Does the Russian model represent ideal technique?

[coachjvinson]

I am going to exercise some creative license and in doing so, I have cut and paste a quote from the Reno Thread - it is short and a quick read if you have not already covered the material...
Basically the question was posed as to the trend toward a knees to chest inversion, arguably a tuck, and if it was a result of vaulters copying the current Olympian...

I am not specifically strong knowledge-wise in the historical styles, methods and techniques of specific vaulters over time; however, I am aware of some that have employed a similar style and technique successfully.
So I have posted a quick guided question following the quote to explore the issue, as it is my position that the question hits at the direction this thread has taken.

...but the advantages or disadvantages of covering the pole vs. doing a semi-tuck seem obscure to me. One of the claims in the Petrov model is that extending from the pike position towards the bar loads the pole in a positive way (it kind of tensions a bow). Why would it then be worse to load the pole some more from a lower Center of Mass position below the pole (tensions the bow some more)? One could argue that a larger extension is more muscular work, and thus adds more energy to the system?

This is a great question and the underlying concepts are foundational to revealing the advantages gleaned at this point in the vaulter pole system...
As well as pitfalls to avoid...

My Question is this...
(with respect to a Petrovian technique in the PUREST sense and a Tuck/Modified/Hybrid/Tuck)

What are the interrelationships between...
Timing...
and
Body Position...

With regard to the aforementioned, after take off, during inversion, specifically at the point in time of vertical hip/body extension...
Additionally, the response should take into account the TIMING of the aforementioned vertical extension and the initial point at which the pole begins to recoil...
?????

[pgvirtual]

Continuing from the intermediate Technique thread (as the discussion was transferred here):

I do personally believe in the idea of an takeoff that is slightly out, a free takeoff without pole resistence, a pretension in the body that results in a vicious kick. So far it is quite clear. the pole bends in the direction of the vaulter (towards the back of the pit), and the kick adds energy to the pole.

But then the vaulter reaches a phase where the straight left left is about level with the head. The kick is running out of steam at this point, and the vaulter has used his lower hand to change the rotation from the top hand to the shoulders. It is hard to believe that there would be any significant energy add to the pole at this point, even if the pole bend would be aligned with the vaulter direction (straight towards the back of the pit).

What makes this (when the vaulter is about horizontal) even more confusing is that typically the bend of the pole is not to the front anymore, but instead 45 degrees to the left side (or even more?). Thus, the pole bend is not anymore aligned with the forward direction of the vaulter. To me, it must at this phase of the jump be very difficult to effectively add much energy the the pole, in the direction of the bend. If there would be a major force component in the direction of the bend, then there should be an equally big force 45 degrees to the right (perpendicular to the pole). But the vaulter seems (?) to travel straight...

If (?) this holds true, then the technique for upswing either results in a high COE (like Bubka) or a lower COE (like Gomez). In the "high COE" there is more potential energy, but less opportunity to add energy to the pole through muscle work. In the "low COE", which is not really a tuck with the right leg in a pike position along the pole, there is less potential energy, but the vaulter has the opportunity to lift is COE higher using muscle power (and add more energy to the system?).

To me, what is odd is that there seems to be very little discussion on the effects of turning the pole bend to the side, almost perpendicular to the energy direction of the vaulter. Would anyone with more experience in the field dare to comment?

[golfdane]

The direction of the bend is not relevant in regards to the direction of force or energy. The bend does not point in the direction of the stored energy of the pole. The thrust vector of this stored energy goes from the bottom of the pole to the top hand (or somewhere in between the hand, depending on how much you pull with the bottom hand). The objective of the vaulter is the push this virtual pole (often referred to as 'the cord of the pole') beyond vertical. Depending of the amount of energy you add , and the direction of it (speed, take-off angle, force and timing of the swing), will force the pole to bend, shortening the cord of the pole, making it easier to roll this virtual pole beyond vertical (and towards the pit).
Properly executed, will the straight tail leg swing add powerfull energy that shortens the cord of the pole, and result in inversion very close the the cord of the pole. Staying close to the cord of the pole (often referred to as 'covering the pole') allows the vaulter to fully harvest the energy that he/she has stored in the bent pole to shoot him/her over the bar.

http://www.stabhoch.com/movies/19920713_Bubka_611.mov

Possibly one of the best jumps ever. Notice how fast he's able to fully invert, and bring himself in a position where he's in line with the thrust vector of the straightning pole.