Page 1 of 1

Lavellenie Model of Pole Vaulting

Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 8:11 pm
by PVDaddy
The Petrov or PB Model is in writing for all to behold and utilize. The Lavellenie or IL Model is not! Does anyone care to attempt to describe this Model so others could explore its potential as well?

I am requesting that since there are currently no known proven coaches or vaulting experts with demonstrable credentials yet, besides Inocencio and lavellenie themselves, that everyone be open to and respect the opinions of others.

Heres my theory of why Lavellenie is so efficient in his pole support phase.

From the very beginning of Plant and going into take-off and into swing I believe Lavellenie makes every effort possible to keep his COG as low as possible. That begins with a wider hand spacing to help keep his hips and torso back and low. I believe he has a very flat take off and basically just runs under the pole with a minimum of jumping effort or knee drive. This means he has no breaking effect from transitioning into a jump and therefore tremendous vertical velocity going into take off and therefor a great amount of force is immediately applied to the pole from his top hand. He just continues to drive himself under it allowing the force of his mass to be delivered to the pole from his top hand. With a slightly bent bottom elbow he makes sure the full force of his run up is delivered to the end of the lever (The top hand) and keeps it there throughout the entirety of his vault. Like I said he has no knee drive and in fact lowers his drive knee to match his swing foot while at the same time fully extends his left hand which together make his swing path and COG as low as possible. His bottom hand never goes over his head or has to be re-extended like Bubkas during vaulter/pole loading to lower it. His COG is immediately as low as possible and earlier on in his swing than Bubkas so he takes advantage of the gravity vector earlier illustrated by his immediate and more severe pole bend. Will points out the importance of the gravity vector in this statement and I believe it captures the essence of Lavellenies success:

It is therefore beneficial for the vaulter to try and have gravity compress the pole more and effect their swing less by braking the swing into the pole and present a better relation to gravity for as long as possible.

Lavellenie assist and maintains this perpendicular to gravity position by a wider hand spacing and a full extension of his bottom hand and the lowering of his drive knee to match his swing leg and by this time the vaulter/pole system is fully loaded with the COG immediately as low as possible. Much earlier in the swing than the PB method. I do not believe the swing is as long as Bubkas and I personally do not see any delay in it (I believe this would be a mistake). He simply goes from from a very low COG vaulter/Pole system loading swing path position to an immediate double leg swing (Frog like) into an immediate tucK (a ball) with both thighs and knees at each side of his hips while throughout the entire swing makes a concerted effort to maintain a leaned back position on the top hand for maximum pole bend.

From the moment the foot leaves the ground the flexible pole (for a right handed vaulter) immediately begins leaning to the left and bends to the left. This creates a larger window to swing through that the stiff pole did not nearly offer (Earlier stiff pole vaulters had to learn more how to swing around the pole). This left bend is sever but in Lavellenies case it is even more sever earlier on. This has a major effect on the physics of the vaulters swing path. As it is giving way left it causes the vaulters swing path to be oriented in that direction rather then perpendicular. To compensate for this, the wise vaulter steers their swing path to the right and up or toward the top hand. This is necessary in order to create a perpendicular swing. Altius, I have just answered for you why and how the sideways pole bend effects the Physics of the vault. Because Lavellenies pole bend is more sever and earlier on he compensates by orientating his swing path even more so to the right then Bubka's to the point his take off foot swings well more past the right side of the pole then Bubka's and I believe it is possible this counter side swing achieves better counter thrust bend to the pole at the top of his swing as well?

In addition Lavellenie has a double leg thrust into his extension, with more inertia generated by the use of both legs early on then Bubkas, from the pike position, which compensates for the inertia Bubka adds and Lavellenie misses through greater shoulder rotation at the top. As you know I have been a huge proponent of really emphasizing generating maximum energy at the top. I find it very interesting that it is while coming out of this Pike (I call the second body coil) that the vaulter is able to generate the most acceleration at any point in the swing and boy at what a great time going into fly!

