Most technical models treat the pole vault as a sequence of elements — each one a technical problem to solve in isolation. The plant is one problem. The takeoff is another. The inversion is another. Each element gets its own set of positions, cues, and corrections.
The m640 model treats the vault as a single unbroken system. The chain of energy begins with the first step and does not stop until the pole is released. Every element — the runway, the carry, the plant, the takeoff, what happens on the pole — is understood and coached as part of that chain, not as a standalone technique.
One principle underlies every element: a precise definition of what each element is and what it is meant to accomplish. Without a correct definition it is impossible to manage an element consistently or improve it deliberately. The m640 model defines every element of the vault — not as a position to hit, but as a contribution to the chain.
The energy framework
Before the elements — a number that reframes everything.
Approximately three quarters of the total energy an athlete generates to clear a given height comes from the runway. Speed, posture, and approach mechanics are not preparation for the vault — they are the vault's primary energy source.
The remaining quarter is generated during the airborne phase — in a window of 1.10 to 1.20 seconds for elite vaulters. Every coaching decision about what happens on the pole must be understood against this constraint.
This split is universal — it holds across athletes, heights, and vaulting styles, varying by only one to two percent. Its implications are significant: the athlete who develops maximum runway speed and approach energy has already determined three quarters of the outcome before leaving the ground.
Many programs focus on pole technique while treating runway development as secondary. The m640 model treats it as primary — because the numbers say it is.
The two key distinctions
The m640 model differs from conventional pole vault frameworks at two fundamental points. Understanding these distinctions is understanding the model.
The objective of the m640 model is not to optimize the athlete's use of existing physical capacity. It is to develop that capacity continuously — more runway speed, greater gymnastic output on the pole — so that every physical improvement produces a direct improvement in result.
This is only possible when the framework is simple enough that higher physical input does not break the technical execution. In a complex model with timing dependencies, more speed disrupts the system. In the m640 model, more speed is the system. The positive feedback loop — more input, higher result, demand for more input — can only exist when complexity has been sufficiently removed.
Conventional frameworks often teach that longer contact with the recoiling pole is advantageous — that the athlete should stay connected to the pole's energy release and catch the upward momentum. The m640 model rejects this entirely.
The athlete's focus is not on bending the pole or catching the recoil. The pole bends and unbends by itself — a consequence of the energy in the system. The athlete's objective is to get off the pole as fast as possible, generating maximum energy during the time they are on it. Time on pole (TOP) is one of the key metrics in the m640 model. The shorter the TOP, the better.
Increasing on-pole energy output
The ~25% of energy generated during the airborne phase is not fixed. There are two ways to increase it — and the m640 model develops both simultaneously.
First: eliminate passive phases. Every moment spent waiting — for the pole to load, for the recoil — is a moment where no energy is entering the system. Eliminating passive phases recovers that time and redirects it toward active contribution. This is the foundation of the Active vs Passive framework.
Second: develop physical capacity. Once passive phases are eliminated, the ceiling on on-pole energy output is set entirely by the athlete's physical ability — specifically their gymnastic capacity to generate energy off the ground while on the pole. This is where development becomes the objective.
The physics are precise. An athlete rotating a longer, more extended body through the same time window generates more energy than an athlete who shortens their body to complete the same rotation. The longer lever, rotated in the same unit of time, demands and transfers more energy to the system through the pole — producing greater energy for the system.
As gymnastic ability develops, the body progressively straightens during rotation — not because it is instructed to, but because the capacity to rotate extended has been built and more time is available through the elimination of passive phases.
A straighter body during rotation does something else as well. It keeps the system's center of gravity lower for longer — and that matters for pendulum mechanics. The pole is a pendulum progressing toward vertical. The longer the center of gravity stays low during the rotation, the more effectively the pole can complete that progression. A tucked body raises the center of gravity early, shortening the pole's effective arc toward vertical. A straight body preserves it — giving the system more time and leverage to complete the movement.
There is a third mechanism at work. The greater energy generated by a straighter body rotation transfers directly into pole bend — and keeps the pole bent longer. A pole that stays bent longer sustains the pendulum's arc further into the movement, compounding the mechanical advantage already gained by keeping the center of gravity low. All three effects — energy generation, center of gravity, and pole bend duration — point in the same direction and reinforce each other.
Energy generation, pendulum efficiency, and pole bend duration all point in the same direction: a straighter body is better. The m640 model develops the physical capacity to achieve it — without instructing a position.
Less able athletes compensate by shortening the body — tucking — which completes the rotation with less energy generated. This is a physical limitation, not a technical error. As capacity grows the compensation naturally reduces and more energy enters the system in the same time window.
The problem arises when the model an athlete operates within instructs them to tuck — "tuck fast, align and shoot with the pole" — as a timing mechanism for the recoil. An athlete who follows this instruction is prevented from expressing gymnastic ability they may have already developed through training. The physical capacity is there. The framework prevents its use. Training that should produce visible results produces nothing — and is eventually abandoned as pointless.
The m640 model removes the tucking instruction entirely. It replaces pole timing with athletic development. The results of that development become immediately visible in the vault.
The elements of the chain
Each element below is defined not as a position or a phase but as a contribution to the continuous chain. The technical detail of each — how to develop it, how to diagnose it, how to correct it — is inside the membership.
Element 01The Runway
The chain begins here — not at the takeoff, not at the plant, but with the first step. The runway is the primary energy source of the vault, contributing approximately 75% of the total energy available to clear a given height. The objective of the model is therefore not only to increase speed but to create a positive feedback loop for the athlete — the faster they run, the higher they jump.
Speed is the primary objective on the runway. It depends on the athlete's physical ability and general speed training — not on adaptation to a technical framework. The m640 model removes the technical constraints that cap speed and replaces them with the demand to develop it.
Two main technical components affect runway speed. First, pole carry — which affects the efficiency of the run and the athlete's control on the approach. Second, the plant — which is the key action that either sets boundaries on speed or removes them. Plant timing is different at different speeds — the lowering of the pole must be variable and adaptable so the athlete can adjust the plant to their runway speed. A fixed plant timing is one of the strongest obstacles to creating a positive feedback loop for speed increase. How the m640 model addresses this is covered in the plant section.
Run consistency, posture, acceleration mechanics, and approach rhythm are all defined and coached through the lens of one question: how much energy is entering the chain with every step?
Element 02Pole Carry
The pole carry is not a neutral transport action — it is an active preparation of the chain. Grip width, carry height, and arm position all affect what is possible at the plant and takeoff. Errors here propagate forward through every subsequent element.
The m640 model defines two objectives for the pole carry. First, to minimize any negative impact on runway speed — the carry must not interfere with the athlete's ability to accelerate and maintain maximum approach velocity. Second, to arrive in the correct position for the beginning of the plant — so the transition from runway to plant is seamless and the chain is not interrupted.
The m640 definition of correct pole carry is precise: a position that allows minimum interference with runway speed and enables a proper plant without interrupting the chain. Pole carry is not a cosmetic position. It is a functional one.
Element 03The Plant
The plant is one of the most coached and most misunderstood elements in the vault. To address it properly it must be defined first — precisely and completely. Without a correct definition it is impossible to manage the plant consistently or improve it deliberately. With one, it can be perfected.
The m640 model defines the plant by three things: its objective, its beginning, and its end.
The objective of the plant is to position the athlete to complete the Free Takeoff.
The beginning of the plant is the descent of the pole toward the box — initiated on the runway while the athlete is still running.
The end of the plant is the moment the takeoff foot first touches the ground.
This definition is significant. Most technical models treat the plant as ending when the pole reaches the box. The m640 model extends it to takeoff foot contact — because everything that happens between the start of the pole's descent and the moment the foot lands is part of one continuous action with one objective. Fragmenting it produces inconsistency. Defining it whole makes it coachable.
As noted in the runway section, plant timing must be variable and adaptable to speed. The physics explain why. From any pole carry position, the speed at which the pole descends toward the box is defined by gravity — and the fastest possible descent is when the pole drops without resistance. That descent speed cannot easily be increased beyond what gravity allows. This means that at higher approach speeds the descent must begin sooner — the faster the athlete runs, the earlier the pole must start moving toward the box. A fixed plant timing creates a hard ceiling on approach speed: the athlete must slow down to fit the plant, not the other way around.
The m640 model has specific methods to allow for this variability — enabling the plant to adjust to the athlete's speed rather than constraining it. The model also explains how vaulters like Renaud Lavillenie and Mondo Duplantis navigate the major obstacles this presents at the highest speeds in the sport. This is covered inside the membership.
The simple definition above is decoded by the m640 model with precise methods to coach toward the objective — positioning the athlete to complete the Free Takeoff.
Element 04The Free Takeoff
As with every element of the m640 model, we begin with a definition. The definition includes the objective, the beginning, and the end of the action.
The beginning of the Free Takeoff is the instant the takeoff foot touches the ground.
The end is the instant the toe of the takeoff foot leaves the ground.
The two objectives of the Free Takeoff are: first, to complete the takeoff without experiencing resistance from the pole; and second, to arrive in position for immediate rotation acceleration into inversion and pullthrough.
This definition allows for clear evaluation and consistent coaching. When the beginning, end, and objectives are precisely defined, every aspect of the Free Takeoff becomes measurable and improvable.
The Free Takeoff is also understood in terms of takeoff angle — and how an optimal takeoff angle is achieved through the biomechanical actions of the athlete combined with the use of the pole as a support. This is different from long jump, triple jump, or high jump, where the takeoff angle depends entirely on the athlete's own biomechanical actions. In the pole vault the pole participates in generating the optimal takeoff angle with minimum energy loss. There is no single formula that fits every athlete — but the m640 model has a method for defining what is appropriate for each athlete based on their individual ability.
By m640 definition, the pole does not bend while the athlete is on the ground. The athlete is not focused on bending the pole or moving it — they are simply transitioning from one support to another: from the runway to the pole. As a consequence of the kinetic energy generated on the runway, the pole bends organically. The athlete does not cause the bend. The system does.
—Free Takeoff and Athlete Longevity
Beyond performance, the Free Takeoff carries a significant benefit that is rarely discussed: injury prevention and longevity in the sport.
When an athlete bends the pole on the ground, they experience direct resistance from the pole transmitted through the shoulders, back, and hamstrings — the weakest link between pole and ground. Poles are rated by stiffness in pounds — a 220 lb rated pole is close to unbendable for most athletes, essentially the stiffness of a street lamp. That reactive force going through the body on every jump is a significant source of injury in conventional vaulting.
In a proper Free Takeoff the athlete leaves the ground before the pole bends significantly. Once in the air, the pole's resistance cannot damage the athlete in the same way — the body is no longer the rigid connector between pole and ground. The result is that Free Takeoff athletes can use stiffer poles, experience fewer overuse injuries, and sustain competitive careers longer.
The m640 model does not separate performance from health. The Free Takeoff serves both simultaneously.
Element 05Inversion & Pullthrough
Inversion and pullthrough are not two actions. They are one — a single continuous movement that begins the instant the toe of the takeoff foot leaves the ground and ends when the hands release the pole at the very top.
This single action replaces everything that previous technical models placed in the airborne section of the vault — the drive phase, the C-position, the rockback, the shoulder roll, pole alignment, catching the recoil, and the many variations that different frameworks have introduced over the years. All of those are positions to hit, moments to time, phases to sequence. The m640 model removes them entirely and replaces them with one unbroken objective.
The simplest way to understand it is to imagine standing at the base of a rope. You want to reach the highest possible point on that rope. What do you do? You invert and pull through in one single action — there is no phase to time, no position to reach first, no recoil to catch. The same was true for athletes of the rigid pole era. And from the m640 perspective, abstracting away the bending of the pole, there is very little difference. The athlete's action is the same: one continuous movement from takeoff to release, as fast and as completely as physical ability allows.
Once this is accepted, one question follows naturally: how do I maximize the rotation into inversion and pullthrough?
That is precisely what the m640 model answers — through the development of gymnastic ability, the elimination of passive phases, and the removal of any instruction that interrupts the single action. The answer is not a position. It is a physical capacity, developed progressively.
There are no fixed positions in inversion and pullthrough. There is no timing. There is one action — and the metric that measures how well it is executed is Time on Pole (TOP).
The shorter the Time on Pole, the better. TOP is not a byproduct of good vaulting — it is the measure of it.
A shorter TOP nearly directly correlates with the amount of energy the athlete generated in the off-the-ground section. It is not a target to chase — it is a result that follows from everything the model builds. Once the infrastructure is in place — the physical capacity, the elimination of passive phases, the single unbroken action — the final adjustments are just a matter of course.
Everything the m640 model teaches about inversion and pullthrough — how to develop the physical capacity, how to coach it, how to diagnose where the single action breaks down — is inside the membership.
If reading this has already changed how you see the vault — that shift is real. And it is only the beginning.
The complete m640 model — every element defined, diagnosed, and developed in full — is inside the membership. The conceptual foundation presented here is free. Become a member.
View Membership Options