ideal technique in the fiberglass vault

[david bussabarger]

Walrus,
I do not claim to be a professional scientist but I have read a great deal about it ( I'm an autodidact ) and I know what I'm talking about whether you or anybody else is willing to admit it. Your emotional reaction to my last post is typically unscientific. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

[david bussabarger]

Walrus,
Although I'm not a professional scientist, I have read a great deal about the subject ( I'm an autodidact ), which you apparently have not. So I know what I'm talking about whether you or anybody else will recognize the fact. Your emotional reaction to my last post is typically unscientific. You can't reason with the unreasonalble.

[IAmTheWalrus]

Although I'm not a professional scientist, I have read a great deal about the subject ( I'm an autodidact ), which you apparently have not.

I have a scientific background. I have worked in labs, conducted experiments, reviewed papers, and observed professional scientists. I have an Ivy League education, I continue to keep abreast of scientific research, and I work at perhaps the biggest scientific research think tank in the country. I know what I'm talking about, and while I don't mind your comments on pole vault technique or theory, your incomplete picture of science, and your condescending attitude towards people who may very well know more than you is what keeps me coming back against my better judgment. In a week where a supreme court justice said that he would not consider the testimony of a molecular biologist because he could not "affirm those details on his own knowledge or belief," I find it necessary to respond. I have given you several reasoned arguments. Your responses have generally been a regurgitation of how no one else understands science or empirical evidence. Your empirical evidence does not confirm or refute any particular model, nor am I advocating any particular model. Again, your observation confirms that you can jump 5.80 in numerous ways. Science is not a shield that you can wield to shield you from criticism. There are some incredibly intelligent people on this board, and in general, I think the negative criticism you are getting results from your condecending attitude and belief that you are some revolutionary thinker.

[david bussabarger]

Kirk,
My computer is acting up again and am having to post things twice. My post to Walrus disappeared , typed it again and now the same thing is posted twice. So if the same 2 posts show up to you, you know why.
I respectfully disagree that fg. vaulters rotate about the top hand during the swing. I thought this was the case in the mid 70's and published the idea in the Elusive Bar. But I abandoned the idea years ago. Rigid vaulters did rotate about the top hand during the swing, but fg. vaulters naturally shift back at the shoulders during the swing ( due to the bend of the pole ), preventing rotation about the top hand. Actual rotation about the shoulders only occurs during the r-b or s-b.
I was refering to Konstantin Volkov. Although he is only one vaulter, his technique is good anecdotal evidence that my theory that the swing in fg. vaulting is centered on the rotation of the trail leg, as it rotates about the hip, is true ( but I'm open to debate ). If I'm right, swing velocity should measured by the whipping speed of the foot of the trail leg.

[david bussabarger]

Walrus ,
My sister has worked in a scientific lab for many years and has a back ground in chemistry ( although she doesn't have an ivy league degree ). She had a difficult time understading my arguement at first but was eventually persuaded I was correct ( rightly or wrongly ).
It is perplexing to me why so many well educated people on this sight are comminted to what I beleive is an unsustainable position ( based on my understanding of the scientific method ). It is difficult for me to say where you really stand on these issues. You agree with some points I make , but not with others. Although you just said in your last post that you are not commited to any particular model, you said in a previous post you said you believe in Roman's.
Anyway, if my assumptions on the way science works are wrong, then why don't you correct me. Is it or is it not true that empirical evidence constitutes proof inscience?

[KirkB]

Dave, on at least 3 occasions in my short PV career, I had somewhat surprising PRs. Two were in college, where I basically just jumped off the ground on takeoff and everything just seemed to "gel". I have no specific recollection today of exactly what I did differently once I left the ground, other than I "just let it flow".

This is not too dissimilar to how Altius has reported Bubka describing some of his vaults:

... what Bubka said, when agapit asked him what he thought about after he left the ground ------- AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

I was still in HS when this phenomenon first happened to me. I had partied the night before (a rare occurrence for me the night before a track meet), didn't get enough sleep, and had a nagging headache. Traveling into Vancouver for the meet with my coach (an hour's drive), I was feeling guilty for being a little hung over, and I was a bit concerned that I wouldn't do so well in the meet. But surprisingly, I PR'd by 6 inches!

