The myth of Sergey Bubka.

[altius]

Anyone who has come to the forum in recent times will have noted the ongoing debate about the Petrov/Bubka technical model. I believe that this debate has been hampered by the myth that Sergey Bubka was successful only because of his superior physical and mental qualities. This myth has allowed many coaches and athletes to bask in the comfort of 'knowing' that it was those factors alone that made him an outstanding performer - that way they did not have to seriously consider the method he used. So if you couldnt run 10.3 or long jump 8.00 m you could never hope to really jump high - it was comfortable because this notion protects everyone - after all how many vaulters can reproduce those performances??

Now I know it is bad to be a 'namedropper' but I must make the point that Bubka himself believed that it was his TECHNICAL MODEL, not his physical capacities - great those those obviously were - which enabled him to jump high. In 2002 at the European Championships in Munich I stood alongside him , and with Vitally Petrov standing on the other side, asked him a direct question about this. Sergey immediately responded by saying that there were several athletes in the competition we were watching at the time with equal or superior qualities to his, and that in the US in particular there were many more.

So in a nutshell what was/is the difference between what he tried to do and what most other vaulters try to do. The best way for me to TRY to explain it is with a less than perfect analogy. It is that while he used a multi stage rocket, many other vaulters use only a single stage. The latter believe -and if many of the posts on this forum are to be heeded there are certainly many in the US who believe this - that runway velocity is the key - that if you can run fast you can hit the pole with great energy and that will enable you to jump high. They appear to believe that the rest of the vault is simply about conserving and using that initial energy. That is the single stage approach to vaulting.

As agapit and I have suggested, Bubka's technique was like a multistage rocket where energy was put into the pole continuously through the vault. Of course the run and take off was the most powerful stage, just as it is in a Saturn Rocket, but just like that rocket, other stages fired in succession to maintain the thrust.

So in the Petrov/Bubka model the whipping swing of the left leg added enormous energy, as did the third stage as he dropped the shoulders and drove the hips; finally in the fourth stage he finished the energy input as he pushed off the pole. Each successive stage was less powerful but still significant. This is why he could jump on a 5.20/10.5 flex pole -AND he could attack the take off KNOWING that he could continue to put energy into the pole so he would land safely. Those two factors of course interrelate. The more confident you are the more you will attack the take off and the more likely you will roll that big pole forward.

Anyway this is just an attempt to ask folk to look again at this technical
model. I have put up a more detailed paper on - beginnertobubka.com titled "Bubka. Unique - or a generic technical model'? It has some diagrams which may better explain the four stage concept.

On the topic of approach speeds I believe that Paul Burgess jumped 6.00 metres running at around/ under 9.3m/s and Steve Hooker jumped 5.87 at aound 9.00m/sec. I will try to confirm these figures as soon as I can.

"It was my technique which was responsible for my success". Sergey Bubka 2002

[altius]

Mark Stewart - Coach of Steve Hooker -and coach of former world record holder Emma George - confirmed that Steve was in the 8.8 - 9.00 m/s on his better jumps this year, including his 5.87m. Also that Paul was around 9.2/3 for most of his jumps so far this season - not sure on the 6.00m jump because in Perth it may have been wind aided and therefore a bit quicker - however very unlikely to be in the 9.8 range often put forward as a prequisite to jump that high.

[souleman]

OK, (keep in mind I'm only starting chapter 6) but one of the benefits that I can see with this model is it's ability to not only allow jumping higher but also preventing or delaying injury. I'm sure you've seen my many posts regarding my knee and how it's vertually useless now. I attribute this to my many days as a youth vaulting wrong. From the steel pole beginnings to the glass pole, our approach and take off was more often than not "under" which caused the hyperextending of the knee joint causing injury with each vault. The "model" clearly shows Bubka's body positioning "leaning forward" rather than backward or "under"at the point off lift off. Commonsense will just tell a guy that that type of take off is going to be way easier on the left knee and back than the old style that Pennell or Seagren used back in my day. Bubba tells me Seagren has leg and lower back problems today. Beginner to Bubka says many times that it is written for novice coaches which I am considering myself. If I am reading this right regarding the injury part of the vault, please comment or correct. It's obvious not all athletes will be Bubkas, but with a correct and a "it makes sense" model which this is in my opinion, a young vaulter who learns it this way, right off the bat, will do better and maybe prevent some injuries that vaulting can cause. I will be interested to read your comments on this. Later.....................Mike

[altius]

Souleman. First point is that you can get injured in a thousand ways when pole vaulting -just ask the poor guy who got caught up on his pole in Sydney in 2000!

Common sense would suggest that if you rely on putting all of the energy into the pole at take off the shock wil be much greater than if you use a staged approach. However i did not make the point in my original post that the Petrov Bubka model is more efficent at take off because the athlete does not waste energy bending the pole before they leave the ground - therefore they do not face the shock caused by hitting the pole while the take off foot is still in contact with the ground - or deal with the stress on the lower back if the vaulter takes off under -as many still TRY to do!!


However at the 2000 Games the IAAF did a study of the vault. We dont think the report has been published yet but an abstract appeared in the IOC Medical Commission Report -Bulletin No.8 Jan 2002, Page 23 Abstract No 7 -titled "Kinematics and Kinetics in Pole vaulting: energy storage and energy return." Authors Peter Bruggemann of the Cologne Sports Hochschule and PV Komi from Jyvyskula in Finland.

They looked at two methods of vaulting. First where the athlete is still on the ground when the tip hits the box and second when the athlete was in the air when the tip hit the box. There was only 50 milliseconds difference between these two methods but the authors concluded that vaulters using the second method -ie were in the air before the pole tip hit - were able to grip slightly higher and that this method was safer on the spine compared to the first method which clearly stressed the spine.

If you want to see the second method in operation look at Dimitri Markov. But I suppose until he jumps 6.05 AGAIN - some folk will write his method off. Note here that when/if you take on board the notion of continuous energy input in the four stages I mentioned above, it is easy to see that Dimitri's technique lets him down during the second phase which is probably why he has not jumped 6.10/6.15.

Note that I never claim that all athletes can be Bubkas but I do believe many can master ELEMENTS of the model. The figures in the book and the photos on the cover are all of my athletes. The one on the back cover shows Wendy Young aged 19, executing a pretty good free take off with miniscule pole bend well after she has left the ground on the way to a 4.40 clearance.

Happy to have input/feedback on the book. Hope you enjoy it

[souleman]

Not to turn this thread into a "me" deal but if I would have made a simple correction in my take off a hundred years ago when I was vaulting in Jr. High and High School, I probably wouldn't be cussin' out my knees and lower back today.All the more reason in my opinion to coach the model. For example just somehing as small as a positioning of a take off to the ball of my foot like figure 6.11 rather than the wayI did it which I'm guessing was like figure 6.10 or "flatfoot" (mostly on my heel) would have placed my leg positioning in a spot where it could never hyperextend, thus causing less "down the road" damage. Kids now a days are made out of rubber bands(like I was back in the dark ages) with infinite elasticity. So something as simple as an incorrect take off at the time wouldn't show any effects.......until let's say 35 years later when they want to go vaulting again. Now, back to the model, would you agree or not that that one possible way to teach a free take off is to teach the vaulter to feel his take off on the ball of his foot. If he hears or feels "splat" (flatfoot) on take off, he's not there and he's still under. I don't think there is any way to be under if you conciously feel your take off on the ball of your foot. Once you're on the ball of the foot at take off every time, then it's a matter of moving take off out a few inches and next thing you know, you've got a free take off. This is how it works out in my mind. If this would be a good way to explain it to a young vaulter I'd like to know. If it s, then I know I am telling him or her something that I can visually see and explain in my own mind. The way I see it, (and correct me if I'm wrong) but the Bubka model has the benefit of being a "learn as you" go approach. In other words, a vaulter doesn't have to do the "whole thing" right off the bat to get a benifit from it. It appears to me that a vaulter can master one or two portions of it which will improve his or hers' vaulting, and then moving on to the next portion or two till that is mastered and so on. All I know is that I hope I have the ability to put some of the techniques to work for my vaulting but more importantly I want to know that I have a model to work from that will help any kids that I may have the opportunity t help with this goofy sport. I'll be interested in reading your comments to this. Later..............Mike

[baggettpv]

I see things simply. When you plant the pole you don't want to be supported by the pole and the ground at the same time. So you try to be leaving the ground before you go into the support of the pole (milliseconds is enuff time). But the problem (as I see it) is not the planting of the pole, but the jumping mechanics of jumping from a sprint....an efficient carry, drop and arm action can greatly influence this but the basic learned movement is still jumping from a run with an extension thru the pole (handhold area). Talk to Randy Huntington about this dynamic movement. Maybe we will learn something. I did.

Rick Baggett
US Senior Coach

[altius]

Please note the original post was not about the prejump but a much broader issue relating to the overall advanatges of the Petrov/Bubka model.

However also note the distinction I have made between a free take off and what i have termed a pre jump. The latter concept is still not accepted by many authorities but Bubka made it clear in Jamiaica that that was he aimed for every time. This is discussed in page 149 BTB. However note that he also said "It is a crucial factor, but at the same time it is not easy to achieve. During my career i was able to do it sometimes."

Sorry to leave y'all on this but I have written this stuff several times now -and anyway i have to begin preparing for my trip to the land of the free next week -so will not be posting or replying for a while.

[cougarscoach]

One of the true benefits of the Petrov/Bubka technical model is the ability to use the entire body to drive the pole at take-off. In this manner a vaulter has the best chance to generate energy (during the run-up) and continue that energy with minimal loss. Therefore it is the generation - continuation of energy that provides such a quick and powerful vault. Because the vaulter is not grounded in support as coach Bagget pointed out the vaulter acheives a higher pole/ground angle at take-off and therefore the pole bends later than a vaulter who is "under". Acheiving this correctly places the vaulter in an optimum position to swing powerfully, which provides an addition of energy to the pole/vaulter system. Not to echo altius and agapit, but it is the continuous addition of energy into the system that creates 40 plus inches of fly-away.

In my opinion, vaulters can work extremly hard on the run-up and take-off and acheive results. However, unless they also address, in training, the ability to whip/swing powerfully, they will fail to add energy into the system once off of the ground and push distance will suffer.

It wasn't just the way Bubka vaulted, or his athletic ability/speed - it was how fast and powerful he was throughout the entire vault that leaves an impression on me every time I watch his films.

[master]

...but the basic learned movement is still jumping from a run with an extension thru the pole (handhold area). Talk to Randy Huntington about this dynamic movement.

Can you share any info on how we would could avail ourselves of the knowledge Randy has? Are there published papers or books or is there a website? Thanks.