Pole Vault Diagnostics€¦ · Pole Vault Diagnostics Falk%Schade% ∑ ∑ ∑ = = = Θ + Θ = + +...

Pole Vault Diagnostics Falk Schade

∑∑ ∑== =

Θ+

Θ++=12

1

2212

1

12

1 222²

i

TLoTLoiTriTr

i i

iiiitot

mghmE ωωv

2²CM

CMCMmmgHE v

+=

poten/al energy

kine/c energy

translatory kine/c energy

rotatory

segments trunk

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8

ener

gy [J

/kg]

time [s]

Eathlete

Etotal

Epole

Falk Schade

Energy Exchange Concept - Pole Vault - Excursion

Energy Exchange Concept - Pole Vault -

TO PP

Eathlete HP

(CM-max)

MPB

TD TO1 TO2

Eath-dec

Eath-inc E-gain

Epole approach

Eathlete

Falk Schade

1 m = 9,8 J/kg 5 m = 49,05 6 m = 58,86

10 m/s = 50 J/kg 9,5 = 45,1 9,4 = 44,2 9,0 = 40,5

8,5 = 36,1 8,0 = 32,0 1,2 = 0,72 1,8 = 1,62

approach velocity

velocity at bar clearance

at touch down:

at maximum CM height:

CM height potential energy

CM velocity kinetic energy

~ ~ 1 J/kg 10 cm

Falk Schade

Energy Exchange Concept - Pole Vault -

Falk Schade

•  WC Athens 1997 (IAAF)

•  since 1998: nat. comp. diagnostics

•  OG Sydney 2000 (IOC)

•  EC München 2002 (DLV)

•  WC Helsinki 2005 (IAAF)

•  WC Berlin 2009 (DLV/IAAF)

•  BISp Projects 1998, 2002

•  since 2013: measuring station

Pole Vault Projects

Falk Schade

Methodological Studies: •  Influence of energy models (Schade, Arampatzis & Brüggemann 2000, JOB)

•  Criteria for interac/on athlete/pole (Arampatzis, Schade & Brüggemann 2004, JOB)

•  Reproducibility (Schade, Arampatzis & Brüggemann 2006, JOB)

Applied Studies:

•  men vs. women (Schade, Arampatzis, Brüggemann & Komi 2004, JSpSci)

•  Influence of pole plant /me on performance (Schade & Arampatzis 2012, JOB)

Pole Vault Projects

Influence of energy models

(Schade et al. 2000)

50

60

70

80

90

100

-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100

Ene

rgy

[%]

Time [%]

Maximale Stabbiegung 2D Etotal

3D Etotal

3D ECM 2D ECM

2D Etotal

3D Etotal

3D ECM 2D ECM n=20

•  similar /me histories

•  no differences in 2D vs. 3D

•  differences in ECM vs. Etotal

Falk Schade

Interac/on Model

Crit 1

Crit 2

(nach Arampatzis et al. 2004) Falk Schade

0

5

10

15

20

25

0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,3

time [s]

0

20

40

60

0,0 0,4 0,8 1,2 1,6

en

erg

y [J

/kg

]

time [s]

0

20

40

60

0 0,4 0,8 1,2time [s]


energy athlete

05

10152025

0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9 1,1

ener

gy [J

/kg]

time [s]

energy pole

Epole Epole

E-CF E-CF

E-BM E-BM

Athlete A (n=11) Athlete B (n=10)

Etot Epot

Ekin

Etot

Epot Ekin

Falk Schade

Reproducibility of Energy Parameters

interac/on

0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

E-initial [J/kg]

E-HP [J/kg]

Crit1 [J/kg]

Crit2 [J/kg]

Egain-net [J/kg]

mean RMS [%]

17

46

15 2 2

mean (sd)

7 (1,9)

2,5 (1,4)

6 (1,7)

50 (4,5)

43 (3,9)

E-final

(Schade et al. 2006) Falk Schade

Reproducibility of Energy Parameters

Intraclass Correlation

ini/al and final condi/ons

0

20

40

60

-100 -50 0 50 100[%]

