Non-Petrovers

[vault3rb0y]

It's important for a coach to have confidence in what they are saying. However, once they get that confidence and it is clearly misled, NO ONE can break it. They are "stuck it their ways". Stay away from them completely.

[altius]

"Leaving aside these issues of social differences, my question concerning the fact that Bubka's record seems as safe as it has ever been?????????? embraces more than just the American coaches and athletes. Altius names a number of expert coaches who have embraced the Petrov model. This begs the question. Why haven't Parnov, Botcharnikov, Krysinski, Mark Stewart, Steve Rippon, or even Petrov himself produced a successor to Bubka? The fault for this cannot lie entirely with the shortcomings of the American system. Nobody else seems to be doing any better."

You will have noted on Page 9 of BTB2 that I list the elements that are necessary to create the perfect coaching context necessary for athletes to reach the highest level. If they are not in place then it will be difficult if not impossible for anyone to break Bubka's record - or that of Isinbayeva for that matter.
That becomes a limiting factor for many coaches. But consider those you have mentioned
Parnov -In the track and field wilderness of OZ he has produced -with some help from others - three 6 metre vaulters - a world champion and an Olympic champion. His daughters dominate the age group ranking list and Vicky won the World youths. But 6.06 from the wilds of down under is not too shabby is it?? Let us see what the future brings.
Botcharnikov has never been more than an amateur coach in the USA - in part because his ideas have been rejected by many, in part through his own choice, in part because of his business interests. However there are a number of US athletes who could testify to his contribution to their development. Let us hope he is given the opportunity that he is now looking for to begin coaching seriously!
Krysinski has most likely retired.
Mark Stewart - works in an impossible situation. he is a department head in economics at the RMIT. He has no real indoor facility in a town where the weather can be abominable at any time of the year. He took Hooker to 5.92 when Steve was working full time with no support. He coached Emma George to a world record and now has an 18 year old jumping 5.55 - yes that lad needs tidying up but again he is an amateur - remember no scholarships in OZ.
Steve Rippon is well on the way to producing a pure Petrov vaulter in Steve Lewis -and I will soon have a dvd to show how he is doing it. However who knows hw high he can jump even if he does get it all right -because it does take special talent to break a world record in any event.
Petrov did an amazing job of taking an athlete with very limited ability - Gibilisco -to a world title - in a country like Italy where every talented kid goes to soccer. As you may know he has had enough on his plate looking after IZZY for the last few years =- but has still found time to help other athletes like Murer move towards his model.

Of course one can continue to find reasons why it is not possible to produce a 'Bubka' in the USA - but the critical one is still an unwillingness to unreservedly accept the Petrov model on the part of many coaches.. As a wise on once said, "Just my two cents worth".

[achtungpv]

But the lineage is there ... prior to his Parnov influences, Walker was trained by Pat Licari at UW ... a strong propoent of Petrov and Botcharnikov ... and as a vaulter, Pat was trained by Rick Baggett ... who has collaborated and coached with some of the finest Petrov Model minds on the planet ... including some Wizard of Oz whose name escapes me for the moment.

If he's working with Dan Pfaff, then he's working under the Petrov Model. If anybody saw Brian Hunter his senior year at UT, it was the closest an American has gotten to jumping like Bubka. His technique was really stellar that season. Pfaff said back then that their model was what Petrov was teaching so it's safe to assume that's what he's teaching now.

/for what it's worth, Colwick is Petrov all the way except for his takeoff. Everything else he does should be emulated by youngsters. Be. The. San. Martian.

[KirkB]

Yes, Walker and Skipper both trained with Pfaff at a facility near Stockton CA last summer, so there's another Petrov influence to both of their vaults.

Kirk

[KirkB]

On another thread http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=11986&start=12, PP seemed to think that Tim Mack was a Petrover, so I took a slo-mo look at his 1995 NCAA Indoor win, and his 2004 Olympic win. After a thorough analysis, my conclusion is that he's definitely not a Petrover!

Here's his 5.60 vault, when he won the NCAA Indoor in 1995 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4WxYq-VIv8&feature=related
... and here he is winning the 2004 Olympics Gold ... first at 5.90, then at 5.95 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S99U2ua3OA

When reading my critique of his technique, bear in mind that my perspective is as an advocate of the Petrov Model. If I was writing this as an advocate of the Drive Model (American Model?), I would be ranting and raving over his technique. So it's all in your perspective.

Here's his score on my Petrov Compliance Scale ...

High pole carry? Yes.

Free takeoff? No. He loads the pole before takeoff. At 5.95, at least 1.5 frames before his foot leaves the ground, the pole starts to bend; and at 5.60 about 3 frames. Assuming the same camera speed, this appears to have improved after 9 years.

Elastic stretch to the C, with chest forwards and trail leg backwards? No ... not at all. By intent, he doesn't do this. He does have a fairly good elastic stretch, but it's not with the type of body posture that a Petrover would or should have. And it's IMMEDIATELY upon takeoff, not after finishing the takeoff. Instead, he's preventing his bottom arm from collapsing at all (blocking out), and it's not until he's about 3-4 frames from the Whip position that he begins his trail leg swing. That unusual delay is due primarily to him "hanging" under the pole with his arm blocked (he hangs to penetrate, I think, but this is passive, compared to Petrovers). Once he starts his downswing, it's extremely quick, due to the 90 degree angle that he starts his trail leg knee from (same in 1995 and 2004). To me, this is too extreme of an angle, but I wouldn't call it anti-Petrov. It's a flaw (IMHO) whether you're a Petrover or not. It's only because of his bottom arm blocking that he doesn't meet the Petrov criteria for this vault part.

Strong trail leg swing? Yes ... kind of. He lacks a natural leg/body swing under the pole, but once he starts his downswing, he has quite the whip, so I'd have to say that he complies with this Petrov characteristic (fairly borderline, though). It's not pure Petrov; it's delayed, but it doesn't deviate enough to say it's not compliant with Petrov, IMHO. Your milage may vary, according to your own interpretation. The link at the top of this post leads to another link from 2005, where tmack himself explains his swing and the "importance" of arm action during this swing. While I think that's EXCELLENT technique for a Drive Vaulter, it sounds like rowing to me ... which is non-Petrov.

Continuous chain on the upswing to inversion and extension? No! On his 5.95, I count 5 frames where he's stuck in the "flat back" position, and on his 5.60 I count 10. That's a significant improvement after 9 years, but still not Petrov.

So I score Mack a 3 out of 6 on my "Petrov Compliance Scale".

It's interesting that if you watch his vid full speed, he seems to be quite fluid ... in the continuous chain sense. But when you break it down, it's definitely not the Petrov Model.

Kirk

[powerplant42]

Remember this is only one jump, and it might be very far from his intentions...

[jam354]

I just followed the link and read the post where Tim Mack talks abou his swing and what should be done. It seems obvious he has no intent to follow the Petrov model. he talks about continuous pressure with the left arm and continuing that throughout the swing. He states that to get a better swing, you need to continually use your arms rather than just swinging harder. Very interesting. I would love to find out if he disagrees with what Petrov has to say or just thinks his way is another, equally effective way. Anyway we could get some current elite vaulters on this post? We could learn a lot.

[KirkB]

Remember this is only one jump, and it might be very far from his intentions...

PP, as I stated, I analyzed 3 jumps ... his 5.60 in 1995, and his 5.90 and 5.95 jumps in the 2004 Olympics. I also researched the same threads that Jam mentioned in the post above, and read first hand in Tim Mack's own writing how he described "using his hands" (which is essentially "rowing").

The link at the top of this post leads to another link from 2005, where tmack himself explains his swing and the "importance" of arm action during this swing.

His intent is clearly stated in those posts. There's nothing wrong with this in the Drive Model ... in fact it's apparently the preferred technique, and he does it very well. It's just not part of the Petrov Model.

PP, if you're going to post in the Advanced Technique forum, never mind just posting "pot-shots" about a topic without any forethought or data to back them up. Or EXPERIENCE about what you're talking about. All you do is confuse people. Stick to what you know for sure. Had you taken the time to do as thorough of an analysis of Tim's 3 vaults as I did, you would have (or SHOULD HAVE ... if you truly understand the Petrov Model) drawn the same conclusions.

Kirk

[powerplant42]

I saw his posts after the fact... And I admit I was perplexed... But I see two very Bubka-like jumps at Athens. There is clearly no attempt to tuck, and while he is under, it is not by very much and I would be astounded if that was his intention. Isinbayeva runs herself under quite a bit too...

I was under the impression that Bemiller was a Petrov influenced coach, have I been misled or am I just missing something perhaps?

[Pogo Stick]

Maybe a little off topic ... and maybe an unfair analogy, but ...

If the Americans could land on the moon ... and return safely ... in 1969 ... then why has it taken them so long to "perfect" their technique and reclaim the WR in Men's PV?

It should be a piece of cake!

Kirk

I think there's actually several interdependent reasons for that. First off, let me just say that with a population of 300 million, I can guarantee you that there's at least a handful of men in that the USA right now with the physical and mental capabilities to potentially break the world record. Why hasn't it happened?

1) Unfortunately for them, these "potential WR holders" will never even touch a pole in the lifetime. Don't forget all the other sports the USA has going! Pole vault doesn't exactly rank up there with football, basketball, baseball, hockey ect.

2) The people who have tried, have never been able to implement or replicate the Petrov model the way that Bubka and Petrov have. Of course there are those who have tried to apply principles of the model and have come *relatively* close to achieving it but still, NOBODY has been able to pull it off 100%.

3) Athletes who get into pole vault will more often than not end up with a coach who really doesn't know very much about pole vault. This was in stark contrast to the Soviet and European systems where athletes were systematically selected and raised under expert coaches from their youth (which was the case with Bubka if I can recall).

I would be also little off topic, but I need to rant ...
Coming in Canada from country with different political and social system one of my first surprises was obsession with quick results and shortcuts. Every 2 weeks you can read about new, better diet and new, ultimate ways to build great abs while you sleep. Hundreds of experts offer solutions for everything: from how to run 1 mile under 4 min for seniors to how to drive golf ball 400 yd at no time and effort.
It was also here in Canada where I realized how advance my training was 20 years ago in the small country with sport system built on Eastern Block model: periodization, plyometrics, eccentric training, stretching, you named - I did it. I lived in the city of 200,000 souls and had access to 3 synthetic tracks and very good coaches (unfortunately not for pole vaulting). I got pits and equipment on 24/7 basis, access to other specialized sport facilities like gymnastic, swimming pools and weigh lifting, center for sport medicine with all equipment for physiotherapy and injury treatments, access to top specialists in two local hospitals. I didn't pay for trips, tournaments and competitions, training camps and got even some pocket money. All that for symbolic club's annual membership fee - an equivalent to few movie tickets (without popcorn). I was more than mediocre vaulter by world standards, but one of the best in country. I also tried several sports including swimming, karate and little bit gymnastics - all for free. National class athletes were able to live with no need to work full time job or job at all. It was not big money, but if you count all those free things, it provides you good opportunity to practice and compete without worries. This system produced hundreds of world class athletes in basketball, waterpolo, rowing, swimming, tennis, handball, volleyball, soccer and even few world class T&F athletes.
Of course, if you don't pay, someone else need to pay for all that nice things. In our case that was the government - few percent of GDP went to sport. We can talk if this is good or bad, but it produce results and even more important - access to all kind of sports for literally whole population. Many of my friends tried some sport and some become very successful. I personally know few Olympic medallist, European and world champions in different sports. Everything fell down after 1990 - same as in former USSR. In new system that model was not sustainable.
Is this the best model for sport? Is Public Health system better than Private Health system? Or Public Schools better for nation than Private Schools? The brightest minds of the world are discussing about this for decades and they still cannot agree. Different countries are trying different approaches and there is no clear winner and best solution.
I know both systems and in my opinion the truth is somewhere in the middle - you need both public and private, but the problem is how to find right balance between those two options.
Anyway, in two years I spend more money and time on Canadian national sport #1 (hockey) than my parents and myself on my whole sport career, including buying 2 poles. And my son is only 8 years old.

[tennpolevault]

TPV - when I first saw this clip some time ago I was really impressed. Should have said so at the time! You are right- apart from the left arm problem- which could be solved simply by adjusting the position of his bottom hand on the pole -so getting the elbow outside the pole - this will stop him resisting the pole early - I think he is well on the way to the Petrov model. I am sure you know exactly what you are doing but if you want to check out what I am talking about, the dvd Charlie referred to (negatively!!) shows young athletes using the left arm properly - as do the images in BTB2. Good luck - I would like to follow his progress.

He vaulted 2 personal bests this weekend from 7 lefts. 5.05m and 5.21 meters.

[KirkB]

... There is clearly no attempt to tuck ... am I just missing something perhaps?

I've observed that the very best elite non-Petrovers have much less tuck than those vaulting lower heights. I've quantified this by basically just counting the number of frames that they're in the flat back position. It's extremely difficult for a beginner or intermediate to swing THRU the flat back position if they press too hard with their bottom arm. Of course, this is because this pressure kills their swing, and they get behind the pole ... then in an effort to catch up to the pole, they struggle to ride it in the tuck position (aka flat back position ... kinda) until they get enough horizontal momentum that they can shoot off the top. Invariably, beginners and intermediates will flag out, since their forwards momentum is killed.

But Mack (and most other 19'+ non-Petrov vaulters) are different. They've somehow figured out how to get thru the flat back position faster than is typical. In Mack's case, I think he does this by a combination of the tremendous whip that he gets when he swings his trail thru the chord. Even tho he does this later than a Petrover ... and bends his trail leg knee too much (IMHO) ... the quickness of his trail leg ... in conjunction with his AMAZING arm action ... allows him to stay with the pole ... and pass THRU the flat back (or tuck) without much of a pause.

When you think about it ... no matter what your technical model ... the name of the game is to eliminate leakage ... and keep your body moving ... forwards and upwards ... without wasting any time or energy. He does that VERY, VERY well. Amazing! To me, more amazing than Bubka. I'm not amazed at Bubka because I understand the physics behind Petrov. But since I really don't understand how the heck Mack "rows" his way THRU the typical tuck position of the typical tuck/shooter, I'M AMAZED!

Strong trail leg swing? Yes ... kind of. He lacks a natural leg/body swing under the pole, but once he starts his downswing, he has quite the whip, so I'd have to say that he complies with this Petrov characteristic (fairly borderline, though). It's not pure Petrov; it's delayed, but it doesn't deviate enough to say it's not compliant with Petrov, IMHO. Your milage may vary, according to your own interpretation. The link at the top of this post leads to another link from 2005, where tmack himself explains his swing and the "importance" of arm action during this swing. While I think that's EXCELLENT technique for a Drive Vaulter, it sounds like rowing to me ... which is non-Petrov.

I've been thinking about this, and I'm changing this one from a YES to a NO. The Petrov way of swinging is to have a LONG trail leg ... in a LONG sweeping action. The straighter your trail leg is in the downswing, and the further distance that your leg sweeps in an elongated position, the more efficient the action ... and the more energy you're adding to "the system". I believe that this is a cornerstone of the Petrov Model. To me, it's basic physics.

The way I think of it, it's like the minute hand on a clock sweeping from about 20 after the hour to about 20 to the hour (where your hips are the center of the clock). If you visualize it, this sweeping minute hand of the clock will "draw" a pie-chart like section of the clock circle. The AREA of this piece of pie equates to the amount of FORCE or ENERGY that's added to the system.

Now compare this to Mack's trail leg swing. When his thigh is at about half past the hour, his lower leg is at quarter-past. Then he WHIPS it ... quite powerfully ... and then after the whip-point, he immediately tucks it back in again. This might be at, say 20 to the hour. Now imagine the shape of pie-piece he's "drawn" with his foot. It's only fully elongated between half past the hour and 20 to the hour. So the AREA of this pie piece is much, much smaller than had he swept it like a Petrover.

I know that he gets far, far more power out of his ARMS than Petrovers (who rely more on their leg swing). And I'm sure that you can't just look at the size of the pie-piece that the trail leg is drawing ... you also need to look at how ACTIVE and STRONG the arms are during the Whip. Really, it's the combination of the 2 that's most important ... not just one or the other.

That's why you need to ... at least in the Petrov Model ... regard the swing as a FULL BODY SWING ... from top hand thru trail leg toe. The elastic position is elastic and taut thru the entire body.

If us Petrovers can learn something from Mack and his powerful use of his arms, I think it's that you shouldn't just let the legs and torso do the swinging ... it's the entire body that must swing in unison.

However, I will stop short of saying that you need to use your BOTTOM arm to aid your swing. To me, the use of your bottom arm for anything more than balance will throw your entire swing off-kilter ... even to the point of not letting the pole bend with the entire leverage of the pressure solely on the TOP hand. In other words, the more you use the bottom hand, the less the top hand fulcrum is used ... which in effect reduces the size of the arc when your pass the chord. Of course in real life, it's not quite this simple ... because as you're swinging, the pole is turning into a highbar!

Sorry for rambling.

Kirk