Insightful

[coachjvinson]

Great perspectives from Coach Clymer at Wake Forest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqEdocpfcM

What is not specifically stated, but what is generally accepted, is that a powerful, forceful and deliberate swing not only allows the vaulter to cover the pole efficiently with finesse; but more importantly, the powerful, forceful and deliberate swing generates additional pole speed and pole movement past vertical in order that the vaulter's trajectory is directed safely and deeply into the pit.

V

[PVDaddy]

Totally agree with that concept coach and it was to be a part of the answer to one of your questions as to what insures a pole rotates to vertical, along with establishing a proper grip and a correct pole plant and take-off along with acceleration into the last 4-6 steps of the run up.

[KirkB]

I'm a little confused re the origin of the term "negative inversion". It was first published on PVP by PVDaddy on Feb 26, 2013, yet Brian Clymer published his youtube vid on Dec 12, 2012 - quoting this exact same term.

While I'm not saying that PVD must have plaguerized this term from Clymer, I am seeking clarification. PVD just replied to this thread today, so I think an explanation in that post would have been in order. And if the explanation is that he coined the term without any knowledge of Clymer's vid, then I might be able to accept that. Did anyone else notice any other "coincidences" between Clymer's vid and PVD's theories? Is it also possible that Clymer may have edited his vid in the past month, after reading PVP?

I do note that Clymer made the claim (on the text within his vid) that Bubka was the first to use this so-called "negative inversion" technique. We already know from my posts in the Bryde Bend thread and the Negative Inversion thread that this isn't true - it was something that I used in 1971-1972.

I'm certainly not claiming that I was the first vaulter to use this technique. As I explained in the NI thread, it's simply how you "cover the pole", or "stay behind the chord of the pole". Clymer is certainly right about one thing though - all prior vault parts must come together like a symphony to "shoot past vertical". You cannot TRAIN yourself to shoot past vertical, and it's not as simple as how Coach Charlie explains it (paraphrasing): "You aim your body in that position and whammo!"

I would describe it a little differently than Coach Charlie - I would say that your extension actually starts - in one continuous motion - from the C-position on up.

I didn't actually articulate that during my vaulting days. Instead, I read Agapit's Continuous Chain Model AFTER 1992 when he published it, and it was only then that I recognized that THAT was what I was striving for. I'm sure I could have jumped higher had I read his paper BEFORE my prime. I only STROVE FOR, and APPROXIMATED a continuous chain of motion - I never ACHIEVED it - like Bubka did.

Kirk Bryde

[coachjvinson]

My point was always, and it is the same point that came across in your posts and letter to UW -

The swing allows the quickest and most efficient "Cover" while simultaneously generating sufficient pole speed relative to grip and flex...

If any of the 3 are not in accord then there are inefficiencies -one of which is stalling short in an extremely compromised position...

Your post and your objectives stated in the post are very informative and insightful- no matter the model to which they are applied...

[grandevaulter]

Clymer also states " no pulling or rowing with the arms".

[coachjvinson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e1q_59KHBM

This is another from Coach Clymer, in the video he articulates his interpretation of the model and compares jumps of Bubka and Hartwig - both World Class athletes with differences in their technical models and styles...

Incidentally, I found the information while researching Dan Pfaff's model of the pole plant as the subject came up in Coach Eric's thread... In Coach Clymer's video, he notes that Coach Pfaff popularized the term...

It's interesting to note the organic nature and origins of the ideas and methodologies which shape our thoughts and perspectives...

I know that some time in 2011' I came across Kirk's writings, and while I had forgotten the post, I am certain that his information had an influence on the development of my thinking as I had not forgotten the content...

[KirkB]

I LOVE this 25 minute vid of Clymer's - altho it's actually a series of PowerPoint slides (with SOME action vid). VERY well explained, and GREAT graphics.

Like my previous comment on this thread, I'm still a little confused as to the coining of the term "negative inversion". Clymer published this vid on youtube on Feb 7, 2013, which is STILL a couple weeks prior to PVDaddy creating his Negative Inversion thread. And at 14:30 on his vid, Clymer gives credit to Dan Pfaff for coining the term. What gives? Is it possible that PVDaddy has read Dan Pfaff's articles or seen Clymer's vids, but FORGOT to credit either of these 2 authors for coining that term?

Moving on ...

Clymer's graphics and text make some EXCELLENT points. I especially liked his stressing of the importance of the Takeoff Drive to "C", and downswing to "I".

I will however, offer a few critiques - which in no way should undermine the overall vid presentation and Clymer's knowledge and ability to explain modern PV technique CONCISELY.

First, he mentions that the downswing (he doesn't call it that - he calls it the swing from the "C" to the "I" - my name for this vault part is the downswing) is the LAST opportunity for the vaulter to add energy to the vaulter/pole system. This is untrue. The UPSWING (my term not his - from the "I" to the "L") is YET ANOTHER opportunity to add energy - just before the pole "bounces".

Secondly, I mostly agree with his description of the TakeOff Drive phase. However he implies that this is a position that the vaulter should "hold" or "delay the swing" in for a split second. I forget his exact words - I'm paraphrasing.

In my Bryde Bend, I too thought this. But I also described how I learned to vault efficiently with 9-step (short run) vaults - clearing 15-9 with a 13-8" grip (a 33" handstand, whereas on my 17-6 PR jump, I only had a 34" handstand). What I didn't realize back then (and only realized approximately 4 years ago) is that to DELAY or HOLD this passive position is a serious mistake - as it's a PASSIVE position that defies the Continuous Chain Model as written by Agapit in 1992. So on my short runs, I actually DIDN'T HAVE TIME for any delay, but on my long competition runs, I purposely delayed (my bad), in order to roll the pole closer to the pit before starting my downswing. Had I kept my short run technique of ABSOLUTELY NO DELAY, I would have jumped higher. So the passive T-O Drive is bad - but you can still have an ACTIVE Drive Phase by ACTIVELY moving the trail leg up/back, then (without hesitation) down/forwards!

I really love Clymer's graphical explanation of ROWING vs. SWINGING. Best I've ever seen!

And I absolutely agree with his assessment that Hartwig could have and would have gone higher with the Petrov Model.

Kirk Bryde

[PVDaddy]

Kirk, I have no idea what you are trying to imply? I probably read a new article on pole vaulting almost everyday!
I made it clear that I was NOT the first person to use the term "Negative Inversion" I read an article about it a few years back. Perhaps it was Pfaff? I wish I could find it! It stresses a lot of the same concepts that Clymer does. He also, used the term Negative inversion in his article. But the way term"Negative inversion" goes way back before that. I'm surprised you being an English and Grammar
Freak didn't know that. I did a search for Negative Inversion and came across Clymers video. He did an excellent job with it and deserves much credit! It reinforced a lot of the same ideas ,I had previously read about and also gave me some new ones, that I have since posted. I like the term "Negative Inversion" for several reasons. The runway is to the positive side (The direction the Vaulter running and Flyaway, I think of the the runway to the negative. This is true regardless of what side of the vault you are on. The other reason I chose to use this term is because the article that first exposed me to this concept it used that term. If I could have given credit to the author in that article, I would have. Unlike you, Altius, Coachjvinsen, I truly believe that achieving this position is of great value to the vault and involves much more than just covering the pole or being inevitable. I am expecting much back peddling to now take place. I was the first, to greatly expound on how and why that was, here on pole vault power.The following points ephasized in Agenda 21 such as Negative Inversion, will become the new standard in the future, as will No rowing in the vault whatsoever, PULLING at the exact moment you break at the hips[/b] and BOTH strong bottom hand and top hand PUSHES! I like coachjvinsen's tagline refering to 2016. Now that this information is FINALLY starting to get and becomes universally excepted WE WILL SEE A NEW WORLD RECORD WITHIN THE NEXT 8 YEARS OR LESS! Maybe even by 2016! How long has Agapits M640 been out now?

[PVDaddy]

Please forgive the typos and sentence structure I am running late for work.

[coachjvinson]

...surprised you being an English and Grammar Freak didn't know that...

Let's keep the conversations clean and the criticisms constructive and professional...

I will be the first to state that my criticisms and perspectives can benefit from this, so I will lead by example...

Please forgive me...

[KirkB]

PVDaddy, I have no issue whatsoever with your explanation of your source of the term "Negative Inversion".

I just think you could have saved yourself and the rest of us a lot of grief if you had only just provided a link to Pfaff's or Clymer's publications on the topic - without "going down a rat-hole" by trying to re-explain it in your own words.

In the high tech world, going down a rathole usually refers to a syndrome of a discussion which consumes a lot of time and goes into minute details of some aspect of the design that promises little return in terms of actual progress on the project. It can also refer to a detailed technical investigation or mathematical calculation that goes into a lot of detail when the outcome is non-critical, or not appropriate for the project’s goals. This mathematical over-analysis has been termed “mathematical diarrhea” by a prominent Cal Tech Engineering Professor. His advice is to use rounding and estimation to quickly get a ballpark answer before committing time and resources to find a mathematically perfect but practically useless answer.

I do have an issue, however, with your persistent claim that your posts are "new material" and you are now enlightening the PV world with your new "mix" or "aggregation" of these old ideas, and that you will be taking credit for adding value to the advancement of PV technique that results in any WR in the next 8 years.

That's rubbish!

Also, you will notice that I'm not nearly as critical to Altius as I am to you re typos and mispelling my name. That's for a very good reason: CREDIBILITY. He has it and you don't. Plain and simple. Don't be offended - it's the truth!

Kirk Bryde

[grandevaulter]

A point of interest: In Coach Clymer's first video he illustrates the details of the run up. It seems to me that he states a foot strike directly below the center of mass and elaborates that it is a sweet spot. . Isn't the center of mass slightley forward of the natural position when one carries a pole ?

I am not sold on the term "Negative Inversion". Someone would have to show how the movements could be charted in a negative quadrant. ( only to be a mirror image of a positive inversion) (and not just say that they think it works) "Covering the pole" or my term the end of a congruent circle. I'll provide drawing if necessary.