Older film of Daniel Ryland

[dj]

good morning,

it has absolutely nothing to do with the brand.. it is about the bend, the strength and reactions of the pole... the positions of the body at maximum bend, speed of the swing, bending and unbending etc...

i believe it is impossible to understand pole vaulting without considering the pole.

there are reasons that we can vault higher on fiberglass and those reasons are based on physics... and you can decipher the “physics” mathematically... which I did with Daniels jump, Tim’s and Bubka’s. I have posted one of Bubkas, Daniels “timing” is different because of the pole he is using. Daniel’s pole reached maximum bend later after takeoff and forced him to have a “break” in the chain and have to tuck to speed up to catch up. There is absolutely no other explanation. Daniel had the speed, the reach and early takeoff. Just not the right pole to take advantage of it….

the physics of "application of force" at takeoff has to be matched with the grip and pole to get the maximum result...

every time i mention "pole" it gets turned into me against a company... we are never going to fully understand the vault until this is addressed by our best coaches, vaulters and the companies.

Even Earl measures and adjusts poles to “perform” based on his knowledge and experience and I would think (I know) he has way more experience than any coach in the world. I know he does because I have measured his poles since 1974.

dj

[VTechVaulter]

But see is this philosophy putting the cart before the horse a bit. Basically what your saying is its the pole action thats not allowing daniel to finish the long swing.. But how about the simpler thought that maybe he just doesn't know how to make his body do it. Ive watched daniel in person jump on about 3 different types of pole, but his overall style of vault was the same on all of them. Same with Derek who ive seen jump on multiple types of poles.

while i do agree that the action of the pole has to line up with the jumper, i dont think that tucking is one of those technical errors that is caused solely by pole action. i can take 5 jumps in a row with the same pole and grip, and have completely different outcomes through that part of the jump based only on what the focus is on.

[vaultman18]

This is insane. A really good pole vaulter will jump high on any brand pole. Bubka jumped high on three different brands of poles. This is like the golfer who buys all the fancy new equipment and still swings like a gorilla. If you slice the ball with crappy clubs you will slice it with excellent clubs. The equipment cannot fix technical errors. (In the interest of being honest this analogy is borrowed from a former poster on this board.)

[PaulVaulter]

But at the top level a golfers club is tailored to his individual swing characteristics in order to optimize the length he can achieve in his drive.

This is significantly easier to do in golf than pole vault but essentially you are talking about altering the stiffness along a cylindrical shaft to match certain aspects of technique optimally.

I have looked at the possibility of this in pole vault a bit in my spare time, they do a lot of work with the golfers where i work, but its beyond me at the moment.

[dj]

hey

If Tim and Daniel had the same grip, 16-4.. took the same amount of time 1.47 seconds to go from takeoff to maximum height, 19-4…

Tim had a maximum pole bend of 30% and Daniel had 28%... (that means Daniel had to move a longer cord length to vertical but he was faster over the final 5 meters of the jump so he had the “force” to make it happen).

Now.. at this point everything is “balanced” so-so.. But it took Tim .49 seconds to REACH maximum bend (30%) and back “flat” to the runway… It took Daniel .60 seconds to REACH the same maximum bend (28%), flat back position. Remember they both completed the jump in the same amount of time.

Does those numbers ‘say’ anything to anyone but to me????

dj

[VTechVaulter]

it says to me that the pole loaded slower, but recoiled faster. now if a vaulter cant get on top quick enough, then yes the tuck becomes necessary to catch the ride. But is that a function of the pole or the vaulter. Someone like tarasov, or hooker, has shown that with the proper swing mechanics, the faster recoil can be advantageous.

[vaultman18]

Tim had a maximum pole bend of 30% and Daniel had 28%... (that means Daniel had to move a longer cord length to vertical but he was faster over the final 5 meters of the jump so he had the “force” to make it happen).

Now.. at this point everything is “balanced” so-so.. But it took Tim .49 seconds to REACH maximum bend (30%) and back “flat” to the runway… It took Daniel .60 seconds to REACH the same maximum bend (28%), flat back position.

Their backs where "flat" at different times. Daniel's back was not "flat" (parallel to the runway) at maximum bend. His back was not "flat" until well after the pole began to recoil. Which to me means the take-off is under or the pole is too stiff. But certainly don't the brand had anything to do with it.

[achtungpv]

But certainly don't the brand had anything to do with it.

I don't think that's what dj is saying.

I interpret him as meaning that "wrong pole" generally means the wrong size pole not a wrong brand. dj's said repeatedly on multiple threads that he thinks too many vaulters are on too big of poles and if they were on the "right" pole then they could maximize their technique and maximize their height cleared. dj, correct me if I'm wrong.

