BTB

[altius]

Then it seems to me that all we are doing on this forum is preaching to the choir!! How does the message go out wider than that - as I have just suggested on another topic I have been to three sets of camps in the US in the past two years - plus of course Reno five times in eight years and the vast majority of athletes I have seen
- do not understand the importance of cadence in the last six steps
- take off under - many quite deliberately because they and their coaches presumably believe that this is how you SHOULD jump
- swing off the ground early without finishing the take off
- etc etc.

This is not a minority I am talking about here - it is 80% plus!! That is one of the reasons BTB was produced - to fill a vacuum.

[lonestar]

tom hintihaus said.. "hit the take off... bend the pole into a high bar... and do a giant off the top...
dj

I agree with Tom that after takeoff, the pole should become a high bar, but I disagree with using a giant as an analogy to swing. A giant swing on a high bar involves casting your body way out in front of the bar with zero rotation at the shoulders. A vaulter's swing should be behind the pole, and not a casting action, but have rotation both at the hands and the shoulders. It's more like a hip circle, or even a kip. I've had several gymnasts try to "cast" their swing on a pole like they did on a high bar, and the end up swinging right past the pole, way out in front of it, and just fall off the top.

[dj]

kris

i agree..

it is a free hip into a handstand... and tom thought that himself when he and i discussed it a little more...

you and i talked about that several times and mike did sets and reps of free hips into a handstand push off on the high bar... as part of his training..

allan..

it is 80% or more.. sadly coaches that support "take off under" were successful taking off under because of fiberglass, force bending the pole, etc.. and continue to teach it.. if they could have corrected the physics they themselves would have jumped higher...

t-mack was "slightly" what would be considered "under" on his 5.90 jump at the 2004 trials (a jump that has not been done any better by anyone including bubka.. the physics is "ON"..) but because of his "running form" into take off and style and flex of the pole ... everything clicked perfectly.

again the faster tim, or anyone, can run.... the further out he/she should be and the higher he/she could/should jump. physics...

dj

[Bubba PV]

I enjoy this topic and was previously converted to a new way of thinking by force. After I jumped in my first All Comers meet (1990), and having been away from the scene for 12 years, I was approached by an official (Bob Baker), who said the following; "well, it looks like you were really a good vaulter back when you jumped. Do us a favor and don't coach any of our kids. They're still screwed up from your generation." He then said, "if you truly love this sport and want to be of help, you'll become a student of the event and find out how we got so far behind in a sport we used to own".

DJ you know Bob very well and I reminded him of this conversation when I saw him this summer at USATF Masters Nationals in Hawaii. He laughed and said he was pleased at how many "students" there are out there now. I agree and that's why I love this forum for learning. Like I tell my healthcare clients and partners, "I know nothing but WE know everything". Thanks for your input! Bubba

[MightyMouse]

Then it seems to me that all we are doing on this forum is preaching to the choir!! How does the message go out wider than that - as I have just suggested on another topic I have been to three sets of camps in the US in the past two years - plus of course Reno five times in eight years and the vast majority of athletes I have seen
- do not understand the importance of cadence in the last six steps
- take off under - many quite deliberately because they and their coaches presumably believe that this is how you SHOULD jump
- swing off the ground early without finishing the take off
- etc etc.

This is not a minority I am talking about here - it is 80% plus!! That is one of the reasons BTB was produced - to fill a vacuum.

Thanks all, This has been a really informative thread, good reading

How about putting together a brief pamphlet, outlining a standard model for vaulting? Something not quite as extensive as BTB, but still goes over the generic form, focuses on controversial areas, and maybe backed by someone in the Safety Community, JJ?
Ive yet to see a standard model that’s been endorsed by a organization, or something larger than a small group of people

Or maybe a monthly newsletter, each issue focusing on a phase of the vault?

Just sorta thinking out loud

[rainbowgirl28]

Or maybe a monthly newsletter, each issue focusing on a phase of the vault?

Just sorta thinking out loud

The Pole Vault Standard is a great newsletter already out there.

The Pole Vault World According to Gus is a great free email newsletter http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/vaultngus/

[achtungpv]

How about putting together a brief pamphlet, outlining a standard model for vaulting?

It's in dj's signature line.

That's literally all you need to know to jump 17'. Too many people are too caught up in the details.

[MightyMouse]

It's in dj's signature line.

That's literally all you need to know to jump 17'. Too many people are too caught up in the details.

Then i guess all thats left to do is print 2000 copies and have a PVSCB stamp on it?
Good point though, cause I think I might be one of those details people

Maybe that wouldn’t be a bad idea, keep it extremely simple, give out the basic points for vaulting (a brief explanation of the points in Djs signature) and a diagram. People sometimes present the advanced stuff and gloss over the basics.

[altius]

Aye but theres the rub - for as a sage once observed "The devil is always in the detail"!

[dj]

good morning

in looking back through my information, including the florida pole vault school pamphlet 1976, i found an abstract by vitaly petrov from the #44/2004 Youth Athletics Newsletter..that is/was more updated and think it would be more appropriate for us to work from...in this format...

i will say this... our (FLPV school) first paragraph and many other portions of our document read along the same lines as vitaly's with few variations. i know we have been saying the same things for years.. the physics hasn't changed.

if someone has that abstract and could post it on this thread (i don't have scan/post access right now) i think it would help us answer, properly, many of the questions being asked.

in the introduction he states....

the mechanical principles of the event are irrefutable. The system of two pendulums changing in length (with the pole as the 1st pendulum, and the vaulter as the 2nd) is the mechanical basis of pole vault technique.

i will keep my answers on this thread only.. BTB from now own.. the bubka thread started in this direction and we should not spread it out..

ok...

first.... the two pendulum system has been written and used back to the steel pole.. coaches and athletes have to accept and understand this mechanical and biomechanical fact..

this "fact" of physics tell us that the vault is not a "catapulting" event.. the pole is not a spring.. tests on poles to see their "catapulting" capabilities have no value...

the "bending without breaking" quality of a pole is the most important. the more they can bend without breaking the better...

next

The angular velocity of each pendulum is to a certain extent controlled by the distance from the vaulter's center of mass to the axis of rotation around the hand and shoulder girdle. From this a technical pattern of pole vaulting has been developed.

the velocity of the athlete at takeoff (with a correct takeoff) moves onto the pole and should continue on with the body swinging around the top hand and shoulders.. if there is a disproportionate loss of velocity the takeoff is wrong.... or a pole too stiff can slow the angular velocity lessening pole speed and penetration..

the amount of time this action takes, or a faster time, is an indication of a correct application of force. that is why i pay attention to the "time" of a vault from takeoff to max heigth...

The angular velocity of each pendulum is to a certain extent controlled by the distance from the vaulter's center of mass to the axis of rotation around the hand and shoulder girdle.

a tuck speeds up rotation but takes away from force... you may need this action (tuck) during the latter phases of a vault but a longer body creates more "force" at the plant/takeoff...

having your step "out" also allows you to continue your run force onto the pole.. if you are under the force is interrupted (slowed) before it can be transferred properly...

i think several people in their posts have said all these things.. maybe if we explain them enough we can start making progress and only use the simple steps.. making it easier for everyone..

dj

[dj]

this is the post i made a few days ago that speaks to the abouve answer...

hey

mecham is correct... the way a vaulter takes off "loads" (shortens the radius) and lets the vaulter "un-load" or swing off the pole with the right rhythm and timing.. simply put the vaulter "bends" the pole with the body mass and speed at takeoff (and not "un-naturally with arm force)and "un bends" the pole with the swing as the body passes horizontal to the ground...

a vaulter that stretches to takeoff will "force' bend the pole but cannot swing properly.. the vaulter will then penetrate deep and "think" they need a bigger pole.. but will only get compounded negative results on a bigger pole because of the poor take off...

a quicker cadence over the last 4 steps will make a seemingly soft pole work "crisp" and quick...

most coaches and athletes think the "quick" steps they see bubka and others taking are shorter... they are not.. the length is the same for the last 4/6, but faster.. creating more force..

how many of you jump high from a short run on a small pole???

how many of you get good height above the grip on a small pole but then cannot on your big pole??

you are working the right cadence with the right pole and right takeoff... you have to do the same on your long run.. and that doesn't always mean a bigger pole... the big pole will come if you have the correct takeoff and are creating more "force" in the correct way.. if you "blow" through then you change...

note: also make sure you are "blowing" through and not "by" the pole.. we will discuss that later..

pole speed is a result of a proper.. "free"? takeoff..
i have written the model i use to teach by on several occasions... each time it has been published it was changed or interpreted according to the readers experience.. most of the time it is viewed as "not that simple"...
i'll try and describe it in 2/3 pages and post it on here..

later

dj

[dj]

good morning

some readers have asked for a simple "model"

this is my first edition (short form) of how i teach the correct way to pole vault..

in the before mentioned abstract by vitaly pettrov.. YAN..44/2004

he states..

to reach the maximum controlled velocity during the approach, to naturally proceed to the hang on the pole with the subsequent muscle effort shift and to transfer from the hang to the overturn (upside down..vertical I position) on the pole, it is necessary for the vaulter to free himself/herself as much as possible from the retarding effect of the pole. This can be accomplished to a considerable extent through the correct hold, which includes both the grip and the width of the grip on the pole, eg..the distance between the hands.

the vaulter should start the approach (right handed vaulter) with the left foot "toeing" a start mark and the right foot a couple of feet in back of the left...stepping back for momentum is ok at the start as long as it is consistent and balanced... the right grip holds the pole at right "hip bone" height and will be bent.. the left grip holds the pole directly in front of the sternum..with the left wrist under the pole and the left elbow near the body. the pole will be "carried" in this position throughout the approach with some easy "movement" for rhythm..

there are NO exceptions to this... this technique sets up the rhythm and dynamic of a correct run and pole plant.. subsequently creating the energy for a correct vault..

NO exceptions and here is why!!!

the pole needs to be "locked" in with the run rhythm... that means it needs to be centered with the body and as the vaulter pushes out of the back it "comes" with the right hip.. balanced.. if the left hand is to close to the body in the front and the right hand is swing back behind the body the vaulter will start stretching the steps to correct the "balance". once that happens the steps can't be corrected without getting the pole back in balance..

starting from the right foot or skipping creates movement in the pole carry that can be very detrimental and can't be adjusted for late in the run...

the left hand must be "turned up"!!! and the elbow "under" and near the body..NO exceptions.....

why? this keeps the vaulter from planting late or stretching the steps... try it and you will see.. mike tully and earl bell taught me this in the 70's and 80's...and instead of accepting it at face value.. i had to research it from a biomechanical and physics stand point ...

do these to things at the start of your vault and approach and you will start working with the physics of the event... most vaulters i have worked with have changed these two things in a matter of 2/3 weeks.. then it was so natural that going back was odd...

this process and the mid chart is how i have created good/great runs in all the vaulters i coach...

dj