Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

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

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby altius » Sun May 25, 2014 8:47 pm

Keep it up pvdaddy old son - you are simply proving that if you put Idiocy in you get idiocy out. Yes I will continue to abuse you because you are delusional.

If you don't like me promoting my book - and I don't really need to do it now because it is virtually sold out - write one of your own and see how many sales you make. Better still write one with Will - perhaps you can illustrate it with images of your own athletes. What were they - one boy jumping 13' for you and two boys who finished 15th and 16th in their State 2A competition for Will??

I think your best bet would be jump straight to Olympic level where your amazing advanced ideas might be more appropriate than at the level at which you are presently coaching. Incidentally pvstudent and i have both actually coached at Olympic level - but more importantly we have actually introduced youngsters to this event using the Petrov model. I hope to post film of one such athlete shortly - it would be great for you to match it with film of your young athletes - presumably demonstrating the much superior Lavellenie model.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

grandevaulter
PV Pro
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:49 pm
Expertise: Three year highschool vaulter 1978-80. Now coaching highschoolers and competing in masters.
Lifetime Best: 11'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Timothy Mack
Location: South West, MI

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby grandevaulter » Sun May 25, 2014 9:28 pm

I have a suspicion that Altius and Polevaultstudent didn't get rich off this book. By the time you figure their own time, costs of publishing and distributing, I doubt they made a bundle.

Unlike anyone else here, they had a close relationship with Petrov and Bubka and Petrov and Bubka didn't have to share that information. Altuis has an amazing resume of teaching and coaching that spans decades. PVstudent appears to be quite sophisticated, clever and can illustrate and explain the material in simple terms. I know who has bought the book and understands the material by their posts. If you didn't get a copy, good luck.

The rest of us better learn "parle vue Francois" if we want to get in on the next book writing fortune. I think I'll go help some kids learn how to do it right.

User avatar
vault3rb0y
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2458
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:59 pm
Expertise: College Coach, Former College Vaulter
Lifetime Best: 5.14m
Location: Still Searching
Contact:

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby vault3rb0y » Sun May 25, 2014 10:01 pm

When comparing technical models, you must be careful not to too closely associate what someone was DOING with what they were TRYING TO DO. If you want to know what someone was trying to do, you must ask them. You cannot learn it from just watching film, although you can get very many good hints.

For instance, If I were trying to hit a hole in one on a par-3 golf hole, you could analyse my swing and the fact that the ball landed 20meters away from the hole (on my BEST of days), and come to the conclusion that based on my impact vector, arm position, and where the ball landed, that I must have clearly been trying to take out 3 inches of grass with my club on the way to the ball, and that I must have been intentionally placing the ball 20meters from the hole! Similarly, you can analyse Lavillenie and come to equally erroneous conclusions based on his technical "model". You won't know what he was trying to do unless you ask him and his coach, although I'd be willing to bet that it involves jumping the bar.

With that preface, lavillenie displays many elements of the petrov/bubka model of vaulting: high pole carry, smooth and consistent acceleration, and take off before pole makes contact with the box and fully finished take off before inversion. I don't believe that his model of the vault will prove to be vastly different from petrov's model, but more likely that he is emphasising certain elements in his training more so than other models. This does not imply that he is trying to break the laws of biomechanics, but perhaps instead exploiting them based on his personal capabilities.

Being a smaller athlete generally allows you to be more gymnastic, because it takes less energy to move a shorter lever. Could it be that Lavillenie, exploiting his smaller stature, was able to lose less energy throughout his inversion because of this fact? This does not necessarily mean his vault is more biomechanically sound than others. You still run into two major problems as I see it:

1.) The height of the bar jumped cannot be the measure of maximal energy in the vault. First, the standards placement will misrepresent the energy in the vault. The farther the standards are from zero, the more energy in the vault went towards horizontal displacement rather than vertical. Second, In a well-executed vault, the COM can go way over top, or even underneath the crossbar. The bar height does not represent that maximal potential for energy in that vault, but the minimal! For example, if I jump 17' but the bar is only at 16', you would be erroneous to calculate my final energy input using the 16'! Or equally, a very tidy and flexible vaulter may manage to pike perfectly at the top of their vault and send their COM underneath the crossbar by a couple of inches, the same way that high jumpers do. You would have to use advanced biomechanical equipment to accurately estimate the actual height that could have been cleared. Find me the standard placement of the jumps that Bubka and Lavillenie had, as well as advanced biomechanical data to track their COM at their absolute peak height. Then we are talking about measuring their actual energy in the vault!

2.) If you add less energy into your inversion, you can get less energy out of it and it will still be more "Efficient". If you want a hammer to hit a nail in the most efficient way possible, do it as lightly as possible. That way there is minimal loss of energy through friction, sound, or an improper force vector angle. But if you want to actually get the nail in the wood, you have to hit the darn thing! This is a crude example, but hopefully you get what I am saying. Lavillenie may very well conserve energy in a tidy way, allowing him to jump great heights because his take off is so outside and he holds onto the (relatively) little energy he is putting into the vault (when compared to bubka and other faster/stronger/taller vaulters). But holding onto energy is only part of the equation. If you want to maximize your potential for highest of high heights, you must add more energy into the vault before trying to get more energy back.

The Petrov model still does the best job I have seen to add to most amount of energy into the vault in the small window of time available to do so. It's up to an athlete to control that energy to get it all back in the most efficient way possible, but you must be adding energy first if you hope to get any of it back.
The greater the challenge, the more glorious the triumph

User avatar
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sun May 25, 2014 10:10 pm

Altius, You need to pay closer attention to other post were I said that just because it appears to be more efficient for Lavellenie and perhaps other Elite vautlters capable of performing it, it may or may not prove to be as efficient for teaching to the masses. That remains to be seen? I also made the point that the Method is not even in writing yet so of course it has not been revealed or digested by the masses or tried by the masses. We are having a great time doing that and not bothering you, so how bout you and PVstudent attempt to mind your own business and stop with the insults or trying to show how superior you are and how inferior we all are? It will be interesting if the Method is Published by Lavellenie or Inocencio or whoever developed it and fascinating to see just how close we are in our attempt? I'm confident that eventually it will be published.

You have made the claim the Lavellenie method is basically Petrov and I think you will find that you are sadly mistaken when it comes out. Its radically different and I believe you know that! What if Lavellenie raises the bar yet further? What if others or perhaps many inspired vaulters adopt this technique and suddenly 6.14 or better becomes a common norm? It is entirely possible I hope you know? It has taken over 20 years and still NOBODY has jumped higher than 6.14 using the assumed superior Petrov technique and many, many have tried. As you know I have been and still am a big fan of it and it is what I currently teach, but, I am also open minded and when a shorter, slower man comes along using a completely different approach finally raises the bar, yes, I open my eyes to its potential and so should you or anyone else.

One last thing, if this happens and it becomes apparent that it is a suitable technique for beginners through experts alike and I or somebody else decides to right the book do you mind if we title it Beginner to Lavellenie?
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

User avatar
PVDaddy
PV Follower
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Expertise: Former High School Vaulter, High School coach, College coach
Lifetime Best: 10.5 Ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Cornelius Warmerdam

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVDaddy » Sun May 25, 2014 10:22 pm

I meant to type"write" the book.
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

PVstudent
PV Pro
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:53 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVstudent » Mon May 26, 2014 1:37 pm

vault3rb0y what a sensible and well considered post which brings this discussion back to consider what the primary goal of the take-off is and how this is most effectively taught to beginners as well as in honing the efficiency of elite vaulters.

The key factor in teaching the take-off is the "How" of reducing the deleterious effects of the pole impacting the planting box before, or for the complete duration of take-off foot ground support contact, is to understand and apply the concept of efficiency in actual practice.

The key in optimising the transition from the culmination of the approach run, pole plant into a take-off that enables the vaulter to take-off minimally impeded by the resistance offered by the pole and cause the total system (vaulter plus pole) to rotate about the pole tip axis in the planting box is to time the instant of the toe tip take-off to be coincident with the pole tip impact with the rear wall of the planting box.

Energy analysis of just the potential energy component of this challenge is at best limited and at worst, when inappropriately interpreted and applied, is not only misleading but dangerous for novice vaulters!

The originator of the thread would do well to read this excellent analysis and technical recommendations the author makes for the teaching of biomechanically sound pole vault take-off technique.

Gunther Tidow (1989) Model technique analysis sheets for the vertical jumps - The Pole vault. New Studies in Athletics 1989 4; 43 - 58

However that said here is evidence and data to help readers consider the energy analyses relating to Willreifer's, and now PVdaddy's claims in regard to the challenge of the take-off in pole vaulting and the how to achieve minimal energy losses and maximum efficiency in energy exchange.

Basic mechanics of the pole vault from a European analysis and interpretation of the energy exchanges circa 1982 as a starting point.

Mechanics of the pole vault technique based on performances in the European Championships Athens 1982.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlRD7tr ... detailpage

Mike Tully 1984 Los Angeles Olympics a USA perspective as exemplified in this performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6P4WeA ... detailpage

Igor trandenkov 6.01m PB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... ae0ox1Vqq0



Bubka v Trandenkov Energy Exchange Comparisons Absolute and Relative 6.00m v 5.80m clearance in IAAF 4th World Championship 1.jpg
Bubka v Trandenkov Energy Exchange Comparisons Absolute and Relative 6.00m v 5.80m clearance in IAAF 4th World Championship 1.jpg (72.72 KiB) Viewed 5628 times


Bubka v Trandenkov Energy Exchange Comparisons Absolute and Relative 6.00m v 5.80m clearance in IAAF 4th World Championship 2.jpg
Bubka v Trandenkov Energy Exchange Comparisons Absolute and Relative 6.00m v 5.80m clearance in IAAF 4th World Championship 2.jpg (46.95 KiB) Viewed 5628 times


Bubka v Trandenkov Energy Exchange Comparisons Absolute and Relative 6.00m v 5.80m clearance in IAAF 4th World Championship 3.jpg
Bubka v Trandenkov Energy Exchange Comparisons Absolute and Relative 6.00m v 5.80m clearance in IAAF 4th World Championship 3.jpg (45.66 KiB) Viewed 5628 times



Real data sourced from a study undertaken at the 4th World Championships:
Gros H,J., Adamczewski H., Wolf J (1993) Biomechanical aspects of the pole vault. Analysis of the 4th IAAF World Championships, Stuttgart.
BIOMECHANICAL ASPECTS OF THE POLE VAULT IAAF ...
https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/arti ... /2593/2444

The video that follows provides some evidence of the actual performances to which the data from this study refer.

Bubka, Tarassov, Trandenkov, Yegorov, 4th IAAF World Championships, Stuttgart 1993.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUPBl4xT ... detailpage

The comparisons are based on data extracted from tables 1-5. The data show important absolute and relative energy exchanges that took place for Sergei Bubka (6.00m clearance) and Igor Trandenkov (5.80m clearance).

Table 1 shows the take-off and peak of flight trajectory energy comparisons for Sergei Bubka. Note that the energy calculations include that of the kinetic energy of vaulter rotational motion during pole support and from pole release to peak COM height in the flight trajectory. Note the actual formula used in calculating total energy includes kinetic energy of rotation and horizontal linear translation kinetic energy in the COM rise to peak trajectory!

Table 2 shows the energy comparisons at take-off.

Table 3 shows the energy comparisons at the peak height of the vaulter’s centre of mass (COM) in the flight trajectory after pole release.
The data are highly informative and I leave readers to make their own interpretation concerning the reliability and validity of this empirical investigation which used scientifically observational and measurement techniques acceptable to the IAAF.

I will in my next post supply data from the 1997 IAAF 6th World Championships from a study by researchers from Germany who have made major contributions to our knowledge of the Biomechanics of Pole Vaulting and are still producing scientifically respected research.

I have not forgotten Renaud Lavillenie in all this and will have more food for thought to share in due course. I will present evidence to suggest that what Willreifer and now PVdaddy regard as his "radical technique " is anything but radical from a biomechanical perspective.

Just to set the record straight, Renaud Lavillenie is currently coached by Phillipe D'Encausse and their coaching partnership commenced just after the 2012 Olympic Games.

I understand Renaud was previously coached by Gilles Lavillenie (father), Georges Martin and Damien Inocencio (apologies if name is not spelled correctly). So I think perhaps PVdaddy is not up to speed in regard to the developments of the Lavillenie take-off technique changes that preceded the wonderful New Indoor World Record of 6.16m achieved by this remarkable athlete.
Every new opinion at its starting, is precisely a minority of one!

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:00 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current High School Coach
Lifetime Best: 15'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: All of them...

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby willrieffer » Mon May 26, 2014 3:20 pm

altius wrote:The real truth is that if you put garbage in you will get garbage out. Try plugging a performance of 6.30m in for Bubka instead of 6.15m and you will get a different result from all of the calculations that different folk are doing at the present time to try and prove Lavellenie was more efficient than Bubka. And Bubby could have jumped 6.30m almost any day he wanted to from 1990 onwards until his achilles tendon injury stopped him jumping. Ask Petrov or Bubka himself and they will both tell you with absolute honesty that he was jumping that high in training but was more interested in setting his family up financially than merely setting world records. Even in 1986 when I first met Vitali, he told me that Sergei was jumping 6.20 in training.

Now I know that this will make no difference to you and your pointless discussion, after all during the middle ages one of the most vexed questions was "How many angels can sit on the head of a pin". But some readers may find some common sense interesting.

And like me, these 'neutrals' will have noticed that the major contributors to this debate have never accepted my challenge to put up film of their own athletes. But theorising is alway easier than actually coaching - that really does test your knowledge of the event.


How about 6.4 m (my estimate at his top clearance heights) at a 9.0m/sec take off. Which I did above...

Will

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:00 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current High School Coach
Lifetime Best: 15'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: All of them...

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby willrieffer » Mon May 26, 2014 4:08 pm

In one sense one of my long underlying messages has been that the minutia of the vault as differences in technique is very very overblown. And with that it would mean that arguing about them is a waste of time and that Pfaff's approach is the correct one. That all the vaulter needs to do is keep their CoM within the allowable window of the vault during compression and all elite vaulters learn to do this is some way. Why do they need to do it? Because there is a relation between the gravity vector resolved into the pole in time, and the conversion of energy into potential energy. That a tip toward having more of the gravity vector added to pole compression versus a conversion to too soon allowing potential energy gains in height could provide one advantage and the way its done is to stall against swing progression and early potential energy rises.

I then proposed that this was done by swing speed regulation, swing braking, which Lavillenie accomplishes by a left arm lock/brake, and with a double leg swing which lowers his CoM and so by physics slows his swing. He then has to "tuck" to get out. All of these things being outside of the ideal of the PB swing model.

I stand by my calculations after canag's corrections to my mistake.

I coached two milesplit age group elites this year, and missed by one increment a third. With one of the programs (that offered a total of 13 boys to choose from/work with), it was my first year where for the first time they sent two boy PV's to state, and where I had the only freshmen at the meet, a kid I took from 8' to 12' in a matter of a few months which included an injury and a lot of bad weather. And none of them are even finished products or anywhere near such. And we ran out of poles, as we did everything but steal them from area coaches, who were all so very kind and gracious to loan us what they could. You can't wave a magic wand and get a WC pole vaulter. Not long ago Altius was crowing about getting a new girl PV and that "within a year" he expected results. So it is with me. I expect to have 4-6 milesplit elites next year within my program and possibly several outside of it who want me to coach them this summer. What is perhaps so astonishing about this is that I have said several times that I'm basically coaching a slightly modified PB model method because for one its easier for young vaulters than any sort of double leg swing, and offers a high amount of efficiency, and yet we still see the sort of witchhunt mentality in some responses to my posts.

I have made my points, I believe. And so it is, I have several people that have more or less told me its not worth it to hang around here. That they just worry about their own athletes. And so I believe I'll take their unstated advice and take my leave as well to worry about the athletes I have, and will have. My HC loves me, and the other good area PV coaches (which I respect greatly) have told him I'm doing an unbelievable job.

To all you vaulters,
Good Luck and Be Safe.
Good Bye
Will

PVstudent
PV Pro
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:53 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVstudent » Tue May 27, 2014 12:25 am

Here are the data for the 1997 6th IAAF World Championships. Note in particular the peak height recorded by Bubka.

Bubka Tarassov Starkey Initial and Final Energy in 1997 6th IAAF World Championship.jpg
Bubka Tarassov Starkey Initial and Final Energy in 1997 6th IAAF World Championship.jpg (55.99 KiB) Viewed 5612 times


Below I include diagrams to show why a "smooth" relatively low resisting pole take-off is a model to be contrasted with that of Dossevi whose take-off technique was being advocated by Willriefer as being worthy of consideration as offering some "perhaps" or "may be" advantages in transferring approach run kinetic energy into useful elastic strain in the pole whilst the take-off foot remains in ground contact.

Bubka Displacements of COM  long lever advantage in Free Take-Off.jpg
Bubka Displacements of COM long lever advantage in Free Take-Off.jpg (91.71 KiB) Viewed 5612 times


Some video to illustrate the advantages of PB Model Take-off and those of a French Model as exemplified by Jean Galfione.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 4a9W_iM8Ak

Here I identify some problems with Damiel Dossevi's Take-off technique which I believe would rule it out as being either biomechanically or pedagogically sound as a teaching or coaching model of taking off in the pole vault for beginner or elite vaulters.

Damiel Dossevi 2.jpg
Damiel Dossevi 2.jpg (63.69 KiB) Viewed 5612 times


Here is the video evidence upon which readers can make their judgments as to this type of take-out being practicable as a teaching or coaching model for both genders of pole vaulter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... wKSws03rxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... X52MMGblVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... eaKB_B8ZAQ

The following video of Yarisley Silva, current Women's World Indoor Pole Vault Champion 2(014), shows a highly proficient take-off technique that clearly demonstrates the value of jumping upwards and the optimising of effective approach run horizontal kinetic energy transfer exchange into useful potential, rotational and linear translator kinetic energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxmhxpv ... detailpage

In the next post I will address whether the mechanics of Lavillenie's take-off technique is in fact "radically" different as has been claimed!
Every new opinion at its starting, is precisely a minority of one!

PVstudent
PV Pro
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:53 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVstudent » Tue May 27, 2014 6:46 am

Phillipe D’Encausse Renaud Lavillenie and Comments re Damien Inocencio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSg9mA ... detailpage

Lavillenie Take-Off.jpg
Lavillenie Take-Off.jpg (81.32 KiB) Viewed 5604 times


Above Renaud Lavillenie touch down to take-off from a side view camera.

Renaud Lavillenie Training Reunion 2013.jpg
Renaud Lavillenie Training Reunion 2013.jpg (99.88 KiB) Viewed 5604 times


Below take-off comparison between Trandenkov and Damiel Dossovi for Touch Down to Take-Off.

Trandenkov versus Dossevi Touchdown to mid stance.jpg
Trandenkov versus Dossevi Touchdown to mid stance.jpg (75.65 KiB) Viewed 5604 times


to be continued next post
Every new opinion at its starting, is precisely a minority of one!

PVstudent
PV Pro
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:53 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby PVstudent » Tue May 27, 2014 8:02 am

Trandenkov and Dossevi mid stance to take=Off comparison.

Trandenkov versus Dossevi mid stance to Take-Off.jpg
Trandenkov versus Dossevi mid stance to Take-Off.jpg (78.15 KiB) Viewed 5598 times


The Technical Models of the two vaulter are indeed remarkably different. On mechanical criteria alone one is in my opinion " literally and metaphorically" a dead end technical model for the vast majority of young vaulters.

Renaud Lavillenie On Free Take-offs Training Reunion Dec 2013.jpg
Renaud Lavillenie On Free Take-offs Training Reunion Dec 2013.jpg (71.14 KiB) Viewed 5598 times


Renaud Lavillenie working on his take-off technique which shows very little pole pre-bend take-off. I am quite happy to be informed that I'm guilty of "seeing" what I want to see, but the similarity to the PB method is somewhat startling given what some pundits claim.

Renaud Training in Reunion Dec? 2013 with coach Philippe D’Encausse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zUF9Kw71LQ

Enjoy the Reunion video as it is (only my opinion here) evidence of real world training to overcome the technical and psychological challenges imposed by long, relative stiff poles.Renaud by competition criteria, is the greatest Indoor Pole Vaulter in the world and Phillipe D'Encausse has worked a truly remarkable improvement in the technical efficiency of this great athlete!
Every new opinion at its starting, is precisely a minority of one!

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:00 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current High School Coach
Lifetime Best: 15'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: All of them...

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby willrieffer » Tue May 27, 2014 2:52 pm

Last things...because...

1) I have advocated anything approaching Dossevi's method would offer a smaller variance window and thus probably be detrimental to consistency in the least. It's also more dangerous for a variety of reasons. I would not suggest anyone teach it to, well, anyone.

2) But it does exist. The question is how and why, which I have tried to answer. You make an assessment that there are several detrimental aspects to the method and I agree. But you still have not really answered the question. Does he get more energy to offset the detriments? I mean I have to think he beat a bunch of PB model vaulters to get to and win the U23 at 5.75m. Real world examples keep cropping up that present the real problems to the idealism of some. So we would need to see an assessment of the added biomech potential of his drive into the pole under braking versus any sort of pre take off and set that against the detrimental losses. Very difficult to do. Almost impossible. Maybe if you had someone proficient in the variety of take offs. Possibly if you had some very good instrumentation and analysis software. And so it seems to me is all your work...

3) Somewhere there's probably a French biomech guy like you guarding their methods...

Other than that, everything I need to say is already here.
Will


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest