Bemiller/Mack Model

[master]

In statistics, Bubka is called an outlier, something out of the ordinary and not really comparable to every other point of interest. Has anyone considered how strong in vaulter depth the Petrov Model would be had the ridiculously freakish Bubka never vaulted?

I respectfully question your justification for calling Bubka an outlier. I submit (partly because it is easily available to all on this site) this definition, and call attention to the paragraph beginning "Deletion of outlier data is a controversial practice..."

- master

[master]

It is exciting that this kind of in depth information is available on this board. Let’s please stay in the spirit of productive debate.

I certainly had no intention in my post other than the "spirit of productive debate." I apologize if it came across that way.

- master

[altius]

"But ONLY if the pole is matched properly to the athlete, the fundamentals of the approach are taught effectively, and the athlete’s takeoff angle is matched to their ability."

Of course that would be true of any technical model Tim - would it not?

[VTechVaulter]

have we actually said what characteristics make up the bemiller/mack model. because im guessing there are many similar goals making this argument pointless (im not saying their styles were the same), but i have personally had conversations with tim where he emphasized driving up and in with the chest, and being tall at take off. he too had the leg extension "tap" swing, and then covered the pole

these seme like fundamentals of any "model" of jump. just differences in getting there.

[dj]

hey

your point is correct vteck... thank you

i got a pm from a reader that has quite a bit of technical knowledge himself... he asked me " dj, are you against the petrov/bubka model? i was a little taken "a back" that he or anyone on pvp had gotten that message from my writing.

the opposite is true.. i mentioned before that i have two articles that i have with me at all times.. 1.. bubka interview, jamaica... and petrov, youth athletics newsletter, 2004. i have highlighted points in each paper and try to follow them religiously.. just like i feel bob seagran and his coaches made minor adjustments, with or without a change in "verbage" over pennel... dave roberts and his "coach" improved over seagrin.. then telez/tully, bell/kochel.. volkov for heavens sake... the french didn't always use "the model" but the night bubka and vigneron squared off...world records back to back to back... there was a distinct difference in vigneron's technique. not much "tuck" more "bubka-est"...

no..no..no.. i support and use the bubka/petrov model that i derive from the writings/papers i have and the others i have studied... i also know that t-mack and B do the same.. roman has been mentioned on here several times... i support and will defend his manifesto/model... to me he has said it right and correct from the ground to the top of the vault... the only difference i have ever had with any of these two (petrov/bubka - roman) models is in the run.. petrov describes the technical aspects of the pole carry and run brilliantly and even though i had been using the grip, posture at the start, position of the left elbow by the ribs and the lower hand "V" in the middle of the chest (i actually wrote an article for 19+PLUS newsletter in 1985 describing this position and that was before i had read a petrov description of that position) i didn't get the benefit until a couple of years ago while working with ms randalene sargent.. wow.. work with something for years and it took petrov to get me to "listen".. and randalene to show me why..........

i guess where i'm having difficulty is with alan's interpretation of the "model"... not the model itself.. Lawrence johnson used "the model" from leaving the ground to max height, before roman... he just didn't have the pole carry and proper run.. i know a change in his run/pole carry was discussed with him , john smith tried and possiblely roman .. but that was the only thing wrong with Lawrence not being able to follow the "model".. and jump a world record..

and we are back to...

what shouldn't be said is that it only takes an "out" takeoff (the extreme version), higher takeoff angle, bigger poles and more grip to be efficient ... or to even jump high...

in the early/mid 80's, maybe it was petrov's first publication.. where bubka's beginning and yearly progression was first written... some of you may have the same article.. my original is packed/filed somewhere ... what i do have in my hand is the trajectory of his vault from takeoff, through the swing to max bend to max height.. when i first compared this to one of earl bell's jumps the first thing i noticed was bubka went in further before he started to "curve" toward the bar.. bubka's was more of what i called a "pipe" curve... what I mean by pipe curve is the path his top hand followed from take off to maximum bend. bubka's top hand only elevated 55cm from takeoff to max bend.. this point was approximately half way to the back of the box and shortened the cord of the pole 30%. when i overlay t-macks trejectory there is a very minor difference.. earl's was at a steeper angle and his max bend was 28%...

this also matched up with the appropriate maximum pole bend....

the point i tried to make before was/is it is not a detriment to travel on a seemingly low trajectory to maximum bend and the "takeoff angle" is in most part created by the stiffness of the pole.... not the athlete trying to "jump up" and continue at a steeper angle at the takeoff.

it is very important to shorten the cord appropriately to match with all the other variables..........

point two.. you can readily see the "inefficiency" of going to a pole two stiff by viewing t-mack's series of jumps at the trials in 2004. on his third jump at 604 he switched to a 5.20 pole that belonged to hysong... his run was the same speed, all of the checks were pretty much the same that he used on the first two attempts on the 5.10 pole.. but he couldn't shorten the radius as much because he didn't increase the force at the plant/takeoff... therefore he did not get the pole to vertical... and didn't complete the jump...

inefficient use of a pole ... the only way to use a stiffer pole efficiently would to.... have more speed or a improved takeoff or both.

and to close... i believe in the pretov/bubka model.. it follows physics... i just don't follow alan's line of thinking and interpretations.........

dj

[gtc]

I would think it would be tough to misinterpret something someone is saying when you have talked to them face to face many times just to make sure that is indeed what they are saying. I would think it would be easy though to misinterpret if all you had to go off were a few articles!

[altius]

"i guess where i'm having difficulty is with alan's interpretation of the "model"... not the model itself..".

So what part of my interpretation are you having difficulty with dj? Perhaps I have to find better ways of expressing myself because I am in the process of rewriting BTB. However before you begin to reply you should remember I am not interpreting anything - I am just a messenger.

The ideas I have expressed are not my own and anybody who has read btb will know I have laways credited Petrov. However I have been in a position to observe Petrov coaching and to ask him for clarification of issues on several occasions - the last time in November of last year as he worked with Isinbayeva. . I have also been in a situation where I could ask Sergey direct questions about critical issues of technique and training - his answers have always been cited.

I also believe that having Roman Botcharnikov live with me and coach alongside me for a year was a valuable learning experience as was watching Alex Parnov work with world class athletes for two years in Adelaide.

My only original contribution is that I had the opportunity to apply their ideas to beginners, to watch them develop and to present my findings in a book and a dvd. In future - apart from one final post for the benefit of slickVT - if I can get the illustrations posted - folk can find out what I believe by buying the book or the dvd or preferably both -or even by comibng to one of the camps i will be involved in this summer.

[Tim McMichael]

the point i tried to make before was/is it is not a detriment to travel on a seemingly low trajectory to maximum bend and the "takeoff angle" is in most part created by the stiffness of the pole.... not the athlete trying to "jump up" and continue at a steeper angle at the takeoff.

This is one of the main points that I tried to make in my manifesto, and perhaps solves the mystery of why my attack angle was adequate to clear 18 + bars even though I consciously tried to take very little angle at all.

There is a bit of information that my description of the development of my jump did not include, and in hindsight, may be important. I started vaulting when I was five years old with a dried out sunflower stalk. I did this without any prompting or coaching; it was just a game that I played, and it became my favorite game. I graduated from sunflower stalks, to broom sticks, to catalpa tree limbs, and then to the bottom half of a broken 16’ 170 black Cata-Pole, that I made 10’ on. In short, for the first nine years of my development I stiff poled. The result of this is that I instinctively developed a feel for proper approach and plant mechanics. These mechanics did not change when I began bending poles. The poles began to bend when I gripped high enough for them to begin doing so. This is the same development curve that I think Alan suggests in “Beginner to Bubka.â€Â

[agapit]

After doing some research, I have come up with a point...
Just thought I would throw that one out there….

Well, if you follow your point you could say that Pam Manson is the best technician or perhaps Joe Dial. Many would qualify for the title. However, there are no medals for that.

The mistake you are making is you are viewing a perfect technique (model) as a static set of actions. Perfect technique (model) is much more than that. If you read the original Manifesto (not Oklahoma one, LOL) you could pick up on the idea that the perfect model is the one that stimulates the development and output and is open-ended without built in mechanisms that inhibit the physical output growth.

This is what is missing from modern fiberglass vault culture that is what Bubka brought in. Vaulters are too focused on making it to the bar and utilizing energy, etc. I think the next breakthrough development will come from someone who is not part of this culture and who would bring athletics output to the forefront of the development again.

If you are looking for the slowest and weakest vaulter to clear maximum height for his ability, I do not think Mack would qualify or even appreciate his name being mentioned in the list of candidates.

Best regards.

[JKSvault]

Well, if you follow your point you could say that Pam Manson is the best technician or perhaps Joe Dial. Many would qualify for the title. However, there are no medals for that.

The point of the discussion was to discuss the relevant efficiencies between Bubka and Mack.

If you are looking for the slowest and weakest vaulter to clear maximum height for his ability, I do not think Mack would qualify or even appreciate his name being mentioned in the list of candidates.

I believe what I said throughout previous posts is that given his speed in comparison to Bubka, Mack was able to use the energy produced in his vault more efficiently. You have never once heard me say that Mack was slow or anything remotely close.

[agapit]

Well, if you follow your point you could say that Pam Manson is the best technician or perhaps Joe Dial. Many would qualify for the title. However, there are no medals for that.

The point of the discussion was to discuss the relevant efficiencies between Bubka and Mack.

If you are looking for the slowest and weakest vaulter to clear maximum height for his ability, I do not think Mack would qualify or even appreciate his name being mentioned in the list of candidates.

I believe what I said throughout previous posts is that given his speed in comparison to Bubka, Mack was able to use the energy produced in his vault more efficiently. You have never once heard me say that Mack was slow or anything remotely close.

Ok. Ok. Just tell me how he did it than.

LOL.

[JKSvault]

Look at the previous 8 pages. LOL