Moving up poles

[joebro391]

:yes: "... one simply swings to inversion ...". That's what I like about Hooker's / Parnov's technique (which still meets all of the criteria of the Petrov Model ... Hooker simply swings to inversion ...

Kirk, we're finally in agreement haha. But here's a question, do you think that if hooker stopped dropping his drive-knee, and gained a faster swing, that he could put more energy into his pole?? I'll admit, he swings both those legs, nicely, but I think we'll agree that it's a tad slower than if he didn't (though he still manages to fully invert)...hmmm... -6P

[KirkB]

... do you think that if Hooker stopped dropping his drive-knee, and gained a faster swing, that he could put more energy into his pole?? I'll admit, he swings both those legs, nicely, but I think we'll agree that it's a tad slower than if he didn't (though he still manages to fully invert)...hmmm... -6P

Good question. I struggled with this question for quite awhile last year, which is why I started the thread about "Dropping the lead knee - time for a retrospective?" http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=15961

I was in unfamiliar territory, since I'd never experienced the "drop the lead knee" technique myself ... in fact I kept it up as high as I possibly could.

My conclusion ... which is THEORETICAL ONLY (no practical experience re this) ... is that he would put LESS energy into the pole by keeping his lead knee up. I think it's simple physics ... keeping the lead knee low reduces his CoM and keeps the length of his pendulum (about his top hand) longer. This in turn allows him to roll bigger poles to vertical.

When I analyzed Wolfgang Nordwig's "drop the lead knee" technique during my college career (1968-72), I did NOT believe that his technique was optimal. I believed that he had trouble in the top half of his vault becuz he couldn't invert soon enough to get a good extension. Too much muscle and not enough swing ... it was inefficient despite the fact that he held the WR for awhile. I STILL think that analysis is correct ... if you're vaulting in the 5.40-5.50 range ... which Nordwig was.

HOWEVER, Hooker is jumping more than a half metre more than Nordwig ever did. I believe that in the 6.00+ range ... even if you drop your lead knee ... you still have plenty of time to fully invert. At least that's what I see by watching Hooker's vids. I DON'T believe that he's unable to fully invert, and I DON'T believe that he loses much (some, but not much) on his extension becuz of his knee drop.

This is not to say that if I had it to do over again ... and if I was in the 6.00+ range ... that I'd drop my lead knee. I probably wouldn't ... becuz I felt that I could apply a lot more energy INTO the system by swinging my trail leg FASTER. 6P, I know this is what you're getting at. My technique was much more like Bubka's than Hooker's ... altho it still all falls under the Petrov umbrella. All I'm saying is that I'm much more TOLERANT now of Hooker's STYLE of the Petrov technique ... and either style could be used to break the WR.

Just to add another wrinkle to this ... I think a healthy Brad Walker could also break the WR with HIS style ... with a few mods in the direction of more pure Petrov ... it's too bad he couldn't continue to train with Parnov in AUS ...

I would be interested to hear what other elites and elite coaches think about this.

Kirk

[Pogo Stick]

6P, you imply that Hooker and Parnov don't follow the Petrov Model. They do.

the take-off is not free enough and the knee-drop erks me. though, i'm still wondering about the give-and-take (knee drop slows swing but loads pole more/constant drive-knee doesn't load pole as much, but swing is faster) So...to me, and i know this is a "style thing" for most people, but he's not a true petrover until he stops dropping the knee (which i think he's greatly reduced, or at least started picking it back up, recently)

From article TECHNIQUE TRAINING IN POLE VAULT, by Vitaly Petrov:
Question: Is the drop of the swinging leg during the hang losing its importance?
Answer: At present the athletes and their coaches pay more attention to the quickness and the amplitude (depth) of the “drive” on the pole than to the external observance of the position.

[Run2Niels]

Can someone (Pogostick maybe) explain what Petrov means with

the quickness and the amplitude (depth) of the “drive” on the pole

It might be my small vocabulary of the english language, but I really don't understand it . tnx!

[Pogo Stick]

Can someone (Pogostick maybe) explain what Petrov means with

the quickness and the amplitude (depth) of the “drive” on the pole

It might be my small vocabulary of the english language, but I really don't understand it . tnx!

My knowledge of English is very limited, but that Petrov's citation sounds to me like computer translation.
I would use this opportunity to repeat the citation from "The Book of Tea" by Kakuzo Okakura:
"Translation is always a treason, and as a Ming author observes, can at its best be only the reverse side of a brocade,--all the threads are there, but not the subtlety of colour or design."
If I translate Petrov's citation to my mother tongue (Croatian) which share the same roots as Russian, then perform deep comparative lexical analyze and decomposition, and then apply few statistical methodologies - the best reply on your question will be "I don't know" or "I am not sure".
Ok, seriously, I think what he wants to say is that the only important thing is can you swing fast and strong enough to work with or ahead the pole, not where is your knee. He did not shoot the door for vaulters like Markov, Lukyanenko or Hooker.

I think this article is from 1985 and since then Petrov maybe has changed his mind regarding knee drop.