ideal technique in the fiberglass vault

[KirkB]

The swing speeds of most if not all of the 5.90 to 6.00m jumps I have checked, mostly done by McGinnis have been in the 1.45 sec range from takeoff toe about to leave the runway to max height of the COM.. Tucked and none tucked were no different...

OK, so "time on pole" isn't going to show any difference, but I think "time in flat-back" will.

Here's a quick-and-dirty line graph of how a Petrover v. a Drive Model (Tuck-Shooter) might compare if you look at how they raise their CoG by 5.00m over the 1.45 secs that each takes to reach max height.

Time v. Height.png (16.64 KiB) Viewed 7752 times

I've just dummied up this data, only to show the differences in the shapes of the curves that you might see between the two.

The straight-line curve represents the theoretical increase in height in each 5 msec, at a constant rate.

The S-shaped curve represents the tuck-shooter. You can see how his height plateaus for a while near the end of his tuck.

The arc-shaped curve represents a Petrov Model vaulter. You can see how he has a more-or-less continuous increase in his CoG for the entire 1.45 secs, but faster thru the flat-back than the tuck-shooter.

Again, this is just dummy data. I would love to see real data from the 6.00m club vaulters in this format, if it's available. I think it would be quite revealing to see how the shapes of their graphs vary thru the middle parts of their vaults.

And I thing the shape of these curves would be identifiable as following one model or the other. However, I think that if you take the same metrics of vaulters in the 4.00m-5.00m range, I'm sure that you'd find these differences more pronounced.

In other words, I assert that the more optimal the vaulter's technique (regardless of model), the more continuously they're going to be passing thru the flat-back phase - without much delay at all. Think Tim Mack v. Jeff Hartwig, for example.

Kirk

[dj]

Morning

The time getting to "flat back" was longer, the tuck and shooter delayed the bottom part and increased the tuck and shoot speed to catch up with the pole..

I did a Ryland/Mack side by side of successful 5.90 jumps that showed the overall timing the same with the same grip etc..

Tim was at "flat back" in .49 seconds Daniel Ryland at .61 both finished max height at 1.47/1.48 ish.

Tim's jumps were more 33% - 33% - 33%. Takeoff to flat back 33%. 33% rotating the body to vertical (I position for you oldies) and 33% vertical to off the pole... All continuous.

Daniel was more 73-26. Down and then hurry to get up and off the pole... 3 parts with the hang/drive dominat

Dj

[david bussabarger]

Reply to I am the Walrus,
Over and overI have read and encountered coaches and vaulters on this site who claim that The b/p model is ideal and that any deviation from it results in flawed or inferior execution. My point is not that the p/b model is bad ( other than the pre- jump and a few other minor points, its principles are generally good ), but that it can't be considered ideal because there is insufficient empirical evidence to back up this conclusion. Further, supporters of the p/b model ( those who claim it is ideal ) do so based on theory and the fact that its principles are based on physics and bio-mechanics while ignoring empirical evidence, which is what scientific proof is based on. I stand by these conclusions.
It is my view that observational evidence ( empirical evidence ) makes a very srtong case that there is no one ideal style or model, as I have previously stated. This is certainly a contrarian position on this site and I believe, in the vault community as a whole. I do not claim that my theory is proven without a doubt, which would be an unscientific attitude ( and a problem with p/b advocates I have encounted ).
Finally, it appears to me that some of the supporters of the p/b model are modifying their positions since my "article" on ideal technique has been posted. This is great, even though I doubt that it will be admitted that their orginal positions have changed.

[david bussabarger]

Kirk,
It is my view that the swing is primarly concentrated in the rotation of the extended trail leg as it rotates about the hip in an upcurved forward to upward direction. In most cases the swing also produces upward rotation in the hips during its execution. However there are exceptions like Kon. Volkov, who's hips did not begin to rotate upwards until he begins rocking.
Therefore the velocity of the swing should be based on the speed of the movement of the foot of the trail leg as it passes alignment with the pol's axis ( in my view ).
Could this be done with a radar gun?

[PVstudent]

For Kirk to digest and think about, I provide some source material, ancient data and hot recent data that may be helpful or not. I think that in regard to pre AD 2000 vaulting and some of the vaulters referred to in the data may give you the information you seek.

Howard Payne(Ed), Athletes in Action. The Official International Amateur Athletic Federation Book On Track and Field techniques (IAAF Development Programme Book No 5).Published By Pelham Books; 1985
Chapter 8: By Maurice Houvion concludes with the following
Figure 18 Sequence of Cine-film stills (n=24) Alexandr Krupski winning jump European Cup in 1983 (5.50m).
Figure 19 Sequence of Cine-film stills (n=32) decathlete Daley Thompson
Figure 20 Sequence of Cine-film stills (n=23) Thierry Vigneron
Figure 21 Sequence of Cine-film stills (n=24) Vladimir Polyakov

Tom Ecker and Fred Wilt (Eds). Illustrated Guide to Olympic Track and Field Techniques. West Nyack, N.Y., Parker Publishing Co, Inc. 1966
Pole Vault:
Section 34 Analysis of Fred Hansen by Jess Jarver of South Australia. (photo sequence n=21)
Section 35 Analysis of Wolfgang Reinhardt by Cornelius Warmerdam . (photo sequence n=21)
Section 36 Analysis of John Pennel by Richard V. Ganslen (photo sequence n=? My record is incomplete).

Web site videos:
Pole vault technique before Bubka (Part One)
http://youtu.be/w3UTcP5YUCA
Pole vault technique before Bubka (Part Two) (Bubka at the end)
http://youtu.be/HyHHN-XvtvI
Dmitri Markov Paris World Championships 2003
http://youtu.be/v9Ne--kuMUU
Maxim Tarassov Sydney Olympics 2000
http://youtu.be/MHGFpk9fx7U
Mike Tully clears 19feet
http://youtu.be/QR5bauUM1ik
Tarassov, Galfione, Bubka
http://youtu.be/d4a9W_iM8Ak
European Championships Athens 1982 Pole Vault Science commentary
http://youtu.be/VlRD7trzFXQ

Gros H.J., Kunkel,V.
Biomechanical Analysis of the Pole Vault. Scientific Report on the 2nd World Championships in Athletics, Rome 1987. Published by the International Athletics Foundation (2nd edition) 1990. Bubka’s jumps at 5.70m and 5.75m studied and reported in detail as well as all finalists.

Gros,H.J., Kunkel,V. Biomechanical Analysis of the Pole Vault : An approach towards a biomechanical profile of the world’s best pole vaulters. In G.P. Bruggemann and B. Glad (Eds). Scientific Research Project at the Games of the XIV Olympiad – Seoul 1988, Final Report Biomechanical Analyses of the Jumping Events.Published in New Studies In Athletics ,1990 (Supplement).

Bubka angular velocity of the pole chord Gros and Kunkel 1987.jpg (50.43 KiB) Viewed 7736 times

***Bettina Perlt (2012)
Institute for Applied Training Science Leipzig
Investigations into the relationship between run-up velocity and jumping height in pole vault.
A presentation made at the 5th European Pole Vault and High Jump Conference 16.-18.3.2012

Scattergram horizontal speed and PV height Male data.jpg (85.01 KiB) Viewed 7736 times

Scattergram horizontal speed and PV height Female data.jpg (88.25 KiB) Viewed 7736 times

In the next post I shall let you have some information on what happens to the moment of inertia and the angular momentum and an analysis I have made of the time structure of the vault from toe- tip leaving the ground until pole release at World Championships and Olympic Games.

[PVstudent]

Bubka angular momentum and moment of inertia.jpg (45.38 KiB) Viewed 7734 times

From the same source and vault for Bubka.

Take-off data males Biomech Studies.jpg (56.26 KiB) Viewed 7734 times

This is the data set upon which I found the following time structure in phase 1 (Before Max Pole Bend) and phase 2 (Pole Max Bend To Pole Release) of the pole support until pole release and I include the rise time to peak height of the vaulter's centre of mass.

Vault time structure.jpg (41.95 KiB) Viewed 7734 times

In the next post I will provide the time structure broken down as in the Gros and Kunkel studies cited previously.

[IAmTheWalrus]

David,
This will be my last reply here, as I think that the conversation is starting to move in a different direction, and I don't want to detract from that. I would like you to respond to me, forgetting that I am a a p/b advocate (in fact I am an advocate of Roman's model 100%), and just as a reviewer of your "article." Your observations of real vaulters, while extensive, interesting, and presumably accurate, do not support a conclusion regarding ideal technique, or a lack there of. I'm not arguing any pole vault related points with you, and I'm not trying to debate what the best way to vault is, I only wish to convey that such a series of observations does not constitute a sufficient experiment for drawing such conclusions. There is the potential of actual scientific analysis to arise from this discussion, and I don't want to see the opportunity squandered by relying on current state observation. Please tell me that you understand that when looking to improve or optimize a system or action, you need to identify key variables, their inter-dependencies, and then test the result of changing these variables in isolation. Even just normalizing for physical parameters would add more credibility to your analysis.

Lastly, I'm curious what your end-game is? And this may be the most critical observation. You've stated that in order to progress or improve one needs to question the prevailing thinking (nothing wrong with that), but then you go on to observe current state performances which are 10+cm below the current WR. It would be more understandable if you said something like "Hey, look at vaulter x, he runs at 8.5m/s but jumps 5.95, well above what you would expect. Perhaps his technique, if executed with a 9.5m/s run would break the WR."

Which leads me to...

PVStudent,

It would be interesting to take a look at the technical similarities of the vaulters who fall along the line parallel to the average one, but several cm above it (i.e. the collection of outliers that whose performances greatly exceed the average for that speed).

[PVstudent]

Here are the time breakdowns of the 1987 and 1988 data from the Gros and Kunkel studies.

Time structure of vaults Gros and Kunkel 1987 Rome.jpg (39.74 KiB) Viewed 7729 times

Time structure of vaults Gros and Kunkel 1988 Seoul 2.jpg (37.67 KiB) Viewed 7729 times

Having supplied some data I hope you will find some answers.

I believe the use of the flat back as a criterion position in your proposed analysis is fraught with problems especially as your modelling assumes some relative "dwell time" in that postural configuration. Time to max pole bend is a much easier time marker to detect from crude videos and of course allow you to make the temporal distinction of pole bending time, maximum pole flex to start of pole recoil time, and pole recoil to pole release time.

To David, I would like you to give your opinion/ judgement on the videos and photo images I posted. Tell us whether you think they show a free take-off, do not show a free take-off, or not possible to tell from the images and videos.

Below in the four image taken from slow motion cine film footage and converted to sequential single frame stills is,in my opinion, "A Free Take-off". It might just be a Pre-Jump take-off but I am not sure based on the still photo evidence. What do you think?

Bubka Pre, Free, Ideal Take-off that is the question.jpg (119.83 KiB) Viewed 7729 times

Since this is the advanced section I really would like you to identify and tell us coaches what you believe is the model of the take off that we should be coaching aspiring elite athletes and of course teaching to beginners.

It is the take-off where the initial habitual patterns established lay down the foundations for safe and developmentally functional pole vault technique.

If you practice without a clear picture of the goal to be achieved then how can "functional limits" be taught!

Surely we don't want to say something like the range of take-off distance inwards in the direction forward of the vertical line from the top hand of -0.4m (under) and + 0.2m outwards back along the runway will be great because that is the range we observe in world class vaulters. That is a recipe for disasters and deaths.

The question is quite simply what is the optimum take-off for any individual in pole vaulting for it to be functional, safe and can be taught without impairing the vaulter's long term potential to clear greater heights competently? What does the vaulter aim to do at the take-off be "Under", be "On", be slightly "Out"?

If in coaching the event there is no point that can be considered ideal from which to take -off and common motion characteristics to effect the take-off then Wham Bam High Speed Anything Goes pole vaulting will be the order of the day!

To I am the Walrus, I'm of the view that there is much for coaches and theoreticians in the world of pole vaulting to learn about the practical science of vaulting so the vaulter is better informed with useable information in perfecting the art of pole vault performance.
I like you am just a tad frustrated by the lack of science and knowledge of the scientific method being displayed on PVP in general. I found your comments perceptive, constructive and clear. Thanks for the input I appreciated it.

[KirkB]

PVStudent, thanks for all the great statistical data!

The "Evaluation of the PV 1991-1996" charts are the ones I had in mind when I suggested my enhancement of color-coding the data points by model type. In the charts shown, the data points are distinguished by age. I do recollect seeing these particular charts long ago, and that's what gave me the idea to do it by model type instead of by age and sex.

You have provided a wealth of statistical data here, and it's going to take me a while to absorb all of it and respond in a well-reasoned fashion, so please forgive me for not commenting any further about all this yet.

Again, I really appreciate you sharing all this data with us!

Kirk

[KirkB]

Kirk,
It is my view that the swing is primarly concentrated in the rotation of the extended trail leg as it rotates about the hip in an upcurved forward to upward direction. In most cases the swing also produces upward rotation in the hips during its execution. However there are exceptions like Kon. Volkov, who's hips did not begin to rotate upwards until he begins rocking.
Therefore the velocity of the swing should be based on the speed of the movement of the foot of the trail leg as it passes alignment with the pol's axis ( in my view ).
Could this be done with a radar gun?

Dave, I think you're partly right but not 100% right. Not only does the trail leg rotate around the hip fulcrum, but at a bigger scale, the entire body is rotating about the top hand (for Petrovers), and about the shoulders (for tuck-shooters). And to be even more precise, every vaulter is rotating around each of these 3 fulcrums - to varying degrees.

I'll have to take a look at Kon and Volkov. Who's Kon? I don't know who you mean. Do you have any vid links to their vaults?

I think looking at the speed of the trail leg foot (in isolation of the rest of the swing) might be "interesting", but it doesn't nearly represent the power of the entire swing (for the reasons explained re top hand fulcrum and shoulder fulcrum), so I think it would be a bad metric to generalize from - it's too isolated from the "big picture".

I do agree that the speed of the trail leg foot as it passes the chord is ONE indicator of a good, continuous swing, but there's other factors too.

Truthfully, I'm more interested in how quickly the vaulter increases his vertical height while on the pole. That's why I mocked up the chart yesterday - which was missing REAL data. DJ has provided some good insight into this, and I'm looking for more. For example, he has stated only 2-3 data points in the entire "on the pole" range (when he stated "33%, 33%, 33%" v. "73-26". I'm not sure if PVStudent's charts provide any data re this, but I'll look.

BTW, I posted DJ's side-by-side analysis of Ryland and Mack in a 2010 thread called "Older film of Daniel Ryland" here: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18941. Just look for my link to the vid on the first page of that thread.

I think we can probably all agree that a pause in the end of the tuck position is different than a continuous blend of motion from the end of the downswing to the vertical extension on the pole. If we can figure out a way to quantify this - such that the 2 competing models can be differentiated OBJECTIVELY (instead of subjectively by visual observation of the "looks" of a vault), then I think we can make some progress on mapping takeoff speed v. bar clearance, with data points being identified as "Petrov Model" or "Drive Model".

Note that I'm calling it Drive Model here, but it's also called the Dial Model (after Joe Dial and his father/coach), and I've also heard of it referred to as the American Model.

Could this be done with a radar gun?

I guess so, but I'm not convinced that it's the "right" metric to measure, and it won't be possible to retroactively time any historic vaulters.

I'm not so much worried about the inaccuracies of amateur-quality video data (which PVStudent quite rightly criticized) as I am about the lack of getting a sufficiently big enough sample size for drawing any scientifically based conclusions re whether a pause in the middle of the vault is good, bad, or indifferent.

Walrus - this is for you: My end game is that I would like any vaulter (male or female) in the 3.00-6.00m range to be able to do his own analysis using his own video camera, comparing his takeoff speed and PR to all subjects in the test set - hopefully numbering in the thousands. Once they (and their coaches) see how they CURRENTLY fit into the spectrum of all vaulters with the same takeoff speed and bar clearance - as well as where they realistically HOPE IN THE FUTURE to be in that spectrum, they can decide for themselves what model to follow to reach their PR goals.

Kirk

[david bussabarger]

Walrus,
My purpose and goal in this endeavour is :
1. To convince coaches and vaulters that in order to develop a scientific understanding of fg. vaulting technique you must BEGIN by studying what the best vaulters ( lets say anyone over 5.80m ) actually do in the real world ( examine empirical evidence ). For the upteenth time, only empirical evidence is considered proof in science. Any theory that violates real world empirical evidence is invalid in science ( this is my basic agruement as to why the p/b or Roman's model do not constitute ideal technique and I stand by it ). You can get into more detailed analysis or the experiments that you suggest when you finish the necessary ground work and not before. By the way, I have conducted countless trail and error vaulting experiments myself over the years and have learned a few things doing this. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that nobody but me has throughly and objectively studied the empirical evidence available. I say this because I have been doing this for decades and obviously have come to some very different conclusions than most people on this site ( for example, there is no one ideal technical model ). So, in my opinion, the current state of available empirical observational evidence is pretty poor.
2. If I can convince a few people of the merits of my arguements in paragragh 1., then I hope this will help to start to free up the staid thainking that seems to dominate the vault world currently. Maybe more people will start thinking independently again like Rick Shur. Further I am sick and tired of reading that taking off under is bad, tucking and shooting is bad and so on. I'm sick and tired of people dissing the technique of alot of great vaulters like Jeff Hartwig, R. Lavillenie, O. Brits, J. Galfione and on and on and on. All this is the product of pseudo-sceintific thinking.

[IAmTheWalrus]

Say what you want about vault technique, just stop pretending you understand science. You know nothing John Snow!

I'm out