On the trip back home that day, my coach asked me what I did differently, and I confessed to partying and said that I honestly didn't know what (if any) changes I made to my technique. After discussing it with him for a while, I came to realize that what I did differently was that I wasn't over-thinking my vault.

In fact, I forgot all about my technique, which at the time was to emulate John Pennel by pressing with my bottom arm. So because of my headache, my brain wasn't focused on thinking about much at all, and I actually INADVERTENTLY forgot to press with my bottom arm. I didn't realize this during the meet, but came to this realization on the trip home. I remember telling my coach that my body just seemed to flow up and over the bar without much muscle-power at all!

My point in telling this story is that I think as vaulters (I don't mean as coaches), sometimes we need to just look at the vault holistically and "feel" it and "go with the flow", instead of (as we often do) breaking it down into precise parts and executing each part individually.

I'm sure I'm not alone in experiencing this phenomenon. Anyone else?

... it is commonly stated that the swing of tucking vaulters is inferior to that of vaulters successfully employing a continuous sweep to the completion of the r-b. I suggest that somebody time the swing speed of elite tuckers to elite swing-back vaulters. This would have to be based on the maximum velocity developed during the swing. This point should occur when the extended trail leg reaches alignment with the axis of the pole. I would bet that Gibilisco's max. swing velocity is greater than Tarasov's and maybe even Bubka's, for example.

I think this is a great idea. Let's do it!

So this leads me to the main point of this post ...

Dave, instead of quibbling about free takeoffs and swinging of trail legs and Petrov Model v. Dial Model and such, why don't we just focus on whether a continuous motion thru the rock-back (if you want to call it that) is better or worse that a delayed extension after the swing or tuck?

I would actually even like to remove the words Petrov Model and Dial Model (Tuck-Shoot Model, Drive Model, American Model, whatever you want to call it), and just focus on whether the vaulter has a continuous motion thru the rock-back, or a tuck-shoot motion.

To avoid the overloaded and sometimes inflammatory terms Petrov and Tuck from this debate, why not just nominally call this (for the sake of argument) the "Continuous Motion Technique" v. the "Delayed Extension Technique"?

CMT v. DET

What say you?

Kirk

[david bussabarger]

Kirk, I agree with everything you are saying. Whatever the style the vaulter should strive to constantly keep moving through the vault with no stopping and starting at any point in the vault. I have found a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that even vaulters who have alot of dramatic changes in positioning ( most particularly tight tuckers ) flow better on their best vaults. Check out Brits's 19-9 1/4 pr by googling his name, assuming its still there, for example. Also, as I have said before, as a tight tucker myself, I also noticed this phenomenon as far back as high school. I always flowed better on my best technical vaults ( better swing ).
The only problem is how to quantify this. I'm not convinced that timing flat back positioning is the way to go. There are too many variables that influence this. For instance Mack probably spends a longer time of his back than Bubka because Bubka had a prounced active extension after he finished his r-b while Mack had a much slower more passive extention. So Bubka began extending more quickly than Mack.

[KirkB]

Whatever the style the vaulter should strive to constantly keep moving through the vault with no stopping and starting at any point in the vault. I have found a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that even vaulters who have a lot of dramatic changes in positioning ( most particularly tight tuckers ) flow better on their best vaults. ... as a tight tucker myself, I also noticed this phenomenon as far back as high school. I always flowed better on my best technical vaults ( better swing ).

The only problem is how to quantify this. I'm not convinced that timing flat back positioning is the way to go. There are too many variables that influence this. For instance Mack probably spends a longer time of his back than Bubka because Bubka had a pronounced active extension after he finished his r-b while Mack had a much slower more passive extention. So Bubka began extending more quickly than Mack.

