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.
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 Jun 04, 2014 6:52 am

Lavillenie gibilisco and Bubka all slightly under take-offs.jpg
Lavillenie gibilisco and Bubka all slightly under take-offs.jpg (85.99 KiB) Viewed 5552 times


Damiel DOSSEVI - 5m60  attempt sample of his technique part one..jpg
Damiel DOSSEVI - 5m60 attempt sample of his technique part one..jpg (94.45 KiB) Viewed 5549 times


Above to assist my previous post and your deliberations.

The critical issue to be resolved, in my view, is how the athletes are solving the initial energy / momenta exchanges during the impacting collision of the pole with the rear wall at the deepest point of the planting box in relation to their take-off point location, grip length along the pole, pole stiffness and the pole chord angle that remains to travel through before the vaulter plus pole reach the plane of the crossbar.

The efficiency of the energy exchange and momenta transfer at the final velocity and COM height above the runway of the vaulter is determined by the energy losses during this pole -box and the pole-vaulter collisions. How does the vaulter optimise the take-off and , yes, MINIMISE energy wastage is the question to be answered before proceeding to subsequent stages of pole support?

Boiling my answers down to essential take-offcoaching points expressed in as few words as possible.

My take home messages for the take-off:
1. Max CONTROLLED approach run Velocity KEY WORDS ACCELERATE SMOOTHLY
2 .Accurate High Pole Plant KEY WORDS BOTH HANDS HIGH
3. Jump Up to Move the Pole about the tip in the box KEY WORDS: JUMP HIGH (technical analysis shows foot plant and roll on to toes technique is very efficient).
4.DRIVE the pole and SWING No STOPS from Toe off till Pole release KEY WORDS: GRIP and DRIVE
5. Make initial swing Kick so STRONG,LONG and FAST that top and lower arms grips KEY WORDS: [u]WHIP LEG LONG n STRONG
6. PULL against the bend of the pole
[/u] (Controversial but some thought about mechanics shows this must according to physics be true once the take-off toe tip is off the ground!) KEY WORDS: AMP UP THE ARC of SWING . AMP = Amplitude.

Note: No instruction given about pole bend at all or anything about the lower arm action during or immediately after take-off. Why not? It just isn't necessary and misdirects the vaulter from accomplishing the purpose of the vaulting challenge!
Many Old schoolers just find this mystifying.Rethink the challenge and reapply the physics on how to efficiently rotate the whole system without stalling at any stage in the process and perhaps you will see through a glass less darkly!

Note: Despite the old belief that prolonging ground contact time will enable vaulters to generate more initial pole bend and effective jump impulse, the research shows this to be not true in practice. Many Elite vaulters tend, as they become more proficient and have longer pole grip lengths, to reduce take-off ground contact time as their run up speed increases.

High final approach run speed is necessary but not sufficient to differentiate between vaulters who are World Elite standard despite correlating positively with higher bar clearance .

(Correlation is the association between the numbers representing the co related variable comparison and the relationship need not be causal. There is less range of variability in the standard of elite vaulters which also reduces the extent to which correlations necessarily can be used for predictive purposes).


What has this thread added.

Nothing New or Unknown Added

Strong Points
Always consider the cost benefits and recognise individual differences in vaulters capacities and abilities.

Science
If the facts input are wrong the conclusions are very likely to also be wrong.

Yes, the vault is complicated. But it can be simplified allowing the coach and vaulter to act with confidence by asking the right questions on the basis of reasonable facts.

Vaulting Technique Efficiency.

My biased assessment.
Mostly about the wrong question because the focus has been on the vaulter and not the primary challenge to all of the work (useful v useless) that a vaulter must do.

Successful jumping using a flexing spring device is fundamentally about how the vaulter plus pole ,as a total system, can be rotated about a pivot point so that temporarily stored energy in the spring is returned to an inverted vaulter at the point in space and time that optimises the vaulter's work and achieve legal passage across the bar.

