ADTF Academy wrote:superpipe wrote:I'm not sure how else to clearly state it. I never said the "tuck and shoot" doesn't apply physics, but the answer you get when using the "tuck and shoot" = less creation and use of energy.
The fact remains that there is ONE most efficient way to create and apply energy in the pole vault (based on human biomechanics) to achieve the greatest height. There's zillions of less efficient ways to clear heights below your maximum capability.
The issue is the means and ends of why and how your trying to use physics. I don't agree with the blocking out of the bottom arm to create bend in the pole resulting in the need to overly tuck to shorten the radius to beat the pole to inversion. However, I see its concepts and understand them.
I can see the merit in the objective nature of your statements...
ADTF Academy wrote: There is a huge difference between application of a thought in a vacuum when everything is done perfectly and the reality of what is going on.
While I understand the applications and shortcomings of the "perfect world" vacuum scenario...
I would agree that there are advanced fundamentals that can "muddy the water" if introduced too early in a vaulter's development. To suggest that certain advanced fundamentals not be introduced nor attempted at all is, in my positon, short sighted.
ADTF Academy wrote: However, stop moving and sit on the pole is 100% not linked to the comment I made. The lift created occurs well before I hope the pull of the athlete is seen. The pull happens after inversion is near reached. If you're pulling from a seated position than you will have your own problems not linked to this conversation.
Good, yes...
ADTF Academy wrote: The pull that was talked about in the article was the final movement by which the top hand moves passed the body. There is a difference between not making use of something and attempt to do something that causes an incorrect movement.
There is a third option too, certainly to state that we shouldn't attempt something because it MAY cause an incorrect movement or that it fundamentally WILL cause an incorrect movement are two different statements...
Additionally, it is fundamental that any new skill set requires a certain amount of time and practice in which to develop a level of proficiency... my point is that it is not simply either/or...
Moreover, as stated previously, at this FLUID END point in the vault, a precise and quickly applied directional movement applied through the pull/push of the vaulters top arm is FUNDAMENTALLY a matter of POWERFUL FINESSE and COORDINATION.
I do not want to SIMPLY SOUND like a Petrov/Bubka disciple (I am not saying that I am not) like many other items I can be a bit of an AGNOSTIC ANALYTIC at times... It is through thorough, objective, critical analysis that improvements are made...
But consider the VELOCITY by which Bubka disconnects from the pole...
I am certain that BUBKA'S VELOCITY off the top of the pole was not achieved simply by "catching the ride"
Of all the aspects of his vault mechanics, that was certainly one of the most impressive aspects and one of the first aspects which stood out to me...
More importantly, I am certain this can be incorporated in a progressive and developmentally timely manner.
ADTF Academy wrote:What % of pole vaulters can actually execute the timing of the pull action on the top of the jump to match the uncoiling of the pole.
That's a great question, let's find out...
ADTF Academy wrote: The continuous chain concepts are used to mean things keep moving along the vaulter/pole system.
Yes, and the the topic at hand is the final aspect of the continuum.
There are MANY things that I like and support about your position ADTF...
PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF IT SEEMS LIKE I AM CALLING YOU OUT, I AM NOT.
I am analyzing both your statements and my philosophy, beliefs and methodology OBJECTIVELY and pointing out through CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS items which I question on the MERITS...
I HOPE THAT AT THE LEAST WE CAN DISAGREE RESPECTFULLY...
and at the MOST...
I HOPE, THROUGH AN INTELLECTUAL DIALOGUE AND A PASSION FOR THE ATHLETE AND SPORT, THAT WE CAN PUSH OUR METHODOLOGIES TO ACCOMPLISH THE MOST THAT WE ARE ABLE!
As noted, you're statements are VERY OBJECTIVE at TIMES and I support and agree with this fundamental principal.
Additionally, what I am reading from your post and position is that it CAN be counterproductive to focus on this aspect of the vault IF introduced before a developing vaulter has a certain level of vault proficiency...
Where I FUNDAMENTALLY DIVERGE is that it is my position that this aspect of the vault has merit in a BROADER sense than indicated in your post.
ADTF Academy wrote: A pull that gets the vaulter away from the system is exactly the opposite to what the concepts talk about.
I have not read anywhere that anyone is suggesting this- to try to introduce this NON fact to support your position IS HIDDEN BIAS...
ADTF Academy wrote:Saying there needs to be a pull is like saying if an arrow doesn't pull back against the string of the bow it will go no where. No actually if the arrow is not made of a solid material the arrow goes no where. If the arrow stays in line with the bow string it gets launched very quickly. The vaulter is the arrow and the pole is the bow.
NOT really an effective argument - an arrow is a STATIC object, where the TRAINED VAULTER is a DYNAMIC SKILLED ATHLETE...
ADTF Academy wrote: To sum it up are you telling me a guy or woman that can't even clear his or her own grip height should be trying to pull as hard as they can on the top of their jump? Such a vaulter would be better off attempting to use all their energy to stay connected and in line with the pole. By attempting to create an imaginary additional amount of force such an athlete will tend to just fall off and out of alignment with the line of thrust. Not wanted or needed for any vaulter of any level. Try to shoot and arrow with not holding the arrow next to the bow frame.. How far and straight does the arrow go.
Again, NOT really an effective argument - the TRAINED VAULTER is a DYNAMIC SKILLED ATHLETE...
SPECIFICALLY,
ADTF Academy wrote:
I state all of this from a vantage point of do you truly understand why things are being taught? What does it really create? How can it really be used? Anyone can have an ideal technique or style of jumping in their mind. The question is can it actually be accomplished by the athletes you are working with. I'm not saying anything that has been mentioned is wrong just the reasons why can't be bias hidden behind topics that are actually not 100% true.
I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS AND THE PURPOSE OF MY RESPONSE IS TO EXPLORE THESE VERY QUESTIONS
In conclusion, I want to state that I have watched video of ATDF vaulters and I want to
CONGRATULATE you and encourage you on and in the work that you are doing. I do want to encourage you to consider what you are stating and to think objectively about what has been stated.
ADDITIONALLY, in a reciprocal manner - If I am holding on to beliefs or methods which you BELIEVE are FUNDAMENTALLY NOT SOUND, please point them out. As I have stated elsewhere,
"Ours is a path of continued GROWTH..."
I also want to RESTATE...
There are MANY things that I like and support about your position ADTF...PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF IT SEEMS LIKE I AM CALLING YOU OUT, I AM NOT. I am analyzing both your statements and my philosophy, beliefs and methodology OBJECTIVELY and pointing out through CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS items which I question on the MERITS...I HOPE THAT AT THE LEAST WE CAN DISAGREE RESPECTFULLY... and at the MOST... I HOPE, THROUGH AN INTELLECTUAL DIALOGUE AND A PASSION FOR THE ATHLETE AND SPORT, THAT WE CAN PUSH OUR METHODOLOGIES TO ACCOMPLISH THE MOST THAT WE ARE ABLE!
V
EDITED