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
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 » Wed May 28, 2014 10:41 am

Decamouse, I answered your question, would you mind paying me the same courtesy?

Now think about this Decamouse : A real life event. Two vaulters have the same grip height. Let's assume the same take-off efficiency as well. Vaulter A. is 3 inches shorter than vaulter B. and runs .45 M/S slower going into take-off, than the Taller, faster vaulter. Vaulter A. weighs 69 Kg. Vaulter B. weighs 80 KG. Is the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter at a mechanical advantage to the taller, faster, heavier vaulter? Bare in mind that the velocity factor for Kinetic Energy according to Physics is at an exponent of 2! The exponent for mass is only 1. The shorter vaulter has a lower plant angle. Is it easier for the shorter vaulter to rotate the same grip height to vertical? Is it easier for the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter to jump higher?

What if I told you that they were two of the best vaulters the world has ever seen?

What if I told you that their swing techniques were drastically different?

What if I told you the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter has the world record?

Did the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter gain the edge in the run-up, the take-off, or the pole support phase and why?

If on average with Elite vaulters, 82% of the energy to vault comes from the run-up and only 18% on average comes from the pole support phase, does this make this achievement more or less remarkable and why?

Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 10:46 am

PVstudent wrote:Hypotheses, without facts upon which to base them along with non practitioners (or beginner coaches) promulgating grandiose theories concerning elite performers and performance issues in the Advanced Section is, frankly, very uninteresting, boring as well as irrelevant.

:yes: :yes: :yes:

PVstudent wrote:I am merely a student and as such want to learn but find it very irritating and frustrating when this the advanced section of PVP gets clogged up with so much misguidance and misinformation.
:yes: :yes:

PVstudent, thank you for your "real world" charts and videos. However the "wannabees" create fodder for discussion and have compelled you to provide us with great information.

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 10:59 am

PVStudent: By the way back to the original question and purpose of this thread, Swing Efficiency. You claim Lavellenies swing efficiency (Pole support Phase) is not as good as Bubkas. Are you gong to provide the data. Physics and math to demonstrate your point for all of us to see?
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby KirkB » Wed May 28, 2014 12:24 pm

I agree 100% with GrandeVaulter and PVStudent!

I thoroughly enjoy PVStudent's well-reasoned, well-prepared posts, with all their tables, pics, and links to scientifically-based articles that substantiate and validate his summary findings.

I wish others could follow suit, rather than just shooting their mouth off before they even stop to think about the clutter of misinformation that they might be posting.

PVDaddy, if you want another well-reasoned, well-prepared reply from PVStudent, then you will have to wait more than 28 minutes between asking a question for the first time, and then repeating the very same question. He is preparing some of these diagrams for the enjoyment of all readers of this PVP forum (he is not your personal slave), and they take some time to prepare. Not to mention that Australia is halfway around the world from North America, and it's the middle of the night there right now! Not to mention that he's doing this in his spare time!

To be clear (if I haven't said this before), I personally have absolutely no issue with you politely ASKING QUESTIONS on this Advanced Technique forum. :yes:

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

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 12:42 pm

I guess I'm a liar and are not going away. It seems to work around here. I just get a bit miffed when Altius can't read far enough to see I was ultimately more generous to Bubka's estimated probable max height than he was. So...

If you are going to use new need terms, such as for example "stall swing or swing window", then define them indicating how they might be measured to bring some objectivity into the discussion.


I have repeatedly told you this is very difficult if not next to impossible without using a differential calculus analysis. Why? Because so many variables are changing in time. But I'll try once more.

First, what I'm taking about is an effect that is apparently outside of the PB Model to such a degree that it is very hard for those used to it to grasp the effect. Or, that its not counter to anything the PB model says or does, but is concurrent with it. So a vaulter like Lavillenie, can make use of the PB model, or at least elements of it like the "free take off", and still use other elements or activities to present a better relation to gravity for max effect in pole compression. Another vaulter, someone like Dossevi, gets results using elements of the gravity relation outside of the PB model. He makes several trade offs that influence his vault, and while the downside of those trade off are well understood, no one but me seems to have any inclination to think about how and why he's able to pull that "radical" vault off.

