In science reality always trumps "theory". that is if you have a "theory" that states that taking off out will produce superior resluts than taking off under ( although the p/b model doesn't exactly say this it does infer this ) then this should be reflected in the real world, but it isn't.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Theory is CENTRAL to science. Watching video does not make you a scientist. You have to be active in the process. Just because something exists does not mean it exists at its ideal state. A Leaf can convert solar energy to chemical energy, but I would rather power my house with solar panels.
Let's take an example from thermodynamics. The Carnot cycle. The Carnot cycle is theoretically the most efficient thermodynamic cycle. You will not find it in the real world, and it certainly does not occur in nature, but as steam turbines become more and more efficient, the Rankine cycle begins to more closely emulate the Carnot Cycle. The Carnot Cycle is the target, one that will never be achieved, but as the theoretical maximum, engineers know that the smaller the closer the get to achieving Carnot like results, the more efficient their engine. Applying these concepts to the pole vault, we can come up with a theoretical maximal efficiency technique based on maximal use of the vaulters energy. Mathematical models and simulations could be used to determine the most efficient technical model based on minimal energy losses, however, due to the complex nature of the pole vault and the lack of pole vault research funding, we'll have to settle for piece-wise examinations of the vault and biomechanical simplifications. Despite our limitations in creating a deterministic model, intuition and basic physics allows us to examine the vault and come up with a technical model that capitalizes on the vaulters ability to add energy to the vault while minimizing losses. The ideal petrov model jump may never actually happen, (it is rare if not a non event that a athlete ever performs any motion "perfectly"), however the closer an individual is to replicating the petrov model, the more efficient the vault.
That is if you excude Bubka's marks as a kind of exception to rule ( or a single anomally )
But you CAN'T exclude Bubka. He's the BEST representation of p/b technique. He's also cleared 6m a RIDICULOUS number of times, and with clearances that most elites can't get over 5.70. You seem to include and exclude other vaulters into the petrov model category in whatever way best supports your case. You've refused to accept several vaulters (such as gibilisco and tarasov) as petrov vaulters at times, and then excluded bubka as an anomaly. Let's go with the strictest definition of the Petrov model, which will leave only Bubka. If Bubka is the only
true petrov vaulter, then I don''t see how your analysis has shown anything, there simply isn't enough data. The fact remains that the Petrov model (or any model for that matter) is very difficult to perfect, there are always going to be deviations from ideal. Therefore your analysis is at best inconclusive. Your metric is arbitrary; If I did my own analysis looking at the technique of vaulters who have cleared 6.10m, I think the results would be quite obvious. Your Petrov model sample is either too small (Bubka), or contains vaulters who deviate far enough from ideal, that their deviations, rather than the model they follow, could be the reason for their performances not being higher. Unless you have a controlled experiment that you
then collect data from, your analysis is incomplete at best, and meaningless at worst. Just because no one else has perfected the model the way Bubka has does not mean that disprove the model as an ideal technical model (granted I am not attempting to prove that the petrov model is ideal in this statement, I am merely refuting your conclusion).
whatever a vaulter actually does is the salient point, not what he/she is tying to do
I also have a problem with this, for two reasons.
1) From a COACHING perspective, an idealized model is essential. Even if the model is "wrong" or "suboptimal," better results will be achieved if the vaulter has discrete technical goals. Yes vaulters can achieve the same results with different techniques, and yes vaulters don't always execute their technique correctly, but what you seem to be suggesting is that they just "go jump high." Athletes need technical direction as well as measurable results. Even if there were several best ways to vault, it would still argue that is in the coach's and athlete's best interest to purse a singular technical model. I know the petrov model well, and anyone who wishes to train with me can trust that my instruction will help them to achieve better results, vault safely, and does not conflict with what is physically possible. I would be much less successful in training someone to tuck and shoot or block out with the bottom arm, and my lack of conviction would cause distrust in my athlete.
In have read several times over in various training publications that HAVING A PLAN, EVEN IF ITS NOT PERFECT IS BETTER THAN NOT HAVING ONE.
2) Separating results from intention is fine for the takeoff point, but once you get beyond that point the vaulters actions become incredibly hard to discern from constraints place on them by the pole. For example (from the 6.40 model threads), it is possible to watch a vaulter and see their arm move away from their body, despite the fact that they are in fact in the midst of a muscular contraction of the lower arm pulling during the swing. Once again, as a coach, it is imperative to know what the athlete is attempting to do, otherwise your technical analysis may contradict the actual physical situation and confuse the vaulter.
The most important point that I am trying to make is this:
We can discuss, ad nausuem, the merits of a free takeoff, or whether the pertov model is ideal, or even whether their is an ideal technical model, but at the end of the day, coach's need to coach their athletes within a certain paradigm. Your claim that their is no ideal technical model offers little to know substance to any discussion aimed a coaching athletes to achieve better performances, it only states that people have done, what they've done, how they've done it.
How do we do better... that's a discussion I don't mind wasting my time on.
