We are doomed. Repent and ask for forgiveness.

[vtcoach]

iHurdles is the most extreme as i definitely accelerate across the first hurdle after an 8 step run-in.

Any time you speak of acceleration you need to define the beginning point and the ending point you are referencing. There is no such thing as instantaneous acceleration.

The question I think you are getting at in your eight step approach hurdle example is this: Is your velocity greater when you leave the ground after your eighth step then it was when you first touched the ground on that same step? If the answer to this question is yes then you you are correct and can surely say you accelerated through your take-off step.

Note that the moment you leave the ground you begin to decelerate and that deceleration continues until just slightly into the next ground contact phase. So I am not sure I would state it as accelerating across the first hurdle.

Good Thread.

[agapit]

iHurdles is the most extreme as i definitely accelerate across the first hurdle after an 8 step run-in.

Any time you speak of acceleration you need to define the beginning point and the ending point you are referencing. There is no such thing as instantaneous acceleration.

The question I think you are getting at in your eight step approach hurdle example is this: Is your velocity greater when you leave the ground after your eighth step then it was when you first touched the ground on that same step? If the answer to this question is yes then you you are correct and can surely say you accelerated through your take-off step.

Note that the moment you leave the ground you begin to decelerate and that deceleration continues until just slightly into the next ground contact phase. So I am not sure I would state it as accelerating across the first hurdle.

Good Thread.

It is very important to give things their proper names. Thank you.

[KirkB]

... the swing is only a redistribution of the energy built in the run up ...

RPVA03, I agree with everything you said. I think you've nailed it, IMHO.

Just one slight clarification ...

Whoops! My bad. I don't agree with the "is only" part either. If you do it right, the swing adds energy to the system.

This is not just another slight clarification. This is fundamental. At least in my personal experience. I'll expound this in the Bryde Bend thread - coming soon to a website near you. Stay tuned!

But other than these 2 things, you did hit the nail on the head, IMHO.

Kirk

[baggettpv]

Got to Youtube and search for me Rick Baggett. You will find an explanation of the takeoff. And yes if you are not supported by the pole (which has stopped moving forward) during the support the takeoff foot has with the ground then your velocity will continue thru the takeoff. The pole tip shall contact the back of the box the INSTANT the takeoff foot leaves the ground (toe pointed down). Check my explanation then come back and give some feedback please. This is what we were trying to accomplish with both Becky Holiday while at Clackamas CC (14'4") and Tom Skipper (18'3") while in high school at Sandy.

Rick Baggett
WSTC LLC

[KirkB]

So when your coach says "accelerate on takeoff", he doesn't really expect that you can, he just wants you to strive for that. What he really means is "Try to decelerate as little as possible".

Fixed that one for ya.

Thanks!

The original post is fixed now.

Kirk

[Tim McMichael]

So when your coach says "accelerate on takeoff", he doesn't really expect that you can, he just wants you to strive for that. What he really means is "Try to decelerate as little as possible".

Fixed that one for ya.

Thanks!

The original post is fixed now.

Kirk

I think you must be accelerating and rising through the takeoff. Any deceleration and sinking coming in will hurt the jump. Structuring a run that will achieve this is one of the most difficult things in the sport. It is a necessary precursor to the free takeoff that can take years to learn and perfect. I find that teaching this is one of the places where my own coaching is lacking, mostly because I rarely coach athletes with the time to take in learning it. It is more beneficial to most of them to bring their runs in to something they can control and turn them loose. The only part of the jump you cannot learn from a short run is how to do a long run, and you have to be coming from more than 16 steps back to work on it. Any suggestions as to how to get this through to an athlete in less than a year would be appreciated.

[volteur]

(edited) Hurdles is the most extreme example as i definitely accelerate during the last step prior to the first hurdle at the end of an 8 step run-in.

Any time you speak of acceleration you need to define the beginning point and the ending point you are referencing. There is no such thing as instantaneous acceleration.

The question I think you are getting at in your eight step approach hurdle example is this: Is your velocity greater when you leave the ground after your eighth step then it was when you first touched the ground on that same step? If the answer to this question is yes then you you are correct and can surely say you accelerated through your take-off step.

Note that the moment you leave the ground you begin to decelerate and that deceleration continues until just slightly into the next ground contact phase. So I am not sure I would state it as accelerating across the first hurdle.

Good Thread.

Thanks for the correction vtcoach (edited above) but i think the point remains that even after a 99-100% intensity 7 steps it is still possible to accelerate on the 8th step. This would be true for a normal sprint as well. Sure we decelerate the instant we leave the ground but i don't know if we have to do so whilst we are still on the ground. I really don't know? It seems this is the goal of the free-takeoff.

Is part of the free-takeoff accelerating through the final step?

cheers

[RPVA03]

... the swing is only a redistribution of the energy built in the run up ...

RPVA03, I agree with everything you said. I think you've nailed it, IMHO.

Just one slight clarification ...

Whoops! My bad. I don't agree with the "is only" part either. If you do it right, the swing adds energy to the system.

This is not just another slight clarification. This is fundamental. At least in my personal experience. I'll expound this in the Bryde Bend thread - coming soon to a website near you. Stay tuned!

But other than these 2 things, you did hit the nail on the head, IMHO.

Kirk

I'm sorry, I meant a natural swing doesn't add energy. In order for a swing to add energy to the vault it needs to be accelerated by muscles, such as your abs, lats and left bicep.

[lonestar]

So Agapit...

1) Plant must be high - arms extended fully before pole tip hits box
2) Must have free takeoff - full body extension before pole hits box
3) As pole hits box, instantaneously pull your left hand downwards as hard as you can as you swing your trail leg as fast and long as you can
4) Keep body rigid from shoulders to feet - do not break at the hips
5) Upon complete inversion, pull with the top hand to complete extension off the top of the pole

Is this the basic premise of the model? Any major points I've deleted?

[lonestar]

Ok, I'm going to state the obvious...

The "model" is being communicated differently by different people.

I've spent time with Alan, David Butler, Elson DeSouza of Brazil, Petrov, and email correspondence with Roman...

Unless I've misinterpreted them or something has been lost in translation, everyone advocates a high plant (plant meaning extension of arms BEFORE the pole hits the back of the box). Here are the differences that I PERSONALLY have inferred from each authority:

Alan: disengaged left arm - not pushing on the left arm, but planting high and allowing the hands to be pulled backwards over the head to create stretch-reflex in the shoulders and swing. No mention of pulling on the bottom hand. Advocates shortening the radius of the swing by breaking at the hips into the L-positionto to increase rotational velocity and work ahead of the pole.

David: strong left arm up into the pole that leads into "elastic shoulders" to create stretch reflex with left elbow pointing out, and then as the swing leg meets the chord of the pole, an aggressive pushing move up into the pole with the left hand which dynamically rotates the hips upwards and shoulders backwards. Up pressure maintained on the pole with no pulling at any point.

Elson: much like David

Petrov: "The Devil's Advocate." Very much a user of the Socratic Method. Very simplistic in explanation, and lets you draw your own inferences. Have never explicity heard him say push or pull or break at the hips or swing straight. I have seen him demonstrate a firm left arm upwards in explaining the plant - it looks like a push, but again, that's an interpretation.

Now Roman (aka Agapit): Free takeoff (pretty universal to all parties mentioned). High plant (again universal). Aggressive straight trail-leg swing (universal). Pull on the left arm at initiation of swing (only spoken of by Roman), straight body swing with no break at hips (only mentioned by Alan who stresses the opposite, breaking at hips to increase rotational inertia).

THIS IS MY INTERPRETATION of what these highly respected authorities of "The Model" have communicated. In large part, they are all on the same page. There are a few key differences though:

1) Left arm action (pull or push) once the pole hits the box

2) Chest penetration (elastic shoulders/disengaged left arm vs no visible attempt to lead with chest or let top hand stretch behind head/torso)

3) To break or not to break (at the hips)

I invite each of these authorities to explain their position on these issues and clarify for us. Actually, Agapit already has. I doubt Petrov reads PVP or would ever want to. Elson probably doesn't read PVP either and might not want to try to communicate in English. That leaves Coach Butler and Alan. Of course, I'm sure they would rather explain in person at one of their camps!

[decanuck]

Great summary, Lonestar. I too have noticed those apparent differences, though only between Alan and Roman as their words are the only ones that are readily accessible (I don't count Petrov's articles, because it seems like too much is lost in translation) . I think it's mostly a difference in terms, but I would love to hear these gentlemen clarify their thoughts.

I would make one adjustment to your summary, though. In the swing thread, Agapit specified that the left arm pull, for practical reasons, can only begin when the vaulter's centre of mass passes the vertical plane of the left hand (makes sense, because otherwise the action would pull the vaulter up rather than accelerating the natural swing about the top hand). In the real world, this usually happens when the vaulter's left foot passes beneath their left hand. Presumably this is NOT at the moment the pole contacts the back of the box in an ideal free-takeoff situation, but shortly thereafter. At least I think that's what he said/meant. Again, so much is lost in terms/explanation...

Also, I don't think he advocates literally swinging with a completely straight body, only that an L-position should not be taught for its own sake. I believe the point is to swing as straight as you can while still inverting in time to exploit the pole recoil (which will never truly be literally straight unless you have Usain Bolt-type speed, a Mike Powell-esque Takeoff, Mike Vanderjagt's kick/whip/swing, and a world-class gymnast's inversion, extension, and pull/push off the top)

[ADTF Academy]

I would make one adjustment to your summary, though. In the swing thread, Agapit specified that the left arm pull, for practical reasons, can only begin when the vaulter's centre of mass passes the vertical plane of the left hand (makes sense, because otherwise the action would pull the vaulter up rather than accelerating the natural swing about the top hand). In the real world, this usually happens when the vaulter's left foot passes beneath their left hand. Presumably this is NOT at the moment the pole contacts the back of the box in an ideal free-takeoff situation, but shortly thereafter. At least I think that's what he said/meant. Again, so much is lost in terms/explanation...

That would depend in the direction you are pulling. I think alone the lines of teaching the pull in the direction of the shoulders. At plant this pull is more in a direction behind you than once the shoulders move under the bottom arm than the pull is in a direction towards the shoulders but in an every changing direction through out the swing to inversion. That is a very quick glimpse of the action I have been teaching since 2004. The pull off the ground is not straight down but almost behind you over your head till you get in alignment and the swing is initiated by the release of the stretch reflexes as talked about a ton on the forums. The pull direction of the bottom arm is every changing.