Non-Petrovers

[jam354]

I assume that a lot are in the same boat as Mack. They learned another way and had international success, so rather than changing and risking financial loss, they just perfect whatever their doing. But I have to believe there are still some who are at least attmpting the Petrov model. If not, as I asked in a round about way earlier, will American vaulters be jumping higher in 10 years because more younger vaulters will be learning the basics of the model in high school thanks to the help of B2B and this site? If there are elite vaulters out there who are trying and failing, then maybe not. And if they are trying and failing, what is the reason?(financial, old habits, lack of knowledge, difficulty?)

[altius]

Just a series of thoughts on or close to the topic.
It all comes back to coaches. For many reasons there seem to be many coaches who refuse to take the Petrov model on board. Laziness, ego, misguided patriotism or simply misguided -they are unwilling or unable to accept these ideas. If you strip away the Russianness of the model - which does seem to be a block for some - and simply examine it from a purely bio mechanical point of view it is impossible to fault it or to find a better way. But if you already have all the answers - "My kid won state last year- broke the record at 15' !!!!!" - then why should you look for alternatives?

At this very time there is a dedicated young college vaulter struggling to convince his college coaches that he should be allowed to vault like Bubka and not to use their methods.

How many folk advertise clinics and camps as presenting the Petrov model when they have never met Petrov, listened to him or read his material. Charlie claims he was using the Petrov model before Petrov - and other folk have suggested a similar thing. However it is interesting that to date no one - other than myself - has been prepared to show any examples of athletes even attempting the model - that they actually coach or have coached.

I realise that this is going to upset a lot of people on pvp but I must tell it the way I see it. I am not in the class of a Petrov or Parnov or Botcharnikov but anyone who has seen my coaching vitae -or actually seen me coach - would realise that I am a pretty good substitute. Yet when I have contacted a number of coaches in the USA to try to cooperate with them to run a clinic they have either rejected the offer out of hand (way to go Maryland!) or even worse not bothered to reply. In another case I was offered a role as one of the 'hired hands'.

When Botcharnikov and I ran a clinic for coaches at Slippery Rock last year we had only 13 - yes thirteen - takers.

When I think of the thousands upon thousands of miles I have travelled - and the money I have spent doing it -to meet Houvion, Anje, Krupsky, Rippon, Petrov, Bubka among others, along with the cost of putting Parnov up -and feeding Botcharnikov (just after he had escaped as a skeleton from Russia) I begin to wonder about the real commitment of many coaches.

As I have observed before there are many dedicated coaches who are students of the event - just not enough of them in a country the size of the USA, So it is always going to be a lottery when a talented youngster emerges, as to whether they will meet a coach who knows what they are doing -at high school. in college and afterwards.

[vault3rb0y]

Amen.


The best thing that can happen to our countries vaulting is to let the best high school and college coaches' athletes results (that's a mouthful) speak for themselves. When a high school coach can consistently take athletes in 8th grade and make them 15'- 17' vaulters out of high school with defferentials proportional to elite vaulters, or when a college coach consistently turns 15'6" high schoolers into 17'-18' vaulters, they are obviously doing a lot of things right. It can be misleading, because tremendous athletes can vault mid 18's and even 19's with sub-superior techniques. It's the coaches with less-than-talented athletes going high and talented athletes going EXTREMELY high that will eventually be sought after. Even if they don't hit EVERY aspect of the petrov model... if they take the fundamentals and apply them to young vaulters, the specifics can be worked out later once they reach an elite level. Once we are mass-producing a continuous chain, free take off driven vault generation that understands the REASONS behind these aspects, i think we will see an explosion of 19'+ vaulters, with 19'8'+ vaulters about as common as 19' vaulters today. It's just a thought, hope, and prayer of mine.

[charlie]

First of all , I think that Altius is pretty much dead on!! I'm very impressed that he used me in his responses. I believe that a HIGH pole carry is a must-- A TALL EARLY plant is a must-- I believe that a free take off is a must, as long as you can hall a** thrugh the take-off. If you are average speed , you better be a little closer at takeoff!! -- I believe in My good freind David Johnston's mid mark!! Ialso believe in my good freind and i think is the BEST sprint coach in the WORLD Brooks Johnson that told me YEARS ago that you must have lift in your run and that makes the vault takeoff so much more dynamic. I have had 45 hs state champions in the last 25 years, and I do teach the , what you people call the Petrof model, and will continue !! At age 65 , I feel i don't have to justify my self to anyone!! I live in a small town in south Georgia, about 7,000, And don't have to recruit any vaulters. I will continue to say that if our American vaulters would by into the so called Petrof model, we could be as good as anybody!!!!! Coach Charlie

[altius]

Charlie -I have a few days in late june on my way from Houston to Columbia SC - if you want to use me in a clinic I am available -even give you a discount since you already use the model!!

[powerplant42]

they have either rejected the offer out of hand (way to go Maryland!)

Precisely why we need you!

I'll bring up the Linthorne paper again... 18 degrees at take-off... So when one leaves the ground, shouldn't they be arriving at the box at 18 degrees? I wish I had the math skills to do the trajectory, but I don't... Can someone else try?

[altius]

Forget Linthorne's paper - it will take you down a dead end.

[KirkB]

... the Linthorne paper again... 18 degrees at take-off... So when one leaves the ground, shouldn't they be arriving at the box at 18 degrees? I wish I had the math skills to do the trajectory ...

PP, Linthorne computed the theoretically optimal takeoff angle to be 18 degrees for fiberglass vaulting, and 30 degrees for steel. These values were calculated mathematically, then "verified" against world-class vaulters.

There is no mention of the Petrov Model (or any other model for that matter) in his paper. His paper is model-agnostic. Therefore, it's out of context to discuss it on this thread.

Kirk

[KirkB]

Here's a reminder of what Jam is asking us in this thread ...

... I have to believe there are still some who are at least attempting the Petrov model. If not ... will American vaulters be jumping higher in 10 years because more younger vaulters will be learning the basics of the model in high school thanks to the help of B2B and this site? If there are elite vaulters out there who are trying and failing, then maybe not. And if they are trying and failing, what is the reason?(financial, old habits, lack of knowledge, difficulty?)

We still seem to be skirting this issue.

Could it be that elite athletes (and coaches of elite athletes) choose not to chime in with their honest answers to this question here ... on this public forum ... for fear of getting blasted from the Petrovers that seem to be in the majority on PVP? I sure HOPE this isn't the case. If it is, it's sad situation that we can't discuss this issue openly and honestly ... without fear of reprisal. The opinions of miniorities should be respected.

Speaking as a Petrover, I for one would NOT beat up on someone for this, as I'm in awe of any vaulter that can jump 19-0 ... no matter what model they comply to.

How ironic ... the MAJORITY of us on PVP talk so much about the Petrov Model ... we TALK a good story ... yet it seems as tho in real life ... in high schools and colleges across America ... as well as in the elite ranks ... the Petrov Model is relatively unknown ... or at least relatively un-practiced.

We still haven't answered the question. The question is ... WHY?

Kirk

[IAmTheWalrus]

It's always been my opinion that the way our high school and NCAA track seasons are structured play a large part in the refusal/inability of most athletes to adopt the Petrov model. The fact of the matter is we compete every weekend, and with all these qualifying marks and invitationals, it becomes difficult to justify sacrificing immediate performance for better technique. I know for me at least, that its is excruciatingly difficult to improve my technique (post plant) from a full run, and my coach tends to view short runs as moving forwards. I also know that some aspects of the Petrov model (particularly the free takeoff) are very for me personally to implement, due to years of forming bad habits (see Note). Because this was the most difficult change for me to make, I focused my attention to the swing, and merely tried to do the best I could with the takeoff (stay tall, maintain my speed, more upward jump, becoming less and less inside). While I can't say that everyone experiences the same problems that I do, I must imagine that most vaulters, particularly in high school and college, are forced to (or may perhaps rationalize their own decision to) compromise the perfection of technique in exchange for immediate results.

The Petrov model may be the most biomechanically sound model of pole vaulting, but it is not EASY, nor is it a "quick change" for most vaulters to make. If someone is not following the Petrov model now, they will almost assuredly have to start from the beginning (how the grip and carry the pole), then change their run, plant (hands and footwork), takeoff, swing, etc. That's a lot to do and will take a lot of time. Considerably more time if the vaulter is already "set in their ways." Throw in the fact that the season is generally short (particularly college outdoor), with meets nearly every weekend, and qualifying marks that they need to hit to go to the big meets, and it becomes very difficult for vaulters to justify going back to basics and hit the drills. That is not to say that this is the correct decision to make, however it is the decision that is often made. Eligibility adds another twist as well, as vaulters only have 4 ( maybe 5) years to compete for a school, and don't even get me started on facilities or pole selection.

Now that's the athlete's perspective. It's very difficult for the average American vaulter to utilize the Petrov model. Difficult... NOT IMPOSSIBLE. It takes more work and more sacrifice to learn how to pole vault utilizing the Petrov model than any other model (except maybe the Huffman roll ) because each stage relies on the previous, and any large deviation from model at an early stage sabotages the entire vault. I would also venture to say that there are many different ways to jump 5.50, several ways to jump 5.80, and a few ways to jump 6.00 that are all easier to master than the Petrov model, but NONE will get you as high as the Petrov model. That is why I believe that you see many elites that don't follow the Petrov model. More and more vaulter's are adding elements of the Petrov model to their vaults, but I think it will still be a little while, at least in America, before we see another pure Petrov vaulter on the elite level.

Coaches are going to be the key to making a change. However there is some difficulty there as well. As previously stated (not by me but my Alan and others I believe) Soviets were not allowed to bend the pole until they were able to jump 3.65 just by stiff poling. This is an example of how their coaching style differed from ours. They wanted to train the best athletes the best technique so they could be the best in the world. Over here coaching tends to be more geared towards teaching anyone who wants to learn how they can be there best (an oversimplification and quite a blanket statement, but I'm getting tired of typing and the ham smells reaallly good). So we tend to be more geared toward getting people up and over the bar, rather than teaching them technique. I'm not saying this is bad, everyone deserves to try pole vault, and everyone deserves to pursue it to the level that they desire, pole vaulting is pretty fun, but what this does is create some disconnects between coaches in different areas and at different levels, and ends up exposing athletes to all different philosophies and technical focuses. I think this is why, I feel, you don't see the Petrov model as the technical standard the way you might expect over here. I don't know much about it, but perhaps more action on behalf of USATF could help remedy this, but I really don't know.

As always, this is my analysis and opinion, so if I don't agree with you, it's because you're wrong (HAHAHAHA TOTALLY KIDDING). No, take it or leave it, its really just my opinion and I'm interested to hear what you guys think of it, and if you've come to similar conclusions from your own experiences. Take it easy.

-Nick

(Note: I recognize that by forgoing a fundamental element of the Petrov model, all subsequent actions in the vault can most likely not be considered Petrovian. For the purposes of this post any time that I mention elements of my technique after the takeoff being "Petrovian" please realize that I am only referring to myself attempting to emulate the position and attempting to achieve that position in as similar of a way as the Petrov model, given my early mistakes in the vault).

[Tim McMichael]

I consider myself a student of this event, and I love it too much to ignore anything that will make the sport and my coaching better. I have strenuously argued for a better understanding of different techniques, especially the tradition that produced the success that Joe Dial enjoyed and also myself to a limited degree, but I am more than happy to host Coach Launder here in Oklahoma. I want to learn how to coach the Petrov model better, and I will not consider myself a complete coach unless I can do so. His experience is unique. He may be the only person in the world who has worked so directly with so many of the architects of the Petrov model. I have always claimed to have an open mind, even when we have disagreed. I lost a crucial argument not so long ago, and I have only written one post regarding technique on this forum since. I still don’t understand why I was wrong, and until I do, I don’t have much more to say. I would consider myself a hypocrite if I did not at least avail myself of the opportunity to understand more, and just plain silly if I thought I could aquire coach Launder's experience on my own.

[Pogo Stick]

2) Some athletes may not want to run the risk during the peak of their career of changing technique and sacrificing prize money. A successful instance of this is mentioned in T. Mack's book. The book mentions how in 2003 Mack implemented some technical changes and ran the risk of losing a Nike stipend. I believe his SB that year was 5.75, but he accomplished his call of staying top ten in the world rankings and thus kept his stipend. The rest is history.

I think the following is is applicable to all professional athletes, not American only:

"In reality, the professionalization of sport leads to extended seasons, designed largely to increase income. It has nothing to do with the improvement of performance. In a sense, the bulk of the competitive season in a professional setting is aimed not at the improvement of performance, but at its maintenance at an “acceptable” level that will draw a paying crowd.
An outstanding performance is almost an anomaly, as the system of professionalism works against it."

William Freeman, "A Reply To Verhoshansky On Periodization"
http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/technique/149_William_Freeman.pdf