Bemiller/Mack Model
-
AVC Coach
- PV Lover
- Posts: 1386
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 9:21 am
- Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current Coach (All levels)
- World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
- Favorite Vaulter: Miah Sanders
- Location: Black Springs, Arkansas
- Contact:
Wow, this topic has escalated quickly! I think both vaulters are well accomplished regardless of the difference in models and I have a great respect for both of them.
Bob Beamon set the world record in the long jump in Mexico City, 1968 with what appeared to be NO model. Just run, jump, pick your feet up. That record stood for 23 years until Mike Powell broke in Tokyo in 1991. As a matter of fact, Carl Lewis also exceeded the mark but placed second to Powell in that World Championship meet.
I have both jumps on video and can see a noticable difference in their jumping models. 1991 was a long time ago guys and the record still stands. I have to believe that our technical models in the long jump world wide have improved, not just since the 1960's, but surely since 1991.
The point is that if you plug the right athlete into the right model in the right era, you'll get some great performances in every event. Bubka and Mack will always be recognized as incredible athletes who use different models and posted some great marks. The original notion of this topic was "who's better?". Break it down in as many segments and standards as you can possibly imagine to figure out who's the best, but at some point you have to be humbled by the influence both of these guys have had on this event we love and say "who cares!".
Bob Beamon set the world record in the long jump in Mexico City, 1968 with what appeared to be NO model. Just run, jump, pick your feet up. That record stood for 23 years until Mike Powell broke in Tokyo in 1991. As a matter of fact, Carl Lewis also exceeded the mark but placed second to Powell in that World Championship meet.
I have both jumps on video and can see a noticable difference in their jumping models. 1991 was a long time ago guys and the record still stands. I have to believe that our technical models in the long jump world wide have improved, not just since the 1960's, but surely since 1991.
The point is that if you plug the right athlete into the right model in the right era, you'll get some great performances in every event. Bubka and Mack will always be recognized as incredible athletes who use different models and posted some great marks. The original notion of this topic was "who's better?". Break it down in as many segments and standards as you can possibly imagine to figure out who's the best, but at some point you have to be humbled by the influence both of these guys have had on this event we love and say "who cares!".
-
altius
- PV Rock Star
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
- Location: adelaide, australia
- Contact:
Great thoughts AVC Coach, impossible to disgree with. However as far as I know no one has ever been killed long jumping no matter what technical model they used. That cannot be said in the vault. So coaches must decide what is the best way to help athletes achieve their dreams in safety. That is what I attempted to show in BTB and it is why the book was written. However it is clear from much of the above debate that either the arguments re ideal technique presented in BTB have not been read or have been written off.
Petrov based much of his work on the great vaulters of the stiff pole era - try taking a stiff pole and taking off flat - see how high you can grip doing that - or try Botcharnikovs pole climbing drill and see what happens.
I find the interest in efficiency a bit distorted. Tim was 2 or 3 inches taller that Bubby - is that an advantage - well if you think improving pole ground angle is an advantage, then extra height must be. Again I say that Bubka's supposed speed advantage has been exaggerated. The 9.94m/sec shown in the table on which the original debate was based was NOTE 1986!!!! - his speed was recorded at 9.77m/sec at take off. Clearly still fast but not ridiculously fast compared to other elite vaulters. The advantage he had - along with other soviet vaulters was that his plant was highly efficient so that he was able to continue to accelerate through to take off - unlike many other elite vaulters . (See Nikonov page 141 BYB) However his differential on that jump was only 1.04m so clearly he had terrible technique.
The alternative model being proposed will only encourage young athletes once again to think in terms of what happens after you leave the ground. You only have to compare the number of posts in the beginners and intermediate sections of PVP which deal with the in the air component -especially how to get vertical -with the number of questions re the run up and plant to see that most youngsters already have a distorted view of good technique in the vault. Working on the plant is boring - working to improve your rockback and shoot is clearly where its at!! While i sincerely hope it does not happen - an emphasis on a flat take off, early bend and a big differential will set US vaulting back.
Apart from its efficiency and the fact that is has been used by other elite vaulters - all three of the biggest heights in history for example - the advantage of the Petrov/Bubka model is that you can break it down into clearly recognisable, logical and teachable elements. I am waiting for someone to show me how you do that with ANY other model they propose.
With regard to Bubkas 'untidyness' - so far no one has taken up my offer of $100 to show a tighter more controlled position on the pole that the one of Bubka shown on the front cover of BTB!! Looking forward to Columbia dj.
Petrov based much of his work on the great vaulters of the stiff pole era - try taking a stiff pole and taking off flat - see how high you can grip doing that - or try Botcharnikovs pole climbing drill and see what happens.
I find the interest in efficiency a bit distorted. Tim was 2 or 3 inches taller that Bubby - is that an advantage - well if you think improving pole ground angle is an advantage, then extra height must be. Again I say that Bubka's supposed speed advantage has been exaggerated. The 9.94m/sec shown in the table on which the original debate was based was NOTE 1986!!!! - his speed was recorded at 9.77m/sec at take off. Clearly still fast but not ridiculously fast compared to other elite vaulters. The advantage he had - along with other soviet vaulters was that his plant was highly efficient so that he was able to continue to accelerate through to take off - unlike many other elite vaulters . (See Nikonov page 141 BYB) However his differential on that jump was only 1.04m so clearly he had terrible technique.
The alternative model being proposed will only encourage young athletes once again to think in terms of what happens after you leave the ground. You only have to compare the number of posts in the beginners and intermediate sections of PVP which deal with the in the air component -especially how to get vertical -with the number of questions re the run up and plant to see that most youngsters already have a distorted view of good technique in the vault. Working on the plant is boring - working to improve your rockback and shoot is clearly where its at!! While i sincerely hope it does not happen - an emphasis on a flat take off, early bend and a big differential will set US vaulting back.
Apart from its efficiency and the fact that is has been used by other elite vaulters - all three of the biggest heights in history for example - the advantage of the Petrov/Bubka model is that you can break it down into clearly recognisable, logical and teachable elements. I am waiting for someone to show me how you do that with ANY other model they propose.
With regard to Bubkas 'untidyness' - so far no one has taken up my offer of $100 to show a tighter more controlled position on the pole that the one of Bubka shown on the front cover of BTB!! Looking forward to Columbia dj.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden
I find the interest in efficiency a bit distorted. Tim was 2 or 3 inches taller that Bubby - is that an advantage - well if you think improving pole ground angle is an advantage, then extra height must be.
According to your free take off, Mack's height advantage is offset based on the fact that Bubka achieved a higher take off angle. The debate is on who was more efficient, lets try to get back on topic...
Again I ask when did Bubka come up short?? However go to any competitition at ANY level in the US and you unfortunately will see a good percentage of vaulters doing that - and often putting themselves at risk - because they are jumping the way YOU suggest.
Altius- I am glad you posted this comment. I will reiterate the fact that the only person bringing up one's nationality is YOU. Also, I am still waiting on your response on the law of dimishing returns regarding the size of a pole a person uses. Do you honestly not believe that there is a point where a bigger pole is too much?
According to your free take off, Mack's height advantage is offset based on the fact that Bubka achieved a higher take off angle. The debate is on who was more efficient, lets try to get back on topic...
Again I ask when did Bubka come up short?? However go to any competitition at ANY level in the US and you unfortunately will see a good percentage of vaulters doing that - and often putting themselves at risk - because they are jumping the way YOU suggest.
Altius- I am glad you posted this comment. I will reiterate the fact that the only person bringing up one's nationality is YOU. Also, I am still waiting on your response on the law of dimishing returns regarding the size of a pole a person uses. Do you honestly not believe that there is a point where a bigger pole is too much?
-
Carolina21
- PV Whiz
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 4:02 am
- Expertise: Former Elite Vaulter
- Lifetime Best: 5.59
- Location: Houston, TX
- Contact:
I really don't want want to get into this argument, but I find one problem with everybody's logic on here regarding "efficiency" A vaulter’s push off really doesn't matter as far as I am concerned, because one jumper could stay on a very short and extremely stiff pole (like Joe Dial) and create a giant push off and clear 18'10 for example, or another vaulter could grip exceedingly high like 5m on a 'softer pole' and have a push off that is very small and also clear 18'10. Which vaulter was more efficient? The answer would be the vaulter who was running with less velocity at take off not which vaulter had a higher push. All that really matters is how far do you move your COM compared to your velocity at take off, right? Push off seems like a strange way to measure efficiency.
This question will never be answered between Bubka and Mack, but I think if it could be answered it would be done by finding the COM of Bubka and Mack and the velocity of each vaulter at take off, and finally see how high each vaulter’s COM moved and could have cleared. Do the math and you would have an answer.
This question will never be answered between Bubka and Mack, but I think if it could be answered it would be done by finding the COM of Bubka and Mack and the velocity of each vaulter at take off, and finally see how high each vaulter’s COM moved and could have cleared. Do the math and you would have an answer.
-Rise to the occasion
PR: 18' 4.0
PR: 18' 4.0
-
altius
- PV Rock Star
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
- Location: adelaide, australia
- Contact:
Sorry folks - a little piece went missing in my last post. It should have read
On Bubka's world record jump of 6.01m in 1986 NOTE 1986!!!! - his speed was recorded at 9.77m/sec at take off. Clearly still fast but not ridiculously fast compared to other elite vaulters. The advantage he had - along with other soviet vaulters was that his plant was highly efficient so that he was able to continue to accelerate through to take off - unlike many other elite vaulters . (See Nikonov page 141 BYB) However his differential on that jump was only 1.04m so clearly he had terrible technique.
On Bubka's world record jump of 6.01m in 1986 NOTE 1986!!!! - his speed was recorded at 9.77m/sec at take off. Clearly still fast but not ridiculously fast compared to other elite vaulters. The advantage he had - along with other soviet vaulters was that his plant was highly efficient so that he was able to continue to accelerate through to take off - unlike many other elite vaulters . (See Nikonov page 141 BYB) However his differential on that jump was only 1.04m so clearly he had terrible technique.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden
-
altius
- PV Rock Star
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
- Location: adelaide, australia
- Contact:
"Altius- I am glad you posted this comment. I will reiterate the fact that the only person bringing up one's nationality is YOU."
While I cannot be positive, I believe the only country to suffer fatalities in the vault the past few years has been the USA. I have watched literally hundreds of jumpers in THE USA over the past seven years and have no doubt my comments are justified. In fact anyone who was in reno in january and watched only the top pit - where presumably the most competent vaulters compete - will remember the frisson of fear they felt as in one competition after another some athletes vaulted close the edge of safety - and a few did indeed land in the box, fortunately the right way up.
"Also, I am still waiting on your response on the law of dimishing returns regarding the size of a pole a person uses. Do you honestly not believe that there is a point where a bigger pole is too much?"
Well what a question to ask someone who has been coaching the vault for the past forty nine years!! I have taught hundreds of young people to vault and - as a professional sports educator concerned first and foremost with safety - have always made sure that whatever else, they never overgripped. We always trained with the stands at least 80cms - all the way - back, and invariably opened competition with them there. As I said in Reno, we never brought the bar inside 55cms. Note that we are talking here of National championships, world youth and world junior competitions.
It is self evident that there is a point where a bigger pole is too much!! However the challenge for the coach and athlete - assuming they want to jump higher and not just look good - is to continually strive to increase their grip height and use stiffer poles. That is the rationale for the free take off because it enables you to do both.
If you had attended my presentation in Reno this year you would have heard me say that - as part of a presentation on the theme of pole speed which is of course essential if the athlete is to land safely. I made the point there that you are always trading off depth in the pit against height over the bar. Why? Because there are no prizes for landing deep in the pit - just as there are no prizes for the best differential or for style in the vault. The challenge is to find the grip height and pole stiffness which gives you the best result - and ensures safety on every jump. If Bubka had overgripped we would have many reports of him landing in the box or going off the side of the pad - as dj might say - niente, non, nein, nada etc.
You obviously like research, so I suggest that you go back and read Petrovs original paper in which he makes the point that the technical elements he emphasises can allow the athlete to immediately grip higher on stiffer poles. I can assure you that he is the ultimate professional - and he had the resources of the Soviet Union to support him -and he made use of those resources - the gymnastic coaches. biomechanists and other good vault coaches as he developed his model - perhaps the name Volkov will mean something to a few readers. Petrov deliberately set out to discover / develop the best technical model he could. Incidentally he wasnt too caught up in nationalism - he made a major study of Dutch Warmerdam and his ideas on the take off stem largely from that study.
