ADTF Academy wrote: I have never heard Walker or Renaud promote a Tuck and Shoot.... Has anyone or is this just another example of someone making up an argument so they can sound correct. The action occurs why is a great question ...
That's a good point. The action does
occur - it's visible plain as day. It's indisputable.
Why? It's been 10 years since I spoke to Brad Walker with his UW coach Pat Licari, and I know back then Brad and Pat were striving for the Petrov Model, and both were proponents of the Continuous Chain of Motion Theory (I discussed this with Pat quite thoroughly), but Brad knew he wasn't quite there. Back then, he had more of a pike-shoot than a tuck-shoot, and he didn't have the extreme C that he has now. Today, his C is far better than most!
Today, I'm sure he's on heavier poles. The dilemma is ALWAYS do I go to a heavier pole and sacrifice some technique, or do I stay with a lighter pole and improve my technique? I agree that Walker is not purposely tuck-shooting, but that is the consequence of him choosing a heavier pole. Any time you see a pause in a tuck, it's because the vaulter is waiting for the pole to roll forwards - this is inefficient.
Like I said earlier, Walker's technique is cool, it's his choice, and he's a very smart vaulter so he's not doing this blindly - he knows what he's doing! I personally would choose a lighter pole and strive for a more continuous chain of motion, but that's just me. He's doing very well, but most would agree that his performances have been rather inconsistent over the years, and he could do better. Some of his inconsistencies can be attributed to injuries, but I think some can also be attributed to technical flaws. Still, he's the one that holds the American Record - not anyone else!
ADTF Academy wrote: Are athletes strong enough to be in the air with no leverage points ... and be able to take their bottom hand and press the pole bent? ... any additional forces applied that gets the body out of ideal alignment will cause unwanted effects. ...
I'll skip the "out of alignment" issue, because I don't see that as the main issue. To me, the physics (or lack of understanding of the physics) is the most misunderstood problem.
From a physics standpoint, with only the butt of the pole in the box and the vaulter's hands on the pole, the vaulter-pole system is "set" or "predetermined". i.e. Other than the additional forces that might be applied by gymnastic movements (I want to leave that out of this thread, because it's an unrelated side issue), the more you resist with the bottom arm, the less you swing. It's actually that simple. Conversely, the more you swing from the TOP hand (without resisting with the bottom hand), the sooner and quicker you will invert, and the sooner and quicker you will raise your CoG.
Going to a bigger pole and then thinking that you need to apply additional pressure to it with the bottom hand to "make" it bend is an illogical trap. It guarantees that your swing will be slower, and it guarantees that your motion will not be as continuous. And without these 2 things, you won't get your CoG high enough to explode off the pole in unison with it straightening out.
I would much rather see a vaulter raise his CoG quicker, and fly off the end of the pole more explosively (a la Bubka) than have technical flaws (like tuck-shoot) to deal with.
And the funny thing is, when you SOLVE the Continuous Change of Motion problem with the Petrov Model, then you can STILL get on bigger poles. I don't know Bubka's pole sizes, but I would guess that his poles were ALMOST as big as those of other vaulters that didn't have his stellar technique.
It's your TECHNIQUE that gets you most of the way over the bar - not the size of your pole!