What I've noticed is that all 6.00m club members "find a way to keep their hips moving" one way or another - as you say. I'm in constant awe of how well Lavellinie does this, despite his unique technique.

I assert that if you look at vaulters in the 3.00-5.00m range (non-elites), you'll find a lot more variation in technique, and (on average) the ones that keep their hips moving are the ones that clear higher bars. I think this is an assertion that can be proven - one way or the other - by following scientific principles.

Sidebar: I'm just guessing here, but I think I've also noticed a trend (but no stats to back this up) that a higher % of girls swing up in a more continuous motion than boys. I suspect that the reason for this is that girls aren't as able to "muscle up", so they MUST rely on solid gymnastics technique more than sheer strength.

So while we may quibble about the precise technique of subjects at the high end of the spectrum, I think an extensive study of all subjects in the 3.00-6.00m range will get us to the end game (my end game, at least) of providing sound advice to aspiring young vaulters and their coaches on the fact that it's better to keep the hips moving in a "Continuous Motion" than to have a "Delayed Extension".

And changing the focus from a study of just 15 subjects to a study with a sample size of thousands of subjects also makes this more scientific (more statistically significant), doesn't it?

I care about this end game much more than quibbling about an argument that will never end.

Proving for a FACT (scientifically-proven by your proposed method - or Walrus' proposed method - of analysing a large sample size) that keeping the hips moving is KEY to optimal PV technique can be the basis for sound guidance to young vaulters and their coaches.

And to be perfectly honest, once vaulters and their coaches realize that the KEY is to keep the hips moving, I don't care HOW they decide to improve that aspect of their technique. I think the WHY is much more important than the HOW.

Humans like to do things for a reason. If they understand WHY they need to do something, they'll be MOTIVATED to do it, and they'll figure out the HOW themselves - that's secondary.

Kirk

[PVstudent]

Kirk, below is the recent, 2012 summary scattergram of the Bettina Perlt studies on the relationships of approach run to height of clearance. The full report is available on the internet.

Perlt Run up velocities and takeoff 4.jpg (58.85 KiB) Viewed 9923 times

I am The Walrus, from that same source the longitudinal relationship of these parameters for some of the sample “outliers” in terms of their pole vault performance data.

Perlt Run up velocities and takeoff 6.jpg (58.52 KiB) Viewed 9923 times

David, below is in my opinion, a photographic image obtained from a video recording of a “Free-take-off” from that same “scientific report”. The author has studied the phenomenon using scientifically validated methods and reported her data on statistically representative data sampling of German pole vaulters.

Perlt Run up velocities and takeoff 1.jpg (57.29 KiB) Viewed 9923 times

Since , this is only my opinion, the majority of readers of the advanced section are seriously involved pole vault coaches and their vaulters across the full spectrum of abilities and stages of technical development what would you advise is the target takeoff to be taught?

From my limited 55 year of intensive study of human movement as a professional in that field and practical engagement in real life coaching I am at a loss to understand your position in regard to the fundamental basis of all successful vaulting for height namely the “Free-take-off”.

Coaches understand that their empirical experience agree with your observation there is a function range within which it is still possible to make a relatively successful bar height clearance, even above your arbitrary 5.80m criterion .

What I don’t get from your responses, which I have appreciated, is what technical goal or target technique should be aimed for by a vaulter for it to be the most efficient in the energy and momentum exchange that must occur in the take-off.

Coaching concepts such as “under”, “on”, “out” or even “free” have been coined on the basis of empirical experience and experimentation across the planet, by coaches and athletes some of whom earn their living by pole vault coaching and as elite competitors.

Why is “on” regarded by practitioners and athletes as the target “ideal” take-off point wrong?

The corollary to this concept, namely the “Free take-off” (meaning taking off with minimal ( NOT ZERO) pole resistance and maximally efficient energy and momenta transfers from the approach run and planting phases) also has strong empirical coach and vaulter empirical evidence based support, though not as universally accepted as the ideal positional target “on”!

