Talk:Pole vault

Cite Sources for Terminology
I initially posted the terminology section because many of the sections which were written prior to the addition of terminology used these terms. To anyone who hasn't vaulted, some of the terms like "bar" and "pole" are interchangable. Most people also wouldn't know the definition of a grip or a drive knee. One probably won't find these terms defined in any capacity on a polevault website of repute either because they are basic polevault terms and often overlooked by anyone who knows polevault basics. Most polevaulters have probably only heard definitions of those terms the first day of polevault practice-- after their initial introduction, it was more than likely considered common knowledge. My intention for this addition was to provide a more comprehensive addition of the subject matter and descriptions provided elsewhere in the article.

There haven't been many edits to the information since their initial posting... and someone has to eventually write mundane things like this down; however, since Wikipedia's strict policy on citing information frowns on using self as a source and I can't very well cite my highschool polevault coach's verbal instruction, it'd be very helpful if you vaulters out there could help scour the internet for a "reputable" site that would have such "common-knowledge" (for polevaulters) terms.

Jadewik 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I propose a merger of the list of pole vaulters who reached 6 metres. It looks better in this article than as a standalone page. Punkmorten 11:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And the same goes for Pole vault technology. Some of the information is already overlapping. Punkmorten 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, most definitely -- move it to the main article as a subheading. soverman 18:52 20 Sept 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.205.69 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.120.140 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely; perhaps if there was more information in the pole vault echnology site I would object, but as it is, there isn't enough for it to make its own site.Eowbotm1 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

spikes and running shoes
Is it worth it to pay the extra 20 bucks to buy spikes to pole vault? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animine (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Spikes are a must. Do anything you can to get your speed faster down the runway. 24.15.227.114 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Highschool Polevaulter

HEIGHT from plant
Is the height of the bar measured from the ground level or the bottom of the box?

love drew

If I recall correctly, the height of the bar is measured from the top-back (ground level of the back) of the box to the top of the crossbar. --Jadewik (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo ??
An honest assessment of the included photo of Michael Stolle is needed. It appears to be photoshopped. His position relative to the pole is not like anything that would EVER appear in the air. The shadows on Stolle and the shadows on the buildings in the background do not agree. There is no bend to the pole, despite the fact that any competent pole-vaulter would be mostly upside-down and have considerable bend in the pole at any point in the jump where he could be photographed with clear sky under his feet. In addition, his feet are placed exactly as they would be were he standing on the ground - but no ground!. I cry foul on this photo. Nothingofwater (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, no response so far. I will wait another day or two then delete the photo.  If anyone has a better photo, please suggest or post.  Thanks! Nothingofwater (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo
Why is there a photoshopped photo of a pole vaulter warming up/ditching the jump? Should have a pic of a vaulter bending the pole/rocking back or clearing a bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richthomas (talk • contribs) 07:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

pole vault rules
Hi, just wanting to know the rules of the sport please please please type an answer

- a school studentMagraths (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all in the article. Tyler John (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Physics and biomechanics of pole vaulting
This page would very much benefit from a section on the physics of vaulting; indeed a separate page could be justified. There is an _immense_ amount of information out there on the web and in various publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.212.109 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Modern vaulting"
What is meant by "It is also the those attempts with him and has fewer attempts on the higher height"? If I knew what was meant, I would correct this sentence, but I have no idea... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to aske the same question. Tyler John (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern vaulting section
In the third paragraph it says, "An athlete does not benefit from quickly leaving the landing pad before the bar has fallen. There is an exception to this rule if the vaulter is vaulting outdoors and has made a clear effort to throw the pole back, but the wind has blown the pole into the bar; this counts as a clearance." At my high school in Indiana, however, the rule is always that if the bar falls off when you are still on the mat, then it counts as not clearing the bar - even if it was blown off by the wind. So, is Indiana doing it different or is the article wrong? --Tyler John (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IAAF rule 181:
 * When it is clear that the bar has been displaced by a force not associated with an athlete (e.g. a gust of wind)
 * (a) if such displacement occurs after an athlete has cleared the bar without touching it, then the trial shall be considered successful, or
 * (b) if such displacement occurs under any other circumstance, a new trial shall be awarded.
 * So, your high school doesn't get it right, but neither does the article text: if you touch the bar, clear it, and the wind subsequently blows it off, it is still not a successful trial. In fact, everything in this article that describes the regulations should be backed up with citations, using the IAAF rule book. GregorB (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps National Federation rules are different in this aspect than the IAAF rules. NF rules are often different in other sports than those promulgated by the international ruling body. 173.30.145.40 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

How long is the pole?
Is there a regulation for the pole's dimensions and construction or is it a personal choice? Roger (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was also looking for this information here. Permissible dimensions should definitely be added. T om ea s y T C 10:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

History of pole vaults
This comment was placed in the article by 98.84.127.198: --- (OK-- you just said pole vaulting originated in Europe in the 19th century or earlier, then you said "Initially, vaulting poles were made from stiff materials such as bamboo or aluminum "-- which is stupid. Bamboo does not naturally occur in Europe and Aluminium was ridiculously expensive in the 19th century. What is the historic pole-vaultimg wood? I would guess Ligustrum vulgarus-- but that is a marginally educated guess. What is the history? - Arthena(talk) 13:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate swing method/ direct plagerism
This entire section, and probably most of this article, is copied directly, word for word, from here : http://www.mastersathletics.net/Pole-Vault-Masters-Track-and-Field.491.0.html

Second, I am removing the "Alternate Swing Methods." I am a former vaulter and coached at the high school level for several years. I have attended several modern clinics and seminars: neither of these methods is taught or endorsed. Instead, they are tweaks placed on the mechanics by the individual athlete. It would be like putting "Alternate dunking methods: Tongue out (Jordan)" in the Basketball article. I am not even sure why it exists on the other website as a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo1973 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair enough to me, but that site copied its information from here, as can be deduced by the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" header there. Graham 87 03:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha, that's even worse. Well, I have asked some people from the vaulting community to help contribute to this page.  Hopefully they will.Neo1973 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Who provides the poles in international competitions?
Do athletes travel with their own poles, or are these provided by the organizer of the competition? If the latter was the case, I would consider this fact worth mentioning in the article. T om ea s y T C 10:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pole vaulters travel with the poles they bought and with which they jump on training. Jean Galfione's poles once have been broken during a travel and DimaSport sent him a spare pole, but this is a really rare case (and it's only because he was olympic champion that DimaSport sent the pole). — Ɖeⅎeðeɽ Discutation 13:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many stories, probably not for Wikipedia, of the trials and tribulations of pole vaulters efforts to transport their poles. It is an achievement to get an airline to take such long objects, though all can do the job.  Poles have been lost, sent to the wrong place, cut in half in order to fit . . .  Bob Seagren notably had his poles taken away from him in the 1972 Olympics, I believe there have been other incidents like that.  The simple story is, it isn't easy, but pole vaulters want to use their familiar tools in competition.  There isn't much in the article about the details of pole stiffness and pole selection in the article but it is an extremely important aspect to the art of the sport. Trackinfo (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Pole vault sequence
Can I replace the first sequence with the second ? There are good pointa about both, but overall, the second seems more instructive to me. --Superzoulou (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I say go ahead and post it or both, assuming these are copyright released. There is nobody here who grants permission to do anything.  At best, you post it, someone else doesn't like it, it gets reverted and discussed.  Hopefully we reach a consensus.  I've been around political articles where two acrimonious sides can never agree.  I don't think we have that kind of controversy around pole vault.  Do you best to source your technique instruction, so it is not in the voice of wikipedia, but instead attributable to an identified expert.  People have opinions about this stuff.  Nobody is 100% right. Trackinfo (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. I have no special of the topic, I just think we see the movement better in the second sequence, but I was wondering if there were other opinions about it. --Superzoulou (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Injuries
I'm surprised that there is no section on injuries. Pole vaulting is relatively high risk (though not compared to American football) and there have been some reforms over the years to reduce the rate of death and serious injury.Bill (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Best marks ever inappropriately listed in notes section
An editor has seen fit to insert on this and many other athletics pages lists of best-ever marks by athletes in a "notes" section of the "All-time top 25 athletes." In my view, this good-faith addition is completely inappropriate to the sections in question. The function of "notes" to a section should be to clarify parts of the list in question, or to include marks which exceed an athlete's best but aren't included for some reason, such as on the long jump page Carl Lewis leaping a wind-aided long jump mark of 8.91 m, exceeding his legal personal best.

Instead, in an arbitrary and unreadable manner, we have on this page, by athlete, a list of marks over a set distance seemingly plucked out of the air. These marks clarify nothing about the main list and should be removed.

If the need to have a list of all-time best marks is identified, then CREATE A NEW SECTION.

Any comments?

Canada Jack (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pole vault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002031515/http://www.pbholland.com/info.php?context=alle&lang=en to http://www.pbholland.com/info.php?context=alle&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Technique
Was present technique always used, or were there other techniques? 213.149.62.148 (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Citation for history of pole vaulting?
Hi, I was interested if there was a reputable source for the paragraph beginning with "Poles were used as a practical means of passing over natural obstacles in marshy places...", because these seems like quite a strange and bizarre fact, and would be at the very least interesting to read about. I haven't been able to find any reputable sources from where this fact might have originated. Most of the sources I find have the wikipedia factoid repeated verbatim or with the words slightly changed. The best I could find was this link in Vaulter Magazine, "http://vaultermagazine.com/evolution-of-the-pole-vault/", but again this is exactly copied, and I look at the old revision and the Wikipedia article is older, so it's Vaulter Magazine that plagiarized Wikipedia, not the other way around.

So I was wondering if someone had a source for this, or how one should go about looking for a source for this? Google seems to fail me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.184.121 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, useing WikiBlame with an early enough stating date (e.g. 2007), I determined that most of the relevant text was added in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pole_vault&diff=prev&oldid=3556822 this edit in 2003], and the accompanying edit summary said it was sourced from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, as can be confirmed at Wikisource. The part about Venetians was added [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pole_vault&diff=prev&oldid=197032572 without a source in 2008]. Graham 87 15:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Reason
That portion of the article isn't really neccessary to talk about pole vaulting. It should be a sperate article. Ejkrause (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is enough material on that subject to warrant a separate article. I think the section is needed because the pole vault is one of the more technical events in track and field/athletics so a discussion on that subject is warranted.
 * If you are making the proposal on the basis that the article needs pruning, I'd say there are some of the lists sections that might possibly go on a separate page. The record progression lists are already on separate pages. But I'm not aware of any other event that has a sepaarate page for, say, the list of Olympic and World medalists. Canada Jack (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge all time list and 6m club
Considering there are a lot of athletes in "6m club" (some day very soon 25+) and to avoid repeating, plus "6m club" table has additional information I propose merging those by simply adding date of best jump to "6m club" table. You could call it "All time list and 6m club". 213.149.61.9 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the use of the all-time lists has to be re-thought. First what does "comprehensive" mean? If it means mixing the indoor and outdoor marks, that is OR as even the IAAF doesn't do that. The lists are maintained separately, even though WRs can be set indoors or out. Secondly, the silly listings under the main all-time lists has all those who additionally made some arbitrary level - for men it's all marks done 6.00 m and above (24 men have achieved that height) but for the women it's 4.85 and above (but that is a height only 13 have achieved) - if there is some criteria at play here, I'd like to see it. Besides, it's a tedious and cumbersome way of displaying this information - which surely is the exact sort of trivia we are to avoid on wikipedia. For example, do we really need to know that in addition to jumping 4.90 indoors, Anzhelika Sidorova at other times also achieved 4.87 in 2018, 4.86 in 2018 and 4.85 in 2016, 2017 and 2018?
 * If the list-nerds insist on shoving all this trivia on the page - there looks to be some 50 or so of these extra marks listed for the women - why not make it into a single list, one that has, say, the 25 greatest performances, then followed by the rest of the athletes in rank to 25 or whatever the depths of the lists are. THAT makes more sense, not to mention organizes the information in a way regular people and not just forensic paleontologists can figure out! Canada Jack (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Picture for "Technique section"
The photo of Théo Mancheron titled "phases of pole vaulting" under the Technique section does not exemplify the phases very well and needs to be replaced. It doesn't have enough pictures to match up with the phases described to the left of it. Also the athlete does not show the key parts of each phase, for example despite the vaulter being in the swing up phase his arm never hugs tight to the pole, also the vaulter does not turn until after he is over the bar which would imply that the turn phase is after the fly-away phase even though it is before and labeled as such. I think this photo needs to be replaced and would suggest having pictures of Renaud Lavillenie's stages of vaulting as he shows each stage very well. Provaulter1 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New all-time top 25 lists coming
After getting consensus in doing this on the High Jump page, I plan to soon replace the existing all-time Top 25 lists, currently divided into men's and women's all-time top athletes (absolute), breaking these lists into separate indoor and outdoor lists for men and women. I argued that an "absolute" list is original research and while I didn't gain agreement on that, my approach in nevertheless separating indoor and outdoor lists seems to have been accepted.

So, there will be 4 instead of 2 lists, Men's outdoor, Men's indoor, Women's outdoor, Women's indoor. World Athletics treats these events as separate events and I argue we should do so here, even if marks set indoors qualify for all-around World Records.

Further, given that listing secondary marks by athletes in the "notes" section under each list is in my view cumbersome and arbitrary, I have created these lists incorporating the top 25 performances as well. This model could be used on all events, as it shows instantly how dominant a particular athlete is in the event, and it also shows a big mark that isn't a record nevertheless ranks all-time. It also creates a m ore sensible cut-off - Top 25 marks, Top 25 athletes. Of course in the high jump and pole vault many marks will tie, but in most running events this will not be an issue, if this approach is carried through there. Canada Jack (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you did get a consensus on dividing indoor and outdoor lists, I'm not gonna argue about that, but I don't understand why you think there's a consensus on adding more performances. First of all, that's not what the section is about. It's called "All-time top 25 men", so it should be just that. Second, it looks atrocious. And I'm not overreacting, it's just really really bad. Have you tried browsing it in mobile version? It's just an endless confusing table, it actually takes time to understand what's going on there. And I see I'm not the only one who doesn't like that.--176.214.223.30 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Funny... zero comments for a month on this, then three within a day? And a similar comment about "adding" performances when I did precisely the reverse!
 * It's called "All-time top 25 men", so it should be just that.  It was never "just that." Previously, there was a section under the list that catalogued every performance over 6.00m. So I didn't add more performances, I in fact I REDUCED the number of performances, from something like 140 on the men's side to something like 95 on the two men's lists.
 * If it looks bad, then help make it look better. There seemed to be a need to list secondary marks by the athletes. Just about every page with a Top 25 includes at least as many secondary marks - but in an incoherent way. This does a better job - I know how a list could be done better, but I don't have the skills to do it here. These lists simply present the information that was there before but putting it in one list instead of putting the extra vaults on a ridiculous "notes" section with an arbitrary cut-off. This sets that cut-off at 25, as with the performers. World Athletics does almost exactly the same thing. It's time to list best marks in a coherent fashion. Canada Jack (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I find the table confusing. It's a hybrid of the 25 best jumps, and the 25 best jumpers. Now it suggests Bubka or Duplantis didn't make a jump 6.03, but that's only because there's some arbitrary cutoff between the two types. Also, given this table, the "6 meter club" and "5 meter club" don't add new information. 62.216.5.216 (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Rockback?
The section about the turn starts off with "The turn is executed immediately after or even during the end of the rockback." This is the first (and only) time the term rockback is mentioned in the article. This term needs to be explained. 62.216.5.216 (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Russian Olympic Committee flag.svg

Duplantis's 6.06 CR before 6.21 WR - on list or off?
Before we get into an edit war, Chami46 has said that the 6.06 Duplantis did at Eugene to set a new CR before he followed that with his 6.21 WR should not be on the 25/25 list here as it does not appear on the list of all performances on the World Athletics site. I say it should be, despite that, as WA is not consistent with listing secondary marks made at competitions. Carl Lewis has both his 2nd and 3rd-best leaps from the WR Tokyo 1991 WC listed - his best jump being wind-aided. And Yelena Isbanyeva has both her 4.97m and 5.00m indoor marks from the same day in 2009 listed, both being world records.

