The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

This is a forum to discuss advanced pole vaulting techniques. If you are in high school you should probably not be posting or replying to topics here, but do read and learn.
volteur
PV Pro
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby volteur » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:45 am

powerplant42 wrote: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!? :)


Don't maximise you speed on short runs is the key, if you try to maximise (too early) then all that will happen is poor running form (slinking? like running low or something?). The trick is to run in tall and upright and not low and leaning like you would do in the acceleration phase of the 100m. There is no need to do this off a longer run as you can build pace up as gradually as you would like, so why do it off short runs and compromise takeoff position?

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

Kirk


excellent cheers

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby KirkB » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Volteur, you missed my definition of "slinking", which you'll find here http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=16176&st=0&sk=t&sd=a on the Jumps I'm finally happy with haha 10-9-08 thread in the Video Review forum.

I'm tempted to debate with you the advantages and disadvantages of accelerating full speed on short runs, but since you misunderstood what I meant by "slinking", and since I haven't talked about my short runs yet, I'll refrain.

It's Thanksgiving Day in Canada, and our weekend company has left. So I'll see what I can do about catching up on some threads now. I just finished posting some more about Casey Carrigan, who was definitely the world's first world-class high school vaulter (he made the 1968 US Olympic team as a 17-year-old!), and probably still ranks as one of the most impressive vaulters at the youngest age (Mondo Duplantis might surprise us, though!). You've all read the comparisons between Carrigan and Skipper.

We met at a couple of meets, but I honestly don't remember his technique. I was probably more focused on my own during our competitions with each other. I would love to pick his brain about his technique (which he "discovered" 3 years before I "discovered" mine). Come to think of it now, he was interested in attending UCLA, so I wonder if he got some "behind the scenes" coaching from Ken Shannon, Jon Vaughn, or Dick Railsback? He vaulted in several meets with Vaughn and Railsback in 1968.

If anyone knows how I can reach Casey by email, please let me know. I think he might have some interesting and valuable information about his technique that's pertinent to one of the themes of this thread - "Petrov model before Bubka".

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

User avatar
powerplant42
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:58 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby powerplant42 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:29 pm

Volteur, I have said the same thing very recently in the 'training' forum:

Remember: Practice is not a competition. You're not trying to impress anyone, you're trying to get better. You don't have to get up to as fast as you COULD go in those 3 lefts, because you are not trying to win a competition. Grip lower, and run as correctly as you can (high cadence!)... speed is not all that important... planting correctly (can't do that without running correctly) should probably be the big focus for you right now.


'Slinking' refers to sliding up the pole during 'extension' rather than exploding off of it, like Lukyanenko.
"I run and jump, and then it's arrrrrgh!" -Bubka

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby KirkB » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:51 pm

powerplant42 wrote:'Slinking' refers to sliding up the pole during 'extension' rather than exploding off of it, like Lukyanenko.

Not "sliding". More like SLITHERING up the pole, like a snake "slithers". Although I have nothing against snakes, I just don't like the negative connotation of the word "slither", so I prefer "slinking" - as in the Slinky Toy.

If you're well ahead of the pole's recoil, and your back is already "fairly straight", then there's no need to slink when you shoot off the pole (or explode off it, as PP puts it).

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby KirkB » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:34 pm

The topic of this post is “Scalability” …

Before I compare my short run vault to my long run (competition) vault, I’d like to define the word “scalable”, or “scalability”.

In computing, this term refers to how well a hardware or software system can adapt to increased demands.

For example, a single web server might have a certain number of users that can access it simultaneously. But when you double the number of users, each user’s response time might become intolerably slow. i.e. much more than twice as slow. That’s an example of a computer system that’s not very scalable. But if the response time remained constant, independent of the user load, then that’s an example of a scalable system.

Another real world example – outside the realm of computers – is electric cars. Toy remote control cars run on electric batteries, and are really, really fast for their size! And they can run for hours! (Or at least quite a long time between battery charges.) But increase the size of the toy car to one that would fit a human in the driver’s seat, and the battery is way too big, it runs out of juice way too soon, and doesn’t run very fast at all - comparably.

In the car example, electric batteries aren’t very scalable. You can’t just increase the size of the car and the size and weight of the battery and expect the car to be proportionally “as effective”.

That’s what I mean by being “scalable”.

In pole vaulting, the athlete + the pole is also a “system” that can be scaled. Like the computing example or the electric car example, PV has various metrics that you can scale. For a given technique, there’s your takeoff speed, your weight, your height, your grip, your strength, and your pole flex. Adjusting any of these will affect how high you can raise your CoG over the bar.

Unless you take growth hormones, you can’t do much about increasing your height – other than reaching and/or jumping off your takeoff a little higher. And you can change your strength or weight, but not overnight.

Your speed on takeoff is somewhat proportional to the length of your run, so you can say that the length of your run is also an important metric. In fact, that’s one of the metrics that I’ll be focusing on. But I won’t break the run down into stride length, cadence, and the Mid Mark Chart. I won’t go there! That’s a different thread! :)

The premise of biomechanics like Peter McGinnis and Nicholas Linthorne for decades has been “the faster your run, the higher your bar clearance”. And so (assuming constant acceleration), run speed is proportional to run length, so just increase the length of your run, and you’ll jump higher, right? Wrong.

The assumption of constant acceleration is wrong. There’s laws of diminishing returns at work, and your run should be no longer than what’s required to reach full speed (and they maybe add a couple more steps to get that max speed under control).

In other words, your run scales your vault only within certain minimums and maximums. The minimum length run [needed to reach an “effective” vaulting speed] defines your short run vault, and the maximum [needed to reach full speed] defines your long run (competition) vault. Let's not quibble about doing other types of short run vaults of various lengths - like 2 lefts or 3 lefts - for various specific, isolated purposes. For now, I'm only talking about your "best" short run vault, where you "put it all together".

In order for your vault to be SCALABLE between your short run and your long run, your run length should be PROPORTIONAL to the other metrics that you can easily vary – such as pole flex and grip.

The challenge is to make your short run vault SCALABLE to your long run vault – and vice versa.

Clearly, there’s some mathematical relationship between your takeoff speed, your grip, and your pole flex that might give you a hint as to optimizing the height of your CoG over the bar. But what is it?

It’s not a linear formula, it’s a non-linear formula – a curve. McGinnis plotted the velocity (in the last 2 steps before takeoff) of elite vaulters to their PRs. (See: Biomechanics on a Budget http://www.pvei.com/fusion/readarticle.php?article_id=23). But in real-life, it’s not that simple. Velocity on takeoff isn’t all that matters. (To be fair, McGinnis has written many other articles where he recognizes this over-simplification.)

Linthorne (See: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~spstnpl/Publications/PoleVault(Linthorne).pdf) plotted height, grip, pole flex, takeoff angle, and takeoff speed to PRs. He was close, but still no cigar. It’s still not quite that simple. There’s more factors than these!

With 100% optimal technique (something that not a single elite vaulter has attained yet), you can OPTIMIZE the addition of more energy into the pole AFTER TAKEOFF to go higher. (Like McGinnis, Linthorne was aware of this too. It just added too much complexity to his formula, so he arbitrarily added a flat 80 cm to each vaulter’s theoretically optimal vault – just to align the outcome of his formulae with real-world PRs.

To be fair, he identified this constraint in his paper. On page 210 ...
… To account for this shortcoming, 80 cm was added to the calculated vault height of each jump”.

Like the scalability of an electric car, there’s certain caveats that you need to be aware of in scaling your short run to your long run vault – which I’ll elaborate on in a subsequent post.

This isn't a happy story, where I did it all perfectly and advise you to follow the same path. Rather, it's a realization and admission of an important aspect of my training where I might have done better - knowing what I know today.

To repeat, the challenge is to make your short run vault SCALABLE to your long run vault – and vice versa.

The missing metric here is “technique”. Optimal technique has minimal leakage. Sub-optimal technique doesn't. Besides stopping leaks, optimal technique ADDS to the energy of the system. Sub-optimal technique doesn’t (as much).

Does this all make sense to you, so far?

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

User avatar
powerplant42
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:58 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby powerplant42 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:09 pm

This should be an excellent series of posts that we are about to encounter... :yes:
"I run and jump, and then it's arrrrrgh!" -Bubka

volteur
PV Pro
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby volteur » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:50 am

KirkB wrote:Volteur, you missed my definition of "slinking", which you'll find here

I'm tempted to debate with you the advantages and disadvantages of accelerating full speed on short runs, but since you misunderstood what I meant by "slinking", and since I haven't talked about my short runs yet, I'll refrain.


Sounds like you are throwing out a challenge there Kirk and i'm happy to respond, but first i apologise i did not realise it was your term, i was just responding to Powerplants usage of the word. Now i can see where in the vault it is referring to it still doesn't really explain what is happening all that well, but then again i don't have a suitable replacement. Anyways it wasn't really a misunderstanding of your definition more like an ignorance of the existence of your post (it was on a previous page).

Anyway i'm sure you will provide me with the advantages and disadvatages of accelerating at full speed off a short run so i will just put my opinion out there.

Whatever advantages you can describe will always be outweighed by the disadvantages. Always.

In fact it is ridiculous to even try to accelerate maximally off a 'short run' (I would have to say it is never wise to accelerate maximally in pole vault off any run. I'm not sure who actually does at the top level these days.) I imagine my reasoning will come out most likely in reference to your own reasoning. Waiting till then.

Best of luck in the upcoming joust if you choose to accept - my lance is lowered in anticipation :)


and one more thing whilst we are at it
"Petrov model before Bubka". Kirk

............never existed :) (not the Kirk bit of course ... although :P )

Volteur



ps PowerPlant happy to be in agreement with you on this mate!

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby KirkB » Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:55 pm

Volteur, I know you're looking for a joust, but I need to keep things in order, and I'm kinda under some time pressure on a little "deal" I made with PP a few days ago.

I agreed with him that I'd discuss my "short run" and its importance in learning my technique AND he would build his highbar and publish vids of him doing the Hinge Drill. Ironically, our protege 6P may even beat him to this!

So I have a bit of time pressure this weekend. I'll get to your little joust challenge in due course, along with the diagrams that I promised you.

My next post (a very short one) is for you, but then I'm tabling the rest of your stuff til I get thru my stuff. OK?

Let's see, here's what's on my list, now that I've defined SCALABILITY (which is a prerequisite of comparing my short runs to my long runs) ...

1. Talk about the importance of WRITING, as in writing a training diary, or writing emails (or posts) to coaches and fellow athletes. Include some foreshadowing (or maybe some outright admissions).

2. Explain my short run vault.

3. Compare it to my competition (long run) vault.

4. Describe where I made mistakes in my vaulting technique and/or training regimen.

5. Describe how I'd do it over again, if I time-warped to today - knowing what I know now. (I'll leave any discussion of new pole technology out of my descriptions. I just don't know enough about it to say how I'd adapt to it.)

6. Discuss why I think the 640 model is just a style variant of the Petrov model.

7. Describe "The Optimal Vaulting Technique" as a PROVEN alternative to the 640 model - IMHO, or maybe my not-so-humble opinion!

I may not follow this strict order, but those are the items that I intend to discuss over the next few weeks - or as long as it takes. Stay tuned! :yes:

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby KirkB » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:06 pm

I think you already know this and are just taunting me, but OK, I'll bite ...
volteur wrote:
kirkb wrote: "Petrov model before Bubka". Kirk

............never existed :) (not the Kirk bit of course ... although :P )

What I mean by this is that there was a vaulter in the 1970s (before Bubka) whose technique was very, very similar to the "Petrov model". So similar, in fact, that his technique is rightfully categorized as a forerunner of the Petrov model.

That vaulter was me. (I'm too old and honest to be modest. I used to be modest - really!) :)

And if I time-warped to today and demo'd my 1971 technique (after much retrospection, I'm retracting my 1972 technique), I think that it would be rightfully categorized as as a variant of the Petrov model. So similar, in fact, that the differences would be easily recognized as mere "style differences".

This will become clearer when I finish discussing all the items on my list above.

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

volteur
PV Pro
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby volteur » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:33 pm

Hi Kirk

i must respectfully disagree with what you have said but most likely only in part. I will explain.

Whilst some aspects or elements of your vault may well be similar if not the same as the Petrovian view of pole vault i can't see how you were doing what he would train you to do, what he trained Bubka to do and what he is training Isi to do (which will take years but is already in process).

There are some asepcts that i've become aware of in your model that are clearly not the Petrov model. I always hesitate to say model because a model is a fixed thing and the way i see the Petrovian Way is as a fluid interaction of a collection of principles.

To best explain the difference between a model and a group of principles i have to refer to other clearer thinkers so in reference to one of your own forefathers:

"As to methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ralph Waldo Emerson (as wikipedia says "an American essayist, philosopher, poet, and leader of the Transcendentalist movement in the early 19th century. His teachings directly influenced the growing New Thought movement of the mid 1800s.")

As a transcendentalist he would have been an enormous fan of Einstein's theories on relativity and so once again i think this is where we need to head in our thinking on pole vault - Petrov to be sure is well aware of the principle of relativity, for he as i see it transcended the thinking of the absolutist, of the Newtonian - where all of our initial Western school of thinking is grounded in, still to this day.

I won't explain the parts of your vault that don't correspond to the Petrovian Way of Relativity as you haven't finished your continuously developing explanation of your own method. But i can and will if and when you finish (which will never happen because i already see you as becoming a relativist and moving away from being an absolutist, and a relativist recognises that all things are infinite and therefore have no actual absolute end.)

Onto more practical matters lets get into why or why not maximal acceleration in the runup of pole vault is impractical and unwise - my trusty lance grows rusty and my steed a little crusty :)

Volteurivity

ps i am editing my last metaphysics post because as i re-read it just then it confused me, and i was the author! (and if Agapit is reading would be shaking his head at the chaff!)

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby KirkB » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:49 pm

On one of 6P's Video Review threads, I posted something about my attitude regarding short run vaults. This is another precursor to describing my short runs, but instead of repeating myself, I'll just copy/paste what I already posted on 6P's thread ...

KirkB wrote:After I posted that, PP, I was thinking that we're not too far apart on this, and we just explained it differently. I'll cover some of this in my "Short Run Vaulting" post (coming soon - to a thread near you!), but just to clarify here a bit ...

Short run vaults are for learning proper technique. I'll repeat that ... SHORT RUN VAULTS ARE FOR LEARNING PROPER TECHNIQUE!

That's why I advise you, 6P, to be fresh when you're focussing on technique.

It's a waste of time to just go thru the motions, if you're tired, injured, or otherwise not starting the practice with the best you got (technique-wise). You should always start out fresh, get in a couple vaults that represent your "best" technique, then start adding to that technique bit by bit, focussing on one aspect of your vault at a time, each vaulter getting better than the last one, then you can't help but improve your technique that day. That's how you make headway in a VAULTING TECHNIQUE practice.

The challenge is to leave the practice with better technique than what you started the practice with.

Now, where the competitive aspect comes in is that during the FIRST part of my practice, I vaulted without a bar. That was for 2 reasons. First, it took too long to keep setting the bar back up if I missed (something that a bungee would take care of today), but secondly - and more importantly - the focus SHOULD NOT BE ON CLEARING BARS, but on IMPROVING YOUR TECHNIQUE.

For the SECOND part of my practice, my coach "rewarded" me and my good, newly learned technique by putting the bar up and letting me try to clear it. This was what I considered the "payoff" part of the practice. I loved to clear bars (don't we all?), so this was the fun, competitive part for me. Sometimes my coach would put the bar up to some ridiculous height, and challenge me to knock it off with my feet. And sometimes he'd put it up to a height that was challenging, but not impossible to clear.

If my technique broke down for any reason, down went the bar, and we re-focused on whatever vault-part broke down. Once that was fixed, back up went the bar.

I refer only to the FIRST part and SECOND part of the practice instead of first half and second half, because there was no set number of vaults in each mode. Really, it was based on my "freshness", and if I had learned anything new or not, and my desire to "test myself" with a bar up.

We often put the bar up when I was just about out of gas, and my coach thought that I'd just take "a couple jumps with the bar up". In practice, what often happened was that I'd get inspired by the bar being up, the adrenalin juices would start flowing, I'd "get my second wind", and I would take sometimes as many as 10 more jumps. I admit that I was the type of vaulter that would plead with my coach at the end of almost every practice "Just one more, coach!". And he'd let me try one more, but then if I missed that bar, I'd say "Just one more" ... and so on, until I was completely out of gas!

It might seem like a paradox that I would vault til I was dog-tired, but it wasn't. I attempted every practice jump like it was my last jump of the day, and I usually had my best jumps of the day on about the 3rd from last jump. So my 2nd last jump was often a miss because I was tired, and my last jump was when I was so dog-tired that my coach and I both decided that I was too tired to improve my technique any more that day.

In this respect, I doubt if I'm much different than what you (6P and PP) each experience in your own practices.

6P, perhaps the one distinct difference was that we vaulted indoors, so no matter how long the practice was, we had lights. Ha! Ha!

Kirk

There! I described my short runs before PP built his highbar! I win! :D

Nah! Just kidding! I'm just getting started! ha! ha! :)

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: The Bryde Bend (Jump to the Split)

Unread postby KirkB » Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:39 am

volteur wrote: ... To best explain the difference between a model and a group of principles i have to refer to other clearer thinkers so in reference to one of your own forefathers:

"As to methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ralph Waldo Emerson
I like the quote, but Emerson? He's American! You're not thinking that he's one of MY forefathers, are you? :confused:


volteur wrote: ... an American essayist, philosopher, poet, and leader of the Transcendentalist movement ... the growing New Thought movement of the mid 1800s. ... As a transcendentalist he would have been an enormous fan of Einstein's theories on relativity ...- Petrov ... principle of relativity ... transcended the thinking of the absolutist ... Newtonian ... yada ... yada ... yada ...

Volteur, I think you're on the wrong thread. This is all "good stuff", but you should be posting it on the Metaphysics - the Fifth Dimension of Pole Vaulting?" thread!

And I don't know how you got Petrovs name mixed up in that, but I'm sure you'll explain it ... ON THE METAPHYSICS THREAD!!!


volteur wrote: I won't explain the parts of your vault that don't correspond to the Petrovian Way of Relativity as you haven't finished your continuously developing explanation of your own method.
Gee, thanks! But "the Petrovian Way of Relativity"? Huh? I can't wait to read your explanation of that ... ON THE METAPHYSICS THREAD!!!


volteur wrote: But i can and will if and when you finish (which will never happen because i already see you as becoming a relativist and moving away from being an absolutist, and a relativist recognises that all things are infinite and therefore have no actual absolute end.)
Gee, thanks again! (I think.) :confused: You lost me a bit with your jargon there, but yes, I look forward to that debate. All in due time.


volteur wrote: Onto more practical matters lets get into why or why not maximal acceleration in the runup of pole vault is impractical and unwise - my trusty lance grows rusty and my steed a little crusty :)


I like your little rhyme, but all in due time.
Did you even read my post? The one about the most
important topics on my list. Are you posting while pist?
Start your own thread. I'm going to bed! :D

Oh, one last thing ...
volteur wrote: ps i am editing my last metaphysics post because as i re-read it just then it confused me, and i was the author! (and if Agapit is reading would be shaking his head at the chaff!)
Yes, I had that same problem! :)

Cheers, mate! I'm having fun with this, and I hope you are too! Really.

I was going to write another post tonight - one about how important it is for a vaulter to "stay on course" and "stay focussed". But all this relativity jargon has tuckered me out, and I'm relatively tired, so I'm over and out for the night. [sigh]

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!


Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests