Older film of Daniel Ryland

[VaultNinja]

Jcoover: I think Brian is an excellent technician. I personally feel he should bomb-over 19' this year, easliy! However, And you're right, I shouldn't "call anyone out", but we're talking about poles here. In his most recent videos, he certainly looks to be getting a higher bend in the pole, however, whenever he's on his full approaches (bigger poles), the bend is very low. And I don't blame this on Brian, I feel it has to do with the way the Pacer's are made.

In Roche's case, well, perhaps it's a technical thing, perhaps it's the way the pole was made. not all Spirit's are made the same (even though i can't imagine how a pole could be made inconsistently on a production line ), but it happens. My coach has two 14' 160's, one rated at 18.5flex and one at 18.4 flex, and the 18.5 flex is certainly stiffer (and wider), then the 18.4flex (possibly even stiffer than the 17.8flex that I've jumped 15' on), but of course this may be due to ware&tare...But's that's why I ask these questions, to get a better understanding of the sport (and whether or not I should continue to stay away from Pacer's).

Perhaps Charlie is right about Brian blocking...I see a BIT of blocking in Brian's vault...could that be causing the low-bend? I don't know, I'm not experienced enough to make that type of call...but that's why I post these abstract questions, to learn. Look at Brian's 5.52-clear here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSUUdd2ATfE That's an extremely low-bend, but (and i know i'll probably be fought on this), but i feel that's because of a LACK of pressure with the bottom arm (certainly no blocking here), which Brian has fixed in the days since this jump...

Now watch this jump: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB8GbJs3UsI&NR=1 EXCELLENT JUMP! IN My opinion, the bottom-arm neither collapses OR blocks...and the bend looks MUCH higher and more ideal, up until the pole begins to recoil, then it looks like only the bottom is unbending, while the top 2/3's of the pole is straight. Perhaps I'm crazy, perhaps I just keep comparing it to Hooker's 5.96 vault, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJc9dQv4hXI Then bend on that pole looks perfect...but what do I know? For all I know, that video could have been filmed on a wide-angle lens, so it only appears to be a higher bend...When I look now at some of Bubka's jumps, I mostly see what dj would describe as a symmetrical, opposed to "high". So who knows at this point, what's technique, what's pole, what technique caused by a pole. SOMEBODY, please clarify for the world. -6P

I think you are right to say several different things can be the underlying factor in a low bend. I know another one that has been left out of the thread so far and it is a low grip.
A low grip can cause a pole to bend much lower. The poles are designed specifically to bend evenly and to be gripped in a certain place. If your gripping a foot down on a pole you are barely above the sail piece with your top hand, now you've got a much greater amount of glass in your top and especially your bottom hand, where as if your gripping on top of the pole there is a lot less glass and bottom arm should be right above the top of the sail, allowing the pole too role over much easier, and essentially bend higher. Long story short, poles work better if you use them the way they were designed. If your gripping low, grab a shorter pole, and the action will feel a whole lot better I promise.
This is something that is overlooked greatly in my opinion. So I say find videos of guys gripping high, and bending low, then you'll have better technical examples to discuss without being able to blame the poles. Can't blame a pole if your not using it the way it was made to be used.
Don't think you can necessarily blame it on blocking either. Define blocking? Then go watch video of Jeff Hartwig Blasting a 5.90 or 6m jump. Is he blocking by your definition? And if so, did his pole bend high or low? And does it matter if your going over 6m?
Let me know.

[joebro391]

I think you are right to say several different things can be the underlying factor in a low bend. I know another one that has been left out of the thread so far and it is a low grip.
A low grip can cause a pole to bend much lower. The poles are designed specifically to bend evenly and to be gripped in a certain place. If your gripping a foot down on a pole you are barely above the sail piece with your top hand, now you've got a much greater amount of glass in your top and especially your bottom hand, where as if your gripping on top of the pole there is a lot less glass and bottom arm should be right above the top of the sail, allowing the pole too role over much easier, and essentially bend higher. Long story short, poles work better if you use them the way they were designed. If your gripping low, grab a shorter pole, and the action will feel a whole lot better I promise.
This is something that is overlooked greatly in my opinion. So I say find videos of guys gripping high, and bending low, then you'll have better technical examples to discuss without being able to blame the poles. Can't blame a pole if your not using it the way it was made to be used.
Don't think you can necessarily blame it on blocking either. Define blocking? Then go watch video of Jeff Hartwig Blasting a 5.90 or 6m jump. Is he blocking by your definition? And if so, did his pole bend high or low? And does it matter if your going over 6m?
Let me know.

that is true, brian often grips lower on big poles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2_JgXyx ... L&index=12 In this jump by Hartiwg, I don't feel he's blocking at all, and I see a higher bend in the pole (and I'm pretty sure it's a pacer). so yea...i'm more confused than ever at this point HA. -6P

[dj]

Good morning,

The poles are designed specifically to bend evenly and to be gripped in a certain place.

not all poles are designed this way......

but I think I may have mentioned, grip to sail pattern/position as being a major factor. At least in the patterns I have checked I feel that pattern/position and/or grip height to position have been a major issue (the issue) for Earl’s knee drop way back in 1974 and many other worldclass jumpers from then until today.

When I have checked the pole patterns of jumpers with a “knee drop/pump” the pattern is positioned/proportioned (high?) based on their grip and their takeoff/initial swing force will bend the pole “low” first, at that point they drop the knee to match that bend and actually “point” (when the foot-top hand and hips are lined up) at the bend 2-3-4 feet up from the butt plug instead of the butt plug.

On a symmetrically bending pole (symmetrical from the grip) the athlete should be aligned with the ‘cord” of the pole in the position I described above. Unless they “blocked” or forced themselves to say down longer or unless they swung to early and where “back” way before maximum bend.. both of these actions are hard to do unless you are on a pole that doesn’t bend symmetrical and of the right flex.

dj

[altius]

Skiing in Europe so dont have a lot of time- but just look at the width of DRs grip and then look at how much bend there is in the pole before he leaves the ground. You can mess with poles as much as you like but if those two elements stay the same he could never maximise his potential.
Happy new year to all.

[dj]

hye

and yes... part of the reason he has a wide grip and an under takeoff is because he has to do those two things to "bend" the pole enough to penetrate the pit and complete the jump..

that pole, either from flex or design will not "load"/ bend enough or correctly from a "natural" takeoff and natual application of force..(physics).

if it did he could eliminate those two.. "errors" in technique...

dj

ps... what i'm refering to... is Newton's Third Law...

''To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions''.

A more direct translation than the one just given above is:

LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. — Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other. If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in the next scholium.[note 7]

In the above, as usual, motion is Newton's name for momentum, hence his careful distinction between motion and velocity.