BY SPECIAL REQUEST - MY INITIAL RESPONSE TO DAVIDS POST –WITH A COUPLE OF MINOR CHANGES SINCE THEN!! TRIED TO REPLACE CAPS WITH ITALICS BUT BECCAS SYSTEM WILL NOT ALL0W THAT!
DAVID - YOUR RESPONSES ARE TAKING ON THE NATURE OF “DO YOU NOT KNOW WHO I AM””. YES I DO HAVE SOME IDEA WHO YOU ARE BUT YOU WILL LEARN THAT ON PVP, “WHO YOU ARE” DOES NOT GET YOU VERY FAR IF YOU PUT UP A SERIES OF PERSONAL OPINIONS AS STATEMENTS OF FACT. OF COURSE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO SAY WHAT YOU LIKE – BUT YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THEM AGAINST ALL AND SUNDRY –INCLUDING FOLK LIKE ME WITH A PR OF UNDER 9’ BUT SOMEONE WHO DID BEGIN TEACHING THE EVENT IN 1958 AND WHO HAS BEEN A SERIOUS STUDENT OF THE EVENT SINCE THAT TIME.
Quote David Bussabarger 6. “lastly, you are the one that go this discusion off on the wrong foot. at this point I think we going to have to agree to disagree and end the conversation.”
STRANGE THAT - I THOUGHT THAT YOU INITIATED THE DISCUSSION WITH YOUR ORIGINAL POST THAT CONTAINED A RANGE OF UNTRUE STATEMENTS. I AM HAPPY TO DISCONTINUE BUT NOT BEFORE PUTTING UP MY FIRST RESPONSE TO THAT POST WHICH I HAD HELD BACK BECAUSE OF THE CAPS ISSUE. THE ONE MAJOR ALTERATION I HAVE MADE SINCE READING YOUR PRESUMABLY FINAL STATEMENT WAS TO SUBSTITUTE JOHN PENNEL FOR NORDWIG BELOW. INCIDENTALLY I SAW JOHN SET HIS FIRST WR AT WHITE CITY, LONDON IN 1963 – FOLLOWED HIS CAREER/WATCHED FILM OF HIM AND AGREE THAT HE WAS PROBABLY THE FIRST OF THE TECHNICALLY MODERN VAULTERS.
[quote="david bussabarger"]My apologies. Being a newbie on your site it is obvious that I didn't follow correct procdure when I orginally sbumitted my article. So here is the article.
I MUST ALSO APOLOGISE – BECAUSE I AM TECHNOLOGICALLY CHALLENGED I WILL HAVE TO RESPOND USING CAPITALS -PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT SHOUTING AT YOU – OR ANYONE ELSE! I MUST ALSO APOLOGISE FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS RESPONSE BUT CANNOT ALLOW ALL OF THE PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT OF THE LAST FEW YEARS ON PVP TO BE MUDDLED BY A TRIVIAL ANALYSIS.
“A great many coaches, vaulters and sports scientists today believe that the Russian technical model (or the Bubka/Petrov model ) represents ideal technique.
TRUE –AND I AM ONE OF THEM .
Further, it is believed that this model has been proven to be ideal by physics and biomechanics.
NOT ‘PROVEN’ BUT ACCEPTED BY BIOMECHANISTS AS THE MOST EFFICIENT METHOD OF POLE VAULTING - AT THIS POINT IN TIME. HOWEVER MY ANALYSIS – FOR WHAT THAT IS WORTH - SUGGESTS THAT IT CANNOT BE IMPROVED UPON.
The best way to test this proposition is to examine it using the scientific method.
We must begin then, by:
REVIEWING THE LATEST LITERATURE. IF YOU PROPOSE THIS AS A PAPER RATHER THAN SIMPLY A LETTER TO PVP THEN THIS WOULD BE REQUIRED. I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE IN FACT READ THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ISSUE IN PVP OR EVEN THE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN BTB2 – WHICH ALSO ADDRESSES THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISE. I ALSO WONDER IF YOU HAVE READ THE PAPER THAT PETROV PRESENTED AT THE EUROPEAN CACHES CONGRESS IN 1985.
HOWEVER I AM WELL AWARE THAT YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO DISCUSSION ON THESE ISSUES IN THE PAST IN OTHER AREAS.
1.Observing and analyizing what elite male fiberglass vaulters actually do in the real world.
REFERRING TO THE ‘REAL WORLD’ ALWAYS SOUNDS GOOD BUT MAY BE A RED HERRING IN THIS CONTEXT - BUT LETS DO IT ANYWAY,
For the purposes of this article any vaulter who has jumped 19' or better can be considered an elite vaulter.
SINCE AT LEAST 2 JUNIOR ATHLETES HAVE JUMPED 19’’/5.80 -AND AS YOU INDICATE BELOW - THERE MUST BE HUNDREDS OF OTHERS SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CONSIDER 5.90 AS THE BEGINNING OF ELITE STATUS.
This approach is based on the fact that in the scientific world all ideas must be verified by empirical evidence before they can become accepted theories.
SORRY – SAY THAT AGAIN - I THOUGHT THE PROCESS WAS TO COME UP WITH A HYPOTHESES AND THEN SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE THAT DOES OR DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT HYPOTHESES – IE. EINSTEINS “THEORY” OF RELATIVITY, WHERE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT IS STILL EMERGING THROUGH OBSERVATION.
Empirical evidence can be defined as evidence derived from experience and or observation of the real world. Finally, the more empirical evidence there is to back up a given theory, the "stronger" the theory.
2.In order to achieve an accurate conclusion, observational analysis must be based on the broadest possible spectrum of elite vaulters. Keep in mind that vaulters have been jumping 19' or better for 30 yrs, so 19' or better vaulters probably number in the hundreds.
It should be immediately obvious that from a scientific point of view there are several problems with the Russian model.
NOTE, THIS SHOULD REALLY BE CALLED THE SOVIET MODEL. NOT SURE OF PETROV’S NATIONALITY BUT HE FIRST MET AND THEN WORKED WITH BUBKA IN DONETSK IN THE UKRAINE – AT THAT TIME PART OF THE USSR.
HOWEVER IT WOULD BE VALUABLE IF YOU COULD DETAIL THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS MODEL!
1.Proof of an idea or a system of ideas, as in the Russian model,must be based on empirical evidence. The application of physics and or biomechanics can help support an given idea but cannnot prove it. ???????? Keep in mind that an idea can be based on sound physics and or biomechanics and still be wrong.
AGAIN NOT SURE IF SCIENTISTS WOULD ACCEPT THIS NOTION – I CERTAINLY DON’T – WHAT DO YOU THINK DJ??? – I KNOW YOU LIKE TO USE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEAS.
This is a common problem in science when there are often several competing solutions to a given problem.
SUCH AS - IS THE EARTH ROUND OR FLAT YOU MEAN OR WHETHER THE EARTH GOES AROUND THE SUN OR VICE VERSA?
2.At best, the Russian model is only partly based on empirical evidence.
I SUSPECT THAT PETROV – AS HEAD VAULT COACH OF THE USSR WAS CHARGED WITH THE TASK OF FINDING WAYS TO BEAT THE USA IN THE VAULT. HE SIMPLY STARTED WITH A CLEAN SHEET AND HIS ORIGINAL IDEAS WERE BASED ON HIS ANALYSIS OF WHAT VAULTERS ACTUALLY DID.
SO HIS IDEAS AND THE MODEL HE DEVELOPED WERE THE RESULT OF A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF WHAT VAULTERS –SUCH AS DAVE ROBERTS OF THE USA - ACTUALLY DID. BUT HE WAS ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN STIFF POLE VAULTERS LIKE OZOLIN OF THE USSR AND WARMERDAM OF THE USA. THIS ALONG WITH DISCUSSION WITH THE TEAM OF USSR VAULT COACHES, GYMNASTICS COACHES AND BIOMECHANISTS PRODUCE HIS MODEL. I SUSPECT THAT HE MIGHT HAVE ALSO BEEN INFLUENCED BY SLUSARSKI OF POLAND – 1976 OLYMPIC CHAMPION – WHO CLEARLY EMPLOYED A FREE TAKE OFF.
For the most part it is a system of hypotheses that give specfic directions for executing the vault.
