IAmTheWalrus wrote: ... he follows the 6:40 model coached by Roman (Agapit). Good examples would be Bubka, Lojo, Blankenship, Michelle Favre (DIII record holder) ... Basic premise as I under stand it: create space between you and the pole at takeoff, execute free takeoff where the vertical component of the jump is critical, pull immediately with the left arm, win. ... its fundamentally the same as the petrov model except you are trying to eliminate passive phases like chest penetration (drive phase).
OK, I understand Branko's point of view now, based on the 640 Model. I have always made my position clear that I didn't really understand the intricacies of the 640 Model, and I still don't. Not having experienced it myself, I'm unable to relate to it. This sounds rather ironic, give that I have huge respect for Agapit and his Continuous Chain of Motion Theory. At least we're both basing our models after the same physics!
I'm not going to debate his model against the Petrov Model or my style variation of the Petrov Model. Suffice to say that I actually see Bubka as the epitomy of the Petrov Model rather than the 640 Model, so it's rather ironic that Bubka is quoted by you, Walrus, as a good example of the 640 Model. Lojo - yes. He was coached by Agapit. Blankenship - well, he has this weird lead knee drop that Agapit and I discussed on a different thread last month, but if he's the best 2013 example of the 640 Model, then OK - if he says so. But this leaves me even more confused than every what the heck the 640 Model is all about. I know it's not about that lead knee drop, but how can someone with that "style" possibly be the best example of the model? I dunno.
I do like MIchelle Favre's technique, and I can appreciate why that might be called a 640 Model technique. However, she does stretch to C (slightly) after takeoff, and she does have a downswing before her upswing. Maybe not as pronounced as Bubka, but it's still there. I would say that she needs to stretch more, and then she would have a more powerful downswing that would result in a better upswing, extension, and fly-away. But maybe that's just my personal style preference. It's just a pity that such a good athlete is almost there, but could be even better with a few minor adjustments like this.
I do understand the point of eliminating passive phases (part of the Continuous Chain Theory), and I definitely agree that TOO MUCH chest penetration is bad - I was guilty of that myself on my "bad" jumps".
But getting back to Branko's original comments, I don't agree that the downswing is a passive phase. It actually ACCELERATES the upswing - which is what you want!
Yes, you want to raise your CoG as quickly and as continuously as you can, but not at the expense of failing to rotate to an inversion as quickly and as powerfully as you can.
I maintain that as long as you're ALWAYS MOVING - including stretching to the C and popping elastically back out again - the movement is not passive. Same goes for the downswing. It may APPEAR to be a motion in the wrong directions (rotationally, rather than upwards), but as long as you're ALWAYS MOVING then this is not passive at all. In fact, it's an extremely ACTIVE motion! And this ACTIVE motion is what's generating more energy into the vaulter-pole system!
I know that Agapit doesn't teach the downswing, but I do. He thinks that the energy to rotate upside down on the pole is generated by a lat pull of the arms on takeoff (which in turn causes the legs to swing), whereas I think that the INITIAL energy to rotate comes from the downswing - hinging at the hips (which in turn ripples up the body to the torso and arms).
Lately, I've asked if we're actually both half right, and the optimal technique should be a FULL BODY pop out of the C, with the arms and trail leg generating this energy SIMULTANEOUSLY?
Agapit: I'm still waiting for your reply to this question. How about it?
BTW, if you want to see a good downswing, look at Brad Walker's new technique. He didn't have such a pronounced C a few years back, but now he gets a TREMENDOUS C, and pops out of it with a really great downswing. This is what gives him the momentum for his upswing. If he wasn't on such damn big poles (and if his muscle memory didn't cause him to habitually tuck/shoot), he wouldn't be tucking shooting at all - he'd be pure Petrov!
Kirk