ideal technique in the fiberglass vault

[david bussabarger]

Kirk,
It is my point of view that the top hand should be extended as high as possible during the plant. Once this is achieved the action of the top arm is finished ( you shouldn't try to keep pressing it up after the plant is finished )
The mechcanics of a forward /upward springing action are different than that of an upward springing action ( as in a long jumper ). The biggest difference is in the action of the lead leg. The lead leg drives more directly upward in an upward springing action. In a forward/upward springing action the lead leg drives in a more forward to upward direction. Check out Lavillenie. He has an oustanding f/u springing action.

[david bussabarger]

To those concerned,
Again, I repeat, based on my analysis of elite vaulters, the free-take is a viable take-off model for vaulters who NATURALLY tend to take off out. I do not believe that executing a free -take off is at all difficult for any vaulter who naturally takes off out. In fact, it is hard to see how you can avoid executing a free-take off if you take off out. But if a vaulter has a natural tendency to take off under, probably the best you can get, if you try to impose a free-take off on him/her, is that you only achieve it once in a while ( that is if you din't completely ruin the vaulter you are working with ).
Again I would like to hear some REAL scientific evidence that proves that the free- take off is ideal.

[CoachEric]

David, the various posters on this thread have provided a fairly comprehensive explanation of the free takeoff. The free takeoff is not simply about being on or out. It also requires, and is a result of, correct sprint mechanics/stride pattern/tempo, pole carry (with pole tip accelerating into the plant), correct plant technique flipping the pole about its center axis, and having the hips aligned for takeoff. These elements in combination will produce a free takeoff, because it is the manifestation of efficient takeoff mechanics.

Athletes' "natural" tendencies, as you interpret them, are in fact their propensity to execute the above points. Tim Lobinger is a great example. Excellent marks, terrible pole carry - so he takes off under.

Your repeated requests for scientific evidence are going to be difficult to satisfy because : 1) what constitutes scientific evidence? Bubka's marks and Petrov's track record are apparently not good enough for you. 2) I don't think anyone here has the time, data or inclination to construct a proper multivariate regression and determine R Squared for a "free takeoff" variable. 3) I don't expect a proper data set exists. Not many vaulters consistently execute a free takeoff because it's hard to do, and most coaches don't teach the prerequisits - namely, the accelerating pole tip.

Your posts seem to indicate that you believe the free takeoff to be a singular cue - an isolated technical element - that vaulters do on accident, and coaches shoehorn their athletes into. This could not be further from the truth. The free takeoff is a result of very carefully coordinated, efficient movement and good sprinting. It would be hard to argue that these attributes do not contribute to higher heights.

[KirkB]

... if a vaulter has a natural tendency to take off under, probably the best you can get, if you try to impose a free-take off on him/her, is that you only achieve it once in a while ( that is if you didn't completely ruin the vaulter you are working with ).

I think Dave may be asking for examples of elite vaulters who had an under takeoff, and were subsequently taught (or taught themselves) how to execute a free takeoff, which led to a higher PR? Can someone cite these success stories - if any?

I'm not taking sides here - I'm just trying to get clarification on exactly what will satisfy Dave's requests for "proof" that a free takeoff is advantageous and will result in higher bars.

Dave, you have stated that trying to get an elite vaulter to change to a free takeoff might "ruin" the vaulter. Could you please cite examples? I know you must have them, since you're asserting that imposing a free take-off sometimes has this effect.

Kirk

[david bussabarger]

To all concerned,
It appears that however you want ot define it, no one can offer scientific proof that the free-take off is superior. In science having a single example to back up your point is called anecdotal evidence and is not considered vaild proof, so Bubka's great success using a free-take off point is not proof of its superiority.
Alot of what is going on in regards to discussions about the free-take on this site, appear to me to be rationalizations to defend preconcieved positions. In regards to Lobinger's technique, the criticizism of him is typical: He doesn't vault like I think he should, so his technique is faulty.
As to an example of an elite vaulter who has been ruined by trying to change from an under take off point to a free take off, I do not personally know of one. But, based on a great deal of coaching experience with nonelite vaulters over the years, I have found time and time again that if you try to change any aspect of a vaulter's technique that is based on his/her natural tendencies you almost always cause more problems than you solve ( both pychological and technical ).

[dj]

Good Afternoon,

Tully changed. When McGinnis did the first studies I laid the data out on a spread sheet (the old time, bookkeeping type, computers were not available) column by column 16 to 24 columns of comparative data, of all the vaulters he collected, all the 1984 trials jumpers and the Pepsi Meet, one of the things that stood out at the time was that Mike's last two steps were "long" and "longer".. approx 6'9", next to last or penultimate to 7'2" for last step.

Mike's takeoff point was as "free", when free is defined as a "point" on the runway, or not loading the pole until you have left the ground, as any of the jumpers of the time. Bubka's "numbers" in this regard were no better or worse than Tully's.

Mike would never try or even think it was ok to takeoff "under". Not only did he think it would "kill" his ability to swing and move the pole to vertical he felt that his shoulder would be ripped off because of the size of poles they were using.


The data from the McGinnis papers, my knowledge of "how" to takeoff correctly to transfer momentum along with a six step mark that I check, gave me the first change we needed to make. I had already helped him work with his approach speed and consistency and I, with John Smith as my back up, convinced him that "push" mechanics ( like I had used in my 25"/7.65 meter long jump ), was how it had to be done.

What I knew, and know is that momentum is best transferred by using a penultimate step, specifically a penultimate that does not slow the athlete down (very, very subtle). Once I had explained that to Mike he flew to Houston to talk with Tellez. Tellez confirmed my explanation of the vault take off being more like a triple jump takeoff and Mike came back to LA and said let's do it.

My point is this, it's not Bubka's "free takeoff" that makes him better, his takeoff on average was no farther out or in than Tully's. The Penultimate, posture, correct run to the "MID" of the approach and after the "MID" of the approach, high plant, takeoff point and acceleration through the plant and takeoff phase is what set him apart. He had the highest "resultant velocity", on the right pole, with the correct grip on average, than any other vaulter in the world.

Ask Peter McGinnis to explain how "resultant velocity" is determined and you will know how you should approach "jumping like Bubka".

Earlier in this thread I mentioned a long jumper hitting the board in the same "spot" four of his 6 jumps with the result being very different every time! Me, as the coach, shrugging and saying "you were on the board", i don't know why you didn't jump 26 feet!" is like saying "you hit your check mark and had a free takeoff, I don't know why you didn't jump 20 feet!!?"

Why do I use a six stride mark???!!! Because it tells me more about the "action" at the takeoff than any other "visual" in the entire jump. You cannot do anything correct in the vault if you "OVER STRIDE" on the run. Which is what I'm seeing 95% of the time on incorrect vaults.

We need to coach the "action" not the picture.

The other factors, other than speed and penultimate, that stood out in the comparative studies in 1983/84 were:

1. Height of plant in percentages of reach height of the vaulter,
2. Pole angle at plant,
3. Takeoff angle! Which of course is determined by the pole stiffness NOT by if you "jump" or not!
4. Amount of pole bend..
5. The speed of the swing was very important. Bubka's was under 1.50 seconds and Tully and others were above that number and that is even when Tully "thought" he swung "before" he left the ground.

Note; by the way in 2004 Tim Mack had numbers proportionate to Bubka's best… I personally felt he "stretched" his run a little but he "got his feet down" into the plant, kept his posture and nailed the penultimate and takeoff, plus he finished his jumps in "Bubka" swing speeds of 1.45/1.47 and had "height above grip" better than the best. This was all while being "tagged" a pole squashier! How can you "squash" the pole when your swing was as fast as the world record holder!!??? Tim had better "physics" in every aspect than Bubka except the raw speed and acceleration.

So I guess I should summarize my chatter.

Compare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALs9EDHKP_0
………………………..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR5bauUM1ik

Should we focus all our attention on what is being called a "free takeoff"?

