PoleVaultPower.com

Here's a technical paper about a "new" (1989) PV planting technique. It's from the Canadian Athletics Coaching Centre, but is written by Boiko and Nikonov of Russia.

http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport%20Science/Biomechanics/Jumping%20Events/Pole%20Vault/Boiko%20Something%20New%20in%20PV.pdf

First sentence ...

It is a well-known fact that pole vault performances depend largely on the grip height and the run-up speed. In the following text Soviet experts describe a planting action claimed to improve the final acceleration and to allow for a higher grip on the pole.

Personally, I don't really know what they're talking about. What they describe is quite foreign to me ... not because it's written by Soviets , but because it doesn't say anything about running with the pole vertically, then dropping it weightlessly THRU THE ENTIRE PLANT. Maybe what they describe is close to how I planted, or maybe they're talking about something completely different ... I don't really know.

They say ...

... In the new planting variation the vaulter’s right hand (top hand on the pole) bends in the elbow joint and, with the wrist moving close to the shoulder, forces the lower end of the pole down. The left hand, placed chest high, is moved under the pole to create a fulcrum for the pole rotation. Athletes, who use this planting action, accelerate faster prior to the takeoff, can grip higher on the pole ...

That really doesn't describe the action in sufficient detail to really know what they mean. I guess I need to see it to understand it. Maybe someone else can interpret this description? I can't, and it's not due to a poor Russian translation, the explanation just seems to be too sparse.

There's some nice tables that compare runway speed, grip, and PRs of Bubka, Gatulin, and other Russian vaulters. If nothing else, this data is interesting and might be of value re our current "Push off" discussion. I know Pogo loves data ... and technical papers!

Since the main topic of this paper is the "Plant", I'm creating this new thread. Surprisingly, I searched 20 pages back (more than a year back) thru the Advanced Forum, and found no similar topic. You'd think that there's more than one way to plant a pole, and you'd think we'd have discussed this important vault part (as a main topic, rather than as a sub-topic of a different topic) by now.

Perhaps we can discuss anything specific to advanced "Plant" technique on this thread?

But I'm not even sure that the paper I've cited even qualifies for this thread by that criteria. Is the way they describe it the way EVERYONE plants ... since 1989? Or all they all wet?

Kirk

I understand it. Thats the way the Eastern block guys talk. Whats they say is to lower the tip by raising the right hand up the side. Left elbow stays under the level to the left hand thus staying in a pushing up action when the hands are flipped up to the shoulder.

Rick BAggett

baggettpv wrote: ... What they say is to lower the tip by raising the right hand up the side. Left elbow stays under the level to the left hand thus staying in a pushing up action when the hands are flipped up to the shoulder.

That's all it is? I was looker for a deeper, more "revolutionary" innovation, since it was written up in a scientific paper.

I'm sure I did all that ... 18 years earlier ... and ALSO kept the pole WEIGHTLESS thru the plant.

But I don't understand why they would say ...

... forces the lower end of the pole down.

To me, any force implies something other than "weightlessness". They must talking about making it drop at faster than gravity drops it. Otherwise, they would have mentioned the "natural drop" of the pole, due to gravity.

Here's something related to this, that I wrote last June, in Post #11 of the Bryde Bend thread ... where I describe my pole drop ...

In early 1971, I experimented a bit with using the drop of the pole to actually accelerate my last stride into the takeoff. I had hypothesized that if I used my bottom hand as a fulcrum, and then let the top hand be pulled up and towards the pit as the pole dropped, it would then lift my CoG, allowing me to jump faster and higher. But in practice, I found that the side effects of this idea totally negated its advantages. For example, the fulcrum would only work whilst my takeoff foot was on the ground, which actually forced it to be grounded for a longer period of time.

Kirk

To me, any force implies something other than "weightlessness". They must talking about making it drop at faster than gravity drops it. Otherwise, they would have mentioned the "natural drop" of the pole, due to gravity.

Your guess is quite accurate. You can think of the pole drop as a pivoting motion with two forces at work, you pushing the pole up and gravity, of course. You can use both forces by utilizing a fulcrum.

hye

i think i just posted the correct description in the intermediate thread under pole carry.....

I see this as the same as Petrov describes.. just maybe in a little different way

dj

Andy_C wrote:

... You can use both forces by utilizing a fulcrum.

Yes, but with gravity at work, you don't need a fulcrum. You just need to push the top end of the pole up ... while gravity pulls the butt down. i.e. You don't need to speed this pole movement up with any additional fulcrums or forces.

Keep in mind that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The other advantage of a WEIGHTLESS POLE DROP ... right thru the plant ... is that it's far less complicated than having to time when to exert this "force" on the "fulcrum". All you need to do is to push (PUNCH!) up. This is not only more efficient (in my mind ... based on the laws of physics), but it's also one less thing to worry about.

Once I figured this out, and got the timing down pat, I never looked back. I moved on to focus on the NEXT technical issue of my vault. i.e. There was never any further issues with "further optimizing" my plant. It just "worked".

Kirk

KirkB wrote:Yes, but with gravity at work, you don't need a fulcrum.Kirk

There is always a fulcrum or the pole would just drop straight down, maintaining the orientation it has when you remove the fulcrum. The fulcrum can either be your top hand or your bottom hand. The technique being promoted appears to say there is advantage to having the bottom hand be the fulcrum and furthermore, that that fulcrum shouldn't ever be allowed to drop below the chest of the vaulter. Also, with top or bottom hand as fulcrum, the fulcrum is moved up during the plant at the same time gravity is pulling the tip down.

- master

master wrote: There is always a fulcrum or the pole would just drop straight down, maintaining the orientation it has when you remove the fulcrum.

Agree.

master wrote: The fulcrum can either be your top hand or your bottom hand.

Disagree. The fulcrum can be anywhere on the pole between your top hand and the BUTT. It can be an imaginary point. Everything below this point goes down, whilst everything above it goes up.

And (as you say ... I think) it can be a moving point on the pole as it drops. It doesn't need to be a single, fixed position on the pole.

So, to correct my earlier statement ... You don't need a PHYSICAL fulcrum point.

Kirk

KirkB wrote:The fulcrum can be anywhere on the pole between your top hand and the BUTT. It can be an imaginary point. Everything below this point goes down, whilst everything above it goes up.

And (as you say ... I think) it can be a moving point on the pole as it drops. It doesn't need to be a single, fixed position on the pole.

So, to correct my earlier statement ... You don't need a PHYSICAL fulcrum point.

Kirk

I think that may be taking liberties with the definition. There certainly is a moving inflection point as you describe, but I think the word "fulcrum" is limited to a physical point of support about which a lever (the pole) pivots. If you want to call it a none physical fulcrum, of course you may, but it would seem to be a creation of your own. That being said, I will understand you when you use it again.

- master

Before you get to picky just remember that all of this stuff was being translated from Russian. As we saw with Petrov's original presentation in Birmingham in 85, mistranslation or even poor translation can cause problems.

Note that the Boiko Nikonov paper is referenced in BTB2. You might find the chapter on the plant there of interest. Also note Petrov's presentation on the plant in Reno.

master wrote: I think that may be taking liberties with the definition. There certainly is a moving inflection point as you describe, but I think the word "fulcrum" is limited to a physical point of support about which a lever (the pole) pivots. ...

Understood.

And yes, this is getting picky, but just for fun John, ... if we're sticking to the TRADITIONAL definition ... I'm back to my original statement ...

Yes, but with gravity at work, you don't need a fulcrum.

And yes, Altius, I WILL check out that chapter, and I will listen for it in Petrov's Reno talk. Just not right now ... I have bigger fish to fry

As DJ stated above, he's already pointed out what Petrov had to say about this here ... "HOW TO HOLD AND CARRY THE POLE" ... http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=17099

That reads like a fairly complete description by Petrov. I'll comment on that in my next post, as I don't agree with all of it.

Kirk

After reading Petrov's paper "HOW TO HOLD AND CARRY THE POLE", here's my 4 comments ...

1. What? No mention of a vertical pole carry ... even tho Bubka does this on every jump. Petrov only refers to a ...

... 40/60 degree angle ...

... in ...

... the second part of the run ...

Why no mention of a technique that Bubka clearly uses?

2. Petrov says ...

If the top of the pole is held a little to the left (from the run-up line), the left hand will be positioned in a more comfortable and elevated position ...

Yes ... but if you carry the pole to the side a bit ... even just a bit ... then you have 2 additional issues to deal with. (a) You need to balance it with BOTH hands, rather than with only the top hand (the one gripping the top of the pole); and (b) when you plant, you're going to have to push the pole sideways a bit to re-align it with the runway and box again. This is extra effort ... and over-complicated, in my experience. By keeping my vertical pole carry straight in line with the box, I only had one plane to worry about. By holding it a bit to the side, this becomes a 3D problem rather than just a 2D problem.

3. Petrov's second half of this sentence is a little surprising ...

... the left hand will be positioned in a more comfortable and elevated position ...

This may be true ... if the goal is to make the bottom hand on the pole "more comfortable". But if you bear all the weight on the top hand, and the bottom hand is used just for balance (which is the case in a vertical pole carry ... which I did, which Isaksson did, and which Bubka did) ... then what's the problem? Why would it be uncomfortable if it's not bearing any (much) weight?

I bore all the pole's weight on my Catapole 550+ logs, so I don't see why the lighter poles of the 1980s and 90s would be very difficult for Bubka to carry with all its weight on the top hand.

4. Petrov says ...

The drop must not be abrupt (if the vaulter was not late in initiating it), it must fall within the rhythm of the last strides.

... which is apparently in agreement with all you guys (Master, DJ, Altius) ... that think you need a physical fulcrum point ... but I look at this differently. I maintain that if the pole is BALANCED starting in a vertical position, and slowly LOWERED througout the run, there's not even a specific point in the vault that can even become "abrupt". There is no "start of pole drop" point along the runway!

And for the same reason, there is no "fulcrum".

Rick Baggett described this very well not so long ago in the "When to drop the pole" thread here ... http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=15518&p=121766&hilit=rick+chase+pole#p111435 where he said ...

... you don't drop the pole ... you chase it.

My Bryde Bend description of my pole carry and drop is in Posts #9-12 here: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=15483&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=12 I won't repeat what I said in those posts last June ... I'll just say that this is what worked well for me ... back in the day. Remember ... I couldn't run very fast, so I had to glean every trick in the book to make my run, pole drop, and plant just as efficient as humanly possible. I'm not saying I was there ... but I was close.

In watching Bubka vids, I thought his technique was quite similar in these respects, but I could be wrong. Maybe the way Petrov describes Bubka's pole carry and drop just isn't exactly how Bubka did it?

I was very happy with my pole carry and drop, and it's not something I would have parted with, just to conform to the so-called Petrov model (if it existed at the time). However, maybe my technique was like BUBKA did, if not what PETROV described?

Kirk