[J/kg]

0

20

40

60

-100 -50 0 50 100[%]

[J/kg]

energy gain [J/kg]

5,88 ± 1,02 men 5,74 ± 1,63 women

-100 -50 0 50 100 Time [%]

-100 -50 0 50 100 Time [%]

mean energy -‐ Athlet -‐

60

40

20

0

Ene

rgy

[J/k

g]

CMmax : 5,80m (0,12) CMmax : 4,42m (0,14)

women men total energy

poten/al energy

kine/c energy

total energy

poten/al energy

kine/c energy

(Schade et al. 2004) Falk Schade

Mean angular momentum


women (n=10) men (n=10)

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Time [%]

angu

lar m

omen

tum

[1/s

]

* *

* * *

pole plant max.

pole bend max.

CM height

p<0.05

female vaulters: different interac/on

•  less energy transfer •  less pole bend •  passiv swing •  less muscular work

Falk Schade

explana/ons:

a) strength b) technical skills

(Schade & Arampatzis, 2012)

Evaulter -TD vaulter Evaulter -TO

Epole-TO

Evaulter/pole-TO

Edissipation

pole

ground

vaulter/pole system

TD TO

Falk Schade

Interac/on Model II -‐ jump and plant complex (JPC) -‐

Crit 1a

TD

pole plant TO

Epole -TO

x

y x

y z Wjump Wplant

Evaulter/pole Δ

(Schade & Arampatzis, 2012)

Falk Schade

Interac/on Model II -‐ jump and plant complex (JPC) -‐

0

2

4

6

0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,12

Epo

le [J

/kg]

T-PP [s]

r2= 0.760 p<0.00

C D E

B

F

A

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,12

E v

aulte

r [J/

kg]

T-PP [s]

Δ

r2= 0.618 p<0.00

C D E

B

F

A

rela/on of pole energy and T-‐PP

rela/on of athlete‘s energy and T-‐PP

early pole plant:

higher pole energy as a result of decrease in athlete‘s energy

no benefit n=18

n=18

(Schade & Arampatzis 2012) Falk Schade

rela/on of Wjump and T-‐PP

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,12

Wju

mp [

J/kg

]

T-PP [s]

energy loss of vaulter/pole system is not influenced

by T-‐PP

decrease energy loss during jump ac/on

(Schade & Arampatzis 2012) Falk Schade

Falk Schade

Interac/on Modell

1. 2D-‐KSP 3D-‐TOT 2. Interac/on is reproducible 3. different interac/on men vs. women 4. no direct influence of T-‐PP on energy level at TO

Prac/cal deriva/ons:

training/diagnos/cs •  2D-‐CM energy considera/ons are mostly sufficient •  one trial for analysing interven/on influences

•  spend less /me on T-‐PP •  reduce energy loss during jump •  increase work in first pole phase •  increase specific strength, especially women

~ ~

Dr. Falk Schade

Applied Diagnos/cs

Falk Schade

Applied Diagnos/cs

„specific

interac/on“

Athlete

Coach

„specific interac/on“

Team Work

Team Work

(Schade, 2004)

Research Ins/tu/on

Competence Communica/on Confidence

Diagnos/cian

Interac/on Modell -‐ transfer of knowledge -‐

Falk Schade

Falk Schade

ATHLETE Genera/on X

Genera/on „WHY“ etc.

biology based func/ons and processes

competence COMMUNICATION confidence, respect

psychology based func/ons and processes

soziology based func/ons and processes

Systemic Approach -‐ combina/on of diagnos/cs and interven/on -‐

Pole Vault Diagnostics€¦ · Pole Vault Diagnostics Falk%Schade% ∑ ∑ ∑ = = = Θ + Θ = + +...

Documents

Transcript of Pole Vault Diagnostics€¦ · Pole Vault Diagnostics Falk%Schade% ∑ ∑ ∑ = = = Θ + Θ = + +...