ideal technique in the fiberglass vault

[KirkB]

What I am saying is that only rarely can a vaulter successfully make changes that conflict with his /her natural tendencies or instincts.

Kirk's idea for a study would, I think, only prove the obvious. That is that all vaulters will typically get the best results when they are closest to their optimal take off point, which will vary from vaulter to vaulter.

I thought the "obvious" would be that the study would show that the closer a vaulter got to a free takeoff, the higher he would jump.

I'm not sure, but I think DJ has provided anecdotal evidence of this, and I'm simply suggesting that it could be proven with a statistically significant sample, to end all this theory and anecdotal evidence and inconclusive conclusions.

You refer to a vaulter's "optimal takeoff point" and to his "natural takeoff point" as if they are the CORRECT takeoff point for optimal bar clearances.

I don't think that's logical, any more than stating that if a vaulter over-strides in the last few steps "naturally", then that's what he should be doing. This doesn't make any sense. A vaulter needs to TRAIN his body to pass through the OPTIMAL positions which will improve his PV technique.

Hanging onto a bending pole and flipping upside down and then over a bar is NOT a natural thing for someone to do. Although I did hear one poster recently state that a vaulter should "swing like a monkey" (which would be perhaps about as close to a "natural" swing as one could get), I don't agree that if you put a stick in a monkey's hands and he attempts to vault over a tree branch with it, he's going to get his optimal clearance if he just "swings naturally".

I may be exagerating the point that you're trying to make, Dave, but I really don't get it. Natural takeoff point? I don't think anyone has a "natural" takeoff point! Not even a "natural, optimal" takeoff point! Just because a vaulter is a foot under on most of his jumps, are you saying that that's his "natural" takeoff point, and therefore that's where he should strive to take off from?

I do get the point that changing a vaulter's technique is hard to do - especially if he's already vaulted for several years using a different technique. But just because it's difficult to change technique doesn't mean that it's impossible, or that it will lead to inferior results, or that you shouldn't at least ATTEMPT to improve it. In fact, you said yourself that you have no anecdotal evidence of any elite vaulters getting inferior results by changing their "natural tendencies" to correct PV mechanics.

Kirk

[dj]

hello

hey,

Tully was not and exception... what he did was change more to a "physics based" method that would produce a greater "resultant velocity" or in short terms more force at the takeoff.

This allowed him to grip higher and perform the correct technique more easily, consistently, with fewer adjustments and a simpler, Run-Plant-Swing thought process.

ideal technique in the fiberglass vault….

If "ideal" is what you were searching for with your post you have to follow the physics…

I have coached 100's/1000's of vaulters, from beginning to world class. All of them have had no problem taking off out. The jumpers that do have a problem have set the run up wrong or have been set up wrong by the coach so they have learned to vault by "stretching' into the takeoff and reaching under.

Stretching has caused them to slow their speed into the takeoff AND reach under more, both putting the athlete in a very weak and insecure position so they have to "step closer" to feel they will make it safely to the pit.

This is exactly the issue Petrov addressed in Reno. His message was sincere and logical.. if we learn to step under and force bend the pole we will continue to "short arm" the plant (not fully extend the arms for the best possible position at the plant), this will create a never ending inefficiency leading to more insecurity, less speed and a less advantageous position and a never ending circle of failure.

If you are a coach and have been coaching for a while you will probably continue in the "method' that you can coach. If you are a new coach I would look at the "physics" that will and does produce the most "force" just as the pole tip hits the back of the box and the plant arm is as high as possible.

dj

[david bussabarger]

