Livininthepast wrote:I was attempting to not post a reply to the argument that vaulters do not continue on to become NFL players.
I am not the smartest person in the world, but I cannot get over the ignorance of that statement.
NFL players are such because they found talent in that game and their body can absorb physical punishment.
The key here is that all athlete require one main ingredient: DESIRE
If one does not pocess desire, he/she will not excell in a sport.
Does the author of that post mean to imply that Bruce Jenner was not a great athlete because he did not play football?
Ouch!
I am not trying to say that there are no vaulters who are great athletes, or that Jenner could not have played professional football. Although, I don't know; he ran an 11.09, 100 in the Olympic final. I am saying that the technical side of the event dominates the physical side, and that IN GENERAL athletes in the sprints and the NFL are better in terms of raw speed and strength. I am also saying that it does not take more than a decade to master the 100 meter dash. Athletes in the sprints have risen to world class levels in just a few short years after taking up their event. I don't know what Usain Bolt's PR was two years ago, but I have no doubt that it was nothing close to what he can do now. The vault is not like that. The inches often come hard, and it takes years just to master one element of technique. I over-rotated over the bar for two full years before I figured out what was going wrong.
Bruce Jenner was a fantastic athlete, in his own event. But I think that fact supports the point I am trying to make. Jenner could have beaten me out of sight in every event save one. And in the vault I could beat him by more than a foot from a ten step run. He took off the wrong foot for his entire career, and as far as I know, still holds the world record for a right hander jumping off his right leg.
The difference between us is entirely technical. And my assertion is that technique IN GENERAL trumps athleticism in the vault.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEzX0klB ... 80&index=6I once had an argument with Dan O'brien about who was the better athlete, and he insisted that I was – which I thought was ridiculous on the face of it. He had more athleticism in his little finger than I had in my whole body, and I told him so. But he planted with his top hand by his ear on most jumps, and still jumped in the seventeens doing that.
For me, the vault was a technical event that I had gotten pretty good at, and it allowed me into competitions in which I was easily the worst athlete on the field – in any event.
This argument largely depends on how you define athleticism. I am using the criterion of empirically measured speed and strength. There are obviously other elements involved that could be brought to the discussion. It did not hurt that I had been vaulting since the age of five, and decades of development of muscle patterns could also be considered an athletic talent.
Your point is well taken. Desire is an intangible aspect of athletic success that does not get enough attention. The will to succeed is a powerful force that could also be lumped into the equation when we talk about athletic talent. It is true that an athlete with the ability to vault who instead desired to become a football player possibly make it to the NFL. I still contend, however, that an athlete with the ability to run a ten flat 100 meters would have a better chance of making it over an athlete with the physical ability to vault 19', which can easily be done with 10.5 speed, and with good enough technique even slower than that.
And please forgive my ignorance. I did not intend to offend. And thank you for responding to my post. I dashed it off in a few minutes without sitting down to think about it for a while. I hope this clarifies my meaning.
And none of this touches on the subject of who OUGHT to be encouraged to take up the event, which is, I think, the subject of this thread.