Petrov: When the vaulter is unbending, the pole also has the highest speed of uncoiling
upwards, therefore, the combination of the pole's carrying capacity and the athlete's
unbending movement generates an accelerated thrust upwards, and by the end of the
unbending movement the centroidal axis reaches the maximum vertical speed
(Bubka's speed reached up to 6 m/s)

Of course Lavellenies also makes use of a top hand leaning pull as he tucks and a strong bottom hand push toward the pit (some call this a pull, but I prefer to call it a push, because the majority of the motion is away from the body) as the pole uncioils (The strong grippin action in this effort ensures the maxmum amount of kinetic enery is transferred to the vaulter and at the perfect moment) and a strong top hand push on the bearing point of the pole down to the box adds the final additional energy to flyaway.

Re: Lavellenie Model of Pole Vaulting

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 12:22 am
by PVDaddy
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! :idea:

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! :idea:
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. ,

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.

Re: Lavellenie Model of Pole Vaulting

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:04 pm
by PVDaddy
Thank-You for the Stills of Lavellenie. Note the wide hand spacing. Does this allow him to stay further behind the pole earlier? Is this Petrov?

I would say the 3rd Photo down captures what I would describe as the completion of penetration (Which I call the completion of Vaulter/Pole system loading). This is the end of penetration and the beginning of his swing. I believe he lowers his lead knee as he's going through penetration. Note the lower knee position in this still from the one above. Note the elbow is still slightly bent to allow top hand loading.I believe this also is the point he begins to maximally extend his top hand and keeps it there all the way through his swing to his ball tuck.

Note the bottom hand elbow is not even close to being severely bent or the hand even close to being extended back directly above the head as Bubka's is during his completion of penetration! Is this Petrov?

Note how much more below the pole Lavellenie already is at this moment in time and how much lower his COG and swing path starts, as compared to Bubka! Is this Petrov?

He does not have to extend his bottom hand far at all to fully lower his COG through his swing as Bubksa does, therefore he captures the low COG position much, much sooner then Bubka! This, along with a lower take off leg and flatter take-off (less vertical component) has been my most major point from the very beginning.

I believe his early low COG bends the pole more and earlier, which effectively shortens the chord earlier, while at the same time he experiences less braking loss when transitioning from the run to the jump, therefore preserves more vertical velocity from his slower run-up going into take-off. I believe that this is what allows the shorter, slower vaulter to rotate the same hand grip height as the taller, faster Bubka to vertical!

I believe that from this very low COG fully extended (Long lever) swing path position, he immediately and as forcibly as possible begins his quasi double leg (Is this Petrov?) swing. Like the LONG metronome, it appears slow at first (He is braking that long lever into the pole causing it to bend more as he is moving forward, but he is quasi leg swinging as fast as he can!) and when he immediately tucks (Is this Petrov?) while pulling through the shoulders into that continually top hand leaning position (always keeps the pressure on the top hand and this is Petrov) he immediately and rapidly accelerates as the lever is so shortened into a compact tucked ball (Is this Petrov?) with both knees fully packed at each side of his body and the bottom of his feet pointing skyward.

Now comes the fastest point in his entire swing! Now he is ready to take back all that energy he has so brilliantly worked into the pole. No, in fact he ready to also add some of his own on top. From that tightly compact ball, he is able to immediately, simultaneously and forcible extend both feet into the air with their full range of motion. He is already vertical, with both legs perfectly lined and extended side be side. He is now ready to receive the poles energy through his bottom hand and in fact adds more as he pushes the bottom hand downward toward the pit. This strong gripping action on the pole insures the full transfer of energy to his body. He adds the last share of energy with a strong top hand push for his final domination of gravity.

There you have it at least 5 differences I see in the Lavellenie Method of Pole vaulting. Is this Petrov?

Re: Lavellenie Model of Pole Vaulting

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:44 pm
by PVDaddy
So in my opinion, at least during this WR vault, other than the fact that Lavellenie maintains continuous pressure on the top hand after take off and through his swing, his position and mechanics going into and after take-off and his position and mechanics through his penetration and low path swing are not Petrov.

The main area that I believe is Petrov is his high pole Cary and drop during run up. He is also attempting and sometime achieving a free takeoff per Petrov. But, even here his plant mechanic are not the same, as his hand spacing is wider, with his bottom coming up from behind the hip in a round house fashion further away from his temple and not directly up from the hip along his side and temple. Now I see at least 6 thing that Make this Lavellenie Method, not Petrov.