Big Bend vs. Smaller Bend

[maurie]

Hey,

The check is in the mail.

In your previous post you said: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you are pulling your bottom hand in the direction of your shoulders than your shoulders must counter it with a force in the direction of your hands. This force and counter force keeps the shoulders in a stationary position along the axis of the pole cord. This differs from that of a BIG Bottom arm in a Class 1 Lever in respects to during the forward or upwards pressure of the bottom arm you are applying a force through the pole but the pole will also apply a force back on you in the direction of the shoulders pushing them backwards behind the hips and top arm which is never wanted in any kind of swinging motion that needs to occur during the second phase of the vault."

Well, at the take off, with the pole rotating towards the pits and bending, the athletes COM in front of the top hand and chest leading(class 2 lever); regardless of what you do with the bottom arm, there will be "a force back on you." Because the process of going from kinetic energy in the vaulter to potential energy in the pole occurs with a sudden and rapid decrease in linear momentum. Newton's third law applies, period.

Over the past few years we have been teaching the free take off and tap swing. One point of emphasis has been to reach up with both hands because the hands will always go to the 11:00 and 12:00 position. This results in the COM in front of the top hand. We also teach to lead with the chest because we want to position the body just as a gymnast does for the tap swing. Then we teach that if the take off is done correctly, the hands will be very near parallel with the ground when the trail leg snaps through the bottom of the swing. This emulates the tap swing as if it were being done on a high bar and it allows the athletes bottom arm to straighten out beyond the Magic 45 to the L position. The tap swing if done correctly to the L position will result with the hips above the shoulders and the top hand behind the head.

This is of course under ideal circumstances. Without enough bend the bottom arm must stay flexed or the pole will run away from (top hand in front of the head) the athlete and the attempt is a disastor. In my opinion the bottom arm action is athlete/pole vaulter system specific.

So, where do I come in on the Big bend vs. Small bend? I'm leaning towards the big bend for sure. The bigger bend gives the athlete a fraction of a second more time to complete the vault sequence and it allows for a natural tap swing.

Thanks again

[ADTF Academy]

I'll be looking for that check by the way!!!!


The point I think is missing is that with a big bottom arm the pole tip is not rotating it is sinking firstly in basically a decreased rotation towards the runway and you no longer maintain proper posture in your trunk.

The force back on your top hand is an interesting and well taken point. Your right equal and opposite. Now here is where once again the pole bend occurs. The pole is fiberglass and meant to bend under a certain amount of pressure or force. Your arm is not meant to bend unless it breaks in half. One is a solid object the other is not. The force your top hand is applying (due to the running speed generated during the approach) is greater than the force the pole can apply back on your top hand thus it bends. If you punch drywall does your fist go through. The drywall is still apply force back on you just not enough to stop you from punching through it (a bending fiberglass pole). On the other hand a steel wall, if you punch it will your hand go through it (a straight pole).

The reason for the chest moving past the top hand is due to the momentum you carrying into the takeoff. Just because you break contact with the ground doesn't mean you don't have any additonal momentum or energy already stored in your body. Since the pole bends your chest moves infront of the body equal to the flexibility in your shoulders unless another force stops its forward inertia. Another Newton law, "a force will remain in motion till another force acts upon it." Your bottom arm will either allow it to continue to move forward (passive bottom arm or bottom arm pull) or cease it from moving forward another further (big bottom arm). If it ceases it from moving forward than it becomes a fulcrum and your top hand will pull down naturally thus resulting you to sink if your on a soft enough pole.

Next my simple question is do you maintain proper running mechanics and posture after you take off if you have a Big Bottom arm. Secondly, if you maintain proper posture then do you sink at all. If yes then it is a wasted motion. Now if you don't sink at all and you still have a big bottom arm do your shoulders push behind your hips at the moment of takeoff and you must resort to mentally consentration on keeping your hips back (you basically got on a stiff enough pole you can't force to bend by the bottom arm and top arm class 1 lever). However if you have a passive or pulling bottom arm than your trunk stays in alignment when the pole strikes the back of the box. Your chest continues to move forward and you begin to load your body with additional energy till your hips are whipped through natually and your pelvis is locked into position as it does in a tap or swinging fashion.

Next, I was hoping not to get into the swing/tap at this time because it opens up a whole new discussion.

But the Tap or Tap Slam used in the gymnastics world is due to the elastic energy generated in the body. With the bottom arm pull or passive bottom arm your chest leads your hips loading your stomach with passive energy otherwise referred to by me as a stretch reflex. This is vital to generating enough angular momentum to reach inversion. Angular momentum is started from the pelvis being whipped back into alignment with the back and then followed by the foot being whipped back into alignment with the pelvis.

However, if you chest is not allowed to lead your hips on their own because of a big bottom arm and a stiff enough pole than you don't load your stomach with energy and you can't produce enough potential energy in your stomach to be used to create angular momentum. Hence why the tuck and shoot model came into exsistance. If you can't create enough inertia than create more angular velocity.

You Wrote, "Without enough bend the bottom arm must stay flexed or the pole will run away from (top hand in front of the head) the athlete and the attempt is a disastor. In my opinion the bottom arm action is athlete/pole vaulter system specific."

This is exactly opposite, with to much bottom arm this occurs. Man this is the number 1 frustration I have with females and their big bottom arm. Think about it how many high school girls have you seen jump with a big bottom arm. They take off, start their swing only to have their feet be thursted down towards the bar towards the end of their vault. Ok think about it pole bends towards the runway and must unbend towards the pits. The vaulter has remained locked out the entire time and thus never moved the pole bend to the side. It must uncoil quickly and in the direction of the pits. Because the bottom arm is locked they never get their hips over their shoulders. Their hands which is attached to the top of the pole is driven upwards pulling the shoudlers upwards, which in return drives their hips down which in return drives their feet down. The vaulter goes up with so much promise only to be slammed back down onto the crossbar. so sad johnny tell them what they have one, "a missed attempt and major frustration."

If you lock or attmept to lock out the bottom arm you must tuck and shoot period thus turning quickly and get launched deep intot he pits or throw your hands backwards down the runway to slow down or attempt to slow down the poles uncoiling forces. You can not have locked out and reach inversion in the same sentence unless you lock out for a fraction of a second and never row and then go into inversion right away without adequate depth thus resulting you to land in or near the box. Not safe any way you look at it and should not be coached or attempted.

Will that work, unfortanately yes and it has produced some high jumpers. I am only giving another way to look at the vault. One which I feel and others beleive will produce higher results.. Simply put if your not continusously producing energy during the entire vault then you will eventually run out of it.

Finally the bend size does not guarantee you have more time to do what you need to do. Firstly the bigger the bend the faster it uncoils. If you are not set up for a effecient swing then who cares the size of the bend. If it is generating more velocity and force than you can counter you won't beat it to inversion so the big bend is pointless. Also when an object is over stressed it takes more energy to unbend it also reduce the energy you can use on the top of the pole. Therefore you are once again wasting more energy you stored in the pole by making it unbend further than it needs to.


In the end my basic point is this. If I as a vaulter know I can safely and effectively rotate a 14 foot pole cord from 7 lefts. Why would I want to make the cord any less than 14 feet. Any shorter of a cord is wasting energy. if you overbend a pole I will agree you are making the pole cord shorter, but why? If you can rotate a longer cord why make it any shorter than it has to be your only wasting energy to unbend the pole that produced the shorter cord.

Finally and most importantly these imaginary cords each have a circumfurance from the moment that cord is established till lets say vertical if it never changed. The shorter the pole cord the smaller this circumfurance is. I would contend than the longer the pole cord the larger the circumfurance. The entire time you have to reach inversion is the addition of all the circumferences of those pole cords that were produced and the time spent on each length. Therfore if you can safely rotate a 14 foot cord why would you ever want a cord shorter than 14 feet. It is only reducing the total circumfurance you have to reach inversion thus reducing the total time you have to reach inversion. The amount you sink doesn't add in given you more time. If you sink on a flexible pole you must go up faster than you came down. If anything it decreases the amount of time you have to reach inversion. Becuase it one uncoils quicker and two produces a smaller total circumference to work with.


In your reply post you have way to many topics and conversations in themselves. It is hard to answer your post completely without writing a novel. I gave you a few more ideas and concepts which I am sure people will have questions about. I hope I somewhat answered or replied to your post.

If anyone else wants to send money this way I don't mind accepting it. :-D

[ADTF Academy]

I guess in the end the only thing that matters is for you to choose a model that best suits you and find a way to best learn it and coach it.


If you can soundly provide why you do something and how to learn it correctly and safely for that matter what more could we want.


This model or ratical mindset I beleive will produce the next great vaulters. Will I personally be able to produce such a person. I won't know till I run into the right person if I haven't already . All I know is this model and the concepts I am talking about once mastered has the potential to produce massive results. I am talking over a 4 foot flyaway and higher effective hand holds.

Heck for most of us what is a 4 foot flyaway maybe from our waist to our stretched out hand. Just a thought.

[dj]

Good morning

Early in this thread barto stated

We bend the pole to shorten the radius of rotation. Poles become less efficient at returning energy the more they are bent. Optimal bend for most modern poles ~95-100 degrees.

“Poles become less efficient at returning energy the more they are bent.â€Â

[ADTF Academy]

The thread jumped off track a while ago.


