ideal technique in the fiberglass vault

[david bussabarger]

A beginning note: the writer is compelled to take on the role of the devil's advocate on pvp because the great majority of posters on this site are like minded when it comes to this subject. It is arguable that all progress achieved by mankind throughout history can be attributed to contrarian thinkers.
The writer begins this article by posing the question does ideal technique actually exist in the fiberglass pole vault? This may seem like a simple enough question to answer, but in reality it is qute complex. The 1st problem is how do you determine what constitutes ideal technique?
The best tool man has for solving problems like this is science. Science follows strict rules and the single most importat one is that reality always trumps theory. That is scentific proof is always based on real world empirical evidence ( evidence based on observation and or experience of the real world ). So, if a given theory conflicts with reality ( empirical evidence ), the theory will be considered invalid by scientists.
Variations in the execution of the vault must withstand the evolutionary pressures of the survival of the fittest. This means as vaulting heights have increased over the years, inferior variations must by necessity die out. Based on the fact that Sergry Bubka's wr 20-13/4 dates back to 1994, one would assume that the winnowing out process should be pretty complete by now. The logical conclusion is that if there is one ideal technical model, all current elite male vaulters should utilize something very close to it. For the purposes of this article an elite vaulter is any vaulter that has cleared 5.80m or better. Yet, if you examine the technique of elite male vaulters, even though many variations seen in early glass vaulters have been winnowed out, there is still a great deal of individual technical variation seen amoung them. These variations persist even in the super elite 6m club. All of its 18 members display individualy distinctive execution of the vault.
Therefore empirical evidence strongly suggests that there is no one ideal technical model in the fiberglass vault.
Ironically, The great majority of the members of the vaulting community today STRONGLY believe that there is one ideal technical model, the so called Petrov/Bubka model. Russian coach Vitaly Petrov developed it in the late 1970's and Bubka was and still is its foremost exponet. It is important to point out that there is more than one interpretation of the p/b model in existence today. The most notable and influencial is Alan Launder's, which is detailed in his book From Beginner to Bubka. For the purposes of this article information on the p/b model is taken directly from Petrov's own article in the IIIX congress of the european athletics coach's assoc and from several articles featuring his ideas printed in Lane Lohr's news letter The Vault Standard ( now out of print ).
It is interesting to note that as far as this writer knows, unlike his advocates, Petrov himself has never proclaimed the p/b model represents ideal technique.
Based on Petrov's own writings, the p/b model is based on the following key principles:
1. The take off point should be directly under the top hand when the vaulter is in a vertical position before leaving the ground.
2.The vaulter should stive to execute a free-take off ( be off the ground before initiating the bend of the pole ).
3.The vaulter should emphasize extending both arms as vertically as possible while springing off the ground in a forward/upward direction and driving the chest forward.
4. The bend of the pole should be initiated based on the speed and mass of the vaulter and not with pressure/extention with the lower arm against the pole.
5. Once the take off is complete, the vaulter should rapidly sweep the trailing leg around and back while keeping both arms extended. The rock-back ( a term that Petrov does use ) is considered complete when the trailing leg has covered the arc of the pole and becomes a continuation of the upper end of it.
6. The vaulter should extend vertically by exploding from the hips and dropping the shoulders back. This action adds to the thrust of the recoiling pole.
Petrov also emphasizes that the vaulter should be imparting energy into the pole until the completion of the r-b to maximize the catapultic action of the vault.
An important distinction here is that Launder beleives that the pole's catapultic action is minimal. The vaulter must instead, rely on the continued momentum of the swing to lift him/her up and over the bar.
A particular problem with p/b advocates is that they "cast the widest possible net" when including vaulters into the p/b model. The writer has encountered p/b advocates on the net that claim that as long as vaulter is trying to follow the principles of the p/b model he/she is a p/b vaulter ( even if their technique deviates substantually from the p/b model ).
Launder claims that vaulters such as Maksim Tarasov, Dmitriy Markov and Giuseppe Gibilisco are p/b vaulters. Tarasov comes closest to fitting into the p/b model, but used a pronounced stiff arming action during the take off and swing. Although Markov utilized a free-take off, overall his technique diverged significantly from the p/b model. Giblisco was developed by Petrov, but his technique almost completely deviates from the p/b model. This imlpies that unlike his advocates, Petrov is more open minded when it comes to the acceptance of alternative stylistic variations.
So, there is a great deal of confusion about who is and who is not a p/b vaulter. The greatest problem with the p/b model which is alluded to above, is that many variations in execution that are extremely common in elite male vaulters are classified as inferior or flawed execution by p/b advocates because they deviate from the principles of the p/b model.
This is where the theory that the p/b model is ideal falls apart. That is the theory completely contradicts irrefutable real world empirical evidence that the great majority of elite vaulters succeed while violating some or most of the principles of the p/b model. In effect it is irrational and unscientific to claim that only the small number of elite vaulters who truely fit into the p/b model exhibit correct technique and all the rest exhibit faulty or inferior technique.
If a case study is made of the largest possible number of elite male vaulters over the years ( 94 men cleared 5.80m or better by the end of 2005 ), it is possible to discern a great many aspects of technique that are common to virtually all of them. These common denominators form the unvarying foundation of the vault. Other aspects of technique such as the specific location of the take off point, the specific action and positioning of the lead leg during the take off, the action and positioning of the lower arm during the lower 1/2 of the vault, the specific r-b style and so on, vary from vaulter to vaulter. Note, any study or technical analysis that is based on only one vaulter, no matter how great that vaulter may be, will yeld false conclusions if applied to other elite vaulters in general ( a problem that has plagued vaulting since the p/b model was widely accepted as ideal ).
Finally, based on this perspective, it is possible to speak of optimum execution relative to each elite vaulter's individual style, but not of one all encompassing ideal style or model.

