The Swing

[RPVA03]

Chest penetration always occurs, but to greater and lesser extents. The intent of the vaulter should be to eliminate it, whether that is actually possible or not. What it does is delay the inversion that Agapit writes about. There is always a natural swing, but it will not take us above our handhold. Accelerating that swing with our muscles (inversion) will. We should strive to make the inversion begin as soon as our take off foot leaves the ground. Chest penetration causes a delay of this. This is why there is a pull with the left arm. It is one of the muscles that accelerates the swing and adds a lot of energy to the system. It should be an action to try to unbend the pole. That is the pulling motion that Agapit refers to. Unfortunately I don’t have any video of myself, but check out Isinbayeva in her 5.00 m vault. http://www.stabhochsprung.com/ After she has finished the take off you can see her left arm pull on the pole. It looks like she is trying to unbend it. Agapit has said many times that there should be no difference between stiff and flexible pole technique. He says that you would pull on a straight pole and never push. It should be no different on a flexible pole.

[KirkB]

I'm also wondering why there is no talk of hip drive

Volteur, "hip drive" is covered here: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=4622&p=114106&hilit=hip+drive#p114106

In the 6.40 Model, Agapit argues AGAINST hip drive, just as he argues against chest drive.

Chest penetration always occurs, but to greater and lesser extents. The intent of the vaulter should be to eliminate it, whether that is actually possible or not. What it does is delay the inversion that Agapit writes about. There is always a natural swing, but it will not take us above our handhold. Accelerating that swing with our muscles (inversion) will.

I understand these words. But I'm beyond "theory", and I'm wondering about "practical experience" now. What I was really hoping for was someone that has actually experienced this, and can relay their personal experience in their own words - either as an athlete or a coach. A TESTIMONIAL! Vaultman18 might be able to do this, I hope. Or maybe you could, RPVA03? It's just that your words sound like they're only repeating what Agapit already said. Can you perhaps describe how this "FEELS"?

We should strive to make the inversion begin as soon as our take off foot leaves the ground. Chest penetration causes a delay of this. This is why there is a pull with the left arm. It is one of the muscles that accelerates the swing and adds a lot of energy to the system.

Ditto. I'm wondering whether or not this kills the pole's rotation to vertical at all? If not, why not?

It should be an action to try to unbend the pole. That is the pulling motion that Agapit refers to. Unfortunately I don’t have any video of myself, but check out Isinbayeva in her 5.00 m vault. http://www.stabhochsprung.com/ After she has finished the take off you can see her left arm pull on the pole. It looks like she is trying to unbend it.

Maybe I don't understand this action. If it's not a "lat pull", then what is it? When I called it a "lat pull" at the bottom of this page in the Attn: Tim McMichael thread http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=14525&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=lat+pull, Agapit did not protest my terminology - even after I said:

Agapit, please clarify your definition. I do not mean to put words into your mouth. I speak only from my own personal experience.

Re straight pole v. flex pole ...

Agapit has said many times that there should be no difference between stiff and flexible pole technique. He says that you would pull on a straight pole and never push. It should be no different on a flexible pole.

He's correct about that - never push on a steel pole, therefore never push on a flex pole. But this is what I mean by applying your personal experience, rather than just parroting his words. Be careful not to take a specific statement of his, then use it in a much broader context ...

I think there's SOME truth to stating SOME relationship between steel pole and flex pole technique. But PLEASE, there's also SOME distinct differences. Two off the top of my head are: (1) The jolt from the pole hitting the box is substantially lessened by a flex pole, and (2) the chord length of a steel pole is identical to the athlete's grip, whereas the chord length of a flex pole is substantially shorter.

Those two differences alone change the optimal technique SIGNIFICANTLY!

Those two differences are so significant that they also redefine the ideal body type for a steel pole vaulter v. a flex pole vaulter!

e.g. Don Bragg v. Danny Ecker (6-3.5 172 v. 6-3 197). Almost the same height, but Bragg was a full 25 lbs heavier than Ecker! And most other flex vaulters! This link http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/braggdon.shtml actually reports Bragg's weight at 215 lbs! Whichever biostat you believe, Bragg needed a huskier build to take the shock of the steel pole hitting the box, as well as to invert himself to a handstand (push-off) above his grip.

