Book Review: "From Beginner to Bubka and Isinbayeva Too"

[Russ]

The following is a book review of "From Beginner to Bubka and Isinbayeva Too." It is lengthy and detailed as book reviews go. There were a couple of short footnotes in the text that got "lost" when I copied & pasted the text here. Those footnotes are not crucial, however.

I would like to thank Dr. Wilson SooHoo, Talen Singer (Villanova University), and my father, Robert VerSteeg. All three read an earlier draft of the review and provided me with useful criticism and feedback. All of the views expressed are mine not necessarily theirs. All errors and mistakes are mine not theirs.

I would also like to thank Becca for allowing me to post the review here on polevaultpower first. I think that it will serve its purpose better here than if I had published it in a traditional print medium.

Now I'll allow the review to speak for itself.


From Beginner to Bubka and Isinbayeva Too: An Australian Approach to Developing Pole Vaulters (Second Edition 2007, 310 pages) by Alan G. Launder & John T. Gormley

I. Overview

This is the best book on pole vault instruction available today in English, although at times its English is regrettably flawed. The authors provide detailed, comprehensive explanations and illustrations to guide pole vaulters of all ability levels, “from Beginner to Bubka” as well as coaches, and parents of aspiring pole vaulters. Not since Richard Ganslen’s Mechanics of the Pole Vault (which was last published in the early 1980’s) has a book has so completely explained the physics involved in this extraordinarily difficult sport. I enthusiastically recommend it.

The second edition contains many more photos and several additional chapters to make it a significant improvement over the first edition. Some further improvements may make it more accessible and even more useful (see below “Bones to Pick” and “Quibbles”).

In addition to explaining the physics, Launder and Gormley systematically lead the reader from their basic “technical model” through intermediate and then advanced stages of pole vault teaching and development. They offer excellent advice regarding the multifaceted art/science of coaching young athletes. Chapters 2, 3, 11, 17, and 28 (advanced) relate directly to the process of coaching.

The authors establish a sound general philosophy. They have tremendous experience as coaches and thus are able to empathize with pole vaulters who face special problems such as not “feeling” just right on their approach, and deciding therefore to abort. But their experience also allows them to be forthright when it comes, for example, to debunking many of the popular “dangerous myths” about vaulting with a flexible poles (especially in Chapter 6).

One of the book’s best features is Appendix A, “Vitali Petrov’s 1985 Presentation, European Coaches Congress,” (pp. 287-290). Although the writing is a bit difficult to comprehend (it is a translation from Russian), it is well worth the effort. Petrov’s paper contains a great deal of wisdom and excellent practical advice. I suggest that readers start here. I think that it serves better as an introduction than as an Appendix.

II. Central Thesis & Principal Tenets

The central thesis of the book is certainly correct. Launder and Gormley argue that the basic mechanics of pole vaulting with a flexible pole are essentially the same as the basic mechanics developed by the pole vaulters of the bamboo and steel pole eras (e.g., Cornelius Warmerdam). Chapter 5, “The Relationship Between Stiff Pole, and Flexible Pole Vaulting,” summarizes this thesis.

The principal tenets of the book are as follows:

1) Vaulters must think of the event as one unified motion, from the first step on the runway to landing in the pit.

2) Vaulters must jump up at takeoff with a top hand that is as high and extended as possible.

3) Vaulters must take off slightly “out” (“free takeoff”), never under.

4) Vaulters must take off aggressively (“tensed body”) and extend their drive phase with chest forward, lead knee punching up and forward, and hips and
trail leg extended back.

5) Vaulters must “stay behind” the pole as long as possible.

6) Vaulters must “brace” their bottom hand/arm upward at takeoff to allow their chest to drive upward and forward (but never should vaulters “block” a stiff bottom arm, since that inhibits a proper swing).

7) Vaulters must invert as a result of whipping/swinging a powerful trail leg, NOT by consciously “rocking back” or throwing their heads back (i.e., essentially swinging to a handstand in the manner of a gymnast on a high bar). See in particular Chapter 15, “Teaching the inversion.”

8) Vaulters must drive their hips up and their shoulders back as they extend off the top of the pole. But the authors admit that vaulters really don’t have to try to drive the shoulders because the shoulders naturally roll back if vaulters drive their hips. I personally agree. I’m always concerned that, if vaulters think too much about driving their shoulders back, they might commit the terrible mistake of throwing their head back, which can have seriously dangerous results.

