Sports Biomechanics: Please Scroll Down For Article

This article was downloaded by: [Frère, Julien]
On: 12 July 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 924290802]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Sports Biomechanics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t776628940
Mechanics of pole vaulting: a review

Julien Frèrea; Maxime L'Hermettea; Jean Slawinskib; Claire Tourny-Cholleta
a
CETAPS, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Rouen, Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France b
Scientific Department of Team Lagardère, Research Center for Expertise, Evaluation and
Programming, Paris, France
Online publication date: 12 July 2010
To cite this Article Frère, Julien , L'Hermette, Maxime , Slawinski, Jean and Tourny-Chollet, Claire(2010) 'Mechanics of
pole vaulting: a review', Sports Biomechanics, 9: 2, 123 — 138
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2010.492430
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2010.492430
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Sports Biomechanics
June 2010; 9(2): 123–138
Mechanics of pole vaulting: a review
JULIEN FRÈRE1, MAXIME L’HERMETTE1, JEAN SLAWINSKI2, &

CLAIRE TOURNY-CHOLLET1
1
CETAPS, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Rouen, Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France, and
2
Research Center for Expertise, Evaluation and Programming, Scientific Department of Team Lagardère,
Paris, France
(Received 19 June 2009; revised 7 May 2010; accepted 7 May 2010)

Downloaded By: [Frère, Julien] At: 18:01 12 July 2010
Abstract
A good understanding of the mechanics of pole vaulting is fundamental to performance because this
event is quite complex, with several factors occurring in sequence and/or in parallel. These factors
mainly concern the velocities of the vaulter-pole system, the kinetic and potential energy of the vaulter
and the strain energy stored in the pole, the force and torque applied by the athlete, and the pole design.
Although the pole vault literature is vast, encompassing several fields such as medicine, sports sciences,
mechanics, mathematics, and physics, the studies agree that pole vault performance is basically
influenced by the energy exchange between the vaulter and pole. Ideally, as the athlete clears the
crossbar, the vaulter mechanical energy must be composed of high potential energy and low kinetic
energy, guaranteeing the high vertical component of the vault. Moreover, the force and torque applied
by the vaulter influences this energy exchange and these factors thus must be taken into consideration
in the analysis of performance. This review presents the variables that influence pole vault performance
during the run-up, take-off, pole support, and free flight phases.
Keywords: Kinematics, kinetics, performance, mechanical energy, joint torque
Introduction
The aim of pole vaulting is to jump over a crossbar with the help of a long pole. The rules of
the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, 2006) state that ‘The pole may
be of any material or combination of materials and of any length or diameter . . . ’. Consequently,
the poles used for vaulting have changed considerably throughout the twentieth century,
explaining the sharp increase in the world record from 3.15 m in 1849 to the present world
record of 6.14 m, set in 1994 by Sergey Bubka. The improvement in height was most
significant when fibreglass poles, along with landing mats, were introduced in 1956.
The mean progression in the world record became 3.97 cm per year with the introduction of
fibreglass poles, whereas it had previously been 1.63 cm per year (Anderson, 1997).
Vault performance with a fibreglass pole generated a great deal of research, including
university theses (Dillman, 1966; Barlow, 1973; Gros, 1982; McGinnis, 1984), scientific
publications (Steben, 1970; Hubbard, 1980b; McGinnis and Bergman, 1986; McGinnis,
Correspondence: Julien Frère, CETAPS, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Rouen, Boulevard Siegfried, 76821 Mont Saint
Aignan Cedex, France. E-mail: julien.frere@univ-rouen.fr
ISSN 1476-3141 print/ISSN 1752-6116 online q 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2010.492430
124 J. Frère et al.
1987; Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994), and project reports and books (Ganslen, 1961; Gros and
Kunkel, 1990; Arampatzis et al., 1999), in order to provide a complete analysis of this sport
for researchers, coaches, and athletes.
The early studies of the pole vault can be distinguished by method: experimental or
simulation. The first method had the advantage of measuring actual vault data but was limited
by the invasiveness of the research materials and the evaluation of vault performances in a
competitive context. The aim of the second method was to model and predict performance
but the complexity of the pole vault imposed limits on the conclusions that could be drawn.
Several models sought to decompose the event, leading to discrepancies concerning the
performance factors (Vaslin and Cid, 1993). Although the quantity of scientific data about
pole vaulting mechanics continues to grow with the ongoing development of technologies,
such as computer, motion analysis software or force plates, the pole vault has been the subject
of only one literature review, which classified the obvious, dubious, and other factors of
performance (Vaslin and Cid, 1993). This review proposed no model of the pole vault and,
since its publication, knowledge in the field has grown considerably.
Thus, the goals of the present review were to compile and update the mechanical data on
pole vaulting through the presentation of a new model that incorporates all its phases and to
highlight the performance factors in each phase within kinematics, energies, and kinetics
processes.
How to model the pole vault?

Classically, coaches have divided the pole vault into seven stages: (i) run-up, (ii) transition
with arm elevation in the last three steps, (iii) take-off including the pole plant, (iv) swing
phase, (v) rock-back, (vi) inversion position, and (vii) bar clearance. However, this
‘movement cut-out’ has differed among authors and according to the mechanical approach.
Hay modelled the pole vault with a four-height division of the final vault height: H1 is the
height of the vaulter’s centre of gravity (CGv) at take-off, H2 is the height of the CGv when
the pole is straightened, H3 is the height of the CGv when the vaulter releases the pole, and
H4 is the vertical difference between the peak height of the CGv and the height of the crossbar
(Hay, 1980). This model was useful for identifying some of the basic performance factors
which influence these partials heights, such as the morphology and position of the vaulter’s
body for H1, the vertical velocity at pole release for H3, and the vaulter’s body position in the
free flight phase for H4. Also, the partial height H2 could be influenced by the pole length and
amount of potential energy transferred to the vaulter by the pole at pole release. However,
this model was limited in the analysis of kinematic variables, such as the vaulter’s horizontal
and vertical velocities and the pole bending rate.
The biomechanical analysis of the 1992 Olympic finals for the men’s pole vault (Angulo-
Kinzler et al., 1994) divided the vault into four phases and defined instants of interest
(events) within each phase. The first phase was the run-up, including the touchdown (TD)
and take-off (TO) of every support. The second phase was the take-off, which included the
last touchdown (TD1), the pole plant (PP), and the last take-off (TO1). The third phase was
the pole support with maximum pole bend (MPB), pole straight (PS), and pole release (PR).
The last phase was the free flight phase from PR to bar clearance, including the peak height
(HP) of CGv. This division was useful for analysing the many mechanical variables of the
vault, which was limited with Hay’s model. Nevertheless, it remained impossible to evaluate
the pole-athlete interaction during the vault or to analyse its influence on performance.
More recently, the vault was modelled using an energetic approach that included the
interaction between the pole and the vaulter (Schade et al., 2000; Arampatzis et al., 2004).
Mechanics of pole vaulting 125
The energy calculation of this model was based on the vaulter’s limb motion and CGv, which
allowed the computation of the athlete’s external work but not the internal work of the
individual muscles. Despite this limitation, two criteria were defined to evaluate the athlete’s
behaviour during the vault and to determine patterns in pole vaulting, for example, and males-
females (Schade, Arampatzis, Brüggemann et al., 2004). The vault phase was divided into two
segments: the first began at TD1 and ended at MPB. During this segment, the vaulter’s kinetic
energy is transferred to the pole and stored as strain energy. The second segment began at
MPB and ended at HP. Here, the strain energy of the pole is delivered up to the vaulter as
potential energy. This last model concerned strictly energetic processes during the vault phase
and did not analyse the vaulter’s action before planting the pole, that is, the running phase.
A new model can now be proposed that further elucidates the pole vault event and takes
into account the energy exchange between the athlete and the pole. This model is based on
previous studies (Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994; Arampatzis et al., 2004) and divides the pole
vault into four phases, each containing relevant instants (Figure 1):
. The run-up phase corresponds to the run-up and includes the TD and TO of every
support of the approach except the last stance. During this phase, the vaulter’s aim is to
gradually increase kinetic energy by increasing horizontal velocity.
. The take-off phase includes TD1, PP, and TO1. Any pole vault model needs to specify
this phase for two reasons. First, the last stance finishes the run-up and is the longest
stance with a high vertical component (McGinnis, 1987; Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994).
Second, the vaulter’s kinetic energy begins to be transferred to the pole, which is already
planted in the take-off box. Consequently, the take-off phase is a real transition between
the run-up and the flying part of the vault.
. The pole bending phase, from TO1 to MPB, is characterised by the energy transfer
from the vaulter to the pole. During this phase, the vaulter’s mechanical energy is
transferred to the pole as strain energy.
Figure 1. Pole vault model. (1) Run-up phase; (2) Take-off phase, including the last touchdown (TD1), the pole
plant (PP) and the last take-off (TO1); (3) Pole bending phase until maximum pole bending (MPB); (4) Pole
straightening phase, including pole straight (PS); pole release (PR); and peak height of the CGv (HP).
. The pole straightening phase, from MPB to HP and including PS and PR, is the
vaulter’s restitution of energy from the pole. During this phase, the strain energy of the
pole is transferred to the vaulter as potential energy, permitting the maximum elevation
of the CGv.
Except for the run-up phase, which presents only few scientific data, the kinematic
(velocities), energy, and kinetic (forces and torques) analysis of each phase of this new model
provides a good understanding to improving pole vault performance.
The run-up phase

The aim of this section is to present the fundamental principles of the run-up and to discuss
the effects of carrying a pole on sprint coordination. However, few data can be found in the
scientific literature.
The role of the arm swing and impact of pole carriage

The relationship between the CGv horizontal velocity and jump performance has been the
subject of a great deal of research in order to simulate or predict final performance.
Correlation coefficients between approach run velocities and crossbar height were significant
for men (r ¼ 0.69) (Adamczewski and Perlt, 1997) as well as for women (r ¼ 0.77)
(McGinnis, 2004). Thus regression analyses could serve as standard to predict the future
performance, but it could also indicate technical improvement over the years, while the
approach velocities remained almost the same, the men and women vaulters managed to
improve final performance (Adamczewski and Perlt, 1997; McGinnis, 2004).
However, the vaulter’s horizontal velocity cannot be as high as in ‘free running’ for two
reasons: (i) pole carriage and (ii) the crucial need for accuracy in positioning the take-off foot
(Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994). The first reason seems to contribute more to the loss of
horizontal velocity. A decrease of 0.8 to 1.2 m/s in horizontal velocity was observed for elite
pole vaulters compared with a ‘free’ run-up (Gros and Kunkel, 1990). This difference
represented 7.5% to 11% of the two horizontal velocities (with and without a pole,
respectively). However, other studies determined that this loss corresponded to 0.5 m/s, that
is, a difference of 4.5% between the two conditions of run-up (Linthorne, 1994, 2000). Also,
the restricted arm swing causes a loss in horizontal velocity by a decrease in the shoulder
rotations around the longitudinal axis. This decrease in shoulder rotations affects the
coordination of the legs and the pelvic rotations, thus leading to a loss of speed (Novacheck,
1998). If loading the arm by means of additional weight induces a loss of speed (Ropret et al.,
1998), carrying a pole would have a similar effect because of the pole weight. More than the
effective weight of the pole (up to 3 kg), the relative weight of the pole has a major effect on
the decrease in velocity. The relative pole weight should be understood as an increasing
gravitational torque developed by a pole carried in front of the athlete and moving from a
vertical to a horizontal position. This change in the pole position causes a forward shift in the
centre of gravity of the athlete-pole system in front of the foot ground contact and leads to
less time to recover the swing leg in order to accelerate the foot before ground contact
(Frère et al., 2009). Consequently, pole carriage is the major cause of the loss of horizontal
velocity, rather than the need for accuracy in positioning the take-off foot. The restricted
swing of both arms causes a less efficient run.
Only one study dealt with the influences of carrying a pole on run-up coordination
(Frère et al., 2009). This is surprising because knowledge about the run-up with a pole has
a direct impact on training programmes and consequently on the possibility to increase

performance by improving the run-up. The authors determined that the loss in horizontal
velocity was due to significantly smaller stride length associated with significantly reduced
maximum hip and knee flexion during the swing phase. According to running biomechanics,
stride length is under the influence of hip and knee flexion-extension at toe-off and the end of
the swing phase (Schache et al., 1999). Moreover, in the stance phase, it appeared that the
braking phase was significantly longer when the athlete was carrying the pole (Frère et al.,
2007, 2009). This was in accordance with the results of biomechanical reviews on running,
which concluded that the faster the athlete ran, the shorter the stance and braking phases were
(Vaughan, 1984; Williams, 1985; Mero et al., 1992; Novacheck, 1998; Schache et al., 1999).
Consequently, improving the run-up in pole vault requires a training programme based on
a large range of exercises with pole carriage, including sprinting, jumping, and hopping on
one foot. All these exercises would have the same goal: to improve sprint velocity with this
specific running pattern and strengthen posture with a pole in the hands.
The take-off phase

