Free Take off vs. Pre-Jump

[vault3rb0y]

There have been mentions of a pre-jump and it's effectiveness, however i couldnt find a thread directly relating it's effectiveness against that of the tried-and-true free take off. My question is whether an athlete must reach a certain physical level to gain advantages of a pre-jump rather than a free take-off, or if there is truly an advantage at all?

Lets clarify some terminology first:

Free take off- a take off in which no resistance is felt from the pole.

This requires a vaulter to begin his take off angle trajectory (ie. leave the ground) at the very instant the pole tip reaches the back of the box. There is 0.000 seconds when the foot is on the ground and the pole tip is touching the back of the box.

Pre-Jump- A take off in which a vaulter is in the air for a short period of time before the pole tip hits the back of the box. This is a form of a free-take off, since you should still feel no resistance while on the ground, however there are other implications-

This obviously requires a slightly (3-4in) farther take off position, and seems to allow for a taller plant and further reduction of passive phases, as there is less time during the vaulter-pole system that you are NOT swinging. However it calls into question your take off angle and therefore pole speed. I'd like to hear everyone's take on these closely related, yet for the most part untouched issues concerning the take off.

[powerplant42]

Not so sure that they're untouched... There are pages and pages on this in BTB2, and there's even more in Petrov's speech from Reno... If you haven't seen that yet, I think (know) you'd find an infinite amount of info in there re free take-off (which he defines as much more than just the pole being connected with the back of the box or not).

[VaultPurple]

Theoreticaly the Pre-Jump when exicuted correctly by JUMPING UP at take off should have an advantage as you begin pushing the pole with a larger angle and it makes you taller at the plant. But the argument is what is more important in your jump, accelerating at take off when the pole tip hits the back of the box, or having a even taller plant. Because it is physicaly impossiable to be acclerating when you take off from a pre-jump because you are in the air when the tip hits the back of the box so you are accualy decelerating for the short time you are in the air befor the tip hits the back of the box. The question is that ammount of deceleration going to cause enough damage to hinder the vault vs. just a free take off where you can accelerate right until the instant the tip hits the back of the box.

[KirkB]

Strange that I could not find "THE PRE-JUMP" paper that Alan Launder had written, and published on T&F News.

I thought I had already posted it to PVP somewhere, but I'm can't find it, so here it is again ...

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/technique/112-Alan_Launder.pdf

This article originally appeared in the July 1989 issue of Modern Athlete and Coach.

In this paper, you will read in Alan's own words that Petrov never really defined the term "pre-jump" ... it's just a figment of his imagination!

Kirk

[KirkB]

... the argument is what is more important in your jump, accelerating at take off when the pole tip hits the back of the box, or having a even taller plant. ... The question is that amount of deceleration going to cause enough damage to hinder the vault vs. just a free take off where you can accelerate right until the instant the tip hits the back of the box.

VP, we talked about gravity on the free takeoff here ... http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=15675&p=113126&hilit=free+takeoff+gravity#p113126.

The short answer is that it's neglible, compared to other more important factors. A tall plant is SO, SO important! The taller, the better.

Vaul3rb0y, you also discussed that issue back then, but I can't find your quote off-hand. I saw it a minute ago, then I lost it.

Also, this was a fairly good thread we had going last July re "Take-off point" http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=15636&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=linthorne.

The short answer on that thread is that it's better to err on the side of being slightly OUT, rather than being slightly UNDER on takeoff. You'll be lucky to hit the box at EXACTLY the same time as your takeoff foot leaves the ground, so you're better off having a pre-jump "most of the time" ... to avoid loading the pole pre-takeoff.

Kirk

[altius]

Just remember that that paper was written in 1989! Before I had had the chance to discuss this issue with Bubka in Munich in 1990. There he made it quite clear -through an interpreter at that time -that what I had termed a Pre jump was precisely what he TRIED to do on every jump. Because I had confirmation from Sergy himself I presented the notion - on Page 149 of the original BTB - that the pre jump was an extension of the free take off, However because of the ridicule I received for suggesting this idea I took the first opportunity I could to get Sergey to put it into the public domain. This occurred at the clinic Steve Chappell organised on July 20th 2001 in Jamaica. For the benefit of those who have not yet purchased BTB2 -although I cannot imagine anyone who is serious about understanding the vault not having done so - I will describe precisely what happened.

Sergey had made it clear that he did not want to make a formal presentation but that he was willing to answer questions. The first question - from me in front of an audience of around 80 coaches - was " When I met vitali in Canberra (in 1986) he told me that you were attempting to leave the ground before the tip of the pole hit the back of the box. Ever since then other coaches have told me that I was stupid to believe that is what he said - could you please tell me if I am stupid?"

His reply was "Alan you are not stupid. That is exactly what I tried to do". He went on to say It (the prejump - note my term) is a crucial factor but at the same time , it is not easy to achieve. During my career I was able to do it some times" .

