The Real Questions of the 6.40 Model

[dj]

good morning,

If the vaulter is back flat to the ground at this point is a technical issue and matching it up with pole. Timing to a body position and calling it the time to max bend is a calculation error.

i have "referred" to the "flat back" position in Tim's vaults and maybe in other post..

In Tim’s vaults these two positions, max bend and "flat back" are one in the same..

a "correct" vault, working with physics and with the Petrov model they should be the same... if i did that comparison to Tim and Daniel it was because i didn't have the McGinnis data to work from and the "timing" which we are discussing here can only be "matched" closely by the "flat back" position...

i thought we were making progress toward a "model" working with physics… with the numbers i posted of Tully, Bubka and others.. the numbers will show us where we are making our mistakes in our approach to technique and coaching technique…

but this seems to indicate I’m not communicating something correctly. Technique and "timing" should be created by physics... if the vaulter is not at maximum bend AND the "back flat" position in .49/.50 (which corresponds to the vaulter covering approximately half the distance from takeoff to the box.. to the pole cord being at approximately a 60 degree angle.. etc) they are working against physics.. they are either on the wrong pole or trying to perform “technique” that is counter productive AND will cause a lose of energy and force.. creating a vault that is “less” than there speed potential.

Hopefully I can get the T-Mack Numbers.. if you have Daniels.. post them please..

dj

[ADTF Academy]

However, with the way that DJ is supposedly getting his numbers if he can figure out max bend % he must be able to identify when max bend occurs or max bend % at flat back too?

Secondly, when the body reaches flat back does have some technically implications. If a vaulter waits on the bottom of the jump (generalized term) because thats what they are taught or the model they use teaches that than the time to flat back will be longer. If they are taught to be elastic/continuous on the bottom the time to flat back will be faster. Which is better has been debated on here for a long time and not going there right now. However, the time for toe off to max COM is still roughly the same. Did Daniel just get lucky?

Personal its a technique I don't teach, but it still matches up with the benchmarks and therefore will produce 19 foot jumps. This is what this thread was started for in order to find commonalities of different vaults. From the sounds of it the data on Daniel was from one video and the time to max bend is probably not .60 as stated in the thread. It would be interesting to test the following data as well.

Time to max bend
Time to flat back
Time to Max COM

I would bet those that don't match time to max bend and time to flat back are the typical coined tuck and shooters.

There is a hundred threads on technique and what is better and what is worst. The bottom line toe off to max COM needs to be near or under 1.5 sec if you wish to jump high. What you do in between is style or technique.

[dj]

Good morning

Tim’s 2004 initial “numbers” I got from the Dartfish set up at the hotel after the competition.. I think I verified those with “B” at some point.. not all the same numbers I have posted for the other vaulters here… but the takeoff.. 10cm under, time to max bend/and flat back… time for the complete vault… max COM.

No Daniel didn’t get “lucky” with the timing of the complete jump.. to get the pole to vertical, because of the “delay”, which in itself was also an act/action to “move” the pole to vertical (metronome effect) he had to “speed up” the finish.. apply more “force” (net force is equal to the time derivative of the body's momentum) to “catch up”..

If you employ a “technique” to force bend the pole..(or even an under takeoff with out the top arm fully extended AND the vaulter on the ball, or second half of the support of the takeoff foot) you will have to go to bigger poles or “blow through”.. when you go to a bigger pole you will have to continue the wrong “force” bending of the pole and make adjustments to penetrate and get the pole to vertical..

And because it has become a “chicken and egg” issue and athletes have been successful force bending AND because we decided somewhere along the way 30 years ago that the event was/is a catapulting event instead of a “two pendulum” physics event we have a men’s world record that has stood for many years even though we have had athletes that could break it… IF only they would look at the numbers and understand WHY….

We know “force bending” can be done and create 19+plus jumps… and it can be “trained/practiced” until the vaulter can get pretty good and sort what consistent at it.. BUT (All Butts Stink) doesn’t it stand to reason if you “practiced” with physics, the same vaulter would/could jump higher AND more consistent because the vault would become ... RUN-PLANT-SWING.. with the right pole and right grip?

We see vaulters who were/are trying to vault with “physics” but still making adjustments.. the knee drop is one of them… even on Bubka’s first 6m jump.. he had a “knee pump” .. maybe not as pronounced as Earl in his early career but it was there… and it was because of a high grip and moving the pole through it’s “pendulum” so the body could move through it’s pendulum/swing.. the good thing about the body is it can “shorten” the radius… and ‘speed” up.. making up for the force from a long fast swing with a shorter… real fast swing…

What I’m trying to show here is “the model" goes hand in hand with the good parts of each phase of.. Run- Plant- Swing… that goes with “physics” that has to be done on the correct size pole and the correct pole pattern (this thread is not about poles) … but if Bubka still has the pole that he jumped his first 6m jump on I think I could show why and how it matches with the “technique” he employed.

This thread is about the absolute best way to apply force and use that force from the first step on the approach to maximum height of COM..

These numbers hold the answers… yes the total time for height of the COM is one "part"… but even if it’s the same the other intermediate numbers must be “dead on” to be 100% valid..

The total time and “markers” should be determined by two things.... the speed and transfer of that speed at the plant... and grip and pole…

19+plus jumps should have toe to grip “vertical” numbers at take off, 98% extension of the plant arm.. vaulter on the second half (ball) of the TO foot contact when the pole hits the back of the box… max bend and “back flat” in .48/.49… total jump in 1.45/1.47.. 30% pole bend.

I’m quite sure if I had a little more data.. like for the women.. I could create a time frame and parameters for jumps of 14, 15, 16.. etc…

I already have grips.. trajectories.. pole bend.. max bend distances based on grip..

I can tell you this.. high schoolers jumping 14 feet take more time from takeoff to max COM than Bubka took for 20 feet.

dj

ps.. i'm still waiting for some "numbers".. any help Wilson? Peter? will be appreciated..

also there is a PV conference being planned for OCT.. 9.. here in Gainesville.. Mike Cotton, Jimmy Carnes and Dave Roberts are sponsors.. as details get finalized i will post them... we will be going over the science.. with spread sheets... hopefully we will have several of the "data collector" scientist with us to verify the "whys"

with great "debates" not only in meetings but around the dinner table and in small group BS sessions..

that's a long weekend so put it on your calendar and travel plans...

PSS.. i must say this... i personally can not coach "the model" (and don’t think ANYONE can), this model with poles that do not have the same "bend" properties as the ones used by Bubka to "create" this model.. i heard the story years ago about Bubka having his "honey" pole damaged... he got a replacement that was the same exact flex, mandrel and glass.. it did not work or bend the same... he was frustrated.. knowing by "feel' the pole wasn't the same.. I will guarantee the pole was different.. and pretty sure it was the sail pattern that was different.. Tully had two 12.5's different sail.. he used both in the same meet and got different but positive results from.. a different bend... I saw and checked this numerous times in the 80’s… even the “fastest” pole ever made for Gatalin.. that kicked his butt even though the flex was nothing.. based on what he was on.

[dj]

Good morning

Quotes from T&F

Carl Lewis – “What’s really killing the sport is all these athletes who are retiring and coaching the next year. They really do not have the background. They’re not qualified. You need to have more than ‘I ran and I was good’. You just don’t need to know how to do workouts, to be a coach. You need to understand physiology; how the body works… in our sport we have athletes who retire and two years latter, they’re coaching the best athletes in the world.”

Tom Tellez – “If you don’t have a background, you better do some studying. If you run (vault), that helps, but you still have to know the biomechanics of running (any event). You still have to read about what da Vinci did; Copernicus, Galileo and Newton. You’ve got to know it doesn’t work 20 different ways. It works one way the best. If you don’t know what that way is, you’re not helping the kids.”

Many have identified, including Tom Ecker and Petrov, technically according to physics what it takes in the vault. I have added what it takes according to biomechanics on the runway.

Moving the pole to vertical is the key element in pole vaulting. Learn “why” from the first step to max COM according to physics. It will give you a chance to coach championship/world record/safe vaulters.

dj

ps.. has anyone taken the time to do a spread sheet from the numbers i posted.. i have some to add.