The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

[Tim McMichael]

Fantastic posts. Bryde has the level of awareness that I consider mastery of the vault. It took me decades to get to the point where I was aware and in control of everything that was going on in my jump. At that point my only limitation was the shape I was in. I had no problem at all with starting within a few inches of my P.R. and it was this consistency that got me into meets that I really had no business being in. The development of this level of awareness is essential to achieving maximum potential. There has to be some way of teaching this.

My vault incorporated many of the things that Bryde describes. The only significant differences were my attack angle and the tuck. I got my trail leg back freakishly far by driving my lead knee, chest, and head forward as far as possible. I had a really low takeoff angle that I feel was possible because of the stiffness of the poles I was on. I have described this on many other posts, but I'll repeat it. 138 pounds of body weight on a 190 6.4 flex will lift you off the ground at takeoff no matter what. I stayed behind the pole as far as possible and caught up with the chord of the pole as late as possible to keep my center of gravity low and behind the pole, which caused it to roll into the pit and gave me the penetration I needed as my trail leg whipped through. This necessitated a tuck to catch up with the timing of the pole.

[volteur]

Fantastic posts. Bryde has the level of awareness that I consider mastery of the vault. It took me decades to get to the point where I was aware and in control of everything that was going on in my jump. At that point my only limitation was the shape I was in. I had no problem at all with starting within a few inches of my P.R. and it was this consistency that got me into meets that I really had no business being in. The development of this level of awareness is essential to achieving maximum potential. There has to be some way of teaching this.

My vault incorporated many of the things that Bryde describes. The only significant differences were my attack angle and the tuck. I got my trail leg back freakishly far by driving my lead knee, chest, and head forward as far as possible. I had a really low takeoff angle that I feel was possible because of the stiffness of the poles I was on. I have described this on many other posts, but I'll repeat it. 138 pounds of body weight on a 190 6.4 flex will lift you off the ground at takeoff no matter what. I stayed behind the pole as far as possible and caught up with the chord of the pole as late as possible to keep my center of gravity low and behind the pole, which caused it to roll into the pit and gave me the penetration I needed as my trail leg whipped through. This necessitated a tuck to catch up with the timing of the pole.

Kirk indeed is in the realms of mastery of his craft. I bet he wishes like the rest of us he could have his 23 year old body back with his current mind. It is this natural mastery, this natural feel that he has looked into so clearly that has been so interesting. In the biggest picture i am wondering how the similarities between the Agapit Manifesto and the Bryde bend(Jump to the Split) can be brought out. On a smaller scale there are a few issues i would like raise Kirk and first up i would like to use some of your words Tim, i hope you don't mind.

Tim said " I got my trail leg back freakishly far by driving my lead knee, chest, and head forward as far as possible"

Kirk, this raises the point i wanted to make. Once we are off the ground we cannot change the path of our CofG. What we can do is reposition our limbs around the CofG. As you say. So once off the ground the hand and the opposite foot both head 'backwards' together as the other leg and opposite arm stay forward. All parts are still balanced around the CofG just in a different position to that at takeoff.

I put backwards in italics because it is only apparently backwards. Those parts are still moving forward at all times. What does happen, depending on flexibility (and both you and Tim sound pretty flexible), is more distance from rear foot to CofG. The reason of this is the point of contention.

Is this increased distance caused by pushing the foot backwards or by driving the CofG forwards and therefore leaving the foot further behind? And if you don't mind answering, which one of those two would you perceive as the better option?

BUt if we can go back to this angle of lean at takeoff i now wonder if it is lean at all and instead a highly emphasised chest and knee drive with a hip position that was left behind. If your hip was angled backwards then it is already is a good position to let the leg trail far behind, But having a leading chest and shoulders with a trailing stomach and hips doesn't need to be off vertical alignment, although too far overdone and it certainly would.

However, i still wonder what exactly it is you did. Can you tell me how you countered the clothesline effect you would get from impacting the poles pressure off the vertical alignment?

I liked the analysis into the shot and jav and similarities and differences. Indeed you are a good thinker. But you have to stop asking me if things make sense now. I have to wonder though if athletes push off behind their CofG or underneath it. I have to think that all the work is done when our CofG or our weight is above our support. None can be done when this is not occurring. But then again, and you always get me to do this to myself (which is a good and rare thing so thanks), there is a feel aspect to to what you are saying always and so therefore something in your mind's eye is being looked before the words you use come out. What is the feel aspect? I am starting to get to know you through your way of expression, it is just so open, an admirable quality imo. IN getting to know it i am starting to intuit where you are coming from better. Can you tell me how i go with this?

Once the foot leaves the ground there is still an active component occurring. The foot is still coming to its final position. That full extension all the way to the pointed toes. This occurs after we leave the ground and it is a reaction to the loading we put it under during contact. The better the quality of the contact during the loading - the more extended our foot will get after contact. Whilst it is a reaction we can actually focus on it. I think you are talking about focusing on what the foot does as it leaves the ground. Is this correct? I know for myself that i can focus on that bit and i jump better because of it. It forces me to more completely finish the jump. Is this also part of what you experienced? I imagine if this bit was actively emphasised as you seem to have done then it could be a very quick split/whip action and it could have quite a range with the flexibility i imagine you had(have?).

Yet this is where the technique definitely differs from Agapit's Manifesto and from what i understand Petrov's model to be. This bit differs also from my understanding of movement from the martial arts and yoga, so i have to put this to you.

Would you call the period of time, after takeoff contact, during which you are repositioning your body parts around your CofG (into the split), as a pause in the continuity of motion of your CofG?

cheers

[KirkB]

Kirk … I bet he wishes like the rest of us he could have his 23 year old body back with his current mind. … It is this natural … feel that he has … that has been so interesting. In the biggest picture I am wondering how the similarities between the Agapit Manifesto and the Bryde bend(Jump to the Split) can be brought out.

So many questions … so little time. Let’s get back to this part later!

Tim said " I got my trail leg back freakishly far by driving my lead knee, chest, and head forward as far as possible"

With me, it was 2 distinct actions. On my Jump, I drove the lead knee and chest forward, as an extension of my takeoff. The natural extension of this with the trail leg is to stretch and remain stretched. But I did more than that. Once I was OFF the ground and as I was stretching, I purposely lifted the trail leg back and up. It was much more than just an extension of the takeoff.

Although Tim also “got his trail leg back freakishly far”, looking at his vaults (e.g. his 18-5 vault that’s on YouTube), you can’t understand my technique by watching his. When I first read Tim’s Oklahoma Manifesto, I thought he might be doing what I was doing. But once I saw his vid, I couldn’t see my technique in his. Remember also that he loaded the pole before takeoff, and pushed with his bottom hand. I guess these comments belong in the other thread that I created to compare our techniques, but I mention them here in reply to your post above, Volteur. And as I’ve said, I really don’t understand how he could do that. But he did – it’s on his vid.

Once we are off the ground we cannot change the path of our CofG. What we can do is reposition our limbs around the CofG. As you say. So once off the ground the hand and the opposite foot both head 'backwards' together as the other leg and opposite arm stay forward. All parts are still balanced around the CofG just in a different position to that at takeoff.

Between the time you leave the ground and the time your pole hits the back of the box (which I call “airtime”), your physics is correct. The rest of what you say above also correctly states what I did.

Remember, though, that I tried to “fill the gap” by reaching forward and reducing the amount of airtime – at the same time that I was doing my Split. I started my Split slightly before the pole hits but the finish of it was during the early, soft part of the bend. Even though Tim did it AFTER loading the pole, in my experience, with my form, it was impractical to start the Split once the pole hits, because my whole body would start to swing then. That’s exactly what I was trying to prevent by my Split action. I purposely tried to delay my swing. Instead of a slow, steady swing, I wanted a delay, then a faster, whipping swing.

I put backwards in italics because it is only apparently backwards. Those parts are still moving forward at all times. What does happen, depending on flexibility (and both you and Tim sound pretty flexible), is more distance from rear foot to CofG. The reason of this is the point of contention.

Yes, it was only backwards in relation to my CoG. All things are relative to a reference point, and in this case, the reference point is my CoG, that has a continual forwards/upwards motion.

One correction though. My Split was an exaggerated “C”. If you compare that to an “I” (straight alignment of the entire body), when you’re in the “C”, your trail leg foot is actually CLOSER to your CoG than in the “I”. I wasn’t trying to get to a stretched “I”. That’s important just as you leave the ground, and also at the bottom of the Whip - but NOT when doing the Split. The Split is the back/up motion, then the Whip is the forwards/downwards motion, then snapping up again. I just want to make sure you understand the sequencing of this. They’re one after the other, even though they occur in a “continuous chain”.

Flexibility was important in the shoulders, for 2 reasons. (1) During the “through-the-shoulder” plant; and (2) To stretch the top arm up/back above/behind my head. Straight-armed – no hunching whatsoever. You don’t actually need strong MUSCLES for this, as you’re fully stretched. Like a high bar specialist, they need to be supple – not bulky. You need strong JOINTS and LIGAMENTS. This was never an issue, due to my weight-lifting and gym workouts. I also don’t think I got jolted as much as better elite vaulters, because (1) I wasn’t running as fast; and (2) my pole was softer.

The flexibility was important so that I stretched the chest into the pit as far as possible, before I started to swing. I believed at the time that this was what would roll the pole to vertical better. That was what was taught in those days, and in fact still today, by some. I don’t necessarily believe that today, but that was my target form at the time. I also didn’t want the LEAKAGE associated with hunching the shoulder of your top arm.

Is this increased distance caused by pushing the foot backwards or by driving the CofG forwards and therefore leaving the foot further behind? And if you don't mind answering, which one of those two would you perceive as the better option?

I think you’re off track on these 2 questions. (1) Your assumption of an increased distance is incorrect. (2) Increased distance was NOT my intent on the Split. However, a full extension on the Jump WAS my intent. (3) I was fully stretched BEFORE I moved to the Split. (4) I wasn’t increasing any distance by Splitting. (5) I of course did the Split the way I did it because that’s what I “perceived” to be the optimal technique. I still believe this today.

But if we can go back to this angle of lean at takeoff I now wonder if it is lean at all and instead a highly emphasised chest and knee drive with a hip position that was left behind. If your hip was angled backwards then it is already is a good position to let the leg trail far behind, But having a leading chest and shoulders with a trailing stomach and hips doesn't need to be off vertical alignment, although too far overdone and it certainly would.

You’re losing me here. Perhaps you’re trying to break this down into too much detail. (1) “a hip position that was left behind”? … “hip angled backwards”? … “trailing stomach and hips”? This makes no sense to me. (2) “too far overdone and it certainly would”. Yes, that’s what it I did, if you want to call it “overdone”. I would say “exaggerated”, but “overdone” is fair, if you think that it’s “too exaggerated”. I know what you mean, although I disagree with your choice of words.

Although the words you used are rather strange, and I certainly never used those words, perhaps what you’re getting at is the full stretch of the entire body into the Split. If you are, then that’s right. It was a full stretch from the top hand all the way thru the torso, down to the trail leg foot. So your words aren’t quite right, but you’re probably picturing the right image in your mind. And there’s another aspect of this that I should explain …

Most people imagine a bent trail leg when in the Split. Now, I won’t say that my trail leg was PERFECTLY straight at the highest point of my Split, but there was no intended bend in the knee. In fact, my intent was to keep it straight. The rationale for this was that if the knee was bent, then the downswing would be merely a hinge – a swing with the hips as the fulcrum. That wasn’t it. My intent was to Whip the entire body – from hand to toe. So the Split had to have an “almost straight” trail leg knee. That way, it was setting up the proper body posture for a full body Whip. Think of how this would feel on a high bar, with a very, very exaggerated “tap swing” on your giants.

However, I still wonder what exactly it is you did. Can you tell me how you countered the clothesline effect you would get from impacting the poles pressure off the vertical alignment?

By “clothesline effect”, I take it you mean the jolt you get when the pole hits the box. Again, your choice of words is rather exaggerated. I wouldn’t even use the word “jolt”, as my target technique (my intent) was to smooth out this transfer of energy from my body to the pole. Really, there was no jolt at all, unless I was under, in which case I just bailed (because if I couldn’t transfer the energy efficiently, and if I couldn’t Split/Hinge properly, then I probably wasn’t going to clear the bar, unless it was quite low). So here’s how I had a smooth transition whilst the pole hit the box …

I reached forwards with my arms to “fill the gap”. Thus, I wouldn’t be jolted all at once. As my top arm was pushed back behind my head by the force of the pole, there was a shock absorber (cushioning) effect. Remember, this is a straight-arm action – no bending at the elbow or hunching at the shoulder. So the cushioning action was achieved by the LEVERAGE of my top arm against the force of the pole. It was like my body was an elastic band, and I was letting it get stretched into the Split (the exaggerated “C”) position. During this elastic stretch, the shock of the pole was absorbed.

To a certain extent, I worried about LEAKAGE here, so I purposely tried to keep my top arm straight and delay the swing while this was all happening. I considered myself quite successful in this regard (certainly more successful than most other elite vaulters), but I wasn’t perfectly satisfied. I worked a lot on perfecting this part of my vault, and got quite consistent with it in June - July 1972. It was the key to my vault, since it was the furthest back I could go to improve. (Considering that my run wasn’t going to get much better, and my Jump was already pretty damn good.) I usually traced a bad vault back to whether or not I “hit it” on my Jump/Split or not. Often, a bad vault would be traced back to being “under” a bit. I think I targeted to take off about 8” back from vertical.

… I have to wonder though if athletes push off behind their CofG or underneath it. I have to think that all the work is done when our CofG or our weight is above our support. None can be done when this is not occurring. ?

It’s actually much simpler than you think. I think you’re trying to think too deeply, but sometimes it’s better to err on that side, so no problem. If you have a slight forwards lean, then during your airtime (if you weren’t holding a pole that hits the box), you simply rotate forwards (into a roll). The more you lean, the faster you rotate.

But then again, and you always get me to do this to myself (which is a good and rare thing so thanks), there is a feel aspect to what you are saying always and so therefore something in your mind's eye is being looked before the words you use come out. What is the feel aspect? I am starting to get to know you through your way of expression, it is just so open, an admirable quality imo. In getting to know it I am starting to intuit where you are coming from better. Can you tell me how I go with this?

I explain the “feel” of it, because that’s how I remember it, and that’s the easiest way for me to explain it. Also, I think there’s value in describing to fellow vaulters how it “feels”. I think this is a perspective that many coaches (that haven’t actually vaulted within a foot of the WR) can’t describe. No offense to their way of coaching (there’s lots of good coaches that haven’t vaulted high), but IMHO, telling an athlete how something “looks” isn’t as valuable as explaining how something should “feel”.

Theres also the aspect of “feeling” if a vault is good or bad. Not just a vault, but any gymnastic action. Once you get the “feel” of what works best within the Laws of Physics, then it’s much easier to apply it constructively to your target technique. At least that’s what worked for me. I got A’s in Physics in high school, and took Engineering at UW before I switched majors, so I was no slouch when it came to mathematical formulae. However, that level of theory was just that – only theory. I really didn’t teach myself much by studying the theory of the mechanics of the pole vault. I probably learned more “theory” this year, from reading the posts on PVP than I did in all my vaulting years.

I’m not saying that I had a natural “feel” for good pole vault technique either. I’m just saying that I did a helluva lot of trial and error, and zoned in on what worked best, by discarding the things that didn’t work well, and emphasizing the things that did work well. I recommend that process to aspiring vaulters – it worked for me!

Once the foot leaves the ground there is still an active component occurring. The foot is still coming to its final position. That full extension all the way to the pointed toes. This occurs after we leave the ground and it is a reaction to the loading we put it under during contact. The better the quality of the contact during the loading - the more extended our foot will get after contact. Whilst it is a reaction we can actually focus on it. I think you are talking about focusing on what the foot does as it leaves the ground. Is this correct?

Not, it’s not. You are talking only about the first part of my Jump, and you are assuming no airtime. Sure, as I jumped off the ground, my intent was to fully extend. Of course. But that’s just the start of it. AFTER THAT, my intent was to get my body into the right posture for the Whip. My Jump wasn’t finished until I was in the Split.

I know for myself that I can focus on that bit and I jump better because of it. It forces me to more completely finish the jump. Is this also part of what you experienced?

You are on the right track here. You’ve figured out the Jump part. But I think you had that part already figured out without my help. Good so far, but this isn’t much different than many other elite vaulters. A good Jump is essential to a good vault. It’s almost too obvious to discuss, but maybe for vaulters that load the pole before they take off, or for vaulters that just rely on their speed, and let the pole “pick them off the ground”, maybe it’s not so obvious. In your case, Volteur, you’ve said that you’re a fair long jumper, but your intent is NOT to jump too hard off the ground. I don’t understand that. You should JUMP LIKE HELL!!!

I imagine if this bit was actively emphasised as you seem to have done then it could be a very quick split/whip action and it could have quite a range with the flexibility I imagine you had(have?).

“Had” is correct. “Have” is not. HaHa!

You are correct on the “very quick split/whip action”. I have mentioned that before. You don’t have to Split to the extreme that I did to get benefit out of this technique. In fact, you need to start with just a slight Split, then gradually work up to a more extreme Split. More on that later.

Again, you mention flexibility as being important here. It was important in the top arm/shoulder, but it wasn’t that important in the trail leg and the arch of the back. Even though I refer to an “exaggerated C”, it’s actually more important to get the trail leg FOOT, KNEE, and HIP back and up as high as you can. Can you visualize the difference? Think of your intent. Yes, your intent is to get into an extreme elastic postion, ready to Whip out of it. That’s true.

But also, your intent is to RAISE the CoG up a bit. I guess I never mentioned that much before, but if you’re STIFF (i.e. not bent as much at the knee and hip), then when you lift your trail leg back/up and “run out of flexibility in the arch of your back”, then (depending on how much force you put into the lift) the only thing left for your body to do is to lift the entire CoG up more. That’s why I say that I lifted the trail leg back/up as much as I could.

In my previous explanations (in this post and previous posts above) perhaps I stressed the “exagerated C” body posture a bit too much. I would say now that (depending on your flexibility) it’s better to actually lift your CoG up a bit, than to strive for an “exaggerated C”. But a lot of both is probably best. You must understand that this all happens so fast, it’s hard to really describe – in minute detail – exactly what happened. I always get back to “I did it almost exactly as on the high bar”.

Yet this is where the technique definitely differs from Agapit's Manifesto and from what I understand Petrov's model to be.

Yes, this was the unique part of my vault. Even at UW, Ken Shannon didn’t coach Jeff Taylor to do this. At least not in the one year that we overlapped there. We had a third vaulter too – Gary Dankworth. Gary and Jeff just couldn’t do it. They didn’t jump off the ground strongly enough to give them the airtime to do it. And although they could beat me in any race of any length, they just didn’t have the gymnastic skills that I had. It’s not for everybody, but it worked for me.

Would you call the period of time, after takeoff contact, during which you are repositioning your body parts around your CofG (into the split), as a pause in the continuity of motion of your CofG?

Hmm… now you’re really making me think. I was going to say no, the CoG is continually moving forwards. But you know, now that you’ve made me really think about it, you’re right – if ever so slightly.

But don’t focus too much on that, as it’s so slight. Focus more on the entire body getting to the Split while your CoG (and your entire body around your CoG) is moving constantly forwards, towards the pit.

Maybe an even better way to picture it is as if you had a weight wrapped around your trail leg ankle. Now get on that high bar, and get your training buddy or coach to lift your [stiff] trail leg back/up to about horizontal. Now whip it down/forwards. How much did the high bar bend? Can you feel that Whip as you pass below the bar? Can you feel that Snap just before your hips rise in the foreswing?

Of course you don’t have a weight on your ankle in a real vault, so take it off. Now do the same exercise. But this time, Whip it AS IF you still have that weight attached. Without the weight, you’ll have to Whip your trail leg even harder and FASTER than before (to get the same bend out of the high bar). Can you feel THAT Whip? There – now you’ve got it!

Hey Volteur, do me a favour? Don’t ask me so many questions at once! It takes too long to answer. Pace yourself!

[volteur]

OK i will have less questions if you provide less question prompters, hows that for a deal?

Kirk … I bet he wishes like the rest of us he could have his 23 year old body back with his current mind. … It is this natural … feel that he has … that has been so interesting. In the biggest picture I am wondering how the similarities between the Agapit Manifesto and the Bryde bend(Jump to the Split) can be brought out.

So many questions … so little time. Let’s get back to this part later!

This is probably the most interesting aspect for me although you the comparison between you and Tim could get really interesting. Id like to know what you think about your differences and similarities with Agapit.

To the chase you mention that you 'filled the gap' after you left the ground but before the pole took your bodyweight, by re-postioning your limbs into a position you call the split. You did this so that when the pole did take your bodyweight at the end of your flight phase, all of the 'slack' was taken up in your body so you could instantly begin the whip in time with the initiation of the poles pressure. Is this correct?

volteur

[KirkB]

To [cut to] the chase you mention that you 'filled the gap' after you left the ground but before the pole took your bodyweight, by re-postioning your limbs into a position you call the split. You did this so that when the pole did take your bodyweight at the end of your flight phase, all of the 'slack' was taken up in your body so you could instantly begin the whip in time with the initiation of the poles pressure. Is this correct?

Hmm ... you've summed it up fairly well!

But there's 2 things I would like to clarify right now: (1) I actually used the term "filled the gap" in reference to the time directly after takeoff - but before the pole hits (that's a little earlier than the Split), and (2) "the initiation of the pole's pressure" isn't quite exact. Actually, the SOFTEST part of the bend has already started by the time you're in the Split, ready to start the Whip. You could say that the SOFT part of the bend is still "airtime" so to speak, since you still don't have much of your dead weight on the pole yet. I think you're trying to separate my vault parts a little too literally into sequential steps, when in fact there's significant overlap in the parts. It all happens in maybe less than a second.

BTW, I didn't say less questions, I just said not all at once. I don't mind answering all your questions. You've asked some good ones, and my objective is to explain my technique so that everyone can understand it. If I wasn't clear, I don't mind clarifying it. I need your feedback in order to know if you're "getting it" or not. It's just easier if you ask a few questions at a time.

I'll compare my Bryde Bend to the 6.40 soon. (I was initially hoping that others would do that for me, but no takers yet.)

There's another topic I want to raise first, though, and I have limited time today.

Kirk

[Tim McMichael]

Sorry I have been absent from these discussions. I don’t want to be too personal here, but I feel that I need to explain why I am not contributing to a discussion that includes my own ideas. All I can say is that my brain will start working again sometime soon, and my enthusiasm will return and I will be back on track. I love these discussions, and have been reading them, but without the ability to feel, I can't respond. As Hamlet said, "How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world." Till I stop feeling like that, and I will, I can't contribute much. Bipolar is a b****.

[KirkB]

Tim, I know you will contribute when the time is right for you, and I look forward to your comments. If you're busy with your kids this summer, don't worry about it. You have your priorities straight. This thread isn't going anywhere, and neither are the other related ones - the ones with your name on them. They will still be here in September, after the kids are back in school!

I'm still not sure that you all understand the Laws of Physics that I used in my "Jump to the Split" technique.

Earlier, I had asked if anyone had the time and access to a high bar to actually try out the drill that I've been ranting about. Powerplant42 volunteered, but I haven't heard back from him yet.

As I've said numerous times, you really need to "feel" the power of a vigorous "Whip" (which includes the swing before and after "passing the chord") to appreciate it.

My modus operandi was always to experiment with technique in the gym, "perfect it" in the gym, and then apply it to the vault. I have not yet heard of anyone having a similar experience - particularly related to the Whip part of the vault, which I feel very strongly is the source of a powerful inversion, extension, and fly-away. Has anyone tried this?

Does anyone believe that it has merit? Or am I just an old fogy, with outdated ideas? I'm ready for your constructive criticism, so don't be shy!

I described what worked for me back in 1971-72, but the Laws of Physics haven't changed in the past 36 years, so I see no reason why my version of the Whip would not work today.

In BTB2, Launder talks about stretching to the "C" position, using the elasticity of your muscles and ligaments to "cock" your body into the proper body posture to have a vigorous forwards Swing. That's all good. But he makes no mention of PURPOSELY raising the trail leg back - to stretch into that cocked position EVEN MORE EXTREMELY. (Or does he?) That, I think, is the essence of my unique technique. My "C" was more extreme, and it had a tilt to it. To get that tilt, you had to intentionally move your trail leg BACK and UP.

Only then are you cocked for an optimal Whip.

I don't know if you all really get that yet, so try this experiment ...

Seriously, get outside and try this! Don't just theorize it! Personally "feeling" how this works is the key to understanding it thoroughly - and being convinced of its merit.

1. Ask someone to help you with this. All they need to do is to throw the ball back to you.
2. Grab a baseball (or any other small ball) and stand ~10 yards apart. Toss the ball to your shagger.
3. Once you're warmed up a bit, hold the ball directly above your head, elbow straight.
4. Now toss the ball again.
5. What did your arm do? It moved back before it moved forward, didn't it?
6. OK, now set the rule that you cannot move your arm back before you move it forward. You must toss the ball 10 yards with no backwards motion at all.
7. What did your arm do this time? You had no choice but to only flex your wrist, right?
8. Now stand 20 yards apart. Toss the ball again, without any backwards motion.
9. Could you throw it 20 yards without any backwards motion? If you have really, really strong wrists, then maybe you could, but just barely. If you used a shot-put motion, then you cheated. No bending the elbow!
10. Now go 30 yards, again, without any backwards motion.

So you should now see that the natural throwing action - which follows the Laws of Physics - is that you MUST cock your arm BACKWARDS in order to get a good, efficient throwing action FORWARDS.

You're probably way ahead of me on this already, but now change the rules. Now, you're allowed to move your throwing arm BACKWARDS before you move it FORWARDS. Try it at 10, 20 and 30 yards.

I'll bet some of you can even throw a ball 40-50 yards without much effort. By "without much effort" I mean without much MUSCULAR effort. How? By "proper technique"! You "cock" your arm BACKWARDS, then efficiently move your shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers FORWARDS with just the right coordinated timing.

So to apply what you've just learned to the "Split/Whip" technique, think of the distance you threw the ball as a means of measuring how powerful your throw was.

Now imagine a soccer ball being held at the chord of the pole, such that as you Whip, you'll kick the ball. The distance that THAT ball is kicked is a fair measurement of how powerful your Whip was, isn't it? How far that imaginary ball is kicked is analogous to how much energy you can put into the pole during the Whip.

So there's not much difference between the throwing arm, and the trail leg, is there?

The "Whip" that I refer to is really the same as the the ball-throwing motion. The Whip is a coordinated effort of the entire body - from top hand to trail leg foot - all moving with just the right coordinated timing.

I hope you now see the light about that. Now, how to get there ...

In the case of the ball throw, it was an easy, natural motion of moving the arm BACKWARDS, then FORWARDS.

In the case of the Whip, it's admittedly not quite as natural. It's not something that you've learned as a small child (like throwing a ball). It takes a cognizant action to move your leg back. But cognizant or not, it's a learned action, just as throwing a ball is a learned action. And if you followed my advice to actually go outside and try this, you discovered that just cocking your wrist back WITHOUT ACTUALLY MOVING YOUR ENTIRE ARM BACK won't result in throwing the ball as far. It's not even just a stretching of the wrist AND arm in a cocked position. You must actually move the arm BACKWARDS, or you won't throw very far.

Some of you may be thinking to yourselves "I don't need to go outside and try this - I already know how to throw a ball". That's fine, you may already know how it "feels" to throw a ball, but do you really, REALLY know how it "feels" to raise your trail leg BACK and UP before you swing it forwards?

Once you try the baseball expirement and the high bar experiment, you will then - and only then - have the conviction that the most efficient way to "swing" in the vault is to first get the proper body posture for an optimal swing.

This optimal body posture, I believe, is the "Split"!

Are you convinced yet?

Kirk

[KirkB]

An even better analogy than baseball is soccer. I should have thought of this earlier.

In soccer, as a young child, you throw the ball in from the sidelines over your head, using only your arms. The ball might only go a few yards.

As you mature, you start throwing the ball in further and further. The pros have no problem throwing the ball from the sidelines into the penalty box - to set up a header or one-timer into the net. How do they do it?

Well, they stretch their entire body into a "C", and reach over their heads and behind their back as far as possible. From this "elastic" position, they throw the ball with optimal force.

What I've described thus far is equivalent to a normal "C". The main difference between the vault and soccer is that the fulcrum in vauting is the top hand, whereas the fulcrum in soccer is the feet. And really, it's a "two-armed throw" - like a "two-legged swing". But we'll overlook that minor detail. The analogy still fits quite well.

But where does that extra little "oomph" come from that allows the pros to throw the ball all the way into the penalty box? Think about it ...

They not only hyperextend their body into a "C", but they also bend their arms at the elbow to reach back even further. They reach back so far that the ball is touching their lower back when they've finished their BACKWARDS motion, and are ready to start their FORWARDS motion.

While I'm not advocating EXACTLY that in the Split, I'm saying that just an elastic "stretched" position isn't enough - it's still not optimal. You have to get back just a little bit more. And you do that by lifting the trail leg BACK and UP. The one difference that doesn't match up to the soccer analogy is that I recommend that the Split should be with an ALMOST STRAIGHT trail leg (no bending at the knees), whereas the soccer throw is with BENT ELBOWS.

I played a lot of soccer as a kid, and right thru high school. We practiced throw-ins, but never analyzed the body mechanics of it the way we're doing now. A good drill for vaulters would be to throw a soccer ball against a wall, in the way described above. It will give you an idea of "proper vaulting technique", and will also strengthen your torso and gut muscles - not so much your arms or legs. Give it a try. You could also do this drill with a medicine ball, but I don't think you need the extra weight. Instead, go for increasing the speed at which you release the ball, which can be measured by the distance that it's thrown.

OK, I hope I've utterly exhausted the Takeoff/Split topic, and we can now move on to the next part of the vault!

That is, unless volteur has any follow-up questions!

Kirk

[volteur]

That is, unless volteur has any follow-up questions!

Is that what i'm doing? Of course if you keep answering i will probably keep asking.

Firstly Tim, i have periods of quite intense apathy when nothing seems worth doing, is this along the lines of bi-polar? I just take it as a reaction to living in such a world focused on materialism over spirit. What do you think?

Kirk, the soccer 'throw in' is a great example. I ask kids when we do javelin if they have done one of two things, soccer or axe chopping as both activities can transfer instantly to javelin if someone makes the connection for them. For me javelin also can teach the rotational aspect of the shoulder during the plant, a more effective drive with the right hip and side (RHvaulter) and the finish position in javelin is similar to the reach to takeoff of the vault. Also the sloght C position as the hips drive forward ahead of the rest of the body. Still, I see the throw in as closer to javelin than vault.

The next bit you bring up is possibly the most interesting of all. I think it could well show the fundamental difference between your and Agapit's explanantions. To me it also shows the difference between the Soviet's and the Americans basic approach to life. In general it can be explained with Agapit's comment of wheat and chaff. Soviet's don't like chaff, Americans (and Australians) like a bit of chaff especially if it adds to the overall flavour and dynamic of the situation. Sure we go overboard in this way a lot but the Soviet's (ex-Soviet's) usually go to far the other way - we perceive this is too dry, my coach was Ukrainian and whilst he had more personality than the normal Soviet he was still too minimal for some.

How this relates to the vault can be shown between Agapit's refined and precise explanantion and your flowing and colourful one. Specifically it can be highlighted in what happens the moment after takeoff, before any body weight is transferred to the pole. Agapit talks about reducing the passive phase as much as possible and you talk about extending yourself further into the split. Agapit wants to minimise loss of energy and you want to set up a situation which can add to it. To me Agapit does minimise energy loss and you do not so much, but what you possibly do is add the extra potential energy you store in your body to come out as additional kinetic energy. Of course i could well be wrong with this idea. It depends on exactly what you did. A video would help enormously here.

Going back to your correction of my attempt to describe your technique - thanks by the way - i can see two parts to the post takeoff phase as you explained. The first is free from ground and pole and you partially come to the split during this phase. The next part is when your bodyweight is progressively loading onto the pole up to the point when your full bodyweight is on it (you add the word dead bodyweight which is really important. Like you can hold your weight up on the high bar or let it hang fully or anywhere in between and we are all probably somewhere in between - short of full dead bodyweight but i may just be talking about myself.)

So there are these two sub-parts to the flight phase of takeoff. Pre-pole loading and post pole loading. I have a question about the second part. Did the pole, with a slight and controlled 'clothesline' effect pull you further into the split? Also for the picture in my mind - at maximum split where was your left hand and right foot in relation to each other - from a side on perspective.

Cheers

Volteur

ps your medicine ball stuff is good, speed over weight. A 1kg is still heavy but it can be done.

[KirkB]

… The next bit you bring up is possibly the most interesting of all. I think it could well show the fundamental difference between your and Agapit's explanations. …

… How this relates to the vault can be shown between Agapit's refined and precise explanation and your flowing and colourful one. Specifically it can be highlighted in what happens the moment after takeoff, before any body weight is transferred to the pole. Agapit talks about reducing the passive phase as much as possible and you talk about extending yourself further into the split. Agapit wants to minimise loss of energy and you want to set up a situation which can add to it. To me Agapit does minimise energy loss and you do not so much, but what you possibly do is add the extra potential energy you store in your body to come out as additional kinetic energy. ...

So there are these two sub-parts to the flight phase of takeoff. Pre-pole loading and post pole loading. I have a question about the second part. Did the pole, with a slight and controlled 'clothesline' effect pull you further into the split? Also for the picture in my mind - at maximum split where was your left hand and right foot in relation to each other - from a side on perspective.

Volteur, I’m going to get back to you on these 3 paragraphs. Your middle paragraph is quite insightful. But first …

In “Post #20 - Request for Feedback” post, I wrote:

Please understand that I would first like to hear a proper categorization of the Bryde Bend in comparison to other models or model variants.

Assuming that we can reach some kind of consensus or agreement on that, I would then be interested in discussing the pros and cons of each model or variant compared to mine ...

I’m aware of some of my technique's deficiencies (or maybe they're just my own personal limitations), and I will disclose those in due course.

I think we’ve now covered HOW I vaulted in 1971-72, so this “due course” I hinted at is coming soon. I wanted to explain exactly HOW I did it, without getting too much into what was good and not so good about it. Now I’m ALMOST ready to critique it, and relate it to the Petrov model. And most importantly, I would like to disclose and discuss what technique I feel TODAY is the best technique – the technique that I would have followed back in the day had I been aware of it.

Let me start by summarizing some of the clues that led me to the self-realization that my technique was sub-optimal (ouch – it hurts me to say “my technique” and “sub-optimal” both in the same sentence – I took such pride in my technique!).

As I wrote my Bryde Bend posts, I began to realize some technical flaws. But to mention them too early would be to confuse you between HOW I actually vaulted, and how I’d do it differently now - if I had the opportunity to relive my career with my new-found knowledge.

Or as volteur put it (Jul 28 2008 - above):

I bet he wishes like the rest of us he could have his 23 year old body back with his current mind.

Keep in mind that I have no regrets – I did the best with what Coach Shannon and I knew at the time. But there’s something in my training that I kick myself today for not noticing. Hint: My short run vault.

Just for fun, I’ll leave these clues for you to think about for a few days. I really want your critique of the weaknesses (as well as the strengths) of my technique. This isn’t just a silly game - I believe it to be a progression towards the elusive OPTIMAL TECHNIQUE that we all crave for …

On Jun 27 2008, in Post #2 – My Bio post, I wrote:

Poles:
Catapole 550+
• Flex 7.25 – 180# - my 5.28 pole and my 1972 practice pole
• Flex 7.0
• Flex 6.875 - 185#?
• Flex 6.75 - my most frequently used competition pole in 1972
• Flex 6.625 - 190#?
• Flex 6.5
• Flex 6.25 - 195#? - my 5.34 pole

In Post #3 – The Bryde Bend – Readers Digest Version post, I wrote:

We often practised vaulting … with a 9-step run. My best was 15-9, with a 13-8 grip. With that low of a grip, and with that short of a run, pole carry wasn’t an issue. But 9-step vaulting forced me to emphasize a strong, aggressive takeoff. It was impossible to build up much speed in 9 steps, so the takeoff HAD to be quick!

In Post #17 – “Mechanics of the Pole Vault” Notes post, I wrote:

VIII. In the take-off action from the ground, how do you control your driving action?

I think of my take-off action as a “jump to a split position”. i.e. driving the lead knee forward and upward quickly and driving the trail leg upward and backward quickly. At the same time, the chest is driven forward towards the pole. There is a definite pause in this split position after take off. The higher the grip the more the pole bends, then the longer you should pause in the split. (I hand-drew a stick-man vaulter in the split position – annotating the accentuated “split” between the 2 legs.)

In Post #18 – Can Beginners Do the Bryde Bend? post, I wrote:

3. Experiment with the Bryde Bend. I recommend a gradual increase in this (measured in months or years – not in days or weeks), as your vaulting technique improves. How extreme you split/lift is up to each individual. I think I was definitely extreme, but you’ll still get some benefits with a slight backwards lift.

In Post #19 – Vaulters Jumping Like Bubka – BEFORE Bubka post, I quoted altius:

On Oct 18 2007, in the Vaulters Jumping Like Bubka – BEFORE Bubka thread of the Historical forum ...

Over the past couple of years there have been a few posts implying that several - many? - US vaulters jumped 'like' Bubka, in the 1960s and 70s.

The only vaulters who I have seen who jumped 'like Bubka before Bubka' were folk like Warmerdam whose technique was conceptually the same, and Slusarski of Poland, the 1976 Olympic Champion, who demonstrated perhaps the most critical of the Petrov/Bubka characteristics - an unloaded pole at take off.

So I would really appreciate it if someone could post film of US vaulters - or anyone other than Slusarski - who jumped 'like' Bubka before 1980 - i.e. before Bubka!

And then I wrote:

As far as I’m aware, my intentional lift BACKWARDS of my trail leg might be the only part of my technique that is quite distinct from the Bubka “Petrov Model” or “6.05 Model” or “6.40 Model”. But you be the judge of that.

So there’s your clues. Please critique.

Thanks.

Kirk

[KirkB]

In Bruce Florman's translation of the interview from In Sport-Express (ISINBAEVA: A RECORD WITH AN INTERMEDIATE FINISH) that he entitled "Post-Monaco interview with Petrov" here: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=6922&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=petrov&start=180

Interviewer (Yuri Yuris): On her second attempt at 5.04, Isinbaeva bent her pole so much that it seemed from the side insufficiently stiff…

Petrov: This was a technical error: crushing the pole too much. In this case it doesn’t add to the height, but on the contrary, it drops the vaulter.

[volteur]

Interviewer (Yuri Yuris): On her second attempt at 5.04, Isinbaeva bent her pole so much that it seemed from the side insufficiently stiff…

Petrov: This was a technical error: crushing the pole too much. In this case it doesn’t add to the height, but on the contrary, it drops the vaulter.

you don't need someone to critique, you are doing it all by yourself