Although he did not use the term 'pre jump' he went on to describe his version of the free take off - ie where he wanted to leave the ground hundredths of a second before the pole tip hit the back of the box. Because it is possible to have a free take off -ie where the pole is unloaded at the instant of take off but where the toe may still be in touch with the ground - I believed that it was worth differentiating between the two - because as he then said, "When you can do it you can increase the angle of the pole in relation with the ground." This as we all know is a crucial factor in moving the pole.

I accept full responsibility for coining the term 'pre jump'. If you dont like it - tough titty as we say in OZ. But thems the facts folks. No figments of anyone's imagination -and all detailed in BTB and with a lovely example of a pre jump shown on the inside cover - and of course in the DVD

Finally I would add that an attempt to learn the pre jump through sand pit drills will lead to a more effective take off - even if athletes are never able to do it in a full vault.

[KirkB]

I accept full responsibility for coining the term 'pre jump'. If you dont like it - tough titty as we say in OZ. But thems the facts folks. No figments of anyone's imagination ...

Gotcha back!

Hmm ... stirring the pot is fun!

Kirk

[baggettpv]

And Petrov explained it to me as not being in support of the pole and the ground at the same time. Andjei too in 1985. So there!

Rick Baggett
WSTC LLC

[baggettpv]

Oh yeah, the activities are laid out in my little "Hip Pocket Guide to Pole Vaulting".....Written in 1995.

Rick

I still have about 80 of them left.

[vault3rb0y]

I understand that this information is available in published readings, the point was the get this information available to the PVP community in an easy way as well. The more publicity about the correct way to vault, the more likely coaches and athletes will learn the material! I think we can agree that this is a crucial goal of both PVP, BTB, and all Pocketbooks of vaulting. Sorry if by saying "fairly untouched topic" you thought i was referring to the world, but rather the PVP advanced forum thread.

Alan, I wonder that if by confusing the pre-jump as different than a free take off, we run the risk of athletes attempting to be TOO far out, in which case their take off angle (not angle of pole to box) on a graph would be decreasing, since the instant you leave the ground, gravity begins fighting the angle you left the ground at. At some point, a "pre-jump" (or jump in which you leave the ground before the pole tip hits the back) becomes over-exagerated, and less effective than a free take off. The main purpose of this thread is to bring together different parts of conversations on other threads, that some of you have pointed out thus far, and discuss its effectiveness with vaulters of different abilities. Do you think that a vaulter needs certain physical capabilities to utilize a pre jump, or anyone will benefit from leaving the ground slightly before contact?

[Spencer Chang, MD]

I am finishing up this article to be published. So far, I've gotten approval from Bob Fraley, Brian Yokoyama, Greg Hull, Greg Duplantis, Rens Blom, and Bubba Sparks. So what the hey, I'm sure this will stir up some conversation. Unfortunately, the pictures make a big difference and I don't have a link to the article.


Move the Pole to Vertical and Catch the Ride (Minus the Pictures)

By Spencer Chang, M.D.


The purpose of this article is to stimulate reflection regarding pole vault technique with regards to biomechanics and my interpretation of Petrov’s technique. It is very difficult to describe these concepts without video, and this will be my next project. Much of what is described is not scientifically validated, but hopefully encourages thinking outside of the box, with a refocus on what is most important in the polevault: the approach run and take-off. I will describe technique for a right-handed vaulter.

It has often been pointed out that the most important goal of the pole vault is to move the pole to vertical. Ideally, the vector force directed upon the pole should be perpendicular to the pole. Several factors will go into moving the pole to vertical.

1. The length of the pole.
2. The stiffness of the pole.
3. The speed and direction (velocity) of forces placed upon the pole.
4. The angle of the pole to the runway at take-off.
5. The horizontal distance from the take-off point to the vertical plane.
6. The additional forces added from centripetal force and muscular activity on the pole.
7. The location of the center of mass prior to the switch-point (the roll-over point where the pole must get to in order to move to the vertical position without stalling).

In order to maximize the angle of the pole to the runway at take-off, the take-off step is placed under a plumb line from full extension from the top arm to the left take-off toe. Much of the controversy regarding where this take-off point lies is due to concepts of the free take-off and pre-jump. Unfortunately, what is often lost in the arguments regarding the take-off step is the most important goal, to move the pole in a vertical direction without loading the pole prematurely.

It is often argued that doing a pre-jump, or actually traveling in the air before the pole contacts the back of the box, is the best way to achieve this goal. However, the horizontal distance from the take-off point to the vertical plane is increased in this scenario. If the vaulter is able to do this, then why not take-off from the same point, but hold higher? In either case, the vaulter may not be able to achieve the optimal pole speed to “catch the ride.” Perhaps it is better to take-off with the same handhold, but from a free take-off step (completing the take-off just before or as the pole hits the back of the box), without the need to block the left arm, drop the lead leg or “stay down.”

I submit that ideally the vaulter should take-off either at the plumb line or at most 2 – 4 inches behind (5 – 10 cm), to maximize the size of the angle of the pole to the runway at take-off, and optimize the direction of forces placed upon the pole.

Now let’s build upon the 1st stated goal of moving the pole to vertical. The 2nd most important goal is to “catch the ride” or cover the bend of the pole. The ideal is to move the pole upward at take-off, creating an almost immediate high bar from which to swing and invert before the pole has recoiled. Herein lies the importance of the approach run, planting action, and take-off.

The vaulter will only be able to optimize his take-off if the extension and impulse at take-off is initiated just as or before the pole has hit the back of the box. Let’s use several analogies. The counterpunch in boxing is only effective if the counterpuncher strikes his or her opponent first. The basketball player attempting a dunk over a formidable opponent will only be successful if he/she essentially beats his opponent to the basket. The professional wrestler can avert being clotheslined by achieving a powerful position and perhaps even clotheslining his/her opponent instead.

If the vaulter’s pole hits the back of the box before initiating the take-off, the pole will start to clothesline the vaulter and make the vaulter rotate towards the pole before the pole has started to rise to the vertical plane. In order to get the pole to rise to the vertical plane, compensatory movements must be made to salvage the vault. One of these is a strong bottom arm to keep the body at a more perpendicular angle to the ground, thereby blocking the swing, and maintaining a lower center of mass to allow the pole to move to vertical (The Metronome Theory). Another technique is to hang and/or drop the lead leg (double leg swing), again maintaining a lower center of mass, and a more perpendicular position to the ground. This also blocks the swing and movement to inversion.

Whereas these techniques will allow the vaulter to move the pole to vertical, the swing and inversion is not as effectual, and the vaulter has a difficult time “catching the ride.” The effect is shown in the vaulter requiring a tuck to invert, and often “passing the pole” (coming off the pole at a poorer angle especially after the pole has straightened).

Therefore, to prevent the compensatory movements as discussed, a perfect approach and take-of must be achieved. As Petrov once stated, “A pole vaulter, is in fact, born in the last steps of the runup…”

When discussing the approach, several key concepts must be remembered: Run with a tall upright posture, with consistency, rhythm, cadence, and efficiency of movement. The genius of Petrov lies in his developing a technique, which allows the pole to work with the vaulter during the approach, plant and take-off. The lowering of the pole in a gradual fashion, timed-up to start at about a six step mid-mark, to match the acceleration of gravity (~ 9.8 m/s2), again is genius.

Lowering the pole in this controlled fashion, effectively makes the pole almost weightless, and therefore allows for a less strained run, efficient posture, and minimizes braking forces coming into take-off. As the pole drops, this forces the cadence of steps to quicken while maintaining velocity. An inefficient plant action will cause a decrease in velocity coming into the take-off, and often force the vaulter to take-off under.

I will discuss the specifics of the approach, plant and take-off comprehensively in my next video. However, I would like to emphasize a few major points.

Typically a sprinter’s stride length will increase as he/she continues to accelerate. As the vaulter comes into his/her last 6 steps, the cadence increases to allow for a powerful and balanced position at take-off. Unlike the sprinter, the pole vaulter’s last six strides maintain length, except that the penultimate stride is slightly longer, and the last stride is slightly shorter. An efficient fast planting action is required to hit the optimal positions timely. Unlike the long jumper, the vaulter will jump with less amortization at take-off. The take-off leg should be nearly straight, with contact only slightly ahead of the center of mass. Alan Launder has likened the take-off leg to almost like being a pole in and of itself. I would like to compare the take-off leg to a stiff pogo stick because a springing action does occur.

Whereas the long jumper tries to minimize the rotational forces moving forward after jumping by hitching or hanging, the vaulter should capitalize on these forces. Keeping the center of mass higher on the 2nd to last left and penultimate step relative to the long jumper, the vaulter has a slightly flatter take-off, but optimizes the pole angle to the runway, and is more likely to take-off freely while minimizing deceleration at take-off. The natural rotational forces that occur with an ideal take-off, allow the pole to be pushed to vertical (up and forward), preventing rotational forces of the vaulter towards the pole before the pole moves upward. This does not mean that the vaulter tries to excessively lean into the pole or push excessively forward at take-off. In fact, the goal is to impulse vertically down with the take-off leg and up simultaneously with the arms, and let physics take its course. The end result is a forward and upward impulse.