Coaches know by their hard earned empirical experiences that their qualitatitive judgements as to what is “excessively” under or "out" for any athlete they coach bring with them the knowledge that the efficiency of the takeoff has been compromised and that the rest of the vault will be sub optimal.

I argue that elite coaches and the athletes they coach will have empty pockets and starve if they believe under or out take-offs are the ones that will ultimately lead to more income and new records!

Scientific analysis has provided masses of data on pole vaulting kinematics and some much more limited kinetic data and is used extensively by the elite coaches of the world. Scientific support by a range of science disciplines and professional in those fields continue to refine and inform the vaulters in their search for better physical and mental preparation as well as the improvement of their technique.

The specificity of the take-off analysis and the clear identification of performance efficiency measures are still questionable as to usefulness to the particular individual and their coach.

The few 3D studies that combine simultaneous registration of the take-off ground reaction forces, forces measured in the pole planting box, strain measures on the pole, with higher visual recording sampling speeds, sensitivity of the subsequent data analysis and processing have heralded that the debate about the “Free take-off” will be more sharply focussed.

The French School of belief as to their method, crudely expressed here because of limitations of my time, I shall simply say offers a competing hypothesis to that of the Petrov-Bubka . The apparent (empirical observations and some few scientific studies I am aware of) fundamental tenet of the French Model is for the vaulter is to initiate considerable bend in the pole before the take-off toe-tip leaves the ground.

My apologies to the French pole vault community for such a simplistic statement but it does offer a viable alternative hypothesis to the Petrov-Bubka Model. It goes beyond this discussion at this time. However I do believe the French Model goes part of the way with David Bussabarger’s strongly held opinions.

David I see you have another thread on the go relating to Renaud Lavillenie.

I will post the empirical evidence from scientific investigation that the phenomenon Free Take-off and Pre-Jump exist and have been recorded on at least two separate occasions. I will do that on a different thread.

Give us the benefit of your knowledge and wisdom and tell coaches and pole vault readers what you would use as the "ideal" to be aimed for in coaching/teaching the perfect pole vault take-off with fibre glass/carbon fibre pole?

The original thread is being diverted away from the original issue. I apologise to readers for having tried and failed to get the empirical evidence to be discussed and my questions answered. At this point I rest my case because it has not been answered with the objectivity I tried to introduce.

My end game was, and still is, to become better informed and change my belief on the basis of convincing evidence to help me become a better pole vault coach.

Thank you to readers who have responded to the discussion.

[KirkB]

More great statistical data and convincing, scientifically-based arguments from PVStudent. Thanks - this is superb!

While not meaning to take anything away from your excellent data or analysis, I do note that the Perlt Runup Velocities and Takeoffs chart does not address your key point re a free takeoff (which I agree with).

Nor does it address my key point re "keeping the hips moving" (which Dave agrees with).

I see keeping the hips moving as a prime reason WHY a free takeoff is crucial to optimal bar clearances for given subjects with certain takeoff speeds.

The free takeoff is the HOW (or at least a crucial part of the HOW - not to discount all other precedent vault parts), but keeping the hips moving is the WHY.

Kirk

[dj]

Gentlemen,

On the discussion of runway speed and the relationship to vault height...

My chart, column five, MPS has the "science/physics based times needed, on average to jump heights from 4 meter to 6.35 meters.

My original (1970's version) was in feet and inches and column five was a "time" ie at 16'/4.85 the time was 1.39 sec

This was mathmatically (not imperial data) done from the measured distance from takeoff to the touch down at six steps. In this instance 14.99m minus 3.99 = 11.33m divided by 8.1 = 1.39

The chart was done years before McGinnis did his first collection of data.

I converted the chart from feet to meters so we could compare the numbers to what he would find from the high speed film.

It has been pretty accurate.

"The Model" is physics.. A fast run with an out, high take off, fast continuous swing "through" vertical, exiting the pole in a way to maximize the clearance of the bar..

