There's some really good discussion going on here. Keep it rolling!
KYLE ELLIS wrote: ... I am confused about the question? ... If we are talking about what is most important to develop first I would say this would depend on age...
Yes, this is the primary question. How can you learn and execute proper technique without having adequate physical fitness and strength (athleticism) first? Yet when is enough enough? i.e. If you spend too much time in HS on getting strong, fast, and coordinated, you might run out of time to be a "good enough" HS vaulter to open the doors to a college career.
To give you one specific example I have in mind: Abs aren't naturally strong in HS athletes, but I think you need strong abs to vault correctly. (Only those that already HAVE strong abs will argue this point.) So if you develop a technique that works despite your weak abs, THEN develop your abs, THEN change your technique to utilize your new-found ab muscles, is that the best training route? Or should you just not start vaulting until you have sufficient core strength (including abs) to execute proper technique from the get-go?
KYLE ELLIS wrote: ... Are we asking what we would rather start off with as far as coaching goes, a good athlete or a good technician?
Yes, this is a secondary question. It's like the first question, but from the coach's perspective. But if you're the first PV coach the athlete ever had, of course he won't be a good technician yet. So maybe think about the feeder system, where there's a Jr. High and a Sr. High coach. If you're the Sr. High coach, how would you prefer the Jr. High coach to train these prospects? For the sake of this discussion, assume that there's no Jr. High competitions - it's all just training in prep for Sr. High meets.
KYLE ELLIS wrote: If the question is what would we rather inherit a superior athlete or a good technician I would take the athlete...
This sounds almost the same as the previous question, except for the word "superior". I wouldn't quibble about the difference.
To try to restate the dilemma, it's this ...
What is the best training path to follow, to progress "best" thru the HS, college, and elite ranks? What path has a "documented history" of working best? What are some of the success stories?
Are there any failure stories? e.g. Why did Casey Carrigan excel in HS (5.30) but not in college (5.05) or beyond(5.45)? Can it be attributed to his training path?
I was purposely vague and open-ended in stating the topic. There's some good points being made so keep them coming! Just qualify what question you're answering!
Kirk