MODEL TECHNIQUE ANALYSIS
SHEET FOR THE VERTICAL
JUMPS PART III: THE POLE
VAULT
By Günter Tidow
In NSA issue 3/89, Günter Tidow and Ekhart Hutt presented the model technique
analysis sheets for the Long Jump and the Triple Jump, respectively. The series
continues here with the analysis sheet for the Pole Vault.
Translated from the original German by Jurgen Schiffer. Re-printed with
permission from New Studies in Athletics
3.1 Introduction
The pole vault is the only athletic event in which the performance measured is
produced with the aid of an implement. Correspondingly, performance
development in this event is dependent on the development of vaulting poles.
Since the middle of the last century, various materials have been used for pole
construction: wood, iron, bamboo, aluminium, steel, fibreglass and, most
recently, carbon fibre. The rules are, of course, open to further development, with
the only requirement being that all competitors be given enough time to test new
poles before their use in international championships. If one considers that the
senseofal lrecor dli
stsdependsont heconst ancyofcondi tions ,t
he‘ li
berality
’
demonstrated by the IAAF with regard to this event is remarkable. In any case it
was logically consistent to start the lists again in 1961 when fiberglass poles
were officially accepted by the IAAF. Until then it had been quite normal that in
the same competition poles of different materials were used. This abruptly
changed when some athletes were able to utilize the elastic characteristics
hidden in synthetic poles that had already been used by some athletes from 1956
onward.
These advantages can only be utilized if the athlete employs a special movement
techni que.Af l
ex iblepolecanonl y“ refund”energy that has been previously
“i
nv est ed”init.Inf act,int hecaseofwor l
dclasspol ev ault
er s,thisener gy
bal anc eisposi ti
v e.Inot herwor ds,t heathlet
e’smec hanicalwor kont hepol e
after the take-off creates extra lift (cf. GROS/TERAUDS 1983). The achievement
of this places ext r
emel ycompl exdemandsonbot ht heat hlete’s physical-motor
and technical-motor abilities, making pole vaulting a combination of athletic and
gymnastic elements.
In the following, an attempt is made to present the phase structure of modern
vaulting technique and to explain important elements of the phases. The
obj ecti
v ei stoc onstruc ta“modelofpol ev ault
ingt echnique”( cf.TIDOW 1981) .
To begin with, a principal factor to consider is that vaulting rhythm changes in a
direct relationship to grip height. The vaulting rhythm directly influences the
execution and duration of the movement phases, as well as the total duration of
the vault (cf. JAGODIN et al. 1979). Therefore, any model must be limited in its
applicability in accordance with this time constraint. In the case of the model
presented here, for performances between 5.50 and 6m, 1,300 ms are required
from take-off to bar clearance. An impression of the total process of such a vault
is given in Figure 1. In order to demonstrate the bending behavior and avoid the
overlapping of certain figures, the individual pictures have been slightly stretched
out horizontally.
3.2 The Run-up
The pole vault run-up is usually slightly shorter than the run-up in the long jump,
consisting of 18 to 20 steps. Performance in the pole vault is influenced by the
heightoft heat hl
ete’sgr i
pont hepole,t hef irmnessoft hepoleandr un-up
velocity. In the case of world class vaulters, the pole firmness is 20 kg higher
than body weight and the grip height is 5.20m. Such a high grip height decreases
the angle of the pole at plant, thereby increasing the angular rotation required for
the pole to reach vertical. Therefore, maximum velocity on the run-up is
essential. Measurements of the run-up velocity during the penultimate stride of
world class vaulters have shown velocities between 9.3 and 9.7 m/s (cf.
GROS/TERAUDS 1983; JAGODIN 1982; MANSVETOV 1983).
In some vaulters, the difference between maximal sprint performance and pole
vault run-up velocity is less than 1 m/s (cf. MALJUTIN 1979). This is remarkable
since the vaulter, carrying a 5m pole weighing 4 to 5kg, must perform a
controlled plant and hit the optimal take-off point precisely. Such a small
differential in run-up velocity is the result of two factors:
1. Target-oriented training - e.g. sprints with weighted poles, filled with
concrete, lead balls or other material.
2. A“
speci
al”pol
ecar
ry.