[IAmTheWalrus]

<sigh>...

Ok, I really don't care anymore about your opinion. It's good to challenge the prevailing theory (although I think only in the online community is the P/B model the prevailing theory to be honest), but please....FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.... STOP CALLING YOUR OBSERVATIONS "SCIENCE." You can't just observe vaulters and call that science. You need to be able to control for variables, formulate an experiment that tests the variables you are interested in, and then analyze the data. Many elite athletes have terrible eating habits, poor sleep schedules, and make poor decisions from time to time. Does that mean that nutrition, sleep, and other similar factors are unimportant? Just because an athlete is great, does not mean they can't be better. Just because something works, doe not mean that it can't be improved upon. This is even more complex when you're dealing with athletes, since athletes may choose pursue any technical model they wish, based on whatever criteria they choose. I would recommend a google search or a trip to your local library to research the scientific method and experimental design. Remember, humans can ignore science and best practice, so you can't just observe what they do on their own.

[grandevaulter]

O.K. Walrus, I read the whole thing and can appreciate your thoughts and inquiries regarding the aforementioned subjects. After reading books and watching case studies on different vaulters. It is apparent that a pure technique (P/B) is difficult to achieve and not totally necessary. Unless one has the laser focus and desire to break the world record. It seems that cluster of Eastern European vaulters were on to some scientific technique, training, nutrition and psychology. ( I still say:"The greatest six inches in vaulting is between the ears" g.s.

Where I don't believe that analogies (likening it to a baseball action) apply to the vault because of the combination of running, carrying, jumping, swinging and pivoting. I will use an analogy of seeking a perfect model in the golf swing. Sam Snead and Ben Hogan (Hogan wrote a book that is carried by many of the current worlds best) achieved pure technical swings (with hickory shafts) that seem to be difficult to replicate in the modern world. Many of the worlds top 100 are not able to achieve this type of technical perfection. But with improvements in equipment are able to hit longer.

[PVstudent]

Before I say anything on the matters raised by David Bussabarger I want to acknowledge that I have been an avid and keen student of his articles on pole vault, especially for the technique depictions in the excellent drawing that accompany his work. The quality of this work is not in doubt.

Whenever anyone feels compelled to play “Devil’s advocate” they would be wise to reflect on the origin of this expression.

“Contrarian thinkers” got burned at the stake by the Inquisitors who placed them on trial for their rightly or wrongly held views. Socrates, Galileo and many other free thinkers have suffered unjustly, in my opinion, for challenging the ideological status quo of their particular society and epoch!

In our modern society, where science, as opposed to religious belief, provides the canons of judgment with respect to conceptual ideas, contrarian thinkers must be prepared to have their ideas assessed and evaluated against the rationale of science.

I admire David for presenting his opinions but I think that they are seriously flawed and are no more than mere opinion and certainly open to scientific examination.

Science starts with observations and attempted replication of the observations by other observers. When sufficient observations have been accumulated and semi-quantitatively analysed to determine frequencies of phenomenal occurrences and any repeatable patterns that become apparent, the scientist forms an explanatory hypothesis to explain the pattern that has been observed to frequently occur.
The hypothesis is then subjected to test by further observations conducted by scientifically validated observational techniques to derive measurable data upon which further “scientifically” controlled observational experiments can be conducted. The purpose of the scientific experiment is always to falsify the hypothesis not prove it. This is a fundamental tenet of all science.

Background to the Case.

Recent arguments on provenance of the concept and who did /did not use a “Free-Takeoff” have created a dense fog of misunderstanding, confusion, misinformation and mythology, plenty of heat yet focused very little light on what a “Free Takeoff” actually is!
Some ardent readers of PVP Advanced section, particularly long term pole vault students and practitioners like myself, are more than a tad peeved by David Bussabarger digging up hoary old chestnuts of ideas that have long been discarded as not particularly helpful in developing modern pole vaulting techniques. This current discussion continues to go in ever widening circles and never fully resolves the primary conceptual question “What is a “Free Take-off?”

By understanding the answer to this question I think a raft of technical solutions to the pole carry, approach run, pole plant, take-off, phase 1 and 2 of pole support, swing and inversion into the push off and bar clearance flow from the “Free Takeoff” concept (hypothesis) advocated in the Petrov / Bubka Technical Model of pole vaulting.

What do David Bussabarger’s arguments boil down to?

The crux of his concern, based on a number of unsubstantiated assertive claims, is that he personally does not find, nor can he find, the necessary and sufficient empirical or scientific evidence in the performances of modern pole vaulters to validate the concept of the “Free – Takeoff.”
He is particularly critical of this concept as proposed by Vitali Petrov and exemplified in the performances of Sergey Bubka in particular. Furthermore he asserts that few, if any, modern vaulters who have achieved greater than 5.80m clearances have used a “Free” takeoff. He suggests on this basis that the “Free Takeoff Hypothesis” is therefore a highly questionable concept (my parenthesis) on which to base successful coaching practice for elite vaulters.

On the other hand, the defendant in this case, Vitali Petrov has certainly told us what his concept of a “Free Takeoff” is, and he has communicated it in written form in a Russian Text and in many International Coaching Symposium Presentations.
He has engaged in discussion on this specific conceptual construct in numerous public coaching forums with his coaching peers in the former Soviet Union, Europe, the USA, Latin America and Australia. Petrov has communicated most effectively concerning this concept on the numerous occasions when he has hosted visits by coaches and their developing pole vaulters at his centre of practical coaching operations in Formia .

In Formia, Vitali Petrov has openly shared his experience, expertise and the practical wisdom he has learned by training and honing the skills and capacities an athlete requires for athletic excellence in pole vault performance.

This is a personal opinion is based on the fact that I have lived in Formia, along with the vaulters I have been coaching, and attended two World Championships alongside Petrov. This includes the IAAF World Championship in Paris in 2003 when Giuseppe Gibilisco won the competition. I might add that I had been living in Formia for 3 months in the lead up to 2003 World Championships where Vitali Petrov coached the two vaulters for whom I acted as personal coach in Australia and on the European Circuit.
(Note: This was my 4th residential visit to Formia where I had the privilege to observe, discuss and coach pole vault with Vitali Petrov as my mentor. I make this statement to inform readers that I have gained first-hand experience and knowledge of his coaching methodology and the rationale on which his practices are actually based rather than relying on third party hearsay evidence. I also publically acknowledge the possibility of me being regarded as a “Petrov Acolyte” to use Mr Bussabarger’s somewhat derogatory term. I assure PVP (the jury in this matter) that I do not perceive myself to be an acolyte but merely a student of the pole vault seeking knowledge and understanding based upon critical analysis of the experiences and information my studies have provided.)

Vitali Petrov has publically tested the efficacy of his ideas and methodology in the most rigorous way possible in “real test arenas of the World’s most prestigious competitions” for at least three decades, producing World and Olympic pole vault champions.

Petrov’s coaching methods and procedure have been widely adopted wholly or in part by other coaches whose athletes have also been successful in national and international competitions.

It is extraordinary that David Bussabarger chooses to ignore these decades of accumulated evidence that empirically demonstrate the efficacy of coaches and vaulters attempting to employ the “Free – Takeoff Concept” and steadfastly refuses to tell us what his personal understanding of the “Free-Takeoff” concept actually is or alternatively give us a competing hypothesis as to what he considers the ideal flexible pole vault takeoff criteria should be.

What David Bussabarger does find is vault take offs that are “out” or “under” with respect to a vertical line, between the top of the top grip hand and its intersection with the surface of the run way and the location of the toe tip of the takeoff propulsion leg, as the pole tip initially contacts the rear wall of the planting (slide) box.

From this simplistic idea he apparently makes a conclusion that “under” or “out” vaulting takeoffs can be functionally advantageous given idiosyncrasies of the vaulter’s style and individual vaulting characteristics.

He has followed this with a series of provocative assertions, some quite bizarre, to challenge the efficacy of coaches who accept and use the Concept of the Free Takeoff as a key pillar in their coaching methodology for developing pole vault technique.

It is quite legitimate for Mr Bussarbarger to question the applicability and validity of what is claimed to be an” Ideal Model working hypothesis “in developing an effective and relatively safe takeoff technique in flexible pole vaulting. He has put his statements into the public arena and must surely expect that his opinions will be put to the test. This is especially the case when the audience of the advanced section of PVP have been or are currently coaching world class male and female pole vaulters. Some of these readers will have had and will experience empirically the truth or fiction of David’s sweeping assertions. Some have already objected to his inaccurate interpretation in regard to the scientific method.

My response is to request David, to put up both the scientific and empirical evidence that actually falsifies the foundational tenet of modern (post 1980 to date) flexible pole vaulting takeoff technique as “Conceptualised as the “Free Takeoff” and exemplified in particular by Sergey Bubka and others.

Should he be able to do this he will have provided practitioner coaches around the world with new knowledge upon which to evolve pole vaulting technique to hitherto new altitude records.

As the case currently stands, PVP readers are left unsure whether this is because Mr Bussabarger believes the concept of the “Free Takeoff” is not being effectively applied and /or that it is ineffective or at best only minimally contributes to maximizing a particular vaulter’s potentially achievable cross bar clearance.

Mr Bussabarger has,so far, been unhelpful to readers of PVP because he has:

1. Shown no evidence of having viewed / reviewed the extant scientifically obtained data and recording of pole vaulting performance studied in pole vault competitions in IAAF World Championships and the Olympic Games
2. Lacked the courtesy to read at least some of the somewhat large quantum of material already argued over and distilled by many practitioner coaches and athletes currently engaged in vaulting discussion forums on PVP.
3. Ignored requests to clarify what the criteria are that he uses to judge what is a “Free Takeoff” as distinct from a “Non – Free” one.
4. Used scatter gun assertions, made no statement of hypothesis / hypotheses, no delimiting or defining of parameters that might be recorded and measured and used to bring scientific objectivity to the judgment and his critique generalisations relating to the “Free Takeoff Concept”.
5. Ducked reader’s questions by an appeal to personal authority when more than one respondent rose to the bait and took up his challenge.
6. Confused us by stating we can scientifically prove an hypothesis – Karl Popper I think had it correct when he produced strong philosophical argument which concludes that in science we can only test the evidence, gathered from empirical observation, to declare an hypothesis to be FALSE or continue in our BELIEF in the hypothesis when NO EVIDENCE can be found that OBJECTIVELY FALSIFIES it.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Albert Einstein

Most of what David Bussabarger has had to say on the matter of the “Free Takeoff” can be disputed when one asks a fundamental question of the vaulter, coach or the trained observer as the key witnesses in the case of any actual vault performance.

For the vaulter

“What is the vaulter’s gold standard for their efforts in executing the Take-off Component in the chain of sequentially ordered movement phases in the pole vaulting process?”
For the coach

“What is the ideal takeoff action of the vaulter to maximize effective energy /momentum transfer from the preceding run and planting action and produce the optimum conditions to subsequently translate and rotate the vaulter and pole system of connected pendulums to the vertical plane of the crossbar?”[/b
]
For the trained observer

[b]“What position do you see the vaulter in as their takeoff foot toe – tip is just about to break runway contact and whether, at this time, the pole is straight or already bending in the intended direction of travel towards the plane of the cross bar?”


The case to be answered.

The fundamental tenet of the “Free Takeoff” is that it is the optimal form of flexible pole vault jumping takeoff for all pole vaulters using this sports implement within the constraints of the rules of competition.

This is the foundational belief that has to be tested by the empirical evidence. The concept was first enunciated by Vitali Petrov in English translation in Birmingham, England in 1985.

At that same occasion and place an alternative concept involving the deliberate intention of ”power –vaulters” to actively bend the pole with the left arm was presented by Maurice Houvion of France. Houvion in discussing the “under” and “out” continuum range in the take-off observed being used by elite vaulters of that era conceded;

“It is, however, noticeable that it is more and more common for the best vaulter’s to take off at distance, the result of research and the development of speed-spring techniques.”

Cited from Howard Payne(Ed), Athletes in Action. The Official International Amateur Athletic Federation Book On Track and Field techniques (IAAF Development Programme Book No 5).Published By Pelham Books; 1985. (page 137).

Optimal efficiency in the takeoff is by definition personalised to match the physical capacities, stature, anthropometric of body segments, level of technical proficiency in executing and timing of the pole plant of the particular vaulter as well as to the environmental factors beyond the control of the vaulter.

With this in mind David could you please explain, with respect to the specific examples presented to you in the video extracts and the illustrations below, why these are not valid observations of the phenomenon of a “Free Take-off?”

http://youtu.be/v9Ne--kuMUU
http://youtu.be/MHGFpk9fx7U
http://youtu.be/Wpsf3DzzC7k
http://youtu.be/JioDULPZd38
http://youtu.be/qFW0r7WwX3Y
http://youtu.be/-TWAbc5TdpM
http://youtu.be/5c6LAvjAE2M

Bubka takeoff diagram free take-off , 6.oom jump Paris 1985..jpg (50.56 KiB) Viewed 14314 times

Feofanova Plant Torques 5.jpg (64.5 KiB) Viewed 14314 times

Free Take-off by 13 year old girl.jpg (81.21 KiB) Viewed 14314 times

Secondly can you explain why the mathematical and biomechanical rationale of the free take-off is a priori false?

Thirdly could you please give us your interpretation of the “Gold Standard” that all vaulters should aspire to and thereby achieve an optimal takeoff?

Fourthly would you explain, from your perspective, how it is that Bubka could be so critical of his own efforts in setting a World Record of 6.00 metres if he did not possess a clear intentional goal and have some knowledge of the means by which it could be achieved with respect to his idea (concept) of the optimum takeoff?

“My jump was imperfect, my run up was too short and my hands were too far back at takeoff. When I manage to iron out these faults, I am sure I can improve.”
Source: Sergey Bubka, Paris,1985 shortly after becoming the first person to clear the 6.00m barrier in pole vault.

I look forward to your considered and specific answers to my questions because I am hoping that my knowledge and understanding of how to become a better coach of pole vault technique will be improved by the responses you provide. By being specific to the examples provided your responses will be less likely to be misunderstood because we the readers and yourself will all be operating on the same page.

Thank you for your contribution to pole vaulting in the past and looking forward to some 21st century enlightenment as to why ''The Free Take-off " concept is so misguided as a fundamental tenet of flexible pole vaulting coaching.

[altius]

I hope folk will forgive me for dealing with two topics in the one post – trust it does not get too confusing!

The first is the issue rasied by Nick when he says “I think only in the online community is the P/B model the prevailing theory to be honest), “ I suspect that the ‘online community’ - at least as far as PVP is concerned - has shrunk considerably over the past few months as ‘real’ coaches have been turned off by the unending theoretical and arcane debate about issues that are long settled in their minds. Just an opinion but I know my enthusiasm for reading posts here has dropped off considerably. Thank goodness that John has brought some real science to the matters in question.

However I believe large numbers of coaches are beavering away and attempting to use the fundamental principles of the Petrov/Bubka model. I have certainly met several on this trip and I know of many more across the country. There are two problems – In the first place as I have said many times, there are a lot of excellent coaches in the USA – there are just not enough of them; and realistically the gap will never be filled with people who want to become serious students of this event.

The second point is that innovation proceeds very slowly in any field of education. There is still a huge gap between what researchers established about the importance of “Time on task” or “Academic learning time” in the late 1970’s and the behavious of the vast majority of physical education teachers and coaches at all levels and across all sports. My book on games teaching was published in 2001 but I will bet that only a tiny percentage of US PE teachers know it exists. A major factor here is that in both cases folk MUST feel competent when they meet a class or a training group. They MUST present as knowledgeable professionals in that situation – even if they have some idea that this is not the case. Unfortunately since they are almost invariably working with students who know even less- it is easy for them to begin to believe that they really are experts –with little more to learn. Few can walk away from a situation and reflect analytically on their performance – in the way that well prepared teachers and coaches will do. Ego is always a problem – and here it it worth remembering the thoughts of Giovanni Lanaro – who after spending 10 days with me at Formia working with Petrov posted on PVP “When you go to Formia you check your ego at the gate”. He did it with great success but clearly many cannot.

In this I was very fortunate – in a way that meant that when I met Petrov (even after already studying with Houvion, Krupsky and Krysinski) – and having some relative success as a vault coach - I was willing and able to open my mind to his revolutionary ideas. Why was this? Well apart from two years in the Royal Navy where you quickly learn that the sun does NOT shine out of one of YOUR orifices and anyway you don’t know enough to know how little you know – even as the first lieutenant of a minesweeper – in 1959 I met Alan Wade the FA Director Coaching (soccer for you Amuricans) . At that time I thought I was a star – I was a good player – and had had success teaching and coaching the game. The first 2 hours of a two week course shattered any illusions I had about my expertise and I decided I had better start learning something about this game. This meant that when I meant Vitaly I was ready to learn something from him and from Bubka. I had an EPIPHANY -unfortunately This is not a common occurrence.

THE SECOND QUESTION is whether or not Bubka knew what he was doing form a technical point of view. Amazing really. We have folk who have never met Petrov or Bubka telling us exactly what they said or did and now we have someone even saying that Bubka did not really know what he was doing!!!! Of course all high level skilled performance is an example of non conscious behavior BUT almost all great performers not only “know in their actions” (SEE Donal Schon – “The Reflective Practitioner), they also “know in reflection” in other words they fully understand why they do what they do and how they do ut. The appointment of Kidd to a head coaching position in the NBA reflects this reality.

So I have to tell you folks –as someone who has spent some time discussing these issues with Sergey –two hours in Munich in 1990 for example – I can assure you he knew what he was doing and why he did it. Anyone who has read his paper on his technique will know that, as will anyone who was in Kingston, Jamaica to listen to him answer questions on vault issues. Note especially the issue of the ‘pre jump’ that I raised with him and is discussed in BTB where he clearly knew what he was attempting to do – he clearly knew how difficult it was to execute and that he had only managed it a few times in his career. TheN consider how he resolved the situation in 1988 without help from his coach. Sounds like a guy who knew precisely what he was doing!

Finally – how can anyone believe that a PROFESSIONAL like Sergey – likely the next president of the IAAF – would have not considered every aspect of the business that was going to ensure the financial security of his family. COME ON! GET REAL!

But carry on chaps. Ladies gossiping over the back fence rarely worry about the truth or facts – so why should you consider them as you post of pvp. One thing you CAN be sure of = the number of folk reading this stuff is declining rapidly.

[KirkB]

... the issue of the ‘pre jump’ that I raised with him and is discussed in BTB where he clearly knew what he was attempting to do – he clearly knew how difficult it was to execute and that he had only managed it a few times in his career. ...

EDIT: I have removed the remainder of my reply here, and put it in the "What is your ideal takeoff point" thread here: http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27151&p=185100#p185100).

Sorry for any confusion, and sorry, PVStudent, for getting off on a tangent.

I join you in hoping that this "ideal technique" thread can focus on the specific debate between Bussabarger and yourself, et al, and anything DIRECTLY related to THAT.

I really appreciate that PVStudent is presenting his data using the "scientific method", and I'm hopeful that Bussabarger will be responding in kind - particularly since it was Bussabarger that implored the Petrov Model pundits to present their evidence of the superiority of their model in scientific terms.

Kirk

[PVstudent]

Gentlemen, could we not get drawn into the debate on the pre-jump issue in this thread.

I believe I can provide evidence based answers to Kirk's questions in regard to the mechanical rationale and physics involved in the pre-jump. Perhaps anyone interested could suggest the most appropriate thread where I should do so.

I also have, hitherto unpublished,force platform recordings evidence of a Pre-Jump performed by an Australian vaulter PJ clearing a height of 4.80m. PJ's personal best jump in competition was 5.40m. I can also publish video of a scientifically recorded example of a pre-jump performed in the IAAF World Junior Championship in 1986.

I am prepared to provide my explanation and publish the pre-jump recording on PVP but not in this thread.

I will not do so until we have had David Bussabarger's responses to my very specific questions and the examples I provided in my response to the opening address he used to start this thread.

I await David 's responses to my questions with genuine interest because I am open to being persuaded of the error of my coaching belief and experience practicing the art of coaching the pole vault take-off based on "The Free-Take-off Concept".

[altius]

Apologies for the mixup but I have neither the time nor the energy to fix it.

...

If a free takeoff is a mere millimeter (or thereabouts) off the ground and a pre-jump is something much more substantive than that (e.g. Fefanova's technique), why does Agapit say that anything more than a mere millimeter is inefficient? Or why does Bubka (via Altius) say that a pre-jump would be even better than a free takeoff?

Again, I'm not trying to stir the pot here at all, I'm merely trying to get to the truth of the matter. BULLDUST!

Kirk - I am becoming more and more convinced that you re in fact what we in OZ call a ----stirrer. For some strange reason trying to cause a rift between Roman and my self -or worse still trying to dent one or other of our credibility. Carry on. You won't achieve the former and I doubt too many people will take much notice of your attempts at the latter. Take heed of vaultman18's comments.

I suppose my question is pointed more towards Agapit, but I expect that Altius will be the one to answer, since he appears to be more vocal on PVD - or even PVP - than his friend of late. If you want to call Roman I can give you his number - I can tell you he is sick of amateur theorists and is not interested in contributing to PVP because of it.

Yes I will answer because I have stated very clearly my interpretation of the free take off and the pre jump - a term I coined after meeting Petrov in 1986 after listening to his description of a free take off = in BTB2. However the fact is that - AGAIN - you have clearly not read the chapter on the take off in BTB -or for that matter any of the posts in which I described/defended the notion on PVP years ago. For you would never have found "One millimetre" mentioned. For me the real characteristic of a free take off - is that the pole is not loaded at the instant the vaulter leaves the ground -this means that the athlete CAN still be in contact with the ground at that instant. The pre jump occurs when the athlete IS in the air BEFORE the athlete leaves the ground - that is what Sergey was referring to in Jamaica - when he indicated he managed it a few times - He was always trying for that but usually had to settle for a free take off.

And sometimes his spokesperson. Again attempting to stir the pot. Never HIS spokesperson - always a friend with whom I discuss a whole range of issues - but always happy to be Vitali's spokesperson. A role he publicly thanked me for undertaking on the state of Reno Hilton a few years ago.

Please try reading the book - you might learn what I really think, on all of the issues you continue to pursue with some level of ignorance.

Kirk

[david bussabarger]

First, I fully admit that I confused the term free-take off when I should have said pre-jump. This error was stated in T.C. 202. Empirical evidence, not theory, shows that vaulters such as Markov,Tarasov and Bubka ( and Issakson ) got oustanding results using a free-take off. However, I still asert that no elite vaulter successfully emplys a pre-jump because it is tantamount to jumping on the pole and therefore a mechanically unsound concept. Futher, Empirical evidence shows that many elite vaulters typically take off under. By under I mean that the majority of the take off foot is ahead of the vertical plane of the top hand when the vaulter is in a vertically aligned position before leaving the ground. 6m or better vaulters such as Mack, Stevenson,Lobinger and Otto all typically take off about 1ft under. Galifione, Ecker and


I readily admit that I used the term free-take off in several of my articles in T.C., when I should have used the term pre-jump. A correction of this error was printed in T.C. 202 at the end of my article on Wald. Kozak., another of those countless vaulters with inferior or faulty technique according to the Petrov/Bubka THEORY. Again I state that proof in science is based on empirical evidence. The theory of evolution was developed by Darwin based on an exacting and large scale study of wild life in the Galapados islands. In otherwords on observational evidence of the real world. Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding by studying the light shifts of thousands of galaxies. This lead directly to the development of the big bang theory ( a theory that Einstien inially rejected ). Again, science based on real world empirical observational evidence. When Einstien developed his theory of relativity by using thought experiments and mathimatics, it had to be proven using the empirical method before it was accepted as a valid theory. The fact that this theory still stands today is because it continues to pass empirical testing.
But what do all the expert coaches that believe in the b/p theory base their beliefs on? Certainly not real world empirical evidence ( other than the singular success of Bubka ). They chose to ignore all the great vaulters over the years who did not fit into the P/b theory ( as well as the success of countless vaulters today who do not fit the theory ). They are all branded as inferfer or faulty technicians ( including that great technician Lavillenie ). This is not SCIENCE, it is irrationality.
















































brits

[david bussabarger]

Note, my computer did something weird and I lost the text that shows up as the first paragragh in my 1st post, so I started again from stratch. Sorry about any confusion.

[PVstudent]

Thank you for this response and admitting confusion in regard to the terms Free Take-Off and Pre-Jump.

However, I am still in doubt concerning your claims regarding even free take-offs. Could you address my examples and my specific questions related to them?

All the examples, I hope we agree, provide forms of empirical evidence of pole vaulting take-offs which may or may not be "Free-Take-offs".

It will be most helpful if in your responses you identify which you think are free-take-offs and answer my specific questions.

The "what is science?" is a red herring as far as I am concerned.

That debate takes us away from the central issue of ideal models of technique and in particular the foundational tenet of pole vaulting with flexible poles espoused in the "Petrov-Buka conceptual construct The Free-Take-off."

David if your central argument is that to achieve an optimal result individual vaulters and their coaches made/make personalised adaptation in the take-off technique, we agree they most certainly do and (my opinion also) rightly so. However this is not what your critique and challenge communicated!

If the foundational tenet of the Free-Take-off is falsified on the basis of empirical evidence then the belief in its efficacy as a guiding principle in making the pole vault take-off as efficient as humanly possible is demonstrated to have been false.

If however there is a single example, that we conclusively agree, demonstrates that a human can produce a Free Take-off then there
is good, but not necessarily strong reason, to maintain the belief.

I believe there is both empirical and scientific evidence to support the claim as to the "efficiency" the vaulter achieves in the "Free Take-off."

This is what I understood, from your opening communication, in this thread, you were criticizing.

Boiled down to its essence your statement makes the claim that the "Free- Take-off" as espoused in the Petrov coaching methodology and realized in the performance of Sergey Bubka was non-optimal as a guiding principle on which flexible pole users in pole vaulting, at the elite level, should attempt to achieve when executing the take-off!
(This of course is my belief based on the wording used and in the knowledge, as you stated, of David Bussabarger playing Devil's Advocate!)


I agree Villenie is a superb technition , have a close look at his recent take-offs. Even to my biased perceptions he is getting very close to performing a more efficient takeoff. But with the French School Model of using flexible poles he is not like to be able, when he assuredly will have to increase pole stiffness, to use his gymnastic ability to offset for having to take off so far out due to the limitation imposed by his stature and anthropomorphic characteristics. His athleticism is also superb. We shall see how he copes with the much larger angle that the total vaulter pole system has to negotiate due to his take-off location with respect to the rear wall of the planting box and increased pole stiffness.

So David, could you please answer my questions in regard to the empirical evidence provided in my first response to you and explain why the Free-Take-off concept is False, especially when you admit there are examples of Free- Take-offs occurring in the past and I would contend in some male and female elite vaulters currently competing.

[IAmTheWalrus]

The theory of evolution was developed by Darwin based on an exacting and large scale study of wild life in the Galapados islands. In otherwords on observational evidence of the real world. Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding by studying the light shifts of thousands of galaxies. This lead directly to the development of the big bang theory ( a theory that Einstien inially rejected ). Again, science based on real world empirical observational evidence. When Einstien developed his theory of relativity by using thought experiments and mathimatics, it had to be proven using the empirical method before it was accepted as a valid theory. The fact that this theory still stands today is because it continues to pass empirical testing.

There is a difference between observing what "is", such as evolution, or cosmic background radiation, and what "is best." With the pole vault we are dealing with optimization, and as such, the natural tendency of imperfect humans cannot be assumed to be the optimal course of action. With pole vault technique, one must play devil's advocate, as you are attempting to do, in order to progress. However, you are going about it the wrong way. The sample size of P/B vaulter's (or any other model you wish to examine) must be increased and analyzed. You are saying that elite vaulters don't follow the p/b model. Well let's get a few to start and see how their performance changes. I think a better analogy would be engineering, not science. We see what vaulters are doing, but the question is how do get them to perform better? Perhaps a 19' vaulter with a a free takeoff would be a 20' vaulter. Perhaps a 6m vaulter that tucks would be a 6.20m vaulter if he didn't. There will be no improvement, however, if you declare the current state as ideal. You can observe plants utilizing sunlight to create energy, but you can create solar panels.

Again, I'm not arguing that the p/b model, or the free takeoff is ideal. I encourage you and anyone to attempt to challenge the accepted models and try to improve upon them. However I am arguing that your observation of vaulter's who have found success (none have found success that is close to Bubka's 35+ times over 6m) utilizing different models invalidates the petrov model. It invites discussion (voila) and begs several question, but it only supports the following hypothesis: "Vaulters can jump 5.80m without utilizing the P/B model, but cannot jump 6.10m or higher." Good news for aspiring elites, but a small help in trying to set another world record.