PoleVaultPower.com

I have looked at some videos from Reno 2013 that was published in the internet, and I am trying to comprahend what I am seeing. I have been reading B2B quite a lot, and I am using that as a reference point (and I have read quite a number of threads on PVP as well).

Are we seeing a new trend, where pole vaulters are copying Lavillenie to some extent, some more, others less? It seems that in particular his inversion technique is getting followers, and that there also are some that use his two-legged swing.

Fabio Gomez (http://www.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php ... o_id=78921) makes a really neat looking jump, where it to me looks as if he would be combining a Bubka / Petrov first half of the jump with a Lavillenie second half of the jump.
What I see is that he runs with a high pole carry, he has a relatively narrow grip, takes off beneath his top hand, drives the chest forward and the knee up, kicks with his take off leg and swings from the top hand until he reaches the box (the chord of the pole) where he pushes the pole with his left (lower) hand to change the axis of rotation to his shoulders (and add some juice into the pole?). He swings long with his take off leg until his legs are horizontal and then he switches to a Lavillenie-like technique where he pulls his knees to the chest under the pole and from there immediately kicks up towards the bar.

Is this what Fabio is doing?

And would his technique be called a “tuck and shoot”, or is it just “swinging into a rockback”, where the jumper moves through a “rolled up position” before he immediately punches his hips upwards towards the bar.

Another thing that makes me curious is that among the vaulters featured on the runnerspace.com videos from Reno there is a high percentage that lower their lead leg, or even straighten it. Is this technical feature becoming a trend (thanks to a certain Frenchmen) or is there a bias in the selection of featured vaulters?

Looks to me as if you are doing everything possible to understand the vault - analysing videos in this way is a great way to improve your understanding of this event. As you may be aware, I am committed to the view that there is one best way to pole vault -the Petrov/Bubka model. If you accept the biomechanical rationale for that model then you must also be committed to it; this then provides you with the basis to build your 'coaches eye'. So every time you look at a vaulter you compare what they are doing with what they SHOULD be doing. So it is then possible to look at every one of the clips shown and assess them/critique them - Lavellenie included. Always remembering in this process that you are seeing ONLY ONE jump - which may or may not represent what they usually do and most importantly, may not represent what they are TRYING TO DO.

Now it is almost certain that unless the athletes have been coached by Petrov - Murer for example - or one of his disciples, they may well be using a different technical model. So it then becomes a question of how they and their coach justify that model from a biomechanical perspective. I suggest that you go back to the appropriate chapters in BTB - and revisit the dvd - and use this to solidify your understanding of the Petrov model. In particular focus on the specific innovations Petrov and Bubka introduced. You will then feel much more comfortable in your ability to critique - not criticise - any vaulter you see - as long as you see them take multiple jumps ---- in competition.

Sorry -forgot to address the issue of the dropped lead leg. Again I dealt with it in BTB2, but in essence I believe that what you gain in penetration from the slightly lower centre of mass, you lose in terms of how fast you can invert to cover the pole and beat the pole straightening. In addition if you preempt the leg drop you may also lose the advantages of a powerful forward upward drive of the take off knee.

I have studied B2B2 exyensively, and continue to do so on an almost daily basis. I believe I understand a fair bit of what Petrov and Bubka teaches.

However, when time comes to apply the theory into the real world the problems start. Like when analyzing what vaulters are doing, why they are doing it, and how close they are to a specific technical model. To me it looks as if Gomez would be quite close to the Petrov model, except that is never covers the pole but makes kind of a semi-tuck before he extends up the pole (tensions the bow).

This becomes even more confusing when looking at Fabiana Murers vaults (http://www.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php ... o_id=78920, and other jumps on YouTube). She has been trained by Petrov, but she pushes forcefully with her left hand in the take-off, she drops her lead knee, and then she does an almost identical semi-tuck like the one Gomez is doing.

In this case my interpretation would be that Gomez is much closer to the Petrov technical model that Murer! And should one interpret the fact that Murer does a semi-tuck as an endorsement by Petrov? Or should it be interpreted as an acceptable compromise, or even a refinement of the model? And what does Petrov really think about the dropped lead knee?

With an engineer and R&D background it is second nature to me to challenge assumptions. I can concur with most of the biomechanical logic of the Petrov model, but the advantages or disadvantages of covering the pole vs. doing a semi-tuck seem obscure to me. One of the claims in the Petrov model is that extending from the pike position towards the bar loads the pole in a positive way (it kind of tensions a bow). Why would it then be worse to load the pole some more from a lower Center of Mass position below the pole (tensions the bow some more)? One could argue that a larger extension is more muscular work, and thus adds more energy to the system?

I would appreciate the opinions of more seasoned pole vaulting folks!

The critical question is -what is that vaulter trying to do. What technical model do they have in their mind? As I suggested elsewhere -every vault is a happening, a one off -even with the best vaulters in the world. This is because of the tiny variations that are going to occur anytime a vaulter is trying to run 40+m at full speed while manipulating a long lever to position it precisely into the box before taking off. Take a look at long and triple jumpers and see how often they hit precisely where they want to be - and they have a clear target to aim at!!!! Again as I have suggested earlier much of what vaulters do after take off is intuitive. This is why I suggest that you must always watch several/many jumps, preferably in competition, before making any assessment. If you can ask them what they are doing -and why - that is even better! So for example in some jumps you may see Hooker drop the lead leg after take off - he is not necessarily trying to do this. It is an intuitive reaction to that particular take off. His previous coach, Alex Parnov, did not care what he did at that instant as long as he nailed the take off point and took off to drive the pole up and forwards.

The strict biomechanics of the issue you raise have never been resolved to my knowledge - Petrov may have had some scientific support because he is adamant that you should not tuck - see his thoughts on page 290/267 of php. I have put my thoughts on this particular matter on P61/62 of BTB and again on 263/264/265/266/267 -with a lot of references to what Petrov said . I can't do any better except to stress that Bubka's aim was to be completely inverted and above the pole before it was fully bent. He said, and I quote, "the body must be inverted by the moment of maximum bend of the pole, WITH BOTH LEGS VERTICAL AND UPWARDS". You cannot do that if you do tuck - you are always under/behind the recoil -chasing it. Sorry to refer you to BTB like this but it is all there -read it and then come back with questions - which I may still not be able to answer! Perhaps we need to get roman to translate Vitalis book - maybe the biomechanics is in there! All I do know is that I have managed to translate much - but clearly not all - of what Petrov said into the actual techniques of young athletes.

altius wrote: Petrov may have had some scientific support because he is adamant that you should not tuck - see his thoughts on page 290/267 of php... Perhaps we need to get roman to translate Vitalis book - maybe the biomechanics is in there! All I do know is that I have managed to translate much - but clearly not all - of what Petrov said into the actual techniques of young athletes.

Are there 2 specific titles that are being referenced here or are they one in the same "php" and "Vitalis book"

Sorry - meant BTB2!! Happens when you get old!!

pgvirtual wrote:...but the advantages or disadvantages of covering the pole vs. doing a semi-tuck seem obscure to me. One of the claims in the Petrov model is that extending from the pike position towards the bar loads the pole in a positive way (it kind of tensions a bow). Why would it then be worse to load the pole some more from a lower Center of Mass position below the pole (tensions the bow some more)? One could argue that a larger extension is more muscular work, and thus adds more energy to the system?

This is a great question and the underlying concepts are foundational to revealing the advantages gleaned at this point in the vaulter pole system...
As well as pitfalls to avoid...
What are the interrelationships between...
Timing...
and
Body Position...

Great post question and discussion! Biomechanics suggests rotation will be slower and take more muscle when the lead leg is dropped as the effective radius of rotation is longer. That may load the pole more early but makes getting inverted soon enough a challenge. If not inverted when the pole begins its recoil the body rotation is opposite the pole rotation and again an added challenge. Tuck and shoot implies a change or reverse in body rotation which must cost energy as the body rotation must be slowed, stopped and reversed.

Seems highest efficiency would be a continual swing to inversion process without the tuck and shoot rotation reversal. If one could keep both legs down early in swing and still fully invert and get their center of mass above the pole before pole recoil that would seem a great technique but personal experience and observation does not seem to find it done.

The driven lead knee helps the rotation or swing to inversion so that most vaulters stand a better chance to invert before pole recoil. Keeping pressure on the pole, moving it forward and up, throughout the vault is effective in maintaining pole bend longer and providing fractionally longer for full inversion to occur before pole recoil.

Not saying dropped lead leg or tuck and shoot does not work for some, just that mechanics seems to suggest, driven lead knee and swing directly to inversion may be more efficient and thus better as a model to strive for.