A phrase that Launder & Gormley repeat throughout the text is that vaulters must strive to “do simple things extraordinarily well.” This credo certainly succeeds when learning to pole vault. The authors take readers through a step-by-step series of drills designed to teach proper vault mechanics. They illustrate the drill explanations with sequences of both photographs and drawings, making most of the drills very easy to visualize. Of course the DVD that is sold separately offers video illustrations of most of the drills. Chapter 13, “Teaching the pole vault,” in particular does an excellent job of “walking” both coach and vaulter though a series of drills (“exercises”) intended to start beginners off on the right foot (both literally and metaphorically speaking!).

III. Bones to Pick

A. Trail Leg Swing: To Delay or not Delay?

My most substantive technical disagreement with Launder and Gormley has to do with their treatment of the initiation of the trail leg swing. Interestingly, their position is, in my opinion, inexcusably inconsistent.

In many places in the text they claim that there should be no delay of the trail leg swing after takeoff. They contend that vaulters should begin swinging immediately after takeoff. Yet in other places in the text, they discuss the importance of teaching vaulters to delay before swinging, and extol the virtues of a delay. For example, here are some instances in the text where they argue that vaulters OUGHT NOT DELAY the swing.

- “…what is often called the hang drive phase of the vault. However, we believe that there is never a hang in a good vault.” (p. 69)

- Criticizing a vaulter for “a delayed whip to inversion” (p. 75)

- “Of course this is an exaggeration and the coach must be careful not to prolong this drill once athletes have mastered the two part timing. In the real vault there is no artificial pause like this after take off….” (p. 113)

- “Of course in a real vault there is never a delay, but this exaggeration drill helps eliminate the almost natural tendency to swing the take off leg past the pole early.” (p. 130)

On the other hand, here are some instances in the text where they acknowledge the utility of a delay in the hang drive phase, and even discuss drills designed to teach vaulters to develop A DELAYED SWING.

- In discussing straight pole vaulters, they note that it was important to: “Execute a long, but fractionally delayed, swing of the whole body with extended arms.” (p. 23)

- They endorse the methods of straight pole vaulters who used specific drills “designed to acquire a hang…” and “to increase…hang and delay his swing.” (p. 24)

-“Young athletes must finish the take off, that is, complete the driving extension of the take off leg and ankle….” “Finishing the take off with a powerful extension of the take off foot also ensures that the take off leg is momentarily straight….” “finishing the take off becomes a vital factor….” (p. 109)

-Advocating “the delayed trail leg” (p. 113)

-Describing a teaching drill: “To discourage youngsters from missing the take off and rushing into the swing they can be told to think TAKE OFF – HOLD
– SWING.” (p. 114)

-“A long swing of the whole body around the top hand, which begins immediately after the toe of the take off foot has finished its driving extension.” (p. 121)

-Discussing “finishing the take off effectively” (p. 123)

-“the athlete focuses on…finishing the take off strongly and then on holding the take off leg back fractionally longer… ” (pp. 129-130)

-“The athlete thinks Drive and finish the take off – HOLD – HOLD – HOLD…before whipping the leg forward and up….” (p. 130)

-“try to keep the trail leg especially, as long as possible – for as long as possible.” (p. 131)

This inconsistency and confusion may simply be an ambiguity in terminology. The authors maintain (correctly I think) that one ought NOT think of the takeoff merely as the instant that a vaulter leaves the ground. Rather one ought to think of the takeoff as encompassing both the instant of lift-off as well as the continuation of that initial impulse of driving upward and forward (i.e., what some refer to as the “hang drive” phase). Hence, Launder and Gormley, on several occasions, note the importance of “finishing the take off.” In one sense, I suspect that the phrase “finishing the takeoff” (or “following through” with the takeoff) actually describes what many coaches refer to as the “hang drive phase” of the vault. If I am right, then perhaps there is not really a substantive difference of opinion but rather merely a difference in terminology. Perhaps we are agreeing that a vaulter must begin swinging his/her trail leg immediately after s/he has completed the takeoff – with the understanding that by “takeoff” we mean the complete action of driving up and forward with the lead knee drive and trail leg extended back (i.e., encompassing the action that many coaches refer to as the “hang drive”).

Lastly, I disagree with the authors when they say that the word “swing” “implies a relatively passive movement.” (p. 256). To the contrary, I think that a golfer’s swing with a driver’s clubhead and a baseball player’s swing with a bat offer evidence of the types of swings that are incredibly dynamic and powerful. Thus, in my teaching I frequently use those sports swings as analogies.

B. “The Plant” (Chapter 25)

Chapter 25 covers the plant. It seems to me that this chapter should appear much earlier in the book. Given that the plant is such a crucial element of the event, it should be one of the first chapters dealing with technique. When I teach beginners, I typically spend most of the first session explaining how to grip the pole and how to execute a proper plant motion with their hands and arms. I believe it is so important that beginners should start off by learning to plant correctly from day number one! Bad plant habits are especially difficult to break later.

Still, the authors do present much useful information and suggest a number of principles that will help many vaulters with their plant. In particular, they stress the need for a high top hand, an “outstep,” and a “solid body.” They also stress the need for the bottom hand to remain high throughout the plant motion.

In addition to its placement (i.e., chapter 25) however, this chapter has two principal shortcomings. First, the authors fail to discuss the timing of the plant. They do not explain at what moment vaulters should initiate the plant action. I subscribe to the University of Tennessee method that espouses a backwards count of lefts (6,5,4,3,2,1). This backwards count allows vaulters always to initiate the plant on the penultimate (number 2) left. I find that this method is particularly helpful for beginners and intermediates.

Secondly, the chapter fails to explain the movement of the top hand during the planting motion. It seems important to me to explain the need to keep the top hand very close to one’s hip, ribcage, and body in order to plant effectively and in order to prevent the so-called “roundhouse” plant. On the other hand (literally), the authors have a great deal to say about the bottom hand which makes perfect sense).

C. “The Take Off”(Chapter 26)

In my opinion this chapter is riddled with problems. To begin with there is much that appears contradictory. For example, in the quotation at the beginning of the chapter attributed to Sergey Bubka, the quote recommends the need “to be as soon as possible into the inverted position.” (repeated in the text pp. 255 and 268). Let’s face it, this is just bad advice. One of the primary problems with young vaulters that I see is that they too often try to get inverted as soon as possible. As a result, they lean back at takeoff and thus never penetrate.

In this chapter the authors also try to explain the concept of the free takeoff and what they call the “pre jump.” In my opinion, there is absolutely no need for two terms. They spend numerous pages discussing these terms (see esp. pp. 242-244). But, as best as I can tell, the two terms are functional equivalents (synonyms), and thus there is no need to invent redundant terms to clutter the already difficult pole vault lexicon. We need to “speak the same language.”

I could not agree more with the principle that the authors are trying to get across, namely, that ideally vaulters should strive to achieve a free takeoff, an “outstep,” that is just a little behind the imaginary line drawn from the vaulter’s top hand down to the runway. This is essential! But there is no need to confuse vaulters with unnecessary verbiage. Much of the discussion in this section is labored and unclear at best. In particular, I find this sentence laughable and/or absurd : “We therefore see a free take off as a failed pre jump” (p. 244). I honestly believe that we will all be better off if we decide to strike the term “pre jump” from our pole vault dictionary; it’s unnecessary, redundant, contrived jargon.

I also think that their explanation of the action of the lead knee drive is misleading. For example, on p. 240 they insist that vaulters should drive the heel of the drive (“free”) leg towards the buttocks. Even their illustrations plainly show that this advice is not correct. The heel actually drives towards the back of the drive knee (or perhaps towards the hamstring). They say much the same on p. 118. In my experience, when vaulters attempt to punch the heel toward the buttocks, it creates an absurd, awkward posture that does not translate into upward force.

Throughout the text the authors praise Sergey Bubka’s coach, Vitali Petrov. I am confident that most of the praise is completely deserved. However, on p. 241, they attribute the free takeoff to Petrov, calling it a revolutionary innovation. With all due respect to Petrov and Bubka, it is clear that the Swedish vaulter, Kjell Isaksson, was jumping with a free takeoff and swinging like Bubka more than 10 years before Bubka. The 5’8” 150 lbs. Isaksson vaulted 18’04.50” (5.60 m) in 1972. He cleared 18’09” in practice that year. If you have an opportunity to examine video of Isaksson from that era, you’ll clearly see it.

D. Lack of Clarity/Precision in Defining Terms

The authors use a number of technical terms throughout the text but unfortunately they fail to define or explain many terms adequately. They constantly preach that one must do simple things well, yet they create a vocabulary of pole vault jargon and provide explanations that are anything but simple. They use unnecessary terms (e.g., “pre jump”) and other terms that they never define clearly. For example they use terms such as “C Pole” (p. 261), “chord of the pole” (p. 261), “chase the pole,” energy “bleeds”, “load the pole”, “solid body”). They define most of these terms either in an imprecise manner (e.g., “cover the pole”), or bury their definitions in the text (long after they were introduced) in places where readers are unlikely to notice the definition or to realize the term’s importance.

They constantly use the term “cover the pole” (e.g., p. 30, 48, 120, 125, 127, 260-261 [an ambiguous attempt at definition on pp.260-261]) as if it were a term that everyone should know. Yet it is not until p. 132 that they even attempt to define the term. And when they do define it, they define it almost by accident/default: “In this way some of the energy of that swing is transferred into the hips and speeds up their movement so that they can position themselves alongside or even above the pole….This is termed covering the pole.” My interpretation of this statement is that the authors use the term “cover the pole” to mean the act of swinging the hips to a position “alongside or even above the pole.” It would be far preferable for the authors either to provide a glossary of terms or to define this term (and many others) clearly and concisely in a topic sentence.

The following are included among the terms that the authors either never define or fail to explain either adequately or clearly.

- “matching the pole with his body” and “the pole hit him vertically”(p. 61)

- “chord of the pole” (pp. 120, 130, 131, 278, 280)

- “solid body” (p. 122) Do they mean “tense”, “taut,” “rigid”?

-“load the pole” “hit the pole” (p. 240)

- “vaulter/pole system” (p. 245, 253, 260)

- “hit the pole” (p. 278)

- “body/pole system” (p. 282)

- “Cpole” (p. 257)

E. No Index

The authors ought to have included a comprehensive index of terms to facilitate a reader’s search for important words and phrases.

IV. Quibbles

The book contains far too many grammatical, punctuation, spelling, syntax errors, and typos. As we all know, errors such as these detract from the overall clarity and credibility of any text. Errors such as these frequently make it difficult for readers to follow an author’s train of thought. In addition, these types of errors often lead readers to doubt the credibility of authors. If the reader cannot trust an author to get the details of punctuation, grammar, and spelling right, why should the reader trust an author to get the substantive details of their presentation and content right? It is honestly a shame that Launder and Gormley did not enlist the aid of a qualified editor or proofreader. These “English Teacher” mistakes (including inconsistent use of quotation marks and capitalization) are distracting.

In my opinion, readers should not, generally speaking, distrust the authors’ arguments and content. Rather, readers should simply be forewarned that these types of mistakes occur frequently throughout the book. I suggest that readers will often simply need to try to overlook these mistakes in order to benefit from the otherwise useful information and meaning which may sometimes otherwise be obscured by weak sentence structure and inattention to punctuation and syntax.

Occasionally words are omitted (e.g., pp. 59-60 “This in turn reduces the the vaulter can put into the pole… should be “This in turn reduces the energy the vaulter can put into the pole…”; p. 213 “Run the pole” should be “Run with the pole…).

They use the wrong word (a typographical error presumably): “a less that perfect plant” should be “a less than perfect plant” (p. 224).

“Led” is the past tense of the verb “lead”. More than once the authors write “lead” when it should be “led”.

They misspell “Stuczinski” every time. It should be “Stuczynski.” I think that the American record holder deserves more respect.

They say that the vaulter should “brace” the bottom arm but not “push” (p. 122). How can one brace without pushing?

There is poor punctuation throughout. The authors display a complete misunderstanding of apostrophes, commas, and semicolons. They misuse dashes and quotation marks, and they shift verb tenses for no apparent reason.