THE SOVIET MODEL CERTAINLY GIVES VALUABLE DIRECTIONS FOR EXECUTING – AND TRAINING FOR - THE VAULT. THAT IS ONE OF ITS MAJOR ADVANTAGES – IF THERE IS NO MODEL TO AIM FOR – HOW CAN YOU PLAN A COHERENT SERIES OF LEARNING EXPERIENCES TO TAKE YOU TO THE MODEL?
For example, the Russian model advocates the use of a "free" take off action. This means the vaulter should take off far enough away from the box so that he/she can leave the ground before the tip of the pole contacts the back of the box.
THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT PETROV'S CONCEPT OF A ‘FREE’ TAKE OFF –
WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING IS WHAT I TERMED A “PRE JUMP’ IN AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 1989 AFTER MEETING PETROV IN 1985. ALL THE TERM ‘FREE TAKE OFF’ MEANS IS THAT THE POLE IS NOT LOADED BEFORE THE ATHLETE LEAVES THE GROUND – IN OTHER WORDS IT CAN BE A TOE TIP TAKE OFF – NOT A PRE JUMP. THE KEY FACTOR IS IN FACT THE DIRECTION OF THE FORCES APPLIED BY THE VAULTER AS THEY LEAVE THE GROUND SO IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A VAULTER TO BE SLIGHTLY UNDER - BUBKAS WINNING JUMP IN 1988 -AND STILL HAVE A FREE TAKE OFF. INCIDENTALLY THE REASONS FOR HIS BEING UNDER ON THAT JUMP ARE EXPLAINED IN BTB2
The writer has carefully examined dozens of vaults by elite male vaulters ( including many by S. Bubuka )
AS HAVE WE ALL!
and found no examples of a vaulter successfully employing a "free" take off action.
I SUGGEST YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE FIRST EVER 6 M. JUMP BY BUBBY IN PARIS IN JULY 85 – NOT ONLY WILL YOU SEE A ‘FREE’ TAKE OFF BUT ITS EXTENSION THE PRE JUMP, BECAUSE HE IS CLEARLY 10CM/4INCHES OFF THE GROUND AND HIS POLE IS STILL STRAIGHT FROM TIP TO LEFT HAND – AND HIS LEFT ARM IS STILL COVERING HIS RIGHT EAR! YOU MIGHT EVEN FIND THE STILL PHOTO OF THAT TAKE OFF ON THE INSIDE COVER OF BTB2INTERESTING . EXECUTED PROPERLY THE PREJUMP BRINGS BIOMECHANICAL ADVANTAGES. NOT ONLY DOES IT ENABLE THE VAULTER TO MAKE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION FROM THE RUN UP INTO THE JUMP – JUST AS A GOOD LONG JUMPER DOES - BUT ANY INCREASE IN THE POLE GROUND ANGLE AT THAT POINT MEANS THAT IT IS EASIER TO MOVE THE POLE FORWARDS AND UPWARDS– A KEY PETROV MANTRA. A SEEMINGLY SMALL ADVANTAGE BUT AS THE HUNGARIANS SAY “Sok kicsi sokra megy” - Many small things can add up to a big one”
This is not to state that no elite male vaulter has ever successfully employed a "free' take off action. Rather, if they have , it is a very rare occurrence.
NOT SO –ALMOST EVERY ONE OF BUBKAS JUMPS INVOLVED A ‘FREE TAKE OFF’ – HOWEVER AS HE HIMSELF SAID IN JAMAICA IN 2002, HE WAS ALWAYS AIMING FOR A PRE JUMP TAKE OFF – BUT WAS ONLY ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT A FEW TIMES BECAUSE IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. GIVEN THE PROBLEMS LONG AND TRIPLE JUMPERS HAVE IN HITTING THE BOARD ACCURATELY –AND THEY DON’T HAVE TO MANIPULATE A 17’ POLE INTO PERFECT POSITION AS THEY PREPARE TO TAKE OFF - THIS IS UNDERSTANDABLE.
YOU MIGHT EVEN LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE TAKE OFF POSITIONS OF YOUNG ATHLETES JAMIE SCROOP, TOM LOVELL, PATRICK JESSER AND WENDY YOUNG, SHOWN IN BTB AND ON THE ASSOCIATED DVD – NOT “ELITE” ATHLETES BUT INTERESTING NONE THE LESS.
The point here is that there is minimal ( if any ) empirical evidence supporting the 'free" take off concept and it's supposed superiority vs. other possible take off points.
THEN YOU ARE NOT LOOKING IN THE RIGHT PLACES BECAUSE I HAVE LISTED MANY ATHLETES WHO CLEARLY USE A FREE TAKE OFF.
THE RATIONALE FOR THE FREE TAKE OFF IS SIMPLE. SINCE THE POLE IS NOT LOADED UNTIL AFTER THE VAULTER TAKES OFF IT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE NOT ‘WASTED’ ANY OF THE KINETIC ENERGY DEVELOPED IN THE RUN AND TAKE OFF IN BENDING THE POLE. SINCE SPEED AT THE MOMENT OF TAKE OFF IS A CRITICAL VARIABLE, A FREE TAKE OFF CLEARLY HAS MAJOR ADVANTAGES –ESPECIALLY CF TAKING OFF UNDER –SEE BELOW..
Note, it is quite easy to determine whether or not a vaulter has employed a "free" take off action. If the vaulter's top hand is behind his /her head just after leaving the ground, the vaulter has not executed a "free" take off. This assumes the vaulter was erect, with the with the top hand directly overhead at the completion of the plant.
WHY WOULD YOU BOTHER DETERMINING IF A TAKE OFF IS ‘FREE’ OR NOT IF AS YOU SAY IT RARELY OCCURS ANYWAY? HOWEVER AS I SUGGESTED ABOVE, THE BEST INIDCATOR OF A ‘FREE’ TAKE OFF IS THAT THE POLE IS STRAIGHT AT THE INSTANT THE VAULTER LEAVES THE GROUND
3.The Russian model (which is primarly based on the technique of S. Bubka, - represents a tiny percentage, at best, of elite vaulters.
BUT IT HAS BEEN EMPLOYED BY TARASOV/MARKOV/GIBILISICO/TRANDENKOV/GATAULLIN/ISINBAYEVA/FEOFANOVA/BALACHONOVA,MURER -AS WELL AS THE BRAZILIAN LAD WHO RECENTLY WON THE WJ TITLE IN BARCELONA WITH 5.65M
I ALSO SUGGEST YOU HAVE A LOOK AT THE GERMAN AND CUBAN VAULTERS OF RECENT TIMES ALONG WITH PAUL BURGESS, STEVE LEWIS AND STEVE HOOKER – ALL ORIGINALLY COACHED BY SOVIET INFLUENCED INDIVIDUALS IN STEVE RIPPON AND MARK STEWART AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY ALEX PARNOV – A VAULTER FROM THE FORMER SOVIET SCHOOL.
It is simply bad science to base a vaulting concept on such a small sampling of vaulters.
NOT SUCH A SMALL SAMPLE – AND EVEN IF THEY DOMINATE THE TOP END OF THE RANKINGS??? .
This problem is particularly critical when most variations of technique that do not conform to the Russian model ( no matter how successful they are ) are simply dismissed as flaws in execution.
WHO DISMISSED THEM – SOME OF US ARE AWARE THAT THE FRENCH FOR EXAMPLE (AS IN MANY AREAS OF CULTURE) HAVE THEIR OWN VIEWS ON VAULT TECHNIQUE – BUT TAKE A LOOK AT GALFIONE, ANOTHER 6 M VAULTER WHO WON IN ATLANTA. HIS COACH WAS BECOMING INFLUENCED BY PETROV PRIOR TO THIS RESULT. I ACCEPT THAT THE FRENCH DID HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH DURING THE LATE 70S/80’S –WENT AND STUDIED WITH THEIR COACHES HOUVION (OC96) AND PERIN (OC84) DURING THAT PERIOD. LIKE MANY COACHES I DECIDED THAT THE SOVIET MODEL BETTER MATCHED THE BIOMECHANICAL DEMANDS OF THIS EVENT.
OF COURSE IT IS CLEAR THAT FOLK HAVE VAULTED ABOVE 5.90 WITHOUT USING THE PETROV/BUBKA MODEL – BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS WOULD MANY OF THEM HAVE VAULTED HIGHER USING IT?? I SUSPECT DEAN STARKEY, JEFF HARTWIG – WHO ACTUALLY WERE PRETY CLOSE IN SOME BUT NOT ALL ELEMENTS OF THEIR TECHNIQUE – ALONG WITH OCKERT BRITS – WHOSE TECHNIQUE, TO COIN A PHRASE, WAS DIABOLICAL - WOULD HAVE DONE SO, AND I KNOW THAT SIMON ARKELL – A 19’ FOOTER - WOULD HAVE IF I HAD INTRODUCED HIM TO IT WHEN I FIRST TAUGHT HIM TO VAULT.
4. World record holder Sergey Bubka was a uniquely talented athlete. His raw speed and explosive power are unmatched.
NOT TRUE – THIS IS ONE OF THE GREAT MYTHS – GO AND TALK TO BUBKA AND HE WILL RAPIDLY DISABUSE YOU OF THAT NOTION. WHAT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD – BECAUSE IT IS RARELY DISCUSSED – IS THAT THE EFFICIENCY OF HIS TECHNIQUE ALSO INCLUDED HIS POLE CARRY AND PLANTING ACTION – A FACTOR THAT ENABLED HIM TO BE HIGHLY EFFICIENT IN CONVERTING WHAT SPRINT SPEED HE DID HAVE TO THE POLE VAULT RUN UP – AND ESPECIALLY THROUGH THE LAST TEN METRES INTO TAKE OFF – A ZONE WHERE MANY VAULTERS DECELERATE BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT EMPHASIS ON THIS ASPECT OF TECHNIQUE – INCIDENTALLY YOU MIGHT ALSO FIND IT INTERESTING TO TALK WITH VITALI HIMSELF ABOUT THIS TO DISCOVER HOW IMPORTANT HE THINKS IT IS.
It is logical to assume – that Buubka's athletic talents played a major role in his success. Therefore if another vaulter was able to precisely duplicate Bubuka's technique, he would have to have superior athletic talent vs. Bubka, in order to surpass his marks.
TRUE- GREAT EXAMPLES WOULD HAVE BEEN VICTOR CHYSTIAKOV AND OCKERT BRITS – BUT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT IMPINGE ON THIS – NOTABLY GOOD EARLY COACHING, MENTAL STRENGTH, FOCUS AND RESLIENCE AND THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT BUBKA WAS FORTUNATE IN THESE AREAS –ESPECIALLY THE FIRST.
Conversely, if any 6m. vaulter had Bubka's athletic talents, it is certainly???? possible that they could or could have vaulted as high or even higher than Bubka using thier own technical style.
A PRETTY POWERFUL STATEMENT OF OPINION –NOT FACT - AND YOU WOULD NOT BE SAYING THAT IF YOU REALLY UNDERSTOOD THE BIOMECHANICS OF THE PETROV MODEL.
5. The fiberglass vault dates back to the early 60's. Since it's inception individual stylistic variations have always been the norm.
YES AND THESE ‘STYLISTIC VARIATIONS’ HAVE INVARIABLY HELD THE EVENT BACK – AND MAY EVEN HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE SERIOUS INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS EVENT.
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTS ABOUT THE WORLD RECORD PERFORMANCES FROM THIS PERIOD OF ‘INDIVIDUAL STYLISTIC VARIATIONS’ AND COMPARE THEM WITH THOSE OF A SMALL GROUP OF YOUNG AND VERY AMATEUR VAULTERS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA – WHO WERE ALL INTRODUCED TO THE PETROV BUBKA MODEL FROM THE FIRST TIME THEY PICKED UP A POLE. HERE I THINK IT FAIR TO ASSUME THAT THE WORLD RECORD HOLDERS IN QUESTION WERE ALL PRETTY MATURE AND TALENTED ATHLETES, WHO TOOK THEIR TRAINING SERIOUSLY. SO WHAT DO WE FIND
1963 Brian Sternberg WR 5.00M - 2000 Tom and Chris Lovell (aged 18) 5.00m . Both boys around 5’6 and 140 pounds – playing other sports at school and trained a maximum of three sessions a week in the summer of that year, much less previously.
1964 Fred Hansen wr 5.28 1988 Adam Steinhart 5.26 age 18
1966 Bob Seagren wr 5.32 1995 Matt Filsell 5.30 age 17
1967 Paul Wilson wr 5.38 2000 Patrick Jesser 5.40 age 18
1971 John. Pennel wr 5.44 1998 Matt Filsell 5.45 age 20
Note that Matt left school at 16 and was working a full time job during this period – he was not a superior athletic talent. HOPE THE LACK OF CAPITALS HERE DOES NOT CONFUSE ANYONE!!!
Of course you can claim I am cherry picking but the full list of junior vaulters in this group between 1986 and 2000 is provided in BTB2.
SO WHAT IS THE MESSAGE? THAT VERY ORDINARY YOUNGSTERS TRAINING PART TIME IN THE BACK OF BEYOND WITH AN AMATEUR COACH AND ALWAYS DEALING WITH THE TYRANNY OF DISTANCE IN OZ - BUT USING THE PETROV BUBKA MODEL - COULD MATCH THE PERFORMANCES OF TALENTED AND COMMITTED ATHLETES – PRESUMABLY USING THE INDIVIDUAL STYLES YOU MENTION.
This fact continues to this day and is even evident in the super elite 6m. club where every vaulter has a distinctive individual style (this true even for russian 6m. vaulters ).
YES INDEED THEY DO, BECAUSE THEY ARE UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS BUT ALSO BECAUSE IN SOME CASES – EVEN WHERE THEY ARE USING THE SOVIET TECHNICAL MODEL E.G. TARASOV/MARKOV.GIBILISICO/FEOFANOVA (ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT STOP HER –AT 5’4” - JUMPING 4.90M. CF GEORGE DAVIES WR RECORD OF 4.88) THEY HAVE MINOR TECHNICAL WEAKNESSES – WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 28 BTB2
WITHOUT BEING TOO BUMPTIOUS I SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER READING CHAPTER 7 0F BTB – “BIOMECHANICS, TECHNICAL MODELS AND STYLE”.
The fact that these variations continue to persist at this late date in the history of the event ( note, some variations, such as the "underneath" take off, date back to beginning of the fiberglass era )
TAKING OFF UNDER IS NOT A ‘VARIATION” – IT IS A MAJOR FAULT AND THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE CONFIRMING THE RAPID DECELERATION OF ANY VAULTER WHO TAKES OFF UNDER.
….is a kind of proof.
EXCUSE ME – “A KIND OF PROOF” - I THOUGHT YOU WERE PRESENTING THIS AS A ‘SORT’ OF SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF THE PETROV MODEL !that there is no one ideal technical stlye or model. I SINCERELY TRUST THAT NO ONE WHO READS THIS IS GOING TO GO OUT AND TEACH FOLK TO TAKE OFF UNDER.
ANY STUDY OF THOSE EARLY FLEXIBLE POLE VAULTERS SUGGESTS THAT THEY SIMPLY HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE DOING –EXCEPT TRY TO BEND THE POLE – AND TAKING OFF UNDER CERTAINLY HELPS YOU TO DO THAT!! THE REAL PROBLEM AT THAT TIME WAS THAT COACHES DID NOT KNOW EITHER! IMHO IF THEY HAD SIMPLY STAYED WITH THE STIFF POLE TECHNICAL MODEL OF WARMERDAM FOR EXAMPLE – VAULTING WOULD HAVE PROGRESSED MUCH FASTER. AS IT WAS THOSE VAULTERS DEVELOPED DEAD END TECHNIQUES - SOME OF WHICH UNFORTUNATELY PERSIST TO THIS DAY..
Based on the broadest possible visual analysis of elite male vaulters, it is possible to isolate many elements of technique that, with few exceptions, are universally practiced.
THAT IS IF YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR!
SO WHAT ARE THESE ELEMENTS OF TECHNIQUE THAT ARE UNIVERSALLY PRACTISED IN YOUR OPINION???
On the other hand, this method should also make it clear that there also are many aspects of technique that remain subject to individual interpretation.
SORRY TO CONTRADICT, YOU BUT THE ONLY – AND I MEAN ONLY! – ISSUE THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED –TO EVERYONES SATISFACTION – NOT MINE, BECAUSE I AM ALREADY A CONVERT – IS ROMAN BOTCHARNIKOV’S NOTION OF PULLING WITH THE BOTTOM ARM IMMEDIATELY AFTER TAKE OFF TO FURTHER ACCELERATE THE WHIP SWING OF THE BODY INTO INVERSION.
Last edited by altius
on Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden