Russian Style Pole Vaulting..

[Robert schmitt]

As an observer if you are refering to what I think you are you can see the result in the way the pole reacts/moves as the vaulter does or doesn't perform this. Therefore since I think I can see it occur, it must be measurable by vidieo analysis of some form.

Also the vaulter can feel this action being performed and the reaction of the pole and the entire vault to this action.

[agapit]

We can measure pole deflection. We can measure handgrip. We can measure effective pushoff and we can measure the height of the bar above the ground.

So how do you measure the driving of the pole into the box?

[agapit]

As an observer if you are refering to what I think you are you can see the result in the way the pole reacts/moves as the vaulter does or doesn't perform this. Therefore since I think I can see it occur, it must be measurable by vidieo analysis of some form.

Also the vaulter can feel this action being performed and the reaction of the pole and the entire vault to this action.

Well, when a gymnast is rising his/her hips over the gymnastic bar, does he/she thinks about driving the bar down to the ground or simply rising the body over the bar?

Making the pole drive the main focus of action is a mistake. The pole drive should be ignored. The objective should be not the pole drive or pole reaction (bend), but fast rising center of the gravity of the vaulter's body.

Focus on the pole drive altimately will lead to over bending the pole, when the focus on the vertical speed component of the center of gravity will lead exactly to that of the increase of the vertical component of the center of gravity.

Perhaps, it is to invisible to detect the difference, but the intentions form our actions, so one must make sure one intends well.

[BigStick Club]

Question....

The only delay that steel vaulters (40+ inches push)...

Could someone explain to me what you mean by 'push'?

[lonestar]

Question....

The only delay that steel vaulters (40+ inches push)...

Could someone explain to me what you mean by 'push'?

The distance between the top of your top hand and the bar height. Basically, how far over your top hand you are clearing or "pushing off" the pole.

For example: an elite vaulter clears 19'8 (6.00 meters) with the top of his top hand gripping the pole at 16'1 (4.90 meters). Do the math:

19'8 - 16'1 = 3'7" or 43"

BUT

You have to take into account that the box is 8 inches deep, so in reality, his top hand grip is actually 15'5 from the ground because you lose 8" in the box.

19'8 - 15'5 = 4'3" or 51"

[mikepv1]

Well, when a gymnast is rising his/her hips over the gymnastic bar, does he/she thinks about driving the bar down to the ground or simply rising the body over the bar?

Making the pole drive the main focus of action is a mistake. The pole drive should be ignored. The objective should be not the pole drive or pole reaction (bend), but fast rising center of the gravity of the vaulter's body.

Focus on the pole drive altimately will lead to over bending the pole, when the focus on the vertical speed component of the center of gravity will lead exactly to that of the increase of the vertical component of the center of gravity.

Perhaps, it is to invisible to detect the difference, but the intentions form our actions, so one must make sure one intends well.

I have to agree. The pure objective of the event is very simple, but it is easy to look at it the wrong way or get sidetracked by looking at the parts rather than the whole. The objective of the vault is not to move the pole downward, but to move the body upward.


The shorthand, I suppose, could be this: extensive vs. compressive.

The vault is an extensive action; it is about maximum extension of the body, pole, and height. You should always be thinking about how you are going to move upward and reach for new heights.

When you think about loading the pole as much as possible or driving it downward through the box, the vault becomes a compressive action, and this change in focus will directly lead to a change in result.


It comes down to a simple question:

Why would you try to generate energy downward when you are trying to move upward? Shouldn't you be trying to generate energy upward?

You should be thinking about moving your body toward the sky, not the pole toward the box.


A simple basketball analogy might help to demonstrate this:

When you jump up to touch the rim of a basketball goal, do you think about driving your leg downward into the floor, or do you think about moving and reaching upward toward the rim? Try both ways, and see which one gets you higher.


The pole is there to help you, and the best results should be expected from working with it, not against it.

[VTechVaulter]

here is the pole vault simplified at its finast. russian style american style, its all the same. its about basics. you wanna jump 19 ft or higher heres all you have to do

1. hit about 9.8+ m/s at the box
2. hold somewhere above about 16'3
3. stay tall at take off and drive into the pocket (dont care if your locked arm or not, (bell no straight arm, hartwig is)
4. swing a trail leg (tap swing, straight swing, doesn't matter)
5. have any kind of air awareness to avoid the bar, again doesn't have to be pretty, just know where you are.

but pretty much all great vaulters run fast, hold high (holding high is a function of staying tall, if you lean back and dont drive, you wont hold high, or youll get hurt trying

so thats what you have to do, how you accomplish those tasks is what separates great vaulters from the rest

[BigStick Club]

thanks lonestar

[mikepv1]

According to him there is no benefit from the shortening of the pole as it flexes and no 'catapulting' action from the pole. You are free to believe what you like.

Ok - so here is something that I dont get.
Why CAN'T you compare a pole vault pole to a catapult. The pole does exactly that. Think about what a catapult is and how it works. You store energy into it, and it returns the energy quickly to launch something.

With a catapault, the rod is held down for maximal load, and then the hold is released for the launch. In pole vault, there is no such release, the same weight stays on the pole. Second, the object being launched by a catapault does not take a running start and generate horizontal speed.

Furthermore, the direction in which the pressure is applied to the lauching rod in a catapault is the opposite of the direction in which the energy is released. Such is not the case in pole vaulting.

Pole vaulting is not catapaulting. The physics are completely different. The simple fact that straight-pole vaulting can be done is proof of this.

That is why the comparison between pole vaulting and catapaulting is not valid.

[altius]

[quote="VTechVaulter"] . its about basics. you wanna jump 19 ft or higher heres all you have to do --

What if you want to jump 20 feet or even 6.15? oes it matter then how precisely you go about this - simple activity -?

[altius]

Mikepv1. Could you explain what you believe happens when the pole recoils please?

[mikepv1]

Mikepv1. Could you explain what you believe happens when the pole recoils please?

The the pole recoil is more closely related to a whip than a catapault.

The catapault is static bend/unbend action where energy is stored and then directly released. There is a single static energy input and a single static energy output.

The the pole recoil is more of an accelerated roll to vertical. Granted, the bend does not travel from end to end as is the case with a whip, but the comparison is merely to demonstrate that the the action of the pole recoil is much more dynamic than a catapault. The energy put into a whip is continuous, as is ideally the case during the vault--in other words, a continuous energy input/output (i.e. the Continuous Chain Concept).

Furthermore, other things being equal, the best result in a catapault is achieved through the maximum possible bend (i.e. maximum stored energy) of the lauching rod. In pole vault, this is not the case. Your focus should not be bending the pole as much as possible. Otherwise, maximum height is not realized.

Also, if you are making the case that the physics of flexed-pole vaulting are similar to straight pole vaulting, then it must be noted that the physics of straight-pole vaulting are NOTHING like the physics of a catapault. I understand that when you make the straight-pole/flexed-pole comparison, you are speaking more of the physics of the vaulter than of the pole itself, but I still think this observation is worth noting.

You can use the catapault comparison if you want; I just don't think it is the best or most valid comparison. I am young (21) and still have a lot to learn, but that is the way I see the vault at this particular juncture. Just sharing my thoughts. Hope someone finds them interesting.

P.S.--I do appreciate and listen to different opinions, including yours. My view if the vault now is considerably different now than it was a few months back before you and Botcharnikov and some others started posting about technique.

So, if you see this another way, I would very much like to hear it (or read it), because there could always be something I am not seeing. A combination of perspectives is usually what leads to the most informed conclusion.

Also, on another note, you may have been right about that 6.01 jump (Bubka in Athens). I looked again at the film and realized that the bar cam has a wall-eye effect, which makes peripheral objects appear closer to the center of the frame than they really are. Looking at the other angles, I could see how the jump could have been higher than it looked on the bar cam. I don't know if you saw this in my post in the other thread, but I just thought I'd let you know. As someone who tries to be fair, I gotta give credit where credit is due.