I try again again - you will see differences in STYLE - not in the TECHNICAL MODEL these athletes I mentioned are TRYING to employ. Ecker is a German who may of may not be trying to use that model - I dont know.
Markov makes what I believe to be a major mistake after take off which changes the nature of what he does through the rest of the vault. Gibilisco makes a small error (similar to that which Hartwig makes) after take off which impacts on the position which is shown in the stills. The problem with stills is that you can never be sure that they are of exactly the same time in the vault. The moment the toe leaves the ground, when the athletes swing to the chord of the pole and when they cover the pole are better positions to choose. But better still is to run films of two athletes a hundred times past your eyes simultaneously - then the differences begin to fall away and the similarities remain.
If you get locked in to the notion that anyone who jumps 6.00m must be technically good - take a look at Brits and tell me what you see. OR really look at Markov and see what is stopping him being a 6.10/15 jumper even tho his run and take off are as good as/better than anyone else in the world at the moment. Someone take a look at Tobys vault and suggest why I made the statement i did rather than simply saying if someone vaults 6 it must be good. That same attitude filters down to where the youngster who wins STATE - MUST be good! - so lets find out what he does - even if he has only jumped 15'.
Those of you who attended Petrovs session in Reno in 2005 will remember that he stood on that big stage and stated that 6.00 was just a start for talented vaulters -they should be thinking 6.10/6.15.
Yes Tim we should continually search for better ways - but at the moment I am suggesting that Petrovs model is AT PRESENT the most logical -so why ignore it - why not use it as the basis for the next development if one is to come. Certainly it should not be ignored. i am sure you will have noticed the post about the Texas manifesto - and I am sure that you would agree that is not a viable alternative approach to technique in the vault. It would seem that those folk have never heard of petrov and perhaps not even Bubka.
Science did not advance by continually reinventing the wheel. Petrov himself got many of his fundamental ideas from the stiff pole vaulters and like Newton? he would say that he could see a long way because he had been able to stand on the shoulders of giants. Lets have someone stand on his shoulders - not ignore what he has done.
When i was in the Navy - a long long time ago - you quickly realised which side of the ship you should stand on if you were going to take a leak - if not you were peeing into the wind and it blew back all over you. With that in mind i will withdraw gracefully from this particular discussion before I get soaked.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden
).
