Biomechanics reviews
- paul29416
- Oct 1, 2024
- 9 min read
Updated: Nov 13
X Vault biomechanics reviews provide a comprehensive analysis of the most recent research findings regarding pole vault technique. By delving into the intricacies of the sport, these reviews offer valuable insights into the fundamental technical principles that underpin successful pole vaulting. Understanding these techniques enables coaches and athletes to tailor training programs to accommodate vaulters of varying physiques and abilities, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the overall standards of pole vaulting.
Through a meticulous examination of biomechanical principles, X Vault biomechanics reviews shed light on the nuances of pole vaulting. By dissecting the vault in detail, these reviews empower readers to grasp the finer points of the sport and make informed decisions when it comes to training and technique refinement.
Men’s articles — Highlights
Runway speed is necessary.
Elite male vaulters have high mid-runway velocities 9.2–9.5 m·s⁻¹
Duplantis has recorded 10.3 m·s⁻¹ in specific meets
However, what differentiates winners is the ability to preserve or even increase velocity into the take-off, rather than merely having the highest mid-runway speed
Last three strides and take-off control matter.
Medallists typically shorten the final step relative to the penultimate
Compressing the final step during pole plant whilst preparing for take off
Optimal take-off distances produce better alignment between top hand, take-off foot & favorable pole angle.
Take-off velocity + directional reorientation.
High take-off velocity combined with an appropriate direction angle maximises kinetic energy transfer
Swing and push synchronisation with pole recoil are critical
Pole selection & athlete matching.
Faster vaulters use stiffer poles and higher grips to exploit more kinetic energy
Only if their strength and technical proficiency can manage greater loads
The clustering study shows multiple technical styles can produce similar outcomes
Women’s articles — Highlights
Speed smatters but technique is proportionally important.
Female elite approach speeds typically around 7.0–8.5 m·s⁻¹
Top women minimise deceleration into the last steps and maintain a high fraction of runway speed into take-off
Absolute push energy is typically smaller, technique has greater relative importance
Last-step modulation & take-off geometry.
Successful women often use a shortened final stride
Take-off velocities are higher in winners
Pole interaction scaled to athlete morphology.
Grip heights mid-4m region for top women
Women who can use somewhat stiffer poles and higher grips gain a mechanical advantage
Many top performers exploit superior swing mechanics and timing to extract energy from the pole
In-air mechanics dominated by swing and compact clearance.
Because push contributions are smaller, efficient swing & inversion timing are critical
Technique diversity & regional styles.
The reports observe
A “free take-off” linked to Eastern European technique
A Vertical classical style
Both approaches are compatible with elite performance when pole choice, strength, and sprint characteristics are well matched
Practical implications.
For coaches working with women, incremental gains come from improving
Last-step retention of speed
Swing timing, and technical tuning (plant angle, hand height)
Strength development that supports higher grip usage is beneficial but must be integrated with technical optimisation to avoid maladaptive trade-offs.
Women's pole vault - 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships Biomechanical Report
This indoor women’s championship biomechanical analysis highlights runway, velocity, take-off dynamics and the role of technique in championship performance. Sandi Morris won with 4.95 m (championship record), and the report examines why her technical profile produced a top result.
Top women had approach speeds lower than top men, but elite female winners distinguished themselves by maintaining a higher percentage of runway speed into the final steps. Morris demonstrated high retention of horizontal velocity into the last step and minimum deceleration during the final two strides. For most of the top finalists the last stride was often shortened relative to the penultimate, creating a positive forward posture during the plant.
Grip height among finalists clustered around the mid-4m range with grip width varying by athlete. Pole stiffness selection followed the pattern: faster or taller athletes tended to choose stiffer poles and higher grips. Standout performers displayed excellent swing with rapid inversion. Whilst push height was smaller than typically seen in men, the swing’s timing and the athlete’s technical proficiency seem critical.
The report remarks on varied approaches with some athletes demonstrating a “free take-off” often associated with Eastern European/Soviet lineage. Others displayed a vertical take-off with conservative plant and less pole bend. Both approaches produced elite results; the decisive factor seems to match pole selection and grip height to the athletes strength, speed and technical proficiency.
For elite women, marginal gains arise from technical refinement, sustaining velocity into take-off, precise last-step shortening, efficient swing & push synchronisation. Unlike men where increased absolute push can make a larger numeric difference, women’s best performances rest on maximising finesse in the plant and swing phases.
Women's pole vault - 2017 IAAF World Championships Biomechanical report
This Women's championship biomechanics analysis focuses on finalist kinematics (approach, last strides, take-off geometry) and vault mechanics. The report highlights how technical optimisation rather than absolute speed dominated outcomes among the top women.
The finalists displayed runway velocities typically in the 7.0–8.5 m·s⁻¹ range depending on level and individual. Crucially, efficient competitors minimised deceleration in the last three steps and used last-step shortening strategies in preparation for take off.
The strongest performers combined reasonable runway speeds with high take-off velocities. Stefanídi’s success was linked to optimising final stride velocity and precise positioning of her center of mass on take-off to maximise the vertical component.
Take-off distances among women were closer on average than many lower-placing vaulters, positioning the top hand grip more closely with the take-off foot to produce a favorable pole angle.
Grip heights for top athletes were lower in absolute terms than men, roughly mid-4m region for top performances, but scaled to athlete stature. Grip width and pole stiffness selections were also individualised.
Sandi Morris’s 4.95m championship record exhibits excellent velocity-to-pole transfer rather than extreme grip height. Women’s push contributions were relatively smaller in absolute meters than men’s.
Top women showed efficient swing, well-timed inversion, whilst demonstrating technical proficiency in bar clearance. Because women’s absolute push contributions are smaller, the timing of swing, push and technical proficiency during pole recoil seem critical.
Some vaulters (Russian school-influenced) employ a free take-off with emphasis on pole plant and swing technique, whereas others emphasise a high take-off velocity approach adapted to their strength. However, the central theme describes one of technique amplification. Elite performance relies on refined technical efficiency, more than on pure speed because of physiological scaling.
Take-home messages:
Efficient conversion of horizontal velocity to vertical energy
Precise last-stride and take-off alignment is vital
Swing timing and compact technique is critical
Technical proficiency is king
Men's pole vault - 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships Biomechanical Report
This indoor competition analysis emphasises the run-up, take-off transition and pole mechanics interaction in a championship context. The report uses high-speed video and runway speed measures to extract detailed kinematics of finalists and links these to performance outcomes.
Finalists displayed a similar pattern: approach speed must be converted into a high resultant take-off velocity. The distinguishing aspect in top performances was minimised deceleration in the last two steps and the capacity to increase or maintain horizontal velocity into the last stride, thus allowing greater capacity to generate kinetic energy available to transfer to the pole.
Finalists executed a pattern where the penultimate step was relatively long and the final step shortened, enabling rapid forward-to-vertical reorientation during this phase of the plant. Athletes who successfully transitioned demonstrated a small take-off variances (take-off foot located directly under or slightly behind the upper grip), aligning the pole for efficient take off and energy transfer.
Top performers displayed high take-off velocities, grips and stiffer poles. they created large swing amplitude with a synchronised inversion and push in time with the pole recoil. Grip height correlated with potential vertical reach, whilst grip widths varied.
The analysis reinforces that optimal performance is a systems interaction:
Runway speed
Minimal deceleration
Last-step timing
Take-off geometry
Pole grip height and stiffness
Synchronised technical proficiency during all phases of the vault
Men's pole vault - 2017 IAAF World Championships Biomechanical report
This competition biomechanics report analyses finalists’ run-up, take-off and clearance using multi-camera 3D reconstruction and high-speed video. Key measurable metrics reported for the finalists reveal consistent patterns associated with the podium performances.
Runway velocity (11–6 m) across finalists was 9.36 m·s⁻¹. Kendricks did not have the single highest mid-runway velocity but showed the highest resultant velocity at take-off (9.37 m·s⁻¹) and the fastest last-step entrance velocity (last step > penultimate).
Several medallists displayed a reduction in final step length relative to the penultimate step, additionally the data highlights peak runway speed alone is not sufficient, what stands out in the best performances is the ability to carry speed into a high resultant take-off velocity.
Take-off distances for finalists ranged roughly 3.56–4.45 m from the box; medallists tended to take off slightly closer to the box, with more in-line alignment between upper grip hand and take-off foot and angles having a direction that favours energy transfer into the pole.
Grip heights among finalists averaged 4.70 to 5m and whilst grip width varied, there was no single “best” width. Pole angle at plant was typically 26–30°. Duplantis and Kendricks used stiffer setups relative to body mass compared with lower performers, but the paper stresses individualisation: stiffness × grip height must match athlete speed, strength and technique.
For medallists, the push contributions varied from 2cm to 29cm. Kendricks’ success was associated with a high resultant take-off velocity, efficient swing and push transfer, which produced a relatively large push contribution with short time on the pole.
Interpretive points for this biomechanics report emphasise individual solutions. Key commonalities in better performances were:
Highest resultant take-off velocity and not just mid-runway speed
Shorter final stride relative to penultimate
Alignment of top hand grip and take off foot
Optimised pole selection - stiffness pole with highest grip matched to athlete strength and speed.
The study cautions against a one-size-fits-all prescription—elite success arises from individually balanced systems of speed, pole interaction and technique.
Clustering technical approaches of elite and world-class pole vaulters based on 10 years of measurement during competitions 2024
A recent study on "Clustering Technical Approaches of Elite and World-Class Pole Vaulters," conducted over 10 years, aimed to categorise pole vaulters based on their technical methods. Using data from 99 athletes, researchers identified four distinct clusters of vaulting styles using k-means clustering. These clusters were based on key parameters like take-off (TK) angle and "Under" value, which refers to the horizontal distance between the take-off foot and the upper hand on the pole.
The analysis revealed different technical approaches, with no significant differences in speed, energy gain, or anthropometrics between the clusters. However, each group demonstrated unique interactions with the pole.
No cluster had superior take-off speed or gross energy gain;
All clusters achieved similar input energy (runway speed/energy net gain) but differ in how that energy is handled between athlete and pole.
Pole–athlete interaction differs across clusters.
C4 athletes produced the largest pole bending ratio and large take-off distances (distance from plant to athlete position during maximal bend).
C2 used stiffer pole selections and higher grip distances (lower bending), reducing pole deformation as primary energy storage.
These findings indicate that coaching strategies can be optimised by understanding an athlete’s technical tendencies and tailoring training accordingly. The study underscores that while certain biomechanical principles remain universal, pole vaulters can achieve similar performance levels through diverse technical adaptations.
Frontiers | Biomechanical Pole Vault Patterns Were Associated With a Higher Proportion of Injuries (frontiersin.org) 2019
The review article "Biomechanical Pole Vault Patterns Were Associated With a Higher Proportion of Injuries" investigates how specific biomechanical elements in pole vaulting contribute to injury risks among athletes. The study analysed national-level pole vaulters and identified that key factors like take-off technique, speed during the final strides, and stride length variability were significantly associated with injury history.
Key findings showed that a lower hand height at take-off and increased horizontal speed during the run-up phase led to higher injury risks. This horizontal vaulting technique, which emphasises speed over vertical lift, increases strain on the body, making athletes more prone to injuries. Additionally, athletes with higher training volumes per week were more likely to report injuries, suggesting that overexposure to pole vaulting’s physical demands plays a role.
The study emphasises that while speed is critical for performance, optimising technique to reduce strain during take-off and improve the angle between the athlete and the pole may help reduce injury risks. This biomechanical insight can guide coaches in developing injury prevention strategies, balancing training loads, and refining technical execution to enhance athlete safety and performance
Key predictors associated with higher injury prevalence (all injuries):
Lower height of the top hand at take-off
A more horizontally oriented take-off was significantly associated with higher injury history
This suggests a horizontally biased plant increases musculoskeletal stresses
Higher runway velocity
Higher speed between 10 and 5m to the box & higher speed increase in the last 5m
Correlated with injury - high approach speeds raise mechanical loads
Larger last-stride adjustment
Positive or negative & greater stride-length variability were associated with injury history
Instability in step regulation may be either a risk factor or a compensation for prior injuries
Longer contact times correlated with higher injury proportions
Potentially reflecting neuromuscular deficits after prior injury or altered running mechanics
High training volumes per week were independently associated with greater injury history
Cumulative exposure matters.
Practical takeaways and prevention recommendations:
Coaches should monitor approach mechanics and aim to increase the pole–ground/take-off angle where possible — a more vertical plant may reduce harmful horizontal force
Control training load and periodise high-speed, high-impact sessions to manage cumulative mechanical stress
Attention to last-step consistency and reducing maladaptive variability may be protective
For athletes with prior injuries, technical retraining should focus on correcting running asymmetries and contact time anomalies
Study limitations:
Retrospective injury data (recall bias)
Limited sample size for specific injury types
Comments