pole breaks

[~jj~]

You need to be in Tampa next month. The purpose of ASTM is to bring manufactues together to develop standards for an industry.
www.astm.org

~jan johnson~

[jmayesvaultmom]

They should not be able to "come back" and weigh in again. That does promote going and trying to vomit up a couple of pounds. At Texas Relays, we did not know they were going to weigh in and since the meet was at 4 I encouraged Jodie to eat a pretty good meal at about 10 am. With the heat, she then proceeded to drink 2 huge gatorades and a big water. Well guess what that did??? She weighed 3.5 pounds over her smallest pole....which is used only for popups from a short run, so it didn't really matter. But what made me mad is that they said if she could lose 3 pounds....come back! This was an official! Now I can see running to the bathroom....maybe it making a .5 difference...if even that. But how do those officials think a kid is going to lose 3 pounds in 15 or 20 minutes!!!??? By throwing up...that probably wouldn't even do that much! If they are going to weigh in, I think the weigh-in should be the day before or even that morning first thing. I think some of these girls are even going without eating all day if they compete late in the day to keep their weight as low as possible!! Then not only are they going to do things like that...they're going to get into laxatives, etc., water pills, and whatever they can! You won't see guys doing this.....but you will see girls that have trouble getting on poles at or above their weight doing these things!!!

[Carolina Extreme]

Now was this weight rule really worth it to create situtions like the one above? I proposed a much more effective alternative years ago, only to be ignored. It was a safe landing rule, simply stating that if you land unsafely 3 times, you would be disqualified from competition. Obviously it was a lot more detailed than that and I won't go into it here, but you would accomplish the same goal of preventing kids from flying over the back of the pit, or coming down in the box, or going sideways. It would control the grips on its own behalf, and require proper pole selection. BUT NOOOOOO, it would be too hard to enforce they said! Try enforcing teenage girls' perceptions of body image sometime!

The current weight rule is a piece of s#!^

We don't need 500 rules about how poles are made, flexed, and labeled. We just need to keep people landing down the middle.

Ditto!!!! Landing safe in the middle of the pit is what we all want. To many people are loosing sight of that and the rules/coaches/parents are forcing kids onto poles that are to long, but the weight rating is correct , and the kids come up short and risk injury. Yet they keep jumping because that's the pole they "Have to" jump on because of the weight rating. Let's change it, three strikes and you are out. It would not be hard to enforce. Either you land in the coaches box , or you don't . Land on the line and the official uses his best judgement. Three strikes and you are out for the day.

My thoughts: You can take a vaulter on a pole 5lbs under his weight (because of school budget or whatever reason), holding a foot below the band making it in effect a pole 15lbs over his weight, and with the vaulter landing in the middle of the pit... Now that's a safe vault, but the HS rules do not allow it.

But as it stands now to meet the rules, and everyone should play by the rules, if a vaulter can not get on a pole at or above their body weight than they need to be on a shorter pole. Pole vaulting is progressive and it takes a great deal of time to master it. To many vaulters are trying to get on poles longer than they need to be on when they start. Have patience, learn how to vault first, then raise your grip. It's not how much you bend the pole that counts. You've got to keep everything moving fast to vault high, and shorter stiffer poles will do it. Besides, most of the girls for example will only need to be on 6" shorter poles to make weight. What's the big deal? They'll jump higher by doing it.

[~jj~]

What a sad story.
When the weight rule went in 1995 I don't think anyone ever envisioned that type of a story. Also, keep in mind that the HS federation does not mandate weigh-ins. That is up to the individual state associations. So as weigh-ins have become more popular, the need for standardization has become more critical. I really feel that when women's vaulting started to develop it caught the manufactures off guard regarding the appropriate resistance the smaller poles should offer. That in combo with the weight rule has caused situations like yours.
I have a few questions to ask you. I will do so in a private email.
Thanks,

~jan~

[vaultfan]

I’m glad to see a discussion of the weight rating rule as I believe that there have been some “unintended consequencesâ€Â

[~jj~]