To move the pole upward at take-off, the vaulter must direct a powerful impulse through the take-off leg, body, and arms. The right heel punches upward towards the buttocks, rather than reaching forward and up. If the vaulter kicks the right foot forward (heel forward and up), this can shift the hips in front of the arms, making it more difficult to push the pole to vertical. This is like trying to push a car up a hill while leaning backwards. If taking off on or slightly out (5 to 10 cm), the bottom arm can be incorporated to resist upwards without blocking. The importance is to resist the left arm immediately in an upward direction such that the left hand is directly vertical and above the left shoulder. When the left hand lies in a plane in front of the left shoulder, this constitutes a block in the swing. If the vaulter’s grip is wider than shoulder width apart, the left arm must bend in order to prevent blocking the swing. The left arm can go nearly straight if using a shoulder width hand-hold, and the shoulders will maintain a more square posture perpendicular to the runway. It is easier to swing as if on a horizontal bar when the shoulders are square.

The vaulter will get picked, ripped off the ground, or clotheslined if taking off under, or having a long amortization time at take-off (low take-off, long contact time, excessively bent take-off leg). Incidently, if the penultimate step is too low, the take-of will be too low, with a contact point often well in front of the center of mass. Frequently, the impulse is also incomplete. That is, the vaulter might not be timed up adequately with the arms, body, and legs, and rigid enough to direct the force to move the pole upwards.

In effect, if the vaulter takes off successfully, one should see the top of the pole move up after take-off rather than in and only horizontally. This minimizes the early bend on the pole, allows a higher bend, and more room to swing. If the pole bends early, it will recoil early, usually before the vaulter can catch the ride. With an ideal take-off the vaulter creates a high bar of support from the pole, and a natural swing and inversion should then follow. There is no need to block the left arm or lead leg to move the pole to vertical. The vaulter gets into inversion quicker, and while doing so, creates more bend and energy into the pole, and keeps the pole bent long enough to cover the pole. Ultimately, the vaulter catches the ride, covering the pole before the pole recoils.

A common error is to make an observation that a vaulter has done a “free take-off” since the pole is unloaded, but actually has not moved the pole in a vertical direction at the initial impulse. These vaulters jumped up and into their excessively bent and shock absorbing left arm with the top arm being passive as well, and so have moved their hips close to the pole right after take-off. The vertical impulse is absorbed at take-off, and an effective swing is lost. I believe this is a mistake.

Let’s look futher into this concept of impulse at take-off. I believe that to maximize this impulse the following things must happen.

1. Well balanced run-up, upright and tall posture.
2. Well timed up pole drop to maintain posture and positioning for a good take-off. Increase the cadence of the run to match the pole drop and maintain posture.
3. Tall up step on the second to the last left step.
4. An efficient plant mechanism to allow for a quick last step.
5. Taller penultimate step, with less settling compared to a long jumper. (Closer to the 1st phase of a triple jump).
6. Take-off leg should be only slightly ahead of the center of mass at touchdown. (Closer to the 1st phase of a triple jump).
7. Shorter amortization period, as compared again to a long jumper. (Closer to the 1st phase of a triple jump).
8. Take-off point 5 – 10 cm behind a plumb line directly under the top hand.
9. Use of both arms resisting upwards through a simultaneously directed impulse from the jump leg, right leg heel punch and knee drive.
10. Full extension of take-off leg, plantarflexed ankle, and extended top arm towards the center over the head.
11. A forward and upward directed impulse, straight into the pole with square shoulders.
12. Chin level at impact (no looking down) and focus of eyes must move upward rapidly with the arms.
13. The torso maintains a near perpendicular position to the ground just after take-off.


Let’s take a further look at the points listed above.
1. Well balanced run-up, upright and tall posture.

This means that even from the very start, the posture must be upright. One cannot start like a sprinter with a driving force leaning forward, “staying down”. Once one leans forward, the pole carry angle tends to lower, and obviously too soon. This causes the pole drop to start too soon, and causes excessive strain on the system forcing a more reaching, grabbing run to prevent “falling on one’s face.” The run becomes inefficient with decelerating type of steps, and as the pole lowers more, each counteractive stride becomes longer and longer. The end result is a take-off that is low (because the run has a lower center of mass, and the take-off step is far in front of the center of mass, often with a leaning back posture at take-off). The take-off step is commonly under, and moving the starting step back makes the entire approach worse.

For consistency of approach, the 1st two steps are to break inertia. There should be no hop or skip step to start as these can vary especially when the vaulter is excited with adrenaline during competition.

Vaulters who have had early pole drops and have been successful (relatively flat pole carries) have only done so with usually wider grips and allowing the right hand to drift more behind the hip for a better balance point. However, posture is still typically upright which is of utmost importance. These vaulters sometimes will do better with lighter poles, i.e. carbons. They also seem to excel in short approaches, and have more difficulty with longer approaches. The problem with a pole carry in which the right hand drifts backwards behind the hip is that an efficient and fast pole planting action is difficult to do. The pole must move a greater distance to get overhead, and so it takes longer. If it takes longer for the pole to move upwards from the pole carry position (in order to time up the take-off impulse at take-off) the last step must be longer. The vaulter needs more time to get the pole up overhead and will often compensate with a longer last step, and therefore a longer approach. If the last step was shortened in this situation, the plant would be late. Since the last step is typically longer, it is not uncommon for these vaulters to take off under, have longer amortization periods with loaded (bent) poles while still on the ground. That is, a free take off is difficult.

