Russian Style Pole Vaulting..

[mikepv1]

Pretty much anyone who coaches preaches free takeoff.

People who have/had free takeoffs:
Bubka
Markov (The best you will ever see)
Tarasov
Trandenkov

People who "American" style vault:
Americans
Galfione
Ecker
Brits

There are about an equal number, if not more 6 m vaulters in the second group than the first.

The vault of each individual kind of determines whether a free takeofff will benefit I think.

I, personally, vault much better when I am in the air before the pole hits.

(I am just using SlickVT's quote as a tool for only the first paragraph of my post.)

When you consider how few people are actually in the first group compared with how many are in the second, statistically, there should be alot more "American-style" vaulters in the 6m group than "Russian-style" vaulters if the two methods achieve comparable results, but there aren't. From a percentage standpoint, "Russian-style" vaulting is more effective.

This is not an arrogance or elitist thing. I am an American; born, bred, and cornfed. It is a simple observation. Since the style partly has origins in America anyway, nationalism shouldn't be an issue either. However, on the occasions I have mentioned the free takeoff or the Petrov/Bubka/Russian model, much of the time, I have encountered hostility from other vaulters, even on this board (and I am not alone in this).

It seems like some people are of the attitude that proponents of "Russian-Style" pole vaulting think they know everything. I don't think I know everything, or even close. I am only 21 years old. I could be wrong about everything.

What I do think is that "Russian-Style" pole vaulting is the best method devised so far, and that it is based on basic, generic mechanics that the human body has. Everyone has their own mechanics, but there is no technical model nearly specific enough to exploit the minute differences between individuals. The "Russian" model is generic, and is designed to be applicable to everyone.

[dj]

i think what we are trying to get to here is the "style" that follows the basic laws of physics.... of "application of force" ... and to accomplish this with a logical frame of mind...

Ultimately we are talking about "the vault" a single model...

we have a lot of different levels of athletic ability pole vaulting.... that is what creates a "style".. but on paper the fastest, tallest, most athletic.. etc.. etc ....should jump the highest and will follow the physics of a fast run up.. an out "free" take-off.....a long but fast swing.... and make it look easy.... as they wave to the crowd.....

did anyone read a published article in 1980/81 called 19+plus... it was in and american and europian journal....

that described a 19 foot jump ... before vigneron jumped 19 feet?

a statment was made that said " to jump 19 feet plus the vaulter must have a longer swing" ...... what was left out of that article was " a longer and FASTER swing. meaning longer in distance but faster in time.. just as world record sprinters have longer and faster strides than the also rans......

if a vault is not over in under 1.50 seconds from toe leaving the ground to maximum height of the center of mass... something was wrong with the vault....


dj

[altius]

Again may I say that the language we use as coaches is important. We would be advised to think in terms of a 'Technical model' -ie the Petrov/Bubka 'technical model' which is the most effective technical model yet devised - and in my view likely to be devised. Then we think of an athlete's 'style' overlaying that technical model. So Tarasov looked different from Bubka -so does Markov, Gibilisco and so did Botcharnikov - all used the same technical model but their different characteristics - and not jut the physical ones -meant they would look a bit different - different enough for any aficionado to notice -when they jumped.

I agree with some of the comments above -namely that jingoistic nationalism has prevented some US coaches and athletes seeing the merits of the Petrov/Bubka model.

I was born in England and coached there for ten years -I lived in Kentucky -and coached there for six years -successfully i modestly add -now i live in OZ where I have coached since '73 -also with some success. However I have studied with Krupsky -a German, Houvion a Frenchman , Krysinski a Pole, Petrov and Bubka - Ukrainians - Roman Botcharnikov -a Russian (I think?) watched Mark Stewart and Steve Rippon coach -both from OZ, Alex Parnov - another Russian I think? and spent 25 years or more debating ideas with Steve Chappell -who i suppose by now regards himself as American. I have spent time with Larry Berryhill - who I understand is recognised as a reasonably successful US college coach and with Larren Bailey in Idaho -also not too bad a coach. After 45 years I am just a good coach of junior athletes - no more. But I still believe my 'tag' - if that is what it is called - to be true.

By the way did Botcharnikov coach Johnson to an Indoor World Title and an Olympic silver medal?? Does Cranston Hysong credit some of Nick's success to early exposure to the petrov model?? Check it out.

Apropos of the above, the thought for this week is, "What is technically desirable must be physically possible."

[agapit]

Perhaps we should call the model the Ukranian model since both Petrov and Bubka came from there?? As I say in the quote of the week 'wisdom can come from anywhere, any time and in any language'.

I don't think it is appropriate to call it Ukranian either. There are too many people were involved in the evelopment and remember the money behind it were Soviet etc, etc. That is why I call it 640 Model. I believe it opens horizons to 640. The next model maybe 660 Model etc.

Before I refered to it as continuous chain model, but since I grown to dislike the chain in the name. Besides, I believe the series of movement describe the model incorrectly. It should be one movement. I know it sounds radical, but in the future discussions I will try to explain it.

[dj]

By the way did Botcharnikov coach Johnson to an Indoor World Title and an Olympic silver medal?? Does Cranston Hysong credit some of Nick's success to early exposure to the petrov model?? Check it out.

I’m not sure if this was a question?? Or a statement?

I do believe the “technical modelâ€Â

[dj]

ps

well i don't think kjell had bubka's speed and strength... but technically..! yes

dj

[lonestar]

DJ - you mentioned lots of great names that have influenced the sport immensely over the years!

One that hasn't been mentioned yet: Wolfgang Nordwig. In my opinion, one of the best early fiberglass swing-style vaulters. Narrow handspread, free takeoff, long fast swing, great lineup covering the pole. A huge contrast to Seagren and Pennel, who were great vaulters using very different models.

[dj]

hey

honestly.. i started to put it in... somehow i didn't..

he should be there.. and some others..

most of the ones i put in i had studied tape of or seen vault..

dj

[agapit]

By the way did Botcharnikov coach Johnson to an Indoor World Title and an Olympic silver medal?? Does Cranston Hysong credit some of Nick's success to early exposure to the petrov model?? Check it out.

When speaking of influences… we should not overlook jim bemillers/ university of tennessees’ influence on Johnson and his success.

Nor!!! Should we over look Tom Telez/mike tully and many others, dooley/pennel, guy kochel/earl bell.. perrin/vigneron dave Roberts will give you 2/3 names.. ken shanahan, tom telez to name two.

Credit can go deep and wide.. and I didn’t even touch the surface above.

I’m sure petrov and botcharnikov can add handily to that list and be part of that list… as can.. warmerdam, gutwoski, bragg, ganslen (I mentioned before) Kjell Isaksson, Bob Seagren, jan Johnson……………….

dj

I am honored that my name is mentioned with the pillars. We have studied these guys in details. We have studied Richard Ganslen’s book (in Russian translation) extensively. I firmly believe in respecting the preceding generations of the vaulters.

The new model as you noted is deeply rooted in the steel pole. People who could clear 40-42 inches above the grip on the steel pole began their inversion and arm work immediately after takeoff. It could not be any other way without killing the natural momentum and chances for 42 inch push.

The problem was more difficult to overcome on the fiberglass pole even in concept. The solution to this problem is THE KEY innovation and the difference. So it is not the pole carry, or a free takeoff, or any other noticeable differences, but the ability to invert immediately after the takeoff beginning and accelerating the inversion with arms. This is THE KEY difference of the new model (640 Model). The free takeoff came as a result and a necessity to enable the immediate inversion and save energy during the takeoff.

In my opinion no one solved this problem on fiberglass but Bubka. LoJo came close, but could not realize it to the full extent in competition, for various reasons. It is amazing how illusive this solution is. I have never imagined that 20 years later we would still be talking about it as a major innovation. I am not aware of anyone today that has been or is focusing on solving this problem in their jump. That includes Markov, Toby and all other guys. Perhaps Mack is close, but the focus is not obvious. Without the solution they are going to max at below WR, in my humble opinion, unless they start running at 10.2 m/s or so.

In conclusion it would be very interesting to get input from Jim Bemiller. I am sure he can add a lot to the model development. I will tell him about this site, however he may already know about it.

[agapit]

...... what was left out of that article was " a longer and FASTER swing. meaning longer in distance but faster in time.. just as world record sprinters have longer and faster strides than the also rans......

dj

That turned out to be true and the key

[agapit]

So Tarasov looked different from Bubka -so does Markov, Gibilisco and so did Botcharnikov - all used the same technical model but their different characteristics

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Tarasov used vertical pole carry and free takeoff that are parts of the model but not the whole model. So did Markov.

I asked Bubka in 1989 in one of the April competitions in Sochi, after observing Tarasov at clearing 5.80 with a beautiful free takeoff, “doesn’t he has an amazing takeoffâ€Â

[altius]

Sorry _I should have said "These athletes were TRYING to use the same technical model". For various reasons they could not completely 'match' the model - this is why they were not as successful. To jump EXACTLY like Bubka you have to be a Bubka -and probably have Petrov as your coach! However i still think the notions of ' a technical model' and Style' will help clarify issues in the vault.

I respectfully disagree re steel technique because everything i have read and seen on film suggests that the best stiff pole vaulters deliberately tried to delay the initial swing on the pole -the swing was the emphasis, not a rapid initial pull. dj is right about the importance of the speed of the 'swing' - which is why i believe it should be called a 'whip' not a swing. if we do that folk may then reexamine what Bubka did to make it into a 'whip'.

Sorry to have to leave the discussion for a time because of WORK - will look forward to coming back it.

"What is technically desirable must be physically possible".