Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

[dj]

good morning,

as Alan has said there is only ONE model that is correct and that model is based in "physics"... run-plant-swing

which is turly what Bubka did on most jumps and the same for Renaurd, Tim Mack and many others when the run, and plant and grip matched ... and if the pole design matched with "physics"..

dj

[kcvault]

as Alan has said there is only ONE model that is correct and that model is based in "physics"... run-plant-swing

which is turly what Bubka did on most jumps and the same for Renaurd, Tim Mack and many others when the run, and plant and grip matched ... and if the pole design matched with "physics"..

[vtcoach]

So just to stir the pot a bit... which is the ONE correct technique that uses "physics" in the long jump? The hitch used by most elite men or the hang still used heavily by elite women? In the shot is it the glide or the spin? In the high jump is it the flop or the roll or the straddle or the dive straddle? In the discus is it the two spin or the new three spin technique?

"The spin technique is more effective for shorter athletes with good footwork and quickness. For example, take Adam Nelson or Reese Hoffa, two of the top shot putters in the world. If either of those guys used the glide instead of the spin, they wouldn't be throwing 72 feet; they would be in the 66- to -67-foot range."

Is the throws coach who said this wrong for suggesting that one technique might be better for certain athletes?

[kcvault]

So just to stir the pot a bit... which is the ONE correct technique that uses "physics" in the long jump? The hitch used by most elite men or the hang still used heavily by elite women? In the shot is it the glide or the spin? In the high jump is it the flop or the roll or the straddle or the dive straddle? In the discus is it the two spin or the new three spin technique?

"The spin technique is more effective for shorter athletes with good footwork and quickness. For example, take Adam Nelson or Reese Hoffa, two of the top shot putters in the world. If either of those guys used the glide instead of the spin, they wouldn't be throwing 72 feet; they would be in the 66- to -67-foot range."

Is the throws coach who said this wrong for suggesting that one technique might be better for certain athletes?
vtcoach
PV Nerd

Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:17 am
Location: Virginia
Expertise: College Coach
Top

This post just shows you that we need to always keep an open mind to new types of technique. As soon as we accept one type of technique as perfect our sport will quit advancing. (Not saying to accept bad technique over proven technique just keep an open mind.)

[Andy_C]

So just to stir the pot a bit... which is the ONE correct technique that uses "physics" in the long jump? The hitch used by most elite men or the hang still used heavily by elite women? In the shot is it the glide or the spin? In the high jump is it the flop or the roll or the straddle or the dive straddle? In the discus is it the two spin or the new three spin technique?

"The spin technique is more effective for shorter athletes with good footwork and quickness. For example, take Adam Nelson or Reese Hoffa, two of the top shot putters in the world. If either of those guys used the glide instead of the spin, they wouldn't be throwing 72 feet; they would be in the 66- to -67-foot range."

Is the throws coach who said this wrong for suggesting that one technique might be better for certain athletes?

So what about the Fosbury Flop?

Sorry for the short answer, I'll give a much more detailed response later. Gotta do some work.

-Andrew

[Coach J]

So just to stir the pot a bit... which is the ONE correct technique that uses "physics" in the long jump? The hitch used by most elite men or the hang still used heavily by elite women? In the shot is it the glide or the spin? In the high jump is it the flop or the roll or the straddle or the dive straddle? In the discus is it the two spin or the new three spin technique?

"The spin technique is more effective for shorter athletes with good footwork and quickness. For example, take Adam Nelson or Reese Hoffa, two of the top shot putters in the world. If either of those guys used the glide instead of the spin, they wouldn't be throwing 72 feet; they would be in the 66- to -67-foot range."

Is the throws coach who said this wrong for suggesting that one technique might be better for certain athletes?

I think a better analogy would be with the Hammer throw. Like in pole vault, the soviets created a new technique ("pushing" the ball instead of "pulling" the ball). One could call it the Bondarchuk/Sedych model of technique. Many American coaches attributed Yuri Sedych's success to his unique physical characteristics, rather than trying to understand and adopt the new model of technique. The results were one American gold medal in 1956 and a silver medal in 1996, with no Americans able to make the olympic/world championship finals until 2012, when Kibwe Johnson took 9th while training under Bondarchuk. The point is, you can adopt to changes in technique and training theory or you can be left behind.