No, How to run, how to get the feet down (penultimate), how to plant (by running correctly so you can drop the pole correctly), and how to increase our "resultant velocity" on the correct grip and pole.

The process Tully went through is the correct process. Start with the run. Make it faster and accurate. A part of correcting the run is a correct pole carry. A correct pole carry and correct run leads to, a chance of a good plant. Proper training and focus will give you a better "penultimate". Proper takeoff with the right "action" (and right grip and pol) will give you the ability to wing as fast as you can from the top of the pole…

dj

[david bussabarger]

Well I certainly agree that you have to do more than execute a free-take off to vault well. This seems like an obvious point to me.
When you sight Tulley as changing, are you saying he went from taking off under to using a free-take off or that he just lenghtened his last 2 strides? I'm not arguing that a vaulter cannot make any changes, everybody has to make changes just to learn to vault. What I am saying is that only rarely can a vaulter successfully make changes that conflict with his /her natural tendencies or instincts. At anyrate Tully is only one vaulter and therefore he represents anecdotal evidence.
It is my view that Mack's take off was the antithesis of Bubka's. He took off well under, had a pronouced stiff arming action at take off, and bent the pole a great deal while still on the ground. It seems to me there is a problem here with objective observation ( preconceptions seem to impact what you think you are seeing ).

[dj]

hello

numbers/data impact what i'm saying...

simple by the numbers..

By the numbers Tully was no more under than Bubka or any of the other jumpers. he also was no futher out.

Tim was the same... yes he was "under" many times by 10cm.. but so was bubka.

dj

[KirkB]

I'm still looking for common ground here - so we can move forward on this whole debate.

We now know that there's anecdotal evidence that Mike Tulley successfully converted from a non-free takeoff to a free one. We also now know that there's no particular evidence that Dave can cite re an elite vaulter getting "ruined by trying to change from an under take off point to a free take off", but I'm sure there are some vaulters in this category. Is Lawrence Johnson one of these? I don't know, but I've heard rumors - which should be easy enough to confirm or dispel?

No Altius, I'm NOT trying to stir up trouble re Agapit and his 640 Model - I just want to know the truth, and I think everyone else on this forum has a right to know the truth too. The truth should not be hidden on this forum, it should be spelled out - to confirm or dispel the rumors!

And what about the opposite scenario? What about any elite vaulter that decided to change their technique from a free takeoff to an under takeoff (or more generally, a vaulter that decided to convert their technique from a Petrov Model to a Drive Model)? You may think it strange for me to even pose this question, but in the interests of approaching this entire debate from an objective, scientific basis (covering all cells of a logical truth table), it's a question that needs to be asked - just in case.

... based on a great deal of coaching experience with non-elite vaulters over the years, I have found time and time again that if you try to change any aspect of a vaulter's technique that is based on his/her natural tendencies you almost always cause more problems than you solve ( both psychological and technical ).

David, I agree that there is some merit in this "finding" or "suspicion" of yours (LoJo being a possible example - that perhaps you weren't aware of?), but I think you must admit that your findings or suspicions here are nothing more than anecdotal evidence?

Kirk

[KirkB]

Whether or not my previous post bears any fruit or not, there is another idea I have that MAY be useful ...

Has anyone done a study (or can anyone do a study?) on the jumps of a particular single athlete comparing their free takeoff metrics v. their bar clearances?

It seems to me that if you charted the entire career of a single vaulter (Bubka, Mack, Hartwig, or any other vaulter that has had an elite career and has had their metrics recorded), then you SHOULD be able to see some sort of trend.

I also suspect that this trend SHOULD indicate (if the Petrov pundits are right) THAT Bubka's (for example) better bar clearances were with a free takeoff, and his poorer clearances were with an under takeoff?

Ditto for Drive Model vaulters, or any other vaulter - like Lavilennie?

To me, this seems rather obvious and easy to prove. What might be the complications in gathering and analyzing data like this?

I'm thinking that misses should not be included in the data, since they are just that - misses that did not result in a bar clearance. It may be that Bubka (and other vaulters) had more misses when his steps were off and he was therefore under, but I think that data should be ignored because it's not a good comparison to compare a "miss" to a "make". We want to compare "makes" to "makes" where the technique was essentially the same (and given that we're analysing a single athlete, I don't know how better to ensure consistent technique), with the only distinctively obvious variable being the distance "under" from the ideal free takeoff point.

If you want to (or need to) reduce the data down to something less that EVERY clearance by the subject vaulter, then you could reduce it by one of the following means:

1. Analyse only the PRs of the subject.
2. Analyse only the SBs (Season's Bests) of the subject.
3. Analyse only the WRs of the subject.
4. Analyse only clearances above a given height (such as 5.50, 5.60, 5.70, 5.80, 5.90, or 6.00).
5. Analyse only the best clearance in any given sanctioned meet.
6. Analyse only the top ten (or top 50 or top 100) clearances of the subject.
7. Any combination of the above, keeping in mind that we need a statistically significant sample size to make draw any conclusions based on "the scientific method".

Kirk

[dj]

good afternoon,

you have entered into a discussion that has no viable answers.

are you saying he went from taking off under to using a free-take off or that he just lengthened his last 2 strides?

This is actually far from what I was saying, and with such a gap in understanding I don't believe I can find a helpful explanation.

Science shows us that an "out" takeoff, "running up a wall instead of running into a wall" gives us more potential horizontal force that to be converted into vertical height with or without a pole. The "how"(physics) is the best answer but not the only answer to jumping high. With a bending pole and utilizing the two axes, especially the shortening of the pole radius, we (world class vaulters)can still adjust for a pour input of energy at the plant takeoff and jump high , do I think a better input of energy would help those that are taking off to far "under", force bending the pole, yes and I know they could change, Tully did.

I do believe that for each athlete to maximize their potential there is a takeoff that should, if possible, be attempted on every vault, and that takeoff is "out" not under and I have found science confirms this premise.

If you go over the data, the good jumps, the missed, the blow through attempts, etc.. you can find the "common" theme, if you look at the right data and are looking for answer to "application of force".

Better jumps worldwide have had "common" input of force", in a similar, correct direction. Lawrence Johnson, Jeff Hartwig and Tim Mack included. That is from looking at all jumps, misses and makes.

At the 2004 Trials, Tim Mack had as good or better "numbers on his three attemps at 6.04. all misses. His third jump was slightly better than the first two, numbers wise, he even had a better "takeoff angle"! so why did he not make the bar? He could even finish the jump because he didn't have enough "pole speed".. and that was because he had moved up pole and had less bend (a longer radius to move to vertical) so even with good "numbers" the pole flex stopped him. He took a new pole to Athens that was between what he tried and what he used for 5.90 meters in the trials. I'm not sure but that pole may have been what he used to win Gold.

dj

[david bussabarger]

To whom it may concern,
My view that you should not try to change aspects of a vaulter's technique that are based on the vaulter's instincts is based on a great deal of direct evidence ( although not at the elite level ), so it is not anecdotal. The fact that Tully was a successful exception to this rule ( if in fact this is true ), is anecdotal evidence.
Kirk's idea for a study would, I think, only prove the obvious. That is that all vaulters will typically get the best results when they are closest to their optimal take off point, which will vary from vaulter to vaulter.
Again it is stated that physics/biomechancis indicate that taking off out is superior to taking off under. Again I state that this is not scientific proof that this is so. Again I state that empirical evidence indicates that there is no advantage to any particular take off point. So far nobody has been able to ofter any scientific proof to the contrary ( just refusals to accept the empirical evidence ).
It is my point of view that the belief in one ideal technical model produces alot of erroneous conclusions and is deleterious to the event . Coaches and vaulters need to recognize that if a given technique or variation is proven to be effective and produces outstanding results for large numbers of vaulters it should be validated. I believe this represents a tolerant, democratic view of technique vs the intolerant, totalitarian view of the "idealists".