Is this supposed to be "science"?
I don't see any science there at all. Is there a model? Sure, I guess, floating around somewhere in there. Is there some ideal that is being worked toward as a goal? Certainly. Is it "scienctific"? Hardly.
That the PB model never worked with gravity vector analysis tells me everything I need to know. It was quasi scientific. Or it was scientific in some areas, say on take off analysis where it could stop frame the analysis, but not on others where its adherents made and continue to make claims about methods of performance based on results. That, "The results speak for themselves", you guys do understand is at best a tautology, right? Or is in fact one continually used as a logical fallacy that is at almost all times used to justify the minutia of technique and analysis here. Gentlemen, it just doesn't work that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct ... evolutionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_scienceI've seen little to no science concerning the PB Model, and what I have has been suspect from box energy considerations to the real world problem of take off variance. Petrov was rightly worried about the hips being thrown forward, but for what reason? What scientific reason? As far as I know it never appeared until I came along...
One of the problems I have is that in knowing something about Soviet history I know it was rife with problems where politics trumped scientific thinking. They had repeated "scientific" disasters because they would favor party sycophants over better scientists. Did this occur with Petrov? Maybe. Maybe not. What is never argued is that he got results. The coaching method worked. But politically, since he got results was there a movement to take everything he said in regards to physics as true and correct? I think so. It is not to be taken as a given that his coaching approach, which again DID yield results AND a paradigm shift, means that he gets carte blanche as a
scientific author, without reproach. There is a difference, a BIG difference between being a good PV/Sports coach and being a scientist with a grasp of physics, mechanics, and math.
There is also here, a continual move and counter move to say, "Well that's intuitive." I could say it about his take off methodology, and express it as, "Don't get bound up in your take off." Science!
I've applied science, gravity vector analysis, to the swing giving an explanation for why such things as the double leg offer a certain advantage. This may have been known, but no one that I have seen applied scientific reasoning, that is worked out with scientific terms, that is under the well established laws of science, regarding the CoM mass relation to the swing velocity and its effect on the pole.
(a) Could you please share with us what you believe to be the invariant elements without which a successful pole vault clearance cannot be made?
(b) How do you coach/teach the introduction to the take-off to beginners and address the criteria you use to determine the “limits” of safely allowable variation when assessing the learner’s attempts at take-off? What criteria do you use to decide a learner’s readiness to increase the number of steps in the run up and to judge the amount to raise the grip length on the pole?
(c) In coaching an intermediate to advanced level pole vaulter what technical method of inversion do you coach and why do you coach that method? When working this same element of the vault would you coach male and female vaulters of this standard to attempt the same method? On the other hand if you teach/coach each vaulter at this level according to their individual capacity and ability, how do you make this assessment and then what criteria do you apply in deriving a method of inversion tailored to suit the specific individual?
a) The vault pole system has to reach a particular energy to time relation based on the chord and its angular velocity along with the position and speed of the CoM. This is to say that the CoM path is bounded during compression. Once that state is reached, all the vaulter has to do is cover. The invert is still effective of pole energy state, chord change, etc., which is why having the CoM out away from the pendulum fulcrum where gravity can drain from the CoMs angular momentum and energy, and where you spend more time with a slower swinging longer lever and thus less time with the CoM/gravity compressive moment on the pole seems like a really bad idea. There is a relationship still with the path of the CoM to the decompressing pole. Again with the CoM having a relation to gravity and the pole contact effecting its decompression rate and chord change.
Is that scientific enough for you guys? Or perhaps too scientific...
b) I start with extremely low grips and use my eye and apply some coaching art to make an on the fly judgement about their energy state. Is the pole moving fast enough? Are they landing in the safe zone? Increments toward maximizing grip height are generally small. One does need to note here that when bend starts that the progress is not linear. This is to say, at a point when elevating hand height on longer poles and using bend, it actually shortens the chord. This is to say there is, in most cases, a "no mans land" with grip height on poles, at least for those of us without a lot of poles...
c)I try to extend the vaulters natural proclivities to the model. Not to take off, as it has a static model, but to swing and inversion. I can see no reason to worry about gender, at all. Since no vaulter reaches actually reaches any ideal model, concessions must be made. Trade offs. Scientifically again this is because the compression phase has boundary limits, but as there are several factors that go into reaching the passing state, there are options to get there. This is the nature of complex systems in terms of system dynamics as we know them today with chaos studies. I have a vaulter that naturally wants to tuck. I can work to slow and extend their swing phase. I have another that has a natural beautiful long extended swing, so I intend to work to make that longer and smoother. I saw another kid who had a natural double leg, and 11 sec speed. I coulda made that kid a star. But he was with another coach already progressed in his career. I said nothing...
So here was my problem. I saw some science with the PB model, and in other areas, well, I can't call it anything but anti-science. The box energy problem. Idealization of the take off to real world take off variance. A complete lack of concern for the gravity vectors relation to the Com In chord shortening as well as for the relation to swing speed deceleration and energy loss in the swing to gravity. That the model is really limited itself to idea and then data points, and where again I call it a linearization method to a complex curve problem. It wasn't wrong in every area. Far from it. But it's adherents, without a deeper understanding of physics, have failed to see its ultimate limitations. It appears RL has forced a bit of a paradigm shift, at least as far as swing mechanics go.
Will
P.S. for good measure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science