The take-off phase is defined as the last support, between TD1 and TO1, and includes PP
(Figure 1). Planting the pole in the take-off box creates a shock between the ground and the
vaulter-pole system.
Velocity
Horizontal velocity is lost in the take-off phase. As in the long jump, a re-orientation of the
CGv trajectory occurs during the last stance, with a higher vertical component to allow the
following jump. It was shown that take-off velocity decreased with an increase in the take-off
angle (Linthorne, 2000; Linthorne et al., 2005), when take-off velocity referred to the
resultant velocity of the CGv as the vaulter left the ground. The vaulter had a take-off velocity
directed at an angle f to the horizontal, where f refers to the take-off angle. Moreover, the
shock generated at PP also decreases the horizontal velocity. The Olympic gold medallists in
1988 (Gros and Kunkel, 1990) and 1992 (Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994) respectively cleared
5.90 m and 5.80 m, and both showed a loss in CGv horizontal velocity of about 2 m/s
between the penultimate TO and TO1 (from 9.86 to 7.90 m/s and 9.74 to 7.74 m/s,
respectively). Another study (McGinnis, 1987) reported a 2 m/s decrease in horizontal
velocity from the analysis of 16 vaults in the range of 5.50 to 5.81 m, whereas the analysis of
three elite French pole vaulters clearing 5.50 m indicated a loss in resultant CGv velocity
from 0.9 to 1.8 m/s between TD1 and TO1 (Durey, 1997). The estimation of the optimal
take-off angle with flexible vaulting poles was reported to be 188 (Linthorne, 2000), meaning
that (i) the vaulter should favour a forward directed take-off to minimise loss in CGv
horizontal velocity and (ii) the initiation of pole bending markedly slows down the vaulter
(Durey, 1997; Morlier, 1999).
Energy
At take-off, the amount of mechanical energy in the vaulter-pole system is influenced by the
vaulter’s initial kinetic energy and the behaviour during interaction with the pole (Hubbard,
1980b; Gros and Kunkel, 1990; Ekevad and Lundberg, 1995; 1997; Arampatzis et al., 1999;
2004). During the take-off, the CGv horizontal velocity is higher than the vertical velocity.
Given that the amount of kinetic energy is reflected by the vaulter’s CGv horizontal velocity,
the vaulter’s kinetic energy decreases during the take-off.
The vaulter’s mechanical energy decreases because of the decrease in the kinetic energy
(Schade, Arampatzis, Brüggemann et al., 2004). Between TD1 and TO1, the loss in kinetic
energy is reflected at two levels: (i) in the lower limbs with the increasing vertical component
of the last support and (ii) in the trunk and upper limbs with the pole plant and initial
bending of the pole (Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994; Linthorne, 2000; Schade, Arampatzis,
Brüggemann et al., 2004). The initial pole bending reveals the interaction between an active
vaulter and a passive pole, with the transfer of the vaulter’s kinetic energy to strain energy
within the pole.
Mathematical models of the pole vault take-off demonstrated that a certain amount of
kinetic energy was dissipated as heat in the vaulter’s body using a rigid pole (Linthorne,
1994) and a flexible pole (Linthorne, 2000).
The first model gave results close to vaulting performance with rigid poles (bamboo
or steel). In contrast, when the perfectly rigid rod was replaced by an elastica pole in this
model, thereby simulating pole vault performance with a flexible pole, realistic results
were not generated because of the lack of an energy dissipation mechanism. The model
gave a maximum vault height of 7.70 m with an optimum take-off angle of 08 (Linthorne,
2000).
The model was thus revised to include a mechanism of energy dissipation in the athlete-
pole system, where only the athlete’s body is subjected to energy dissipation by taking into
account the vaulter’s actions during the take-off phase. The vaulter was modelled by a heavily
damped linear spring, which was characterised by stiffness: the constant k (in N/m).
The author of this model assumed that the value of k reflected the level of resistance in the
vaulter’s arms and torso (Linthorne, 2000), but he suggested that a multi-segment model of
the vaulter would make the model more accurate. Also, the model was based only on energy
dissipation in the athlete’s body, whereas it was shown that 6– 10% of the energy transferred
to the pole is lost during the interaction between athlete and pole (Arampatzis et al., 2004;
Schade et al., 2006). This energy loss was probably due to the viscoelastic properties of the
pole and to friction between the take-off box and the pole. A more accurate version of
Linthorne’s model would thus need to take into account this energy loss from the pole, the
non-uniform stiffness of the pole along its length, and a pole ‘pre-bend’ (Burgess, 1998;
Davis and Kukureka, 2004; Moore and Hubbard, 2004; Morlier et al., 2008). However,
from this energy dissipation model highlighted principles for improving vault performance
such as, the heavier the vaulter is, the lower the energy dissipation is, the higher the stiffness
of the pole and more parallel to the pole the take-off angle are, the higher the energy
dissipation is.
Finally, with regard to the energy processes observed in mechanical and simulation
studies, the vaulter has to (i) produce a high amount of kinetic energy just prior to the
take-off phase in order to compensate for its inevitable decrease and (ii) be able to
develop high muscular strength in the shoulders, arms, and trunk to limit energy dissipation
in the body and store more strain energy in the pole.
Force and torque

The elastic capacities of the flexible poles (fibreglass or carbon) allow the vaulter to store
strain energy in the pole. With this type of pole, it is possible to keep a greater distance
between the two hands than with rigid poles (steel), which allows for easier control of pole
bending by the application of force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the pole and
Figure 2. Hand location and components of hand forces at TO1 with (a) a steel or bamboo pole and (b) a flexible
pole.
in opposite directions (Figure 2). Indeed, the upper hand exerts forward and downward
resultant force, whereas the lower hand applies forward and upward resultant force
(Hay, 1980; Dapena and Braff, 1983; Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994; Morlier, 1999;
Morlier and Mesnard, 2007).
Hubbard modelled the flexible pole as a large slender rod and used large deflection theory
to calculate pole deformation as a function of the force and moment applied by the vaulter
(Hubbard, 1980a, 1980b). His model determined that the reaction force of the pole (Fp,
in N), was linearly related to its shortening chord, when there was no applied moment and in
considering the stiffness of the pole (the Euler buckling load) and its chord shortening.
In beam mechanics, the Euler buckling load is defined as the critical compressive load limit
that will never be overstepped. If the applied compressive load is higher than the Euler
buckling load, the beam will have an irreversible buckling or will be broken. In case of
vaulting pole, the definition of Euler buckling load is confusing within the literature. From
Ekevad and Lundberg (1997), a simply supported straight pole model was computed in
considering that the Euler buckling load was equal to the weight of the vaulter. In such a case,
this definition indicated the minimum stiffness of the pole which was able to straighten
entirely under the weight of the vaulter. Also this definition was in the way of the model
proposed by Hubbard (1980a, 1980b), where the compressive load must be higher than the
Euler buckling load to flex the pole. On the contrary, Burgess (1998) mentioned that
the flexible pole is not in case of buckling instability due to its elastic properties and that the
pole could not be fully collapsed. That is why the compressive load allowing the flexion of the
pole is under the critical Euler buckling load. In addition, the vaulter applied a bending
moment with the lower grip hand around the upper grip hand to initiate the pole deflection at
the beginning of the vault. Moreover, in the case of over-bending the pole, the vaulter jumps
over the plane of the crossbar before the pole straightens (Ekevad and Lundberg, 1997).
Hubbard (1980a, 1980b) and Dapena and Braff (1983) demonstrated that the resultant
ground reaction force (GRF) of the pole decreased when a bending moment was applied to
the top end of the pole in addition to compressive force, especially for low percentages of pole
deflection. For instance, when pole deflection was under 10% with a moment of 250 N·m,
the resultant GRF was decreased by 28% (Hubbard, 1980b). This finding explained that a
greater distance between the hands induced opposite resultant forces from each hand and
thus increased the torque to bend the pole, which is fixed by the tip in the take-off box
(Dapena and Braff, 1983). The wider the distance between both hands was, the lower the
GRF of the pole was. This result indicated the significant advantage of using flexible poles
compared with rigid poles, which allow only a small distance between the hands.
This decrease in the GRF allowed the vaulter to use a higher upper hand grip without
increasing the take-off angle, thus preserving high kinetic energy during the take-off phase
(Linthorne, 1994, 2000).
A recent study developed a 3-D calculation model of the torque action applied to the
pole by vaulters at a point mid-way between the two hands (Morlier and Mesnard, 2007).
The vaulters were digitised into 14 articulated rigid solids and mechanical joints for the
calculation of the torque (ultimately materialised by the CGv) on the pole (the mid-point
between the hands). During take-off, the vaulters applied force mainly on the vertical and
horizontal axis as well as a bending moment around the transverse axis. In such a way, the
vaulters attempted to resist the GRF of the pole by applying a vertical and a horizontal force
of about 1000 and 1500 N, respectively, and a high positive moment ranging from 200 to
1800 N·m between TD1 and TO1 (Morlier and Mesnard, 2007). These efforts increased the
angle between the pole and the horizontal axis, which favoured the initial bending of the pole
and consequently increased its accumulated strain energy.
Thus, during the take-off phase, the studies showed that the applied torque on the pole has
a major importance compared to the compressive force. The pole vaulter has two aims
during take-off: (i) to resist the GRF of the pole by increasing the time of the last support
(TD1 to TO1) and (ii) to increase the angle between the pole and the horizontal axis
(Morlier, 1999; Morlier and Mesnard, 2007). The demonstration of this double aim
highlighted the predominant role of the shoulder muscles at take-off (Frère et al., 2008).
At take-off, the vaulter has high horizontal velocity and a great elevation of the dominant
arm, and begins to resist the load from the pole. This combination of factors is such that the
vaulter is subjected to high loads that may lead to injuries like rotator cuff tendonitis,
shoulder instability, low back pain or spondylolysis (Gainor et al., 1983; Beattie, 1992;
Bird et al., 1997; Brukner et al., 2004) when the take-off is not executed with accuracy.
Accuracy refers to the placement of the last support relative to the upper hand. The elevation
of the dominant arm increases the pole-ground angle and the push action of the
non-dominant arm applies torque to the pole in order the initiate bending.
However, another pole vault take-off model should be mention in this review. This model
is widely used by coaches and corresponds to the Russian ‘free take-off’, mastered by Sergey
Bubka and developed by his coach Vitaly Petrov. There is a free take-off when PP coincides
with the TO1 (Petrov, 2008). This take-off way has advantages such as, higher pole-ground
angle at PP, greater horizontal velocity and impulse at the take-off allowing the use of longer
and stiffer poles (Launder and Linthorne, 1990). Nevertheless, the free take-off implies the
vaulter to be able to produce high muscular strength with the upper-limbs, because of the
risk to be backward leaned. Moreover, the free take-off doesn’t allow applying some force
and moment on the pole while the athlete is still on the ground. Even if the free take-off
appears to be relevant for high pole vaulting performance, there is some lack of published
scientific research and the free take-off only concerned technical articles and coaches’
knowledge. Indeed, it would be interesting for further scientific and mechanic studies to
analyse the effects of the free take-off on the pole vaulting performance, the pole vaulter’s
velocities, and the applied force into the pole and to compare it with the classical take-off.
The pole bending and pole straightening phases

The pole bending and pole straightening phases of the pole vault model described in this
review includes the pole support phase and the free flight phase. Although pole bending can
be clearly differentiated from pole straightening because of the energetic processes specific to
each phase, it is important to focus on obtaining a better understanding of the event rather
than strictly following the model. The following sections thus describe the events from TO1
to HP of the CGv.
Velocity
Experimental studies (Gros and Kunkel, 1990; Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994; Morlier, 1999)
showed a smooth decrease in the horizontal velocity from TO1 to PS, whereas the vertical
velocity increased (Figure 3). In the pole bending phase, the horizontal velocity was greater
than the vertical velocity and the inverse characterised the pole straightening phase.
Ideally, the time at which the two velocities are identical corresponds to MPB. Before
MPB, the vaulter’s body is in forward motion in relationship to the bending pole and, after
MPB, the vaulter is in upward motion from the straightening pole. Measurements of the
angular velocity of the pole chord during the vault confirmed these forward and upward
motions (Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994).
The vaulter reaches maximal vertical velocity at PS and HP occurs when this velocity is
null. The greater the vertical velocity at PS is, the greater this velocity will be at PR, and the
higher H3 (Hay, 1980) will be, allowing a high elevation of the CGv during the free flight
phase. For instance, at the 1992 Olympic finals in Barcelona (Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994),
the gold medallist had a vertical velocity of 1.81 m/s at PR, whereas the velocity of the
7th-ranked vaulter was 1.12 m/s (HP ¼ 5.91 and 5.74 m, respectively). Consequently,
irrespective of the grip height, the Olympic champion benefited from a CGv elevation 11 cm
higher than the 7th between PR and HP. Thus, in addition to the grip height, this higher
free flight phase offers the possibility to increase the final performance. After its peak
at PS, the vertical velocity of CGv decreases until the end of the vault (Figure 3). This
relationship demonstrates that the vaulter loses vertical velocity from PS to HP, despite the
final push-off. The maximal vertical velocity should thus be considered as a performance
factor because the final height could be determined by the vertical velocity at PS and could
estimate the influence of the vaulter’s final push-off on the performance.
Figure 3. Typical curves of horizontal (dashed line) and vertical (solid line) velocities of the CGv during the pole
vault. Data from Gros and Kunkel (1990), Angulo-Kinzler et al. (1994), and Morlier (1999).
At TO1, the vaulter initiates the vault with high horizontal velocity, which progressively
decreases until MPB and then stabilises until the end of the vault. The maintained horizontal
velocity ranged from 1.5 to 2 m/s and permitted the vaulter to safely clear the cross bar
(Gros and Kunkel, 1990; Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994; Morlier, 1999).
Energy
The fundamental principle of pole vaulting is the interaction between vaulter and pole to
transfer kinetic energy to potential energy through the strain energy of the pole (Dillman and
Nelson, 1968; Hay, 1971; Schade et al., 2000; Sheehan, 2002; Arampatzis et al., 2004;
Schade, Arampatzis, and Brüggemann, 2004; Schade, Arampatzis, Brüggemann et al.,
2004; Schade, 2006; Schade et al., 2006; Schade and Brüggemann, 2006). The maximum
height of CGv was found to be significantly correlated with the vaulter’s maximal mechanical
energy at HP, both for men (r ¼ 0.88, p , 0.01) and women (r ¼ 0.86, p , 0.01)
(Schade, Arampatzis, Brüggemann et al., 2004). The energetic patterns were calculated as
follows (Dillman and Nelson, 1968; Morlier, 1999; Schade et al., 2000; Schade, Arampatzis,
Brüggemann et al., 2004; Schade et al., 2006): As the pole bending phase began, the
vaulter’s mechanical energy decreased caused by the reduction in kinetic energy, which
attained the minimum after MPB. Next, the mechanical energy increased until PS, due to
the constant increase in the vaulter’s potential energy from TO1 to HP (Figure 4).
The energetic interaction between the vaulter and pole during a vault was analysed and
performance criteria were then developed (Arampatzis et al., 2004). It was found that
vaulters benefited from pole flexibility during the pole bending phase. The strain energy
stored in the pole was calculated by the relationship between the GRF measured in the
planting box with the pole deformation summed with the relationship between the bending
moment at the top end of the pole with the location of both vaulter’s hand relative to the pole
chord. This study also pointed out that the amount of total energy transferred to the pole was
greater than the decrease in the vaulter’s mechanical energy (Figure 4). This additional
energy came from muscular work (Arampatzis et al., 2004). However, no detail was given
about the muscular work of each limb relative to the total muscular work allowing this
Figure 4. Typical curves of kinetic energy (black line), potential energy (grey line), and mechanical energy (dashed
lined) of the athlete and total strain energy of the pole (dotted line) during the pole vault. Data from Dillman and
Nelson (1968), Gros and Kunkel (1990), Morlier (1999), Arampatzis et al. (2004), and Schade et al. (2006).
increase of energy of the vaulter/pole system. Further calculations (e.g. inverse dynamics)
should be made or another approach (e.g. electromyography) could be considered to
complete the muscular contribution into pole-vaulting performance.
A similar process was reported during the giant swing before dismounts and flight elements
on the high-bar in acrobatic gymnastics (Arampatzis and Brüggemann, 1998, 1999).
An energetic interaction between the gymnast and the high-bar occurs, with the greatest
mechanical power and torques achieved by the shoulder joint (about 2500 watts and 500 N·m,
respectively). The best values were observed when the gymnast began the ascending phase of
the giant swing. These similarities with the pole vault allow us to hypothesise that the shoulder
joint and muscles provide similar work to add energy to the pole.
After MPB, the strain energy of the pole is transferred to the vaulter as potential energy.
The pole energy decreases until PS, whereas the mechanical energy of the vaulter increases
until PR because of the increase in potential energy (Schade et al., 2000; Arampatzis et al.,
2004; Schade, Arampatzis, Brüggemann et al., 2004; Schade et al., 2006). Moreover, the
increase in the vaulter’s mechanical energy is greater than the decrease in the pole strain
energy. Consequently, the flexible pole appears to provide an efficient tool for the transfer of
pole strain energy to the vaulter’s potential energy. However, this transfer was found to be
efficient only if the vaulter effectuated muscular work, principally at the shoulders, during
the pole bending and restitution phases (Arampatzis et al., 1997, 1999). Despite the different
methods of energy calculation, the results and conclusions of this experimental study
(Arampatzis et al., 2004) agreed with those of a previous simulation study (Hubbard, 1980b)
that found (i) greater final mechanical energy than the vaulter’s initial energy and (ii) greater
work (in Joules) performed by the shoulder joint rather than the wrist and hip joints.
Force and torque

Even though the vaulter had left the ground, he could apply some forces and torques on the
pole. These actions allowed the vaulter to increase the bending of the pole and to push on the
pole before PR. Measured results and modelled findings all agreed that these post-take-off
actions of the vaulter increased the final pole vault performance.
The strain elastic energy stored in the pole was calculated from the compressive force and
the bending moment of the athlete on the pole which represented about 75 and 25% of the
pole energy, respectively (Arampatzis et al., 2004). First, the horizontal component of the
GRF was larger than the vertical one, indicating pole compression that was more forward
than upward at the beginning of the vault (Figure 5, until 0.2 s). The vertical component was
then higher than the horizontal one until the end of the vault, indicating that the vaulter-pole
interaction was principally in the vertical direction. The vertical GRF before and after MPB
followed a bell-like curve and was explained by the vaulter’s downward compression on the
pole and by the pole’s upward extension, respectively. The comparison of the vertical force
applied to the pole by vaulters with several performance levels allowed to observe differences
in time and maximal vertical force, which ranged from 1000 to 1350 N and was explained by
technical differences between the pole vaulters. The best pole vaulter produced greater
vertical force in a shorter time (Morlier and Mesnard, 2007).
A cinematographic study revealed a significant correlation between the degree of extension
of the elbow of the lower arm and the final performance (Steben, 1970). This elbow
extension allowed applying forward and upward resultant force and creates a support,
which permits the bending moment around the upper hand. A 2-D inverse dynamic analysis
of the pole vault (McGinnis and Bergman, 1986) was in agreement with this previous
kinematic finding.
Figure 5. (a) Direction and magnitude of the resultant GRF at the take-off box during a pole vault;
(b) Approximation of the vertical (y, black line), horizontal (x, grey line), and resultant Fp (dashed line) GRF at the
take-off box during the pole vault. Data from Arampatzis et al. (2004), Morlier and Mesnard (2007), and Schade
et al. (2006).
The inverse dynamic analysis computed different torques during the pole support phase of
the vault including the moment produced on the top of the pole and the resultant shoulder
joint moment. After TO1, the moment produced on the top of the pole ranged from 100 to
250 N·m with a mean duration of 0.2 s and corresponded to the early stage of the swing of the
pole vaulter. Simultaneously, a shoulder flexion moment increased up to a mean peak value
of 89.8 N·m and represented the activity of the shoulder flexor muscles. Then, a long period
of activity of the shoulder extensor muscles occurred with a high shoulder extension moment
reaching a mean peak value of 366.4 N·m.
According to this 2-D analysis, a 3-D inverse dynamic study of the pole vault (Morlier and
Mesnard, 2007) determined that the maximal global moment applied on the pole ranged
from 210 to 410 N·m and occurred during the bending of the pole and when the athlete
swung to attain the rock-back position before MPB.
Through the measurements of the applied moments, it was possible to (i) identify the
swing to rock-back position as a relevant performance factor and (ii) demonstrate that the
action of the shoulder joint muscles was of major importance.
These inverse dynamic measurements about the moments applied by the vaulter on the
pole and joints moments were all in agreement with a previous simulation study using a three
segments model of the vaulter (Hubbard, 1980b). Indeed, this simulation highlighted that
without the pole-buckling moment at the top of the pole just after TO1, the vaulter model
was not able to attain the plane of the crossbar. Also, it appeared that the values of moment
around the top of the pole were higher than those at the shoulder joint which were higher
than those at the hip joint. Again, the inverse dynamic findings (McGinnis and Bergman,
1986) served as limit to impose maximum moments of 600, 500, 300, and 130 N·m around
the top of the pole and at the shoulders, hips, and knee, respectively, to a ‘smart’ pole vaulter
model (Ekevad and Lundberg, 1995) in order to manage a vault as real as possible.
Simulation studies have also emphasised the role of the vaulter’s muscular actions in
pole vaulting relative to pole stiffness and length (Ekevad and Lundberg, 1995, 1997).
By modelling a ‘smart’ pole vaulter, that is, an active pole vaulter, with six segments and five
pin joints, the authors demonstrated that the performance ratio (maximum vaulter’s
potential energy divided by the initial kinetic energy of both vaulter and pole) was clearly
higher for a ‘smart’ pole vaulter than a ‘passive’ (materialised as a point) vaulter. Also, the
pole characteristics for the ‘smart’ pole vaulter appeared to be inferior to those of a ‘passive’
athlete. This meant that an ‘active’ pole vaulter – that is, who performed muscular work –
produced a more efficient vault and had a higher vault than a ‘passive’ with the same pole.
Finally, the analysis of the vaulter’s angular momentum confirmed that the swing to rock-
back position was a performance factor. The angular momentum around the transverse axis
was higher than those around the two other axes (Morlier and Cid, 1996) and the maximal
values were reached before MPB. This pattern highlighted that the pole vaulter carries
out muscular work to bend the pole more and thus store more strain energy (Gros, 1982;
Gros and Kunkel, 1990; Angulo-Kinzler et al., 1994; Arampatzis et al., 2004; Schade,
Arampatzis, Brüggemann et al., 2004).
Conclusion and implications

This review of the literature on the mechanics of pole vaulting points up the major
performance factors. Although athletes produce forces, velocities, and energies during the
run-up and take-off phases of classic jumps (e.g. long jump or high jump), in the pole vault
they can also influence the trajectory after take-off by exerting force and torque on the pole
and storing strain energy in the pole.
Flexible poles have many advantages compared with rigid poles, including a smaller
optimal take-off angle, which permits the maintenance of high horizontal velocity at take-off,
and a greater distance between the hands, which facilitates pole bending by increasing the
moment applied on the pole. The torques applied by the vaulter on the pole have a direct
influence on final performance because they can increase the bend and thus increase the
strain energy stored in the pole.
During the run-up, the leg muscles are more important than the arm muscles, conversely
to the pole support phase, whereas the take-off requires a high activation of both arm and leg
muscles for the double contact with the ground, one with the pole planted in the take-off
box and the other with the take-off foot. All the interactions between the vaulter and the
pole require strength production, especially from the shoulder and trunk muscles. During
pole bending, the upper body muscles are most activated to produce this strength so that the
vaulter can transfer energy into the pole and then benefit from the pole’s elastic properties to
clear the crossbar.
However, the activity of the shoulder and trunk muscles requires further study to
determine their role in the strength applied on the pole and in the energy production relative
to the final pole vaulting performance. There is much work to be done in this area and efforts
are needed to improve our knowledge about the effects of force production, especially from
the shoulder muscles, on pole vault performance.
Acknowledgements
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have
no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review. The authors are
grateful to Catherine Carmeni for help in writing the English manuscript.
References
Adamczewski, H., and Perlt, B. (1997). Run-up velocity of female and male pole vaulting and some technical aspects
of women’s pole vault. New Studies in Athletics, 12, 63–76.
Anderson, G. K. (1997). The limits of human performance in the pole vault. Track Coach, 138, 4412–4415, 4421.
Angulo-Kinzler, R. M., Kinzler, S. B., Balius, X., Turro, C., Caubet, J. M., Escoda, J., et al. (1994). Biomechanical
analysis of the pole vault event. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 10, 147– 165.
Arampatzis, A., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (1998). A mathematical high bar-human body model for analysing and
interpreting mechanical-energetic processes on the high bar. Journal of Biomechanics, 31, 1083–1092.
Arampatzis, A., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (1999). Mechanical energetic processes during the giant swing exercise
before dismounts and flight elements on the high bar and the uneven parallel bars. Journal of Biomechanics, 32,
811–820.
Arampatzis, A., Schade, F., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (1997). Pole vault. In H. Müller, and H. Hommel (Eds.),
Biomechanical Research Project at the 6th World Championships in Athletics, Athens 1997: Preliminary Report (Vol. 12,
pp. 69–73). Monaco: New Studies in Athletics.
Arampatzis, A., Schade, F., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (1999). Pole vault. In G.-P. Brüggemann, D. Koszewski, and
H. Müller (Eds.), Biomechanical Research Project at the VIth World Championships in Athletics, Athens 1997: Final
report (pp. 145 –160). Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Arampatzis, A., Schade, F., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (2004). Effect of the pole-human body interaction on pole
vaulting performance. Journal of Biomechanics, 37, 1353–1360.
Barlow, D. A. (1973). Kinematic and kinetic factors involved in pole vaulting. (Unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana
University, Indiana)
Beattie, P. (1992). The use of an eclectic approach for the treatment of low back pain: A case study. Physical Therapy,
72, 923–928.
Bird, S., Black, N., and Newton, P. (1997). Sports injuries. Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes.
Brukner, P., Khan, K., and Kron, J. (2004). The encyclopedia of exercise, sport and health. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Burgess, S. C. (1998). The modern Olympic vaulting pole. Materials and Design, 19, 197–204.
Dapena, J., and Braff, T. (1983). Use of separate hand location to calculate ground reaction force exerted on a
vaulting pole. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 15, 313–318.
Davis, C. L., and Kukureka, S. N. (2004). Effect of materials and manufacturing on the bending stiffness of vaulting
poles. In M. Hubbard, R. D. Mehta, and J. M. Pallis (Eds.), The engineering of sport 5 (Vol. 2, pp. 245 –252).
Winfield, KS: Central Plain Books Manufacturing.
Dillman, C. J. (1966). Energy transformations during the pole vault with a fiberglass pole. (Unpublished Master’s thesis,
Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania)
Dillman, C. J., and Nelson, R. C. (1968). The mechanical energy transformations of pole vaulting with a fiberglass
pole. Journal of Biomechanics, 1, 175–183.
Durey, A. (1997). Chapter 12: The pole vault. In A. Durey (Ed.), Physics for sports sciences [in French]. (pp. 194–205).
Paris: Masson.
Ekevad, M., and Lundberg, B. (1995). Simulation of “smart” pole vaulting. Journal of Biomechanics, 28,
1079–1090.
Ekevad, M., and Lundberg, B. (1997). Influence of pole length and stiffness on the energy conversion in
pole-vaulting. Journal of Biomechanics, 30, 259– 264.
Frère, J., Chollet, D., and Tourny-Chollet, C. (2007). Run-up coordination with and without pole carriage: the case
of novice pole vaulters. In R. Buys, M. Buekers, and D. Daly (Eds.), Proceedings of the Movement Science Around
the World – 12th International ACAPS Conference (pp. 291 –292). Leuven, Belgium: de boeck université.
Frère, J., Chollet, D., and Tourny-Chollet, C. (2009). Assessment of the influence of pole carriage on sprint
kinematics: A case study of novice athletes. International Journal of Sports Science and Engineering, 3, 3–10.
Frère, J., L’Hermette, M., and Tourny-Chollet, C. (2008). Pole vault practice and rotator cuff strength: Comparison
between novice and competitive athletes. International Journal for Computational Vision & Biomechanics,
1, 125– 131.
Gainor, B. J., Hagen, R. J., and Allen, W. C. (1983). Biomechanics of the spine in the pole vaulter as related to
spondylolysis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 11, 53–57.
Ganslen, R. V. (1961). Mechanics of the pole vault (4th ed.). St Louis, MO: Swift.
Gros, H. J. (1982). Computerized analysis of the pole vault utilizing biomechanics cinematography and direct forces
measurements. (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Alberta)
Gros, H. J., and Kunkel, V. (1990). Biomechanical analysis of the pole vault. In G.-P. Brüggemann, and B. Glad
(Eds.), Scientific Research Project at the Games of the 24th Olympiad – Seoul 1988, Final Report (pp. 219–260).
Monaco: International Amateur Athletics Federation.
Hay, J. G. (1971). Mechanical energy relationships in vaulting with a fiberglass pole. Ergonomics, 14, 437–448.
Hay, J. G. (1980). The biomechanics of sport techniques [in French]. Paris: Vigot.
Hubbard, M. (1980a). An iterative numerical solution for the elastica with causally mixed inputs. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 47, 201–202.
Hubbard, M. (1980b). Dynamics of the pole vault. Journal of Biomechanics, 13, 965 –976.
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) (2006). IAAF Competition rules 2006– 2007 [183–11].
Monaco, MC: The International Association of Athletics Federations.
Launder, A., and Linthorne, N. P. (1990). The pre-jump. Track Technique, 112, 3991–3995.
Linthorne, N. P. (1994). Mathematical model of the takeoff phase in the pole vault. Journal of Applied Biomechanics,
10, 323– 334.
Linthorne, N. P. (2000). Energy loss in the pole vault take-off and the advantage of the flexible pole.
Sports Engineering, 3, 205–218.
Linthorne, N. P., Guzman, M. S., and Bridgett, L. A. (2005). Take-off angle in the long jump. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 23, 703– 712.
McGinnis, P. M. (1984). Dynamic finite element analysis of a human-implement system in sport: The pole vault.
(Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Urbana, Champaign, Illinois)
McGinnis, P. M. (1987). Performance limiting factors in the pole vault. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 19,
S18.
McGinnis, P. M. (2004). Evolution of the relationship between performance and approach run velocity in
the women’s pole vault. In M. Lamontagne, D. G. E. Robertson, and H. Sveistrup (Eds.), Proceedings of the
22th International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports (pp. 531– 534). Ottawa, ON: International Society of
Biomechanics in Sports.
McGinnis, P. M., and Bergman, L. A. (1986). An inverse dynamic analysis of the pole vault. International Journal of
Sport Biomechanics, 2, 186 –201.
Mero, A., Komi, P. V., and Gregor, R. J. (1992). Biomechanics of sprint running. A review. Sports Medicine, 13,
376– 392.
Moore, A., and Hubbard, M. (2004). Modeling and real-time strain measurement of the non-uniform vaulting pole.
In M. Hubbard, R. D. Mehta, and J. M. Pallis (Eds.), The engineering of sport 5 (Vol. 1, pp. 312–318). Winfield,
KS: Central Plain Books Manufacturing.
Morlier, J. (1999). Three-dimensional dynamic study of pole vaulting: characterizing and modeling a vaulting pole
[in French]. (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bordeaux I, Bordeaux)
Morlier, J., and Cid, M. (1996). Three-dimensional analysis of the angular momentum of a pole-vaulter. Journal of
Biomechanics, 29, 1085–1090.
Morlier, J., and Mesnard, M. (2007). Influence of the moment exerted by the athlete on the pole in pole-vaulting
performance. Journal of Biomechanics, 40, 2261–2267.
Morlier, J., Mesnard, M., and Cid, M. (2008). Pole-vaulting: Identification of the pole local bending rigidities by an
updating technique. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 24, 140– 148.
Novacheck, T. F. (1998). The biomechanics of running. Gait and Posture, 7, 77–95.
Petrov, V. (2008). The five phases of pole vault performance, 3rd European pole vault conference – On the road to
Beijing. German Sport University Cologne (DE): European Athletics.
Ropret, R., Kukolj, M., Ugarkovic, D., Matavulj, D., and Jaric, S. (1998). Effect of arm and leg loading on sprint
performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology & Occupational Physiology, 77, 547– 550.
Schache, A. G., Bennel, K. L., Blanch, P. D., and Wrigley, T. (1999). The coordinated movement of the lumbo –
pelvic – hip complex during running: A literature review. Gait and Posture, 10, 30–47.
Schade, F. (2006). Biomechanics of the pole vault: selected aspects, 2nd European pole vault conference:
Peaking performance. German Sport University Cologne (DE): European Athletics.
Schade, F., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (2006). The pole vault at the 2005 IAAF World Championships in Athletics:
A preliminary report. New Studies in Athletics, 21, 57–66.
Schade, F., Arampatzis, A., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (2000). Influence of different approaches for calculating the
athlete’s mechanical energy on energetic parameters in the pole vault. Journal of Biomechanics, 33, 1263– 1268.
Schade, F., Arampatzis, A., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (2004). A new way of looking at the biomechanics of the pole
vault. New Studies in Athletics, 19, 33–42.
Schade, F., Arampatzis, A., and Brüggemann, G.-P. (2006). Reproducibility of energy parameters in the pole vault.
Journal of Biomechanics, 39, 1464–1471.
Schade, F., Arampatzis, A., Brüggemann, G.-P., and Komi, P. V. (2004). Comparison of the men’s and the women’s
pole vault at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 835–842.
Sheehan, D. P. (2002). Beyond the pole vault: catapult – the fourth jump. Sports Engineering, 5, 201 –205.
Steben, R. E. (1970). A cinematographic study of selective factors in the pole-vault. Research Quarterly, 41, 95–104.
Vaslin, P., and Cid, M. (1993). Performance factors in pole vaulting in the scientific literature [in French].
Revue STAPS, 14, 75–86.
Vaughan, C. L. (1984). Biomechanics of running gait. Critical reviews in Engineering, 12, 1 –48.
Williams, K. R. (1985). Biomechanics of running. Exercise in Sport Sciences Review, 13, 389 –441.

Sports Biomechanics: Please Scroll Down For Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sports Biomechanics: Please Scroll Down For Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Frère, Julien]

On: 12 July 2010

Mechanics of pole vaulting: a review

Online publication date: 12 July 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Mechanics of pole vaulting: a review

JULIEN FRÈRE1, MAXIME L’HERMETTE1, JEAN SLAWINSKI2, &

(Received 19 June 2009; revised 7 May 2010; accepted 7 May 2010)

Keywords: Kinematics, kinetics, performance, mechanical energy, joint torque

ISSN 1476-3141 print/ISSN 1752-6116 online q 2010 Taylor & Francis

How to model the pole vault?

The run-up phase

The role of the arm swing and impact of pole carriage

a direct impact on training programmes and consequently on the possibility to increase

The take-off phase

Force and torque

The pole bending and pole straightening phases

Force and torque

Conclusion and implications

You might also like