It is nearly impossible to jump up while leaning forward. You may notice that if you have a vaulter who has a forward lean throughout the run, that vaulter may be very hesitant to take-off and has chronic run through problems. They don’t feel like they are in a position to take-off and jump off of the ground. Those that leave the ground will often have a flat take-off and low bend in the pole.

Vaulters who start with a forward lean will sometimes compensate by pulling the pole back up, and try to straighten their body posture coming into the take-off. This affects the natural drop of the pole. It is better to be upright from the very start.

2. Well timed up pole drop to maintain posture and positioning for a good take-off. Increase the cadence of the run to match the pole drop and maintain posture.

The nice thing about cadence, is that you can almost look away and tell if the run-up was good by how the cadence of the run sounded, the sound of the take-off step, and the pole hitting the back of the box. One can tell if the pole drop is inefficient especially if the cadence of the run does not quicken, and the last step sounds exactly the same as the penultimate step. The cadence of the run-up is nicely demonstated in the DVD Vault 2000. You’ll notice that the approach of a vaulter with a flat pole carry doesn’t have this distinct sound.

Why can’t a vaulter have a good cadence with a poor pole drop?

Because a poor pole drop doesn’t allow the vaulter to balance himself/herself upright and in a power position to increase the cadence as such. As mentioned before, a flatter carry will force the strides to be slightly longer, with contact more in front of the center of mass to prevent “falling on one’s face.”

Brian Yokoyama, USATF women’s pole vault development chairman, says that mastering the approach run, pole drop, and plant is what sets the best of the elite apart from the rest. A vaulter can be unbelievably fast in a sprint. However, if the mechanics of the approach run, pole drop, and plant are inefficient, the vaulter will not enter into the top tier in the world. This should be the focus of USATF pole vault development so that we can be competitive on the international scene.

So what’s the big deal anyway?

The importance again is being able to come into take-off in a tall, upright position with good posture. A longer reaching stride equals a lower center of mass, more bend in the knees and hips at ground contact, more plantarflexed ankles, more deceleration, longer amortization period at take-off, greater chance of taking off under, and getting picked (ripped) at take-of.

I believe that one of the main reasons for Pat Manson’s incredible longevity and success is due to his approach run and pole drop. If you ever get a chance to watch him vault, listen to his approach run and watch his pole drop. You’ll learn quite a bit.

On the other extreme, a late pole drop initiation can also be very detrimental. Typically, the pole drop occurs around the 6 step mid-mark. If it starts at the 4 step mid-mark, the vaulter will have to force the bottom arm down to steer the pole into the box. A well timed up pole drop allows the vaulter to actively move both arms upward at take-off. A late drop initiation forces the bottom arm to pull the pole down into the box. This is opposite of the desired effect, i.e. to impulse the pole upwards at take-off.

It is better to watch a mid from the 6 step mark to watch these mechanics in action. This is where the pole drop occurs, and the cadence changes dramatically. The vaulter could be striding and reaching into the 4th step mid-mark to make the mid-mark, and this could be as equally detrimental as striding and reaching into the last 2 steps.

3. Tall up step on the second to the last left step.

Several things should occur at this point. As the vaulter comes into the second to the last left step, there is a transition of the hands, now moving in an upward direction. I used to call this a flip. However, the movement is better described as a shift upwards. The trick is to move the pole slightly forward and up without forcing the center of mass too forward. The key is to allow the right hand to transition from the hip to just in front of the right shoulder and slightly above. This position is similar to the power position in the shot put. One cannot throw the shot well if it is positioned under and behind, or to the outside of the right shoulder.

In effect, the vaulter sets up with moving the pole upwards, raising the center of mass slightly by holding a tight core as the pole moves in coordination with the lifting of the right knee.

By raising the center of mass, the penultimate step can lower to set up a jumping take-off, but does not have to lower that much. Therefore, if there is no tall up step on the second to the last left step, the penultimate will be lower, and consequently the take-off will be lower. A lower take-off means, a more acute pole to runway angle at take-off (which is counter productive), a take-off step well in front of the center of mass, longer amortization period, higher chance of taking off under, and greater chance of getting picked at take-off.

4. An efficient plant mechanism to allow for a quick last step.

If the pole is not up by the time the take-off foot touches down, the plant will be late. However, if the vaulter must have a longer last step to get the pole up in time, the take-off position will not be optimal. Therefore, the plant mechanism must be effective and efficient to allow a quick last step. In other words, a quick and balanced plant, allows for good posture and a quick last step with a better impulse at take-off.

