Placement vs. Pressure

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

Re: Placement vs. Pressure

Unread postby PVstudent » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:08 pm

Some vaults by John Pennel
https://youtu.be/IhJbTHnt9UA

https://youtu.be/jo6Nqk4a5hM

https://youtu.be/Q3JWANR7lh4

Whilst the evidence is open to interpretation the key question posed by the originator of the thread in regard to this particular pole vaulter and the use of the bottom arm in attempting / not attempting to create space between the vaulter and the flexing pole to increase the potential amplitude of the trail leg swing can be specifically addressed.

Contributors might suggest other specific examples for discussion on whether or not the role of the lower arm is primarily to (1) increase the space through which the vaulter can swing and (2) act as a leverage point for the swing. The 2 points reflect my understanding of the central thesis raised in the first commentary of this thread.

At this juncture I will not make any comment pro or con the originator’s thesis.

I do have a set of comments I would like to make but will abstain from participation until the discourse gets directly on the topic by addressing specific shared examples.

Increasing reader awareness of the facts rather than producing reams of yet more opinion and conjecture on this seemingly intractable technical conundrum should be the goal of contributors.

Pole vault teachers, coaches and vaulters are keenly waiting for facts and principles of the arm actions in the pole support phases of the vault which will enhance their success and involvement in pole vaulting.

Opinions, ego wars, personal reconstructions of the past, abusive argumentation and ranting have defeated many previous attempts to cover this topic on this site in a sensible and rational manner.

This is an opportunity for the many wise, experienced and practicing coaches of pole vault to bring about some consensus even if only to identify what may or may not be relevant Facts of the Matter.

There are very many pole vault practitioners with vast resources of professional expertise such as engineers, physical scientists, research scientists in a variety of pertinent disciplines, sports scientists, surgeons, neuroscientists etc., who can help us clear up the science behind what is going on in the arm actions under review.

Similarly there are many highly credentialed pole vault coaches from all over the planet who could contribute their understanding and knowledge when focused on this issue.

For busy, committed people to give their time and share their expertise on PVP, especially in the Advanced Section discussions, the challenge for contributors is to present their perspectives as clearly as possible. Argument is what is expected when issues are controversial or unresolved. What is not expected or acceptable is confrontational argument attacking the person.

I am guilty of attacking the person in a discussion on this site and understand that it is extremely difficult to avoid doing so. Having made my confession I will give my best endeavors to not do this again but I suspect they won’t be good enough!

Please let’s get the topic on track, argue about facts if possible and let’s see if more people will make the effort to contribute for mutual benefit for everyone.

Readers if you want to contribute please do so as this issue is desperately in need of resolution.
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: Placement vs. Pressure

Unread postby PVstudent » Sat Jul 25, 2015 11:24 am

Russian Pole vaulter 1960 national championship
https://youtu.be/PZDqqTYFfEY

Fred Hanson 17ft 1inch
https://youtu.be/HbXTvjHL1xw

Fred Hansen and Wolfgang Reinhardt
https://youtu.be/SW8FYTx6dQo

The 1964 Olympic Final Pole Vault: Fred Hansen and Wolfgang Reinhardt
https://youtu.be/jcVzZtqboQs

Bob Seagren & others 1968 Olympic Final
https://youtu.be/x6LPQSvw1m4

Catapole controversy Munich 1972
https://youtu.be/3EUjABT0dAo

Bob Seagren and Klaus Schiprowski
https://youtu.be/cvsVVxlhR_g

The videos above show some examples of elite level exponents of fibre glass pole vaulting of the 1960’s. The technical evolution in fibre glass pole vaulting has continued from the 1970’s through to the present time and Renaud Lavillenie’s 6.16m Indoor World Record.

The origins of the current enigma in regard to the role of the lower arm action arguably can be traced to the decade 1960 to 1970.

Wide Grips, low pole carry, across body large laterally deviated pole carry prior to the plant, “round arm” plant actions, take-off foot ground placement well forward under and in advance of the top grip hand location on the pole, low plant angles and conscious deliberate attempts to make the “heavy” and relatively stiff pole commence bending whilst the take-off foot was grounded and well before the vaulter took off in the jump were common practice and characteristic of elite vaulting in the 1960’s as recorded and observable in the footage referred to above.

Readers may find the video sources referred to worthy of observational comparison to vaulters from the decades 1980 to 2010. The re-emergence of the French dominance in Mens pole vault from 2010 to 2015 is also very revealing.

The technical developments in Women's pole vault technique from 2000 to the present illustrate the emergence of new strategies and methods facilitating the exploitation of the advantages of technological improvements in modern lighter vaulting pole weights, flexibility and performance durability and reliability.
Every new opinion at its starting, is precisely a minority of one!

ADTF Academy
PV Junkie
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: Placement vs. Pressure

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:35 pm

PVstudent wrote:Some vaults by John Pennel
https://youtu.be/IhJbTHnt9UA



Prime example of looking at the link between athlete and equipment. I never had the privilege of using the poles or being around the poles Pennel used. To compare what he was doing to the norm of modern age poles (depending on brand) is quite difficult. Look at the shape of the pole bend the bottom half doesn't bend very much, in order for the posture to remain and bottom arm fully extended the pole must be able to open up in the bottom half. This pole doesn't seem to have that ability. In this case maybe that was in fact a bottom arm that was straighter. Show a comparison to his competitors. Leading into impact his bottom arm does straighten completely out in an attempt I would say to do it. If you notice on impact he is not stable with his top arm slightly bent. Usually a sign someone is trying to focus to much on their bottom arm. So on impact the constant pressure of top hand and box isn't present so the pole isn't fully flexed from top to bottom and slack occurs. This is a whiplash effect that can lead to the normal fiberglass face appearance.


I would have to say my vote is he was trying to and did have a straighten bottom arm for this generation of a vaulter, but used it effectively to still jump very well. Many who try to straighten the bottom arm do it wrong and become less effective pole vaulters.


On a side note its so fun watching vaulters like Pennel. 17' + is still a great jump today and he did it on beyond outdating equipment. What you see as a coach or what athlete thinks they are doing isn't always the correct answers. Its the linking of the two and getting the outcome desired visually by the coach and mentally by the athlete.


Does anyone know Pennel's grip? I am sure I saw it before just can't think off top of my head what it was.

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 164
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: Placement vs. Pressure

Unread postby willrieffer » Sun Feb 28, 2016 12:09 pm

From a purely physics perspective we can form an analysis of the event that takes the pole out of the analysis and simply resolves its forces into x and y forces. Once one takes this perspective then what is left is the energy relation of the CoM path where its horizontal or x velocity is relative to its potential energy or y position.

In short what often generally matters is the CoM path and how its early rate of change is managed. IF it rises too fast the vault stalls. The lead arm can have regulatory properties directed toward the CoM path that is to keep it in a lower trajectory by regulating the swing angle and speed. As a property of pendulums, free swinging shorter vaulters will swing forward faster than taller ones where swinging forward faster in time increases the potential energy rate of change by allowing the CoM to move up too fast in time. One of their routes to prohibit this is lead arm action, basically holding the CoM back and down in time.

The "cost" of this action is in swing energy as swing speed. They are purposefully slowing the swing rate to conserve energy in the early vault transit.

There has been comment made on this in regard to "continuation of motion" which I'll try and address here. IF you are using the PB method and trying to maximize swing energy then any "blocking" of the swing would have to be considered "poor" technique as once the swing is inhibited in some way, slowed, then you are going to develop less swing speed and then energy. But IF you're vault method is one of conservation of energy, a low drive vault, with swing braking, then this analysis doesn't hold. Lavillenie doesn't do anything that looks like he's working into a big fast PB/Bubka type swing...because he's not. He's conserving energy and pole momentum in other ways. So there is no way to really combine these two methods in the post take off.

In part the big energetic swing of the PB model (which sees greater energy generation from longer and generally heavier vaulters) is necessary to keep the pole moving forward in the mid vault as the elevation of the take off angle has effect on the x and y velocity vectors where basically there is a cost in horizontal velocity at take off.

In short, longer vaulters are more attuned to the PB model than short ones and since they naturally "free swing" slower than short vaulters approach a point where there is little to no need to regulate the swing speed with arm action. Short vaulters face a multifaceted problem in that they generally start with a lower CoM, lower pole angle, and a problem that their "free swing" rate is faster, thus you see them use the lead arm for swing speed regulation. Their one advantage, which is the same as for short gymnasts, is that they have better leverage to adjust their swing speed and/or "muscle" to invert or some tuck position.

Much of this is related to the scale of the vault and the distance from the take off to switch point as well as the vaulters height, reach height, speed, etc. Young vaulters with low grips and short transits (where the transit is the distance from take off to the switch point of the pole) basically do not have or need a "drive" phase in relation to their need to invert and so generally have a need to "speed" the swing to cover and for which any "blocking" or swing speed regulation from the front hand is highly detrimental. "Pole loading" is really swing speed problem (and where the Japanese now have built a pole vaulting robot that jumps higher by "pole loading"). This is shown very well and explicitly in Joe Dial's "Vision of the Vault" video with its extensive video documentation of the evolution of his vault. Early on, as a very young vaulter he vaults quite well with a bent lead arm having to cover a shorter transit, but over time and in necessity of getting on longer poles and crossing the transit he has to learn to regulate his swing speed by use and extension of the lead arm.

hope that helps

grandevaulter
PV Pro
Posts: 428
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: Placement vs. Pressure

Unread postby grandevaulter » Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:57 am

willrieffer wrote:From a purely physics perspective we can form an analysis of the event that takes the pole out of the analysis and simply resolves its forces into x and y forces.
willrieffer wrote: big fast PB/Bubka type swing...because he's not. He's conserving energy and pole momentum in other ways. So there is no way to really combine these two methods in the post take off.

More scientific and analytical terms and empirical evidence produced by Will.

willrieffer wrote:Much of this is related to the scale of the vault
Well you finally considered scale
willrieffer wrote: reach height,
You actually read my posts.

willrieffer wrote:n short, longer vaulters are more attuned to the PB model than short ones and since they naturally "free swing" slower than short vaulters approach a point where there is little to no need to regulate the swing speed with arm action
Nicole Buchler is 5' 4" and uses the P/B. There are taller female vaulters that do not use the pre jump and long sweep leg.

willrieffer wrote:Japanese now have built a pole vaulting robot that jumps higher by "pole loading").
That did it, you've completely won me over with the robot. That is much better than the NASA and MIT cut and pastes that you don't understand or are able to effectively describe.

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 164
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: Placement vs. Pressure

Unread postby willrieffer » Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:01 am

GV analyze this problem.

We have two identical masses moving at the same speed perpendicular to a gravity field on a frictionless surface and in a vacuum (so that we can ignore friction losses). At the same time the both encounter horizontal planes one at 5 degrees and one at 30 degrees. Describe their motion (in the most general way) and resting positions and energy states. If you can. And if you can this will illustrate why the CoM path is important in a gravity field and to vaulting.

I know why the high path has possibilities, too. It simply has to do with the pole angle in time and the braking force it exerts, but in fact the physics explanation for this is much more difficult per the example above which is that that method has to provide its trade off for intentionally slowing its horizontal velocity by increased take off angle. But its why in the straight pole era vaulters would simultaneously both try to jump into the vault to increase pole angle as much as possible while then still trying to keep there CoM as low as possible, often with a double leg hang. Because the braking force for stiff poles at low angles approaches effectively the infinite. Flex pole vaulting changed that necessity drastically, so there was opportunity to either strive to keep the CoM accelerated in the low path, or to still try and alleviate pole braking in the high path.

But this divide is why you can't critique a vaulter using one method by the other. You can't critique Lavillenie by Bubka and the PB method or visa versa. It doesn't work as the advantages and trade offs they are using are different.

GV its funny. You never really address anything I write about directly but just try to use "authority" to "make fun" of me. I work with vaulters all the time to results. I've got the #3 soph girl in MO and #8 boy (and where we had to spend two weeks trying to get poles for him). This means my kids are up against ones vaulting year round for Cooper, as well as ones working with Attig, and training in AK. My kids don't vault year round. I get them for spring track and that's it. And yet I expect them both to be on the front page of Milesplit by grade rankings. I expect the girl to be somewhere over 10', and the boy to approach 15'. I expect in the next couple of years to have a good shot at having the class champion for boys and girls in a single year. And I just got up off the couch a couple a years ago to do this. Coaching this event isn't really that hard. You just follow examples. Understanding it, the physics, that's hard...

grandevaulter
PV Pro
Posts: 428
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: Placement vs. Pressure

Unread postby grandevaulter » Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:11 pm

willrieffer wrote:GV analyze this problem.
I'll give it a whirl.

willrieffer wrote:We have two identical masses moving at the same speed perpendicular to a gravity field on a frictionless surface and in a vacuum
Got it.

willrieffer wrote:At the same time the both encounter horizontal planes one at 5 degrees and one at 30 degrees.


Buzzzzzzzz Whrrrrrr, Click Click Click Click. And the answer is:............ If they are moving "perpendicular to the gravity field, it doesn't matter what the angle of the plane they encounter, they are both equal. Perhaps we could try this problem without gravity at all or make both objects parallel to the gravity field.

willrieffer wrote:If you can. And if you can this will illustrate why the CoM path is important in a gravity field and to vaulting.

Bzzzzzzz whrrrrr bzzzzzz click click, chirp chirp, This does not compute.The information provided to complete this analysis in invalid.

willrieffer wrote:GV its funny. You never really address anything I write about directly but just try to use "authority" to "make fun" of me.
I've always addressed what you write about Will, most of it doesn't have anything to do about pole vault though. I'm glad that I'm now considered an authority, but that may just be a figment of your imagination. I just use common sense combined with a bit of humor.

willrieffer wrote: Coaching this event isn't really that hard. You just follow examples. Understanding it, the physics, that's hard...

Some things may be best left to the Japanese robot.

I'm still waiting for you to answer Coach Strawmans story problem regarding Stickman the one arm pole vaulters dilemma of whether his feet or hips reach 12 O'clock first.

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 164
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: Placement vs. Pressure

Unread postby willrieffer » Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:02 pm

Image

This is one I'm coaching. This was taken early last season. He was a freshman. I'd been his only coach. He missed half of his 8th grade season with an ankle injury suffered in basketball. So at the time I'd spent maybe 3 months total working with him.

Does this "stickmans" hips look good to you?!?!? :dazed:

Look,

On one side I have you following me around PVP and deriding everything I post. Says something about your psychology mostly, but just to let you know.

On the other is decades of judgement given me by the education system. I maxed the Stanford Binet IQ test in 3rd grade(IQ around 170). I scored in the 99th percentile on every test I've ever taken in grade school or high school. I got a perfect 36 on the ACT Science and a 35 on the Math (I had to leave early to both run for and throw a TD pass in a football game). I have almost 180 credit hours in math, science, and education.

And you want to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's funny. Hmmm. Should I choose you or the tens of teachers, professors, standardized tests, and accredited schools and Universities?

When the gravity vector points down, the horizontal is perpendicular to it. Or, try again...


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests