The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

[dj]

hello

I’m thinking a little more “simplistic”… more along the lines of… application of (horizontal) force…

i.e by using the “stop board” and a two pendulum system to change that horizontal force into vertical height..by propelling the body high above the original grip point on the pole………..

RUN………PLANT………SWING

dj

[volteur]

hi

yes that is one way to go but it is a 3 hinge pendulum - hand/shoulder/hip (and the base of the pole is the fourth i guess but it's quite fixed on bending poles)

[vaultmd]

Vaultmd - Shirley was a character and my predecessor as the National record holder in the deca, but i only met him a couple of times and competed against him once. Do you have any recollections of the man?

I didn't know Simon Shirley very well, but he was friendly, positive and a nice person. He was always really nice to me; and back then not everyone was nice to us nobodies.

He also seemed like a really good athlete. I bet he could have played american rules football if he had chosen to.

[KirkB]

sorry DJ and Kirk, do you hear what you are saying? Bubka before Bubka?

fair enough certain elements may have been similar but to state your claims like that ... quite out there!

To be clear, I said:

I think Agapit would like Kjell’s technique a lot – it follows his 6.40 model much closer than any other vaulter that I’m aware of. Even closer than Bubka! Bubka bent at the hips more than Isaakson.

I stated this correctly, and I'm prepared to defend this statement.

It was dj that said:

Kjell had the "bubka" technique before bubka....

I’m not even sure that dj meant to say exactly that, but I’ll let him fend for himself. I would have said “Kjell had the Petrov model before Bubka …” – which is slightly different.

I mention this issue in my following post, so I’ll refrain from further comment here.

Kirk

[KirkB]

Let’ break this down (as usual) …

… on the highbar, in order to get a continuous motion (chain) as the foot is 'tapping' the shoulders also need to be going through the action of the back uprise.

Right. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, it’s centred around your CoG – whipping from a C to a backwards C. From this backwards C onwards, you are no longer swinging about your top hand. The fulcrum has now moved to your shoulder.

But I’m not sure what you mean by “back uprise”. Can you clarify, please? I think you’re referring to some kind of “uprise” of the “back”, but what direction do you mean by “uprise”?

this means that from side on, firstly the forward C shape is created prior to the tap/back uprise (ie when the body is mostly in front of the bar) and THEN a reverse C is created where the majority of the body is behind the high bar, led by the shoulder action. From this position there is now enough potential energy to invert and pull to hand stand.

Right, but it’s NOT led by the shoulder action (it’s led by the trail leg foot – or arguably all at once), and I wouldn’t call it potential energy, other than a bit of energy that’s stored in the highbar (the highbar is lowest at this point). More importantly, it’s mostly KINETIC energy. Your body is rotating quite quickly at this point, around the fulcrum points. That’s REAL, VISIBLE, KINETIC energy - not potential energy.

And if we’re talking highbar giants here (not pole), then you don’t really PULL to a handstand – you COAST to a handstand. If you’re trying to map this to a pole action, I suggest you don’t. As I said in a previous post, it’s different on the pole – at least with my technique.

I’m not sure what you mean by “side on”. That’s a new term for me. Is that a typo?

Here things connect to Agapit and his manifesto i believe. For enough energy to be created to pull to handstand, the pulling action begins with the back uprise action which begins exactly at the same time as the tap. So for this version of the swing to handstand required the pulling action to be simultaneous with the tap. I was taught by my coach to do this simultaneous upper/lower body action.

I get the part about “pulling action” during the tap. That’s the “lat pull action” that we’ve discussed a couple months ago in Agapit’s Pole Vault Manifesto thread.

But are you still talking about the HIGHBAR, and not the POLE action? I don’t know why you’re trying to map the two. They’re different – at least in the Bryde Bend technique, which is the topic of this thread. You do mention “Agapit and his manifesto”, so perhaps they’re closer to being one and the same in the 6.40 model. But that’s a different thread. You must have already noticed that I disagree with a couple things there (in the Pole Vault Manifesto thread).

(1) swinging immediately after takeoff – as soon as the pole hits the box, and
(2) keeping the body straight thru the swing, all the way to the invert.

That just means that the Bryde Bend is different than the 6.40 model. It says nothing of which model is better. Let’s just agree that they’re different. Let’s not go there [yet].

Personally, I like (and I can relate to – thru personal experience on the pole) the Petrov model, with some slight style differences. Also keep in mind that the Petrov model is NOT the Bubka model. Bubka is just an instance (albeit a very good instance) of the Petrov model. Is Bubka a good instance of the 6.40 model? My personal opinion is that he’s not – he doesn’t start his swing as soon as his pole hits the box, and he bends his hips before inverting.

There was a guy in Melbourne who jumped 5:15 … Andrew Stewart ... He was an ex-elite gymnast i believe. Anyway he trained in our gym a few times …

He could hang from the high bar and in one single action end up in a handstand on top of the bar. From hanging still - to activating into forward C then reverse C then into handstand - marvellous to watch and a key image for me as i was taught to vault.

I’ve also seen UW gymnasts do this. My frat mate Yoshi Hayasaki comes to mind. You can learn quite a bit from watching gymnasts – even if they don’t know how to vault. They know how to manipulate their body on the apparatus – usually far better than vaulters. Since your guy knew how to vault, so much the better.

Of course i never achieved it but i could get high enough to then muscle/push into a handstand - for a 5.10 vaulter this is probably quite good. (actually i had to have a slight jump off the ground to get into this push handstand - but then our high bars were adjustable so we could put it in a position where the bar was at eye level)

OK, so you MIGHT know the feel of this motion – great! But unfortunately, IF the bar was at eye level, then you were doing a different drill – you were doing what’s typically called a “FLYING Shoot to a Handstand”, a "Hip Circle, Shoot to a Handstand", or simply "Hip Circle to Handstand" – not a “STANDING Shoot to a Handstand”. If the bar is at normal competition height, then you typically start the “Flying Shoot …” with a kip (to get up onto the bar at hip-height), and then a sort of backwards movement with your hips. In other words, you do it from a flying start. The rest is then the same as what you described.

That’s a good drill too, but it’s quite different. It’s too easy to “swing to an invert” in that drill. The real work during that drill (as you say) is the “push handstand” – which is AFTER the “swing to an invert”. Compare that drill to the “STANDING Shoot to a Handstand”, where the entire idea is to move from below the bar (legs hanging down) to above the bar (legs above – in a handstand) – just like your man Andrew Stewart did.

I did the “STANDING Shoot to a Handstand” from standing below the bar, where the bar might have been about 6 inches above my reach. It wasn’t adjustable, and I did have some trouble hitting my feet on the mat in the downswing of my giants. That’s why I know it would be about 6 inches above my reach. I had to jump to grab the bar, but you reminded me of one trick I used to invert quickly: I jumped a little higher than what was necessary to grab the bar. Thus, while I tapped, the weight of my body bent the highbar down a tad, giving it some bounce on the upswing!

This is perhaps another reason why I liked that drill so much. Even tho it was quite intuitive, my body was clearly timing the upswing to coincide with the flexion of the bar! Once you get the feel for this “bounce” – be it on the highbar, on the tramp, or on the pole, your body goes into automatic and “does the right thing”.

Kirk

[KirkB]

Analysis of Greg Duplantis Videos

Greg was 5-6 and 150 lbs, with a 15-6 to 15-9 grip (according to Barto) in his prime. That’s 1.5” shorter than Kjell, and about the same weight and grip. Looking at him in his vaults, he looks very, very strong – an excellent body weight to strength ratio. If he was gripping 15-9 on his 19-0 PR, that’s a phenomenal 47 inch handstand! But if he was gripping 15-6, then that’s even better – a 50-inch handstand! More than likely though, it’s 47 inches – which is identical to Kjell Isaakson’s best handstand (on his 18-9 practice vault). It’s also possible that Kjell upped his grip for that vault (unbeknownst to us), which would put Greg ahead of Kjell for the “best handstand” award.

I was 6-0 and 173 lbs – a full 6 inches and 23 lbs more than Greg. Despite these differences, I think Greg’s technique was (surprisingly!) much closer to mine than the Kjell’s – something that I just discovered when reviewing his vids!

My reference of Greg’s vaults is from the Duplantis Videos thread here: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16077 and the vids here: http://mardigrastrackclub.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=36. You might have to click on your Refresh button if you can’t see the vids – it’s kind of flaky.

Before I critique Greg’s vaults, I’d like to make it clear that I’m comparing him to my Bryde Bend technique, and wherever he’s doing something different than me, I call that a “flaw”. That’s a narrower than usual definition of a flaw. If he’s doing something by intent (and It’s different than what my technique requires), then that normally wouldn’t be considered a flaw – it’s just his style. It’s only truly a flaw if (a) he doesn’t realize that he’s doing something “incorrectly”, or (b) if he realizes it, but is unable to make his body act the way he wants it to.

The 1989 (Brazil) and the 1991 (Stockholm) vaults look really nice from what I can see. Unfortunately, the takeoff/C (what I refer to as the “Jump to the Split”) is blocked by an official, so I can’t really see what he’s doing in the most critical phase of his vault. I just see excellent speed down the runway, a sub-optimal pole carry, and then a good plant. After he comes back into view (past the official), his pole already has a very good bend, and he’s already inverted. Very nice, but I can’t see how he gets there.

So I’ll focus on the 1996 (Baton Rouge) 18-5 vid, where his hip clearance looked to be well over 19 feet! This vid has a clear view of his takeoff/C (Jump to the Split) …

First, I’m surprised that he doesn’t carry the pole higher – like Isaakson, Bubka, and myself. Despite his excellent sprinting speed, he seems to struggle a bit on the last few steps of the runup – perhaps from holding the pole up instead of just letting it drop. His grip seems too wide. Maybe if he had narrowed his grip (which could best be done with a higher carry), he’d run into the takeoff a little better. You can see him punch the pole back and forth a bit too much in the last couple steps.

His bottom arm reaches quite far forward on the plant. There’s nothing wrong with that, other than this usually can’t be done without turning the shoulders a bit. I think keeping the shoulders more square to the box would have given him better drive into the pole. He seems to start his plant with his top hand quite far back (and his bottom hand quite close to his body), and then he ends his plant with his top hand high above his head, but his bottom hand is reaching too far forward. Other than this being somewhat unorthodox, he might have something going here, if he actually uses this planting motion to improve his drive off the ground. I did that a bit (and I had a narrower grip), but not as well as I see Greg do it here.

Overall, it’s a very good plant, with perhaps some slight room for improvement – as mentioned. Of course, I’m just guessing here. I don’t know his intent, and I don’t know what his plant “felt like” to him. Those are much more important considerations than the opinion of a pundit that’s just looking at a single vault on poor quality video.

He’s very tall on takeoff, and seems to have a good takeoff angle. He also has good forwards lean on takeoff. He’s probably a good high jumper – for his height (although his LJ isn’t THAT impressive). Barto reports his long jump PR at 23’. I’m a bit surprised at that – I would think that with his speed he could jump a bit further. However, 23’ is a very round number, so I guess that’s just an approximation. Maybe he stopped competing in LJ after high school?

Because of his forwards reach on his plant, you might get the impression that he’s about to push on the pole (a bad thing). But instead, he lets it collapse nicely, letting the force of his run and jump enter the [potential energy of the] pole thru the top hand (a good thing). If there’s any punch at all there, it’s just momentary – not noticeable to the naked eye.

He has a nice Split (aka a “C”), which he holds quite well – to roll the pole. Not at all like Isaakson, but quite a bit like myself (with the exception that he doesn’t lift his trail leg back by intent – he just holds it). On the downswing, he does bend his knee, which I consider a rather serious flaw – it takes power away from the loading of the pole. But he’s got so many other things going for him that he gets away with this.

He’s high enough off the ground during his swing that I must assume a strong JUMP into the pole on takeoff. I can’t really see how powerfully he’s jumping from the vid, but judging by where he’s at (quite high off the ground) during the Split and Whip, it’s probably a very strong Jump.

His trail leg does quickly straighten (a good thing), and the rest of his Hinge/Whip is excellent, IMHO. If he hadn’t bent the knee at the start of the Hinge, I’d say that he nailed it – as per the Bryde Bend. Notice that he stays behind the pole very well as he transitions from the Whip to the Extend.

He actually tucks a bit during part of the vault more than I would expect would be necessary, but I guess that’s how he keeps the pole rolling to vertical. I didn’t tuck at all, as evidenced by my pic near the top of this thread.

I do notice a slight “piking” motion that Greg has. He doesn’t extend straight up – at least not on this vault. Instead, after the slight tuck, he pikes at the hips, and then comes out of the pike in a sort of straightening/extending motion. I would consider this only a minor flaw – maybe even write it off as just a slight style variation. The only thing I have against it is that it’s a hint of a tuck (or a variation of a tuck), instead of extending directly upwards. But after that – for the most part – he’s pretty well nailed his extension too, IMHO. And his handstand is tremendous, as mentioned above! Way, way better than mine (a lowly 34”).

Yeh, I’m surprised at the similarity here – I didn’t see it at first, due to the hidden takeoff/C in the 1989 and 1991 vids!!!

Greg’s vault is much closer to my vault than to Isaakson’s vault. I started this post thinking that I would compare Isaakson to Duplantis (since they’re both shorties), but I see now that there’s really no comparison. But there’s a very surprising similarity between Duplantis’ technique and mine!

If he was still vaulting, I’d advise Greg to use a high pole carry. Even tho he’s already running fast, that would speed up his takeoff speed even more! He would also be able to increase his grip quite a bit this way.

Next, I would advise him to work on the highbar to get a longer, more powerful trail leg swing going. It’s much easier to get that ingrained into your muscle memory in the gym than on the pole. That would load the pole more. Once he got the rhythm of this, he would start blowing thru his present poles, and would have to move up to a set of heavier ones.

I don’t think that Greg would have to swing/lift his leg back at all. I think that part of my technique isn’t really as important for a shorty. He could have tried that, and it might have worked quite well for him, but I’m not even adding that to the formula of how he could optimize his technique – that’s an optional extra.

Think about it. Here’s a guy that’s 5-6 clearing 19-0. Increase his takeoff speed, improve the power of his trail leg Whip, put him on a heavier pole, and it’s absolutely scary how high he would fly!

This isn’t pie-in-the-sky. I predicted in 1972 that someone could vault 20-0 BACK THEN, with the right technique and speed. Albeit in the late 1980s and into the 90s, Greg had the speed, and his technique was “almost there”. I had expected that it would take a 6-footer with Greg’s kind of speed to vault 20-0 (and I still think that - but add another foot to account for better pole technology), but even with his limited height and pole angle on takeoff, I think Greg could have been in the 6.00 metre range – or better!

Kirk

[volteur]

Vaultmd - Shirley was a character and my predecessor as the National record holder in the deca, but i only met him a couple of times and competed against him once. Do you have any recollections of the man?

I didn't know Simon Shirley very well, but he was friendly, positive and a nice person. He was always really nice to me; and back then not everyone was nice to us nobodies.

He also seemed like a really good athlete. I bet he could have played american rules football if he had chosen to.

he was a monster and highly coordinated from memory, I'm sure American football would have been right up his alley.I also found him to be super nice and it definitely wasn't put on - but then again he was an Aussie decathlete and we tend to work together more than apart out on the track.

[volteur]

Let’ break this down (as usual) …

hopefully you enjoy this as much as i do!

Right. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, it’s centred around your CoG – whipping from a C to a backwards C. From this backwards C onwards, you are no longer swinging about your top hand. The fulcrum has now moved to your shoulder.

the fulcrum has moved to the shoulder - how early it does this is another question for another time though.

But I’m not sure what you mean by “back uprise”. Can you clarify, please? I think you’re referring to some kind of “uprise” of the “back”, but what direction do you mean by “uprise”?

sorry i thought this was a generic gymnastics term - can anyone help here (i'll ask the gymnastics expert next week if not). The full extension of this position would be to finish on top of the bar with arms straight and the hips at bar level. It is like a kip but with straight arms throughout the whole process as one travels backwards and upwards from the hanging position under the bar. Of course since the goal is to invert and pull the body on the other side of the bar to handstand a full back uprise is not required.

Right, but it’s NOT led by the shoulder action (it’s led by the trail leg foot – or arguably all at once)

i would argue all at once with the central control located at the center of gravity.

and I wouldn’t call it potential energy, other than a bit of energy that’s stored in the highbar (the highbar is lowest at this point). More importantly, it’s mostly KINETIC energy. Your body is rotating quite quickly at this point, around the fulcrum points. That’s REAL, VISIBLE, KINETIC energy - not potential energy.

ok i agree with what you say but i did mean something different. When your center of mass and bodyweight is moreso on one side of the bar than the other (ie not in neutral) then you have potential energy which can be used to swing/pull/fall to the other side of the bar. In such a case there is a larger amount of energy available than if you were just hanging underneath in a neutral position.

And if we’re talking highbar giants here (not pole), then you don’t really PULL to a handstand – you COAST to a handstand. If you’re trying to map this to a pole action, I suggest you don’t. As I said in a previous post, it’s different on the pole – at least with my technique.

ah ok i wasn't meaning to talk about giant swings at all - they are mostly irrelevant in my mind for pole vaulting (although good for general gymnastic development) So don't worry i'm not going there at all.

I’m not sure what you mean by “side on”. That’s a new term for me. Is that a typo?

no i just mean looking from side on to the gymnsatic bar ie not front on or from a diagonal. The coronal plane is a better way to describe i guess but i'm trying to not talk in biomech lanaguage if i can help it. (kids don't have access to that language i guess and i like to be able to teach every apparently complicated concept all the way down to a kids level)

I get the part about “pulling action” during the tap. That’s the “lat pull action” that we’ve discussed a couple months ago in Agapit’s Pole Vault Manifesto thread.

yep and this is the action that leads to the back-uprise and is the missing part of the rockback or pre-inversion/post-takeoff position (so unweildy) that most people seem to be missing and the essence of this series of threads we are involved in right now.

But are you still talking about the HIGHBAR, and not the POLE action? I don’t know why you’re trying to map the two. They’re different

not that different to me though - for one i can't see how to specifically train this aspect of the vault without the high bar/ropes and rings.

Personally, I like (and I can relate to – thru personal experience on the pole) the Petrov model, with some slight style differences. Also keep in mind that the Petrov model is NOT the Bubka model. Bubka is just an instance (albeit a very good instance) of the Petrov model. Is Bubka a good instance of the 6.40 model? My personal opinion is that he’s not – he doesn’t start his swing as soon as his pole hits the box, and he bends his hips before inverting.

i see the trick here is to initiate the pulling action ala this back-uprise as soon as possible after takeoff, BUT this does not mean the torso rotates/inverts yet. In fact i see it as very important to delay this rotation/inversion action initially as one continues the energy moving post takeoff. (At least to learn it on a softer pole) So the hips and shoulder fulcrums are activated but not the hand fulcrum initially. The hand fulcrum comes after this initial stage of 'continuing to load the pole in a torso vertical position' and really only occurs as the inversion is initiated.

OK, so you MIGHT know the feel of this motion – great!

oh come on man did i not describe it?

But unfortunately, If the bar was at eye level, then you were doing a different drill – you were doing what’s typically called a “FLYING Shoot to a Handstand”, a "Hip Circle, Shoot to a Handstand", or simply "Hip Circle to Handstand" – not a “STANDING Shoot to a Handstand”. If the bar is at normal competition height, then you typically start the “Flying Shoot …” with a kip (to get up onto the bar at hip-height), and then a sort of backwards movement with your hips. In other words, you do it from a flying start. The rest is then the same as what you described.

That’s a good drill too, but it’s quite different. It’s too easy to “swing to an invert” in that drill. The real work during that drill (as you say) is the “push handstand” – which is AFTER the “swing to an invert”. Compare that drill to the “STANDING Shoot to a Handstand”, where the entire idea is to move from below the bar (legs hanging down) to above the bar (legs above – in a handstand) – just like your man Andrew Stewart did.

I did the “STANDING Shoot to a Handstand” from standing below the bar, where the bar might have been about 6 inches above my reach. It wasn’t adjustable, and I did have some trouble hitting my feet on the mat in the downswing of my giants. That’s why I know it would be about 6 inches above my reach. I had to jump to grab the bar, but you reminded me of one trick I used to invert quickly: I jumped a little higher than what was necessary to grab the bar. Thus, while I tapped, the weight of my body bent the highbar down a tad, giving it some bounce on the upswing!

This is perhaps another reason why I liked that drill so much. Even tho it was quite intuitive, my body was clearly timing the upswing to coincide with the flexion of the bar! Once you get the feel for this “bounce” – be it on the highbar, on the tramp, or on the pole, your body goes into automatic and “does the right thing”.

Kirk

fair enough but don't pick on me for being less talented at vaulting than your good self and many others This drill is the same whether you jump upwards and backwards a little off the ground or achieve this same movement from the hang - the only difference is the degree of difficulty. Your version of jumping a little higher than the bar is also something we did but is of course more difficult than the eye level one yet less difficult than starting it already hanging from the bar ala Andrew Stewart. You could say the three versions are stage 1 difficulty (mine), stage 2 difficulty (yours) and stage 3 difficulty (Andrew's).

oh and totally with you on synchronising the motion with the flex of the bar - sweet stuff when it works out

volteur
(ps now i'll take a crack at the 5th dimension )

[KirkB]

OK, Volteur, "side on" is simply "side view" - I get that term now. That's the easy one - no issues there.

And "back uprise" is just as per on the highbar. If it's exactly as per the Dub Jones demo, then I get that too - thanks to Rainbow Girl's link.

But darn it, I see that you are indeed saying that there's a "back uprise" part of my Bryde Bend model - or at least in the Petrov model.

You apparently get that impression (somehow) from Agapit's description of a "pull" immediately after the pole hits the box. We agree that the pull that he's referring to is a "lat pull" - with the emphasis on pulling laterally with the shoulders (as opposed to using your biceps, bending at the elbows).

I can tell you from first hand experience that I did no such "back uprise" in the Bryde Bend. I can't speak for Agapit, but I fail to see how he's referring to a "back uprise" either. Perhaps you can raise that point on the "PV Manifesto" thread? It certainly doesn't belong here!

I don't mean to be curt about this, I just don't want to continue down a discussion path where you've got it wrong.

You have asked me for a diagram of what my Split position looked like in comparison to Bubka's C position. I owe that to you. I don't have any good drawing tools on my laptop, but I will hand-draw this, and scan it in. This may take some time, so bear with me. (Don't be surprised if it takes me another month to get around to it.)

I think once we have the diagrams in hand, that will be a better discussion path than continuing to discuss this "back uprise".

OK?

Kirk

[volteur]

hi Kirk

the only point of the back uprise is to set up the invert/pull position. It is artificial as it is a drill. Sorry mate i thought it was what you were roughly referring to yourself.

But let me check out those drills and see if the drill sequence i know is the same as on that list, and what you were talking about.

peace

volteur

[volteur]

Hi

i'm a bit more ready to think through your post now, sorry about the premature reply earlier. It's easier to go through it bit by bot as you have found so here goes

OK, Volteur, "side on" is simply "side view" - I get that term now. That's the easy one - no issues there.
cheers side view is easier and simpler, apologies for the confusion
And "back uprise" is just as per on the highbar. If it's exactly as per the Dub Jones demo, then I get that too - thanks to Rainbow Girl's link.

But darn it, I see that you are indeed saying that there's a "back uprise" part of my Bryde Bend model - or at least in the Petrov model.
hey, no i wasn't trying to say it was part of your model, simply because i don't know your model fully yet, that stick figure sequence would help heaps in this though. Also i'm not sure if it is part of Agapit's manifesto but i damn well bet it is. It is definitely part of what Bubka is doing on the pole though and is definitely what Petrov is trying to teach.

You apparently get that impression (somehow) from Agapit's description of a "pull" immediately after the pole hits the box. We agree that the pull that he's referring to is a "lat pull" - with the emphasis on pulling laterally with the shoulders (as opposed to using your biceps, bending at the elbows).
yep the lat pull is part of the musculature that assists this back uprise action (along with the scapula retractors - rhomboid major and minor and levator scapulae also teres major and minor and infraspinatus and supraspinatus play a role as does subscapularis).

I have to make an important point here - the back uprise action barely occurs because that would be quite impossible at the stage of immediate post-plant (it does occur quite easily a little further on if the inversion is not initiated though - do you remember rising up and back and coming over the top of the pole in some jumps which you aborted after the takeoff?). Back on to the main point of this paragraph - whilst the back uprise movement/action does not occur during an actual vault, there is still the continuous attempt to move in that direction and not come under/past the pole too early. This is the point of the back uprise training on the high bar, to be able to resist the body coming through too early.


I can tell you from first hand experience that I did no such "back uprise" in the Bryde Bend. I can't speak for Agapit, but I fail to see how he's referring to a "back uprise" either. Perhaps you can raise that point on the "PV Manifesto" thread? It certainly doesn't belong here!

I don't mean to be curt about this, I just don't want to continue down a discussion path where you've got it wrong.
but i'm only raising it and continuing to bring it up because it is the missing link for most vaulting that occurs - like for dj (sorry) to not even include the shoulder fulcrum in his discussion of the vault and for you to say it doesn't not exist in your technique

You have asked me for a diagram of what my Split position looked like in comparison to Bubka's C position. I owe that to you. I don't have any good drawing tools on my laptop, but I will hand-draw this, and scan it in. This may take some time, so bear with me. (Don't be surprised if it takes me another month to get around to it.)
cheers i think it may be necessary to continue any real discussion about your Bryde Bend (at least with me)

I think once we have the diagrams in hand, that will be a better discussion path than continuing to discuss this "back uprise".

OK?
mebbe

Kirk

[KirkB]

From Six-Pack's video review thread (Jumps I'm finally happy with haha 10-9-08) ...

By the way, KB, I find it very difficult not to 'slink' from short runs (as does VTV appear to) from the lack of run-swing energy... I know that not 'slinking' is possible from short runs (it has to be), but how? Grip lower? Use a particular size pole? What? How were you able to (not) do it? Were you even able to? When will that short run post be rearing its most likely beautiful head? Is that too many questions!?

Well, nostalgia got the best of me again tonight, so I spent some time browsing thru old articles about Casey Carrigan.

Again, it's late, so I can't really do justice to your questions tonight. Also, they do belong in the Advanced forum, so that's why I've moved this side-topic to here.

But very quickly ... not slinking is possible from short runs ... I didn't slink ... softer pole for short runs, compared to long run vaulting (but you already knew this) ... my short run vault description is coming soon - to a thread near you ... the answers to all these questions actually tie together ... kicking my trail leg back/up was the secret to my success on both my short runs and competition vaults, but I DON'T recommend it for beginner or intermediate vaulters - you need to perfect the basic Petrov model first.

Out-of-town guests this weekend, so not much time to spend on here. Maybe next weekend.

I also plan to draw the "stick figures" of my Bryde Bend soon - I haven't forgotten that either, Volteur!

Good night.

Kirk