Page 8 of 11
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:50 pm
by powerplant42
Agreed.
Now let's think about what a tuck might do to a vaulter if they were using a steel pole, where moving the pole was emphasized enormously. Staying long helped to move the pole forward, regardless of any load. If they had tucked near the end of their swing, they may have come up short of the sand...
It is style. But style is weakness in an attempt to use a model. (Right?) I don't know, I'm getting in a little over my head. Somebody else could make a better argument, I'm sure.
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:12 pm
by Tim McMichael
Here is one of the best stiff pole vaults ever. He definitely does not keep his legs straight. He bends them in a half tuck to time up with the pole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjeXZJpTGLQ
I would say that style involves legitimate variations within the definition of a model. Look at Paul Burgess on stabhochsprung.com. He has a free takeoff and a tuck.
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:08 pm
by Soar Like an Eagle
superpipe wrote:Another difficulty is the idea that the tuck robs the swing of energy. This is simply not true. The law of conservation of angular momentum dictates that a rotating object does not lose energy when its radius is shortened. It merely gains speed as it swings around its axis. The swing reaches maximum speed at the instant a straight line can be drawn from the top hand through to the foot of the trail leg. At this point, the body is as long as it can possibly be and has attained all the speed of rotation it is going to. After this, nothing can be gained by attempting to keep a rigid body and a straight leg. Shortening the radius of the swing by pulling the trail leg in after this point does not lose energy. The radius of the swing is shortened, and the velocity of the rotation is increased, but the energy remains unchanged, except for what is lost to gravity and friction.
You're missing the most important part, the transfer of energy. You're right that you don't change your own angular energy, but the moment you tuck, you stop transferring energy to the pole.
Why did Joe Dial (5'9" 160) using his style (tuck) get a 52 inch push off? He jumped 19'6"1/2.
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:40 am
by powerplant42
But COULD he have jumped higher? That's the question... He was able to jump that high because he's an amazing athlete with plenty of sound basic principles applied throughout his jump.
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:00 am
by vaultman18
Soar Like an Eagle wrote:superpipe wrote:Another difficulty is the idea that the tuck robs the swing of energy. This is simply not true. The law of conservation of angular momentum dictates that a rotating object does not lose energy when its radius is shortened. It merely gains speed as it swings around its axis. The swing reaches maximum speed at the instant a straight line can be drawn from the top hand through to the foot of the trail leg. At this point, the body is as long as it can possibly be and has attained all the speed of rotation it is going to. After this, nothing can be gained by attempting to keep a rigid body and a straight leg. Shortening the radius of the swing by pulling the trail leg in after this point does not lose energy. The radius of the swing is shortened, and the velocity of the rotation is increased, but the energy remains unchanged, except for what is lost to gravity and friction.
You're missing the most important part, the transfer of energy. You're right that you don't change your own angular energy, but the moment you tuck, you stop transferring energy to the pole.
Why did Joe Dial (5'9" 160) using his style (tuck) get a 52 inch push off? He jumped 19'6"1/2.
Why didn't he jump 19'7" or higher?
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:33 pm
by Soar Like an Eagle
vaultman18 wrote:Soar Like an Eagle wrote:superpipe wrote:Another difficulty is the idea that the tuck robs the swing of energy. This is simply not true. The law of conservation of angular momentum dictates that a rotating object does not lose energy when its radius is shortened. It merely gains speed as it swings around its axis. The swing reaches maximum speed at the instant a straight line can be drawn from the top hand through to the foot of the trail leg. At this point, the body is as long as it can possibly be and has attained all the speed of rotation it is going to. After this, nothing can be gained by attempting to keep a rigid body and a straight leg. Shortening the radius of the swing by pulling the trail leg in after this point does not lose energy. The radius of the swing is shortened, and the velocity of the rotation is increased, but the energy remains unchanged, except for what is lost to gravity and friction.
You're missing the most important part, the transfer of energy. You're right that you don't change your own angular energy, but the moment you tuck, you stop transferring energy to the pole.
Why did Joe Dial (5'9" 160) using his style (tuck) get a 52 inch push off? He jumped 19'6"1/2.
Why didn't he jump 19'7" or higher?
Could Bubka of jumped 21'0" jumping like Dial, McMichael or Vigneron?
When Joe Dial jumped 18’0â€
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:35 pm
by Bubba PV
Right you are with your Fosbury reference Bill. And how about that Huffman guy? He said he didn't know when he was going to roll until the jump was underway, yet he jumped 19' 7" straddling.
BTW - Soar Like an Eagle gave me my first Petrov papers to study in 1988. At the time the concepts sounded very strange to me. Bubba
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:02 pm
by Soar Like an Eagle
Bubba PV wrote:Right you are with your Fosbury reference Bill. And how about that Huffman guy? He said he didn't know when he was going to roll until the jump was underway, yet he jumped 19' 7" straddling.
BTW - Soar Like an Eagle gave me my first Petrov papers to study in 1988. At the time the concepts sounded very strange to me. Bubba
Bubba,
Whatever you were doing with Borya Celentano (5’7â€
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:21 am
by Bubba PV
Borya was Petrov all the way. He studied it and believed it. Coincidentally his mother was from Russia and they rarely spoke English in their household to their mother. BTW - his PR was 18' 10 1/2" in a jump off, gripping 15' 6".
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:55 am
by altius
Can we please note that Dick Fosbury introduced a new TECHNICAL MODEL, not a new style to the high jump. As I pointed out in BTB, the Petrov model of vaulting was just as revolutionary as the flop but the innovations he introduced were much more subtle, so that most folk saw Bubka's 'style' and his athleticism but did not see the technical model upon which that style was was based. I believe that if you keep the distinction between a technical model and an athletes style in mind it will help the discussion stay on track.
Also let us not forget that - among many vaulters who have used the Petrov technical model with great success there is a lady named Feofanova, who at around 5'3 and 110 pounds has jumped 4.88 - this despite major errors in her technique after take off. My bet is that had she eliminated those errors she would have jumped at least 5.10.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:43 pm
by Robert schmitt
I spent last night watching the 2003 world in slomo. her swing is much less dynamic than beckers, Isi, and even dragila. what error after her take off do you see. I was trying to figure out how she was jumping that high with that swing.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:49 pm
by altius
The whip swing must begin IMMEDIATELY the toe leaves the ground -she delays the initiation of the swing for microseconds - then to make matters worse she allows the right leg to open out instead of keeping the right leg flexed with the knee punching above her head. Both faults slow her rotation so that she is never covering the pole and in position to execute the third and fourth phases efficiently - remember she was a reserve on the Russian gymnastics team but never gets into position to exploit that very especial ability. Sorry to advertise again but I dealt with her problems in detail -and that of others like Brits, Markov and Tarasov - in Chapter 28 of BTB2