Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

This is a forum to discuss advanced pole vaulting techniques. If you are in high school you should probably not be posting or replying to topics here, but do read and learn.
User avatar
altius
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
Location: adelaide, australia
Contact:

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby altius » Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:32 pm

"I have not stayed exactly current with this particular thread..." You should - it is becoming very interesting - dare I say important!
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:01 pm

[quote="altius]ADTF - I, and imagine most who know anything about the vault in the USA, appreciate your dedication and commitment - and your success - as a coach in the face of all manner of problems that make it difficult for you to achieve your goals. So I understand your emphasis on the practical nature of the challenges coaches face. However I hope you are not implying that folk who believe that theory can help us solve our problems are living in "a bubble", somehow removed from the real world. I don't think you are - but it would be nice if you could clarify what you do mean. My own philosophy is captured by the aphorism/proverb "Let not thy learning exceed thy deeds. Mere knowledge is not the goal, but action."[/quote]


I appreciate the kind words and I am sure my theories and models match most of those who contribute on this forum on a regularly bases and I have spelled them out in the past to some degree. My comments were not stated to downgrade any points people are making on technical issues. If we as a group have not summed up those things years ago we are just talking for the sake of talking. I to believe and use as my backdrop many of the ideas, concepts and principles talked about. However, I do it with the mindset of helping a vaulter jump higher. I may not stress certain elements of the vault to the extent others do. I may spend more time on other issues though. The foundation is near the same.


For a vault guy or guru to call a certain jump based on physics uses only their vantage point of the use of physics. On the other hand you talk to a physics teacher who knows zero about the vault and they will not say the model many of us teach. They will initially care 100% about the best way to load and bend the pole.

My entire point for the first moment I sadly posted was to make the point even with the bent pole we are not seeing a great increase in average clearance over grip.

To point out the one exception is not the norm its a wise tail IMO. The best recorded clearance/make is near a 48" push. That's all we can go by. Hypothetical height means zero to me the bar fell. Otherwise it's like the guy that said he made 17' once over a bungee.
Last edited by ADTF Academy on Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:11 pm

superpipe wrote: Physics does NOT state either is logical, that's the whole point. A straight trail leg swing is better by ALREADY defined laws of physics AND what human biomechanics allows of human movement. This is proven science, not theory. Why are people trying to "re-invent the wheel" when is has already been done and proven?

Here's a young Abby Schaffer proving the straight trail leg swing perfectly. Not theory, proven science. No bubble, reality. "Tuck and Shoot" would have never allowed the same jump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygNmb3gol3g

WRONG. If you have no theory to work with, what is your basis of learning? Again, the stuff I'm stating are theories that were proven eons ago by physics and known human biomechanics. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt.



I have always been a big fan of Abby and of Mike at Vertical Assault who ended up also to coach her in college. Though great movements on the pole she was jumping on what more could she have done with this pole or jump? Could she have jumped 13', 14', 15', 16'4"??????

As athletes talk to me the bottom line question I ask them is how much higher can you jump using the movements you are using? Isn't that the bottom line question we must ask ourselves as coaches. If an athlete stays doing what they are doing or working on a certian movement can you guarantee it will make them jump higher?

Never did I once say I had no theory. Anyone that has been around me in a coaching setting will see instantly there is a reason to my madness. What we all teach can be and should be proven by physics and human biomechanics. However, it doesn't mean it would be the first choice by someone from physics or human biomechanics. It's each of our choice on how we coach and why.

I'll state the main points again......

Why are vaulters now not getting that much more blow in comparison to vaulters on stiff poles?

Is what you're teaching as a coach setting an athlete up to jump higher or to look the part?
Last edited by ADTF Academy on Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:25 pm

Before I state this I in no way teach a tuck and shoot style of vault. I grasp its principles and reasoning I just don't coach it.


However, I would like to hear from superpipe as to how it is flawed according to physics? How do the principles in its basic design go agaisnt modern physics? Please explain what the basic idea behind what a tuck and shoot vaulter is trying to do. What are the forces the model is attempting to utilize? What are the fire patterns it attempts to utilize in a hope to move the pole and create lift? Please explain using basic physics and not personal bias how this is a bad technical model.


Please refrain from using any reference to Bubka.... Last time I check Bubka is not a concept in physics. Explain according to pure physics why the basic concept is flawed? You say it has no merrit according to physics and human motion please prove it not based on your opinions but how it defies the laws of physics.....


I'll be waiting for this fun project for you...

Branko720
PV Whiz
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:49 am
Expertise: Club Coach
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby Branko720 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:08 pm

[quote]
Why are vaulters now not getting that much more blow in comparison to vaulters on stiff poles?

Is what you're teaching as a coach setting an athlete up to jump higher or to look the part?[/quote

This is what I tell people. (Courtesy of Roman and Dan Issac) Forget about pretty jumps, look for any delays you might have in your jump that slow your inversion. If you can prevent those delays and get your body to move faster on the pole, good, anything that further delays your inversion, bad. That's it, very simple.

User avatar
superpipe
PV Pro
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:21 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Masters Vaulter, Club Coach, High School Coach, Parent
Favorite Vaulter: Who else, Bubka.
Location: State College, PA

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby superpipe » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:45 pm

ADTF Academy wrote:Before I state this I in no way teach a tuck and shoot style of vault. I grasp its principles and reasoning I just don't coach it.


However, I would like to hear from superpipe as to how it is flawed according to physics? How do the principles in its basic design go agaisnt modern physics? Please explain what the basic idea behind what a tuck and shoot vaulter is trying to do. What are the forces the model is attempting to utilize? What are the fire patterns it attempts to utilize in a hope to move the pole and create lift? Please explain using basic physics and not personal bias how this is a bad technical model.


Please refrain from using any reference to Bubka.... Last time I check Bubka is not a concept in physics. Explain according to pure physics why the basic concept is flawed? You say it has no merrit according to physics and human motion please prove it not based on your opinions but how it defies the laws of physics.....


I'll be waiting for this fun project for you...


Hi ADTF,

I may have misunderstood alot of your comments and how you presented them which caused me to reply the way I did, but onto your questions above. I stated the answers exactly in my first post. "Tuck and Shoot" is flawed by simple laws of levers. Lever length and the point at which you apply rotational force with that lever defines why "Tuck and Shoot" is inferior to a straight trail leg swing. Here are my statements from my original post:

superpipe wrote:I beg to differ. The technique has been there for a long time to accomplish big push offs well over 4'. The problem is 95% of the world refuses to use the same technique as Bubka. More specifically, a straight trail leg swing. Most vaulters are taught the "tuck and shoot" method ( even if they use the bottom arm correctly ). People love to fight physics for some reason. A straight trail leg swing will keep loading a pole allowing a vaulter to use a stiffer pole AND have the COM in the right position to exploit the recoil of the pole ( assuming correct usage of the bottom arm at take-off ). A Straight trail leg swing provides more leverage and therefore high rotational force is applied to the pole. It also keeps the pole "rolling forward". "Tuck and Shooters" apply very little rotational force to the pole not only because it's less leverage, but also because they are applying the rotational force under their top hand ( "under" the pole instead of "over" the pole ). This combined with their COM at a point farther towards the runway than if a straight trail leg swing was used, means less loading of the pole and a poor position on the pole to exploit the recoil. Bubka made the inversion look easy. He doesn't fight to get there, instead he can easily move with the recoil to add even more energy coming off the top. "Tuck and Shooters" are fighting like hell to get aligned with the pole since their COM is too far back. Instead of moving with the pole's recoil and adding more energy, they are loosing energy fighting to get aligned and catch up with the pole's recoil that started before they even finished their tuck.


I could post equations and pictures, but lets use basic logic to more easily understand it. It's much easier to bend/load any pole by applying force at the very end of the pole. This is exactly how Jan Johnson created the "best flex" chart. The lower your grip the more force it takes to bend/load the pole as compared to the top of the pole (leverage). A straight trail leg (longest lever we can use) swing applies the rotational force to the top hand grip on the pole and even slightly above that point on the pole. "Tucking" has two inferior issues. #1 The lever is shorter ( as measured from your hips to your toes) and because of this #2 "tucking" applies the force below the top hand on the pole. This means for tucking to bend/load the pole as equally as a straight trail leg swing, you must have some crazy rotational speed during your tuck. Vaulters try to swing as fast as possible from their maximized pre-stretch position at take-off. It's difficult to swing fast enough with a straight trail to load the pole enough and get the hips in the right position before the pole's recoil starts. "Tucking" allows for a slightly faster swing with the shorter lever, but no where near fast enough to generate the force required to equally load the pole compared to a straight trail leg because of the lower point at which the tuck is applying rotational force to the pole.

Simply put, a straight trail leg swing requires less rotational speed to apply a greater force at a higher point on the pole than "tucking".
Last edited by superpipe on Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris Mitchell
MitchellPro Vault Club

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:26 pm

superpipe wrote:I could post equations and pictures, but lets use basic logic to more easily understand it. It's much easier to bend/load any pole by applying force at the very end of the pole. This is exactly how Jan Johnson created the "best flex" chart. The lower your grip the more force it takes to bend/load the pole as compared to the top of the pole (leverage). A straight trail leg (longest lever we can use) swing applies the rotational force to the top hand grip on the pole and even slightly above that point on the pole. "Tucking" has two inferior issues. #1 The lever is shorter ( as measured from your hips to your toes) and because of this #2 "tucking" applies the force below the top hand on the pole. This means for tucking to bend/load the pole as equally as a straight trail leg swing, you must have some crazy rotational speed during your tuck. Vaulters try to swing as fast as possible from their maximized pre-stretch position at take-off. It's difficult to swing fast enough with a straight trail to load the pole enough and get the hips in the right position before the pole's recoil starts. "Tucking" allows for a slightly faster swing with the shorter lever, but no where near fast enough to generate the force required to equally load the pole compared to a straight trail leg because of the lower point at which the tuck is applying rotational force to the pole. Simply put, a straight trail leg swing requires less rotational speed to apply a greater force at a higher point on the pole than "tucking".


*** This is very quickly done before I board a plane. True Tuck and Shoot coaches please don't get offended by my quick attempt to generalize your model******

Yes when looking at the tuck and shoot model in the mindset of a swing style I will agree with your comments. You are comparing apples to oranges. However, there is more than one class of lever systems. A tuck and shoot vaulter in nature is not trying to load the pole and their body in the same way as your stating. Their focal point is typically on bending the pole first than moving the bend into the pit and thirdly on swinging as fast as possible to catch to uncoil action. Therefore, if you take a swing style as the only way to vault than yes it is flawed. However, that is not the case it is just yours and many peoples including my preferred style.

Their focal point is not the top arm it is the bottom arm. They open their shoulders to allow for the greatest ability to create pressure with the bottom arm as the force application tool not the top arm. They than rapidly close the shoulder and row the arms to help create additional pole speed for rotation into the pit. The shortening of their body levers IE Tuck allows them to speed up their swing in hopes of catching the excessive pole bend that was created by the class lever using the bottom arm as the focal point. This is not the same application of levers as a swing vaulter, but still uses physics and human motion.

Though I also personally agree inferrer to a more swing style to say tuck and shoot doesn't use laws of physics makes arguments less credible. The use of the physics between the two models is completely different.


This has been my issue with this forum. It could actually be a place of sharing a lot of information on. However, too many tend to flip out and go off the deep end when anyone presents a challenging comment. If the very basic ideology of how to pole vault isn't secure than they probably shouldn't be posted in the ADVANCED FORUM. I've helped two different athletes go from average college vaulters to making a world team. I have nothing left to prove on my ability to grasp and use concepts to teach the vault. I come to this forum in the hopes that maybe I see something that challenges my beliefs and by challenging them I find, create or tweak something I am missing. The day you think you know everything is the day you are no longer effective.

At the end of the day for me in my position in coaching its about how can we aid our athletes in the ability to jump higher. I wish everyone else the best of luck trying to set the foundation for the next young champion.


Dang the downtime in the meet schedule. I keep telling myself not to post. Anyways back to Europe I go. Anyone have any interesting questions to ask Bubka? I'll be in Donetsk next week for the Samsung Pole Vault Stars. Please private message me if you do.

User avatar
superpipe
PV Pro
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:21 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Masters Vaulter, Club Coach, High School Coach, Parent
Favorite Vaulter: Who else, Bubka.
Location: State College, PA

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby superpipe » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:42 pm

ADTF Academy wrote:
superpipe wrote:I could post equations and pictures, but lets use basic logic to more easily understand it. It's much easier to bend/load any pole by applying force at the very end of the pole. This is exactly how Jan Johnson created the "best flex" chart. The lower your grip the more force it takes to bend/load the pole as compared to the top of the pole (leverage). A straight trail leg (longest lever we can use) swing applies the rotational force to the top hand grip on the pole and even slightly above that point on the pole. "Tucking" has two inferior issues. #1 The lever is shorter ( as measured from your hips to your toes) and because of this #2 "tucking" applies the force below the top hand on the pole. This means for tucking to bend/load the pole as equally as a straight trail leg swing, you must have some crazy rotational speed during your tuck. Vaulters try to swing as fast as possible from their maximized pre-stretch position at take-off. It's difficult to swing fast enough with a straight trail to load the pole enough and get the hips in the right position before the pole's recoil starts. "Tucking" allows for a slightly faster swing with the shorter lever, but no where near fast enough to generate the force required to equally load the pole compared to a straight trail leg because of the lower point at which the tuck is applying rotational force to the pole. Simply put, a straight trail leg swing requires less rotational speed to apply a greater force at a higher point on the pole than "tucking".


*** This is very quickly done before I board a plane. True Tuck and Shoot coaches please don't get offended by my quick attempt to generalize your model******

Yes when looking at the tuck and shoot model in the mindset of a swing style I will agree with your comments. You are comparing apples to oranges. However, there is more than one class of lever systems. A tuck and shoot vaulter in nature is not trying to load the pole and their body in the same way as your stating. Their focal point is typically on bending the pole first than moving the bend into the pit and thirdly on swinging as fast as possible to catch to uncoil action. Therefore, if you take a swing style as the only way to vault than yes it is flawed. However, that is not the case it is just yours and many peoples including my preferred style.

Their focal point is not the top arm it is the bottom arm. They open their shoulders to allow for the greatest ability to create pressure with the bottom arm as the force application tool not the top arm. They than rapidly close the shoulder and row the arms to help create additional pole speed for rotation into the pit. The shortening of their body levers IE Tuck allows them to speed up their swing in hopes of catching the excessive pole bend that was created by the class lever using the bottom arm as the focal point. This is not the same application of levers as a swing vaulter, but still uses physics and human motion.

Though I also personally agree inferrer to a more swing style to say tuck and shoot doesn't use laws of physics makes arguments less credible. The use of the physics between the two models is completely different.


This has been my issue with this forum. It could actually be a place of sharing a lot of information on. However, too many tend to flip out and go off the deep end when anyone presents a challenging comment. If the very basic ideology of how to pole vault isn't secure than they probably shouldn't be posted in the ADVANCED FORUM. I've helped two different athletes go from average college vaulters to making a world team. I have nothing left to prove on my ability to grasp and use concepts to teach the vault. I come to this forum in the hopes that maybe I see something that challenges my beliefs and by challenging them I find, create or tweak something I am missing. The day you think you know everything is the day you are no longer effective.

At the end of the day for me in my position in coaching its about how can we aid our athletes in the ability to jump higher. I wish everyone else the best of luck trying to set the foundation for the next young champion.


Dang the downtime in the meet schedule. I keep telling myself not to post. Anyways back to Europe I go. Anyone have any interesting questions to ask Bubka? I'll be in Donetsk next week for the Samsung Pole Vault Stars. Please private message me if you do.



Interesting comments. First I'd just like to say I, in no way, will ever state I know everything. As you pointed out, the best coaches are always learning in many different ways and if you stop the education path, you are a "loosing" coach.

I'm not sure I follow how I'm comparing apples to oranges. I've picked out, what I believe to be, the single most distinguishing factor that differentiates "Tuck and Shooters" from the Perov/Bubka model. I've seen plenty of "tuck and shooters" employ a Petrov/Bubka model take-off, specifically not "jamming/blocking" with a straight bottom arm, but yet still tucking into their swing and loosing energy as apposed to adding more.

I did not say "tuck and shooters" don't use the laws of physics. Everyone uses the laws of physics in some form or fashion. You can't escape it, but you can use it to your advantage and work with it or fight against it and waste energy.

Interesting description of the "tuck and shoot" model. I've never seen it documented.
Chris Mitchell
MitchellPro Vault Club

ADTF Academy
PV Follower
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: South Bend, IN

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:25 pm

superpipe wrote:
I'm not sure I follow how I'm comparing apples to oranges. I've picked out, what I believe to be, the single most distinguishing factor that differentiates "Tuck and Shooters" from the Perov/Bubka model. I've seen plenty of "tuck and shooters" employ a Petrov/Bubka model take-off, specifically not "jamming/blocking" with a straight bottom arm, but yet still tucking into their swing and loosing energy as apposed to adding more.

I did not say "tuck and shooters" don't use the laws of physics. Everyone uses the laws of physics in some form or fashion. You can't escape it, but you can use it to your advantage and work with it or fight against it and waste energy.

Interesting description of the "tuck and shoot" model. I've never seen it documented.



I call these people the #1 reason for injury in our sport..... The are the athletes and coaches that see small parts of the different models and try to blend them together. They like this but really like that. So why not have the best of both and bam you get movements from different models/concepts that don't work together being attempted by coaches and athletes. There is a large group of people who truly don't understand the why they just look at the what and mimic. People would call Renuld a tuck and shoot vaulter. Yet anyone in Reno that saw him practice saw a swing style vault from 6L over 5.60. A video doesn't always explain what is going on behind the scenes its just what happens at that moment in time. Not what the athlete and coach are working on/towards.

The tuck in itself is a catch all like the 2nd phase in the TJ or the first step out off the hurdle. The error came before and the body is forced into catch up mode. Just cause someone tucks doesn't mean they are a tuck and shoot vaulter. A personal example would be Mark Hollis in 2008 or 2009 videos at Nationals. He employs a tuck but it was never even part of the model we were executing. It was a separate technical issue that resulted in the tuck to occur. This is a difference between a model and a movement. Tucking in itself is a movement done for a variety of reason not to do with the model being employed. Just my take.

User avatar
altius
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
Location: adelaide, australia
Contact:

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby altius » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:27 pm

Is what you're teaching as a coach setting an athlete up to jump higher or to look the part?[/quote

"This is what I tell people. (Courtesy of Roman and Dan Issac) Forget about pretty jumps, look for any delays you might have in your jump that slow your inversion. BUT WHAT IS CAUSING THOSE DELAYS??? If you can prevent those delays AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT and get your body to move faster on the pole, good, anything that further delays your inversion, bad. That's it, very simple." UNFORTUNATELY NOT QUITE AS SIMPLE AS YOU SUGGEST.

But is good to see you have been listening Branko old son. But remember FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION in most areas of life - including track and field - so I do look for "pretty jumps" -jumps that coincide with my (courtesy of Petrov and Bubka of course) model of pole vaulting because usually the pretty jumps are the highest jumps. Take a look at Bubka's indoor world record for example - the prettiest jump I ever saw! Even on the 97 WC jump when he exploded off the pole he still looked pretty tidy at the top - tidy enough to have cleared 6.40.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

User avatar
superpipe
PV Pro
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:21 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Masters Vaulter, Club Coach, High School Coach, Parent
Favorite Vaulter: Who else, Bubka.
Location: State College, PA

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby superpipe » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:48 am

Formatted Altius' post so it was more readable and you could see who made what comments :D

altius wrote:
Branko720 wrote:
ADTF Academy wrote:Is what you're teaching as a coach setting an athlete up to jump higher or to look the part?


This is what I tell people. (Courtesy of Roman and Dan Issac) Forget about pretty jumps, look for any delays you might have in your jump that slow your inversion. If you can prevent those delays and get your body to move faster on the pole, good, anything that further delays your inversion, bad. That's it, very simple.


UNFORTUNATELY NOT QUITE AS SIMPLE AS YOU SUGGEST.

But is good to see you have been listening Branko old son. But remember FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION in most areas of life - including track and field - so I do look for "pretty jumps" -jumps that coincide with my (courtesy of Petrov and Bubka of course) model of pole vaulting because usually the pretty jumps are the highest jumps. Take a look at Bubka's indoor world record for example - the prettiest jump I ever saw! Even on the 97 WC jump when he exploded off the pole he still looked pretty tidy at the top - tidy enough to have cleared 6.40.
Chris Mitchell
MitchellPro Vault Club

User avatar
altius
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
Location: adelaide, australia
Contact:

Re: Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

Unread postby altius » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:49 pm

Formatting so it is more readable!!!!! Cheeky imp!!!
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests