appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

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

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:07 pm

CLAP CLAP CLAP


Finally someone else who can read things with no bias and ask the simple questions.... My opinion is no one will have the answers for you, but you bring up the best questions of them all.....

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: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby superpipe » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:43 am

pv161 wrote:I have read on here that Bubka himself said he didn't have his great success because he was a better athlete then most ( I think he was just being humble) so my question is does anyone have a list of other vaulters that trained under Petrov and how high they jumped? not just 1 big bar but consistently jumping high. I ask the question because if Bubkas success was because of Petrov's coaching and not his outstanding physical and mental abilities then either Petrov didn't have any other good athletes or his model is so difficult to perfect that only 1 guy was able to do it.


Any "model" used in pole vaulting, much less most track and field events is extremely difficult to "perfect". Bubka didn't "perfect" the model, but he got the closest for sure. "Training" is a whole different animal that is not related to the physics that defines what the best technical model is, based on human biomechanics. I personally don't know the details of who Petrov coached and when he started coaching them, so I can't comment on that.

pv161 wrote:my next question is does anyone think Bubka could have jumped as high if he had trained somewhere else?


"Training" is a whole different animal that is not related to the physics that defines what the best technical model is, based on human biomechanics. My quick answer to your question is, not if a less efficient "model" was used.

pv161 wrote:my last question is if a vaulter comes along who is fast as lightning, holds high on big poles and tucks and shoots and starts jumping higher then Bubka did would everyone change there minds about the best method? I don't coach the tuck and shoot method but there have been guys jump high that way


If you're a coach that applies physics, the answer should be no. If you ignore physics, who knows. The "tuck and shoot" doesn't create and make use of energy as well as the "straight trail leg swing". Applying the laws of "torque" also known as "the laws of levers" and "rotational energy" make pretty easy proof of that. This has been said alot already, but it should be said again: The fact remains that there is ONE most efficient way to create and apply energy in the pole vault (based on human biomechanics) to achieve the greatest height. There's zillions of less efficient ways to clear heights below your maximum capability.
Chris Mitchell
MitchellPro Vault Club

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

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:52 am

superpipe wrote:
pv161 wrote:my next question is does anyone think Bubka could have jumped as high if he had trained somewhere else?


"Training" is a whole different animal that is not related to the physics that defines what the best technical model is, based on human biomechanics. My quick answer to your question is, not if a less efficient "model" was used.


Can you 100% guarantee that? If you can 100% guarantee that how? Training encompasses everything involved with learning the model.


superpipe wrote:
pv161 wrote:my last question is if a vaulter comes along who is fast as lightning, holds high on big poles and tucks and shoots and starts jumping higher then Bubka did would everyone change there minds about the best method? I don't coach the tuck and shoot method but there have been guys jump high that way


If you're a coach that applies physics, the answer should be no. If you ignore physics, who knows. The "tuck and shoot" doesn't create and make use of energy as well as the "straight trail leg swing". Applying the laws of "torque" also known as "the laws of levers" and "rotational energy" make pretty easy proof of that. This has been said alot already, but it should be said again: The fact remains that there is ONE most efficient way to create and apply energy in the pole vault (based on human biomechanics) to achieve the greatest height. There's zillions of less efficient ways to clear heights below your maximum capability.


LOL both models apply physics just in a different way. This is the issue. If you can't see the logic in both force application models than you can't logically make a claim one is better than the other. To say the tuck and shoot model doesn't apply physics is laughable. It does in a different manner. It's application of force is more takeoff driven to bend the pole as much as it can. The tuck part is to catch the ride by shortening the radius of rotation on the swing in order to catch the ride before uncoil. This is physics just done in a different way.

People have claimed for a long time that a long straight trail leg swing creates energy in the system. I believe this as well and coach it in a manner of the long swing creates centripetal forces that helps with the rotation of the pole athlete system into the pit. However, even myself can not show any real data that proves it. It's my coaching style to teach a free takeoff with a long swing to inversion to create the most pole rotation possible on the biggest grip possible (within reason obviously). Just recently someone posted articles he wrote in regards to how much energy is really gained on the pull action on the top of the vault. His study, though only one study, showed there was little gained by the athlete pulling on the top of the jump and it was better to stay connected to the pole and let it throw you. Yes this is latter in the vault but until we can start getting real data on the different between the two it is as I put it OPINIONS. If this is 100% true than their is in fact merit behind the tuck and shoot. I don't coach it, but to flat out make a false claim it is not based off physics is laughable. Respect your enemy, but beat him. Respect the tuck and shoot but beat it.

Renauld has a tuck in his jump
Otto does not have a tuck in his jump
Helzeppe does not have a tuck in his jump
Suhr has a tuck in her jump
Silva has a tuck in her jump
Blesdale tuck in her jump
Walker tuck in his jump

As I say that I have no clue if they mean to have it. If they are trying to get rid of it. If they do it on purpose or it just happens. Simple fact the tucking sensation even the smallest of one happens to shorten the radius in order to be in position to catch the ride before the pole uncoils. To say it doesn't apply physics means you may not understand how to apply levers.

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: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby superpipe » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:13 pm

ADTF Academy wrote:Training encompasses everything involved with learning the model.


Exactly! "Learning" the model. The "model" is pre-defined

I'm not sure how else to clearly state it. I never said the "tuck and shoot" doesn't apply physics, but the answer you get when using the "tuck and shoot" = less creation and use of energy.

The fact remains that there is ONE most efficient way to create and apply energy in the pole vault (based on human biomechanics) to achieve the greatest height. There's zillions of less efficient ways to clear heights below your maximum capability.

ADTF Academy wrote: His study, though only one study, showed there was little gained by the athlete pulling on the top of the jump and it was better to stay connected to the pole and let it throw you.


I take this to mean it's better to "stop moving" and sit on the pole and let the pole do all the work at that point. That said, this states our muscles cannot apply force. That's not true. I'm not a biomechanics wizard by any means, but I do understand and have taken courses on muscle physiology. We have energy stored in our bodies. To not make use of it, is ridiculous. Timing can affect the efficiency of the pull, but to not pull at all, makes no sense. "Continous Chain Model", always keep moving.
Chris Mitchell
MitchellPro Vault Club

KYLE ELLIS
PV Lover
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:31 am
Expertise: former college vaulter, Current college coach
Lifetime Best: 5.26
Favorite Vaulter: bubka
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby KYLE ELLIS » Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:54 pm

We really do need a like button on here :yes:
On a whole new level 6-20-09

User avatar
coachjvinson
PV Whiz
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:58 pm
Expertise: I have never recognized the concept of limits-I think an athlete who accepts limits is dead-Bubka
Lifetime Best: 0
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: COOP 4.55m and Mondo

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby coachjvinson » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:38 pm

ADTF Academy wrote:
His study, though only one study, showed there was little gained by the athlete pulling on the top of the jump and it was better to stay connected to the pole and let it throw you.


IN THEORY...
think of it in this manner,
in the inverted state of the vault there is a certain static coordination to simply maintain balance and position as the pole recoils and releases the stored energy. I would argue that static is almost a mischaracterization when it comes to the vault BUT at this point in the vault this is AT/NEAR the end of the RUN, PLANT, SWING, HIP EXTENSION/DRIVE...

Now, as this final INVERTED positon is supported and the pole is recoiling, the vaulter is moving and accelerating at the same speed at the grip end of the pole. Here is the kicker...

At this point, near the end of the unload phase of the pole recoil, at a point in which the speed is maximized and acceleration is nearing zero, the vaulter can
... stay connected to the pole and let it throw you.


OR...
consider that a well timed pull, NEAR/AT the end of the recoil COULD further accelerate the vaulter

ALSO, consider that because the vaulter is traveling at a matched speed with the grip end of the pole, there is a fluid point in which there is PRESSURE ON THE GRIP END DUE TO THE STATIC COORDINATION OF SIMPLY HOLDING ON AND MAINTAINING POSTURE .... AND THE GRIP END HAS FULLY RECOILED, THE VAULTER IS AT A CONSTANT SPEED AT/NEAR ZERO ACCELERATION...NEAR WEIGHTLESSNESS

NOW, 1 of three things can happen,
The vaulter can...
1 maintain grip and connection to the pole - this is obviously NOT ideal, possible but not suggesting it
2 let go and catch the ride....
3 execute a well timed pull/push through the shoulder and arm of the top hand and MAXIMIZE the ACCELERATION and SPEED and subsequent HEIGHT of the vault during or slightly before the point of NEAR WEIGHTLESSNESS...how many more cm in height would simply 5#s of pressure of a well coordinated and quickly executed pull/push deliver?
I am interested to hear your responses to the THEORY PROPOSED.... not just ADTF but any and all thoughts/criticisms are welcome...
V
EDITED...
Last edited by coachjvinson on Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PURSUITOF2016

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

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:27 pm

superpipe wrote:I'm not sure how else to clearly state it. I never said the "tuck and shoot" doesn't apply physics, but the answer you get when using the "tuck and shoot" = less creation and use of energy.

The fact remains that there is ONE most efficient way to create and apply energy in the pole vault (based on human biomechanics) to achieve the greatest height. There's zillions of less efficient ways to clear heights below your maximum capability.


The issue is the means and ends of why and how your trying to use physics. I don't agree with the blocking out of the bottom arm to create bend in the pole resulting in the need to overly tuck to shorten the radius to beat the pole to inversion. However, I see its concepts and understand them. In fact you can create a ton of energy and if you can catch it use a ton of energy in a tuck and shoot style of vault. To downgrade the merit of how and why is an issue in my mind. There has be 6m+ vaulters who have done it this way successfully. I don't think its the best way for all athletes, but to say its not a system that works is still laughable. I don't teach it by any means. I don't think its the best system for the masses. I have my reasons, but its not in terms of topics that are not true.

superpipe wrote:
ADTF Academy wrote: His study, though only one study, showed there was little gained by the athlete pulling on the top of the jump and it was better to stay connected to the pole and let it throw you.


I take this to mean it's better to "stop moving" and sit on the pole and let the pole do all the work at that point. That said, this states our muscles cannot apply force. That's not true. I'm not a biomechanics wizard by any means, but I do understand and have taken courses on muscle physiology. We have energy stored in our bodies. To not make use of it, is ridiculous. Timing can affect the efficiency of the pull, but to not pull at all, makes no sense. "Continous Chain Model", always keep moving.


There is a huge difference between application of a thought in a vacuum when everything is done perfectly and the reality of what is going on. As I said it was not my study, but I agree with its outcome. However, stop moving and sit on the pole is 100% not linked to the comment I made. The lift created occurs well before I hope the pull of the athlete is seen. The pull happens after inversion is near reached. If you're pulling from a seated position than you will have your own problems not linked to this conversation. The pull that was talked about in the article was the final movement by which the top hand moves passed the body. There is a difference between not making use of something and attempt to do something that causes an incorrect movement. What % of pole vaulters can actually execute the timing of the pull action on the top of the jump to match the uncoiling of the pole. NOT MANY. How many vaulters have achieved near a 4' push on the top of the jump... NOT MANY. To make use of something that doesn't work along the line of thurst is RIDICULOUS. The continuous chain concepts are used to mean things keep moving along the vaulter/pole system. A pull that gets the vaulter away from the system is exactly the opposite to what the concepts talk about. Saying there needs to be a pull is like saying if an arrow doesn't pull back against the string of the bow it will go no where. No actually if the arrow is not made of a solid material the arrow goes no where. If the arrow stays in line with the bow string it gets launched very quickly. The vaulter is the arrow and the pole is the bow.

To sum it up are you telling me a guy or woman that can't even clear his or her own grip height should be trying to pull as hard as they can on the top of their jump? Such a vaulter would be better off attempting to use all their energy to stay connected and in line with the pole. By attempting to create an imaginary additional amount of force such an athlete will tend to just fall off and out of alignment with the line of thrust. Not wanted or needed for any vaulter of any level. Try to shoot and arrow with not holding the arrow next to the bow frame.. How far and straight does the arrow go.

I state all of this from a vantage point of do you truly understand why things are being taught? What does it really create? How can it really be used? Anyone can have an ideal technique or style of jumping in their mind. The question is can it actually be accomplished by the athletes you are working with. I'm not saying anything that has been mentioned is wrong just the reasons why can't be bias hidden behind topics that are actually not 100% true.

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

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby altius » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:31 am

FOR PV161 –SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS! I KNOW THIS IS LONG BUT YOU DID ASK –
I have been reading all the posts on pvp about which technical model is best and have a few questions.

first of all I'm just a long time high school coach. I have never coached college or elite vaulters so my expertise isn't at the same level as most of you posting here. NEVER UNDERVALUE YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE AS A TEACHER OR COACH!

I have read btb and think it's an excellent book. even if you don't follow it word for word there is lots of good information. My question to Allen. is the book all info you have researched over the years from great coaches like Petrov or are there things you have added or maybe changed from your years of experience coaching? Alan, I'm only asking you this because yours is the only pv book I have read and was curious if you thought you must follow what the other great coaches have said or if a good coach should be open to incorporating there own ideas. I TOOK UP THE PETROV MODEL IN 1986 AND HAVE ATTEMPTED TO APPLY IT WITH YOUNG ATHLETES – SOME OF WHOM ARE SHOWN IN BTB AND ON THE DVD. I HAVE HAD TO DO THIS IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH I COACH – AND YOU WILL NOTE THAT I DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF “COACHING CONTEXT” IN C3 OF BTB.

I STARTED COACHING VIRTUALLY ALL MY ATHLETES FROM ABSOLUTE BEGINNER –FROM 86 ONWARDS IT WAS ALWAYS WITH THE PETROV MODEL IN MIND –ALTHOUGH I HAD SOME SUCCESS BY OZZY STANDARDS BEFORE THEN. I HAVE NEVER HAD REASON TO QUESTION THE MODEL BUT SINCE I WAS WORKING WITH YOUNG ATHLETES 13- 23 AT SCHOOL/ COLLEGE OR WORK – ALL AMATEURS WITH LIMITED TRAINING TIME SO WE HAD TO TAKE WHAT I CALL A MINIMALIST APPROACH TO TRAINING. NO WEIGHT TRAINING/ALMOST ALL RUNNING DONE WITHOUT A POLE/VIRTUALLY NO GYMNASTICS – ALTHOUGH SEVERAL OF THE GIRLS HAD GYMNASTICS EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO THE VAULT. OUR SYSTEM WAS BASED ON WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE BOOK AND DVD –LOTS OF DRILLS/STIFF POLE JUMPING AND A FAIR BIT OF HIGH BAR WORK.

WE STAYED WITH THE PETROV MODEL BECAUSE, WHILE IT IS A ‘CONTINUOUS CHAIN’, THE LINKS IN THE CHAIN CAN CLEARLY BE IDENTIFIED AND CAN BE INTRODUCED TO YOUNGSTERS IN A LOGICAL SEQUENCE. NOT ONLY THAT BUT THE ATHLETES CAN UNDERSTAND WHY EACH LINK IS IMPORTANT AND APPRECIATE HOW EACH LINK FITS BACK TOGETHER TO REPRODUCE THE CONTINUOUS CHAIN - IN THE FULL JUMP. IN MY EXPERIENCE AN ATHLETE ‘UNDERSTANDING’ WHY THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING IN TRAINING IS A CRITICAL FACTOR IN RAPID PROGRESS.

AGAIN WHILE ALL MY ATHLETES WERE AIMING FOR THE PETROV MODEL THEY ALL OVERLAID THEIR OWN ‘STYLE’ ON TO THAT MODEL SO THAT THERE ARE CLEARLY INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM. THE KEY IS THAT WE ALL KNEW WHAT WE ARE AIMING FOR AND AS I SUGGESTED ABOVE THE GREAT THING ABOUT THIS MODEL IS THAT IT CAN BE BROKEN UP INTO A RANGE OF SIMPLE DRILLS – THAT CAN THEN BE BROUGHT TOGETHER INITIALLY THROUGH STIFF POLE VAULTING OVER LOWER BARS.

THE ONE THING I REALLY WORKED ON WAS GETTING ALL THE POLES KIDS NEEDED BECAUSE MAKING EASY TRANSITIONS –WHERE THEY DON’T HAVE TO COMPROMISE THEIR TECHNIQUE IN ORDER TO HANDLE A LONGER/STIFFER POLE - IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOUNG ATHLETES. SO LAUREN ELEY AT 134 LBS WHO IS SEEN JUMPING ON THE DVD ON A 13/175 - HAD EVERY POLE IN THE SEQUENCE NEEDED TO GET THERE AND TOM LOVELL AT 5’6 IS ON A 15/185 -SAME DEAL

THE POINT IS THAT THE PETROV MODEL IS BIOMECHANICALLY SUPERIOR – CANNOT BE SURPASSED – JUST NEEDS THE BOTCHARNIKOV THEORY TO BE PUT TO THE TEST. SO WE ALWAYS AIMED FOR THAT. TO ASSESS WHAT WAS ACHIEVED YOU WOULD HAVE TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH WE WORKED. FOR EXAMPLE - ONLY ONE TRACK IN ADELAIDE – NEAREST TRACK TO THE EAST -45O MILES – TO THE WEST 2000 MIES – TO THE NORTH 15OO MILES – TO THE SOUTH – ANTARTICA, DON’T THNIK THERE IS TRACK THERE.

I have read on here that Bubka himself said he didn't have his great success because he was a better athlete then most ( I think he was just being humble) so my question is does anyone have a list of other vaulters that trained under Petrov and how high they jumped? not just 1 big bar but consistently jumping high. I ask the question because if Bubkas success was because of Petrov's coaching and not his outstanding physical and mental abilities then either Petrov didn't have any other good athletes or his model is so difficult to perfect that only 1 guy was able to do it.

WHEN I MET PETROV IN 1986 H SAID HE HAD TEN GUYS IN HIS SQUAD IN DONTETSK JUMPING OVER 5.50. PEOPLE FORGET THAT BUBKA’S BROTHER JUMPED 5.80. HOWEVER PETROV MOVED TO ITALY AS HEAD VAULT COACH TWENTY YEARS AGO? SO HE HAS BEING DOING A LOT OF OTHER THINGS BESIDES COACH INDIVDUALS. I BELIEVE HE HAD A 5.80 VAULTER IN ITALY BEFORE GIBILISCO – A LAD WITH NO TALENT – WHO JUMPED 5.90 TO WIN THE WORLD CHAMPS IN PARIS IN O4. THEN OF COURSE HE WORKED WITH ISINBAYEVA AND ALSO THRE BRAZILIAN VAULTERS LIKE MURER AND THE BOY WHO WON THE 2012 WJS AT 5.65. HOWEVER IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ABSOLUTE ATHLETES LIKE TO HAVE A COACH TO THEMSELVES AND THAT WOULD HAVE RESTRICTED HIS OPTIONS.

SO INSTEAD AT LOOKING AT JUST WHO PETROV COACHED – LOOK AT ALL THE ATHLETES USING THE SAME MODEL –THE ONES I HAVE ALREADY LISTED BUT DB REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE. SUCH AS TRANDENKOV/TARASOV/MARKOV/ISINBAYEVA/FEOFANOVA/MURER/BOLOCHONAVA/GATAULLIN/POTAPOVICH/LEWIS/DENNISON/MANY OF THE GERMAN VAULTERS – BECAUSE THEIR NATIONAL VAULT COACH HSINGON DECIDED TO MAKE THE PETROV MODEL THE GERMAN NATIONAL MODEL – SOME READERS MAY RECALL HIM SPEAKING IN RENO ON EXACTLY THAT TOPIC. BUT THIS LIST ALSO INCLUDES BURGESS, MARKOV AND HOOKER –THREE 6.OO PLUS VAULTERS – WITH ONE WJ TITLE AND TWO WORLD CHAMPS BETWEEN THEM – PLUS KYM HOWE 4.72 AND ALANA BOYD 4.76 FROM OZZYLAND - A COUNTRY WHICH RARELY HAS MORE THAT 200 ACTIVE VAULTERS!

NOW PLEASE READ THE NEXT PARA VERY CAREFULLY FOLKS!! BECAUSE I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT NICK HYSONG USED THE PETROV MODEL. NOT SURE WHO HIS COACH WAS – AS ALWAYS IN THE US SYSTEM HE HAD SEVERAL COACHES ALONG THE WAY. BUT THIS IS THE STORY. IN 1991 LARRY BERRYHILL – THE VAULT COACH FROM BYU – AND A FAIRLY SUCCESSFUL ONE I BELIEVE /ALSO CLEVER ENOUGH TO HAVE AN EARNED DOCTORATE - CAME TO ADELAIDE ON BUSINESS. HE FOUND OUT THERE WAS A VAULT GROUP HERE AND CAME OUT TO WATCH – FINISHED UP OBSERVING AND DISCUSSING THE VAULT WITH ME FOR THREE DAYS. HE SAID THAT HE WAS AMAZED HOW MUCH TIME AND EMPHASIS WE PUT INTO THE RUN AND TAKE OFF – HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE FREE TAKE OFF –HIS EMPHASIS WAS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE AIR.

ANYWAY THE NIGHT NICK WON HIS GOLD MEDAL – I GOT A FAX FROM LARRY THANKING ME FOR MY CONTRIBUTION TO NICKS SUCCESS. SINCE I HAD NEVER EVEN MET NICK I WAS SURPRISED TO PUT IT MILDLY. IT APPEARS LARRY TOOK THE IDEAS ON THE FREE TAKE OFF BACK TO NICKS FATHER. ANYWAY LARRY INVITED ME TO PROVO –WENT THERE SEVERAL TIMES AND WORKED WITH HIS SQUAD. ONE YEAR HE CAME TO ADELAIDE FOR A WEEK WITH ONE OF HIS VAULTERS – WHO WON THE NCAA THAT YEAR.

A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER WHEN I WAS SITTING IN THE HILTON TRYING TO SELL BTB1 – NICK’S FATHER CAME UP AND INTRODUCED HIMSELF – HE ALSO THANKED ME FOR THE CONTRIBUTION TO HIS SONS PERFORMANCE - AGAIN I WAS VERY SURPRISED BECAUSE I HAVE STILL NEVER TALKED TO NICK HIMSELF - BUT IT SHOWS THE POWER OF A GOOD IDEA – EVEN IF IT ONLY COMES THROUGH A MESSENGER.

my next question is does anyone think Bubka could have jumped as high if he had trained somewhere else? HE “MIGHT” HAVE JUMPED AS HIGH IF HE HAD TRAINED WITH A COACH USING THE SAME MODEL BUT AS I SUGGESTED ABOVE THE PETROV/BUBKA (SOVIET) MODEL IS THE MOST EFFICIENT MODEL AROUND – SEE JAMIE SCROOP AGED 15 AT 3.80 AT LEAST IN THE TAKE OFF PHASE – OR MATT FILSELL (5.30 AT 17) IN THE INVERSION OR WENDY YOUNG 4.40 AT 19 IN THE SWING PHASE. I KNOW I AM PUTTING MYSELF UP AS AN AUNT SALLY BUT MY OBJECTIVE ALL ALONG HAS BEEN TO SHOW THAT ORDINARY YOUNG ATHLETES COULD BENEFIT FROM THE ADVANTAGES OF THE PETROV MODEL.

my last question is if a vaulter comes along who is fast as lightning, holds high on big poles and tucks and shoots and starts jumping higher then Bubka did would everyone change there minds about the best method? I don't coach the tuck and shoot method but there have been guys jump high that way
ITS PRETTY HYPOTHETICAL BECAUSE IF IT HAPPENS I WILL BE LONG IN MY GRAVE. OF COURSE THERE HAVE BEEN GUYS JUMP ‘HIGH’ LIKE THAT. AS I INDICATED IN ANOTHER POST - OCKERT BRITS JUMPED 6 METRES WITH A DIABOLICAL TECHNIQUE -2’ UNDER – HAD TO TUCK – FALL OFF THE POLE ETC.ETC. HOWEVER THE FACT IS THAT IF THE GUY HAD ‘LIGHTNING SPEED’ AND A FREE TAKE OFF HE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT SO MUCH ENERGY INTO THE POLE THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP SWINGING WITH A LONG BODY INTO INVERSION- JUST LIKE BUBKA BUT JUST WITH A HIGHER GRIP!!!!. VAULTERS USUALLY TUCK BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PUT ENOUGH ENERGY INTO THE POLE TO MOVE THEIR GRIP HEIGHT TO THE VERTICAL AND ARE FORCED TO TUCK IN ORDER TO SPEED UP THEIR ROTATION – AND GET IT INTO POSITION FOR THE SHOOT.

EVERYONE CAN GO IN ANY DIRECTION THEY LIKE – EVEN REINVENT THE WHEEL BUT I CAN ONLY GIVE YOU MY BEST ADVICE BASED ON 54 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A TEACHER/COACH OF SEVERAL SPORTS AND AS A POLE VAULT COACH – GO WITH THE PETROV MODEL – AND HELP YOUR ATHLETES UNDERSTAND THAT NOTHING COMES EASY – NOTHING! THEY HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO DO THE REPETITIVE DRILLS AND HIGH BAR WORK MY KIDS DID – AND AS YOU SEE IZZY A MULTIPLE WORLD RECORD HOLDER –DOING ON THE TAIL END OF THE DVD.

PLEASE ACCEPT THAT I AM NOT PULLING THIS OPINION OUT OF THE PROVERBIAL HOLE. I HAVE STUDIED WITH THE GUYS WHO COACHED THE 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988,1996 AND 2004 OLYMPIC CHAMPIONS. ROMAN BOTCHARNIKOV LIVED IN MY HOUSE FOR A YEAR IN 91/92. PARNOV (5.83 VAULTER IN HIS OWN CAREER) DID THE SAME THING FOR THREE MONTHS IN 96 AND I COACHED ALONG SIDE HIM IN ADELAIDE FOR TWO YEARS.
BEEN TO RENO HALF A DOZEN TIMES AND WATCHED AND LISTENED CAREFULLY THERE –EVEN INVITED TO SPEAK A COUPLE OF TIMES.

THEN I HAVE WATCHED MARKOV TRAIN – AND CAUGHT HIS FOOT ON OCCASION – FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN ADELAIDE – HE STILL LIVES HERE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE REAL DUMB BUNNY NOT TO LEARN SOMETHING FROM SIMPLY WATCHING HIM JUMP!

HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS - HOWEVER I SUGGEST YOU REREAD THE CHAPTERS DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES – AND REVIEW THE DVD AGAIN.

NOTE THAT, UNLESS I AM SPECIFICALLY ASKED A QUESTION I AM NOT GOING TO CONTRIBUTE FURTHER TO THIS SERIES OF POSTS. BECAUSE IT IS CLEAR NOTHING ANYONE HAS SAID HERE – NO MATTER HOW LOGICAL NOR HOW MUCH IT IS BASED ON THE FACTS – WILL CHANGE THE OPINIONS OF FOLK LIKE DAVID. GIVEN THAT THERE ARE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT PLANET EARTH WAS FORMED WITHIN THE LAST 10,000 YEARS THIS RELUCTANCE TO ACCEPT REALITY IS NOT SURPRISING.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

User avatar
Andy_C
PV Pro
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:21 am
Location: Sydney, Australia / Orange County, California

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby Andy_C » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:56 pm

By special request, a quick conversion. :P

-Andrew


----------------------------------------- Altius' Post ----------------------------------------

For PV161 –sorry about the capitals! I know this is long but you did ask –

pv161 wrote:I have been reading all the posts on pvp about which technical model is best and have a few questions.

first of all I'm just a long time high school coach. I have never coached college or elite vaulters so my expertise isn't at the same level as most of you posting here.


Never undervalue your own experience as a teacher or coach!

pv161 wrote:I have read btb and think it's an excellent book. even if you don't follow it word for word there is lots of good information. My question to Allen. is the book all info you have researched over the years from great coaches like Petrov or are there things you have added or maybe changed from your years of experience coaching? Alan, I'm only asking you this because yours is the only pv book I have read and was curious if you thought you must follow what the other great coaches have said or if a good coach should be open to incorporating there own ideas.


I took up the Petrov model in 1986 and have attempted to apply it with young athletes - some of whom are shown in BTB and on the dvd. I have had to do this in the context in which I coach - and you will note that i deal with the issue of "coaching context" in C3 of BTB.

I started coaching virtually all my athletes from absolute beginner - from 86 onwards it was always with the Petrov model in mind - although i had some success by ozzy standards before then. I have never had reason to question the model but since i was working with young athletes 13-26 at school / college or work - all amateurs with limited training time so we had to take what i call a minimalist approach to training. No weight training / almost all running done without a pole / virtually no gymnastics - although several of the girls had gymnastics experience prior to the vault. Our system was based on what is described in the book and dvd - lots of drills / stiff pole jumping and a fair bit of high bar work.

We stayed with the Petrov model because, while it is a 'continuous chain', the links in the chain can clearly be identified and can be introduced to youngsters in a logical sequence. Not only that but the athletes can understand why each link is important and appreciate how each link fits back together to reproduce the continuous chain - in the full jump. In my experience an athlete 'understanding' why they are doing something in training is a critical factor in rapid progress.

Again while all my athletes were aiming for the Petrov model they all overlaid their own 'style' on to that model so that there are clearly individual differences between them. The key is that we all knew what we are aiming for and as I suggested above the great thing about this model is that it can be broken up into a range of simple drills - that can then be brought together initially through stiff pole vaulting over lower bars. The one thing I really worked on was getting all the poles kids needed because making easy transitions - where they don't have to compromise their technique in order to handle a longer / stiffer pole - is very important for young athletes. So Lauren Eley at 134 lbs who is seen jumping on the dvd on a 13/175 - had every pole in the sequence needed to get there and Tom Lovell at 5'6" is on a 15/185 - same deal

The point is that the Petrov model is biomechanically superior - cannot be surpassed -just needs the Botcharnikov theory to be put to the test. So we always aimed for that. To assess what was achieved you would have to really understand the context in which we worked. For example - only one track in Adelaide - nearest track to the east 450 miles - to the west 2000 mies - to the north 1500 miles - to the south - Antarctica, don't thnik there is track there.

pv161 wrote:I have read on here that Bubka himself said he didn't have his great success because he was a better athlete then most ( I think he was just being humble) so my question is does anyone have a list of other vaulters that trained under Petrov and how high they jumped? not just 1 big bar but consistently jumping high. I ask the question because if Bubkas success was because of Petrov's coaching and not his outstanding physical and mental abilities then either Petrov didn't have any other good athletes or his model is so difficult to perfect that only 1 guy was able to do it.


When I met Petrov in 1986 he said he had ten guys in his squad in Dontetsk jumping over 5.50. People forget that Bubka's brother jumped 5.80. However Petrov moved to Italy as head vault coach twenty years ago? So he has being doing a lot of other things besides coach individuals. I believe he had a 5.80 vaulter in Italy before Gibilisco - a lad with no talent - who jumped 5.90 to win the world champs in paris in 04. Then of course he worked with Isinbayeva and also thre Brazilian vaulters like Murer and the boy who won the 2012 WJC at 5.65. However it should be noted that the absolute athletes like to have a coach to themselves and that would have restricted his options.

So instead at looking at just who Petrov coached - look at all the athletes using the same model - the ones i have already listed but DB refuses to acknowledge.
Such as
Trandenkov/Tarasov/Markov/Isinbayeva/Feofanova/Murer/Bolochonava/Gataullin/Potapovich/Lewis/Dennison/many of the german vaulters - because their national vault coach Hsingon decided to make the Petrov model the german national model - some readers may recall him speaking in reno on exactly that topic. But this list also includes Burgess, Markov and Hooker - three 6.00 plus vaulters - with one wj title and two world champs between them - plus Kym Howe 4.72 and Alana Boyd 4.76 from Ozzyland - a country which rarely has more that 200 active vaulters!

Now please read the next para very carefully folks!! Because i am not claiming that Nick Hysong used the petrov model. Not sure who his coach was - as always in the us system he had several coaches along the way. But this is the story. In 1991 Larry Berryhill - the vault coach from BYU - and a fairly successful one i believe / also clever enough to have an earned doctorate - came to adelaide on business. He found out there was a vault group here and came out to watch - finished up observing and discussing the vault with me for three days. He said that he was amazed how much time and emphasis we put into the run and take off - had never heard of the free take off - his emphasis was what happened in the air.

Anyway the night Nick won his gold medal - I got a fax from Larry thanking me for my contribution to Nicks success. Since I had never even met Nick I was surprised to put it mildly. It appears Larry took the ideas on the free take off back to Nicks father. Anyway Larry invited me to Provo - went there several times and worked with his squad. One year he came to Adelaide for a week with one of his vaulters - who won the ncaa that year. A couple of years later when i was sitting in the Hilton trying to sell BTB! - Nick's father came up and introduced himself - he also thanked me for the contribution to his sons performance - again i was very surprised because I have still never talked to Nick himself - but it shows the power of a good idea - even if it only comes through a messenger.

pv161 wrote:my next question is does anyone think Bubka could have jumped as high if he had trained somewhere else?


He "might" have jumped as high if he had trained with a coach using the same model but as I suggested above the Petrov/Bubka (Soviet) model is the most efficient model around - see Jamie Scroop aged 15 at 3.80 at least in the take off phase - or matt Filsell (5.30 at 17) in the inversion or Wendy Young 4.40 at 19 in the swing phase. I know i am putting myself up as an Aunt Sally but my objective all along has been to show that ordinary young athletes could benefit from the advantages of the petrov model.

pv161 wrote:my last question is if a vaulter comes along who is fast as lightning, holds high on big poles and tucks and shoots and starts jumping higher then Bubka did would everyone change there minds about the best method? I don't coach the tuck and shoot method but there have been guys jump high that way


Its pretty hypothetical because if it happens I will be long in my grave. Of course there have been guys jump 'high' like that. As I indicated in another post - Ockert Brits jumped 6 metres with a diabolical technique - 2' under - had to tuck - fall off the pole etc.etc. However the fact is that if the guy had 'lightning speed" and a free take off he would be able to put so much energy into the pole that he would be able to keep swinging with a long body into inversion - just like Bubka but just with a higher grip!!! Baulters usually tuck because they have not put enough energy into the pole to move their grip height to the vertical and are forced to tuck in order to speed up their rotation - and get it into position for the shoot.

Everyone can go in any direction they like - even reinvent the wheel but I can only give you my best advice based on 54 years of experience as a teacher/coach of several sports and as a pole vault coach - go with the Petrov model - and help your athletes understand that nothing comes easy - nothing! They have to be prepared to do the repetitive drills and high bar work my kids did - and as you see Izzy a multiple world record holder - doing on the tail end of the dvd. Please accept that I am not pulling this opinion out of the proverbial hole. I have studied with the guys who coached the 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988,1996 and 2004 Olympic Champions. Roman Botcharnikov lived in my house for a year in 91/92. Parnov (5.83 vaulter in his own career) did the same thing for three months in 96 and I coached along side him in Adelaide for two years. Been to Reno half a dozen times and watched and listened carefully there - even invited to speak a couple of times.

Then I have watched markov train - and caught his foot on occasion - for several years in Adelaide - he still lives here. You would have to be real dumb bunny not to learn something from simply watching him jump!

Hope I answered your questions - however I suggest you reread the chapters dealing with these issues -and review the dvd again. Note that, unless I am specifically asked a question I am not going to contribute further to this series of posts. Because it is clear nothing anyone has said here - no matter how logical nor how much it is based on the facts - will change the opinions of folk like David. Given that there are there are people who actually believe that planet earth was formed within the last 10,000 years this reluctance to accept reality is not surprising.
Hard work is wasted energy if you don't work wisely!

User avatar
coachjvinson
PV Whiz
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:58 pm
Expertise: I have never recognized the concept of limits-I think an athlete who accepts limits is dead-Bubka
Lifetime Best: 0
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: COOP 4.55m and Mondo

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby coachjvinson » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:34 pm

altius wrote: NEVER UNDERVALUE YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE AS A TEACHER OR COACH!


THANK YOU!!
V
PURSUITOF2016

User avatar
coachjvinson
PV Whiz
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:58 pm
Expertise: I have never recognized the concept of limits-I think an athlete who accepts limits is dead-Bubka
Lifetime Best: 0
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: COOP 4.55m and Mondo

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby coachjvinson » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:06 am

ADTF Academy wrote:
superpipe wrote:I'm not sure how else to clearly state it. I never said the "tuck and shoot" doesn't apply physics, but the answer you get when using the "tuck and shoot" = less creation and use of energy.

The fact remains that there is ONE most efficient way to create and apply energy in the pole vault (based on human biomechanics) to achieve the greatest height. There's zillions of less efficient ways to clear heights below your maximum capability.


The issue is the means and ends of why and how your trying to use physics. I don't agree with the blocking out of the bottom arm to create bend in the pole resulting in the need to overly tuck to shorten the radius to beat the pole to inversion. However, I see its concepts and understand them.


I can see the merit in the objective nature of your statements...

ADTF Academy wrote: There is a huge difference between application of a thought in a vacuum when everything is done perfectly and the reality of what is going on.


While I understand the applications and shortcomings of the "perfect world" vacuum scenario...
I would agree that there are advanced fundamentals that can "muddy the water" if introduced too early in a vaulter's development. To suggest that certain advanced fundamentals not be introduced nor attempted at all is, in my positon, short sighted.

ADTF Academy wrote: However, stop moving and sit on the pole is 100% not linked to the comment I made. The lift created occurs well before I hope the pull of the athlete is seen. The pull happens after inversion is near reached. If you're pulling from a seated position than you will have your own problems not linked to this conversation.


Good, yes...

ADTF Academy wrote: The pull that was talked about in the article was the final movement by which the top hand moves passed the body. There is a difference between not making use of something and attempt to do something that causes an incorrect movement.


There is a third option too, certainly to state that we shouldn't attempt something because it MAY cause an incorrect movement or that it fundamentally WILL cause an incorrect movement are two different statements...
Additionally, it is fundamental that any new skill set requires a certain amount of time and practice in which to develop a level of proficiency... my point is that it is not simply either/or...
Moreover, as stated previously, at this FLUID END point in the vault, a precise and quickly applied directional movement applied through the pull/push of the vaulters top arm is FUNDAMENTALLY a matter of POWERFUL FINESSE and COORDINATION.

I do not want to SIMPLY SOUND like a Petrov/Bubka disciple (I am not saying that I am not) like many other items I can be a bit of an AGNOSTIC ANALYTIC at times... It is through thorough, objective, critical analysis that improvements are made...

But consider the VELOCITY by which Bubka disconnects from the pole...
I am certain that BUBKA'S VELOCITY off the top of the pole was not achieved simply by "catching the ride"
Of all the aspects of his vault mechanics, that was certainly one of the most impressive aspects and one of the first aspects which stood out to me...
More importantly, I am certain this can be incorporated in a progressive and developmentally timely manner.

ADTF Academy wrote:What % of pole vaulters can actually execute the timing of the pull action on the top of the jump to match the uncoiling of the pole.

That's a great question, let's find out...

ADTF Academy wrote: The continuous chain concepts are used to mean things keep moving along the vaulter/pole system.

Yes, and the the topic at hand is the final aspect of the continuum.

There are MANY things that I like and support about your position ADTF...

PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF IT SEEMS LIKE I AM CALLING YOU OUT, I AM NOT.
I am analyzing both your statements and my philosophy, beliefs and methodology OBJECTIVELY and pointing out through CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS items which I question on the MERITS...

I HOPE THAT AT THE LEAST WE CAN DISAGREE RESPECTFULLY...
and at the MOST...
I HOPE, THROUGH AN INTELLECTUAL DIALOGUE AND A PASSION FOR THE ATHLETE AND SPORT, THAT WE CAN PUSH OUR METHODOLOGIES TO ACCOMPLISH THE MOST THAT WE ARE ABLE!

As noted, you're statements are VERY OBJECTIVE at TIMES and I support and agree with this fundamental principal.

Additionally, what I am reading from your post and position is that it CAN be counterproductive to focus on this aspect of the vault IF introduced before a developing vaulter has a certain level of vault proficiency...
Where I FUNDAMENTALLY DIVERGE is that it is my position that this aspect of the vault has merit in a BROADER sense than indicated in your post.

ADTF Academy wrote: A pull that gets the vaulter away from the system is exactly the opposite to what the concepts talk about.


I have not read anywhere that anyone is suggesting this- to try to introduce this NON fact to support your position IS HIDDEN BIAS...

ADTF Academy wrote:Saying there needs to be a pull is like saying if an arrow doesn't pull back against the string of the bow it will go no where. No actually if the arrow is not made of a solid material the arrow goes no where. If the arrow stays in line with the bow string it gets launched very quickly. The vaulter is the arrow and the pole is the bow.


NOT really an effective argument - an arrow is a STATIC object, where the TRAINED VAULTER is a DYNAMIC SKILLED ATHLETE...

ADTF Academy wrote: To sum it up are you telling me a guy or woman that can't even clear his or her own grip height should be trying to pull as hard as they can on the top of their jump? Such a vaulter would be better off attempting to use all their energy to stay connected and in line with the pole. By attempting to create an imaginary additional amount of force such an athlete will tend to just fall off and out of alignment with the line of thrust. Not wanted or needed for any vaulter of any level. Try to shoot and arrow with not holding the arrow next to the bow frame.. How far and straight does the arrow go.


Again, NOT really an effective argument - the TRAINED VAULTER is a DYNAMIC SKILLED ATHLETE...
SPECIFICALLY,

ADTF Academy wrote:
I state all of this from a vantage point of do you truly understand why things are being taught? What does it really create? How can it really be used? Anyone can have an ideal technique or style of jumping in their mind. The question is can it actually be accomplished by the athletes you are working with. I'm not saying anything that has been mentioned is wrong just the reasons why can't be bias hidden behind topics that are actually not 100% true.


I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS AND THE PURPOSE OF MY RESPONSE IS TO EXPLORE THESE VERY QUESTIONS

In conclusion, I want to state that I have watched video of ATDF vaulters and I want to CONGRATULATE you and encourage you on and in the work that you are doing. I do want to encourage you to consider what you are stating and to think objectively about what has been stated.

ADDITIONALLY, in a reciprocal manner - If I am holding on to beliefs or methods which you BELIEVE are FUNDAMENTALLY NOT SOUND, please point them out. As I have stated elsewhere,
"Ours is a path of continued GROWTH..."

I also want to RESTATE...
There are MANY things that I like and support about your position ADTF...PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF IT SEEMS LIKE I AM CALLING YOU OUT, I AM NOT. I am analyzing both your statements and my philosophy, beliefs and methodology OBJECTIVELY and pointing out through CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS items which I question on the MERITS...I HOPE THAT AT THE LEAST WE CAN DISAGREE RESPECTFULLY... and at the MOST... I HOPE, THROUGH AN INTELLECTUAL DIALOGUE AND A PASSION FOR THE ATHLETE AND SPORT, THAT WE CAN PUSH OUR METHODOLOGIES TO ACCOMPLISH THE MOST THAT WE ARE ABLE!

V
EDITED
Last edited by coachjvinson on Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
PURSUITOF2016

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

Re: appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

Unread postby ADTF Academy » Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:12 am

I do not take it that way at all.


My comments are stated as a devils advocate....... (except those on the top of the jump which I added as a secondary point to the comment about the study someone posted). A mentor outside the pole vault community for training and training theory once told me. If someone you respect says "That exercise doesn't work. It may look good, but I tried it 30 years ago and it didn't work don't waste your time doing it." You have two choices listen to your mentor or try it and waste your time as well. Yes there are some things we all need to figure out on our own and I'm not saying everyone should listen to me, but what I am saying is there is collectively a lot of knowledge on this site. It may not always be presented in the best way during these random outburst. I have advanced as a coach fast because when a mentor told me don't run into a wall IT HURTS I stayed away from the wall.


I never once as far as I can remember have said I agree with this or I agree with that. Most of my comments are made in the line of saying as you put it. There are many advanced topics people try to teach to 12' guys. WHY? In fact I do teach the movement on small levels to high end athletes and I teach the path at which we want the hands to move to low level athletes. All my comments I guess were meant as a how about you think about this point. Not a no athlete should pull through ever. If the athlete can pull through as hard as they can and stay in direct line with the pole's final thrust of potential energy. Go for it. I'm guessing a very small percent can.


The topics on this forum as a whole has two different kinds of people saying things. Those who want to have a discussion about theory and those who don't want to say there way is right. I have my ways of doing things but I'm open enough to discussion all ways. There is no way someone except like Alan who has a book can explain every detail of what they coach on a forum. If you want to know what I believe come do a clinic with me. It takes 2-3 days of 8 hours a day of learning. I come on this site between seasons when I have little to do. Elites are done and college is just starting up. If I can come on here and add my two cents and 5 people get my points so be it. If not well not my problem.


In regards to the bow and arrow topic being Ridiculous. Look at the pure moment in time of an athlete like Bubka who can be completely inverted and catches the ride while the pole is still bent. He is not a fluid moving object. He is a straight body object being thrown in the air. A dynamically skilled athlete knows when to make movements and when to hold body shapes. Holding body shapes in itself makes you a dynamic athlete. A system that allows the athlete to be in a position to catch the most potential energy on their top hand will produce the most vertical lift if enough potential energy is in fact still available. Energy in and Energy out. Any pulling or moving sensation with the arms that directs the pole back down the runway is bad due to ceasing pole rotation into the pit and due to not being in the line of final thrust of the pole.

To Coach Johnson

You seem to have asked questions so I don't see anything that you talk about that I would consider a belief or method that isn't sound. I've learned a long time ago as have some of the other posters on this site that nothing can and should be taken personally. Most of the time I just shake my head and laugh. Thanks for the positive comments on my athletes. As with all athletes and coaches there is still a long way up the mountain to perfection. Each athlete brings a new wriggle and piece to the puzzle.

The difference between my coaching now and when I worked with youth is. With youth it was all about looking like a vaulter and being safe. Sadly I'll be the one to say it if no one gets hurt it was a good day. Yeah I had many athletes jump high and won some titles it was a lot of fun on many levels. On the elite level if they are not in a position to clear a high bar well no one eats and worst yet they probably quit and get a real job. They don't jump well they can't pay for their flight home. It adds a whole new element to coaching when you remember the fact that the person in front of you is this as a job and is not just about having fun and seeing if you can do it right. Yes the vault is fun and should be done right, but doing it right on a 13' pole means you make no money for an elite woman. :(

It's been sad in the past 5 years watching many of the other men and woman who wanted to vault after college quit because they could not progress fast enough after college. Choices are simple either wait it out and hope you can learn to jump high over time by breaking things done or learn as you go jump high and hope you don't slow your progression down later. I take the whole painting a picture as a coach to heart. Each brush stroke adds to the previous strokes and after you step back you hope its a master piece. The two athletes I was and am lucky enough to work with were decent college vaulters (14' and 17'4) who fortunately I was able to progress fast enough so they could make the bars needed to earn some money make some world teams and stay in the sport. The rest only time will tell. Let's see what happens after 4 more years of fun.


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests