The PREJUMP : key to success or giant hoax

[agapit]

Above are absolutely fabulous images of kids doing it. Frankly Alan have been talking about pre jump (free take off) for almost 20 years. I used to get irritated when people did not accept it as it is a resistance free takeoff that is easy to coach anyone, in particular a beginner (check his new book Beginner to Bubka).

This is a déjà vu. I frankly refuse to argue anymore about a necessity of a free takeoff. The free takeoff (pre jump) is an essential part of the modern vault model. It is a gateway without which one cannot hop to get to current record heights, unless they possess an absolutely supernatural talent.

We only hope that people who still argue about free takeoff could invent a new more efficient way of vaulting since they are not burdened with the historic baggage of years of experience and generations of development.

[PaulVaulter]

Are there any studies, mathematically speaking, out there that look at the benefits of a free take-off/pre-jump against those of one where the foot is still in contact with the ground at initial pole bend?

I personally understand the benefits of the pre-jump, and do try to perform it when vaulting but I would like to see the maths (i'm probably the only one) prooving its advantage.

The reason I say this is that take-off is the least efficient part of the vault, there is the most energy lost as heat and sound as the pole hits the box and begins to bend. If one is in the air as the pole hits (pre-jump) you already have the maximum amount of kinetic energy you are going to have throughout the vault, therefore losses at take-off are all losses. If, on the other (more controversial) hand, your foot is still on the ground, it is possible for the athlete to continue to produce kinetic energy to offset the losses occurring from the plant.

Mathematically speaking taking off 'under' would result in a higher vault, but the question is how far under is it neccessary to be before the extra energy you are putting into the pole outweighs the advantages of the pre-jump? And would this distance be phsically possible?

I post this as a believer (but not quite practicer) of the pre-jump.

Paul

[agapit]

Are there any studies, mathematically speaking, out there that look at the benefits of a free take-off/pre-jump against those of one where the foot is still in contact with the ground at initial pole bend?

I personally understand the benefits of the pre-jump, and do try to perform it when vaulting but I would like to see the maths (i'm probably the only one) prooving its advantage.

The reason I say this is that take-off is the least efficient part of the vault, there is the most energy lost as heat and sound as the pole hits the box and begins to bend. If one is in the air as the pole hits (pre-jump) you already have the maximum amount of kinetic energy you are going to have throughout the vault, therefore losses at take-off are all losses. If, on the other (more controversial) hand, your foot is still on the ground, it is possible for the athlete to continue to produce kinetic energy to offset the losses occurring from the plant.

Mathematically speaking taking off 'under' would result in a higher vault, but the question is how far under is it neccessary to be before the extra energy you are putting into the pole outweighs the advantages of the pre-jump? And would this distance be phsically possible?

I post this as a believer (but not quite practicer) of the pre-jump.

Paul

As I said, I refuse to argue about the necessity of a free takeoff, however to answer your question about math studies I must tell you that many years ago models have been built, but they were so simplistic that they were unusable. To build a usable math model will require substantial investment (money & time). The investment perhaps would be bigger than a budget of a single university department.

as to the second point, there is never an advantage of taking under from the view point of the development, however we observe this at times in real life due to difference in conditions.

When we are talking about free take off we are talking about development and growth. One should not think about it trying to win an Olympic Gold on the third attempt.

You were under, well, s**t happens. However, it is unwise, to say the least, to step into it by design.

[ladyvolspvcoach]

I'd like to point out that one of the ways to "see", as a coach, that a free take-off is happening, and is clearly indicated in Alan's pics is.....the pole will be straight (no-bend) or below straight in some cases....as the heel is moving up. That is clearly indicated in the photos.

[agapit]

I'd like to point out that one of the ways to "see", as a coach, that a free take-off is happening, and is clearly indicated in Alan's pics is.....the pole will be straight (no-bend) or below straight in some cases....as the heel is moving up. That is clearly indicated in the photos.

You are right. However, I am ready to move beyond the question whether free takeoff exists and if it is beneficial to what follows it.

[ladyvolspvcoach]

Roman, I think my point is that maximum efficiency is attained when the pole/ground angle is increasing prior to the tip hitting the box. That can't happen without the free take-off. I agree the argument of whether or not...should be dropped. I just meant to point out a way to "see" it in action.

[master]

You are right. However, I am ready to move beyond the question whether free takeoff exists and if it is beneficial to what follows it.

Amen! I look forward to that discussion.
-master

[dj]

agapit gave the answer to penultimate.. next to last..

my first introduction to the penultimate was .. Igor T.. the great Russian long jumper....help me roman with the spelling of the last name. that is also where i read an article from russia, discussing the change in position of the hip/pelvic girdle 4/6 steps from the board to promote a "proper" takeoff.. i think this hip girdle position is important in the vault... but can be negitively effected by the pole carry/drop.


anyway

as alan explained and roman has confirmed... the run has to be correct to promote a free takeoff.. the increased cadence over the last 4/6 steps is paramount to achieving this... that is why i suggested the "popup" drill with speed.. what i needed to say is "perform the drill with increased cadence"...


dj

[dj]

sorry altius........ gave the answer........

dj

[altius]

I'm with Agapit. There should not need to be - does not need to be - any more discussion about the advantages of a pre jump or a free take off. If the topic comes up again folk should be referred to the range of observations on this site - along with Agapit, and others i suspect, i am not going round the houses on this one again.

The evidence is clear that this is the best way for a vaulter to maximise their performance. Sure people can and have jumped high taking off under and doing all kinds of weird things - Lobinger/Galfione etc but they could have jumped higher using the Petrov/Bubka model. Get rid of the notion that FAULTS IN TECHNIQUE represent an athlete's individual style - they dont - they are FAULTS! Note I am not saying athletes do not have an indivdual style because it is that they clear they do - but that a technical model should be based on the principles of biomechanics - which have also been explored in detail here - and NOT on a Coaches' whim.

Not only that, I believe we have established that young athletes can begin to improve their take off using this method and therefore that it is not incredibly difficult to do - assuming a sensible teaching approach. Now all it requires???? is for more coaches to take the ideas on board and apply them!!!!

[cdmilton]

Posted for Altius...

They are of 19 year old Wendy Young jumping 4.20 in March 04. She jumped 4.40 the next week but our gilm of that jump is not as clear or from a great angle.

[altius]

Thanks Chris - great quality images!

Folks as I indicated above, I was going to let this topic drop but found some old/new video and thought these stills might be of interest - unfortunately I could not get the clip to load to send Chris. I believe they certainly show a 'Free take off" and had it been possible to instrument the box and take off zone, I suspect there would have been evidence of a "Pre jump" - but that is just supposition on my part. Wendy is not a superstar but has reasonable speed and long jumping ability - she is also highly intelligent - A significant factor when an athlete needs to understand the rationale for a specific technical model.

She is 5'9/135lbs and I believe she was jumping on a 14'/160 that day - but I may have to correct that.

I included the clips after take off to make the point that an effective take off also sets up the second major phase of energy input - the whip of the extended left leg to the chord of the pole.

If and when Wendy masters the third and fourth phases I believe she can jump 4.80m plus. She is now being coached by Mark Stewart - a world class coach - so I believe that there is a good chance this will happen.