[vtcoach]

The point is, you can adopt to changes in technique and training theory or you can be left behind.

I agree with that statement! Although I think some of the problems in the US in the hammer and javelin is attributable to the fact that they are not contested in high school. But I am not sure I agree that the hammer is a better analogy for the question posed by this thread if there is only one viable technical model in the hammer. Did all three hammer throw medalists in London use the same technical model? If you look instead at the shot put we see the gold and silver medalists using the slide and the bronze medalist using the spin, both techniques that have been around for a long time now. The question of this thread, I think, is does only one viable technical model of the vault exist? Or more generally:

After 20+ years why isn't every elite shot putter using the spin?
After 20+ years why isn't every elite long jumper using the hitch kick?
After 20+ years why isn't every elite vaulter using the petrov model?

[dj]

hey vtcoach

you have raised some great, legit "issues" for us to discuss... maybe if we look at the "physics" of each we may find something "beyond" how we determine "the bestor "perfect" model".

Good approach…

I do know that in the throws it is about speed and NEVER stopping or slowing anywhere in the rotation or across the circle.

In the long jump, again speed.. and "reaching" as far into the sand as you can without "sitting" but traveling through where your feet touched. And I do know that two cars, going the same speed, one 1000 pounds and the other 2000 lbs will travel the same distance if you ran them off a cliff. In the long jump it is all about 'converting", the speed at TO and "re-positioning for landing.

Pole vault is about "converting" but once you leave the runway you are not in free flight.. the swing is important to add height to the vertical jump. Which means swing "fast". If the pole is too stiff it will slow your swing, to soft (or design) it will cause you to swing past the bar horizontally and not go vertical in time to clear the bar.

Will be interesting to see where this discussion with go..

Moving today so may be off PVP for a few days…

dj

[Coach J]

You can not reduce the US problems with hammer throw to the fact they are not contested in high school, thats too simplistic.

I still maintain that the hammer throw is a better analogy. There are other techniques in the hammer throw, but only one that is based on optimal biomechanics and physics, just like the pole vault. You can try to push the ball or you can just pull the ball, you can try to achieve a free take off your can just run your self under and have the pole pick you off the ground. Both will produce a result but only one is optimal.

The three hammer throw medalist were using the same technical model with varying degrees of success, just as the pole vault medalist were using the same technical model with varying degrees of success. No hammer thrower gave up on pushing the ball and just started pulling, just as no pole vaulter gave up on trying to have a free takeoff, or a long swing to inversion ect.

Shot put is a different story. While there exist two different techniques in the shot put both are based on the same optimal use of biomechanics and physics. In the front half of the circle the throwers have to do the same thing regardless of spin or glide. As a side note I don't think that a glider could ever set the world record again. But this thread is not about throwing, sorry.

So like hammer throw, the pole vault has only one viable (in sense that it has the greatest potential) technique based on physics and biomechanics. If you are ok with a technique that caps out at 5.70(PV) or 75m(HT) or 22m(SP) there are many options, but if your goal is use an optimal technique that could push the event and athlete to new levels, than there is only one optimal technique.

[dj]

hey

excellent Coach J

dj

[vtcoach]

You can not reduce the US problems with hammer throw to the fact they are not contested in high school, thats too simplistic.

I still maintain that the hammer throw is a better analogy. There are other techniques in the hammer throw, but only one that is based on optimal biomechanics and physics, just like the pole vault. You can try to push the ball or you can just pull the ball, you can try to achieve a free take off your can just run your self under and have the pole pick you off the ground. Both will produce a result but only one is optimal.

The three hammer throw medalist were using the same technical model with varying degrees of success, just as the pole vault medalist were using the same technical model with varying degrees of success. No hammer thrower gave up on pushing the ball and just started pulling, just as no pole vaulter gave up on trying to have a free takeoff, or a long swing to inversion ect.

