Home-page-linked article about the slow-down in progress in the event and the possibility that only new pole technology can revive it.
Some observations:
1. Bubka 'ruined' the event (and, to some degree, Isi has done the same) because he was too fast, too strong, and too technically proficient. He 'Beamon'ed . . . 'Bolt'ed the event. 2. The pegs are now shorter. 3. The crossbar is semi-circular, so it now rolls off if nudged. 4. The event is expensive (and 'dangerous'), so fewer opportunities to learn the event are available. 5. 'Daring' athletes have many other new (extreme) sports to pursue.
I think that while most new technology is constantly being developed, there are limits to how much energy a vaulter can store in the pole and how efficiently it can be returned. The carbon-weave pole is almost there. Yes, the pole can get lighter and slimmer, but that's not really a sticking point now. Have we really reached a limiting plateau? Athletes WILL get faster and stronger, so yes, the record will eventually be broken, but I sure don't see 21' in a long, long time.
Marlow wrote:Home-page-linked article about the slow-down in progress in the event and the possibility that only new pole technology can revive it.
Some observations:
1. Bubka 'ruined' the event (and, to some degree, Isi has done the same) because he was too fast, too strong, and too technically proficient. He 'Beamon'ed . . . 'Bolt'ed the event. 2. The pegs are now shorter. 3. The crossbar is semi-circular, so it now rolls off if nudged. 4. The event is expensive (and 'dangerous'), so fewer opportunities to learn the event are available. 5. 'Daring' athletes have many other new (extreme) sports to pursue.
I think that while most new technology is constantly being developed, there are limits to how much energy a vaulter can store in the pole and how efficiently it can be returned. The carbon-weave pole is almost there. Yes, the pole can get lighter and slimmer, but that's not really a sticking point now. Have we really reached a limiting plateau? Athletes WILL get faster and stronger, so yes, the record will eventually be broken, but I sure don't see 21' in a long, long time.
Points #2 and #3 are really at the heart of the matter. With these two changes it's almost like a new event. With the shorter pegs and rounded edges you have to be much cleaner at the bar. I bet if you polled a bunch of elite male vaulters, they would say the same.
The women's side is different as they don't have the same history with the older pegs and crossbars.
dukehjsteve wrote:I've said it before but I will say it again, even though everyone ( here) disagrees with me, and I will even capitalize it: The FIBERGLASS POLE ruined the Pole Vault. The event was reasonably pure but it became artificial.
You DO see your chronocentric perspective, yes? If you had been born 10 years later, you would not think that. I think fiberglass BEAUTIFIED it.
dukehjsteve wrote:I've said it before but I will say it again, even though everyone ( here) disagrees with me, and I will even capitalize it: The FIBERGLASS POLE ruined the Pole Vault. The event was reasonably pure but it became artificial.
You DO see your chronocentric perspective, yes? If you had been born 10 years later, you would not think that. I think fiberglass BEAUTIFIED it.
With modern technology, I bet we could even add a battery driven rocket to the bottom of the pole, so that we could artificially propel the vaulters even higher. Maybe 30 feet ! Maybe 40 feet ! Maybe into orbit !
But at least I've learned a new word: "chronocentric."
dukehjsteve wrote:With modern technology, I bet we could even add a battery driven rocket to the bottom of the pole, so that we could artificially propel the vaulters even higher. Maybe 30 feet ! Maybe 40 feet ! Maybe into orbit ! But at least I've learned a new word: "chronocentric."
Fiberglass was NOT against the rules. I'm pretty sure what you propose would be.
Marlow wrote:4. The event is expensive (and 'dangerous'), so fewer opportunities to learn the event are available.
Marlow, you are are HS coach. How big a deal is the expense today?
I was a HS vaulter in the early 70's and in my school, we were definitely constrained by the cost of poles. In other schools, there seemed to be more poles available.
How big a deal is the threat of injury? This was always a dangerous sport though less so than football.
Dave wrote:Marlow, you are are HS coach. How big a deal is the expense today? I was a HS vaulter in the early 70's and in my school, we were definitely constrained by the cost of poles. In other schools, there seemed to be more poles available. How big a deal is the threat of injury? This was always a dangerous sport though less so than football.
I am very fortunate. I have been coaching here for 20 years, so I have a pole inventory that many college would be envious of: almost 40 poles, from a 10'/70 to a 15'/200! But poles do typically run in the $500 range with shipping, so it's nothing to sneeze at! In my 20 years, my biggest injury has been a rolled ankle from landing standing up (huge no-no!). I bought helmets, but have never had to use them cuz I smack down boys who are trying to be macho and jump on poles they shouldn't. In meets I have had to 'DQ' opponents who vault unsafely. Every single one of their coaches (if they had one! ) thanked me for that.
Marlow wrote:He 'Beamon'ed . . . 'Bolt'ed the event.
Except he "beamonized" it dozens of times, not just once. Edit: Pretty sure the word is "beamonized", while "beamoned" would be british english at best ...
Last edited by j-a-m on Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
meskind wrote:Points #2 and #3 are really at the heart of the matter. With these two changes it's almost like a new event. With the shorter pegs and rounded edges you have to be much cleaner at the bar. I bet if you polled a bunch of elite male vaulters, they would say the same.
With current technology, the one rule that would improve results would be to deepen the box from 8" to 10"-12" and increase the angle of the back of the box. That would increase the takeoff angle, shorten the distance to vertical, and for experienced vaulters allow grips to rise at least 6" if not more. Even without raising the grip, moving the pole to vertical would be much faster and easier and would result in more energy through the swing and at the top of the vault. You'd see a lot better and consistent results even with the loss of 2"-4" due to the deeper box.
The problem is that inexperienced vaulters would use it solely as a reason for raising their grips which could lead to more accidents.
Cooter Brown wrote:the one rule that would improve results would be to deepen the box from 8" to 10"-12" and increase the angle of the back of the box. You'd see a lot better and consistent results even with the loss of 2"-4" due to the deeper box.
Occasionally we go to a meet with a 'deep box' (typically due to a runway resurfacing that built it up 1 or 2 inches higher than the top of the box) and all our regular poles are too soft. If we are forewarned (which we usually are), we bring the bigger sticks and do indeed enjoy great jumping.
Dave wrote:what of the guy/company(cause corporations are people, my friends) who created modern pits?
No way we would have 6.14 wr in PV or 2.45 wr in HJ with a sand or sawdust pit.
That was less about one track person being innovative and more about the sport making use of the new technology of foam rubber.
I'd be curious to know the details of the first fiberglass poles. It would be interesting to know what made the guy who created the first one think it would be a good idea.
Likewise, someone had to figure out that a pile of foam rubber scraps was a lot safer to land in than sawdust.
Oddly enough, I have a feeling that both inventions happened at nearly the same time. I have never seen a video of a fiberglass vaulter landing in a sand/sawdust pit nor have I seen one of a straight pole vaulter land in a foam rubber pit(this feels more likely though).
Oddly enough, I have a feeling that both inventions happened at nearly the same time. I have never seen a video of a fiberglass vaulter landing in a sand/sawdust pit nor have I seen one of a straight pole vaulter land in a foam rubber pit(this feels more likely though).
George Roubanis used a fiberglass pole in Melbourne '56. He set a big PR and won bronze at 14-9 (4.50) in a sand/sawdust pit. But you could still land on your feet on those heights. I suppose George Davies, another early fiberglass vaulter, might have landed in sawdust around 1960.
Dave wrote:I'd be curious to know the details of the first fiberglass poles. It would be interesting to know what made the guy who created the first one think it would be a good idea.
Probably, the impetus was a search for lighter materials. Not the first, but an early pole maker was Shakespeare who was and is known for fishing poles and saw another market for their fiberglass. Early on, fiberglass electrical conduit was sometimes used also, specifically for a homemade solution for vaulting poles. Odds are strong that the first fiberglass poles put on the market were not purpose built.
Dave wrote:I'd be curious to know the details of the first fiberglass poles. It would be interesting to know what made the guy who created the first one think it would be a good idea.
Probably, the impetus was a search for lighter materials. Not the first, but an early pole maker was Shakespeare who was and is known for fishing poles and saw another market for their fiberglass. Early on, fiberglass electrical conduit was sometimes used also, specifically for a homemade solution for vaulting poles. Odds are strong that the first fiberglass poles put on the market were not purpose built.
What I want to know, and have never read anything about, is how and who figured out how to properly bend the pole and use its rebound to go higher. The technique is NOT the same between straight-vaulting and fb-vaulting. I had to completely relearn how to vault when I started masters vaulting with fiberglass. When you look back at Pennel, he had already discovered and mastered the technique necessary to utilize the pole's bend. Here he is in 1963
Cooter Brown wrote:Pennel is the most underrated vaulter, IMO.
He set his first WR at 5.13m (16-10ish) and his last at 5.44m (17-10 1/4). That's Bubkaesque in the difference between 1st and last WRs.
EDIT...just reading up on it and he had unratified WR's of 4.95, 4.98, 5.05, and 5.10.
I well remember 1963's Florida Relays as I was out on the field for the ( of course) HJ which was being contested simultaneously with the PV, starring, you guessed it, John Pennel, He won easily and took 3 good efforts at a WR of about 4.90/16'1". I got right up close to him on the runway and took a good picture. Neat looking yellow NE Louisiana jersey.
Cooter Brown wrote:He set his first WR at 5.13m (16-10ish) and his last at 5.44m (17-10 1/4). That's Bubkaesque in the difference between 1st and last WRs.
Not to disaparage a fine athlete whose competitive record to speak for itself, but "Bubkaesque"?!
Given that the rest of the world was rising right with him the whole time, seems pretty clear to me that the combination of people learning how to vault with a different style combined with rapid improvements in pole design probably contributed to nearly all the rise.
) thanked me for that.