Of course a correct bending pole and the proper grip for the forces applied at takeoff are a must..

Chart at www.oneapproachrun.com

Dj

[PVstudent]

David has not really grasped the nettle and told the readers precisely why the conceptual basis of the“Free take-off concept” is wrong as the basis on which to optimise the take-off. Had he been able to convincing falsify the concept I would have rejoiced to be shown the error of the basis of my belief in the efficacy of the concept.

For coaches like myself, charged with the responsibility of improving pole vault overall technical performance whilst ensuring the vaulter’s progress to achieving World Class Heights, the “Free take-off” (the foundational tenet of the Petrov / Bubka Model) has been and will continue as the keystone for me in coaching elite athletes in this event.

Why?

Because no one will point out why “The Free-Take-off” is:

unsound Mathematically and in discordance with Newtonian Mechanics,
illogical,
empirically without support,
mechanically flawed,
incompatible anatomically and physiologically with a vaulter’s physical ability and capacity,
more dangerous to take-off this way,
inconsistent and causes vaulter loss of confidence and capacity to take-off,
inefficient in effecting momenta and energy transfer functions in the braking and propulsive phases of the take-off foot ground contact.

Therefore my belief remains justifiably strong.

This does not mean that I am right in my strongly held belief. The discussion never got past the first point of clarification and has reverted to solving problems of the past.

21st century vaulters and their coaches can and do benefit from “Standing on the shoulders of the Giants of the past” but this little foray to do this has led only to me seeing lots of red herrings and being led up blind alleys.

Whilst I enjoyed the ride I still cannot see clearly the path to the future and the goal of 6.4m or even 6.5m World records in male pole vaulting despite technological development in pole manufacturing and improved reliability and performance in pole vaulting poles.

The human’s abilities and capacities remain much the same as pole vault grandees of the recent past so vault technique development “Quo Vadis?”

I still maintain my strong belief in the “Free Take-off Concept” particulary as it is applied by Vitali Petrov in practice and was epitomised in performance by Sergey Bubka when tested in the great competition arenas of the world.

Sergey like any other vaulter could be “out” “on” or “under” on any particular occasion but he was most assuredly attempting and acutely aware of his Gold Standard in making the judgement “Free Take-off”.

The challenge to be faced by the vaulter at take-off.

Grip length along the pole, the vaulter’s stature, and the efficiency of momenta and energy transfer functions have to be OPTIMAL and tuned according to the training status, degree of technical development, as well as the contextual factors bearing on the level of psychological and physical challenge imposed upon the specific vaulter by the specific social and physical environment in which the vault is being attempted and be able to produce a technically ideal take-off!

As I have defined the challenge facing the vaulter in the take-off any solution MUST be MULTIFACTORIAL and ACCOUNT for the FACTORIAL INTERACTIONS.

Only those interactions capable of being controlled by the vaulter are amenable to adaptive change.

I may be being perverse, but there is no mystery about the rationale for the “Free take-off” concept as the fundamental principle in guiding any pole vaulter towards the achievement of pole vault take-offs that are both physically and psychologically efficient whilst consistently reliable.

The view that the “Free Take-off” when optimally executed by a specific vaulter increases the probability of the
“pole support phases of swing type vaulters being able to work continuously whilst suspended from and supported by the pole during pole flex and pole recoil up until final pole release”

has achieved some consensus with which I am in accord.

However, this is a consequential outcome of factors in the manner of the execution of the take-off.

Hence this consensus continues to beg the questions and requests I made for the promoter of the critique of the Petrov/ Bubka Model to explain why the “Free Take-off Concept” was wrong or inappropriate as an ideal set of precepts upon which to base the Gold Standard for the execution of pole vault take-off.

I have now said all that I wish to contribute on this matter.

Thanks to all contributors and to David for “stinging me into responding” but I will move on.

I am still open to being converted to an alternative but viable and more effective set of conceptual precepts for the take-off in 21st century pole vaulting technique.

I will follow further contributions just in case something innovative and practically useful emerges.