Could Gataullin have put more energy into the system??

[joebro391]

Okay, so for those that don't know me, I'm a Petrov-er/6.40 guy all the way. I believe that the trail-leg should remain completely straight throughout the duration of the jump for these reasons:

1) longer pendulum (leg) more torque/energy into the system. That's basic physics. This allows the vaulter to get on stiffer poles and eventually obtain a better push-off.

2) The swing puts continuous energy into the system since it's constantly swinging (think about swinging a rope in the air, in circles. It remains taught because it's constantly swung. As soon as you stop (tuck), it breaks). The reason this is good in the vault is because the constant energy into the system means the vaulter is not simply "hanging on" and this keeps the pole from unbending prematurely and therefore allows the vaulter to finish extension without having to "fight the pole". This is also known as "working ahead of the pole".

Now, I recently got into a pretty long facebook-argument on this subject and was just wondering what everyone felt about something. Now, Petrov prefers a straight trail-leg as seen in Bubka and Isi. However, even Gibilisco tucked. I've heard from people that Petrov was quoted as saying that he feels the tuck may be mearly a "style-variation" of the Petrov/Bubka model of vaulting. I tend to disagree however a friend of mine argued that if the tuck was "done right", it put no less energy into the pole than a pure swinger. Myself along with a few other people argued that the tuck couldn't be done right because it simply isn't right.

The reason why I don't like the tuck is for the following reasons (basically the opposite of the reasons why I like the swing).

1) Once the vaulter tucks the legs, they stop putting energy into the system.

2) If the vaulter stops putting energy into the system, the pole will begin to unbend. Many tuck&shooters tend to tuck before there hips are even with their shoulders and therefore now have to fight the recoil of the pole to finish inversion. In turn, they're not in the ideal position to finish the jump and lose potential height in their push-off.

Now, I've seen vaulters push 3 feet+ with a tuck, and clear 6meters+ with a tuck. However, is it the tuck that keeps some 5.70 vaulters from 5.90/6m and kept some 6m vaulters from the WR?? Finally, as my title mentioned, could Rodion Gutaullin have jumped the WR with a complete swing, or did he really add as much energy as he was capable of, even with his tuck??

Gataullin at 5.85: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMGQyxZSZgI

Now Bubka said he always tried/strived to be completely inverted and extended before the pole began to unbend. This is a near-impossible feat for athletes that don't "go straight to their backs", but you can usually tell a good swinger if the vaulter's hips are about even with or above their shoulders when the pole begins to unbend. Most tuck&shooters don't accomplish this because they just hit the pole and pick their feet up into the tuck. Gataullin on the other hand, swung a little beyond the chord of the pole before he began his tuck and in turn, his hips were slightly above his shoulders when the pole began to unbend.

Most pro-tuckers that I know argue that the tuck speeds up the swing and allows the vaulter to get in better position on top. Gataullin is one of the few tuck&shooters that I can say this is probably true for. I doubt he could have really obtained a better position to fly off the top of the pole, but perhaps he could have gotten on stiffer poles. Many others fall victim to the common faults of tucking that I listed above and the whole concept of speeding up the swing via tucking is 100% pointless. Gataullin makes me think...what do you guys think?? Was he the best tuck&shooter of all time? Could he have jumped the WR if he had swung more like Bubka/Tarasov??

Maybe the real question is: Is there a point in the vault where the swing stops putting energy into the vault and it is beneficial to tuck? Or do yall think that by the time the swings stops putting energy into the system, the vaulter is already completely inverted and therefore the tuck is pointless??

My beliefs: The swing continues to add energy to the system all the way to inversion. By the time (if at all) the swings stops adding energy to the system, the vaulter is inverted at which point the tuck is pointless. When the swing is finished, the vaulter's hips are above the shoulders which allows the vaulter to work ahead of the pole and fly off the top.

-6P

[tsorenson]

Nice post, joebro.

I think that in most cases, the tuck is more of an instinctive result than a purposeful action. If a vaulter feels the pole recoiling, he/she knows that at that point, the swing is pretty much as high as it's going to get. Some vaulters then tuck to get the feet up for inversion, and to line up with the pole. It also is a natural result of a style of vaulting that puts you way under the pole at the top of the swing (big bottom arm), instead of covering it with your legs (petrov). Some vaulters get very good at tucking, and actually can shoot the feet (at least the right foot) back toward the runway, getting the COM pretty far back for a good vertical push (Lavillenie, Vigneron). Everyone who gets good using the tuck still stays long through the chord of the pole...people who tuck immediately off the ground don't often grip over 13'. I coached a kid for the last 2 years who was very successful using the tuck (14'9, state champion), and I wasn't able to change it (it was too ingrained), I just tried to make sure he stayed long through the chord. I also encouraged him that if he was going to tuck & shoot, then make sure you shoot your feet back toward the runway. Interestingly, he seemed to put a lot of energy into bending the pole as soon as he tucked, and the pole stopped moving forward. He got hucked off the top pretty well but sometimes sunk on the pole, and often landed near the box. I believe that if he would have stayed longer he could have used a smaller pole to jump higher. He was 5'8 140 and jumped on a 15' 160. Here's a video...you can tell that he can jump way higher than 14'9 (I'm thrilled that he is going to try to vault in college with a great coach)
http://vimeo.com/23726067

The dynamics of the plant and swing are what determine if the vaulter must tuck, or if they can swing the legs up over the pole before recoil. I believe that your statement about the trail leg staying straight for the entire duration of the vault is missing a key element: As you drive up and finish the takeoff, your trail leg should get a little bend at the knee, so that it can kick/snap forward like you are punting a football. Try punting with a locked-straight leg...not as fast and not nearly as powerful! Vaulters who tuck often are missing this kick-whip, and try to keep a locked leg all the way through the vault...making their swing not dynamic enough to cover the pole (there are exceptions, of course). An early bend in the pole (under takeoff) also makes swinging over it before it recoils difficult if not impossible.

With the right kind of swing, vaulters still break at the hips and shorten the axis of the swing to speed it up at the top...the difference is that they end up on top of the pole instead of underneath it.

Tom

[VaultPurple]

Yes. Just like most every vaulter. His biggest problem seems that he has a good start to his vault and a good end, but he takes shortcuts to get there. He emphasizes getting inverted and letting the pole throw him versus actually swinging off the end of the pole.

[joebro391]

1) I fixed the link.

2) we haven't answered the question. I asked a bunch of general questions, but I guess the real question is. The point at which Gataullin Tucks...could he have continued to put energy into the vault if he had stayed long?

like we agreed, he certainly stays longer than most tuck&shooter's. He swings beyond the chord and THEN tucks and manages to still work ahead of the pole. So in essence, he overcomes most of the troubles of the average tuck&shooter. HOWEVER, had he stayed longer, could he have been on stiffer sticks and perhaps jumped 6.10 - 6.16?

Perhaps he wouldn't have gotten on bigger sticks but been able to get to an even better inverted position and therefore get a better push-off? (those last 4 inches/10cm to jump 6.10)

I don't want to argue about tucking vs swinging (cause MOST people, like Tom and VP will agree that swinging to inversion is most efficient), but rather ponder if at the elite level, that the swing beats even the best tuck&shooters, like Gataullin. Does that makes sense? haha -6P

[dj]

like we agreed, he certainly stays longer than most tuck shooters. He swings beyond the chord and THEN tucks and manages to still work ahead of the pole. So in essence, he overcomes most of the troubles of the average tuck&shooter. HOWEVER, had he stayed longer, could he have been on stiffer sticks and perhaps jumped 6.10 –

the question i want to pose is this...... was Gataullin's "technique" more "Bubka like" (extended swing) when he was on the George Moore Pacers?.... And/or did the 'subtle change' come about when he switched to the carbon/different design Pacers?

Personally that was my view at the time…….…

as Tom said, my thinking/experience has been that the action is more intuitive based on "need"… If the vaulter has to "stay down" to bend a stiffer or faster "unbending" pole… they will have to "shorten" the swing radius to get to vertical in time to catch up with the pole.

Reguardless of the "pole" bend qualities… all vaulters "tuck" (shorten the radius) to some degree .. this is where the "numbers" come into play… even Hartwig had different "characteristics" of his tuck from jump to jump and this comes from looking at (maybe 100's of jumps over the years) many of his vaults in person as well as on video…

The one thing I noticed was the "speed" of his tuck… and on his better vaults the hips were above the shoulders faster and finished at a higher point.. before the "shoot" to extension.

That taken by itself was not enough… when I noticed this.. I would go back and look at the speed, plant/takeoff, the timing and dynamic of the Swing..

I guess the bottom line is/was that the "tuck" was not the most prominent factor.. it was the speed of and the continuation of the swing.(extented as possible). from toe leaving the ground to max height that adds the force..

but if you change/delay the timing of the first half you have to "catch up" in the second half..

this was very evident in a comparison i did of Mack and Ryland jumping 19-4... same time from toe leaving runway.. to max height... but Mack was "flatback" (max bend) at .49 seconds-- Daniel at .59+ before his hips passed a "horizontal to the ground" position.

dj

[dj]

hey

i went on youtube and did a little search....

Gatallian 5.85 tuck? No tuck?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMGQyxZSZgI&NR=1

Gatallian 6.00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TpcL9SZ ... re=related


Looking at these jumps may contradict, somewhat, the points I have tried to make...
and maybe not..

the first jump 5.85? maybe more tuck??? But Pole bend seems symmetrical..

second jump… on carbon but symmetrical bend but maybe less tuck???

But... I do know these were the early carbon by Pacer and could be the GM pattern with a layer of carbon added.. which was how I believe they were made at first.. this was before?? fx-mystic etc.

Pretty good 6 meter jump though..

dj

[joebro391]

I believe that your statement about the trail leg staying straight for the entire duration of the vault is missing a key element: As you drive up and finish the takeoff, your trail leg should get a little bend at the knee, so that it can kick/snap forward like you are punting a football. Try punting with a locked-straight leg...not as fast and not nearly as powerful! Vaulters who tuck often are missing this kick-whip, and try to keep a locked leg all the way through the vault...making their swing not dynamic enough to cover the pole (there are exceptions, of course). An early bend in the pole (under takeoff) also makes swinging over it before it recoils difficult if not impossible.

Tom

I was thinking about this and must disagree. maybe A LITTLE, BARELY NOTICEABLE bend...but no more than that. If the trail-leg bends (even in prep for a powerful, soccer-style kick) the hips are much more likely to come forward early (get sucked under the pole). I practiced many days kicking a soccer ball with a completely straight leg and I would always notice (after going back in video) that I could only ever get on my biggest poles when I kept a straight trail-leg. I once asked a doctor about it and he said that the stretch you get in your hips (similar to the pre-stretch in a shoulder than a vaulter can use to "snap") is drastically more if you keep a straight trail-leg. Plus, you don't have to worry about letting your hips get sucked under, as they would with bending at the knee. Duplantis, Tarasov and Bubka kept theirs straight, btw.

I personally believe that bending at the trail-leg will promote tucking as the vaulter now can't swing nearly as powerfully due to the trail-leg not being 'back' and stretched, ready to unload.

-6P

[altius]

This was first posted in the beginners section and then again in anther topic in the advanced section. Dont have time to redo it as I leave for Europe tomorrow. But you are wrong JoeBro. Note that it is always dangerous to argue on the basis of your personal experience as and athlete even if you believe something works for you.

"Perhaps the following may help novice coaches who may be confused about this issue and may not understand its importance.

On page 245 of BTB2 – after discussing the importance of the free take off I wrote “While this concept (the free take off) helps coaches improve the take off for beginners and young athletes, it does not help more advanced athletes to exploit all the possibilities of the Petrov model.

So we must begin to think of the take off as a PHASE not an instant! A PHASE which begins when the heel of the take off lifts off the ground and ends when the toe of that foot begins its forward whip. This change will make it easier to understand other elements of the Petrov model. For this take off phase nt only allows the athlete to transfer the energy generated in the run up efficiently into the pole BUT it also creates the preconditions for a continuous flow of energy into the vaulter/pole system in the second phase and beyond! (NOTE THAT I WOULD NOW WRITE - WE SHOULD CONSIDER THINKING OF THE TAKE OFF ---)

"So the athlete should complete the take off –
1, With a complete extension of the take off leg and ankle. Finishing the take off in this way has two critical advantages –
- It allows the vaulter to amplify and direct all of the kinetic energy of the run up and upspringing take off into the pole with great efficiency.
- It leaves the take off leg perfectly positioned to initiate the second phase.”

Then on P247 I wrote, “These elements are critical because they allow the athlete to create the pre conditions for the athlete to maximise the speed and amplitude of the whip/swing of the body around the top hand in the second phase”.

So the key is always to FINISH the take off. As long as the athlete does not take off under, this action – if executed correctly - means that the heel of the take off leg will tend to flick up to a greater (Tim Mack) or lesser (Feovanova) degree as the leg flexes at the knee. That flexion is important because it allows the athlete to initiate the whip swing naturally and easily with a short lever - the lower leg - being moved by very powerful muscles – something not possible if the take off leg stays completely straight.

Because of this it will sometimes appear to untrained observers that the athlete is deliberately delaying the forward swing after the foot leaves the ground.

Finally what is interesting about this topic is that many of the stiff pole vaulters stated that they deliberately tried to delay the swing! Why the difference? Could lead to another discussion!"

[joebro391]

Altius: Do you consider the flexion in Greg's first jump in this video to be "enough", or is it still too little?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN81WrPYHz8

-6P

[tsorenson]

6P,
I am not altius, but I think he and I agree about this particular aspect of technique. I feel that this (Greg D.'s first jump) is exactly the type of flexion that is desired to accelerate the swing. The flexion increases the "snap" and the leg still locks out to its maximum length through the chord of the pole, which is where it matters! Those who try to keep it long without the flexion end up having to tuck because their swing is too slow. I believe that most of the guys you listed actually do snap the knee into the swing to varying degrees...Tarasov the least.

The hips still stay back just fine with this degree of flexion, and Tim Mack demonstrated that an incredibly fast swing can be generated with a relatively large flexion at the knee. Try it on your rope/rings/highbar swing drills, and on your small poles/short run, and see whether it helps you get the swing moving faster or not?

Tom

[joebro391]

alright, well if you guys are talking about the flexion that Duplantis is doing and only as much as he's doing, i'm okay with that. I'm gonna test this out on a rope and/or high-bar and a soccer ball once I get back to school. But both of you cited Tim Mack and in my opinion, he's an elite vaulter who's hips got sucked under because he broke so much at the knee of his trail-leg. Check out his 5.90 jump on stabhochsprung http://www.stabhochsprung.com/ and it's pretty clear...So if you like duplantis we're good, but i'd never encourage anyone to break like Mack does. It just doesn't outweigh the negatives of the hips coming through... -6P

[AVC Coach]

So if you like duplantis we're good, but i'd never encourage anyone to break like Mack does.

Come on joebro! Do you really mean that? Tim Mack's an Olympic gold medalist and has been higher than 6m and your way is better? Do all the "self" testing you want but what Altius and Tom are telling you makes perfect sense. If anything, finishing the take-off keeps your hips from being sucked under.