However if you or any other contributor could convince him that he needed to change his ideas I am sure he would do so - because he just wants to see people jump high.
Now we definitely are going round in circles - but you will have to do it without any more contributions from me on this topic. Wait for my next book. I can see I need to work harder at helping folk get rid of the myths and misunderstanding which still bedevil this great event.
While I cannot be positive, I believe the only country to suffer fatalities in the vault the past few years has been the USA. I have watched literally hundreds of jumpers in THE USA over the past seven years and have no doubt my comments are justified. In fact anyone who was in reno in january and watched only the top pit - where presumably the most competent vaulters compete - will remember the frisson of fear they felt as in one competition after another some athletes vaulted close the edge of safety - and a few did indeed land in the box, fortunately the right way up.
"Also, I am still waiting on your response on the law of dimishing returns regarding the size of a pole a person uses. Do you honestly not believe that there is a point where a bigger pole is too much?"
Well what a question to ask someone who has been coaching the vault for the past forty nine years!! I have taught hundreds of young people to vault and - as a professional sports educator concerned first and foremost with safety - have always made sure that whatever else, they never overgripped. We always trained with the stands at least 80cms - all the way - back, and invariably opened competition with them there. As I said in Reno, we never brought the bar inside 55cms. Note that we are talking here of National championships, world youth and world junior competitions.
It is self evident that there is a point where a bigger pole is too much!! However the challenge for the coach and athlete - assuming they want to jump higher and not just look good - is to continually strive to increase their grip height and use stiffer poles. That is the rationale for the free take off because it enables you to do both.
If you had attended my presentation in Reno this year you would have heard me say that - as part of a presentation on the theme of pole speed which is of course essential if the athlete is to land safely. I made the point there that you are always trading off depth in the pit against height over the bar. Why? Because there are no prizes for landing deep in the pit - just as there are no prizes for the best differential or for style in the vault. The challenge is to find the grip height and pole stiffness which gives you the best result - and ensures safety on every jump. If Bubka had overgripped we would have many reports of him landing in the box or going off the side of the pad - as dj might say - niente, non, nein, nada etc.
You obviously like research, so I suggest that you go back and read Petrovs original paper in which he makes the point that the technical elements he emphasises can allow the athlete to immediately grip higher on stiffer poles. I can assure you that he is the ultimate professional - and he had the resources of the Soviet Union to support him -and he made use of those resources - the gymnastic coaches. biomechanists and other good vault coaches as he developed his model - perhaps the name Volkov will mean something to a few readers. Petrov deliberately set out to discover / develop the best technical model he could. Incidentally he wasnt too caught up in nationalism - he made a major study of Dutch Warmerdam and his ideas on the take off stem largely from that study.
However if you or any other contributor could convince him that he needed to change his ideas I am sure he would do so - because he just wants to see people jump high.
Now we definitely are going round in circles - but you will have to do it without any more contributions from me on this topic. Wait for my next book. I can see I need to work harder at helping folk get rid of the myths and misunderstanding which still bedevil this great event.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden
good morning..
don't have time to focus this morning.. have a meet to go to..
i wasn't talking about a pre-jump... i don't know that i agree with a pre-jump.. not if it slows the vaulter.. or maybe i don't know what it is............
allan we cannot be talking about "hugh differences' here in our views.. not to the level to create "our' arguements!
when i return i will try and state clearly and simply what i see...
dj
ps
on your question to bubka.. importance of the free takeoff...
a little later on the same subject bubka said...
i have been teaching this for a long time...
dj
don't have time to focus this morning.. have a meet to go to..
i wasn't talking about a pre-jump... i don't know that i agree with a pre-jump.. not if it slows the vaulter.. or maybe i don't know what it is............
allan we cannot be talking about "hugh differences' here in our views.. not to the level to create "our' arguements!
when i return i will try and state clearly and simply what i see...
dj
ps
on your question to bubka.. importance of the free takeoff...
how to transfer energy to the pole............. The free take off is a very short period of time, we can say no more than hundreds os a second, going from the end of the takeoff and the moment in which the tip of the pole reaches the end of the box.
a little later on the same subject bubka 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 some times...
i have been teaching this for a long time...
dj
Come out of the back... Get your feet down... Plant big
-
vaultwest
- PV Whiz
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:27 pm
- Expertise: college coach, masters vaulter
- Lifetime Best: 4.70m
- Favorite Vaulter: Toby Stevenson
- Location: Eugene
I realy don't know why I am jumping into this but I just can't help myself.
From my perspective it seems to me that Tim actually moved towards the Petrov model in that glorius season when he became for a time the best vaulter in the world.
I have watched Tim vault for years and noticed the strengths and weaknesses in his jumps. It is no secret for years he was a second tier vaulter and had some techinical issues at takeoff with sinking, ie not having his C of G directed in the proper direction, while other parts of his jump seemed pretty good. When Tim was on, he would jump pretty good, when he was off he would really struggle. It was so great to see him put things together for that four to six month period and be the best vaulter he could be and I hope he can rediscover that in the future.
After listening very closely to Tim's own words about what he was trying to do in his technique at the Olympics, and studying his film I would contend that by thinking, stay tall at the end of his run and be strong in his arms at takeoff, that what Tim was doing was moving towards the Petrov model free takeoff as he jumped. Since the takeoff is the most critical point in the vault even a small improvement in performance can reap improved results.
So I would rephrase this debate and say that Tim's jumping at that time actually proves that the Petrov model is more efficient and Tim's great successes show that vaulters at any level can move towards a free takeoff and have more success.
Take a bite of that, chew it a bit and see what goes down!
Vault On
From my perspective it seems to me that Tim actually moved towards the Petrov model in that glorius season when he became for a time the best vaulter in the world.
I have watched Tim vault for years and noticed the strengths and weaknesses in his jumps. It is no secret for years he was a second tier vaulter and had some techinical issues at takeoff with sinking, ie not having his C of G directed in the proper direction, while other parts of his jump seemed pretty good. When Tim was on, he would jump pretty good, when he was off he would really struggle. It was so great to see him put things together for that four to six month period and be the best vaulter he could be and I hope he can rediscover that in the future.
After listening very closely to Tim's own words about what he was trying to do in his technique at the Olympics, and studying his film I would contend that by thinking, stay tall at the end of his run and be strong in his arms at takeoff, that what Tim was doing was moving towards the Petrov model free takeoff as he jumped. Since the takeoff is the most critical point in the vault even a small improvement in performance can reap improved results.
So I would rephrase this debate and say that Tim's jumping at that time actually proves that the Petrov model is more efficient and Tim's great successes show that vaulters at any level can move towards a free takeoff and have more success.
Take a bite of that, chew it a bit and see what goes down!
Vault On
-
jcoover
- PV Pro
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:32 pm
- Favorite Vaulter: Nicholas Panozzo
- Location: Cedar Falls, IA
- Contact:
hey altius.
i agree with you that the position on the cover of BTB is the tightest, most controlled that anyone has ever looked at the top of a vault. Im also of the opinion that Bubka's technique was far better than Mack's, since it is hard for me to believe that somewhere in his career, bubka didn't have 130+ cm pushes, or at least 125. maybe not based on bar height minus grip height, but based on how much he smoked the bar minus grip height. that point aside, how do you feel about this position that brad walker attained in his 583 jump at Reno a few years ago?
while it certainly might not be as tight and controlled as that of bubka... i was just curious what you thought about it!
i agree with you that the position on the cover of BTB is the tightest, most controlled that anyone has ever looked at the top of a vault. Im also of the opinion that Bubka's technique was far better than Mack's, since it is hard for me to believe that somewhere in his career, bubka didn't have 130+ cm pushes, or at least 125. maybe not based on bar height minus grip height, but based on how much he smoked the bar minus grip height. that point aside, how do you feel about this position that brad walker attained in his 583 jump at Reno a few years ago?
while it certainly might not be as tight and controlled as that of bubka... i was just curious what you thought about it!
"We can, by God, let our demons loose and just wail on!" - John L Parker
After listening very closely to Tim's own words about what he was trying to do in his technique at the Olympics, and studying his film I would contend that by thinking, stay tall at the end of his run and be strong in his arms at takeoff, that what Tim was doing was moving towards the Petrov model free takeoff as he jumped.
It has been a while since I have seen “A Pole Vaulter’s Dreamâ€Â
It has been a while since I have seen “A Pole Vaulter’s Dreamâ€Â
Return to “Pole Vault - Advanced Technique”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests