Tuck/Shoot v. Petrov Model - Intermediate Technique

[KirkB]

3P0, I've copied your quote from the Beginner's forum thread on this topic, so that we can talk about it at the Intermediate level, as I think we got too "advanced" there. I've left all your paragraphs intact, but chopped them up so I can respond to them one by one ...

Geez.... my .02- ... Ok.... so lets say an experienced vaulter is blowing through his biggest pole. Obviously he has two options to progress, either go up a pole and go up in grip.

You forgot two other viable options: (a) shorten your run, so that you don't hit the takeoff with quite as much speed; and (b) LOWER your grip.

If he is a petrov vaulter, and is able to swing long the entire vault, going up a pole and keeping the same grip will make covering the pole harder. So.... he raises his grip, making the pole feel softer. Once blowing through, he can then go up a pole and the pole will not feel as stiff, and he can still "catch the ride". Incrementally he may have increased his push off a little by going up a pole, but he has also raised his grip. This is my interpretation of how a petrov vaulter would progress. The only way he could go up a pole without raising grip would be to increase the inversion speed (while staying long, as petrovians require).

Yes, keeping the same grip will "make covering the pole harder". So Petrovians have a couple choices ... (a) swing FASTER; or (b) move the standards in a bit. I prefer (a).

There's been countless vaulters describing this predicament on PVP ... maybe more beginners than intermediates ... but the advice that RainbowGirl and myself (and I'm sure several others) have consistently given is that you should NOT raise your grip when you go to a bigger pole. The reason is that you then have TWO variables to get used to (the higher grip and the stiffer pole) rather than just one.

In my personal experience ... and I'm talking about progressing from 14-3 thru 17-6 at UW ... I never once found it useful to raise my grip on a pole in order to slow down the pole speed or get a higher pushoff. In practice, it's quite the opposite ... you'll crush the pole even more ... and land even DEEPER into the pit ... and your pushoff will be LESS than before. If you have no stiffer pole to go to, your best option in this situation is to LOWER your grip (or shorten your run) ... and get a better, more fluent, more "continuous motion" swing ... that's going to allow you to invert earlier ... and shoot off the top of the pole faster/better. Once you improve this TECHNIQUE (it's all in the timing!), THEN (and only then) you can raise your grip.

Now a tuck and shooter.... blows through a pole. He knows that he can safely raise his grip OR go up a pole, because in order to invert on the next pole, all he has to do is tuck a little more which increases his swing speed, and he can get on the next pole. Raising his grip does much less for him, because he has no trouble covering the pole, and it essentially just makes his pole softer (in most cases). So he goes up a pole, gets a bigger push off, but everytime he blows through he keeps his grip the same and tucks more. The only reason to raise your grip would be if you could not invert quickly enough to catch the vault. therefore with less energy put into the pole but with the ability to invert quicker than petrov vaulters, they hold lower and push higher than their petrov counterparts.

I have less to say about this alternative, since I can't draw on my personal experience. You say "all he has to do is tuck a little more". But what if he's already tucking as much as he humanly can?

You say "with less energy put into the pole". Do you mean compared to Petrovians? I say that tuck/shooters put MORE energy into the pole than Petrovians (for the reason that I explained in my last post on the Beginner's forum ... here ... http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=17776&start=12

You say they "hold lower and push higher than their petrov counterparts". If so, then how do you explain Duplantis? Are you suggesting that he's a tuck/shooter? His lack of bottom arm push AND his fantastically fast and powerful swing definitely put him in the Petrov category. You won't see tuck/shooters doing that! While tuck/shooters are making their pole bend more (at the expense of their swing speed), Duplantis is doing the opposite.

In the end, the more energy you put into the pole, the higher you will vault. It's hard to argue that a petrov vaulter does not have the ability to add more energy into the vault, they just need to hold higher and have more core strength to swing long.

Nope. There's a HUGE difference between putting energy into the POLE and putting energy into the VAULT. You speak of these two disparate techniques as if they're synonomous. They're not!

Tuck/shooters can put more energy into the POLE (compared to Petrovians), but Petrovians can put more energy into the VAULTER-POLE SYSTEM!

Let's break this down a bit ... again ... [sigh] ...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bubka can perform the Petrov Model and the Tuck/Shoot "model" equally well. (He can't, of course.) He has the same runway speed, and the same power on his takeoff. Let's ignore the fact that there's certain things that Petrov demands he does on the runway, plant and takeoff. So let's just assume that whether he's performing one model or the other, everything "on the ground" is identical.

Now ... he's at a decision point ... he can block out his bottom arm to put more energy into the pole (and less into his swing), or he can do the opposite. This is where the 2 models differ the most!

Let's go Tuck/Shoot first. He blocks out, and doesn't swing as hard or as fast (a consequence of blocking out). Is he adding energy to the pole? Yes! Is he adding energy to his swing? No! He's actually SLOWING DOWN his swing! So much so that he has to "row" or "muscle up" to keep his rotational speed going ... and "fight" against the coil/recoil of the pole.

Not let's go Petrov. He lets his top arm take all the energy (momentum) from his run/takeoff, and he swings long/hard ... using his top arm as a fulcrum. His body is now a pendulum ... swinging about the top hand as the pole rotates about the box. This is the DOUBLE-PENDULUM ... true of bamboo/steel vaulters, and true of Petrovians. Is he adding energy to the pole! Yes ... but not as much as when he tucks/shoots. After takeoff, the DISTRIBUTION of his energy is different!

As he swings, he's not only adding SOME energy to the POLE (albeit less than the tuck/shooter), but he's also speeding up his rotational speed about his top hand ... by his WHIPPING action ... thus adding MORE energy to his SWING. As a result, he gets inverted SOONER ... and has no trouble staying with the coil/uncoil of the pole ... so he can continue his "continuous motion" right thru his extension ... without any pause in the tuck position. He doesn't even need to "row" or "muscle up" at all ... he SWINGS upside down! He's "one with the pole"!

Do you get it now?

Kirk

[IAmTheWalrus]

This seems way too black and white to me.

THE Petrov model is technical model describing an exact sequence of movements. Each part of the vault from run up until bar clearance is included in the model, and differing from the model at any stage leads to a non-Petrovian vault.

Tucking and shooting is not a technical model, but merely a term used to describe the top end of a vault in which the vaulter prematurely ends in swing to instead tuck his/her knees to their chest and perform a hip extension up the pole.

The tuck and shoot is not a model with rules, and has no specifications on the any other aspects of the vault. Other technical models may employ the tuck and shoot, just as other models may employ a straight trail leg, or even a free takeoff.

Also, because of the generality of the tuck and shoot, it is unfair to make claims on what a T&S vaulter intends to do. I tuck and shoot, but I am a petrovian vaulter by intent. The tuck and shoot is often a result rather than an intention. I think comparing the Drive Model with the Petrov model would be a more fair comparison. Comparing the Petrov model with the tuck and shoot is like comparing the Waltz (specific dance) with Break dancing (used to describe a plethora of crazzzzy dance moves).


*Side note - its also worth mentioning that many people don't intuitively see the benefit of a straight trail leg, as the focus solely on rotational velocity without taking into account the additional energy into the pole from a straight trail leg. Such people may coach or perform a tuck and shoot top end even if the vaulter has a free takeoff with no blocking

I'm bringing this over from the beginner's forum, I think the points are still valid, mainly that the tuck & shoot is not a technical model, and is exclusive to the top end of the vault.

[KirkB]

... I think the points are still valid, mainly that the tuck & shoot is not a technical model, and is exclusive to the top end of the vault.

Fair enough.

So I'm including the blocking of the bottom arm as part of the tuck/shoot, whereas you're not. Fair enough.

And my previous comments on the Beginner's forum agree with your points here ... that it's not a well-documented technical model ... it has lots of variants ... and so on. I lumped it in with the Drive Model and the American Model. Tim McMichael has done a fine job of defining that model on his Oklahoma Manifesto thread ... but elsewhere it's not very well defined ... even tho lots and lots (the majority!) of Americans do it ... in one variant or another.

I even agree with you that many vaulters that INTEND to follow Petrov don't succeed ... and end up tucking their legs ... pausing ... and shooting. This MIGHT (or might not) be because they block out with their bottom arm.

However ... I'm particularly referring to vaulters that block out BY INTENT ... and tuck/shoot BY INTENT.

So now that we have that all straight ... is there anything else that you see differently than I do?

Kirk

[KirkB]

... many people don't intuitively see the benefit of a straight trail leg, as the focus solely on rotational velocity without taking into account the additional energy into the pole from a straight trail leg. Such people may coach or perform a tuck and shoot top end even if the vaulter has a free takeoff with no blocking

This is a separate topic ... a long trail leg gives you both rotational velocity AND more energy into the pole.

If a vaulter "has a free takeoff with no blocking" then I can't imagine why in the world they'd find it necessary to tuck/shoot.

It's a bad combination that is definitely not recommended by Petrov ... and makes no sense.

As far as I can tell, tuck/shooters tend to become tuck/shooters as a result of "being under" and "loading the pole before takeoff". I've never heard of anyone "loading the pole before takeoff" that doesn't block out. How can they load the pole if they don't block out? Being "under" kills your swing just as much as "blocking out". So they don't fall into the "free takeoff" or "no blocking" category.

Who are "these people"? I'd like to chat with them!

Kirk

[vault3rb0y]

Do you get it now?

Kirk[/quote]


....alright lets clear some things up and then id like some explaination on others.

You forgot two other viable options: (a) shorten your run, so that you don't hit the takeoff with quite as much speed; and (b) LOWER your grip.