We can provide a link to the article from WA mentioning both his initial CR at 6.06 followed by his 6.21 WR, in terms of reference. WA athletics seems a bit arbitary in listing secondary marks at the same competition - we need not do so here. Canada Jack (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the description of the competition. Interestingly, the Championship Record he broke at 6.06 had stood far longer - 21 years - then the World Record he subsequently broke (several months).
 * It should be on the list. Stubborn author(s) had the idea to "copy" WA lists and keep off ancillary jumps and throws. So the lists don't reflect the dominance of elite athletes in their discipline. Remember Ryan Crouser threw 23.12m on 24 June 2022. But his historic ancillary attempts of 23.01, 23.11 and 22.98 were keep off the lists.Montell 74 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Montell - and yes I mean "ancillary" marks, more accurate to say than "secondary" marks. Canada Jack (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Subin Kim leaps 6.17 ?!?!
World Athletics is listing a 6.17 by Subin Kim of Korea.... achieved May 24.... surely this can't be real! Maybe it was a long jump put in the wrong category? Canada Jack (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Now the mark is gone... wonder if Kim got a kick out that, being WL for a few hours... Canada Jack (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

History of the event
Wikipedia is principally concerned with whether or not you have a reliable source. truth is not the main criteria, and if the facts are disputed, by reliable sources, then Wikipedia policy is to present the debate fairly. however, the claim in the History section of this article that 1,300 people participated in a pole vault tournament in 1826 should have raised suspicions. also the claimed height of 10ft 10in should have made editors question the validity of this claim. according to Richard Hymans, who compiled the 2015 edition of World Record Progressions for the IAAF, no one anywhere in the world cleared 10ft 10in (3.30m) at the pole vault before 1876 (Charles Gaskin, Sheffield Football Club Sports, Bramall Lane, Sheffield 3 July 1876), and Hymans lists no performance at all before 1843.

Professor Voelker operated a Gymnasium at 1 Union Place, opposite Marylebone Church, from around 1825. he opened branches at various places including 8 Leicester Square, in Mr Mathieu's Riding Academy in Finsbury Place, and there was also one near the Blind Beggar Pub but the precise address has proved elusive. at these places he held classes of gymnastic instruction for paying customers. a typical announcement in contemporary newspapers runs like this: "Last week, a Branch Gymnasium for the West-end of the town, was opened, at the grounds of Professor Voelker, Union-place, Marylabonne, and was fashionably attended. On Wednesday, another Branch Gymnasium was opened at Hackney. There are now upwards of 1300 Members of the Parent Institution." see, for example: London Courier and Evening Gazette, Sat 19 Aug 1826 p. 3; Weekly Dispatch (London), Sun 20 Aug 1826 p. 3; Pierce Egan's Life in London, and Sporting Guide, Sun 20 Aug 1826 p. 4; etc.

I was unable to find any evidence that Professor Voelker held tournaments or competitions of any kind. he held classes for paying customers, and may have had as many as 1300 subscribers. the only reference to a pole that I have been able to uncover in this context is an apparatus called a "horizontal pole" that Captain Clias, not Professor Voelker, put up in London in 1822 at a height of about ten feet above the ground, and performed gymnastic exercises on it to the astonishment of a paying audience. Captain Clias was also very popular for a while, the Duke of York appointed him to be Superintendent of Gymnastic Exercises at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, until hubris overtook him and he was exposed as a quack by a man called Christopher North, the nome de plume of Professor John Wilson of Glasgow University, writing in Blackwoods Magazine. at the height of Professor Voelker's popularity this article was repeated in the Weekly Dispatch (London), Sun 27 Aug 1826 p. 6, whilst omitting to mention its author. noted athletics historian Professor Peter Radford has written extensively on these two gentlemen and their impact on the notion that exercise might actually be good for you, but it wasn't until the 1850s that we had a Royal Commission to investigate the link between exercise and health.

I don't have a copy of Richard Ganslen's book and can't confirm what it says, but it seems clear that something has been lost in the transcription of either the original contemporary reports or of Ganslen's book to Wikipedia, and I have therefore deleted the reference in this article to a pole vault tournament having taken place in London in 1826. I have also deleted the unreferenced claim to "Caledonian Games." Scottish Border Games of the 1820s had high jump and triple jump but there is no evidence of pole vaulting in Scotland before the 1880s.  Cottonshirt  τ   03:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Bridget Williams indoor mark of 4.83 from February missing
Hey folks, I'd add this myself but the coding is so complicated now... This mark fell through the cracks. Bridget Williams (USA) did 4.83i at Clermont-Ferrand, France on Feb. 22. She matched the mark by Canadian Alysha Newman at the same competition, but was 2nd on count back. Newman's mark is on the list, Williams' mark is missing. Canada Jack (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)