Could Gataullin have put more energy into the system??

[joebro391]

Those who try to keep it long without the flexion end up having to tuck because their swing is too slow.

This jump proves that thought wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H25TG1e ... re=related
I can do with a little bit of of flexion, but not much. Nothing like Mack.

Come on joebro! Do you really mean that? Tim Mack's an Olympic gold medalist and has been higher than 6m and your way is better?

First off, I'm disappointed on so many level's that you'd pull out the Gold-Medal card on Mack. Lavillenie has jumped 6.06 (HIGHER than Mack), but I'd NEVER, in a million years teach anyone to jump like him. Yea, you can jump high with poor technique, but that doesn't make it proper. And it's not MY way, it's my observations based upon the Petrov/6.40 Model.

So we go back to my previous statement. If we're talking about a slight-break like Duplantis, than I agree with Altius and Tsorenson. Anything more than that and I'm against it. And honestly, the slight knee-break that Greg does would add little to no energy to the swing and yet he has one of the most powerful swings in the sport. For Greg, most energy comes from his run (obviously), but his swing-energy (second part of the jump) comes from keep that trail-leg long behind him and hitting take-off at a good angle to whip everything through. Even on some of Bubka's jumps, he just slightly broke it and then snapped it through. One some of the jumps where he broke it 'more', his hips would come forward a bit, and he's recover the jump, but not work quite so "ahead of the pole" as he normally does. And for us mere mortals, we can't always recover once we've let our hips through like that. it's just not smooth.

Bubka 6.15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ34Pc-1 ... re=related
I don't see much breakage at the knee. A slight amount (that I'm okay with), but not even close to Mack's amount.

Do all the "self" testing you want but what Altius and Tom are telling you makes perfect sense. If anything, finishing the take-off keeps your hips from being sucked under.

Well it's pretty obvious that Mack's hips are getting sucked under...so are you saying that he doesn't finish take-off? Cause most people will say that the best part of Mack's jump was his take-off. I believe that he could jumped the AR in 2008 had he not let his hips get sucked under (had he not broken at the knee AS MUCH), notice I say "AS MUCH" and not "AT ALL".

-6P

[AVC Coach]

I guess you're not going to budge on this, joebro. I think time and experience will eventually change your mind. Good luck with your experiment!

[joebro391]

I guess you're not going to budge on this, joebro. I think time and experience will eventually change your mind. Good luck with your experiment!

Morry, I just wanna say that I love you and respect you as a coach in a big way and you might be right. Believe me, after the short 5 years that I've spent in this sport has taught me, it's that experience and experimentation ultimately sways a vaulter/coach towards a certain model/style of vaulting. With that experience comes changes in theory and mind-set. This summer alone I changed a lot about what I believed in the vault, after meeting with Roman (agapit) in person and picking his brain for a few days. I'm not saying that I'm definitely right and you're definitely wrong (cause THAT would be stubborn and ignorant in itself, given the complexity of this sport), I'm just saying that from what I have observed and my feelings about the vault (for the record, I rather be a Greg Duplantis than a Okkert Brits if you know what I mean) that this is just more efficient. Perhaps I'll see things differently in the future but for right now, this is what I believe in and what I will coach and strive for in my own jump.

Anyway, could we get back to talking about Gataulllin? haha I'll just ask my main question: When does the swing stop putting energy into the system???????/

[PVstorm84]

Mack jumped 6.01 running 9.30 m/s... And would have made 6.05-6.10 on that jump with long pegs and square ends. Sergei jumped 6.15 running 9.95-10.00 m/s... Everyone who was around says gataullin should have jumped 6.10 or so while running around 9.85-9.90 m/s if it wasn't for injuries and a short career. Everyone's model is different, but given approach speeds their actual height was quite comparable. Realistically Tims 6.01 with 9.30 on the runway might be the most impressive of all.

[altius]

Need to be careful of putting out run up speeds without being absolutely sure of their accuracy on any specific jump.

[altius]

"Believe me, after the short (SHORT) 5 years that I've spent in this sport has taught me, it's that experience and experimentation ultimately sways a vaulter/coach towards a certain model/style of vaulting."

Surprised about that - I would have thought that the experiences and experimentation of Petrov and his team of coaches in Donetsk- along with a sound background in biomechanics on your part - and perhaps the thoughts of vastly more experienced coaches on this forum - would have had a more powerful impact than your own experimentation. But there you go - each to his own - still I am very glad I met Petrov when I did -because I quickly learned that my experience was irrelevant compared to his -even though by that time I had coached athletes jumping higher than you have gone so far.

[joebro391]

I would have thought that the experiences and experimentation of Petrov and his team of coaches in Donetsk- along with a sound background in biomechanics on your part - and perhaps the thoughts of vastly more experienced coaches on this forum - would have had a more powerful impact than your own experimentation. But there you go - each to his own - still I am very glad I met Petrov when I did -because I quickly learned that my experience was irrelevant compared to his -even though by that time I had coached athletes jumping higher than you have gone so far.

Petrov's experience IS what I'm basing my decision off of. I believe that I interpret what I've read and heard of Petrov a little different than you have. It's interesting to me that neither Bubka, Isinbayeva or Gibilisco broke at the knee that much...certainly not as much as Mack. -6P

[altius]

Well with any luck I will be meeting Vitali on saturday morning so I will ask him what he thinks about this issue. But as I have already suggested the degree of bend varies from the extreme of Tim Mack to the minimal of Feofanova. She can get away with it - almost -because she is tiny. For all vaulters the heel naturally flicks up as part of the stride cycle. The challenge for beginners is to control and limit that movement - but some degree of flexion at the knee is highly desirable for the reasons indicated above.

Do whatever you want to old son - its your career. But please dont inflict your ideas on anyone you coach -remember they only have one career in the vault - pity to ruin that because of your misunderstanding.

[tsorenson]

joebro,
The reason people point at Mack is because he exaggerted this aspect of technique, with great success. It's the same reason that everyone who is trying to illustrate a long, unbreaking swing shows Tarasov, and why everyone who wants to show a free takeoff with no bottom arm shows Markov. And everyone who wants to show a big bottom arm shows Lavillenie. You just pick a jumper that makes your point of emphasis easy to see.

If you review that video of Tarasov that you posted, you might notice that he does indeed have a slight flexion at the knee before initiating his swing. It is the natural result of an upspringing takeoff, and helps him get the swing started fast enough to cover the pole without tucking.

I agree that you shouldn't coach people to flex the knee to the degree that Mack does, but my point is that it helped him swing faster than almost anyone, and cover the pole well enough to have one of the largest push-off's in history, with speed that is less than phenomenal. I can hardly find any elite-level vaulters that do not have at least a little flexion.

I don't bother specifically coaching people to bend the knee. Instead, I focus on getting them to swing as fast as possible, both on the gymnastic apparatus and on the pole. This, combined with proper takeoff mechanics, will automatically lead to the desired knee flexion, and the explosive straightening of the leg through the chord that gets the swing moving super fast.

To answer your question directly, I believe the swing stops adding energy to the pole as soon as it reaches its high point (loss of upward momentum), or the pole begins to recoil, whichever comes first. This explains the need for an extremely fast swing, and a free takeoff (to delay the pole bend).

Cheers,
Tom

[joebro391]

Alan: let me know what Viteli says. While you're at it, let me know if you come across any footage of stiff-pole vaulters breaking at the knee(s). You mentioned before that some of the stiff vaulters tried to delay the swing, and one way to do that is to keep the trail-leg straight and back (almost acts like an anchor holding your hips back). On the other hand, I'm with Roman as that I feel there should be no delay...

Tsorenson: I agree with you

-6P

[dj]

Tim's "action" actually was not a "delay"…

It was/is physics set up by "action/reaction"… Each phase of the vault that we try to "describe" technically is based on "action/reaction" set up by what happens..Previous..

The "big split" (between lead knee and trail foot) at takeoff that leaves the trail leg back is the "action" from completing the takeoff (I think maybe Allan said this already) this was being taught to Earl and other vaulters, as far back as 1974.. I think "B" and Mack had access to that "coaching "or information early in their careers.

That doesn't mean they "teach" bending the knee (to the contrary) it is more like tom said… you finish the takeoff and swing as fast as possible…

Tim Mack swung as fast as anyone… he was at the "back flat" position in .49 seconds from the takeoff.. that is fast and not a delay..

This is where Film/video has sometimes gotten us all in trouble… and this goes way back to when I was coaching in the 70's. we look at film.. Stop frame it and "see" something that really isn't happening the way we think.

Like a delay at the takeoff…or even a "tuck"….. if you stop frame some of Bubka's vaults, one frame may give you the impression he "Tucked"… or was a "tuck" vaulter.

Even in the Approach Run discussions there's talk of Bubka running "flat footed"!! This is a falsity.. If he is running correctly, naturally, accelerating.. it cannot, remotely, be termed "flat" footed.

We have to look and understand the "physics"… Kochel said many years ago… "Run fast, hold high and use a big stick.. You need a high plant and a big split at the takeoff.. Then you keep the pole in front of you and swing as fast as you can"… Telez promoted "accelerate through the takeoff (toward the back of the pit, not up) with a high plant"… Petrov says "the vault starts with the first step"..

Physics, action-reaction, dictates the result… Form Follows Function…
Tim "used the physics" as good as anyone…….

dj

[altius]

Joebro - Why do I get the impression that nothing we say will change your mind??? Perhaps we should start debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.