What comes first - athleticism or technical ability?

[KYLE ELLIS]

Definitely technical ability - assuming of course that you understand the technical model you are aiming for. If you dont then it probably does not matter much what you do, You can even waste your time running cross country or improving your bench press.

That wasn't a shot at me was it because I am anti cross county! Here is how i see it... Which would be easier to turn into a supermodel, a beutifal girl with no fashion sense (=athletic person) or an ugly girl with great fashion sense (technical ability)... Obviously if you could clean up the pretty girl and do a nice makeup job etc. she would have the most potential to be a supermodel. Lol, i have no idea why i thought of it like this.

[powerplant42]

Which takes more TIME... strength training, or technical training?

Technical training!

Think about THAT one.

[nitro]

you can teach technique you cant teach athleticism

[altius]

It is a question of WHEN they are important. The phrase I coined some years ago "What is technically desirable must be physically possible" suggests that I do understand they are interlinked. However GIVEN THE PLETHORA OF POSTS ON CROSS COUNTRY RUNNING ON THIS SITE AND THE HUNDREDS OF POST DEALING WITH WEIGHT TRAINING - sorry as a hunt and pecker - didnt notice we were in caps - young athletes need to be reminded of the importance of building good technique from the get go and not wasting their time - yes wasting their time on these other things. You dont even need a sand pit to work on elements of technique so you can do that year round -even when you are participating in other sports - such as - ideally volleyball.

However let me share the following quotes - from BTB inevitably. The first is by Klaus Bartonietz - formerly of the Sports Institute in Leipzig in East germany and arguably the best track and field biomechanist around and the second by Bubka. Klaus said, "It is a well known fact that faults which occur during the learning phases are very difficult to correct later and sometimes cannot be corrected at all. Therefore it is an absolute necessity that the target technique be developed as early as during childhood.

Bubka said, "But if you ask me which is the more important, the development of physical capacities or technical abilities, my answer will only be one, technical abilities. These abilities enable you to survive in different situations while the development of physical capacities is not so difficult."

After watching hundreds of young US vaulters over the past ten years there is no doubt in my mind that an inability or unwillingness to grasp this idea and to ensure the development of good technique from the beginning is holding back performance in the vault in the USA. Every kid I meet knows where the weight room in their school is and uses it - many - perhaps the majority - do not have access to either a sand pit or a high bar.

[KYLE ELLIS]

you can teach technique you cant teach athleticism

Exactly! Ithink bubka would have a biased opinion being a great athlete ...

[powerplant42]

...You can't teach genetics... you can absolutely teach 'athleticism'. Less time is needed to do so than technique, and it can be developped whenever. As suggested by Klaus and Bubka, technique can't necessarily. It should begin right away.

If you're born athletic, good for you, technique still comes first, regardless of that disposition. ONCE YOU CAN JUMP, THEN YOU SHOULD WORK ON YOUR STRENGTH IN INCREASING LEVELS AS IT LIMITS YOUR HEIGHT MORE AND MORE. This one has a very low 'it depends' factor.

And of course the two are interlinked. You could have infinite strength with 0 technique, and have a PR of 0'0". You could have infitely good technique and 0 strength... 0'0". But take just about any random person off the street, and they will jump higher than 0'0".

I hate to be a downer but to me this is a false question. They are both equally important. A person might just as well ask would, as a vaulter, it be worse to lose your right arm or your left arm. I mean you could argue which arm is more important but I think if you don't have both arms you are not going to be a vaulter. I think both athleticism and technical ability are equally important and emphasizing one aspect over the other is counterproductive. Balance
Vault On

So you would take a brand new vaulter and put him in the weight room just as much as out on the track!? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Think about that! They could spend 2 hours working on their plant, or 1 hour working on their plant and spend 1 hour doing squats and bench press... I think now you might see my point?

Oh and it would be MUCH worse to lose your top arm... duh. And I bet you that there have been some one armed vaulters that have jumped some pretty impressive heights!

[Lax PV]

I have not posted yet cause I have been thinking about it. While being a great technician allows one to reach their full potential, having great athletic ability increases the potential more. I have to side with athletic ability. I know a lot of people that like to think that technical ability will take you to the moon, but I think an athlete's technical ability is intimately related to there athletic ability. This is not a cop out statement where I have not made up my mind, I truely believe the athletic ability is more important. Many will agree that the biggest indicator of potential height in the vault is runway speed at the last 5m of the runway. This velocity can be increased by having better posture, a more timed out plant etc. but the brass tax is, if someone is a freak athlete, they are very intuned with their body. If you give them enough chances, their body just kinda figures it out by trial and error "that one didn't feel good... I won't do that again..." vs. "Oh that was good--I'll do that again."

Given the enhanced CNS of a really talented athlete, I think that the 'coachability' factor goes up. Things play out slower in their head, because their reaction time is so much better. Adrian Peterson doesn't get to watch himself running as if he were playing John Madden football on PS3, he is just able to see some thing, make a decision and tell his body to do something about it faster than almost anyone in a world (PS--I hate the Viking's...go Pack..). I read somewhere (sorry I don't have the source at this point... I will try to find it) that a great technician and a good athlete can jump about 550-560 range. Much higher than I will ever go--hats off to them. But a great athlete, and an ok technician (ok being a relative term here again...) can go 580ish (case and point, Tommy Skipper, Jacob Davis etc.). Not to say that these athletes have reached their full potential, but I think the idea is clear. 9 times out of 10 when you are dealing with experienced pole vaulters, it's not who has the greatest form who wins... it's who hits the box the hardest--and a great athlete can hit the box hard.

[powerplant42]

Define: good, ok, great, etc...

Everything is relative and imperfect.

I agree with you Lax... eventually, strength is really THE factor (until everything is 'maintenance', but maybe I'll talk about that later)... BUT ONLY ONCE: the athlete can jump. I'm sticking by that. If you're trying to create the perfect jumper, they need a perfect training progression with no time lost to unnecessary things.

[KYLE ELLIS]

"So you would take a brand new vaulter and put him in the weight room just as much as out on the track!? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Think about that! They could spend 2 hours working on their plant, or 1 hour working on their plant and spend 1 hour doing squats and bench press... I think now you might see my point?"

Powerplant athleticism is not directly related to the weight room. And I would rather have them spend an hour working on the plant and then an hour lifting? Are you one of those coaches who believes in 2-3 hour practices??? I don't; quality over quanity for me.

And I am confused about the question? Are we asking what we would rather start off with as far as coaching goes, a good athlete or a good technician? If we are talking about what is most imprtant to develop first I would say this would depend on age... I would say a young vaulter (14 or younger) technique would be the focus... Age 14-18 I would say they are of equal importance... If the question is what would we rather inherit a superior athlete or a good technician I would take the athlete...

[powerplant42]

Yes, I feel we may be answering (or TRYING to answer) different questions. KB is the thread creator, so I'll let him come up with some more definitive questions.

Let's talk about Fred some more.

We left our young vaulter struggling with what information to believe, and how to take all that information in, correct or not. He's heard about PVP, and yeah, he's checked it out and thinks to himself, "Wow, WAY too much stuff going on there, maybe I'll poke my head in every once in a while, but I'm just gonna listen to Coach Smith, he knows me pretty well, and I like him, so I trust him." So now Fred and Coach Smith are getting serious with the weights, and Fred is getting pretty strong. His PR is not improving by much though, going from a low 8'6" to 9', and neither can really figure out why. So Coach Smith tells Fred he should go and work out on his own in addition to the lifting that he does already, so that he's really, REALLY strong. Fred is optimistic, eager, and willing to do whatever it takes... except read up. There's just TOO MUCH. So, he runs a few miles every weekend. He also does countless sit ups and push ups, and will not let up on squats with his small house gym, composed of a 20 pound barbell that he can put 100 pounds on. He rarely ever puts all that weight on though, because he has no spotter. He also does plyometrics every day, because they seem like they should really help out. By the end of the outdoor season, Fred is utterly exhausted. His PR stays at 9' for his Freshman year. Now it's Summer, and Fred has the eye of the tiger, but is still lost...

[joebro391]

I'm sticking to technique. Think about it! I don't care how strong you are, if your technique sucks, you're never getting on a 5.20 Pole, period! Technique is something that must be ingrained or 'imprinted' in a vaulter's brain. Look at most vaulters, LOOK AT BUBKA. If you see a trend, primarilly with 6-Meter vaulters, you'll notice that most of them are in their late 20's to early 30's. Why is that?? because the technique took so long to 'perfect' (no one's really perfect, so let's say "reach the pinnacle of their performance")

As most athletes know, it's much easier to build muscle while you're younger, than while you're older. It's just the way the human, male body works! You might say "how can a guy in his 40's {cough}hartwig{cough} jump 5.80??" And it's because the technique took so long to obtain. It might get you starting to think that TECHNIQUE IS HARDER TO OBTAIN THAN STRENGTH. Now, maybe it's just ME, but strength is the easier part of the vault. I believe that this sport is 80% mental (technique) and the other half's Physical (YES, THAT'S A JOKE HAHA)

Since you might start to realise that technique is the 'hard' part, you might start to think the "negatice reciprical" that the physical aspect is the "easy part". And would therefore, want to train it harder, for longer. (starting at a YOUNG age!!!)

[joebro391]

LLet's talk about Fred some more.

We left our young vaulter struggling with what information to believe, and how to take all that information in, correct or not. He's heard about PVP, and yeah, he's checked it out and thinks to himself, "Wow, WAY too much stuff going on there, maybe I'll poke my head in every once in a while, but I'm just gonna listen to Coach Smith, he knows me pretty well, and I like him, so I trust him." So now Fred and Coach Smith are getting serious with the weights, and Fred is getting pretty strong. His PR is not improving by much though, going from a low 8'6" to 9', and neither can really figure out why. So Coach Smith tells Fred he should go and work out on his own in addition to the lifting that he does already, so that he's really, REALLY strong. Fred is optimistic, eager, and willing to do whatever it takes... except read up. There's just TOO MUCH. So, he runs a few miles every weekend. He also does countless sit ups and push ups, and will not let up on squats with his small house gym, composed of a 20 pound barbell that he can put 100 pounds on. He rarely ever puts all that weight on though, because he has no spotter. He also does plyometrics every day, because they seem like they should really help out. By the end of the outdoor season, Fred is utterly exhausted. His PR stays at 9' for his Freshman year. Now it's Summer, and Fred has the eye of the tiger, but is still lost...

That story actually makes me wanna cry, no joke.

But it got me thinking. How many of us have seen a guy go 14' - 16' with HORRIBLE TECHNIQUE??? How come he can do it with such terrible form?? It greatly upsets me for one, cause i'm busting my buns to be good and my current PR is 14'...for now HA. But anyway, so we have a bad technician, jumping 16'. HOW COME?? because he is 6'4 and runs a 11.4 100m. NOW, after hearing that, you might think that it supports athleticism...but it doesn't.

Take Fred's twin brother, Surge! He's 6'4, 175lbs, and can run a 11.4-100m. He uses a 7-Left Approach and grips 15'1 on a 16' 200. When he plants the pole, he's a foot under. As soon as he's off the ground, he shoot to his back (no swing). And once he can see everyone behind him (head whip), he shoots out, over the bar, at 15'6. You might think "WHOA!! HOLY COW!!" But the thing is, this is bad!! He's gonna go to college, and the coach is gonna try to fix his technique, and it's gonna be BAD. why is it going to be bad, you might ask?? WHY!?! because when he tries to go back and fix his problems, he's gonna loose all his will-power because it's gonna 'take too long' to fix. {cough}scott roth{cough}.

You see, Surge is a gifted athlete, but he didn't spend enough time on technique. and it was his ultimate downfall. h/o, i think Fred just jumped 9'6. Nice swing! hahahahaha