Shot put is a different story. While there exist two different techniques in the shot put both are based on the same optimal use of biomechanics and physics. In the front half of the circle the throwers have to do the same thing regardless of spin or glide. As a side note I don't think that a glider could ever set the world record again. But this thread is not about throwing, sorry.

So like hammer throw, the pole vault has only one viable (in sense that it has the greatest potential) technique based on physics and biomechanics. If you are ok with a technique that caps out at 5.70(PV) or 75m(HT) or 22m(SP) there are many options, but if your goal is use an optimal technique that could push the event and athlete to new levels, than there is only one optimal technique.

This is good. I agree with alot of it, including your first statement which I did not state or imply in my last post. But I still have questions.

Many recent posters on PVP and some accomplished coaches I spoke with this summer would strongly disagree that all three medalists were using (or trying to use) the Petrov Model. I am not sure we could get agreement on which 6m jumpers use the model and I am quite sure we would not get agreement that anyone jumping above 570 is using it. I thought the originial poster did a great job of framing his question within the scientific method. But how can we assess the empirical evidence in the pole vault unless we agree on who is or is not using the model? What criteria should we apply?

I agree with you that there are two viable technical models in the shot put but to say they are "both optimal" seems like an oxymoron. I would say they are both biomechanically efficient. I do agree with you that a glider is unlikely to set the world record so you seem to be leaning toward the spin as having more potential so the question remains unanswer in this thread as to why all throwers are not using the spin. For arguments sake let us say that the optimal technical model is the one that has the highest efficiency and therefore is most likely to lead to a world record. For a technique to be viable it must be close enough to the optimal model in efficiency that other factors lead to its continued adoption. What might those factors be?

If more than one viable model exists in some events, which it clearly does, it must be at least possible for this to be true in all events... in all sports...(Federer with his one-hand backhand and Nadal with his two-hand backhand). For now, in the high jump one model has prevailed and I will also accept your statment that one model has prevailed in the hammer. Has one model prevailed in the pole vault? That is the question being asked. I am a proponent of the Petrov model but also of the scientific method so all I am saying is that we can't simply answer the question with opinion.

[Coach J]

Many recent posters on PVP and some accomplished coaches I spoke with this summer would strongly disagree that all three medalists were using (or trying to use) the Petrov Model. I am not sure we could get agreement on which 6m jumpers use the model and I am quite sure we would not get agreement that anyone jumping above 570 is using it. I thought the originial poster did a great job of framing his question within the scientific method. But how can we assess the empirical evidence in the pole vault unless we agree on who is or is not using the model? What criteria should we apply?

This is interesting, and maybe I am showing my ignorance here but what other models are there that they may be using? Because from my understanding the other technical model would be characterized by a low pole carry, foot inside, bending the pole as much as possible before leaving the ground, and tuck and shoot, ect. Now I don't think any of the medalist were trying to do this. Can somebody correct me if I am wrong or describe the other technical models being implemented? I think the first step is to define our terms more clearly before the scientific method could be used.

I agree with you that there are two viable technical models in the shot put but to say they are "both optimal" seems like an oxymoron. I would say they are both biomechanically efficient. I do agree with you that a glider is unlikely to set the world record so you seem to be leaning toward the spin as having more potential so the question remains unanswer in this thread as to why all throwers are not using the spin. For arguments sake let us say that the optimal technical model is the one that has the highest efficiency and therefore is most likely to lead to a world record. For a technique to be viable it must be close enough to the optimal model in efficiency that other factors lead to its continued adoption. What might those factors be?

I did not mean to say that both techniques are optimal, rather I meant that both techniques use the same biomechanical principles. This may also seem like an oxymoron but I hold it to be true. Nevertheless, to answer the question why do all shot putters not use the spin? I would say because the glide is more consistent and as seen at the london olympics, can produce results when it counts. Where as the spin has the potential for longer throws, it's also widely unpredictable especially under pressure. So In the case of the shot put the most optimal technique is not being implemented by all shot putters.

So are there many models for pole vault or are there many vaulters with diffrent individual style? If there are many models can they be more clearly defined?