Kirk,
If you look at vaults by Galfione and Britts, who both typically took off about 18" under, they both took off at this same point on their p.r. jumps. My point is that I believe the study you suggest would on average, reflect the same thing for virtually all elite vaulters ( on average they would get their best jumps taking of closest to their typical take off points
). It is my experience that all vaulters do have a natural take off point. I certainly did and so did all the vaulters that I have coached. My philosophy, as you know, is that you should always try to work with a vaulter's natural tendencies and that any kid with any natural ability for the vault will have definate natural tendencies. This is the biggest reason why you have so many stylistic variations in the vault. So if a vaulter naturally takes off under or drops his/her lead leg after take off or tucks and so on, you should not try to change this. If you do, more often than not you will be sorry. I am certain, without any doubt, that if someone had tried to force the P/B model on me as a beginner, I would have never done beans as a vaulter. Based on my exprience, I'm also certain that if you did the same thing to any vaulter who has achieved the elite status with a technical style divergent from the P/B model, you would have created an inferior vaulter at best ( although there is no way to prove or disprove this ). No one style or model works well for all or even most vaulters!
I think everything boils down to this: either you trust empirical evidence, which clearly indicates there is no one ideal style or model or you trust theories on ideal technique that may be backed up by physics/biomechanics, but, none the less, conflict with empirical evidence. In science, if a theory conlicts with empirical evidence, then the the theory is invalid. So I choose to sick by the empirical evidence. At this point if you or anybody else chooses to believe differently, so be it. But I will not stop trying to advance my point view, because I'm convinced ,without any doubt that I'm correct. After all this debate, nothing any one has stated on pvp has convinced me in anyway, other wise.

[KirkB]

I'm not sure how much longer we can continue this thread, since it appears that both sides of the debate are still just repeating their original arguments. However, I will give it another try, looking for a way to find common ground ...

The one point that I think we both agreed on (and perhaps all others on this thread too?) is that regardless of style or technique or model, the vaulter MUST keep moving vertically as quickly as possible, and any delays in the swing/extension (such as immediately following the "tuck") are sub-optimal. Agreed?

If you look at vaults by Galfione and Britts, who both typically took off about 18" under, they both took off at this same point on their p.r. jumps.

Yes, I haven't studied Galfione (so I'll take your word for it), but I have studied Britts with Pat Licari (PV coach at my alma mater - UW). We do NOT consider his technique to be optimal, and we do NOT consider it to be anything that young aspiring vaulters should emulate. I agree that it got him over 6.03m, but there is no consensus by any coaches (unless you're one) that it was BECAUSE of being under by 18" that he cleared 6.03. Rather, the consensus seems to be that he was very tall, fast, and athletic, and if he had a free takeoff, then he may have jumped even higher.

You cannot use Galfione and Britts as arguments as to why a free takeoff is unscientifically based, yet reject DJ's example of Mike Tully succeeding in his conversion to a free takeoff. Both are anecdotal evidence, as the sample sizes are too small to be statistically significant.

My point is that I believe the study you suggest would on average, reflect the same thing for virtually all elite vaulters ( on average they would get their best jumps taking off closest to their typical take off points ).

Perhaps you're thinking of this from the wrong perspective? I didn't ONLY propose to analyse elite vaulters. I proposed 4 data sets:

1. To analyse all vaulters in the 3.00-6.12m range, grouped by their takeoff speed on the y-axis and grouped by their PR on the x-axis. Then plot their data points by whether they were "under" or "on" (essentially tuck-shooters or Petrovers).

2. To analyse certain representative elite vaulters thru their entire career, grouping their bar clearances on the x-axis and their distance "under" on the y-axis. Without even classifying them as either tuck-shooters or Petrovers, there should be some visible trend of where the subject hit his best clearances. My expectation is different than yours. In the case of Tully and Bubka, I fully expect this analysis to show (prove - if the sample size is significant enough) that the trend is for higher bar clearances when closer to their takeoff being "on". And (as you say) I also fully expect that Galfione and Britts will be outliers to this, with their highest clearances being approximately 18" "under". But it's not the OUTLIERS that we should be analysing. The scientific method (as you keep stressing) is to look at the TRENDS of a large sample size!

3. Same as #1, but quantifying the delayed extension time instead of takeoff point.

4. Same as #2, but quantifying the delayed extension time instead of takeoff point.

If you accept the takeoff points or delayed extension times versus their PRs - for ALL vaulters in the PR range of 3.00-6.12m - I don't see how more "scientific" we can be than that!

Or if you accept the takeoff points or delayed extension times versus their PRs - for specific ELITE vaulters in the PR range of 5.80-6.12m - I don't see how more "scientific" we can be than that!

It is my experience that all vaulters do have a natural take off point.

There's a difference between a "natural" takeoff point and an "optimal" takeoff point. You seem to be implying that the natural takeoff point is the optimal takeoff point for that vaulter. Your assertion is not scientifically-based, nor is it good coaching. If a coach detects that a vaulter is "under", then he has a responsibility to urge his athlete to improve his takeoff point. The alternative of the coach just shrugging off an "in" takeoff as "that's OK because that's your NATURAL takeoff point" is irresponsible, and is a derelict of duty.

So if a vaulter naturally takes off under or drops his/her lead leg after take off or tucks and so on, you should not try to change this. If you do, more often than not you will be sorry. I am certain, without any doubt, that if someone had tried to force the P/B model on me as a beginner, I would have never done beans as a vaulter. Based on my experience, I'm also certain that if you did the same thing to any vaulter who has achieved the elite status with a technical style divergent from the P/B model, you would have created an inferior vaulter at best ( although there is no way to prove or disprove this ). No one style or model works well for all or even most vaulters!

I don't see how you can be "certain, without any doubt" that trying to change a vaulter's so-called "natural" takeoff would result in inferior bar clearances. You stated earlier that you had no data to prove this, so I fail to see the scientific basis for your assertion that it will "screw up" the vaulter's technique.

I think everything boils down to this: either you trust empirical evidence ... In science, if a theory conflicts with empirical evidence, then the theory is invalid. So I choose to sick by the empirical evidence.

I'm still struggling with separating your personal opinions - based on anecdotal evidence only - from scientifically based factual data that's statistically significant.

You seem to be implying that the onus is on the Petrov pundits to prove scientifically that the Petrov Model is scientifically based, and you seem to be implying that you don't feel compelled to prove that your opinions are based on science. This is an impasse - a stalemate. If we are to break this stalemate, it must be based on science. Physics is the applicable type of science to apply for physical events like PV, yet you don't seem willing to look at the physics of the Petrov Model v. the physics of tuck-shooters.

I can appreciate (and even applaud) your right to your personal opinion, and even your bravery in asserting your opinions, but I cannot appreciate how you persist in cloaking your personal opinion in the name of science.

Kirk

[dj]

hello

I had to re-write……..

i'll finish with a short note.

if you have studied, analyzed or even looked at one of the vault heights numbers on my chart
http://www.oneapproachrunn.com I hope you can understand that what I teach is science based, from my own research, as well as every "study" or every bio-mechanist I could study worldwide. Does that make me or them right? No, but I have applied science (in as near to a logical and simple way) since 1965 to all the events and found the "Numbers" don't lie.

If you follow the "physics" you don't have to beat your head against the ground… or land on your hrad in the box!

My chart was NOT created from a collection of anadotical vault data.. it was created from science and mathematical proportions… it has been "checked" for validity with thousands of vaults since 1972.

The takeoff points are mathematical, based on an average reach height and the hypotenuse of a triangle, with the athlete and his/her reach being the vertical 90 degree angle, the base is the horizontal line of the runway from Takeoff to the back of the box (considering the 8" box depth and the Hypotenuse is the pole from grip to the back of the box).

The other numbers are simple "proportions of increase" based on my original "theory" that you need one foot-12" or 30 centimeters of "speed" to have the ability to raise your grip 9cm on he pole. The other numbers reflect this "theory" that has proven to be very valid based on (and with all science, plus or minus a touch)thousands of jumps that I have now recorded/checked in testing my original theory.

Not only is taking off "under' a inefficient way to takeoff...... it is very, very dangerous for the vaulter. Vaulters that jump this way put themselves in a very weak position (from science), sometimes they come out ok, but the ones I have observed are very inconsistent, injury pron and put their life in jeopardy much more often that vaulters that takeoff "with" the physics.

I would not teach "this method" because of the danger to the athlete, the personal liability knowing it is incorrect and dangerous and third the athlete and coach is "settling" and does not want to be as good as they can be either because they have not found or understood the correct answers or they just don't want to work and change.

dj

[KirkB]

I think I'm done posting on this thread, as it seems we've all said all we have to say. It's too bad that we've hit a dead-end road here.

However, I did just post something on another thread (the "Wide vs Narrow Grip" thread) that's quite closely related to this entire debate.

http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=33169&p=187484#p187484

I suppose this controversy will never end. [sigh]

Kirk