Fourteen Year Gap in Modern PV Technique in the 1970s?

[KirkB]

Therefore I suggest that Isinbayeva, on this occasion succeeded by being able to compensate for her technical error in the takeoff because she was more proficient physically and in her technique in the pole support and aerial phase of the vault.

I totally buy that Isi could set the WR with suboptimal technique (an under takeoff). She was that good.

I hope no one concludes from her WR with an under takeoff that therefore an under takeoff is OPTIMAL, and is the reason why she set the WR!

Interesting data. If you disregard the 2nd decimal place on the length of each step, it's significant that the last step is shorter.

This is what I refer to as setting up "good body posture on takeoff". Otherwise, you're leaning back a bit, and don't get quite as good of a stretch or swing.

Also, had her steps been "on", she would have had even BETTER body posture on takeoff.

Kirk

[PVstudent]

Below I share some further data for the vaulter succeeding in clearing 5.70m in that same competition.
Whilst the vaulter is not clearing the arbitrarily decided criterion height of greater than 5.80m his person lifetime best is 5.90m.
The data give some insight into the realities facing elite pole vaulters and the technical model underpinning their performance.

I accept Kirks comment re the step length data reporting but point out the measurement system had an Accuracy of +/- 1millimetre. Reporting the data to +/- 1 cm precision would be adequate I agree. I worked with the raw data and readers will see the predictability of the line of best fit to the data could match the data to 4.2 %.

But back to the matter in hand, the chart demonstrates the problem for this vaulter in structuring his run up to hit the optimum foot strike position relative to the rear wall of the planting box.

These are matters of technical proficiency, laws of mechanics, body anatomy and physiologic functioning and psychological capacity in motor skill and control under pressure of competition. It has precious little to do with the personal idiosyncrasies in movement style of the performer.

Acceleration and takeoff issue 10.jpg (92.04 KiB) Viewed 10770 times

The data confirm that this vaulter on this occasion and on this vault made approach and plant mistakes and still succeeded in clearing the bar. At face value it confirms the assertion that it is possible to clear quite substantial bar heights by being under.

I contend that the data actually show the errors that need correction by this particular vaulter before he takes off under conditions that OPTIMIZE his performance in the pole support and aerial phases in the vault.

Simply put if you take off wrongly the rest of the vault is spent correcting for the initial error and therefore logically must be sub-optimal.

Another take-off error correction in the real world is shown in the take-off by Tim when he first came to me for coaching. The second video shows that some progress had been made 3 months later and involved two by 2 hour vaulting sessions per week.

http://youtu.be/9YK-7dZksCM

http://youtu.be/5c6LAvjAE2M

The model that appealed most to Tim was that used by Maxim Tarassov.

http://youtu.be/MHGFpk9fx7U

I worked on the fundamental premise of the Petrov-Bubka model namely that a "Free-Takeoff" was the Gold Standard to be achieved. Tim did move in this direction as the evidence shows.

[KirkB]

I accept Kirks comment re the step length data reporting but point out the measurement system had an Accuracy of +/- 1millimetre. Reporting the data to +/- 1 cm precision would be adequate I agree.

Yes, and I appreciate the meticulousness needed to ensure the accuracy of this data. Nice! I wasn't suggesting that the measurements were inaccurate. Rather, I was suggesting that vaulters will inadvertently have slight differences in their runup - to the 2nd decimal place.

I tend to think that even the most smoothest-appearing runup will still have differences in stride length in the 2nd decimal place. However, at the first decimal place, that cannot be ignored as random - that clearly indicates vaulter intent.

I contend that the data actually show the errors that need correction by this particular vaulter before he takes off under conditions that OPTIMIZE his performance in the pole support and aerial phases in the vault.

Simply put if you take off wrongly the rest of the vault is spent correcting for the initial error and therefore logically must be sub-optimal.

Kirk

[PVstudent]

Correction of error of fact in the Video below

http://youtu.be/HyHHN-XvtvI

Rob Chisholm who originally posted a short video, included in Pole Vault Technique Before Bubka Part Two, has pointed out that Wojceich Buciarski (please excuse my spelling of the vaulter's Christian name if incorrect!) is in fact the vaulter depicted in the images of the 1979 film that Rob posted. John Gormley included Rob's video in Pole Vault Technique Before Bubka Part Two as Tadeusz Slusarski. Both these vaulters visited Australia in 1979 and vaulted in Melbourne where the original filming took place.

Thank you Rob for pointing this out because the film footage is priceless. Your film shows an excellent example of the Polish School of Vaulting of the late 1970's / Early 1980's and clearly showed that the concept underlying Vitali Petrov's "Free Take-off" was widely understood not only in Poland but by the Eastern Block Vaulters of that period. It also heralded, for those with the understanding and wisdom to see, the technical revolution in pole vaulting technique of the Petrov / Bubka era of the 1980' and 1990's.

It also is evidence that coaches and athletes of that era, especially in Eastern Europe had abandoned the notion of the power take-off with wide grip and deliberate bending of the pole. The upspringing and further out take-offs allowed, in my view, these vaulters to be able to employ greater grip length along the pole, exploit the higher pole carry angle and use of higher approach speeds into the pole plant. It indirectly is evidence that their research had revealed that jumping upwards and forwards was more efficient when combined with continuous forceful leg swings immediately after take-off. They had discerned that pole bend could be initiated, sustained and greater strain energy stored for longer by emphasizing increased centripetal force creation by explosive fast swing rather than the vaulter force bending the pole particularly by the arm actions at and immediately after take-off.

Thank you to Rob Chisholm for the priceless gem of historical insight into the evolution of modern pole vaulting technique.

[KirkB]

http://youtu.be/HyHHN-XvtvI ... It also is evidence that coaches and athletes of that era, especially in Eastern Europe had abandoned the notion of the power take-off with wide grip and deliberate bending of the pole. The upspringing and further out take-offs allowed, in my view, these vaulters to be able to employ greater grip length along the pole, exploit the higher pole carry angle and use of higher approach speeds into the pole plant. It indirectly is evidence that their research had revealed that jumping upwards and forwards was more efficient when combined with continuous forceful leg swings immediately after take-off. They had discerned that pole bend could be initiated, sustained and greater strain energy stored for longer by emphasizing increased centripetal force creation by explosive fast swing rather than the vaulter force bending the pole particularly by the arm actions at and immediately after take-off.

Thank you to Rob Chisholm for the priceless gem of historical insight into the evolution of modern pole vaulting technique.

The bolding emphasis is mine.

Thanks to both Rob and John Gormley for bringing this rare footage to our attention!

I notice that it was only published a couple weeks ago! John has 24 really great PV vids on his youtube site here: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrGorms43/videos

Check them all out! Great footage!

I was especially thrilled to see Jon Vaughn's vid in the latter of Part One. I modeled my SWING technique (not my PLANT or TAKEOFF technique) more after his than any other vaulter's. It's been 41 years since I saw videos of him vaulting, so I'm thrilled to see this!

Notice that he doesn't press at all with his bottom arm - not on takeoff, and not after takeoff. He relies entirely on swinging from his top hand. And notice that he doesn't row - it's all in his swing! Smooth!

I did locate the source of Rob's medley of historic PV vids here: http://www.historicfilms.com/search/?type=all&q=jon+vaughn#p1t1385i0o667, and at 1:19:00 I was able to view Vaughn's vault frame by frame. It's on the vid called "1966-1968 Jumping Events ...".

I have determined that he didn't have a free takeoff (unlike myself) and he didn't JUMP off the ground like I did. However, the continuous motion of his swing and inversion was fairly similar to my own.

You can also see some world-class vaulters with late and low plants - quite sub-optimal, but nevertheless no one else was any better, so they were still breaking WRs.

Kirk

[PVstudent]

Just to avoid any further confusion Rob Chisholm's video of Wojciech Jan Buciarski jumping in Melbourne Australia is located at this U-tube address:

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

Thanks again Rob.

[PVstudent]

In regard to the pre-jump and free-take off issue I will respond in due course.

Just so readers will know the evidence will illuminate the problem why, I believe, many coaches and scientists have been unable to resolve free take-offs by scrutinizing video/film taken at 25-30 frames per second.

Experienced coaches in practice have the advantage of having both visual and auditory cues in the real world that enable them to clearly distinguish between free and pre-jumps.

Relying on just the normal recording rates in video/film without being synchronized to what the pole and take-off toe tips are doing is invalidated because of the subtleties involved.

To resolve the subtleties higher filming rates and other means of accurately recording pole tip rear wall contact and toe-tip loss of ground contact are required.

This latter methodology is what has been used and I hope will further advance understanding the physics of the take-off.

However I will not do this until David Bussabarger has had the opportunity to respond to my requests in his thread.

[dj]

From your chart titled: MAIL VAULTER IN COMPERTITION
I took this "extrapolation "

The "last four step" speed is an indication of a 17-6/5.30m to 18'/5.50m vault….

The six step "MID" of 16.889m/55' is an indication of potentially a 5.75/5.90 vault with a 5m grip!!!

Butt.. running an average of 8.80MPS with the last three steps getting slower-8.9 to 8.8 to 8.7 is another indicator of max 5.30m to 5.45m with a grip of 4.80ish.

The "numbers" show OVER striding which causes a huge "slow-down" into the takeoff.

This all adds up to what we are seeing in today's vaulters… they (coaches and athlete)keep moving the run back trying to get an out takeoff (free)and because of over striding the result is always "under"…. They move more, or their coach continues to move them more with the end result always slowing, reaching and poor technique.

You CAN NOT PROFORM CORRECT TECHNIQUE WHILE OVER STRIDING>>>>>>>>> Because of over striding and slowing down the athlete cannot safely or effectively move the pole to vertical so the "stay down and force bend" causing them to have to tuck..

Does anyone else but me see that the problem is the "run" … and not that we refuse or cannot do the "Bubka" technique.

You have to have the same stride length and stride frequency proportions as Bubka.. to jump like Bubka.. and I said "proportions". If the run is correct, the posture should be more correct, if you are not over striding the pole drop has a chance of being correct.. etc.. etc..

dj