Your right though big bend smaller pole cord easier it rotates. Unless it breaks as DJ put it.


My question still stands why would you want to make a pole bend more than you need it to bend. The More it bends the smaller the pole cord the quicker it rotates the less time you have to reach inversion.


Big bends only look cool! It merely speeds up the rotation and reduces the amount of time you have on the pole.

This is just in terms of the pole rotation I am not even getting into the additional force that is applied on your hands from the uncoiling of the pole.

[saraf]

My question still stands why would you want to make a pole bend more than you need it to bend. The More it bends the smaller the pole cord the quicker it rotates the less time you have to reach inversion.
pole.

Get some more grip if that happens

[dj]

good morning

yes it is all about getting more grip...

you hold higher on the same pole... slows the rotation slightly and you swing to verical and over a higher bar..

i must add the key is bending more and not breaking.. that is why bruces old training poles worked so well.. the down side was they were heavy to carry down the runway and did not "re-shape" themselves strong enought to get a powerful swing..

maybe we need a hy-breed pole... fiberglass and plastic??????!!!!!

dj

[ADTF Academy]

Hold higher is your solution if you over bend the pole and reduce the pole cord length to much on that pole and it rotates to quickly. Intersting answer. First question what is your technique. Do you aim for a big bend. Hence big bottom arm? If not then I would agree with you.


Hmm what happens if you can't hold any higher on a certain pole. Your holding on the very top of a lets say 15'7" UCS Spirit. The higher hand hold would be to move to a 16' pole.

Or for the big jumpers out there your already on a 16' pole and now you must move to a 16'5 or even longer.


Well the sail peice is different/higher on the longer pole and if you over bend it like you did the 15'7/16' you will be shot backwards.

Have you ever seen a supposedly good vaulter shot backwards? If you answered yes my question to you is why did that happen? Did it happen once in a great moon or do they get rejected all the time? How is that safe vaulting? Which leads me into my next point.

What if based on your technique and the way you bend the pole. You do increase your hand hold by holding higher on the pole your using or by going to a longer pole. I will agree that this would increase the pole cord length thus given you more time to swing to inversion. However, what if based on your bending techniques at takeoff you can't rotate the longer pole cord. You can not apply your energy at takeoff efficently enough to rotate the longer pole cord. Now your theory of simply holding higher doesn't hold true if the pole won't rotate. You have simply moved to a longer pole and made your vaulting worst.


This comes back to another theory that is out there instead of fixing your plant and vault you simply go to a bigger pole. Why not fix what your doing on the pole your using?

I guess in my little world I never understand why you would want to bend a pole anymore than you need it to bend. If you on a 15 foot pole and you can safely rotate a 13 foot pole cord why would you want to bend it down to 12 feet. It just doesn't make sense. It does take energy to unbend a pole and that extra 1 foot of unbending is wasted energy that will not be availble to launch you. Maybe the goal is to be a pebble and the pole a slingshot. Then I guess I would understand the big bend theory.


I constantly here of vaulters who can jump as high or higher from shorter runs with smaller poles using a slightly different way of jumping then when they get on their big sticks and back up to their full approach. They completely go to a different takeoff style and vault maybe a bit higher than when they are comign from a shorter run on a shorter pole.


Sad. track your heights from short approach short stick to long approach long stick. Do you keep the same flyaway figures or better yet do they increase. Or worst yet do they decrease.

I wonder how many 17 foot vaulters we have in this country jumping on 16'5 or longer poles. Yet they can jump let say 16 feet on a 15 foot pole. Shouldn't a light bulb go off.

If you only have a 1 foot flyaway I have nothing to say

16 with a 15'8 hand hold 15' effective hold
17 with a 16'8 hand hold 16' effective hold
18 with a 17'8 hand hold 17' effective hold
19 with a 18'8 hand hold 18' effective hold
20 with a 19'8 hand hold 19' effective hold

If you only have a 2 foot flyaway you still need some really big sticks to jump anything overly respectable.

15 with a 13'8 hand hold 13' effective hold
16 with a 14'8 hand hold 14' effective hold
17 with a 15'8 hand hold 15' effective hold
18 with a 16'8 hand hold 16' effective hold
19 with a 17'8 hand hold 17' effective hold
20 with a 18'8 hand hold 18' effective hold

Get a 3 foot flyaway and don't lose it and then you can jump some high heights on decent size sticks.

15 with a 12'8 hand hold 12' effective hold
16 with a 13'8 hand hold 13' effective hold
17 with a 14'8 hand hold 14' effective hold
18 with a 15'8 hand hold 15' effective hold
19 with a 16'8 hand hold 16' effective hold
20 with a 17'8 hand hold 17' effective hold

How about with the magical 4 foot flyaway, this is when things get fun

16 with a 12'8 hand hold 12' effective hold
17 with a 13'8 hand hold 13' effective hold
18 with a 14'8 hand hold 14' effective hold
19 with a 15'8 hand hold 15' effective hold
20 with a 16'8 hand hold 16' effective hold
21 with a 17'8 hand hold 17' effective hold


This is why we speak in flyaways and not pole length. The magic is in the pop on the top and how much you can clear over your effective hand hold. The greater this number the greater your potential. Does it take longer to reach the heights as those that simply get on big sticks. Yep! but then they get stuck and are very inconsistent. How long will you stay at lets say high 17 feet till you get frustrated and give it up. When a slight change you in vault could make you the next champ.

You get 4 years to be olympic champion for a reason. and in some cases you wait till your 32 like Tim Mac did and record the biggest flyaway of any vaulter that has cleared 6m. Yes greater than even Bubka. 121 cm almost 4 feet. Not bad for one of the slowest guys in the 6m club and on the shortest pole to boot.

Go to a long pole, maybe the repsonse should be learn to vault right then and only then go to a longer pole

[master]

Go to a long pole, maybe the repsonse should be learn to vault right then and only then go to a longer pole

I think this is what most coaches on this message board teach.
- master

[Mecham]

You get 4 years to be olympic champion for a reason. and in some cases you wait till your 32 like Tim Mac did and record the biggest flyaway of any vaulter that has cleared 6m. Yes greater than even Bubka. 121 cm almost 4 feet. Not bad for one of the slowest guys in the 6m club and on the shortest pole to boot.

Nothing against Tim, but Bubka was on the longest stiffest pole out there. Which I am sure had something to do with his fly away. I know Bubka had the ability to jump 21ft, more than once. Using the same grip from the 6m chart and 21ft as the bar cleared, Bubka would have a 4'6'' fly away. Not to mention all his other jumps that he completley smoked and cleared them by a foot.

[ADTF Academy]

exactly my point.

Tim did it on a softer flex of roughly 12.6 while Bubka was on a 10.6. Thats a huge difference on that length of a pole. The amount of recoil or strain energy that could be applied back on you from a 10.6 is tremendous.

My point was not that Tim was better on top than bubka, but just the opposite that even someone on a shorter softer pole can produce that big of a flyaway. Why hasn't anyone else.

Bubka was a different story in himself he was going for 1 cm records to make cash. Not blaming him for that. And studies have shown some of his jumps where huge. But total clearance is what we can go by no hypothetical clearances.

But in the end the stats don't lie. Tim Mac has the highest flyaway recorded on the 6m club. Bubka would have been greater if he went for higher heights at an early age. He ran out of time.

By the way Britts was actually on a stiffer pole by .2 (10.4 compared to 10.6) when he cleared 6m and Hartwig wasn't much behind him at 10.8. But then again he was a big boy 196 cm tall weighing in at 88kg. He actually produced more kinetic energy on the runway (roughly 4174) than Bubka did (roughly 3952). Fellow american Hartwig produceded the most (roughly 4344).

Yet Bubka could hold higher than either one of those two. How come. Takeoff technique. Brits held 6 cm lower than Bubka while Hartwig who produced the most energy on the runway held 10cm lower than Bubka. and they both jumped 12 cm lower than Bubka. How come?

They produced the most available KE, yet they held lower and jumped lower. Heck Mac only produced roughly 3497 on the runway and he only jumped 3cm less than Hartwig or Brits. How come?

[ADTF Academy]

Did you coach him, how do you know it was the 6.40 model. Or is it just your guess.


What is hte 6.40 model. Yes I have seen the post, but unless you work with this athlete or that athlete how do you really know what they are trying to accomplish.


I agree with what I am personally coaching Bubka is the Male I would look at first. Does that mean he is the ideal model. Nope he had his errors that I don't know if thats what Petrov wanted or if Bubka never could fix them.

This most of us will never know. I wish I learned russian at a young age. Oops dang parents.



By the way:


Man I hate that response he was a surperior athlete. There have been stronger athletes, there have been taller athletes, there have been heavier athletes and there have been athletes just as fast as Bubka on the runway. Why then did he jump the highest.

The technique. The fact he was breed to vault from a young age. Gymnastics and proper training till he was mature enough to start the vault.

Once you and others move past the fact he was simply human the sooner someone will pass him. A freak of nature is a 6-5 vaulter weight 195 pounds that can run mid 9.74 m/s. Now that is a freak of nature. What was his name. Brits not bubka.

Bubka was maybe 6 feet maybe 176 pounds, yes he had good speed 10 m/s. I but others could run as fast or faster off the runway then him. He just held it do to his planting techniques and pole carry.

He was an amazing vaulter don't put him in the unreachable category. If thats the case no one will ever break his records.