Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:51 pm
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.
A great many coaches, vaulters and sports scientists today believe that the Russian technical model (or the Bubka/Petrov model ) represents ideal technique. Further, it is believed that this model has been proven to be ideal by physics and biomechanics.
The best way to test this proposition is to examine it using the scientific method.
We must begin then, by:
1.Observing and analyizing what elite male fiberglass vaulters actually do in the real world. For the purposes of this article any vaulter who has jumped 19' or better can be considered an elite vaulter.
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. 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.
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. This is a common problem in science when there are often several competing solutions to a given problem.
2.At best, the Russian model is only partly based on empirical evidence. For the most part it is a system of hypotheses that give specfic directions for executing the vault.
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.
The writer has carefully examined dozens of vaults by elite male vaulters ( including many by S. Bubuka ) and found no examples of a vaulter successfully employing a "free" take off action. 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. 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.
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.
3.The Russian model (which is primarly based on the technique of S. Bubka ) represents a tiny percentage, at best, of elite vaulters. It is simply bad science to base a vaulting concept on such a small sampling of vaulters. 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.
4. World record holder Sergey Bubka was a uniquely talented athlete. His raw speed and explosive power are unmatched. 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.
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.
5. The fiberglass vault dates back to the early 60's. Since it's inception individual stylistic variations have always been the norm. 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 ). 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 ) is a kind of proof that there is no one ideal technical stlye or model.
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.
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.
A great many coaches, vaulters and sports scientists today believe that the Russian technical model (or the Bubka/Petrov model ) represents ideal technique. Further, it is believed that this model has been proven to be ideal by physics and biomechanics.
The best way to test this proposition is to examine it using the scientific method.
We must begin then, by:
1.Observing and analyizing what elite male fiberglass vaulters actually do in the real world. For the purposes of this article any vaulter who has jumped 19' or better can be considered an elite vaulter.
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. 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.
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. This is a common problem in science when there are often several competing solutions to a given problem.
2.At best, the Russian model is only partly based on empirical evidence. For the most part it is a system of hypotheses that give specfic directions for executing the vault.
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.
The writer has carefully examined dozens of vaults by elite male vaulters ( including many by S. Bubuka ) and found no examples of a vaulter successfully employing a "free" take off action. 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. 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.
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.
3.The Russian model (which is primarly based on the technique of S. Bubka ) represents a tiny percentage, at best, of elite vaulters. It is simply bad science to base a vaulting concept on such a small sampling of vaulters. 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.
4. World record holder Sergey Bubka was a uniquely talented athlete. His raw speed and explosive power are unmatched. 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.
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.
5. The fiberglass vault dates back to the early 60's. Since it's inception individual stylistic variations have always been the norm. 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 ). 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 ) is a kind of proof that there is no one ideal technical stlye or model.
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.
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.