the differences you're citing are style differences, as far as I can tell. ...

Yes, style differences from the 2 other primary methods - the Petrov Method AND the tuck/shoot method (sometimes - but not often - called the American Method).

It's been almost 4 months since RL's WR, and we've all learned a lot about his technique since then. Not as much as we'd like, but a lot. Prior to this year, I knew very little about it, other than the obvious observable features, by watching his vids.

To me, the most enlightening discovery of the past few months has been that his INTENT is to have a free takeoff. That immediately told me that he's NOT in the camp of tuck/shooters that (by and large) INTENTIONALLY take off under.

One other observation that I have made (along with most of the rest of you on these ADVANCED TECHNIQUE threads) are that he has VERY LITTLE (if any) PAUSE during his tuck phase. This is quite unlike most other tuck/shooters that have a discernible (visible to the naked eye) pause during their tucks.

We've had a few red herrings along the way - from Will and his fellow wannabe biomechanist, but I think we now have enough to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The wheat that's left is that:

1. RL has insufficient NEW or NOVEL techniques to identify it as a new model.
2. RL's technique is a combination of the Petrov Model and the tuck/shoot model.
3. His athleticism is stupendous (he could probably vault 6.00 off his wrong foot, with one arm tied behind his back).

In comparison, I would venture to say that SB's athleticism is equally stupendous, and - in another country at another time with another coach - he could ALSO have vaulted 6.00 in many other ways).

What other recent, non-obvious discoveries have we made regarding RL's technique, that are distinctly different than SB's, and are NOT mere style differences?

The position of RL's head during his rock-back, discussed in the vid of RL and is coach being interviewed by Vaulter Magazine (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYR9Rk6djCo) can be regarded as a mere style difference - much more important to a tuck/shooter than to a PM vaulter.

There are other many other style differences between SB and RL, many of which are due to the tuck/shoot aspect of RL's technique that's absent in SB's technique.

Kirk

[altius]

What often seems to be forgotten in this whole - often misguided - discussion is that Petrov and Bubka did not arrive at the technical model the latter employed by trial and error. As I point out somewhere in BTB -sorry folks -it was the result of a determined effort on the part of the soviets to beat the americans in the pole vault. Remember that at the time of the cold war there were regular track and field meets between the USA and the USSR (one my WKU athletes, Jesse Stuart, actually competed in one - in the shot put not the pole vault I hasten to add) and the former always won the pole vault. Inevitably a clever and ambitious young soviet coach would want to change that.

As the head vault coach in the soviet system it was Vitali's job to do that. So he studied all the previous vaulters, including the stiff pokers, brought together all his coaches in the USSR with gymnastics coaches and BIOMECHANISTS and set about creating the most efficient method of vaulting high. The fundamental principle that guided his ideas was that if you wanted to vault really high you needed to grip high on stiff poles - everything flowed from that. He was determined the leapfrog ahead of the US!

It is well recorded that Vitali made a special study of Warmerdam but it is also clear that he would have been influenced by the work of Anje Krysynski of Poland - whose vaulters won both the 1976 and 80 Olympic games. The first of these, Slusarski, was definitely employed a free take off and the rest of an embryonic PB model when he won in Montreal. The film is there for everyone to see.

So the Petrov method was the result of a scientific approach to developing a better technical model in track and field. I believe that all the other innovations that have impacted other events evolved from the work of determined and ambitious athletes ,not coaches. And evolution is the key word here. The classics are the OBrien shift and the "Spin' in the shot put - I was in the US when that experimentation was going on and watched it with interest - and of course the 'flop' by Fosbury. Here the play attempts of a single athlete overturned all of the efforts of sports scientists to create a better straddle technique.

Unfortunately -again as I note in BTB - it was the 'play' of the first flexible pole vaulters that took the event down the wrong path in the USA -and eventually the rest of the world. This happened because the changes were driven by the athletes - not the coaches -who simply did not understand what was going on -until of course the communist block countries decided to the catch the USA up.

Just a few ramblings form an old man!

[PVDaddy]

Vault3rboy:

If you're going to dig into the deep and complicated elements of physics, biomechanics, and physiology to explain a model of the vault, you have a responsibility to do so clearly, simply, and in a way that is easily understood by the average PV'er or enthusiast reading it from their couch.

Will I think you did a very eloquent Job of accomplishing this in your introductory post of this thread. Nice work!