Speed Vs. Strength

[smokinvaulter1]

Which one do yopu think is most important to have int the vault. I know what I think Lets hear everyone else opinion.

[wacky274]

speed of course in combination with technique.....by being fast, and taking off properly you will create elastic energy in your trail leg that will "flip" you upside down, using very little strength at all if it is executed properly. Thus, if you are fast, and good technique, strength is not the most important aspect....and think, you never want to muslce a vault....it's supposed to be a graceful movement....i'm not saying strength doesnt help, it lets you get away with more "junk" in your vault, but i do feel speed is very important.

[swtvault]

Well, you gotta be fast, theres no two ways around that. I think Wacky is right on about the strength thing. Strength is almost always good when it is not manifested in excess weight. I think the big problem (especially for me) is balance while running at high speeds. Many, many people are fast. But not many people jump high (19+). The ones that do are the ones that can maintain there balance and control down the entire runway. People tend to think that because someone is fast they will automatically jump high, Yeah, Potentially they could. But few ever do. Its the whole control thing.....Also power is a big plus too. You gotta have an even mix. Speed-Control-Strength-Power. Oh yeah, might want to consider technique too. Ahhh...who cares about that.

Geoff

[CoachenField]

Speed creates the ability to vault high, HOWEVER - you MUST have the STRENGTH to handle the SPEED! Therefore, as a coach, I make sure to develop strength relative to the speed development of the athlete. All freshman are developed in vaulting and overall strength first, then I make them fast. The strength that they develop helps them handle the plant at a high speed, because it doesn't matter how fast you are if you don't have the strength and technique to convert speed into the vault!

SJM

[wacky274]

yeah, that makes sense...i mean i completely agree that strength is very important to a vault, just if i would lean more (keyword, not all the way, more) towards speed......but then again, you do have to have the strength to be able to keep space, of course both speed and strength together would be the best, lol,but thats not what the post is asking

[nzsprinter]

yeah i agree on that as well. But i think speed is more important , anyone can get more strength but you can't get faster (well a lot faster).

[Tigerrrpv]

Definitely speed on the runway is important. People who are fast aren't always fast with a pole. Speed allows for a higher jump just because of physics. Strength helps to a point but I'd take more speed any day rather than strength.

[pvjumper2]

does anybody have any actual sources to back up their opinions?

[IAmTheWalrus]

Well there's the obvious physics equations one could use to look at the vault from purely an energy standpoint. Without really considering energy input into the system after takeoff (not really a valid assumption because the swing adds considerable energy), and with no energy loss at takeoff you could say that the total kinetic energy of the vaulter at takeoff is equal to the vaulters potential energy at peak height. So.

KE= 1/2 mv^2
PE = mgh
where m = mass, g = acceleration due to gravity and v = the vaulters instantaneous velocity at takeoff and ha is the height of the vaulters center of mass in relation to its initial position.

so 1/2(mv^2)=mgh ->(v^2)/g = h

This is all really crap though considering the assumptions basically disregard all the actual mechanics of the vault (swing, inversion, push off etc), however I think its rather intuitive that speed is the key for a few reasons.

1) Speed determines the energy you bring to the takeoff, which in turn more or less determines grip height and pole stiffness.
2) With effective technique speed at take off contributes to a faster swing.
3) With effective technique there is little place in the vault for strength type movements, i.e. muscling up or blocking out or anything that would require

At the end of the day speed and coordination rule the vault, and not just on the runway, but in the air as well. Being able to squat 600lbs bench 300lbs, or do 50 pull ups is less important than being able to run fast with a pole or swing fast and long enough to cover the pole. Strength is best utilized in the beginning of a vaulters career as they are learning, as it allows them to achieve success when technique breaks down (inside takeoff, slow swing, etc.) but this is hinder the development of great technique, and as technique approaches the ideal model the contributions of strength will pae in comparison to the contributions of speed (15' pole vs 17'pole).

[VaultPurple]

its not 'crap' its really called 'science'. That equation gives you the bare minimum height your bodies center of gravity should achieve as long as u don't just completely screw up. It does not however calculate in added energy from the swing or extension. That is why I said it is the bare minimum. But it does give a good base line height for your speed.

[IAmTheWalrus]

I didn't mean to offend any physics fans out there! I said it was crap because of the assumptions made. It's not the bare minimum, the calculation for me would end up over 18' but I've never come close to that. What is assumed by this equation is that 100% of the kinetic energy created by the run and takeoff is conserved and used to propel the vaulter vertically. So it represents the maximum height achievable through use of run up velocity alone. So in actuality, the fact that 100% of energy is not conserved and directed vertically means that the vaulter and the fact that energy is added to the system are more or less at odds with each other. Bubka actually jumped higher than this equation predicted because of the immense amount of energy created after takeoff as well as his ability to conserve energy incredibly well at takeoff.

[Lax PV]

its not 'crap' its really called 'science'. That equation gives you the bare minimum height your bodies center of gravity should achieve as long as u don't just completely screw up. It does not however calculate in added energy from the swing or extension. That is why I said it is the bare minimum. But it does give a good base line height for your speed.

While I know the equation says that, it is I strongly contend that it is not "the bare minimum height your body's COG should achieve as long as you don't just completely screw up." There are a lot of other things going on that Walrus is someone referencing to. There are a lot of ways that ones energy decreases once leaving the ground that this equation doesn't account for (albeit Walrus actually has a typo, there should be a 2 in denominator of the final fraction; that is (v^2)/(2g) = h). Sound, friction, the deformation of the pole system, all things that add to losses in energy. Newtonian physics is just not going suffice for this situation. There a bunch of other formalisms in the physics world that do a much better job explaining all that is happening (Peter McGinnis' Ph.D dissertation uses a Lagrangian formalism if memory serves me correctly...for those of you in the physics world), however, it becomes grossly complicated when a couple variables are not taken to be trivial values (i.e., you're not in a vacuum, there IS friction at the pole/box interface etc.). All this said, the swing is a hard thing to quantify, however it can be modeled by using some upper level biomechanics and classical mechanics--but again, it does get to be pretty complicated.

Using a couple numbers, Brad Walker hit the box with an average final 5m velocity of ~9.5m/s (at Indianapolis in the summer of 2007, USAs). According to that equation, he should then jump about 4.55m + his COG, which we will just call 1m for simplicity. That puts him at 555, but he cleared 580 with that approach, let alone what his max height was. The strength of his swing should not be ignored. It would be interesting if we have enough data from different talent levels to see how this discrepancy changes relative to the height jumped. I would assume at lower heights, one looses energy, then there is a critical point where the conservation of energy equation works well, but then begins to fail at higher heights. I don't think it takes long before one would reach that point. From the small samples that I have, I can see this discrepancy showing its effects pretty clearly as early as 13-14 feet. I think the rotational energy gained by the swing would be held most accountable for this difference (however, many other things could be responsible as well).

Does anyone have runway speeds for 'non-elite' jumpers?

I'll get off my science soap box now, but in short, I wouldn't call it 'crap,' but i definitely wouldn't call it a good model either.

As always, just my $0.02.