The location of the take off point in fiberglass pole vaulti

[altius]

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
With this in mind, it is striving for that ideal technique that is the backbone of our technical training. Certain things may vary from jump to jump (think of it as a tolerance, or a margin of error), but the more precision we have, the more we can minimize these variances, the closer we are to the ideal technique we are striving for, and the better we will ultimately perform.


I second this and third and fourth
there is no spoon...

Ditto in spades = and I raise you ten million gazoopas!

[david bussabarger]

to pv junkie from vault renegade:
It was not my intention to insult you by calling the acolytes of the b/p model neoplatonists. It is simply a descriptive term that indicates that,like plato, you or they place more importance on ideal "forms" ( in this case an ideal model ) than on what is going on in the
real world.
as I just said, I believe the way to develop a vaulter is to first use the standardized elements of the vault ( which are determined by reductive analysis of as many elite vaulters as possible ) to build a foundation for the execution of the vault. the remaining variable elements should then be designed around the individual tendencies of the vaulter. obviously I am not giving an exact model to follow because I do not believe in exact models ( a one size fits all approach ). again, it is obvious that in the real world, many elements of technique can vary amoung the very best vaulters of all time.I believe these variations should be embraced not supressed. it is out of these individual variations that possible positive mutations can arise that can lead to the natural evoluton of technique. note, technique can also evolve by the intentional introduction of a given technical variation. the biggest problem, as I see it, with postulating one ideal model, is that by doing so you supresss the development of new variations in execution which might lead to improvements in technique.
in the real world 6m. is now and probably always will be considered a great vault ( it is comparable to 15' with rigid poles ). this is despite bubka's swipe at lobinger that 6m. ( at that time ) was a nonevent. It clearly still is an event and as I say it probably always will be.
Again, it is a statement of fact that the supporters of the b/p model are not following the scientific method ( which is the foundation of all scientific research ) when claiming that their views are proven by science. to repeat again the scientific method is defined as follows: it is a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from this data and the hypothesis is EMPIRICALLY TESTED. this means that the hypothesis must be proven by observation or experience of the real world. and this then means that the b/p model must be proven empirically to be ideal. theories in physics and biomechanics cannot prove your case.
the theory of evolution ( in science a theory is an empirically verifed explanation for known facts or phenomena ) makes a good example for comparision here. a hypothesis was developed using the empirical method ( an abrieveated form of the scientific method ). that is darwin made a great many real world observations. he then made conlusions based on his real world obsevations which formed his hypothesis ( we now know this as the theory of evolution ). darwin's hypothesis was then empirically tested by other scientists
( a process that continues to this day ). after a certain amount of empirical evidence was developed or uncovered his hyothethsis became an accepted scientific theory.
as I have said I used the exact same method that darwin did to develop my hypothesis ( that there is no one ideal model in the vault ). you can legitimately disagree with my hypothesis but not with the scientific method used to develop them. now sisyphus, begin rolling the stone up the hill again.

[agapit]

to pv junkie from vault renegade:
It was not my intention to insult you by calling the acolytes of the b/p model neoplatonists. It is simply a descriptive term that indicates that,like plato, you or they place more importance on ideal "forms" ( in this case an ideal model ) than on what is going on in the
real world.
as I just said, I believe the way to develop a vaulter is to first use the standardized elements of the vault ( which are determined by reductive analysis of as many elite vaulters as possible ) to build a foundation for the execution of the vault. the remaining variable elements should then be designed around the individual tendencies of the vaulter. obviously I am not giving an exact model to follow because I do not believe in exact models ( a one size fits all approach ). again, it is obvious that in the real world, many elements of technique can vary amoung the very best vaulters of all time.I believe these variations should be embraced not supressed. it is out of these individual variations that possible positive mutations can arise that can lead to the natural evoluton of technique. note, technique can also evolve by the intentional introduction of a given technical variation. the biggest problem, as I see it, with postulating one ideal model, is that by doing so you supresss the development of new variations in execution which might lead to improvements in technique.
in the real world 6m. is now and probably always will be considered a great vault ( it is comparable to 15' with rigid poles ). this is despite bubka's swipe at lobinger that 6m. ( at that time ) was a nonevent. It clearly still is an event and as I say it probably always will be.
Again, it is a statement of fact that the supporters of the b/p model are not following the scientific method ( which is the foundation of all scientific research ) when claiming that their views are proven by science. to repeat again the scientific method is defined as follows: it is a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from this data and the hypothesis is EMPIRICALLY TESTED. this means that the hypothesis must be proven by observation or experience of the real world. and this then means that the b/p model must be proven empirically to be ideal. theories in physics and biomechanics cannot prove your case.
the theory of evolution ( in science a theory is an empirically verifed explanation for known facts or phenomena ) makes a good example for comparision here. a hypothesis was developed using the empirical method ( an abrieveated form of the scientific method ). that is darwin made a great many real world observations. he then made conlusions based on his real world obsevations which formed his hypothesis ( we now know this as the theory of evolution ). darwin's hypothesis was then empirically tested by other scientists
( a process that continues to this day ). after a certain amount of empirical evidence was developed or uncovered his hyothethsis became an accepted scientific theory.
as I have said I used the exact same method that darwin did to develop my hypothesis ( that there is no one ideal model in the vault ). you can legitimately disagree with my hypothesis but not with the scientific method used to develop them. now sisyphus, begin rolling the stone up the hill again.