Yes, keeping the same grip will "make covering the pole harder". So Petrovians have a couple choices ... (a) swing FASTER; or (b) move the standards in a bit. I prefer (a).

mute point.... but i said "in order to progess" in terms of overal goals in the vault- moving a pole to vertical with the highest grip hieght+differential. I was talking about a vaulter in a good position off the ground and with an optimal grip hieght. Overall in the vault, you MUST raise your grip or go up poles to go higher. Lowering your grip to go higher means you are not at your optimal grip. Also, i am assuming technical changes only- not physical changes like swinging faster. Otherwise i could say run faster and be stronger as well.

There's been countless vaulters describing this predicament on PVP ... maybe more beginners than intermediates ... but the advice that RainbowGirl and myself (and I'm sure several others) have consistently given is that you should NOT raise your grip when you go to a bigger pole. The reason is that you then have TWO variables to get used to (the higher grip and the stiffer pole) rather than just one.

Exactly... more beginners than intermediates. And if you are at an optimal grip hieght on one pole, ideally you must go up a pole and proportionally raise your grip on the next pole to reach optimal grip. Again.... otherwise you are not as technically sound as possible. "Swing faster" is not a solution if you are maximizing ability. Also, as you noted it is all about the TIMING in the vault- the best way to preserve that timing would be to inch your grip incrementally up on each pole you go up. This would only be for vaulters at their optimal grips however, and i would not suggest it to any vaulters if i were to coach them.

At this point it's important to note that i am talking in hypotheticals to give reference to what happens biomechanically in an ideal tuck and shoot vs/ petrov jump. You mention that most vaulters tuck and shoot because they are under.... well that is certainly not their intent in the jump, as Nick noted, until they are off the ground, both techniques are identical.

In my personal experience ... and I'm talking about progressing from 14-3 thru 17-6 at UW ... I never once found it useful to raise my grip on a pole in order to slow down the pole speed or get a higher pushoff. In practice, it's quite the opposite ... you'll crush the pole even more ... and land even DEEPER into the pit ... and your pushoff will be LESS than before. If you have no stiffer pole to go to, your best option in this situation is to LOWER your grip (or shorten your run) ... and get a better, more fluent, more "continuous motion" swing ... that's going to allow you to invert earlier ... and shoot off the top of the pole faster/better. Once you improve this TECHNIQUE (it's all in the timing!), THEN (and only then) you can raise your grip.

I never said it would give you a higher push off. I said that (or at least i tried to say that) if you are swinging as fast as possible, and your timing is perfect on a given pole, going up a pole would require a shortening of the axis in order to be in line as it recoils. This is why your personal experience does not relate to my situation. If you are not at your optimal grip, then yes you should go up a pole and not raise your grip. However this is misleading because unless you swing long and "petrovian" in the vault, you can tuck even unconciously to time up the vault. Have you ever gone up a pole (had a good take off) and not been able to invert quick enough with a long trail leg? If yes, your solutions are either to tuck and shoot, or to raise your grip (again im ruling out swinging faster, because im assuming you are already swinging as fast as possible). If no you have not ever had this problem, then you have not been on stiff enough poles before, or you tuck and shoot everytime you cannot invert on a stiffer pole.

I have less to say about this alternative, since I can't draw on my personal experience. You say "all he has to do is tuck a little more". But what if he's already tucking as much as he humanly can?

Exactly my point.... all he has to do is tuck a little more to time up the vault, and when he gets on a big enough pole, their technique is maximized and they must rely on bumping up grip to go higher, while the patient petrov vaulter has preserved his long swing and not been on a pole so stiff he cannot invert on it, but rather raises his grip to allow his technique to still hold up on a bigger pole.



Enough with those shananigans... lets get to a place where i can learn something--

You say "with less energy put into the pole". Do you mean compared to Petrovians? I say that tuck/shooters put MORE energy into the pole than Petrovians

I disagree, but am open to hear everything you have to say. I will put it all in one quote so i dont distort the message-

Nope. There's a HUGE difference between putting energy into the POLE and putting energy into the VAULT. You speak of these two disparate techniques as if they're synonomous. They're not!

Tuck/shooters can put more energy into the POLE (compared to Petrovians), but Petrovians can put more energy into the VAULTER-POLE SYSTEM!

Let's break this down a bit ... again ... [sigh] ...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bubka can perform the Petrov Model and the Tuck/Shoot "model" equally well. (He can't, of course.) He has the same runway speed, and the same power on his takeoff. Let's ignore the fact that there's certain things that Petrov demands he does on the runway, plant and takeoff. So let's just assume that whether he's performing one model or the other, everything "on the ground" is identical.

Now ... he's at a decision point ... he can block out his bottom arm to put more energy into the pole (and less into his swing), or he can do the opposite. This is where the 2 models differ the most!

Let's go Tuck/Shoot first. He blocks out, and doesn't swing as hard or as fast (a consequence of blocking out). Is he adding energy to the pole? Yes! Is he adding energy to his swing? No! He's actually SLOWING DOWN his swing! So much so that he has to "row" or "muscle up" to keep his rotational speed going ... and "fight" against the coil/recoil of the pole.

Not let's go Petrov. He lets his top arm take all the energy (momentum) from his run/takeoff, and he swings long/hard ... using his top arm as a fulcrum. His body is now a pendulum ... swinging about the top hand as the pole rotates about the box. This is the DOUBLE-PENDULUM ... true of bamboo/steel vaulters, and true of Petrovians. Is he adding energy to the pole! Yes ... but not as much as when he tucks/shoots. After takeoff, the DISTRIBUTION of his energy is different!

As he swings, he's not only adding SOME energy to the POLE (albeit less than the tuck/shooter), but he's also speeding up his rotational speed about his top hand ... by his WHIPPING action ... thus adding MORE energy to his SWING. As a result, he gets inverted SOONER ... and has no trouble staying with the coil/uncoil of the pole ... so he can continue his "continuous motion" right thru his extension ... without any pause in the tuck position. He doesn't even need to "row" or "muscle up" at all ... he SWINGS upside down! He's "one with the pole"!

I hate when people cite certain athletes for evidence for or against their stance. No... i havent studied a great number of jumpers and if you say he has a massive push off using petrov techniques, he probably had a slower run and a more powerful core than other vaulters. I would simply argue that if he were to hold lower, he would be forced to tuck and shoot to catch the pole. Thus.... holding lower and pushing higher.


I need some clarification on putting energy into the pole and into the vault. The bottom arm push redistributes energy into the vault from the take off, but the same energy you produce from the take off will go into the pole regardless of whether you push or not, but pushing simply bends it more (from my understanding). I would argue that petrov and tuck and shoot vaulters put the SAME amount of energy into the POLE and that petrov vaulters put more overall energy into the vault from take off to push off. Otherwise.... passive phases mean nothing?

Funny that you say tuck and shooters block with their bottom arm. This may be true of beginners, but not of experienced vaulters STRIVING for this model. If you consider Tim McMichael a tuck and shooter of sorts, he actually PULLS with his bottom arm with as much force as possible to increase his rotational speed.


From there... you said that a swing from a petrov vaulter adds less energy to the pole than a tuck and shooter. What the heck? I must seriously misunderstand you.

Then you say the whipping action creates more energy in his swing. No... because tuck and shoot vaulters still have the whipping action to the chord of the pole, then they break their hips and knees. Also, you say that swinging long allows you to invert sooner. This does not follow biomechanical laws that state the shorter the axis with the same energy increases your acceleration. Swinging SHORTER increases acceleration- but thats not what we are looking for! We are looking to add the most energy into the vault. That comes from a longer swing with more core strength to STAY long and maintain velocity.

________________________________________________________________________________________


Ok.... please explain these things specifically-

1.) how a tuck and shoot vaulter puts more energy into the pole than a petrov vaulter.

2.) How swinging with a petrov swing allows vaulters to invert more quickly than with a tuck and shoot.


I know that we both understand the vault pretty well, and i think the semantics are causing a misinterpretation, so let me again state a "theory" that may be proved a "law" biomechanically in the vault in relation to a long swing-

All things equal, a perfect petrov vault with no passive phases blows through a pole. He goes up a pole with the same grip and the same technique, and he will NOT be able to invert properly, unless at the very top of his vault he increases his rotational acceleration by shortening his axis. This will add the same amount of energy into the vault (if same force applied to swing, simple as F=m x a) but rotate the vaulter to inversion more quickly. The vaulter has taken a step in the direction of a tuck and shoot technical model. Agreed?

[KirkB]

3P0, I get the feeling that we're like 2 ships ... passing in the night.

Let's try to sort out the last part of your post. Then ... if need be ... we can get back to the earlier parts ...

... [snip] ... Ok.... please explain these things specifically-

1.) how a tuck and shoot vaulter puts more energy into the pole than a petrov vaulter.

I thought I already explained that.

Keep in mind that my assumption is that a tuck/shooter is going to load the pole before takeoff, and continues to press after takeoff. That's WHY he tucks/shoots! (Even tho Wally explained some other viable reasons. I'm only refering to those that load the pole; block out; and tuck/shoot by INTENT. Even if this assumption is false ... and the tuck/shooter no longer blocks out after takeoff ... I think my assertion is still true.

Vaulter A has x energy units from his run/takeoff. Vaulter B also has x units.

Vaulter A puts 90% of these units into the pole, leaving 10% of them to keep his swing going.

Meanwhile, Vaulter B puts only 80% of these units into the pole, leaving 20% of them to swing with.

Thus, Vaulter A puts more energy into the pole, but doesn't swing as well as vaulter B.

Perhaps you're ignoring this SIMPLE case, and you've jumped to the more complex case where both vaulters have an oppportunity to add even MORE energy into the pole as a result of their swing? In that case, I agree that vaulter B will add more energy (say "y" units )to the pole as a result of his swing, compared to vaulter A's "z" units. However, knowing this isn't that helpful ... becuz we still don't know if (x*0.80)+y > (x*0.90)+z. (Note that the asterisk is used as a multiplication sign, and ">" means "is greater than" as in programming languages.)

So instead of proving this mathematically, I simply use my "powers of observation" to state that tuck/shooters get onto bigger poles than Petrovians, therefore they must put more energy into their poles (assuming all else is equal). If you want to get down to specifics, compare the flex pole that Whitt uses to one that a Petrovian with similar height/weight/grip/PR uses. I'm guessing that Jack uses the heavier pole.

2.) How swinging with a petrov swing allows vaulters to invert more quickly than with a tuck and shoot.

You've got to be kidding? You actually believe that tuck/shooters invert more quickly? They're not fully inverted until the END of their tuck! That's WAAAAY later!

There's various styles of Petrovians, so I don't speak for all of them. But I will speak for myself, and for Greg Duplantis. Both of us had very quick, powerful swings, and both of us got inverted VERY EARLY in the vault. Much earlier than tuck/shooters. They're struggling to rockback, and are worried about "catching the pole". If you invert early (per Petrov, like Greg and I), you don't have to worry about catching the pole. And THERE IS NO ROCKBACK!!!

Let me now use Hooker as an example. His swing is much more deliberate, slower, and longer, but he holds it for a longer time before he inverts. You can hardly notice when his swing ends and his extension begins. But he's not as QUICK in the downswing. To me, that's just a style difference ... compared to Greg and I. Hooker definitely has one CONTINUOUS MOTION, so he's definitely PETROV. I'm sure you must be thinking of someone like him?

Still, he doesn't STRUGGLE to stay behind the pole, and he doesn't ROW or MUSCLE UP to get into a tuck. Maybe you could say that Hooker doesn't invert "more quickly" than a tuck/shooter in this respect. Maybe "more quickly" is throwing you? What I really mean to say is "more easily", or "with less muscular effort" or "stays with the pole without hardly trying". If any of those phrases make this more clear, then substitute them. I can see how "quickly" might be misleading you. I hope this paragraph clears this up.

I know that we both understand the vault pretty well, and i think the semantics are causing a misinterpretation, so let me again state a "theory" that may be proved a "law" biomechanically in the vault in relation to a long swing-

Yeh.

All [other] things equal, [suppose that] a perfect petrov vault with no passive phases blows through a pole. He goes up a pole with the same grip and the same technique, and he will NOT be able to invert properly, unless at the very top of his vault he increases his rotational acceleration by shortening his axis. This will add the same amount of energy into the vault [i.e. the vaulter-pole SYSTEM] (if same force applied to swing, simple as F=m x a) but rotate the vaulter to inversion more quickly. The vaulter has taken a step in the direction of a tuck and shoot technical model. Agreed?

I underlined some text that I added, to ensure that I understand you correctly. Please verify.

I understand what you're getting at, as I understand those physics. You're saying that shortening his radius (what you call "axis") doesn't change the total energy in the SYSTEM one way or the other. I get that ... but that's not the issue at hand (not for me, at least).

There's several wrong assumptions you make ...

1. You assume that the Petrovian uses the same technique when he goes up a pole. That's actually incorrect. With the same grip on a stiffer pole, the TIMING will be different. So he must swing FASTER.

2. You assume that he won't be able to invert "properly". Again, not true. He just needs to changes the TIMING of his vault ... ever so slightly ... to account for the slightly stiffer pole. No matter how fast you're running down the runway, you can always run a little faster. Similarly, no matter how fast you're swinging, you can always swing a little faster. This should compensate for the stiffer pole. And if not, then at least you won't BLOW THRU the stiffer pole. As a last resort, you can always move your standards in JUST A BIT. For every "next pole up", you probably never need to move your standards in much more than 10cm. Don't quote me on this ... it's just a guess, to give you a rough guess. It might be 5cm or it might be 15cm.

BTW, if the vaulter CAN'T run or swing slightly faster, then he has no business trying to get onto a heavier pole. The REASON why he's blowing thru is that he's improved his technique ... to the point where he IS swinging faster (or at least more efficiently)! But once your technique is optimal (even Bubka isn't perfect), then any subsequent improvement is just a matter of speed/strength.

... unless at the very top of his vault he increases his rotational acceleration by shortening his axis.

This assumption is way off. First, Petrovians don't increase their rotational acceleration by shortening their radius (or "axis", as you say) ... other than a slight bending of the hips. You should NOT pull in the trail leg AT ALL. Hooker doesn't, I didn't, and Duplantis didn't (much).

And what do you mean by "very top of his vault"? Surely you mean just after passing the chord? That's not the "very top"!

Perhaps you've never felt yourself inverting AS THE POLE IS STILL BENDING? Yes, right after your trail leg passes the chord, the pole is still bending slightly (i.e. it's still coming to a full bend ... which doesn't happen instantaneous to your trail leg passing the chord). It's during this "window of opportunity" that Petrovians can invert AHEAD OF THE POLE! So by the time the pole begins to recoil, you're already (substantially) inverted!

Hooker does this too ... but it's less noticable ... becuz he's constantly ... continuously ... swinging right thru to inversion. But it's just after you pass the chord when you know whether or not you're "one with the pole" ... it's not "at the top of the vault".

What I just described is a completely different technique than your assertion of how to ...

... rotate the vaulter to inversion more quickly

Then you say ...

The vaulter has taken a step in the direction of a tuck and shoot technical model. Agreed?

Nope. I suppose that if I agreed to all your assumptions and the vaulter DID do exactly as you stated, then I would have to agree. But since your assumptions are wrong, I can't agree.

Geez ... I hope we're making some headway.

Kirk

[IAmTheWalrus]

I'm just going to poke my head in here about the side comment I made above regarding a good takeoff (free no blocking, etc) while still tucking at the end. I have met coaches who don't know the Petrov model by name nor do they understand it in its entirety, but gradually they adopt certain aspects of it (free takeoff, straight trail leg at least through the chord of the pole, etc.). They adopt only what they can rectify with their own understanding of biomechanics and the vault. One often cited example ( at least that I've heard) when referring to the swing is a figure skater who brings their leg closer to their body to speed up their rotation. The coach's thinking when citing this example is that by tucking in at the end of your swing you will be able to get into a position above the bend of the pole faster. What they fail to see is that by allowing the trail leg to remain straight the pole remains "compressed" longer, thus allowing the chord of the pole to remain shorter longer, and giving the vaulter more time to swing, allowing a longer, and likely stiffer, pole to be used.

The point of me bringing attention to this is that (and maybe I'm the only one who has encountered this) is that I feel stressing how the additional energy added to the pole, which keeps the pole bent, outweighs the benefits of increased angular velocity resulting from a tuck. Most kids and coaches learn from various camps and other coaches or ex-vaulters, and their styles are usually an hodgepodge of various technical models. I have seen free takeoffs with blocking, or a free takeoff, no blocking and a tuck.

I realize that this doesn't contribute to the current discussion, but I did want to clarify my earlier statement. Now, I'm going end with a question that may stir the pot a bit. While we have established the superiority of the Petrov model as compared to a tuck and shooter as described by KB, I would be very curious to find out how much additional potential height is realized by a vaulter using the Petrov model vs the tuck and shoot. In other words if an elite "tucker" were to overhaul their vault to be completely petrovian, what sort of increase would you expect? .1m? .3m?.5m???

[VaultPurple]

5. The Tuck/Shooter will end up tucking to maintain his pole speed ... whereas a Petrovian won't have to. Instead ...
6. The Petrovian will swing up and thru his extension in one continuous motion (no pause in a tuck).

I think you are ignoring the basic laws of physics here.

By saying the tuck and shooter will end up tucking to maintain his pole speed is like saying someone on a bicycle wills top pedling in order to keep the bike going.

The molment a tuck and shooter 'tucks' it is like you are coasting now and just relying on your momentum from your run and initial swing to cary you into the pit.

fyi.. I am talking of a tuck and shoot with NO block out with left arm (IT IS POSSIABLE)

You stated that you belived a tucker put more energy into the pole than a petrover. This depends on what energy you are talking about. If you mean the potential energy at the time of rock back (same time as inversion in petrov) then the tucker has put more energy into the pole. HOWEVER, the tucker is done at this point putting energy into the pole/potential energy of the pole unbending. I say because once the vaulter is rocked back he is just along for the ride until the pole flings him, then he can kip off put more kenetic energy into his own body as it flies off the pole but this does not affect how the pole unbends.

BUT this is why I acculay think swinging to inversion (pertrov) puts more energy into the pole...... Once you swing to the cord of the pole you are putting the same amount of energy into the pole as if you were a tucker because until that point both vaults are identicle. But once you pass through the cord when tucking you would be at max bend and just waiting for the unbend, but if you are a swinger (petrover) then you will swing through this point and into inversion. This fast swing to inversion is like a gymnist coming off of a high bar with no where to go but up! Therefor accualy causing the pole to unbend faster then if he were tucking, ie. more energy moving the pole upward.

so technicaly the pole has more potential energy for a tucker once he rock backs because he is pretty much just a dead weight sitting on the pole so its going to bend a little more because gravity is pulling him down and hes not swinging against it, while a swinger (petrover) never stops at this point and helps his pole unbend. but at anypoint after that, the swingers pole is moving faster.


both techniques use a lot of physics, just diffrent types. Petrove uses rotational speed to generate max energy, and tuck and shoot uses combied forces. The tucker takes the force of the pole unbending, then adds the force of his kip off to get max energy.

Tuck and shoot is a lot like Javeline in a since. The guy runs down the runway and plants his left foot and this pops him up and kind of sling shots his arm, then he can add his own arm speed to that sling shotting motion for maximum velocity.

[vault3rb0y]

Alright.... i've found the sources of our confusion KB.

You said that a tuck/shoot vaulter MUST do so because they usually leave the ground under. I assumed that all other things were equal in the jump until the trail leg passes the chord of the pole. I think i associate the tuck and shoot with the drive vault, or oklahoma manifesto perhaps too closely. They still focus on being inverted, but do so by swinging faster (which happens by tucking). If you leave the ground under, EVERYTHING changes.

Vaultpurple- I noticed that same thing but chose not to pick it out. I agree with everything you said.


I will propose this statement which i feel to be true, while i ponder how best to explain my thoughts in a way we can agree upon. I think we havent got the same "groundwork" to our thinking and analogies yet. Anyway....

There are two ways (that i am thinking of) to invert more easily once past the chord of the pole-
1.) swinging long will add more energy and keep the pole bent longer, thus making more time for inversion- however if there are any gaps in your energy transfer the pole will begin it's recoil. So it must be continous.

2.) Pulling with your bottom arm and focusing on swinging FASTER, while not necessarily adding much energy into the pole, will still invert the vaulter more quickly. In order to swing fastest, you break at the knees and hips to increase acceleration.

#1 is petrovian

#2 is oklahoma and (dare i say) tuck and shoot/drive style.

[vault3rb0y]

I realize that this doesn't contribute to the current discussion, but I did want to clarify my earlier statement. Now, I'm going end with a question that may stir the pot a bit. While we have established the superiority of the Petrov model as compared to a tuck and shooter as described by KB, I would be very curious to find out how much additional potential height is realized by a vaulter using the Petrov model vs the tuck and shoot. In other words if an elite "tucker" were to overhaul their vault to be completely petrovian, what sort of increase would you expect? .1m? .3m?.5m???

Interesting proposal.... It depends on how much energy after reaching the chord of the pole is created by a petrov and a tuck and shoot style. Subtract the tuck and shoot by the petrov energy levels and make proportional to body weight and you can probably get an estimate. It probably depends a lot on each jumper, but averages would be interesting.

Also.... by allowing yourself to tuck and shoot, are you allowing yourself to maximize any other portion of the jump?

[KirkB]

3P0, we're getting closer to reaching a common understanding on this!

I'll reply to this one first ... to show where we agree ... then get into some of the other posts and issues.

You said that a tuck/shoot vaulter MUST do so because they usually leave the ground under. I assumed that all other things were equal in the jump until the trail leg passes the chord of the pole. I think i associate the tuck and shoot with the drive vault, or oklahoma manifesto perhaps too closely. They still focus on being inverted, but do so by swinging faster (which happens by tucking). If you leave the ground under, EVERYTHING changes.

Yes, I have definitely been including the loading of the pole before takeoff and the blocking out with the bottom arm as part of the "tuck/shoot model". And I agree that "model" isn't the right word for this, as there's so many variants, and no one "right way" to do it. Tim's Oklahoma Manifesto is the closest that I'm aware of that describes this model. Even Tim doesn't call it the "tuck/shoot" model. He's referred to it as the "Drive Model" or the "Dial Model". So I'm not referring ONLY to the tuck/shoot that occurs after passing the chord. As Wally says, that can be the consequence of a poor Petrov vault, or a misunderstanding on "optimal technique" by a coach that's not studied Petrov.

Re Tim's and Joe's Drive Vault, I probably understand that one better than any other, simply becuz I've read the Oklahoma Manifesto. And I do agree (according to Tim's writings) that they strive to swing faster by tucking as soon as the trail leg passes the chord. But I think you're mistaken by assuming that the don't try to load the pole by taking off "under". In Tim's vids, he does. Ironically his swing is still quite impressive, despite him being under (unlike most other tuck/shooters' swings). One trick he does (similar to my trail leg trick) is to LIFT the trail leg back before he swings it forward. That accounts for him swinging faster than most other tuck/shooters (or Drive Vaulters or whatever you want to call them). And then at the chord, they quickly tuck in the trail leg to shorten their rotational radius and invert quicker "into the pocket" (i.e. into the tuck position).

So I'm still a little confused by you saying that if you're under then "EVERYTHING changes".

There are two ways (that i am thinking of) to invert more easily once past the chord of the pole-
1.) swinging long will add more energy and keep the pole bent longer, thus making more time for inversion- however if there are any gaps in your energy transfer the pole will begin it's recoil. So it must be continuous.

Right. A couple things to keep in mind here ...

1. The timing of the swing for a 3m vaulter, a 4m vaulter, a 5m vaulter, and 6m vaulter are drastically different. Believe it or not, it's actually EASIER to swing in one continuous motion if you're Hooker going over 6.06 than a beginner going over 3m. There's just no TIME to do everything properly at the lower heights. So I would even say that tucking for a 3-4m vaulter isn't such a bad thing ... as long as they strive to swing their trail leg long on the downswing! From 4m to 5m is where it seems to me that you should be striving for less tuck and more continuous motion (longer duration of swing).

2. Remember what "continuous motion" means ... no passive vault parts! So you can't block out - that's passive. And you can't just let your trail leg hang there - you need to swing it ... quickly (a slow swing is a passive swing)! And you can't tuck - that stops the energy going into the pole prematurely, and allows the pole to uncoil too early. And you can't PAUSE in the tuck - that's also passive. So when a Petrover talks of continuous motion, we look for those 4 flaws.

2. Even tho Agapit talks about a "straight-bodied swing", I've never actually seen anyone do that. Kjell Isaksson has probably been closer than anyone ... including Bubka. So there's nothing wrong with a slight pike at the instant that the trail leg passes the chord. This is the "arch to hollow" action that we've described on the highbar and the pole. It's similar to the action of a kip. In fact, you can't really WHIP your trail leg unless you have this "arch to hollow" action. It's just that once you finish this slight pike (in the "hollow"), that's all you really need ... if you've propelled your body to rotate about the top hand .,. and if you haven't STALLED your swing by blocking out. As you say ... there should not be any gaps in this continuous motion ... else the pole will recoil before you're ready for it. This is actually very easy to do for us Petrovers that have mastered this. It might seem hard if your technique isn't quite there yet ... but it's like riding a bike ... once you get it, it's very easy to repeat!

2.) Pulling with your bottom arm and focusing on swinging FASTER, while not necessarily adding much energy into the pole, will still invert the vaulter more quickly. In order to swing fastest, you break at the knees and hips to increase acceleration.

#1 is petrovian
#2 is oklahoma and (dare i say) tuck and shoot/drive style.

Yes, I agree that #2 is the "Oklahoma Drive Vault Model" - or whatever you want to call it. But a few points about #2 ...

If you do it like Tim or Jack, then it seems to be quite effective. There's also several 5.80+ vaulters that have been quite successful with this technique, so there's definitely something there. But ...

When I watch vids of sub-5m vaulters TRY to do this technique (whatever you want to call it), I don't see them swinging FASTER. In fact, some don't even SWING with their trail leg. Instead, they try to do everything with their ARMS. Even Tim Mack vaults like this!

Instead of focussing on keeping their swinging momentum going, they focus on bending the pole. It's this purposeful bending of the pole that allows tuck/shooters to put more of their run/takeoff energy into the pole than Petrovers. By blocking out (slowing down their swing) the energy has to go somewhere ... so it goes into the pole.

The only problem is that this potential energy doesn't come back out of the pole as very efficient kinetic energy. This is becuz there's a LOT more energy leakage in the tuck/shoot model. Every time you put pressure on the pole or on your body by applying "muscle-power", you're going to have leakage. So BLOCKING causes leakage, and ROWING (muscling up) causes leakage. Also, STEERING (using your arm muscles to get your body aligned in a perfect inverted position) causes leakage. (Steering can happen with Petrovers too ... it's just more prevalent with tuck/shooters.)

One last issue is that becuz tuck/shooters are spending so much time and energy to ROW and STEER into their tuck (and then out of it), they don't really get as good of an EXTENSION as Petrovers. i.e. They're not using their back muscles to extend for as long of a period of time. The best tuck/shooters do actually get a good extension ... AFTER their tuck. But in comparison, a Petrover starts his extension much earlier ... very shortly after passing the chord. So there's more time to extend in unison with the ENTIRE uncoiling of the pole. To me, this is the icing on the cake for the Petrov Model. The sooner you can start your extension (in a CONTINUOUS MOTION), the better pushoff you'll get ... becuz of what I just said.

OK, so I started out trying to describe the DIFFERENCES between Petrov and tuck/shoot, and I ended up describing the ADVANTAGES of the Petrov Model. Sorry. So sue me!

Kirk

[KirkB]

... if an elite "tucker" were to overhaul their vault to be completely petrovian, what sort of increase would you expect? .1m? .3m?.5m???

We may never know the answer to this hypothetical question. Maybe it can be computed biomechanically, but that's still just theory. The vault is already such a complex mathematical puzzle that biomechanics are still only scratching the surface of predicting the WR ceiling, based on human limitations of speed and strength. To my knowledge, there have been no head-to-head studies of the Petrov Model compared to anything else.

Elite vaulters DON'T "overhaul their vault to become completely Petrovian". Instead, they tweak it slightly ... one tweak at a time ... season by season ... ultimately in the direction of the Petrov Model. Old habits die hard, and by the time an elite vaulter has jumped 5.50+ (or whatever the criteria of an elite is), their minds and bodies are so conditioned on their current technique that an "overhaul" is unlikely ... both from the standpoint of the vaulter being MOTIVATED to try it ... and from the standpoint of breaking thru the "muscle memory" barrier to make it successful.

Perhaps the best we can do is what we're already doing ... simply comparing the technique of elite vaulters and using our own understanding of physics, personal experience, value judgements, and common sense to decide what model is best.

It does bother me tho, that there's so few "pure Petrov" vaulters in the world.

Kirk