Experiments in the USSR (see MALJUTIN 1979; MALJUTIN 1974) prove that the
type of pole carry has a great influence on the indi vidualat hl ete’smax i
malr un-up
velocity. The special pole carry is characterized by a vertical alignment of the
longitudinal axis of the pole which is the result of significantly raising the tip. A
considerably higher velocity can be achieved with this carry than with the pole
carried horizontally. Since the pole must be lowered for the plant and any abrupt,
hasty changes of pole position would have a negative influence on the velocity
curve, PETROV has made a virtue out of a necessity (cf. PETROV 1985). He
recommends starting with the pole at an angle of 70° (see Figure 2) and then to
lowering it smoothly as the run-up progresses.
The“ pull
i
ngf orce”whi cht hepol eex ert sont hev aul t
erdur i
ngt hepr ocessof
lowering the pole in the run-up is caused by the centre of gravity (CG) of the pole
moving further and further away from the vaulter. This can be positively
integrated into the acceleration action if the velocity of pole lowering is
coordinated with the run-up velocity. It is especially important that the vaulter
remains erect, particularly during the second section of the run-up by keeping his
hips high, with the emphasis on stride frequency (see Figure 3).
In this way, the de-st abili
zingi nf
luenceoft helower edpoleont hev ault
er ’
sl ateral
axis, particularly during the flight phases, can be reduced. Furthermore, sprinting
wi t
ht heemphasi sons tri
def requencypr oduc esa“ high-l
ev el
”mov ementoft he
CG, parallel to the ground with minimal deviations. This contributes to a run-up
free of disturbances andpr epar esf ora“hi ghplant”.
Ifonef ol
lowsPETROV’ spr eviouslyment ioned opinion, the run-up leads directly
to the take-off. The dynamic process of pole lowering, which must be performed
during the run-up, is only finished when the bottom end of the pole touches the
metal plate of the vaulting box. For didactical reasons, however, the plant
preparation and the plant itself will be discussed separately, before dealing with
the take-off.
3.3 Plant preparation and plant
The debate on when the vaulter should initiate preparation for the pole plant
during the last two or last three run-up steps continues. From the point of view of
movement flow, there are some reasons for initiating the plant preparation during
the third to last step (see Figure 4).
During the penultimate stride, the tip of the pole can be lowered further from the
horizontal position, and its end can be moved to the front and above. In the case
of the two-step plant rhythm (see Figure 5) this pole movement takes place
during the penultimate step. The only difference, therefore, is the horizontal
shifting of the pole to the front during the third to last step for the three-step
variant.
Thiss hifttot hefront ,howev er
,l eadst oamov i
ngawayoft hepol e’
sCG f rom the
vaulter’sCG ex actlyatt hemomentwhent hepol eexer t
smax imal“ l
oad”because
ofit’
shor i
zont alali
gnment .Accor dingt ocur r
entknowl edge,noneoft hese
variants can be regarded as optimal. If, however, one observes the movement
behavior oft hewor ld’sbestpol ev aulters, it becomes obvious that the two-step-
variant occurs significantly more often. This is possibly connected with the
increasingly longer poles and higher grips with a relatively close hand-spread. In
other words, in the case of a grip height of 5.15m and a hand-spread of at least
50 cm, the energy expenditure needed for the stabilization of the complete
system dur ingt he“ three-step-v ari
ant ”issohi ghthatit’
sor i
ginaladv ant age,the
smooth bringing forward of the pole, is negated.
As already mentionedbr i
ef l
y ,t
hev aulter
’sposi ti
ondur i
ngt hepenul ti
mat econt act
(support on the swing leg) should be congruent, regardless of the planting rhythm
chosen. The top arm is bent and has lifted the end of the pole to approximately
head height. The lower arm is horizontally extended, supporting the pole and
controlling its lowering velocity during the target directed plant. The trunk is
straight or is inclined slightly backwards. In this phase, most vaulters exhibit a flat
touchdown of the respective foot, with the support leg being slightly bent, so that
ther esul tisa“ high”squatposi t
ionont heswi ngl eg( seeFi gur es4.3and5.2).
3.4 Plant and take-off
To minimize energy transmission losses, pole plant and take-off must form a
movement unit. This goal can only be achieved if the point of takeoff,
geometrically determined by the height of the grip, is hit as exactly as possible.
This means that the take-off foot must be perpendicularly under the top hand,
and the vaulter must completely utilize his maximally extended reach (see Figure
6).