Look it’s just impossible to leave this ignorance unanswered.

First what exactly are your "standardized elements of the vault" and the science behind them, other than everyone (except a few) seems to be doing it. Empirical evidence is always connected with analytical theory that is constructed based on scientific laws. So if you are saying that being under is "natural" from your empirical observation than what is the analytical explanation behind it?
The b/p model is perhaps the most scientific model there is and if you have a specific question as to what science is behind a b/p element, I am willing to donate my time and answer that. One question, free of charge and you can work on cracking the validity of the science behind my answer.

Just like a genie, I will answer one of your most sacred questions. Just ask and let's be done with it!

[ADTF Academy]

P.S. When they asked Bubka about Tim Lobinger setting German Record of 6m, he replied (politically incorrect) that 6m was a big deal 10 years ago, creating huge controversy in the German media. That was 7-8 years ago or more. Today in the US men are lucky to clear 19'. Why is that? And the only one that does consistently is closer to the “look” (not sure what model, if any, they follow) of the 1990s than anyone else.

In all do respect I'd take that one step further and say Vaulters in the World are lucky to clear 19'. Why is that? It's not just a problem in the US. Why is vaulting as a whole down? Yes the top is the top, but the depth in the world is down? Did the whole world forget how to vault or is certain things no longer taking place that allows the average man to jump high? Just saying.

Why do you think the world results are down? Could it be because the best vaulter and current Olympic Champion is 18" under and all mimic what he does and 25 years ago they had a better model to mimic?

First off my comment was made based off your comment talking sharply at AMERICAN VAULTERS. The whole world is down on the Men's Side. End of story. I have my reasons which I chose not to bring up on this site. I watch, witness and track results from all over the world from Men and Woman its my job.

I would assume you are referring to Jen on the 18" under because Renaud is not 18" under. But you put the world HE>>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmeWTwluiPc&feature=plcp

Are there things each of us could find wrong? Sure, Is 18" under one of those? He would be the ultimate PRE JUMPER if he moved out 18" on the jump that won the gold medal. You are wrong on that comment. My reasons are not based on a situations that can't happen to the same level anymore. I'm not turing this conversation into anything more than that.

[agapit]

First off my comment was made based off your comment talking sharply at AMERICAN VAULTERS. The whole world is down on the Men's Side. End of story. I have my reasons which I chose not to bring up on this site. I watch, witness and track results from all over the world from Men and Woman its my job.

Well you have noted than that results tend to come in waves. I think it’s because when there is a positive example(s) people mimic it, with or without recognition of the fact. However, if unrecognized the improvements tend to dissolve. And that is where I think we are at this time. Just a theory.

Cheers!

P.S. As to Renaud, I believe, it was a comment on David’s remark I am not saying that he is or is not under most of the time, sorry for a confusion.

[Barto]

I've held my tongue for many years on this subject, but I think I can make one constructive contribution.

I would rather be 1" out than 1" under; however, I would rather be 1' under than 1' out.

Chew on that kids.

[agapit]

I've held my tongue for many years on this subject, but I think I can make one constructive contribution.

I would rather be 1" out than 1" under; however, I would rather be 1' under than 1' out.

Chew on that kids.

That's what you would like, but what would be good for you? If you ge t my drift.

There is no spoon...