Basicly when the weight rule went in and we were all surprized. I agree in principal with the weight rule. But I too have seen many examples of it's short comings. The weight rule was the result of the HS Federation legislating what manufactures had been saying for years: "don't vault on a pole under your body weight". The problem however, is that each and every manufacture had flaws and little dark secrets in their respective systems. In addition no one in the industry had done any research regarding what the average kid's requirments were. My view is the weighting of vaulting poles should be incremental in 6" length increases, starting at ten or eleven feet and working to longer lengths at approximalty the rate of 6" in lenght =10 pounds in stiffness. This interplay between length and stiffness should prevail throughout the entire chart all the way to the longest poles used (17'6"). Currently, however all the systems are differnt, as each brand tries to sell its particular system.
~jj~

[Bruce Caldwell]

Weight rule established in 1964
[color=blue][b]I have a 1964 skypole catalog flyer that shows pole selection and the relationship of grip to weight. And a warning not use a pole under your body weight.
So for 40 years the Manufacturers have been telling the public to use a pole rated at their weight! It is really not something new!!!!

As the stories above are sad, I feel that preparation before a meet to insure that a vaulter is attending a meet with a properly fitted pole and that nothing like the above would be necessary.

So if the above is RULE #1 then this is RULE #2!
RULE #2 Never use a pole that is one foot longer than your ability.

In almost all cases we get coaches buying far too long of a pole for the ability of the vaulter.
The secret to proper fitting of a pole is to use a pole within your ability and weight size. In the relative pole chart posted by Jan Johnson on his site he provides a means for relative stiffness between poles. His rule of thumb of measure is 10lbs per 6â€Â

[lonestar]

[quote="ESSX"][color=red][b][size=18]

As the stories above are sad, I feel that preparation before a meet to insure that a vaulter is attending a meet with a properly fitted pole and that nothing like the above would be necessary.

So if the above is RULE #1 then this is RULE #2!
RULE #2 Never use a pole that is one foot longer than your ability.

In almost all cases we get coaches buying far too long of a pole for the ability of the vaulter.
The secret to proper fitting of a pole is to use a pole within your ability and weight size. In the relative pole chart posted by Jan Johnson on his site he provides a means for relative stiffness between poles. His rule of thumb of measure is 10lbs per 6â€Â

[Bruce Caldwell]

There has been a conspiracy theory out there that the weight rule was pushed through by the manufacturers to sell shorter length poles (ie: more poles, more sales, more profit).

The real reason the weight rule was pushed through was because coaches were advocating and teaching vaulters to move to the next length pole 10-15 lbs lesser than their weight and use that to learn to bend the pole.

RESULTS:
Poor technigue.
Over bend and back of the pit danger.
Broken poles.
Vaults with high grips some higher than the vaulter was jumping.
Pole riding not pole vaulting.
It was a better solution than requiring longer pits at the time.


I agree with you on the economics of the situation and almost every time I go into a school to help them with pole selection I have found bad duplicate size poles on the shelf of different brands.
Obviously this is costly when we should be preaching to replace poles in the gaps rather than buying blindly.

In reference to the "conspiracy" I have heard this too, but know that what is really going on is we know that coaches choose poles longer than needed because they want the pole to last all year. In most cases this will work but if the they order too large of a length and they get the very same problems all are complaining about the pole does not fit the vaulter. There is not a lot of money to be made in the pole business unless you are selling over 4,000 poles a year or more. Pole companies are not the enemy here, nor is the NFHS, it is an interesting assumption that we focus on shorter poles as that is what fits better in most cases.

A shorter pole in our line has less profit in it.
Takes virtually the same time and effort as well as labor to make as a longer pole. Only difference is material, less material the less percentage of mark-up you can get.

SO if you can hold high and jump on a pole rated at your weight please buy the longer ones then we sell twice as many poles due to the coach coming back and buying the proper one if the school can afford it GRIN

[~jj~]

Currenly I think most manufactures see no need for 5 pound increments in poles shorter than 12'. However, I think 5 pound increments should start at the very bottom and work to the very top of the chart....the chart you see at the skyjumpers site needs to be updated. But I think it still gives the greneral idea regarding the length to resistance interplay.
I see the same relationships in the energy/resistance variables at the lower levels of vaulting poles, as with the higher levels. In general, the requirments are the same: the resistance the pole offers should match the vaulter....and to do so 5 pound increments are necessary. This of course creates inventory problems for people on the business side......(as do multipal brands).
Bruce, are you for or aginst multipal max hand-holds on poles? In other words, if you have a 13'150 you could be allowed to establish a new max grip line 3", 6", or 9" down from the manufactures line and assigning it a weight value based on 3"=5pounds, 6"=10pounds, 9"=15pounds. If such a rule were implemented it of course would be diffcult to enforce. It would also probably make it much easier for HS's and individuals to afford pole vaulting. However, in order to implement such a rule, it must be written into the ASTM.
Opinion?
Consider your answer carefully, and from the manufactures perspective only.
~jan~

[Bruce Caldwell]

Bruce, are you for or aginst multipal max hand-holds on poles? In other words, if you have a 13'150 you could be allowed to establish a new max grip line 3", 6", or 9" down from the manufactures line and assigning it a weight value based on 3"=5pounds, 6"=10pounds, 9"=15pounds. If such a rule were implemented it of course would be diffcult to enforce. It would also probably make it much easier for HS's and individuals to afford pole vaulting. However, in order to implement such a rule, it must be written into the ASTM.
Opinion?
Consider your answer carefully, and from the manufactures perspective only.
~jan~

[color=green][b]We use denominator of 2.2 lbs or 1-kilo weight per size

In our 10’6â€Â

[vaultfan]

Here’s a high quality post made by fdpolarbear on the Polevaulters get High message board on Yahoo last January. Yes, I’m a real lightweight here among the heavyweights involved in this excellent discussion. Just thought that this particular post would be of interest to some of you.


It's been a while since I have been on the site as I was coaching football. Just read Vaultfan's posts from mid-October regarding weight ratings. The points several people have made regarding increased weight rating as one holds lower on the pole make sense. The rating can be increased as one holds lower and this has been known since the infancy of fiberglass vaulting. In fact, those of us who have been around for a while should remember that the Browning Skypole created by Mr Herb Jenks was clearly labled to this effect. My poles were (are, yes I still have them) labled as being rated @ 160lbs at 13'6" grip, 165lbs at 13', 170lbs at 12'6" and 180lbs at 12'. These weights are rounded to the lesser 5lb mark as the actual difference is ~1.2lbs per inch, ie. 13' is actually 167.2 rounded down to 165, 12'6" is 174.4 rounded down to 170 and 12' is 181.6 rounded down to 180. The were rounded down to the nearest 5lbs for simplicity and always DOWN for safety. Even though current production methods may have a small effect on the 1.2lbs per inch, it can't be that much. The laws of physics have not changed. Poles could still be marked in this same way! If they were it would be much easier and more economical for schools to stock a reasonable selection of poles. For example, my one pole would replace a 14'/160lb, a 13'6"/165lb, a 13'/170lb and a 12'6"/180, four poles for the price of one. Cost is one of the biggest reasons schools are dropping our event, so why don't the rule makers and the manufacturers bring back the graduated weight ratings that our pioneer pole makers knew worked? A couple of posts have already discussed how to insure a vaulter does not hold above the prescribed height for his/her weight by not allowing tape above the proper grip. A question that will come up is what if two vaulters use the same pole. Very simple to handle, tape comes in a variety of colors. Using my pole as an example, a 155lb vaulter gripping at 13'6" could use blue tape on his grip area and a 170lb vaulter gripping at 12'6" could use red tape. All the officials would need to do is note the tape color beside each vaulter's name on the scoresheet to remind them to check the vaulter's grip height and make sure it is not too high. It makes sense, it is doable, and it would possibly bring our event back to some of the cash-strapped schools that have already dumped it or keep it in schools that are on the verge of dumping it. What do you think?