During the take-off step, which is performed fast and actively with the ball of the
leading foot, the top end of the pole is pushed vertically upwards by the top arm.
Since the hand-spread is comparatively close (50 to 60 cm), the extended lower
arm participates in this upward movement of target-directed positioning of the
pole.
t
When the front support, wiht
hehi psr emai ni
ng“ high”,hasbeenac hi
eved,bot
h
arms are extended and tensed (see Figure 7, phases 7.4 and 7.5).
Whent het opar m andt runkar everticallyali
gned,t hevaul t
er’sCG mov espas t
the take-off point (see phase 7.5). The fact that the pole is not yet moved to the
side indicates that the tip of the pole has not yet touched the back of the vaulting
box. Thi si sadescr ipti
onoft he“freet ak e-of
f”postulat
edbyPETROV( cf.
PETROV 1985). Contrary to steel pole technique, as well as the conception of
many fibreglass vaulters, the pole and the vaulter maintain this maximum velocity
until the tip of the pole hits the back of the box.
If the take-off is performed towards the front and upwards, with the vaulter
extending upwards (in order to maximize the plant angle) and actively moving
towards the front ( i
nor dertoinduc e“ penet r
at i
on”),t
her esultisa“ t
ake-of ffi
gur
e”
that in modern pole vault is largely standardized (see Figure 8, phase 8.3).
If one compares phases 8.1 and 8.4, it becomes obvious that the almost vertical
alignment between the top hand and the take-off foot is maintained, although the
vaulter’sCG isconsiderably shifted towards the box.
This forward movement of the trunk is only possible because the passive
elasticity of the pre-tensed arm and shoulder muscles allow a comparatively
“smoot h”compensat orymov ement .Thet runki sr i
gid,andt heshoulder axis is
frontally aligned as exactly as possible, with the right shoulder joint and the left
elbowj oint“ compul sori
lyfl
ex ed”tothet ake-off direction. Correspondingly, the
head of the vaulter pushing towards the front is shifted from its initial position
below the top arm (phase 8.1) towards the lower hand (phase 8.4 =“ penet rati
on
post ure” ).Dur ingthi sprocess,thehips do not yet swing forward.
Despite most vaulters exhibiting an almost extended lower arm and locked elbow
edoesnott
joint, the athlet akeof f“agai
nst
”thepol elockedi nt hebox ,but,more
or less together with it. From this movement behavior at least two advantages
can be derived:
1. The transmission losses are reduced to a minimum.
2. The relatively narrow grip required for this movement is an optimal
prerequisite to the efficient use of both arms in the following pull, turn and
push phase.
A short noise produced by the pad at the tip of the pole when it hits the back of
t
heboxal way ssignalsthe“ fr
eet ake-of f
”wheni tdoesnot precede the take-off.
This can be heard immediately after the contact of the take-off foot.
It should also be mentioned that the take-off posture in the pole vault, in
comparison with the long jump, is characterized by a lower knee lift and a
significantly more acute knee joint angle of the swing leg. This is a sign of the
athlete striving for a primarily horizontal penetration with a vertically lifted CG.
The widely expressed opinion that the take-of fshouldbedi r
ect ed“ upwar ds”
cannot be recommended.The“ tip-take-of
f”str
ivenforbysomev aulters,
characterized by a push-of fwhi chi ssi mil
artoahur dler’s,i
.e.from t hebal lofthe
foot without touching the ground with the heel, has a different objective. As far as
physics is concerned, the vaulter should try to maximize the penetration impulse
during the take-off. By doing so he succeeds in converting kinetic to potential
ener gyandt herebyshor teni
ngt he“ trueaxisofthepol e”( cf
.GANSLEN1968) ,
that is, the radius within which the whole system rotates. So, at the moment of
maximum bend, the length of the chord of the pole curve is only 70% of the
resting length of the pole (cf. ALLMANN 1983; GEESE & WOZNICK 1980).
This short-time, with the dynamic shortening of the pole and corresponding
“st
ored”r ev ersi
blef or ceisthepr i
mar yr easonf ort hefactt hatthegr i
phei ghtsof
t
oday ’
stoppol ev aul ter
shav e been increased by more than in since the steel
pole era (see HOUVION 1982).
On the other hand, the penetration angle, which should be as large as possible,
is achieved through the extension of the whole body and a high lift of the top arm
and shoulder. Provided there is enough kinetic energy in relation to the grip
height chosen and that the takeoff point has been hit exactly, the system
“automat icall
y”st raightens.During this movement, the pole, not the take-off leg,
serves as a lever. If one considers this aspect, the question arises whether the
movement affinity between long jump and pole vault, postulated on the basis of
almost identical take-off angles, really exists.
Strictl
yspeaki ng,ev ent het er m“ fl
yof f”angl ei smi sleadingwi thr egar dtot he
pole vault, since, even after the take-off, the vaulter has contact with the ground
via the pole, which is by no means without effects. The kinetic and mechanical
cont ri
buti
onst ot he“ product ”swing-off angle must be interpreted differently from
those determining the fly-off angle in the long jump.
An upward take-off impulse would be quickly overcome by gravitational forces
coming into play, disturbing optimal bending dynamics. In the case of a primarily
vertical push-off, a smooth transition to the long pendulum would be impossible.
So nobody doing a long swing on the rings or rope would hit on the idea of
springing off from the ground. Thus, the take-off in the pole vault should not, as is
commonpr acti
ce,bec al
led“ similart ot helongj ump’ ’
,but‘ ‘simil
art othet ri
pl e
j
ump”atbest( cf.KRESI NSKI1979) .Ev ent hi
scompar i
soni sres tr
ict
edbyt he
validity of such analogies.
3.5 Pole penetration and upswing
The penetration phase, which is introduced with the take-off, continues until the
“penet rationener gy”r esultingf r
om thet ake-off impulse is virtually used up (cf.
CZINGON/KRUBER 1981). The trunk is rigid and frontal, with over-extension of
the hip joint on the side of the extended take-off leg. Immediately after the take-
off,t
hev aulterbehav esr at herpassivelyandpr eserv eshis“ penet rati
onposi ti
on”
(see Figure 9) in order to lett he“ t
ake-offimpul se”wor k.
The upswing commences only when the trunk is again aligned with the top arm,
or the over-extension in the shoulder joint, which must exhibit a high passive
flexibility, is released again. The upswing leads from the long hang position of the
“pendul um t ransiti
on”(seephas e9.4andFigure 10) via a roll upwards and
backwards “ rock-back”to the “st
retchedi nv er
tedhang” ,which is also called the
“I-position” .Since the extended take-off leg has been held back deliberately, it
can now take on its swinging function, starting from an optimal pre-stretch of the
muscles. In doing so, it remains extended. The transition from the long to the
shor tpendul um takesplacewhen,dur i
ngt helongswi ng,t hev aulter’
shor i
zont al
axis moves past the chord parallel with the pole curvature (see Figure 10).
Thepol e“ r
eact s”t othisupwar d,rolli
ngmov ement ,whichpr i
mar i
lyrotates about
the shoulder axis, by bending even further. Maximal bending is achieved when
thev aul
ter’
sbacki sal mostpar all
elwitht hegr ound.Accor dingt oKRESI NSKI,
maximal bendinghasbeenachi evedwhent hev ault
er’str
unki spar al
lelwiththe
upper end of the pole above him.
When the maximum pole bend phase has been achieved, the vaulter is
approaching the “ L-positi
on’Thi spositionsi gnal st hatthe“ processofchar gi
ng”
the pole with an impulse effect, which is primarily directed horizontally and
diagonally toward the landing cushion, is finished (see Figure 11).
The subsequent upward movement must be performed synchronously with the
straightening of the pole.
The skill of the pole vaulter relies on his ability to let the rolling upward action
(see Figure 11.1 to 11.3), which is performed with a great moment of mass
inertia and an extended or extending (lower) arm, translate to a backward roll by
flexing his hips and finishing the following upward movement in such a way that
his pelvis comes close to his top hand. This is achieved through an active
extension of the hips and trunk, the top arm remaining extended (see Figure 12).
These actions have a mechanical effect on the pole. After having achieved the
“L-position” ,thepoledoesnotbendf urther because in this phase its
straighteni ngf orceisalr
eadygr eatert hant he“ pressur e”ex ert
edoni tbyt
he
athlete rolling backward and thrusting his hips and legs upward. Therefore, the
“gymnast icsont hepole”hav eonl yadel ayingi nf
luenceont hepole’ s
straightening.
Ift
heex tensionoft hev aulter’swhol ebodyi nthei nvertedhangi sachi eved
before the straightening of the pole, the remaining straightening energy or the
resulting catapult acceleration can be integrated into the final pull, turn and push
action (see Figure 13 on the following page). Two prerequisites of this are,
however, that the vaulter tenses after having achieved the inverted hang, and
that his trunk is still in front of the pole. If these two are not fulfilled, the vertical
impul seoft hepol ecannot“ hit”t
hev aul teropt i
mal l
y.Thef actt hatt hel owerar m
is closely fixed to the pole contributes to the controlled execution of this action of
“tensing”( vertically), which even includes the ankles.
When the stretched, inverted hang position has been achieved, the upswing on
thepol ei sal mostfinished.Thev aul
ter’sshoul derax i
s,andhi sCG,shoul d
continue to rise, his top arm remaining extended. In doingso,t hev aul t
er ’
slower
arm, which is close to the inner side of the pole, flexes at the elbow joint and
wrist until the shoulder on the same side reaches the lower hand. In other words,
the“ I- posi t
ion”ispr eservedunt i
lthi
sv ert
icalshi ftofthev aulter has taken place
(compare Figure 12 with Figure 13).
3.6 Pull, turn and push and bar clearance
Itthev aul t
erhasmanagedt or eacht hec ont inuous,quasi“ li
fted”“ I- posit
ion”
synchronously with the recoil of the pole, but before its complete straightening,
the pull-support phase, which must be performed against gravity, is considerably
easier. Only at this point is the top arm is flexed. In doing so, the athlete should
imagine pushing the pole deep into the vaulting box with both arms. The
asymmetry oft hebody ’s“ suspensi on”ont hehands’st aggered grasp of the pole
causes the vaulter to rotate about hi sbody ’
sl ongitudinalax i
s.
This rotational movement is initiated from a 90° position of the vaulter to the pole.
This position has already been assumedi nthe“ lif
ted”i nver tedhangphas e( see
Figure 13). The rotational movement is first effected in the leg-hips section, which
i
sst i
ll“ri
gi d”,andthent het r
unk.
During this rotational movement, the right shoulder is brought close to the pole,
primarily through the pulling action of the top arm, so that the flexed top arm can
give a residual impulse to the upwardly accelerated body by performing a
downwardly pushing extension on the pole. This push-off movement with a rising
trunk results in first the lower and the top hand releasing the pole (see Figure
13).
The bar clearance phase is optimal if, in the culminating point of the trajectory
immediately above the crossbar, the vaulter succeeds in creating a horse-shoe
shaped whole-bodyar chora“ V”bythe fast flexion of his hips and lowering of his
head (chin to chest) (see Figure 14).
At the moment of bar clearance there is, simultaneously, mass on both sides of
the crossbar. The posture eventually chosen depends, among other things, on
’
the vaultersac tualpositi
oni nrelationt ot hecr ossbarort heuprights.
Sincet her es tori
ngener gyandpar t
icularlythe“ dischar gedi rection”cannotbe
standardized, even in the case of a constant grip (because the discharge
directioni st he“ response”t ot heat hlete’svar iablemov ementbehavior), the
optimal adjustment of the uprights remains a risk. Consequently, in the case of a
sufficiently high vault where the high point of the trajectory of the CG is not
verticallyabov et hecr ossbar ,theat hlete’
sski l
ldetermines clearance of the bar.
A slightly scissoring leg movement during the push-off phase, with the right leg
being moved slightly towards the front and the left leg being correspondingly
moved backwards, seems to be quite sensible. With such a movement during the
diagonal l
yupwar ddi rected“ fl
ighttowar dt hecr ossbar ’
’,t
hev aul tercanpossibl
y
succeed in removing his left leg, which is close to the bar, out of danger. A
stronger scissoring movement should, however, be avoided because it would
lead to an increase in the mass inertia moment. This would make the rotation of
thebody ’
sl ongitudinal axisdur i
ngt het urn and reverse more difficult.
Furthermore, the rotation impulse about the lateral axis, which often varies
although it should be kept as low as possible, might influence the type of bar
clearance.Barcl earancei nthef or
m ofa“ V”pr esumabl yrequi r
esahi gher
impulse about the lateral axis than the U-shape.
The fact that generally a 60 cm stagger of the uprights is chosen proves that,
with regard to the flight toward the crossbar, the pole vault is not finished by an
exactly vertical movement, but that it contains a diagonal component, which is,
however, extremely steeply directed upward.
Through working on the pole, the optimal utilization of t
he“
recoi
lenergy ”ofthe
poleandski ll
ful positi
oningdur i
ngthebarcl ear ancephase,t oday’
stoppol e
vaulters have managed to increase the difference between grip height and the
height cleared to up to 1.20m.
3.7 Summary
The phases presented are integrated into the POLE VAULT ANALYSIS SHEET.
In order to save space, the pole has not been shown in full. The reader,
therefore, is recommended to go back to Figure 1 (or the respective section) in
onor“
order to clearly identify or evaluate the respective positi fi
gur e”(i
ncluding
the corresponding degree of pole bend) within the whole movement sequence. It
might then be possible to evaluate the movement partially — not only as far as
space is concerned, but also with regard to time.
Inthe“reference”column, important points of observation of the respective
movement phases, as phase elements, are identified. The corresponding
requi
rement sofmov ementchar acteri
st i
csar epr esentedi nt he“ cr
it
erion”
column.Forr easonsofspace,t he“ evaluat i
on”col umnhas only been indicated.
A“ +“
,“o”or“ -“symbolcanbef i
l
ledin,i ndicati
ngt hatthecor r espondingcriter
ion
ofthemov ementobser v
edi s“ corr
ect”( or‘‘f
ulf
il
led” )
,“part
iallycor r
ect”(or
“part
ial
l
yf ulf
il
led”)or“notcor r
ec t”(or“notf ulf
il
l
ed” ).Using video systems, such a
procedure can be valuable for evaluating phases or phase elements.
REFERENCES
ALLMANN, N.: Zur Sruktur und Biomechanik des Stabhochsprungs. DLV-
Lehrbeilage 76 (LAMagazin) 1983: 21-24 and 77 (1983) 21/24
CZINGON, H./ KRUBER, D.: Entwicklung eines Analyebogens
“
Stabhochspr
ung” .LdLa 56 31(1981)1279/1282 and 32: 1309-1313/1316
CZINGON, H.: Besprechung des Weltrekordsprungs von Sergei Bubka ueber
5,85m. LdLa 14 (1984) 805-811
GANSLEN, R.V.: Die Mechanik des Stabhochsprungs. Berlin 1968 (English
version: Mechanics of the Pole Vault. St. Louis, Missouri 1979)
GEESE, R./WOZNICK, T.: Stabhochsprung. LdLa 46/47 (1980 1465-1472 and
48 (1980) 1499-1502
GROS, H.J./TERAUDS, J.: Moeglichkeiten der Interpretation biomechanischer
Kennlinien im Stabhochsprung. KdKa 18 (1983) 755-758
HOUVION, M.: The preparation of the Vaulter for Advanced Levels - 6 Meters in
2000. Track & Field Q. Rev. 4 (1982) 38-41.
JAGODIN, V. ed al.: Die Etappen der Technikschulung im Stabhochsprung. LdLa
23 (199) 726 and 24 (1979) 755/758
JAGODIN, V.: Stabhochsprung - Tendenzen und Moeglichkeiten. DLV-
Lehrbeilage 2 1982) 25-28 and 28 (1982) 21-24
KRESINSKI, A.: Meine Ansichten zum Stabhochsprung. LdLa 13/14 (1979)
461/464-468 / 15 (1979) 495/498 / 16 (1979) 527/530
MALJUTIN, A.A.: Der Lauf mit dem Stabhochsprungstab. LdLa 39 (1979) 1238
MANSVETOV, V.: Over the Bar with Sergei Bubka. Legkaya Atletika 12 (1983)
16-17
PETROV, V.: Stabhochsprungtechnik. KLV-Lehrbeilage 127 (1985) 15-22
TIDOW. G.: Modell zur Technikschulung und Beweeungsbeurteilung in der
Leichtathletik. Leistungssport 4 (1981) 264-277
TIDOW. G.: Zur bildlichen Darstellung der Antaco germerhodik im
Stabhochsprung. LdLa 40 1989) 143-1440 and 41(1989)1469-1470