[vaultman18]

I interpret him as meaning that "wrong pole" generally means the wrong size pole not a wrong brand.

I believe you are correct.

it has absolutely nothing to do with the brand..

I now see that. My apologies DJ.

[dj]

hye

thanks achtungpv .. you are correct.. i think Tim Maximized the use of the pole...

i'm sorry but i don't feel "better timing" was possible for daniels jump on that pole ot that he would/will get more pop from a quicker reaction...

physics has not show that to be true.. all poles will "unload" when the loading force "changes'... which is somewhere around the time the body mass goes from below horizontal to above horizontal...

Tim has show he can/has gotten more height above the grip from his "none pop" method, on average, so there has to be another explaination...

dj

[KirkB]

DJ, I know you don't mean that the BRAND of the pole is the decisive factor in what pole any certain elite vaulter should choose, but I think you've often mentioned that the way the sail is wrapped can be customized for a vaulter's technique and athleticism.

Since different mfrs wrap the sails of their poles in different ways, I can see how this can be confused with BRAND. But there's nothing stopping any mfr from adjusting the sail any way he wants to. There may be SOME trade secrets re how they wrap their sails, but I would think that most of this is in the public domain by now.

I apologize if I'm misquoting you. I'm unsure, but your explanation re wrapping the sail in different ways (and different sized sails) sounds plausible. If I'm on the right track ... and without referring to any specific brands ... how should the sail wrap be customized for Ryland's specific needs ... say compared to Mack's?

With bending just 28% of the grip to the chord ... compared to Mack's 30% ... and Ryland took 0.60s to pass the chord ... compared to Mack's 0.49s ... assuming these numbers are quite accurate ... and with Ryland having a faster takeoff to roll the same grip as Mack's to vertical ... I would think that Ryland's target pole should NOT kick back so early that he feels "forced" to tuck (as is Mack's "habit"). This is confirmed by his bottom half being 0.11s slower than Mack's. So if I'm on the right track here, what kind of an adjustment to the sail wrap will do that?

I'm still confused on whether it's technique, or pole wrap, or both that will cause the timing of the bottom half vs. the top half of the vault to be different. In my experience, I'd say it's technique ONLY ... but I don't know much about sail wraps. Can you explain again on how the shape of the sail will cause the bend to "roll up the pole"? Sorry again if I've misunderstood any of your earlier posts about this.

Kirk

[dj]

Good morning,

I really didn’t mean that Tim’s “none-pop” method is inferior to getting more pop… I think Tim’s method of swinging from the top of the pole, much like a gymnast, is THE method of exiting the pole. I do think Tim uses his “hands”/arms to move himself vertical and he does use the unbending pole which is in effect helping him lighten the load of the pull of gravity.

It is difficult for me to consider the pole as a ‘catapult”. Or being all about getting “pop” or thrown from the top, or getting “big air” because the pole is a spring or rocket. I feel that coaches and athletes, and pole companies for that matter, that think this way are not viewing the vault in a “natural” Bubba/Petrov method of vaulting.

With this “thought” process the technique can not be Bubka/Petrov or Tim Mack who gets “big air” because of his action-reaction and not a rocket launcher.

Gatalin “thought” himself out of being the world record holder!! He wanted a pole that was “the fastest ever”. That pole was made for him in a flex that matched what he needed. He was into the Meet. Running great, jumping good. Time to try the pole. IT STOOD HIM UP!!!! Many of you will understand what I’m talking about. Here was a super athlete.. super.. hurdle, long jump, triple jump… and he just got stood up by a flex and pole that in his mind should have worked. The Sail pattern was wrong. Gatalin blamed himself, that he wasn’t the stud that could use the fastest pole in the world. He laid the pole down in the area and never touched it again. I took it. His poles were still changed and I feel he never jumped as well again.

By the way all the pole brands Bubka used were with similar patterns and similar glass.. they were virtually the same pole. But Bubka, I think and was told, had a pole problem at one point because his “honey’ pole got damaged. They made new ones but it took several before they were “close’ enough for him to use one of them.. it was my understanding even thought the pole seemed to be the same from flex and mandrel size.. the trapezoidal pattern(s) were different because they had to change them slightly because of glass variables and cooking variables.. and variables I probably don’t know about. We need to remember that getting consistent glass and high quality materials was no easy task even in Bubka’s day. You had to work with the weave, roll width.. etc that was “out there” for mainly the airplane industry. Bubka probably blamed himself for not being able to use the poles. I saw many vaulters in the ‘80’s blaming themselves for not being able to make a pole change or jump right or feel right. When I check the pole patterns they were different than their “honey” pole. The pole pattern does matter.

Over the years I have seen numerous high school boys and girls go through 5 “different” poles in the same meet. Get frustrated, cry, curse… become a “mental’ case… because it was there fault they couldn’t rockback, swing correctly, or use the pole because “you are a wuss!!!

Guys and Gals, vaulters are not by nature ”crazy” we make them crazy because we are missing something… they are not missing what they feel, or their desire to do it right, they are trying we just have to find what missing that is not making the vault work. And many times that is pole design.

Tully had his ‘days”.. in 1988 he got a set of 6 “perfect” poles. Progressive series so we could start with them in practice and have three bigger poles for the meets. They wouldn’t work. We tried them for two different sessions. The right flex, length, mandrel.. seemingly perfect. Wouldn’t work. I finally checked the sail pattern. Way too different. We used the old poles and found a duplicate flex pole in his old poles that had a sail that was designed in a way that made it “react” stronger even though it was the same flex.. He jumped his 19-2 that day with those poles at Irvine.

If pole design can effect a worldclass vaulter like Tully, who had the greatest ‘feel”, it’s hard to imagine the frustrations (but I have seem it 100’s of times) young inexperienced vaulters are going through. AND we have to consider this, are some of these frustration and “determinations” leading to more “risk taking” leading to injury (maybe Gatalin’s case)?

I do know that even the George Moore Pacers had slightly different sail pieces based on the mandrel, number of wraps, glass and the flex desired. The length of the short side of the sail was changed. We found that not only did this “change” effect the flex but it changed the bend characteristics. Many times a pole with seemly one or two points in flex really came out to “react” like 5+ points higher.. that’s what happened to Gatalin’s pole. The flex was less than 5 lbs different but the pole stood him up like it was 10 lbs or more!

At one point we had a ‘boom’ in pole making. More companies, many more “different” poles.. poles for girls, poles for high school, poles for throwing the vaulter…etc.. on and on. Some companies have many models with different designs to give the public a “choice”. I think this may have “back fired” on us. We now have two generations of vaulters that don’t even know what a “normal’ vault should feel like… Alan is right we really don’t know how to vault any more in America but it may not be all from a lack of knowledge of what is correct technique.

I firmly believe that the “dropped knee” technique is 90% of the time from pole design.. Earl was a “drop knee” vaulter as a kid… I’m confident it was from the poles he was using, with the grips he was using and adjustments he made intuitively to penetrate to vertical. Was it a bad thing?? I don’t think it effected his PR.. I did see some times when the knee drive was greater but knew he had not tried to “knee drive’, it was a natural action reaction.. to physics and the pole.

Dave Roberts was a classic “knee driver” but on his world record in Gainesville in 1975 he “dropped” his lead knee slightly. He really didn’t think he had until he saw the film.
I explained it as a “pump” or a “block” much the way you see a high jumper “block”/stop the leadknee drive to accelerate the upper body. Much the same way Michael Jordon does with the lead knee in a running slam dunk.

If Daniel was jumping “natural”, arms up, let the momentum and body “load” the pole with it’s own force, he would have loaded (bent) the pole to maximum faster than Tim because he was running faster than Tim. If he had to “say down” longer to get the pole to vertical that means the pole was too stiff or designed in a way that he had to “force” it to get there… …. and would have to tuck to speed up to catch up. If the pole was not to stiff and he “forced it” by staying down he would have blow through… of course he could keep going to a bigger pole but that’s where the “catch 22 comes in” and you begin to perpetuate the negative technique….

This is why poles that are “designed” to react faster create technique (bend by arm force and delay hand) that will keep the pole bend even if it is trying to “un-load..

My opinion… a pole should be made to “load”/bend and un-bend by the vaulters natural run-plant-swing actions and reactions.. A pole that is created to react faster because of carbon or a “design” chance will not allow the vaulter to jump “natural” which was Bubka’s best vaults and which is Tim Mack’s vaults.

I have seen poles that are designed to have less “carry weight”. The patterns are changed (from a more symmetrical) to accomplish this. Those patterns bend the pole differently and have show to create “different” technique” as the vaulter adjusts to the bend charistics… low, high, stiff ridge, weak ridge…..

Even Issakson’s “weak”, none Bubka Like left arm was created by pole design and the sail perimeters based on grip, glass ect.. Based on physics if he had the same pole proportions as Bubka’s poles, based on his grip.. his technique would have been identical…

Enough for today..

dj