Didn't Bragg use a lot more muscle-power to invert, whereas Ecker (actually all members of the 6.00m club) used more swinging-power? Both are much taller than your typical elite gymnast, but Bragg is built like a rings-specialist, whereas Ecker (and most other flex pole vaulters) is built like a highbar specialist.

Please, more wheat!

Kirk

[volteur]

Please, more wheat!
Kirk

perhaps you can follow your own directive Kirk.

I'm also wondering why there is no talk of hip drive

KirkB wrote:
Volteur, "hip drive" is covered here: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=4622&p=114106&hilit=hip+drive#p114106

I'm talking about the takeoff which is complete as the foot leaves the ground. Take a look at Bubka again please.

In the 6.40 Model, Agapit argues AGAINST hip drive, just as he argues against chest drive.

can you show me where? Of course we aren't talking about anything after the takeoff foot has left the ground.

[KirkB]

In the 6.40 Model, Agapit argues AGAINST hip drive, just as he argues against chest drive.

can you show me where? Of course we aren't talking about anything after the takeoff foot has left the ground.

If you're talking about BEFORE takeoff, then sorry, that's not my area of expertise. I leave the run/plant to others that have a more expert opinion. My plant wasn't bad, but nothing spectacular, and nothing original.

And for sure, my run wasn't anything to write home about!

DJ is probably the resident expert on the run.

I consider my expertise to be only in the jump/swing/extend part of the vault.

Kirk

[volteur]

In the 6.40 Model, Agapit argues AGAINST hip drive, just as he argues against chest drive.

can you show me where? Of course we aren't talking about anything after the takeoff foot has left the ground.

If you're talking about BEFORE takeoff, then sorry, that's not my area of expertise. I leave the run/plant to others that have a more expert opinion. My plant wasn't bad, but nothing spectacular, and nothing original.

I consider my expertise to be only in the jump/swing/extend part of the vault.

Kirk

actually i'm talking about DURING the takeoff, which contains the jump.

and there was another question about Agapit arguing against hip drive - i still cannot find where that is.

pete

[KirkB]

V, I still think someone like dj can answer your question about "hip drive during the takeoff" better than I can.

As you know, I explain things in terms of how it FELT to me when I vaulted. The term "hip drive" isn't a term that I used as I jumped off the ground, so I'm not sure how to answer your question.

I used the term "knee drive" (meaning "lead knee drive on takeoff") - and I did THAT. Is THAT what you're referring to?

Kirk

[volteur]

that's kind of what i mean Kirk - through the lead knee. But consider that the knee joint is one end of the femur and the other end of the femur is the hip joint.

And the femur is driven from the hip joint which is directly connected into this thing many people call the core. It contains the lumbar spine, the abdominal space and within that space the physical center. The physical center is where motion is driven from in an ideal situation. It is where Bubka acts from and where the Petrov Model is centered. If you were in space (ie no gravity) and were hit from absolutely any direction you would spin around this point.

The problem i continually have with athletes focusing on the knee is that it is driven too much. As soon as it passes above the horizontal plane it acts to drop the hip and pelvis. both have to stay on the same horizontal plane for greatest effect. Add this to a posture that is in correct alignment with gravity (ie upright) and you have an excellent situation for athletics.

[KirkB]

that's kind of what i mean Kirk - through the lead knee.

V, now that I understand that your "hip drive" reference is like what I call "knee drive", and now that I understand that you're referring to the takeoff/jump, I'll try to respond ...

But consider that the knee joint is one end of the femur and the other end of the femur is the hip joint.

And the femur is driven from the hip joint which is directly connected into this thing many people call the core. It contains the lumbar spine, the abdominal space and within that space the physical center. The physical center is where motion is driven from in an ideal situation. It is where Bubka acts from and where the Petrov Model is centered. If you were in space (ie no gravity) and were hit from absolutely any direction you would spin around this point.