5. Taller penultimate step, with less settling compared to a long jumper. (Closer to the 1st phase of a triple jump).

Again, this is to set up a taller take-off position.

6. Take-off leg should be only slightly ahead of the center of mass at touchdown. (Closer to the 1st phase of a triple jump).

In the long jump, there needs to be substantial conversion of horizontal velocity to vertical velocity, although not quite as much as in the high jump. The take-off leg plants more in front of the hip to allow for a longer amortization period and redirection of energy. Vertical velocity is gained at the expense of horizontal velocity. In the pole vault, the pole acts like the planting take-off leg in the long jump and high jump. The pole coverts horizontal velocity to vertical velocity. To maximize this conversion, positioning, leverage, and speed are the most important factors. The vaulter must have a tall take-off. The horizontal speed should be conserved as much as possible. There must also be a jump at take-off, but not quite as vertical as the long jumper. The take-off is very similar to the 1st phase of the triple jump. The step should be just slightly ahead of the center of mass at touchdown.

7. Shorter amortization period, as compared again to a long jumper. (Closer to the 1st phase of a triple jump).

The longer the vaulter is on the ground, the longer the pole becomes loaded on the ground. Moreover, the pole directs a force on the vaulter rotating the vaulter backwards, the “picking effect.” The picking effect puts the vaulter in a position such that less horizontal energy is converted in a vertical direction. Whereas this picking effect may accelerate the swing of the vaulter, it will do so at the expense of moving the pole to vertical and slow the “pole speed.” Therefore, the goal is to have as short a contact time on the ground at take-off as possible if taking off from a position under, or as a free take-off (5 - 10 cm out).

Ironically, the vaulter who takes off from a pre-jump position (~ 30 cm out) needs a longer amortization period to jump up to make the pit. This take-off is much closer to a long jump. However, since the vaulter is in the air prior to the pole hitting the back of the box, there is no picking effect. Nonetheless, there is a loss of horizontal speed, which is made up in blocks in the swing, such as a drop in the lead leg and/or a blocked left arm.

8. Take-off point 5 – 10 cm behind a plumb line directly under the top hand.

A free take-off position is ideal.

9. Use of both arms resisting upwards through a simultaneously directed impulse from the jump leg, right leg heel punch and knee drive.

To safely make it into the pit, the vaulter must move the pole to vertical. Therefore, the vaulter must direct an impulse generated from the momentum gathered in the run up into the pole at the time of impact of the pole into the back of the box. This impulse should be a summation of forces. The forces need to be timed simultaneously. An impulse in the arms followed by an impulse in the legs, or vice versa is ineffectual. An impulse from two arms is better than one. An impulse from two arms, take-off leg, and a right heel punch and knee drive is ideal.

10. Full extension of take-off leg, plantarflexed ankle, and extended top arm towards the center over the head.

Full extension at take-off is critical to achieving as tall a position at take-off as possible. This increases the angle of the pole to the runway, which is critical in moving the pole to vertical. This has often been termed finishing the take-off.

11. A forward and upward directed impulse, straight into the pole with square shoulders.

The vaulter’s main goals are to move the pole to vertical and catch the ride. It makes sense that if the first goal is to move the pole to vertical that the vaulter get right behind the pole in a balanced and powerful position, and direct an impulse in the direction that the pole must move.

12. Chin level at impact (no looking down) and focus of eyes must move upward rapidly with the arms.

Looking down at take-off forces the vaulter to be hunched over, lower in posture, with a lower more blocking plant, and incompletely extended position. Following through on the impulse at take-off is lead by the focus of the athlete. If the focus is in watching the pole slide into the box, the impulse will be late. The focus should be on impulsing the pole upwards. If the top of the pole goes up, and the plant action is correct, the bottom of the pole goes into the box.

13. The torso maintains a near perpendicular position to the ground just after take-off.

This is a consequence of a proper approach, take-off and plant. If the torso is not perpendicular right after take-off, there may be a loss of pole speed. Assuming this position was achieved with no blocks in the swing, this additional space between the vaulter and the pole will allow room for a more dynamic swing. If the swing is not dynamic, the vaulter may need to tuck to cover the bend in time.

Pole Plant Initiation

As mentioned earlier, a proper well-timed and balanced plant is critical to setting up a perfect take-off.

A tall up-step on the second to the last left step allows for a higher penultimate step with less settling, and better positioning for a proper take-off (tall, with nearly straight leg at take-off and only slightly ahead of the center of mass).

What makes the vault difficult is being able to balance and perfectly time the pole rise (the moving of the top end of the pole upwards coming into the plant) with appropriate positioning for a good take-off.

The optimal way to do this is initiating the plant with moving the right hand up simultaneously as the right foot leaves the ground coming into the 2nd to the last left step (Figure 1). Movement at this point is completely upward. Right knee up, right hand up, body posture up. This initiates the “3 ½ step plant” (Figure 2 - 13).


Figure 1. Move right hand simultaneously with the right foot as it toes off. Notice upright posture. Right hand should be close to the right hip at this point. Yelena Isinbayeva, 5.01 m.




Figure 2. Left foot touch down. Pole tip at approximately eye level. Tall posture with minimal bend at left hip and knee. In phase movement of right arm and right leg. Notice that the right forearm and shin are parallel and move in unison. Left elbow is down, and left palm pointing up serving as a fulcrum. Pole is high, at the mid-torso level. Yelena Isinbayeva, 5.01 m.




Figure 3. Parallel right forearm and shin, with in phase planting. Tim Mack, 5.90 m.


Figure 4. Up step. Rising up tall with a higher center of mass. Notice right arm and leg are still in phase and pole is now parallel. Both arms are moving upward. Yelena Isinbayeva, 5.01 m.



5. Penultimate step. Slightly low with overly bent right knee. In phase right arm and leg. Continued upright posture. Pole effectively weightless. Yelena Isinbayeva, 5.01 m.



6. Penultimate. Taller and higher center of mass with less right knee bend. Slightly leaning back posture suggests pole is not effectively weightless. Sergey Bubka in practice.




Figure 7. Right ankle foot bridge to maintain relatively higher center of mass to prevent increased settling and taller take-off. Yelena Isinbayeva, 5.01 m.



Figure 8. Contact slightly ahead of center of mass at take-off. Yelena Isinbayeva, 5.01 m.




Figure 9. Contact slightly ahead of center of mass at take-off. Sergey Bubka in practice.





Figure 10. Nearly straight leg at take-off, short amortization period. Notice step is slightly under. Posture is still upright. Yelena Isinbayeva, 5.01 m.





Figure 11. Nearly straight leg at take-off, short amortization period. Notice step is on with no loading of the pole. Arms are straight. Sergey Bubka in practice.


Figure 12. Under at take-off. Increased bend in left arm to prevent blocking swing when take-of is under. Impulse up and forward. Yelena Isinbayeva, 5.01 m

Figure 13. On at take-off. Free take-off. No block in left arm. Impulse up and forward and simultaneous. Right heel punch. Sergey Bubka in practice.

Utilization of both arms resisting upwards at take-off will improve the impulse at take-off (Figure 14). This resistance can be done simultaneously with the jump to improve the impulse at take-off. However, if the take-off is under, the resistance of the left arm must be done with a bent arm as shown in figures 10 and 12 to prevent from blocking the swing. When under, the left arm cannot be straightened completely without some blocking. If the bottom hand lies in a plane in front of the left shoulder, this will block the continuity of the approach, take-off, and transition into the swing. Therefore, it is important to move the arms in an upward direction, over the head at take-off. The most powerful swing is that which utilizes the energy and speed from the run-up directly into the swing, without hesitation or a stop in the continuous chain.



Figure 14. Impulse up and forward. Left arm resists so that the left hand must be directly over the left shoulder to prevent blocking of the swing. Right knee drive. Left toe off, complete extension. Sergey Bubka in practice.


From a take-off point that is on or perhaps up to 5 – 10 cm out, a simultaneous impulse with a nearly straight left arm and jump is possible without blocking as long at the left arm moves up so the left hand lies directly above the level of the left shoulder. The vaulter must be holding high enough so that if he/she places the pole in the box at his/her take-off point in the fully extended position, the left arm can straighten comfortably with square shoulders (Figure 12). Beginners may find that if they are holding low, and try to straighten the left arm while planting, they will block. Narrowing the grip, to the point that they are even holding the hands together will allow the vaulter to learn how to impulse both arms together without blocking the swing. Straight vaulters in the past would slide the bottom arm up to help with the impulse at take-off and also allow for an easier swing. It is possible to bend the pole with the hands in a narrow grip, touching each other. This teaches the vaulter how to impulse with good posture at take-off and transition seamlessly into a swing. Gradually increase the handgrip width as the handhold height increases.

It is impossible to impulse both arms simultaneously with the jump if done from a pre-jump position (~ 30 cm out). If the vaulter does this, the pole tip will push upwards and miss the bottom of the back of the box. Consequently, the vaulter has a delayed resistance of the left arm which then becomes a block to the swing after the pole hits the back of the box. Since there is a loss of horizontal velocity (from a longer amortization period), to maintain pole speed the vaulter must block either the left arm and/or block by dropping the lead leg to keep the center of mass low to move the pole to vertical. In my estimation, the pre-jump cannot be good as it is a setup for the triple block threat to the swing. The vaulter must first jump like a long jumper, so there is a block to horizontal velocity. The bottom arm must have a delay in resistance or none at all. If there is a resistance, it becomes a block in the swing. However, if the vaulter doesn’t block the bottom arm, he/she often does not penetrate into the pit. The lead leg usually drops after take-off, again a block in the swing. The main criticism of two elites (Feofanova and Markov) who have utilized this technique is that they were not as good at covering the bend of the pole and catching the ride. I believe that this is a consequence of taking too far out. (Figures 15 – 25, except 20). Compare figures 19 and 25 showing vaulters Feofanova and Markov who have not caught the ride as well as Isinbayeva in figure 20.


Figure 15. Low on penultimate step, setting up a long jump type of take-off. Svetlana Feofanova, 4.76 m.







Figure 16. Take-off leg far in front of hip. Long jump type of take-off for a pre-jump. Svetlana Feofanova, 4.76 m.


Figure 17. Block in swing with left arm. Left hand lies in plane in front of left shoulder. Svetlana Feofanova, 4.76 m.



Figure 18. Block in left arm and drop in lead leg. Svetlana Feofanova, 4.76 m.




Figure 19. Passed pole at quarter turn position. Pole is straight at this point. Svetlana Feofanova, 4.76 m.


Figure 20. Pole still bent, and Isinbayeva is positioned along pole in quarter turn position. Isinbayeva, 5.00 m.


Figure 21. Take-off leg far in front of hip. Long jump type of take-off for a pre-jump. Dmitri Markov, 5.95 m.




22. Impulse with passive left arm. Dmitri Markov, 5.95 m.


23. Delayed resistance of left arm or arm straightening with bending of pole? I believe there is a delayed resistance as he is dropping the lead knee as well to block his swing and get better pole speed. Dmitri Markov, 5.95 m.

24. Needs to tuck to catch the ride. Dmitri Markov, 5.95 m.


25. Pole is straight. Markov has passed his pole at the quarter turn position. Dmitri Markov, 5.95 m.


Why should the free take-off work?

By taking off 5 – 10 cm out, the vaulter can impulse up and forward without a load on the pole at take-off. The impulse can utilize both arms at take-of since the butt plug of the pole will contact the bottom of the box as the impulse is made simultaneously. Moreover, the left hand can rise up above the left shoulder with a nearly straight arm without causing a block in the swing. With a completed take-off and full extension, the free take-off sets up the trail leg with an elastic position and whip in the swing that can only occur from this position. This leads to a perfect transition from approach to take-of to swing, without a kink in the “continous chain.”

In summary, the entire key to the pole vault lies in efficiency of the approach run and pole drop, timed up to allow for a perfect take-off. With a perfect take-off, there are no blocks in the swing or continuity of the vault. This will allow the vaulter to not only move the pole to vertical, but also catch the ride.

Vaulters will realize that when the perfect take-off occurs, the rest seems easy and happens quite naturally. For this reason, the approach run and take-off are the most important phases of the vault to master, and will ultimately determine a vaulter’s success.


References:

Countless brain picking from elite coaches and athletes to include but not limited to: Brian Yokoyama, Giovanni Lanaro, Vitali Petrov, Bob Fraley, Patrick Licari, David Butler, Jim Bemiller, Tetsuo Hirota, Greg Hull, Todd Lehman, Dick Railsback, Peter McGinnis, Dave Johnston,Wilson SooHoo, MD, Sean Brown, Mark Hannay, Anthony Curran, Tom Martin, Jan Johnson, Brooks Morris, Dave Nielsen, Dan Pfaff, Steve Chappell, Alan Launder, Joel Flores, Tom Hintnaus, Rick Foster, Roman Bocharnikov, Jason Graham, John Shirley, Mike LoBue, Bubba McLean, Tim Mack, Brad Walker, Jeff Hartwig, Jillian Schwartz, John Takahashi, Doug Fraley, Greg Duplantis, Daichi Sawano, Ikuko Nishikori, Russ and Dana Buller, Stephanie McCann, Dick Railsback, Ty Sevin, Tye Harvey, Pat Manson, Rens Blom, Amy Linnen and basically anyone who would talk to me about the pole vault. Sorry if I forgot anyone.

Countless hours of video analysis.

Jacoby E. and Fraley B. Complete Book of Jumps. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 1995.

Launder A. and Gormley J. From Beginner to Bubka and Isinbayeva too! Your Town Press, Inc. Salem, Oregon 2007.

Petrov V. “Unpublished paper”, European coaches congress, Birmingham, England, 1985.

[altius]

A nice paper. However I note that you do not appear to have discussed this issue with Sergey Bubka - who I quoted verbatim from the question and answer session in Jamaica in 2002, in BTB2. You can either accept the validity of what Bubka said in Jamaica or not - as far as I am concerned everyone can make up their mind on this issue without further input from me.

Given that 80% of US athletes take off under and load the pole well before they leave the ground - as do many vaulters around the world, this discussion is almost irrelevant anyway.