[ADTF Academy]

I've held my tongue for many years on this subject, but I think I can make one constructive contribution.

I would rather be 1" out than 1" under; however, I would rather be 1' under than 1' out.

Chew on that kids.

That's what you would like, but what would be good for you? If you ge t my drift.

There is no spoon...

Good for us as coaches or good for the safety of the athlete?

I made this comment at the 2011 Summit..... I think many coaches need to remember this statement.

As a coach we will have many careers. The athlete will only have one.

Are you doing what is best for that athlete or your own stubborn pride? ( FYI this is directed at the masses not anyone in particular)

[dj]

good afternoon,

actually gentlemen we wouldn't even have to have this "discussion" if we would correct the run.

Just from my 40 plus years of long jump experience I can confidently (by physics) tell you that you can takeoff "ON"/correct by Romans standards IF the Run is "ON" or "closer" than normal……

BUTT you CANNOT ever takeoff correctly if the run is "stretched".

What is a stretched run…. First, Any run that does not have the correct length to speed ratio… in other word the ball of the foot must contact the track "under" the mass at support and not in front ever.. second there is never a stretched step over the last six and the last step can never ne longer than the second to last.


So… You can "chop" and takeoff on, out or "correct" in the vault just like a long jumper can "get on the board" and not foul IF the steps are not too far out,( which ALWAYS forces you to stretch) for his/her speed.

Get the run correct and then you have a "chance" to takeoff correctly…….

dj

[altius]

"As a coach we will have many careers. The athlete will only have one."

ADTF old son - If you are going to quote me - you should at least cite me!!!!! Page 5, ChapterTwo, Track and Field and the role of the coach, 'From Beginner to Bubka -and Isinbayeva too". But you have chosen an important quote because we cannot - or at least should not - allow our egos to get in the way of the development of our athletes.

So readers might want to consider another quote from BTB, "Praestabilus esse nonnunquam unicum consilium, id sit velum et efficax" or translated "Perhaps it is better to have one way of wisdom provided it be true". Erasmus 1551.

Some of us believe that the Petrov/Bubka model shows us the "one way of wisdom" in the pole vault. For those who do not believe this to be the case, and have 'their own one way of wisdom" they could perhaps share it with the rest of us, because in coaching as in life the critical questions are - If you don't know where you are going -how do you know which direction to take with the first step - and how do you know when you have arrived?

Perhaps to consider another old saying perhaps it really is true that "It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" - without a clear and concise model of the vault you will be travelling hopefully for a long time as you attempt to reinvent all of the wheels involved in this event and ensure that they mesh perfectly.

[fishman4god]

"As a coach we will have many careers. The athlete will only have one."

ADTF old son - If you are going to quote me - you should at least cite me!!!!! Page 5, ChapterTwo, Track and Field and the role of the coach, 'From Beginner to Bubka -and Isinbayeva too". But you have chosen an important quote because we cannot - or at least should not - allow our egos to get in the way of the development of our athletes.

So readers might want to consider another quote from BTB, "Praestabilus esse nonnunquam unicum consilium, id sit velum et efficax" or translated "Perhaps it is better to have one way of wisdom provided it be true". Erasmus 1551.

Some of us believe that the Petrov/Bubka model shows us the "one way of wisdom" in the pole vault. For those who do not believe this to be the case, and have 'their own one way of wisdom" they could perhaps share it with the rest of us, because in coaching as in life the critical questions are - If you don't know where you are going -how do you know which direction to take with the first step - and how do you know when you have arrived?

Perhaps to consider another old saying perhaps it really is true that "It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" - without a clear and concise model of the vault you will be travelling hopefully for a long time as you attempt to reinvent all of the wheels involved in this event and ensure that they mesh perfectly.

That is about as clear as it gets..................hopefully others will "get it" too. Thanks Altius!

[ADTF Academy]

"As a coach we will have many careers. The athlete will only have one."

ADTF old son - If you are going to quote me - you should at least cite me!!!!! Page 5, ChapterTwo, Track and Field and the role of the coach, 'From Beginner to Bubka -and Isinbayeva too". But you have chosen an important quote because we cannot - or at least should not - allow our egos to get in the way of the development of our athletes.

sorry Alan, I never read your 2nd book. I'm glad coaching isn't like an english report. I've read so many books over the years it all blends. They all say roughly the same thing in their own way and yet most of them can't agree. Sounds like Pole Vault coaches.