Focusing on what the vaulter does about the remote centre of rotation of the vaulter and ignoring the work of the total system COM about the global system centre at the pivot point in the box leads to complex often misguided or wrongly directed solutions to the vault challenge. There are no "style" points in pole vaulting but efficient effort is key to success, while wasted effort leads to the dustbin of history at best and at worst the grave.

Lavillenie technique is not "radical" and I have produced evidence to support my thesis that as Renaud grips at a greater length along the pole and progresses to jumping on stiffer poles, because of the challenge imposed to the total system (vaulter + Pole) ,he is evolving his technique at take-off to resemble, at this stage of the vault, a Petrov - Bubka Method trained vaulter.

Why? Because the "Old French School Type "under and initial force bending method" of take-off is too great an impediment to achieving successful take-off energy and momenta input using this method. He must take-off further out as his grip length on the pole increases.

Reduction in the pole chord ground angle this entails increases the probability of the total system stalling out before it reaches close enough to the plane of the cross bar with sufficient energy from pole recoil to give him sufficient final kinetic energy in the horizontal and vertical direction or sufficient whole body rotational kinetic energy about his COM to clear the bar.

It is my contention that the Risks of failure using a technique that causes the early pole recoil inherent in the Old French Technique and his stature limitations necessitate the change we now see emerging in his take-off technique.

Nothing new or revolutionary, Russian or French!

Dare I say it, plain old common sense really.

Explaining why is not an easy task even if I am an Anglophone.

Physics concepts (mechanics) in my view using classical foundations , especially dynamics if applied properly, are sufficient to un ravel the basic facts for Vaulters and Coaches who still actively pursue their passion for the event in what is after all a Newtonian World.

The world of "Chaos Theory" fascinating as it may be to mathematicians and theoreticians does not hold a candle to just "doing it!"

Finding out what works and what doesn't by running, sticking the pole in the box and jumping is so much fun and excitement, that KISS is easier and progress is faster. We all know this.

I contend the more you know, the more the simplicity of the event reveals itself.

Understanding intellectually is one thing. Expressing that understanding though personal actions is also very revealing of the amount of wisdom from experience required to sort pole vault science from the fiction.

Wisdom is not an emergent state property of inert navel gazing.
Every new opinion at its starting, is precisely a minority of one!

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 Jun 04, 2014 8:36 am

"I contend the more you know the more the simplicity of the event reveals itself. Understanding intellectually is one thing. Expressing that understanding though personal actions is also very revealing of the amount of wisdom from experience required to sort pole vault science from the fiction. "

Spot on mate - The Torah said the same thing thousands of years ago - "Mere knowledge is not the goal -but action."
In my obviously humble opinion I have managed to meet the challenge of teaching this event as well as, or perhaps better than anyone on the planet. I have presented the results of some of my work in dvds for over ten years and have recently posted another example in both the beginners and intermediate sections - I have been waiting patiently for our resident experts to respond with clips of their own athletes, or even with comments, but I suspect I will have to want until hell freezes over - a lovely Amurican saying!

As Einstein once said "Anyone can make things complicated - it takes genius to simplify them" - I am not a genius by any means but I have simplified and clarified this event for folk who actually want to teach it more effectively. So why not read my book - look at the images both old and new, study pvstudent's material (you will find none better) and ask questions instead of trying to impress readers with what is simply bulls***. What makes me certain of my expertise - well I will quote Nihls Bohr -perhaps second in line to Einstein in the world of esoteric physics. He said "An expert is someone who has made all the possible mistakes that can be made in an area of expertise." I can honestly claim to have met that criteria many times over because if you coach for long enough you will make all the mistakes, if you don't coach you are left waffling aimlessly about irrelevancies. Will and daddy - it is clear that you haven't coached enough pole vaulters to learn how little you really know.

Guys - If you really are serious about proving that Lavellenie's technique is superior to Bubka's - why don't you suck it up and go speak to Petrov. I guarantee you he will have analysed it to the Nth degree -and then go and ask D'encausse for the origins of his ideas.

That is what I hope to do this summer - I hope to learn something that will help me become a better teacher of the vault. :yes:

Finally I will raise the issue that Tim McMichael touched upon - the Petrov/Bubka model is simple to teach and above all it is safe for young vaulters. I think the clip of Maddy I have put up should confirm that. Try and show me how you are going to deal with the inherent problems of teaching the technical model you claim is superior.

So if you really want to learn about this event and especially how to teach it - do what four other US coaches have done - come out here and see for yourselves - catch up with pvstudent as well. In fact you could also catch up with Mark Stewart, coach of Emma George the first woman to jump 15' - and Alex Parnov coach of one Olympic Champion and two world champions. Or consider coming to one of the clinics I will doing on the west coast -late june early july; failing that pop up to Minneapolis to catch one there being put on by Phil Erickson who spent four weeks with me a few years ago.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

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 Jun 04, 2014 10:31 am

PVStudent and Altius, YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! You have BOTH already made your claim that Lavelennies method of Pole Vaulting is Basically Petrov.

You BOTH have NOT Recognized that Lavellenies method is MORE efficient during Support. I fact Altius has Claimed the opposite, Bubka could have easily jumped D ya ya Ya!
and you PVstudent have been working overtime to show it is not.

Will brought to my attention Lavellenies low COG braking into the pole and how he takes better advantage of the gravity vector. PVstudent has been arguying against this from the get go.

Altius you claim that the left hand bend (For right handed vaulter) Does NOT effect the Physice of the vault and as far as I know I was the first to expand upon how it does.

Altius when you do have your field trip to France how and find out the MANY differences with the Lavellenie method BOTH you and PVstudent DON"T Steal all the IDeas/Concepts from Will and I that we have so early Identified! My post concerning Lavellenies method are on record and dated. I stated my opinions early for good reason. You are BOTH not the ones to do it and It NOW would make You BOTH look like the biggest pole Vault Hippocrates on the planet! ;)
Every jot and every tittle adds up to more than just a little.

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 Jun 04, 2014 12:12 pm

Yeah, I'm gonna KISS it here...

Nothing I've said about the swing (theoretical discussions about the take off is another matter) is directly Anti-Petrovian around the take off period, but is actually an extension of their ideas concerning having the CoM thrown forward under pole braking. That efforts such as arm effort against pole braking to keep the CoM/hips back, and leg efforts to lower and/or move the CoM back in time are, or can be if enacted properly, beneficial. Most of this has been known intuitively about the PV for years. Such as that at least with the double leg or quasi double leg methods there was some advantage to go along with a list of hindrances that often were not able to be overcome except by a small portion of the vaulting community. But what was the reason behind this intuition? Well, I have put it forth. They swing lower and slower and by this present a better relation to gravity in time for added effect on the pole shortening moment. It thus adds to the effect in getting on longer and stiffer poles. It can be enacted from a free take off or not. I got the idea from watching actual vaulters I was or am coaching.

Is the method "radical"? That's perhaps a matter for opinion. But double leg or quasi double leg swing approaches are not canon for the PB model...

I believe I have shown with physics logic and math and with sufficient transparency as to measurements that the actions and effects as practiced by Lavillenie show a small net gain over some other notable vaulters in pre take off KE versus max PE as height. Are the actions correlative or causative? Well, since the starting state numbers for Lavillenie are almost all disadvantageous in terms of height and speed, it suggest he finds some advantage over some other notable vaulters that would necessarily have to come from his pole relation and shape of swing. Is it in his compressive phase action or noted impressive decompressive phase action? It is to wonder. No one has shown enough information or analysis to say so. The pole itself and his starting energy state to its compression and response values are of some note. Is he on bigger stiffer poles than for others of his size and max pre take off energy capacity? I don't know the answer to that, but by his accomplishments and my analysis would guess that to be true.

Will
Last edited by willrieffer on Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 Jun 04, 2014 1:14 pm

PVdaddy true to form!

Now that contributors have clarified the critical issue of efficiency in the take-off it might be possible to advance and place the same critical scrutiny on the rest of the first phase of pole support up until maximum pole bend. We might be able to start that discussion on the same page and in the same understanding of the language and concepts established at this time. Defining terms will be necessary of course but I can handle that so that we all share the same lexicon.

The how theory of pole compression ( I prefer the terms pole bending or deflection as a means of storing elastic potential energy due to "strain" as being less confusing since in the recoil phase it is the release of the stored tensile strain energy that contributes most energy back to the vaulter as kinetic energy) as being developed in regard to Renaud Lavillenie Technique needs to be unravelled.

I think many might be surprised to find traditional explanations not as clear cut as the vaulter simple conservation of angular momentum about the mid point between the hand grips explanations would suggest. The use of properly timed and delivered impetus delivered by the vaulter with respect to pole chord length reduction and total system curvilinear translation considerations of the total system COM should feature in future discussion.

PVdaddy, I know you have a problem, but please desist from attributing to me "untruths" about statements I have made here and deliberately or inadvertently misinterpret / misrepresent my views. As for your other rubbish talk I now expect no better and will simply ignore it.
Every new opinion at its starting, is precisely a minority of one!

Wan
PV Pro
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:25 am
Expertise: None (apart from 35 years of following)
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Ren. Lavillenie, Phil. Collet
Location: France - Nantes

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby Wan » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:24 pm

Let me (please) have a word on this, even if I'm not a coach nether a practicing...
I totally agree with the fact that Lavillenie improved with Petrov's model in his run up since 2009 : smoother acceleration, higher knees, better pole handing, with a more sheathed body, so more speed at the end, and so with more intention and bigger lever, ending with a really free jump (I mean thinking to jump before to plant). But the following gesture is very different... I think he's like a long jumper in what he's intended... not like a high jumper. What's following belongs to him and he's working on...
Can you stand this image in a Petrov's model ?... (6.16 attempt and WR)
Attachments
616 frame.png
616 frame.png (231.25 KiB) Viewed 5531 times

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 Jun 04, 2014 1:41 pm

willrieffer wrote:Is the method "radical"? That's perhaps a matter for opinion. But double leg or quasi double leg approaches are not canon for the PB model...

I'm sure that you mean approaches to the swing and not the approach. Not canon to the Bubka model but may be worth taking a look at other Petrov coached athletes. The double leg swing has been covered in writing by a few authors and is not revolutionary.

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 Jun 04, 2014 1:44 pm

PVstudent wrote:PVdaddy true to form!

Now that contributors have clarified the critical issue of efficiency in the take-off it might be possible to advance and place the same critical scrutiny on the rest of the first phase of pole support up until maximum pole bend. We might be able to start that discussion on the same page and in the same understanding of the language and concepts established at this time. Defining terms will be necessary of course but I can handle that so that we all share the same lexicon.

The how theory of pole compression ( I prefer the terms pole bending or deflection as a means of storing elastic potential energy due to "strain" as being less confusing since in the recoil phase it is the release of the stored tensile strain energy that contributes most energy back to the vaulter as kinetic energy) as being developed in regard to Renaud Lavillenie Technique needs to be unravelled.

I think many might be surprised to find traditional explanations not as clear cut as the vaulter simple conservation of angular momentum about the mid point between the hand grips explanations would suggest. The use of properly timed and delivered impetus delivered by the vaulter with respect to pole chord length reduction and total system curvilinear translation considerations of the total system COM should feature in future discussion.

PVdaddy, I know you have a problem, but please desist from attributing to me "untruths" about statements I have made here and deliberately or inadvertently misinterpret / misrepresent my views. As for your other rubbish talk I now expect no better and will simply ignore it.


At least as far as this thread goes, it has to be seen as an advantage that the three men mentioned in the OP all use the PB Model free take off. Or they all translate in the same way and so very likely with the same efficiency. For one, it helps impart more validity on pre take off runway velocities in calculations because you don't have to worry as much about translational considerations. Or again, let's look at the rest because the differences now HAVE to be there...

Will
Last edited by willrieffer on Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 Jun 04, 2014 1:47 pm

Wan wrote:Let me (please) have a word on this, even if I'm not a coach nether a practicing...
I totally agree with the fact that Lavillenie improved with Petrov's model in his run up since 2009 : smoother acceleration, higher knees, better pole handing, with a more sheathed body, so more speed at the end, and so with more intention and bigger lever, ending with a really free jump (I mean thinking to jump before to plant). But the following gesture is very different... I think he's like a long jumper in what he's intended... not like a high jumper. What's following belongs to him and he's working on...
Can you stand this image in a Petrov's model ?... (6.16 attempt and WR)


In his meet vaults he seems to elevate. PVStudent posted some training vids and, man, was he going off flat on those. But that is of course training. Sometimes you make trades to work on one aspect or another.

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 Jun 04, 2014 1:58 pm

grandevaulter wrote:
willrieffer wrote:Is the method "radical"? That's perhaps a matter for opinion. But double leg or quasi double leg approaches are not canon for the PB model...

I'm sure that you mean approaches to the swing and not the approach. Not canon to the Bubka model but may be worth taking a look at other Petrov coached athletes. The double leg swing has been covered in writing by a few authors and is not revolutionary.


Swing yes, and not run up or take off.

Lavillenie is of course unique. As I just posted IF he's using a free take off, and evidence is that he is, then he translates on the same efficiency level as the more classic PB model vaulters. It then follows that since he's either shorter and/or slower than other notables (for instance the other men mentioned in the OP) it behooves us to look at his differing swing mechanics for the source of that advantage. I believe I have detailed the how and why of the case. His activities make better use of the gravity vector in the immediate post take off compression phase.

If it is not "radical" nor "revolutionary", it matters little. He is unique, and approaches a unique vault methodology which apparently has in ways married the best elements of two noted models. The PB model free take off and an approach to the minority swing style of the double leg.

Will

User avatar
IAmTheWalrus
PV Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:31 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current College Coach, Aspiring to be Elite Vaulter
Lifetime Best: 5.06m

Re: Swing Efficiency Comparison: Bubka, Tradenkov, Lavillenie

Unread postby IAmTheWalrus » Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:19 pm

I quick aside:

DJ has posted (numerous times I believe) that many vaulters (Bubka included) were on poles whose extreme stiffness did not allow for adequate deflection and subsequent chord shortening: i.e. they could stand to use a softer pole.

Is it possible, that a contributor to Lavillenie's success, and his potentially greater efficiency over Bubka is a result of an increased shortening of the chord of the pole?

I know that this is a result of many of the factors discussed (moment of inertia, angular momentum, energy at takeoff, etc.) but it can also be a matter of proper equipment selection.

There is a lot of folklore in relation to Bubka, so I don't know if there is any truth to this, but I had heard that he more or less should have been holding higher than he was, but instead was using stiffer poles to keep from blowing through (I also heard stories about him trying to bury the standards further back than 80 because he had so much excess horizontal velocity at top). His WR jump at 6.14 (to me at least) seems to somewhat support this fact.

Just food for thought.

If DJ is around he may be able to provide more substantive information.
-Nick

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 Jun 04, 2014 7:30 pm

Couple points on the longer pole and shortening the chord versus return energy:

Making poles longer than the 520 is not just like ok - order a longer one. The vast majority of the pole ovens in the world can not handle pole patterns that long. At Gill when a 530 was made it was made in the oven that was used for push poles used in the rivers and Bayou. When you get to long big poles is also comes down to do you have a larger enough diameter mandrel to do series so they work. Really expensive to gear up to do this well for maybe two people in the world.

Now regarding chord length -- it still comes to the velocity once you are no longer in contact with the pole -- so you are back to the end load at a given chord length versus the wgt of the vaulter -- since the end load is not a linear function and can vary at the same chord length and shortening of same flex poles -- to real answer that you need data that was and is not routinely available -- but - yes in theory if you have a longer period of positive end load force (end load minus vaulter weight) - then the kicker -- getting the right balance so the distance and force differential over that time and distance result in the greatest velocity. (also assume same grip hgt or you add another factor)

If you get to soft a pole you also go over the other edge of slower acceleration and resulting end velocity -- mush it and less hgt - to stiff or to long hard to rotate

Most vaulters do not have an unlimited selection - even a Bubka --- again right run, take-off, swing, std placement and pole -- at the right hgt
Plant like crap sometimes ok most times


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests