Negative Inversion!

[coachjvinson]

...Concept 1: The pole and the vaulter (the vaulter pole system) must continue to move toward the crossbar for a good and safe vault.

What is essential for this to occur? In your observations?

If you can't laugh at yourself, then how can you laugh at anybody else? I think people see the human side of you when you do that.

Payne Stewart

Shaman PV.jpeg (8.14 KiB) Viewed 8051 times

[PVDaddy]

Coachjvinsen, is this a trick question from the Shaman?
Are you answering my question with a question?
My answer is: Everything that has been already mentioned in all of my what you described as diluted, excessive, non-specific posts!
Would you mind describing the entire vault for us, as I have done, in your own words, with special emphasis on the points you feel are the most important, more clearly and specifically than I have? Look forward to seeing it!

[KirkB]

Kirt, ...

... "Es pound" ... is the original French word from were we get the English word Expound (Of French origin) My spell checker took me there and I just went with it. ...

... I realize at the bottom of my post, when I was tired, I mistakenly called you "kurt" (No disrespect intended).

My name is spelled K-I-R-K. KIRK.

I thought I could ask you (in a kind, nonconfrontational way) to spell my name correctly by simply telling you that any searches for my posts won't work if you mispell my name. I fully expected a small apology so that we could move on to more important topics. But (as usual), you contorted this out of proportion, by defending your two occurrences of spelling my name properly, and explaining away your two mispellings of my name by saying that you were "tired".

Then - as if that wasn't enough - you added insult to injury by mispelling my name YET AGAIN in your SECOND reply. If that's not disrespectful (your word - not mine), I don't know what is. Geez!

Then you continued your excuses by defending your spelling of the word "expound" as being the word suggested by your spell checker.

And then ...

. the spelling of the word "vertical". I believe I had misspelled it as "verticle" at the time (I have not spelled it wrong since. Thank-You). ...

Yet you have still not learned to use your spell checker effectively - you STILL (occassionally) spell the word "vertical" incorrectly. If you search for "agenda 21 verticle" you'll see when (last month) and where.

It also bothers me that you consistently mispell the word "where". You seem to have the habit of omitting the "h". You may think I'm being picky, but besides the credibility issue, it does slow down the reader who's trying to comprehend what you're trying to say. So a reader has to reread those sentences where you're missing the "h" in the word. It interupts the flow of reading, and if you have too many typos per post, people misunderstand what you're trying to say, or just throw their arms up in despair.

Do you have any problem with providing further specific critique on my Agenda 21 thread?

If you want to improve your credibility in proposing novel ways of flying over 21 feet, you have to at least strive to spell people's names and key words correctly - otherwise your credibility is diminished, and any good ideas will be lost in your rants. Most of us don't have time to sift through all of your chaff to find any seeds of wisdom. Especially if the rants are pointed at them. I sure don't have the time or patience for such rants.

Your Agenda 21 is a joke. Your first thread was locked because of your off-topic rants. Your second (draft) thread seemed to go nowhere (I just glanced at it, since it was only a draft and you'd already posted your "final" version. Your third (final draft) thread wasn't anywhere near final, so I don't know why you called it that. After your initial post, you made 7 more posts that seemed to be amendments or clarifications to your first post! I just glanced through that thread too, because I find it mostly drivel.

I really question why you're posting in the Advanced Technique forum. By your own admission, you're not qualified to do so, yet you continue. Geez!

So there it is. Please feel free to bisect it and dissect it. I promise I will not become sensitive or angry to anyone's critique! lol

Your pattern of behavior is that you WILL become sensitive or angry to anyone's critique - whether justified or not. Most of the time your rants are unjustified. You will cling to one small tidbit of truth in your post, arguing on its merits and ignoring the overall point being made to you. You did that with me re the spelling of my name, and the spelling of the word "expound" - so I rest my case.

NO, short of the above comments, I won't be commenting on your Agenda 21 thread.

Kirk Bryde

[CoachEric]

Perhaps we're being a little tough on PVDaddy. We've seen much better attempts from him to offend, so I'm sure he meant no offense by a couple typos.

I think PVDaddy's overall understanding of some of the vault isn't terribly bad, but it's presumptous to say that you've practically invented a concept and then spout it to a bunch of coaches who are more experienced.

The biggest problem for me is that "negative inversion" isn't really a thing. It's not part of the model. It's just a position that happens occasionally in the vault that results from a high-powered swing and everything preceeding it. In itself it has little to no effect on achieving higher bars. It's not coachable - certainly not to a developing athlete. It's just something that happened once or twice.

[coachjvinson]

My answer is: Everything that has been already mentioned in all of my what you described as diluted, excessive, non-specific posts!

Nice Try...
On a serious note, the question is foundational and is a VITALY important concept: care to reconsider your response? Certainly you are not at a loss for words...

...Concept 1: The pole and the vaulter (the vaulter pole system) must continue to move toward the crossbar for a good and safe vault.

What is essential for this to occur? In your observations?

I am very fond of my new signature: it suits me well, or so I'm told.

If you can't laugh at yourself, then how can you laugh at anybody else? I think people see the human side of you when you do that.

Payne Stewart

Shaman PV.jpeg (8.14 KiB) Viewed 8025 times

[PVDaddy]

Kirk, You have an unusual name. I assure you that my misspelling of it was not intentional. I'm sure it's been mispronounced and misspelled your entire life and you are very sensitive to that. By the way you misspelled my name in your very first post but I could care less!

Your first post on this thread:

Hi PVD. Our last discussion on PVP was in 2010, and I must say that I'm impressed with your ever-increasing knowledge of PV technique.

I'm thinking: Thank-You Kirk, I've been working hard and its really nice to here from you again,regardless of any past insults you had made. I'm just happy to debate with fellow PV enthusiast and learn!

Kirk:

I'm not at all impressed with the continual sparring that you're STILL having with Altius - seems like same-old, same-old. But that's between you and him - let's not go there, eh?

I'm thinking: Why bring that up ? Who made you PVP Cop? let's not go there, eh? You just did?

Kirk:

Your thoughts re "negative inversion" are almost 100% correct

Like I said, there is no TUCK and there is no PUSH!

I'm thinking Ok that's your opinion, but your WRONG theres actually two very strong pushes in the vault, one bottom hand and one top but that's ok we have different opinions and.. Maybe if you began with IMO you would not sound arrogant but anyway?

Kirk:

I'll save any other comparisons of our taglines for another post - if you agree to keep our discussions amiable

I'm thinking: It's just a tagline and your already NOT being amiable by your mere suggestion?

And you finish your very first post with:

So sorry to burst you bubble re the originality of your "negative inversion" theory

I'm thinking is Kirk having insecurity issues and wow this is how Kirk begins a dialogue he claims he wants to be amiable? But whatever? I sure would like to!

I bite my tongue about all of the above and begin my response with:

Hi Kirk, It is so nice to here from you again! I remember you well from 2010. How you took so much time to carefully try to explain all the technical details of the whip out of inverted-C to me and also the use of the bottom arm in the vault. I learned a great deal from you. I also learned a great deal from Altius, about the importance of the practical hands on approach of developing simplified training tools for conveying these Petrov methods to others. Thank-you both for your time and energy you have given in trying to educate me! Shortly after our misunderstanding of motives in 2010, I purchased Alan's book and video. I found them both to be very educational and beneficial. A small investment for a wealth of knowledge . I call that putting your money were your brain is. I like to think mine is still open, like the parachute? No charge for that commercial Altius! Only because I think your a likable fellow.

I know that I did not invent "Negative Inversion" and have no Idea who recognized its benefits first? Perhaps it was you back in 1971-1972? The very fact that you were able to get past vertical shows that you were ahead of your time (The fact that you recognized its benefits back then) and probably had a lot to do with your Bryde bend technique?

I end my response with a very simple question?: Kurt two of my favorite vaulters (Bubka and Tarasov) both exhibit a strong bottom hand and top hand push in their best vaults. Maybe you did not, but why do you say there is no Push?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QribYk ... sults_main

Your response:

There's not much point in answering your questions until you've at least read the posts from the searches that I suggested. You'll have to spell my name right to get any hits - "kurt past vertical" won't cut it

I'm thinking: Wow what a rude and arrogant response to a simple question with someone I'm going OUT OF MY WAY to be amiable with and he's ASSuming that I hadn't read his post on the subject when in fact I had already read most of them and I'm wondering why he mis quoted me? My exact quote in that first post to You:

I did not search "kirk past vertical" but plan to.

I believe that's"Kirk" K-I-R-K!

KIRK:

Yet you have still not learned to use your spell checker effectively - you STILL (occassionally) spell the word "vertical" incorrectly. If you search for "agenda 21 verticle" you'll see when (last month) and where.

It also bothers me that you consistently mispell the word "where". You seem to have the habit of omitting the "h". You may think I'm being picky, but besides the credibility issue, it does slow down the reader who's trying to comprehend what you're trying to say. So a reader has to reread those sentences where you're missing the "h" in the word. It interupts the flow of reading, and if you have too many typos per post, people misunderstand what you're trying to say, or just throw their arms up in despair

.

ROTFLMAO! Seriously are you an Old English Grammar Teacher on Steroids!

Your Agenda 21 is a joke. I just glanced through that thread too, because I find it mostly drivel.NO, short of the above comments, I won't be commenting on your Agenda 21 thread.

Cool Adios!

Your motive for posting on this thread from the very beginning was never to try to have amiable dialoque, but to disrupt this thread that you are obviously jealous because I took a great concept and expounded on it benefits well beyond what you were ever capable! You are "beyond" obvious! I good term for it " Negative Obvious!" By the way I would put Agenda 21 up against your Bryde bend theory any day of the week! Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, I'm not a fan!

[KirkB]

More drivel ...

Your motive for posting on this thread from the very beginning was never to try to have amiable dialoque, but to disrupt this thread that you are obviously jealous because I took a great concept and expounded on it benefits well beyond what you were ever capable! You are "beyond" obvious! I good term for it " Negative Obvious!"

I rest my case. [sigh]

... try to have amiable dialoque

You mean "... try to have an amiable dialogue"?

I'm not the only one that's tried to tell you (with varying degrees of patience and courtesy) that your Negative Inversion theory isn't all that important to disect ad infinitum. But you're so preoccuppied with sparring with anyone that disagrees with you in the slightest that you just don't listen. [sigh]

Kirk Bryde

[coachjvinson]

Whatever you do in life, surround yourself with smart people who'll argue with you.

Then with regard to “negative inversion”. I believe it is only another term – and possibly a confusing one - for “covering the pole”.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -

If you can't laugh at yourself, then how can you laugh at anybody else? I think people see the human side of you when you do that.

Payne Stewart

Shaman PV.jpeg (8.14 KiB) Viewed 8015 times

[KirkB]

Then with regard to “negative inversion”. I believe it is only another term – and possibly a confusing one - for “covering the pole”.

That's correct.

To cover the pole, you need to stay behind the chord. And when you stay behind the chord, you're effectively "shooting past vertical". That's all there is to it.

This gives you the vertical component of your momentum.

Your horizontal momementum comes from the roll of the pole - moving you and the pole in the direction of the pit.

With the right sized pole and the right grip, you can confidently "shoot past vertical" without fear of stalling out. The key to success here is to ensure that you're ALWAYS landing in the middle of the coach's box. You get there by always setting your standards "all the way back". And ... DON'T MOVE UP TO A STIFFER POLE OR A HIGHER GRIP IF YOU'RE NOT LANDING IN THE **MIDDLE** OF THE COACH'S BOX!

I don't believe there's any true benefit in setting your standards to near-zero. Some vaulters think that they can gain a little more vertical momentum by stealing from their horizontal momentum, but I think this is false economy. They won't extend as vigorously (and certainly not past vertical), for fear of stalling. And if they hurt themselves by landing in the box, there goes their season.

To say this in another way, your margin of safety when you land in the middle of the pit is plus-or-minus several feet - a stallout of a couple feet still lands you safely in the pit. But if you set your standards to near-zero, then your margin of safety is near-zero! A stallout of a couple feet lands you in the box!

Once I figured this out (mid-season, 1971), I kept my grip at a consistent 15-4, and varied only my pole size according to where I was landing in the pit, the weather and how I felt. This gave me a VERY consistent, reliable vault. So consistent, in fact, that once I left the ground, I would immediately "know" whether it would be an easy make or a bad miss (there usually wasn't an in-between for me).

Kirk Bryde

[rainbowgirl28]

OK enough with the nitpicking about spelling please. Yes, it was relevant to the issue of whether or not it would pull up the proper searches, but drop it beyond that please.

Coachjvinson please don't insert the same picture into every post. I don't allow pictures as part of a signature. You're welcome to use them when relevant but three posts in a row is probably a bit much.

[coachjvinson]

Coachjvinson please don't insert the same picture into every post. I don't allow pictures as part of a signature. You're welcome to use them when relevant but three posts in a row is probably a bit much.

K

Thank you

I am very fond of that picture however!)

[PVDaddy]

K-I-R-K, Furthermore I understand it is very difficult for someone with an ego as large as yours to except that your Bryde bend technique had zero influence upon Petrov. I understand that you were able to Vault 17 ft or so with that method but you must understand that there are high school kids jumping 18 ft now now days with much better methods than the ones you propose. Your Forward lean at take-off and this jump to the splits is a complete wast of time in this modern era of vaulting. It' also painfully obvious that you could find very little to critique about all (And I have said a whole lot not just about the benefits of "over covering the pole" beyond vertical but some very state of the art concepts of how Bubkka is able to do it and you know it! LOL You are indeed Green with envy old boy!) of the things I had to say here or in Agenda 21, so rather than offer any constructive criticism the best you could do is look for a few spelling errors and ridicule me about some changes I have made to improve upon it. LOL! I find that to be quite s week and shallow approach, showing lack of imagination or talent on your end. I SUGGETS YOU GET USE TO IT OLD BOY, AS I WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO IT AND CONTINUE TO POST IN THIS FORUM! I ask you to explain why you say there is no bottom hand or top hand push and showed you two very clear clips of Bubka and Tarasov both exhibiting VERY Strong bottom and top arm pushes and it left you speechless and unable to respond! You dodged the question by instead attacking me for not reading every single post you made about going beyond vertical when in fact I had. I think that you are truly afraid that your legacy (that you think you have) will be tarnished in the future, when everybody is doing it, because I believe you see it, but am afraid to admit, you have been wrong right along! Honestly I am no longer even interested in any thing you have to say about it OR ANYTHING ELSE. It would not bother me in the slightest if you had nothing to say on this thread any longer as well. As you continue to post useless dribble with the only intent of getting off subject and not having any beneficial dialogue. So Adios!