Although these types of errors appear throughout the text, there are certain instances that deserve special mention.
The writing throughout Chapter 27 (“Ambitious young vaulters and the swing to inversion”) is especially weak. There are “sentences” that have no main verb. The high frequency of passive verbs forces the reader to struggle to discern meaning. Terms abound that the authors have never defined or adequately explained. See above “Lack of Clarity/Precision in Defining Terms.” Punctuation gaffs are everywhere (e.g., missing apostrophes, missing commas). There are many poorly written/awkward sentences and run-on sentences. And finally, on p. 268 the authors have penned what may be the most condescending and arrogant statement in the book: “We make no apologies for repeating this statement, because we suspect that only those readers who have made a serious attempt to study this book, and who have begun to apply the principles it espouses, will really understand the wisdom those few of those few words. They therefore provide a simple way of checking whether you have indeed moved beyond knowledge to wisdom!” In my opinion, a good editor should never have let this sentence into get print. It is condescending and unnecessary. In my opinion, both knowledge and wisdom recommend better writing.

Use of the passive voice is especially bad in Chapter 20 (“Gymnastics for pole vaulters”). For example on p. 219, in describing the approach run they say “speed is gradually increased,” “the pole is lowered,” “the cadence is increased,” and “stride length is not shortened.” It would be far better to put these phrases into the active voice: “The athlete should gradually increase speed,” “lower the pole,” “increase cadence,” and “try to maintain (i.e., not shorten) stride length.”

Chapter 20 is also an English teacher’s nightmare; grammatical, punctuation, syntactic errors abound. Some “sentences” don’t have subjects and verbs. The writing is abysmal. There are so many passive verbs and linking verbs that the meaning of the text seems to lie hidden. The chapter reads like a failed, pretentious effort at writing a scholarly paper with an inordinate amount of jargon. For most athletes and coaches it is simply not useful. It would be better to say: “Here are several gymnastic exercises that we think would be especially beneficial for pole vaulters” and to explain why they would benefit vaulters. Then use photos to illustrate the step-by-step methods to use those exercises.

Two paragraphs of text on p.189 are repeated on p. 193, and one paragraph on p. 200 is repeated on p. 201, both apparently due to the authors’ and/or editor’s oversight. This is simply inattentive proofreading.

Chapter 28 (“Technical coaching at the advanced level”) is a catastrophic train wreck of mangled punctuation Among other problems, the authors use dashes in place of periods, commas, and semicolons throughout most of the chapter. They randomly mix verb tenses.

V. Conclusion

Launder and Gormley have made an important contribution to the pole vault community in writing From Beginner to Bubka and Isinbayeva Too. A great deal of misinformation circulates among pole vaulters and coaches. The authors explain proper methods of technique, coaching, preparation, and training. Their message is important. They have identified many essential teaching concepts and many common errors and misconceptions. Some may find fault with their tone as being “preachy” and at times even arrogant and condescending. But their passion and purpose are “spot on.” And if they occasionally come across as condescending and pompous, it is probably because they have encountered mule-like stupidity among many “old-school” vaulters and coaches who have stubbornly refused to listen to logic, reason, and the realities of physical science. Launder and Gormley, as Socrates did in Ancient Athens, are merely trying to goad the unthinking to wake up and to pay attention.

I suggest that readers not dwell on the book’s faults, not be put off by its repetitive (and often inflated or pretentious) tone, and not be distracted by the writing, spelling, and grammatical errors that I have pointed out. Rather, I suggest that readers pay attention to the basic technical model that the book presents, and honestly endeavor to implement its basic tenets and philosophies.


Russ VerSteeg
Professor, New England School of Law
Staff Legal Adviser, USATF Women’s Pole Vault Development Committee
Pole Vault Coach, Norwich Free Academy, Norwich, CT
Pole Vault Coach, Skyjumpers Connecticut

[rainbowgirl28]

Thank you for taking the time to put together such a detailed and well thought out review

[KirkB]

This is a very, very good, constructive book review.

I expect that many of us would like to use this thread as a springboard to comment on lots and lots of points that Russ raises, as well as lots and lots of things about the book that can/should be discussed by anyone that's read the book.

The book itself is a goldmine of information for all vaulters and coaches - of any age and ability. Despite it's shortcomings (which I agree we should overlook), the content serves as the best reference material that we collectively have today to base our vaulting and coaching advice on. We must be very, very careful not to "throw out the baby with the bath water". To that end, I'm hoping that we can be constructive in our criticism of the book, and by joint discussion and collaboration - which Russ has initiated here - we can get the most out of the book and what it represents.

Back in my era (1965-72), I found it quite difficult to figure out what "good vaulting technique" was or should be. I only had the Mechanics of the Pole Vault to refer to, and (as I've mentioned in other threads), some of its advice was just plain wrong (e.g. pushing with the bottom arm). I had to learn and optimize my technique on my own and with my coach, by expirementation, and by observing other vaulters of my era. The BTB2 book should be read by every aspiring vaulter and coach! Its cost is nothing compared to the wealth of information it provides!

Although this is a book for sale, I don't think the Sales Forum is the right forum for an extensive discussion of the book. The book is more than a commercial sales item. It's the best reference we have to base our "modern technique" on. I can imagine this thread carrying on ad infinitum, for years and years, with dozens and dozens of pages of replies. That's not Sales Forum content. The content also doesn't fit into any of the 3 technique forums. It's not only for Beginners, Intermediate, or Advanced Technique - it's for all 3.

Becca, what do you think about creating a new forum for reviewing BTB2, and making Russ' review the first post in it?

Personally, I have many, many questions and comments about the book - none of which have anything to do with the SALE of the book. They have to do with clarifying what the authors intended, and - in many cases - simply agreeing with many of their points.

Becca, in my proposed new "Beginner to Bubka" Book Review forum, I would suggest a couple ground rules:

1. You should not post your opinion of the book (or any of its content) if you don't have it on hand to review exactly what's being discussed, word-by-word, and page-by-page. Comments from the peanut gallery aren't constructive, if you haven't read the material.

2. You should strive for trying to understand what the authors are trying to say. You should not discredit an assertion that the authors have made, just because it's not part of your experience as a vaulter or coach. For example, I have certain beliefs that formulated my Bryde Bend technique in my era. I do not intend to bring up my technique as an argument against anything that the BTB2 authors are asserting. Instead, my objective in discussing the book will be to try to understand it more completely - to "separate the wheat from the chaff" so to speak, and cut thru some of the confusing jargon that Russ has mentioned. If I have suggestions regarding my technique, or an alternate technique to the one proposed by the authors, I intend to put those comments into a different thread - not in this "BTB2 Book Review" thread. We should "stick to the subject". Otherwise, we'll lose focus on the true purpose of a book review: To understand the true content and value of the book better.

In other words, the book review shouldn't be about what technique is better. It should be about understanding what advice is being given by the authors, and then either accepting it or saying (in a constructive manner) that "it's wrong because ..." - without elaborating too much about alternate technique theories.

It's Becca's call whether a new forum is justifed for this, but I'm hoping that (however we organize it) we can leverage Russ' review into something very, very constructive for our entire PV community.

Even before Russ published his review, I had planned on suggesting a "Book Study Group" approach to reveiwing the book, whereby we take each chapter, and review it page-by-page or point-by-point (to whatever level of detail the members of this forum want to discuss the content). This would be slightly different than the "overall book review" that Russ' did.

Becca, how about the idea of creating several threads in the proposed new "BTB2 Book Review" forum? These threads could be one for each of the 28 chapters, plus one for each appendix, one for each author, and one for "References". There should also be an "Overview and General Comments" thread - which Russ' review should be at the top of. Then, if your post is about only one chapter, it goes into the thread for that chapter. If it's a general comment that can't be easily narrowed down to a single chapter, then you could post it into the Overview thread. But we should strive to organize our posts so that most of them go into the chapter that it applies MOST to. Otherwise, the Overview thread will be overloaded, and it will be hard to sort thru all the posts to discover "the truth".

How does all this sound?

Kirk

[rainbowgirl28]

I don't think it would be appropriate to create an entire new forum for the book.

However, a study of the book is not a bad idea. Those threads could go in the technique forums.

This thread is a review of a book for sale, therefore it goes in the sales forum. People with specific questions about the content of the book should create new threads, they should not necessarily be posted here.

[KirkB]

Becca, which of the 3 Technique Forums do you suggest? The book applies to all three!

It also applies to the Coaches Forum and the Training Forum.

Including this forum, that's 6 different places.

I fear that it will soon become very disjointed to have a chapter-by-chapter Book Review in up to 6 different places.

Kirk