Mondo Duplantis and the Pole Vault Energy Conversion of an Elite Vaulter

The Athlete in One Paragraph

Armand “Mondo” Duplantis (b. 1999-11-10, Lafayette, Louisiana, United States; competing for Sweden) is the world record holder in the men’s pole vault, having raised the bar past 6.30 m and won consecutive Olympic titles in Tokyo 2020 and Paris 2024. Listed at 1.81 m and approximately 79 kg, he is — by anthropometry alone — not the obvious blueprint for a discipline that historically rewarded longer levers; what he brings instead is the fastest documented runway approach in the modern event and a takeoff mechanic that converts that horizontal velocity into the pole-vault chain with very little loss. Mechanically, the pole vault is a sequence of energy transformations: kinetic energy from the runway is partly converted into elastic potential stored in the bent pole, which is then partly returned as the pole unbends and is partly converted into the gravitational potential energy of the vaulter’s centre of mass at peak height. The variable underneath is the pole vault energy conversion — the efficiency of each link in the kinetic → elastic → potential chain — and Duplantis is the contemporary case study for what an elite chain looks like.

The Physiology — what the conversion chain actually transforms

The pole vault is a constrained, multi-stage energy-conversion task. The vaulter arrives at the box with a horizontal kinetic energy equal to one-half of body mass times the square of approach velocity; that quantity is the upstream cap on everything that follows, and Haugen, Tønnessen, Hisdal and Seiler’s review of sprint development confirms that approach speed in vaulters tracks the same neuromuscular determinants as sprint speed in sprinters — ground contact time, vertical force per contact, and the late-acceleration / early-Vmax transition zone where the limb-cycling pattern locks in [1]. A vaulter who runs faster on the runway has more energy to convert; a vaulter whose late-acceleration profile breaks down in the final strides arrives at the box with less than the runway could have produced.

At plant, the pole acts as a long, compliant elastic element. Komi’s stretch-shortening-cycle model describes the analogous storage-and-return mechanism in tendon: a rapid eccentric load stores elastic energy in a series-elastic component, and the timing of the concentric reversal determines what fraction is returned [2]. The pole-vault pole is, mechanically, a much larger and more compliant version of the same storage mechanism, and the takeoff phase — driving the vaulter’s centre of mass upward into the pole while the pole bends — is where horizontal kinetic energy is decanted into the pole’s elastic potential.

Markovic and Mikulic’s synthesis of plyometric adaptations [3] and Wisløff, Castagna, Helgerud, Jones and Hoff’s strength-to-jump correlation [4] anchor the F-side capacity that the vaulter needs at the takeoff impulse: the takeoff is a ballistic action whose magnitude depends on the same maximal-force capacity that governs sprint and jump performance. Bobbert, Gerritsen, Litjens and Van Soest’s analysis of why countermovement jump height exceeds squat jump height [5] explains the takeoff-phase pre-tensioning that allows the vaulter’s plant leg to deliver a peak vertical impulse far above what a static start could produce — the same SSC mechanism that governs every other ballistic-takeoff sport, executed here against a much larger external compliance.

The Case — Duplantis’s chain

For a 1.81 m, 79 kg vaulter operating at the upper end of the contemporary record book, the upstream constraint is approach velocity: the kinetic energy available at the box is squared in the input, so even small percentage gains in late-runway speed produce disproportionately large gains in storable elastic energy [1]. Duplantis’s runway has been described in the coaching literature as among the fastest in the modern event, and the implication is that the pole he selects, the grip height he uses and the bend he produces are all downstream consequences of an unusually high upstream kinetic input rather than of any single trick in the takeoff itself.

The chain that follows the takeoff is sequential. The pole bends as the vaulter swings — converting horizontal kinetic energy into the pole’s elastic potential — and the timing of body inversion (the swing from a hanging position into the inverted, vertical-and-upside-down body alignment that places the hips above the hands) determines how much of the pole’s stored energy is delivered into the vaulter’s centre of mass at the moment of pole un-bending [2, 5]. Out-of-sync inversion bleeds energy into rotational and translational components that do not lift the centre of mass; in-sync inversion converts a high fraction of the stored elastic energy into the gravitational potential needed to clear the bar.

The push-off at the top of the pole, the final un-weighting and the bar clearance are the last stages of the chain. The plant-leg ballistic capacity [4] and the upper-body push that completes the action are bounded by the same maximal-force constraints that govern every other ballistic task in athletics; the vaulter who is force-deficient relative to body mass leaves stored energy on the pole, while the vaulter who is force-adequate but mistimes the inversion-and-push sequence leaves stored energy in the wrong direction [2, 3, 5].

(Performance data: World Athletics)

What This Means for the Reader

For a developing vaulter — and more broadly for any athlete who depends on a compliant external implement — the diagnostic question is which link in the conversion chain is leaking. Approach-speed deficits cap everything downstream and cannot be patched at the takeoff [1]. Takeoff-impulse deficits leave the pole under-bent and the chain under-loaded, and are addressed through maximal-strength and SSC-progressive plyometric work [2, 3, 4, 5]. Inversion-timing deficits leak energy into rotational components and require coaching against high-resolution video; no amount of strength work fixes mistimed inversion. The single most useful framing for the reader is that the vault is not a feat of arm strength or of pole technology; it is a chain of energy transformations whose total output is bounded by the weakest link, and the diagnostic question is which link that currently is. Identifying the leak is the prerequisite to training it.

References

1. Haugen TA, Tønnessen E, Hisdal J, Seiler S. (2014). The role and development of sprinting speed in soccer. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(3): 432–441. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2013-0121
2. Komi PV. (2000). Stretch-shortening cycle: a powerful model to study normal and fatigued muscle. Journal of Biomechanics, 33(10): 1197–1206. doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(00)00064-6
3. Markovic G, Mikulic P. (2010). Neuro-musculoskeletal and performance adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric training. Sports Medicine, 40(10): 859–895. doi:10.2165/11318370-000000000-00000
4. Wisløff U, Castagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R, Hoff J. (2004). Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(3): 285–288. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2002.002071
5. Bobbert MF, Gerritsen KGM, Litjens MCA, Van Soest AJ. (1996). Why is countermovement jump height greater than squat jump height? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28(11): 1402–1412. doi:10.1097/00005768-199611000-00009

Performance data (descriptive only): World Athletics.