How do you get the pole to compress? One force is the vaulters KE at take off where its horizontal element compresses against the box. The other is by gravity, and the vaulters mass, and swing angle, along with any vertical component of their take off. As they swing forward, even during compression, they convert swing energy into potential energy in height. They also effect the compression element of gravity on the pole as they do so as the compressive element is regulated by swing angle. The result is variances in pole chord length in time, pole compression rate, pole energy state percentage coming from gravity, and the potential energy curve rate over time, all things very very important to the vault. This is what I'm talking about.

Again, for beginning vaulters, their vaults fail because they push or pull their CoM out of a necessarily limited relation with gravity, or out of the CoM window in time. I have no idea of the shape or size of this window, it might be a triangle, a circle, or more likely some closed complex curve that moves and changes over time, but it will be influenced by the individual traits of the vaulter, and such things as pole and desired clearance height, but its generally going to follow what would be an idealized path of the vaulters CoM (one could certainly use the PB model to help derive it), generally near the hips. Several ways beginning vaulters push themselves out of the CoM window is that they shorten the take off leg speeding rotation of the CoM forward, or they pull with the arms, and while doing work, adding to their potential energy in time, they also again shorten their rotational axis, and again speed the CoM forward. In doing such things and any number of other things that speed the CoM forward they lose the compressive element of gravity in the pole, the pole doesn't compress as fast or as far, and the vault stalls.(This gravity relation is certainly just one element among many). I have made such observations working with real vaulters in the real world. Logic then would seem to indicate that keeping the CoM back and down is beneficial to the vault, to the limit that the vaulter can still get on top for decompression. And in fact the long history of flex vaulting bears this out. Lavillenie, is near the end of this movement. Again, he pole brakes and through this keeps the torso and hips back and down as much as possible. He drops the right leg moving his CoM lower, which again slows his swing keeping him again, back and down. Now he has to "tuck" to shorten his axis and speed his rotation to get over over the pole.

Much of this is intuitively understood by almost everyone in the vault, yet apparently, as it appears so foreign here, no one has looked at it technically in any detail. I can understand why. It's very hard and the necessary tools haven't been around.

I hope that helps. Hope...

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 1:41 pm

Just Maths for a Strawman...

j/kg where j = (kg x m squared x m squared)/seconds squared

division

j/kg = ((kg x m squared x m squared)/seconds squared)/kg (and where we can cancel the kgs out leaves us) = m squared/s squared = (m/s) squared = velocity squared
where v squared appears here...

KE = 1/2 m v squared....

I mean, I know you want me to believe that Trandenkov was faster and more energetic than Bubka at take off, its just that there's too much other data for me to believe it. Maybe its the IAAF data you pointed me at. Or maybe its just the eye test too LOL. That or, what, he had a more efficient take off vector? Really?

Like I say, that swing speed is deceiving...

Decamouse
PV Great
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:43 pm
Expertise: Masters vaulter, coach, USATF Official
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Kate Dennison
Location: Bohners Lake, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby Decamouse » Wed May 28, 2014 2:43 pm

PVDaddy you ask how do I know this to be true? I assume your are referring to my comments about end loads -- how about I spend years measuring such things using load cells and other means of testing. Just like I could build 5 different poles with the same flex number (and length) and different end loads - that information was actually presented at the 2006 Vertical jumps conference in Cologne. This part is pretty easy to visualize -- once you leave the pole you are de-accelerating (gravity sees to that) - so to get max hgt you want max velocity - ideally in as vertical a direction as possible

This is were a lower grip with a stiffer pole can sometimes result in higher vaults - higher release velocity must offset the slightly lower release point

Still this requires the skill/efficiency to line on-self up with the force vector of the unbending pole (which the skilled vaulter also has some control over)

Would anyone not agree that the higher the end load Differential ratio(vaulter wgt to end load of pole)- at max bend - gives potentially the higher vault (assuming you can do something with it)

A simple answer to your - what if? Right vault (very good run-up, swing, extension/finish - at the right bar hgt on the right pole) - since do not have speed data or pole data - I will just watch and admire - there have been big vaults but the bar was not at the right height - bet most vaulters can tell you about really good vaults but not on the right pole - or hitting the takeoff just so - dang wrong pole - repeat that vault at the next couple bars hgts --

WR was set after having two misses at 6.01 -- why -- Right vault (also need to have the skills to get to the height)

Everything needs not be an argument - nothing wrong with honest discussion - probably know more about poles than vaulting - only been coaching on and off for 35 plus years - also been and engineer for 35 plus years - still learning - and learning ways to relate information so it can be put to use
Last edited by Decamouse on Wed May 28, 2014 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Plant like crap sometimes ok most times

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 9:26 pm

Decamouse: PVDaddy you ask how do I know this to be true? I assume your are referring to my comments about end loads


No I did not ask you that. That was a quote of PVstudent.

However you still have not answered this question? So......

For the third time:
Now think about this Decamouse : A real life event. Two vaulters have the same grip height. Let's assume the same take-off efficiency as well. Vaulter A. is 3 inches shorter than vaulter B. and runs .45 M/S slower going into take-off, than the Taller, faster vaulter. Vaulter A. weighs 69 Kg. Vaulter B. weighs 80 KG. Is the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter at a mechanical advantage to the taller, faster, heavier vaulter? Bare in mind that the velocity factor for Kinetic Energy according to Physics is at an exponent of 2! The exponent for mass is only 1. The shorter vaulter has a lower plant angle. Is it easier for the shorter vaulter to rotate the same grip height to vertical? Is it easier for the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter to jump higher?

What if I told you that they were two of the best vaulters the world has ever seen?

What if I told you that their swing techniques were drastically different?

What if I told you the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter has the world record?

Did the shorter, slower, lighter vaulter gain the edge in the run-up, the take-off, or the pole support phase and why?

If on average with Elite vaulters, 82% of the energy to vault comes from the run-up and only 18% on average comes from the pole support phase, does this make this achievement more or less remarkable and why?



If Decamouse can't/won't answer this perhaps someone else can/will?
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 10:25 pm

I will see if Yoda is available to respond to this challenge - however I think he is still struggling with 'the angels on the head of a pin' question! ;) :yes:
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 11:30 pm

Decamouse, thank you for your, in my view, spot on responses to PVdaddy.

Yes, I agree the biomechanics, gentlemen and ladies, in Germany have made and continue to make a major contribution to our understanding of the mechanics of pole vaulting.

The end loading forces from MPB (max pole bend) to PR (pole release) are vital considerations and cannot be left out of any discussion on relative efficiency of different pole vaulters, or the same vaulter jumping on poles with a different stiffness rating and their interactions with grip length and the input parameters kept constant.

In the real world, due to the inherent variability from one jump to the next, especially in competition the input parameters are , as we both know, rarely if ever constant!

I am not interested in tilting at windmills so will not take up the PVdaddy challenge.

Willreifer's return has made his position less diffuse, but I still don't believe I understand his point. I am working on a response that might clarify his attempt to suggest that Damiel Dossovi's "radically different" technique, and I paraphrase, may/may not contain some elements that modern vaulters and their coaches are unaware of.

Kirk is right, it does take time and effort to prepare responses.

In this regard, I do wish that Will had more thoroughly examined the tables, references and videos before his comeback!

I am still baffled that despite the dangers and obvious violations of the first principles of force application in (over)bending the pole whilst in ground contact at take-off he even wants to search for " a holy grail" solution to the problems created in the subsequent pole support phases of Dossovi's vaults. Like another ugly duckling vaulter in his early years Dossevi may eventually turn into a swan to become elegant(style) and efficient(technique). So time will tell and I never say never!

I hope that if Will is really on to something of value that has been missed by the greatest coaches (USA, France, Germany, Russia) on the planet during the last 50 years that he is able to enlighten us.

Give me a few days and I will try help Willrieffer to clarify for us what he is talking about. I admit I don't get what he is driving at?
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 » Thu May 29, 2014 7:45 am

One of the main problems with the dialog on the vault at least as far as it pertains to PVP is that whenever

one side focuses on an element of the vault, the other side brings up what was not a part of the initial

focus.


Side A says, "look at this". Side B then says, "yes but you neglected that". Then the conversation turns

around. This is in part because the vault is so complicated, and compartmentalizing aspects of it like the

plant, or swing, leg use, or arm use, can help us to build a view of the effects in the system while not

really revealing all of the interactions taking place.


And so it was that I took a very macro view in initiating this thread. Starting energy states, vaulter take

off speeds, are rather well documented as well as are max height values. All I did was use physics and math

to set the two values against each other to reveal a little bit, in the macro, of what was happening in

between. And what was revealed was the percentage of end energy versus take off energy. After botching

initially, and canag's correction, it came out low as I had initially expected. The two vaulters, Bubka and

Lavillenie came within 2% with only about 6% to 8% of the max energy total as PE coming post take off.

Honestly, the numbers for the two could be even closer, as little as less than 1%. Gains inside the vault are

hard to come by, and I would still say most of them come in the inversion transition. Again, just a very

macro view to reveal some things, again perhaps that differences are overblown and time might be better spent

in working towards higher take off velocity than swing minutia...


But, we'll do it anyway...


Compression Forces

This is what I have been interested in from the beginning. The activity of compressive forces in relation and

their effect. My contention is that if the gravity vector is not engaged properly, the vault can't happen. If

it has a catastrophic downside, then it probably has upside potential. And yet this phase is the most complex

phase in the vault and its analysis is very difficult. But let me try and provide a simplified theoretical

example.


There are, as I see it, three main forces for compression.

1) The vaulters horizontal movement. Lets call this X.
2) The force of gravity in the vertical. Lets call this Y.
3) The centriptal force of the swinging vaulter. Lets call this Z.

Now lets say we have two vaulters, Vaulter B and Vaulter L, and that to enact the vault they need to achieve in time a compressive force total of 10 to get a combined pole energy state along with necessary chord shortening.

Vaulter B = x + y + z = 10
Vaulter L = x + y + z = 10

Now lets plug in theoretical values for the two...

Vaulter B = x + y + z = 5 + 2 + 3 = 10
Vaulter L = x + y + z = 4 + 4 + 2 = 10

So here we can see how two vaulters can have different values of compressive forces and yet get the same

results. And the generation of these forces are going to necessarily be generated by differing body position

during the phase. Less swing angle gives more gravity pressure while a higher swing velocity will produce

more centripetal force.


The problem, and thus the question is, if we release the compression force from our theoretical constraints

of a max value of 10, what happens? Or, how does a vaulter maximize the force so as to achieve such things

and greater grip height and/or pole stiffness? Do they orient themselves to use gravity, or do they swing for

max centripetal acceleration knowing you can't have both? Well, these things all have constraints. You can

swing too fast in time, or not enough. You can run too slow for the pole. But still, what you can see is that

these can all vary in some way and still achieve the same value. So it is that it is possible that there are

several possible swing states that achieve the same results.


It's not impossible that these things can be measured, but it is very hard. This is why I've been working in the

realms of physics knowledge and logic. Gravity relative vaulting says you want to work toward maximizing the

effect of gravity which is what I think Lavillenie does by limiting his swing angle in time and where I have

many times now detailed how this is achieved through swing braking and right leg use. My intuitive sense is that this yields

greater efficiency, but, like I say, if you want better measured proof, that escapes me at this time as I

lack the tools and resources to do such a complicated analysis.

P.S. edit - Wrote this offline...

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 » Thu May 29, 2014 7:52 am

The goal is not to compress the pole. The goal is to move the pole the vertical.

Otherwise the higher gravity is, the better. And that just makes no sense. In your theoretical equations, vaulting on the moon would yield lower jumps than vaulting on earth.
The greater the challenge, the more glorious the triumph


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest