Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

[willrieffer]

A lot of posts in this thread are written as if the prevailing assumption is that Lavillenie or his coaches made some concerted effort to develop a unique model in order to simply "crack the code" to beat 6.15. Well, that's obvioulsy ridiculous, and I think that a lot of folks are seeing differences in style that are not materially relevant to performance.

I asked David Butler once about his former athlete Jason Colwick, whose double leg swing is a bit more unconventional: http://youtu.be/sOBAV8HLVEc

He said that when Jason first came to him, he went to Petrov to ask his opinion on the swing. David, in his best Petrov accent, said that his answer was, "the swing is not in the feet - it's in the hips!" Petrov was saying that in his opinion, the legs don't really matter. In my opinion, the double leg swing has a different timing than the more conventional single leg swing, but total swing energy does not seem to differ between the two styles.

Lavillenie has an excellent elastic to hollow swing position, effectively increasing the range of motion of the CoM relatively to the handgrip, keeping the pole away from him, making the swing dynamic and powerful. I think this is what he does exceptionally well.

It seems it was a surprise to many to learn that he aims for a free takeoff, since he so rarely achieves it - I believe that is mostly due to his pole carry the instant he initiates his plant. He starts his plant with his hands very low, and this affects his run rhthym during the plant. This is where I think he can improve.

But I would say the most significant factor that I attribute his world record to is that fact that Bubka never really reached his potential. Had Bubka been forced to compete, Lavillenie might be a less interesting discussion.

But lets say a promising athlete as vaulter came to you and instead of pressing both legs down they pulled them both up, would that be a matter of "just style" or a problem...

Cuz I fought that problem all season along with head movement that threw the hips/CoM forward...

What I say is that there are "style" differences of benefit and of cost because there are so many trade offs possible in the vault and because the vaulter cannot escape physics. One of the things I tried to illustrate is that you can make different trade offs and still get the same physical state. For some others you can't. It's funny. These conversations keep taking the form of on the one side, "everything matters", and then on the other, "Oh, that's just style", or they don't. It's an illusion cause by the complexity and trade off nature of the vault.

Everyone is trying to crack the code in some way, even if its just to maximize a specific athlete. Sometimes its just not to mess with them too much. IMHO Colwick had figured out a way intuitively or through trial and error combined with his athletic idiosyncrasies to make the vault work. Lavillenie. Well we know the French have biometricists as well. I assume, they gave opinion on what was going on, but I could be wrong.

[willrieffer]

For anyone that might be interested...

A Double Pendulum is one of the most common examples of a chaotic system...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum

A double rod pendulum animation showing chaotic behavior. Starting the pendulum from a slightly different initial condition would result in a completely different trajectory. The double rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems that has chaotic solutions.

And in part the vault is compounded as it verges toward an Inverted Pendulum...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pendulum

Vault as Complex Chaotic system. It's a marvel of human capacity that it can be done at all...and why the analysis is so very hard...

Will

P.S. Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system

Nonlinear problems are of interest to engineers, physicists and mathematicians and many other scientists because most systems are inherently nonlinear in nature. As nonlinear equations are difficult to solve, nonlinear systems are commonly approximated by linear equations (linearization). This works well up to some accuracy and some range for the input values, but some interesting phenomena such as chaos[1] and singularities are hidden by linearization. It follows that some aspects of the behavior of a nonlinear system appear commonly to be chaotic, unpredictable or counterintuitive. Although such chaotic behavior may resemble random behavior, it is absolutely not random.

Counterintuitive...hmmm. I would make an analogy (breath deep folks) that the PB model is a linearization solution to a non-linear problem. As such, of such a chaotic system, there are likely other approximations returning nearly identical results...

[Decamouse]

Just a few random comments before the weekend -- comments that RL does not drive knee -- really!! Must be looking at wrong video - interesting thing is many HJer's drive knee and the let it drop - yet some do not -- ok - to next part - what if the slight drop helps when it is pulled/driven back up to help in the inversion or tuck -- which movement will help the most in the final position he ends up in - just something to thing about --

[willrieffer]

decamouse,

Being an engineer I might imagine you are a person that would understand my chaos theory/linear,non-linear equations post. I'd appreciate any thoughts...

Will

[PVDaddy]

Decamouse:

Just a few random comments before the weekend -- comments that RL does not drive knee -- really!! Must be looking at wrong video

That's correct Decamouse, I was the one who suggested Lavelennie had little to no knee drive. I also suggested that I believe his take-off is very flat compared to Bubkas and by intent. I believe he and his coaches excepted the fact that Lavellenie would never be able to beat Bubka in a running with the Pole contest or a Jumping contest! So what do I believe they did? They used critical thinking and thought outside the box. I believe they understood, that its NOT your horizontal speed running down the runway that counts, but, its the horizontal speed you take into take-off that counts!

When a vaulter transitions from running (Horizontal velocity) to Jumping (Vertical velocity) there is a braking effect that occurs to horizontal velocity both on the take off foot (ground friction) and the very action of jumping, but, more significant the fact that a great deal of energy used for horizontal velocity must now be drained by the vertical velocity. I have already suggested (without one comment here!) that Lavellenie makes up for the speed he is not capable of generating in the runway as compare to Bubka, by the Vertical speed he does not give back through this braking effect. I suggest it is possible by doing this that Lavellenie caries as much horizontal velocity into take-off that Bubka does, even though he's slower on the runway.

When and if other readers here on PVP get on the same page with Will and I, that we believe the essence of the success in the Lavellenie model lies simply in the fact that his method is designed to and take better advantage of the gravity vector (a fancy word that simply means keep your COG low) for as soon as and as long as possible they will begin to easily be able to understand the Physics and theory behind his model (I hope this helps you Kirk). I believe that Lavellenie makes EVERY attempt to do this from the very beginning with his wider grip spacing (Keeps him back and down) IMMEDIATELY going into and through his take-off and all the way through the double leg swing.

Driving the lead Knee up hard does not help to keep your COG down, it raises it! Jumping hard does not help keep your COG low it raises it!
It also robs from the horizontal component through braking as mentioned. If you examine Bubka or follow the Petrov method you will know that Bubka drives his lead knee to a 90 degree angle. If you examine Lavellenie he is lucky if it makes 45. In fact he makes great effort to ensure it doesn't go very far and every effort to lower it immediatley into his double leg swing. Bubka on the other hand drives the lead knee hard and locks it into place in his swing. He also makes a much greater effort to jump, were lavellenie just blast himself forward with a violent push off his take off foot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UwBaf8f98 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvA7AZEyciM

Not only does Lavellenie have much less knee drive and vertical jumping component in his vault, but, I would also suggest that Lavellenie has his hips going forward leading the way into take-off in his Model were the Petrov model has the chest forward, leading the way through take-off.

I believe these are only a few of many, many differences of the Lavellenie Model as compared to the Petrov Model.

This thread was suppose to be about comparing swing efficiency between Lavellenie and Bubka and has made a rapid turn in focus. Will and I have already made our opinions crystal clear who we believe had the superior efficiency showing the Physics and math, however, it appears the contrarion(s) have given up? I understand. Its very hard to dispute with the .5 M/S disparity Lavellenie has to work with especially when you also have to factor in the exponent of 2!

[PVDaddy]

Oh by the way Will, thank-you for comparing Lavellenies very long LOW hanging swing to the metronone. How by lowering it and elongating it, it has just as much energy but i swings at a slower rate. Now I think we are on the same page by what you mean Lavellenie slows his swing. You used the word "delay" or I believe "Pause" and for me that implied an intentiional reduction of his swinging effort to hang on the pole more. Like I said I do not believe he would ever be able to cover the pole if he did this. But, by this analogy, I believe and hope that what you are saying is that he is making ever effort to swing as hard as possible. but, merely by the laws of physics this longer extended sing would be HAVE to be slower early on ! With that in mind I totally concur!

[willrieffer]

Driving the lead Knee up hard does not help to keep your COG down, it raises it! Jumping hard does not help keep your COG low it raises it!
It also robs from the horizontal component through braking as mentioned. If you examine Bubka or follow the Petrov method you will know that Bubka drives his lead knee to a 90 degree angle. If you examine Lavellenie he is lucky if it makes 45. In fact he makes great effort to ensure it doesn't go very far and every effort to lower it immediatley into his double leg swing. Bubka on the other hand drives the lead knee hard and locks it into place in his swing. He also makes a much greater effort to jump, were lavellenie just blast himself forward with a violent push off his take off foot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UwBaf8f98 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvA7AZEyciM

Not only does Lavellenie have much less knee drive and vertical jumping component in his vault, but, I would also suggest that Lavellenie has his hips going forward leading the way into take-off in his Model were the Petrov model has the chest forward, leading the way through take-off.

I believe these are only a few of many, many differences of the Lavellenie Model as compared to the Petrov Model.

This thread was suppose to be about comparing swing efficiency between Lavellenie and Bubka and has made a rapid turn in focus. Will and I have already made our opinions crystal clear who we believe had the superior efficiency showing the Physics and math, however, it appears the contrarion(s) have given up? I understand. Its very hard to dispute with the .5 M/S disparity Lavellenie has to work with especially when you also have to factor in the exponent of 2!

I cannot agree with everything here. First, gravity vector swing relation has nothing to do with, well, anything else. Which is to say it cares not if you take off high or low, but only about the vaulters orientation in time. I could say that often it appears to me that Lavillenie's vault is about as low as a low path vault could be, but that isn't a measured assessment....

He only "leads" with the hips so much as he drives through the top into the pole by braking as per with Dossevi. Ummm...

I have seen high path vaulters and am always...struck by them. We had one at MO state this year, the girl that won 2A. Enacted the slowest vault I've ever seen. Text plant. But to converse, as Kirk points out, low path vaulters, double leggers, won't seem to go away and continually seem to confound and flabbergast the PV community. Why? I'm attempting to find out...

Will

[vault3rb0y]

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

[PVstudent]

Some discussants please, but please before setting off and igniting the engines of the rocket to set out to discover if the moon is made from Camonbert Cheese pause and reflect on the evidence of Renaud Lavillenie's technical performance development since he won the European Championship in 2009!
Here is planet Earth evidence to suggest that the fundamental premise underlying your quests to find the elixir of astronomical pole crossbar clearance height that might be found in the dropping of the lead leg technique of Renaud Lavillenie is just a tiny tad questionable. This is, only my opinion, leading to pie in the sky speculation.

Some planet earth real world evidence in chronological order as of May 2014 concerning Renaud Lavillenie specifically:

Renaud Lavillenie 2009 European Champion uploaded 24th March 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIHkPRABHSY
Renaud Lavillenie 5.82m 2112012 Donetsk Super Stars (Post Olympics)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RvA2rRkSHc
Renaud Lavillenie Reunion Training published 17th Dec 122012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT9Oku22Dc0
Renaud Lavillenie Reunion Training 12th Dec 122013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzUF9Kw71LQ
Renaud Lavillenie 5.92 Shanghai 18th May 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdcHI77hb8I

(Having viewed the video clips I note the lead leg action is NOT a Double Leg Swing by any stretch of the imagination, poor eyesight or the wearing of rose tinted spectacles!)

If others wish to examine the nature of "Chaos Theory" with respect to rigid body multi - pendular tri -axial or pin jointed (suspended and inverted) systems there exists a vast body of knowledge and scientific literature available from the fields of Robotics, Systems Control Theory and the theoretical Mathematical literature. This literature is dominated by Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mathematical approaches to the multi pendula problem. There are international competitions for student of robotics where the robots jump, swing and perform gymnastic manoeuvres like the "kip" for example! I've been to just a small portion of this vast resource to mine pole vault information that might be used. The mine is deep but when exposed to the light of empirical testing I personally found few precious diamonds for practical implementation in human pole vaulting.

Whilst it is physically and mathematically possible to make very accurate predictions in regard to state changes based on careful control of input parameters the systems I remind readers they are but rigid body inanimate systems. Of course pole vault has some of the characteristics of a forced harmonic oscillating system and there is some limited data in this regard upon which to input some practically measured parameters and build limited theoretical and physical models. In my view,the attempts to replicate the self actuating capacity of the human pole vaulter in these theoretical and physical models have been extremely limited so far.

Now to the self actuating capacity of Renaud.

According to the evidence above and my interpretation of it over the time interval in question suggests to me, and is supported by anecdotal evidence alluded to in the presentations of Inocenco and D'Encausse, that as the pole length of grip, pole stiffness have increased and is accompanied by a demonstrated necessity for Renaud, because of his relatively short stature, to take-off further back from the deepest point of the vaulting box he consequently has a lower pole ground angle at take-off (or greater pole chord angle to move through to reach the plane of the crossbar) leaving Renaud and his current coach to overcome the following 2 biomechanical challenges:

1. Drive / propel the pole chord through the larger angle required (due to Take-off location with respect to the deepest point located in the box) to get the total system (vaulter +pole) to rotate to or just past a vertical from the pole tip axes. Placement of the upright in determining the plane of the cross bar also must be considered in solving this challenge as well as pole performance selection

2. Achieve sufficient linear translation and rotation of the Renaud's total body throughout the deflection and recoil displacement of the pole chord and his entire body to optimise the vault trajectory parameters at pole release to ensure a legal crossbar clearance.

(Note I specify the pole chord and for astute physicists they will grasp the simplification this makes in overcoming what is a human challenge that need not be quite so complex as we are being encouraged to believe).

I await to read what others wish to convey as to the fallacy or otherwise of my observation.

[willrieffer]

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

In a strange way, trust your gut instincts,...because one of my theoretical conclusions here is that there are infinite solutions to the vault equation. Still, Humans have a great way of getting in good feedback loops. If recruiting look for bright athletic individuals that have a keen body awareness placement mind and it helps if they have good spacial awareness/physics sense, but this in no more necessary than that a vault coach knows physics. One of my best candidates has a life of training in...golf. When I say, "put this here...and do that", he's very good at it. And he's smart and driven.

Joe Dial. Dial fits a model of an early master (per Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers) and you can watch his evolution as it is well documented in video. Just don't get the willies about a serious amount of plus 90 degree bend...

Will

[willrieffer]

(Having viewed the video clips I note the lead leg action is NOT a Double Leg Swing by any stretch of the imagination, poor eyesight or the wearing of rose tinted spectacles!)

You remember this, right?



I always, at least initially called it a "quasi-double leg"...

If others wish to examine the nature of "Chaos Theory" with respect to rigid body multi - pendular tri -axial or pin jointed (suspended and inverted) systems there exists a vast body of knowledge and scientific literature available from the fields of Robotics, Systems Control Theory and the theoretical Mathematical literature. This literature is dominated by Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mathematical approaches to the multi pendula problem. There are international competitions for student of robotics where the robots jump, swing and perform gymnastic manoeuvres like the "kip" for example! I've been to just a small portion of this vast resource to mine pole vault information that might be used. The mine is deep but when exposed to the light of empirical testing I personally found few precious diamonds for practical implementation in human pole vaulting.

Whilst it is physically and mathematically possible to make very accurate predictions in regard to state changes based on careful control of input parameters the systems I remind readers they are but rigid body inanimate systems. Of course pole vault has some of the characteristics of a forced harmonic oscillating system and there is some limited data in this regard upon which to input some practically measured parameters and build limited theoretical and physical models. In my view,the attempts to replicate the self actuating capacity of the human pole vaulter in these theoretical and physical models have been extremely limited so far.

Right. We have what in the most simplistic terms would be a chaotic system...topped by a human brain moving a complex body. And you're point is to convince us its...simplified? You continually present max/min data point observations (static time measurements in a complex moving non-linear system) and extrapolate them to an assured overall maximum output. It is again analogous to a linear approximation of a non-linear system. Yeah, Petrov found a good solution, but its probably not THE ONLY solution as the system and physics, certainly at this point, deny there is one of that order without very serious reservations....

You better have a talk with Altius about me and really REALLY make sure and tell him I'm not what he thinks I am....

Now to the self actuating capacity of Renaud.

According to the evidence above and my interpretation of it over the time interval in question suggests to me, and is supported by anecdotal evidence alluded to in the presentations of Inocenco and D'Encausse, that as the pole length of grip, pole stiffness have increased and is accompanied by a demonstrated necessity for Renaud, because of his relatively short stature, to take-off further back from the deepest point of the vaulting box he consequently has a lower pole ground angle at take-off (or greater pole chord angle to move through to reach the plane of the crossbar) leaving Renaud and his current coach to overcome the following 2 biomechanical challenges:

1. Drive / propel the pole chord through the larger angle required (due to Take-off location with respect to the deepest point located in the box) to get the total system (vaulter +pole) to rotate to or just past a vertical from the pole tip axes. Placement of the upright in determining the plane of the cross bar also must be considered in solving this challenge as well as pole performance selection

2. Achieve sufficient linear translation and rotation of the Renaud's total body throughout the deflection and recoil displacement of the pole chord and his entire body to optimise the vault trajectory parameters at pole release to ensure a legal crossbar clearance.

(Note I specify the pole chord and for astute physicists they will grasp the simplification this makes in overcoming what is a human challenge that need not be quite so complex as we are being encouraged to believe).

I await to read what others wish to convey as to the fallacy or otherwise of my observation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxRlV2qv9EU

In some way I like you. A lot. Really. You're intelligent and have moxie. But the first rule of humanity? ...Don't lie to yourself...as that is the essence of scientific inquiry....

Will

[PVstudent]

Thank you Willreifer for the video reference to Joe Dial.

Joe I agree found a way to solve his unique set of pole vault physical challenge problems quite a way back.

But whether his technique was optimally mechanically efficient is quite another question.

The evidence, "real data" I put up earlier in this topic are all based on time series sampling of complete vaults durations (including approach run) in time interval minimum sampling frequencies across the studies I reviewed ranging from 50hz to 150hz. The tables simply summarized some of the critical events in the time series so I don't think your criticism of my input is legitimate or valid.

Note that you identified the issue as "efficiency" in the comparisons using mgh and 1/2 mv2 and merely took starting (take-off)and end point (bar height) when purporting to discuss efficiency. Also I will be churlish and remind you that nowhere did you account in your calculations for the contribution of rotational kinetic energy, nor did you make any allowances for the obvious losses in rolling friction of the pole on the bottom and with the side walls of the planting box. These are minor carps on my part. Nevertheless as the saying goes "kettle be careful calling the pot black!"

One must discuss the ratio of Total Energy of Output / Total Energy of Input to discuss efficiency per unit body mass of the vaulter nor can one ever have an efficiency ratio greater than 1.0! These are Physics 101 errors and now you want to discuss a "Chaos Theory" based analysis of elite level pole vaulting?

Also I don't think you have yet worked out Why Igor Trandenkov had more potential energy at take-off than Bubka (Hint: Which is the taller of the two vaulters?)

I pointed out also that if the tables are looked at carefully enough, within the limitation which I identified by supplying the actual Formulae that were applied and used in the summative processing of the time sampling results (differential and integral calculus being used in raw data processing).

I did not use these words but left the information implicit in the formulae provided in the caption for table 1) that the overall efficiency of the vaulter when the process is fractionated (split) in defined intervals can differ within the total process. At least that is what the tables lead me to conclude.

Now, this current series of time capsule snapshots of the gradual evolution of Renaud Lavillenie's technique since 2009 that I drew to readers attention.

You are telling me that the emperor is not wearing new clothes in 2014 in terms of the extent to which he drops his right lead leg?

I am suitably chastised. But frankly I don't honestly believe that I am lying to myself or anyone else!

No, my nose is not getting longer. It only does that when I am truly aware and so acknowledge to myself that I have lied!

It remains to be confirmed conclusively that the evidence I put up is making me delusional or is an illusion in the eye of the beholder!

I am not at all arguing there are many possible ways to skin a cat or that there is one best way to pole vault prodigious vertical heights across cross bars.

Again a whole set of assumptions Willreifer is making on my behalf do not give readers a true reflection of my intention, only I can do that. If my information has not got across my intended message then that is poor communication on my part. I accept blame for that.

At the same time, you Willriefer as a reader have some responsibility in making a "fair" attempt at interpretation but also must accept personal culpability in any misrepresentation of the facts in so far as they can be established to be facts.

I remind all that Science without facts as it's building blocks is the equivalent of building a theoretical pole vault model on wishful thinking and hot air!

I look to at the evidence before me and seek the answer to the 2 of the critical coaching technical questions that Renaud Lavillenie has been addressing.

My argument is that he has been primarily addressing the drop of the (right) lead leg and is now displaying so much less and on some occasions no lead leg drop in (2014).

Secondly I observe that Renaud is getting a faster and greater amplitude of take-off leg swing .

Thirdly I observe the estimated (by "experienced coach eye") total system of centre of mass rises continuously whilst displacing forward without exhibiting a clearly discernable drop in its height immediately after Renaud has taken off in the first phase of his vaults. This, I contend ,is contrary to what is being claimed by some contributors to this thread.

These are my qualitative assessments of what I observe but Willriefer's, and another whose analyses, are equally qualitative ,I continue to reject on prima fascia (limited by qualitative assessment of available evidence) grounds and assert that:

Renaud Lavillenie displays in his 2014 performances, as revealed by videotape evidence and some anecdotal sources (which are confirmed and references to the material published on this site), does not show a lowering of total vaulter or system COM in the first phase of pole support to the same extent as in 2009 and in some case shows no lead leg drop at all!

Have the "radical" technique proponents" actually and carefully examined these videos against the premises on which they base their judgments and upon which their claims of "radical" technical developments by Renaud being the primary causative agents of his improvement are being made?

So far neither Willreifer nor PVdaddy has given us any actual information based on fact to clearly identify and suggest what these so called "radical" elements are let alone attribute any substantive physics based rationale in regard to their "radical" technical development claims.

Unfortunately, I am exhausting my time on yesterdays news and am bored going back 40 years to ideas from the Rip Van Winkle era of flexible pole vaulting which is detaining me in the Sleepy Hollow of Nostalgia and Mists of Rhetoric for far too long!

I am content with my efforts to awaken the sleepers, but I've set my time machine for the 21st century and whoosh there goes another failed attempt at raising the bar!