The physcial center that you refer to is normally called the CoG (Center of Gravity) or CoM (Center of Mass). CoM is probably best to use, since we're referring to the middle point of your body MASS. During the run, we're referring to the middle point of the athlete-pole system's MASS.

The CoM is typically somewhere near mid-body. ~10cm in from then navel? Ha! Ha! I explain this in detail, lest you think Bubka's CoM might be on his navel.

Back to serious business now ...

I prefer referring to the "lead knee drive" rather than "hip drive" because it's more actionable. If my coach told me to drive my hips on takeoff, I wouldn't know what action to take. But if he told me to drive my lead knee forwards and up, I'd know exactly what he meant.

As you say, the result should be the same, because the leg and hip bones are all connected to the core. There's a song about that, isn't there? ...

With the leg bone connected
to the knee bone,
and the knee bone connected
to the thigh bone,
and the thigh bone connected
to the hip bone.

Next issue ...

The problem i continually have with athletes focusing on the knee is that it is driven too much. As soon as it passes above the horizontal plane it acts to drop the hip and pelvis. both have to stay on the same horizontal plane for greatest effect.

I will argue that you even drive your lead knee FURTHER once you leave the ground - PAST horizontal. That's called the "follow-thru", and is based on a common athletic principle (javelin, golf, baseball, you name it) that if you abruptly stop the action at the point of release, then your release (i.e. jump) will be incomplete. In other words, to guarantee that the "stopping action" doesn't interfere with the "release action", you need to continue the release action AFTER the release.

I expect some debate here, so I'll pause now.

Kirk

[powerplant42]

If you stop your knee's upward motion abruptly, as in 'lock' it after take-off, it will carry the energy created by the heel and lower leg into the rest of the system, right? So convince me, why keep it going up? More of a stretch? What?

[KirkB]

If you stop your knee's upward motion abruptly, as in 'lock' it after take-off, it will carry the energy created by the heel and lower leg into the rest of the system, right? So convince me, why keep it going up? More of a stretch? What?

You don't LOSE any energy by NOT "locking it". Remember that you've already left the ground.

I'm referrring specifically to volteur's comment where he said if your lead knee rises past horiz, then it's bad. I disagree with that, and the reason is becuz of the need to follow-thru.

And yes, you will get more of a stretch from "completing your takeoff". That sets up the entire body into a human elastic-band. From there, your Whip is guaranteed to be faster.

It's all HARMONIOUS - one vault part after the other!

Kirk

[powerplant42]

Ah, we had been in so much agreement for such a long time KB! It feels good to disagree with you again!

I'm trying to think of a metaphor... Maybe this: You're on a rocket ship. This is not an ordinary rocket ship though... On board there is a large catapault loaded with a huge stone. There is also a 'huge' hole near the top of the ship, right next to a 'huge' piece of ceiling. Now, you have been told to fire the stone, but you can choose whether or not to shoot it at the hole or the ceiling. You enjoy high speeds, so want to still be going as fast as possible. Let's assume that you are far from Earth, essentially in a zero gravity situation. Where would you fire the stone? At the hole (follow through) or at the ceiling (locking)?

[KirkB]

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I don't have that much time to think about it right now, so I'll play along ...

I considered the direction of travel of the vehicle compared to the direction of the shooting of the catapult, and I also considered that it might work differently in space than on earth. Could there be a difference if the catapult shot at right angles to the direction of spaceship travel, rather than aligned?

My (quick) conclusion is that other than air friction and gravity on earth, the direction of travel and the direction of the catapult were immaterial. I also conclude that space v. earth makes no difference (except gravity & air friction).

I visualize a pirate ship with a cannon on earth. Ditto. If the hole in the ceiling thru which the cannon ball would shoot was in the ship that contained the cannon, then they're both moving at the same rate of speed, so you'd aim the ball straight thru the hole (assuming negligible air friction, and allowing for any difference due to gravitational pull). On the contrary, if you were aiming to shoot at a target on shore (or another ship), then you have to adjust your aim according to differences in travel between the source and target (and gravity and air friction, of course).

I gotta run, so I hope you didn't catch me on a trick question. What are you leading up to here? Maybe you're going to tell me that gravity and/or air friction on earth makes a difference?

Kirk