Bemiller/Mack Model

[achtungpv]

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

Bubka...6.11 vault by 6" clean, not out of control on top at all.

It's safe to assume it's a 5.20 pole, he never jumped on any longer. It's obvious he's holding at least 10cm from the top. Let's be conservative and say a 5.10 grip...4.90 in the box. Egads! That gives him a 1.21 push!!!

[Tim McMichael]

That is my favorite video of Bubka, and I think it makes my point. On that jump, his hips reach his hands just before the pole is straight, not four or five feet before, as he usually did. He also turns and pushes with his right arm instead of coming off the pole sideways with his right arm bent back by his shoulder. In other words, he does, on that jump, exactly what I believe has to happen for an athete to maximize pushoff and stay square over the bar.

[achtungpv]

Since push off is obviously the one determining factor of efficiency, we should look at Paul Burgess. He gripped 4.91 when he cleared 6.00. This gives him a push off of 1.29 meters easily the best identified so far.

Thus, we can make the assumption that the Parnov flavor of the Petrov Model is superior to the Petrov flavor of the Petrov Model that was recently shown to be equal to the Bemiller model (or maybe the Bemiller flavor of the Petrov model, pending verification) that was at one time believed to be more efficient that the Petrov flavor of the Petrov model until the posting of Bubka's 6.11 vault that shows it is at least equal to the Bemiller (or Bemiller-Petrov model) model.

I think my head is going to explode.

[dj]

hello

i think the initial dialog was not one of superiorty(or should not have been) but "this appears more efficient" can we answer why??

is it the swing? the speed of the swing? the timing?.. or matching of the pole and grip with the speed and tecnical position?? or something we haven't figured out yet.......

what are some of the parameters of paul burgess jump.?. swing speed, takeoff angle.. etc..

there should be some common "fabric" between all the "efficient jumps...


dj

[dj]

hello

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the major reason i joined this conversation was not in "defense" of t-mack, he should not have to be defended, his 2004 seasons record stands for itself. my purpose was to actually explore the efficiency of his technique and to point out that the “theoryâ€Â

[altius]

I believe Thomas Huxley got it right over 100 years ago when he observed "Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors."

[Tim McMichael]

what shouldn’t be said is… that it only takes an "out" takeoff (the extreme version), higher takeoff angle, bigger poles and more grip to be efficient... or to even jump high...

I could not agree more. Alan's focus is on safety, as he has stated many times, and the Petrov model he presents is one of the safest ways to vault. But ONLY if the pole is matched properly to the athlete, the fundamentals of the approach are taught effectively, and the athlete’s takeoff angle is matched to their ability. If, however, all a coach gets out of an introduction to the Petrov model is the concept expressed in dj's quote above, it results in one of the least safe vaults I have seen, and I see it constantly. I have seen too many coaches teaching just that, and their athletes often land in the box. The coaches’ response to this disaster is usually some version of, “Get your step out and jump up moreâ€Â

[jcoover]

Mt Sac Record - 5.81 - CSU Fullerton Alumni

[dj]

allan

"Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors."

not sure if this was a "dig" or even directed at me... must be

I do know that if what i said was read and interpreted properly and not accepted as sound, rational "truth", according to physics…. That the readers either misunderstood or have a closed mind…

If that is where this site continues to go we will hurt more coaches and athletes than we help….

dj

[master]

what shouldn’t be said is… that it only takes an "out" takeoff (the extreme version), higher takeoff angle, bigger poles and more grip to be efficient... or to even jump high...

I could not agree more. Alan's focus is on safety, as he has stated many times, and the Petrov model he presents is one of the safest ways to vault. But ONLY if the pole is matched properly to the athlete, the fundamentals of the approach are taught effectively, and the athlete’s takeoff angle is matched to their ability.

Isn't that exactly what Alan has been promoting? There will always be people/coaches that are looking for shortcuts, but their existence doesn't negate the validity of the model. The method of those coaches is what should be challenged, and it should be respectfully done whenever we observe it (or read it on this board).

- master

[SlickVT]

In statistics, Bubka is called an outlier, something out of the ordinary and not really comparable to every other point of interest. Has anyone considered how strong in vaulter depth the Petrov Model would be had the ridiculously freakish Bubka never vaulted?

We would have Yelena (who learned from a different coach and is also an outlier) and a few people who have come close like the rest of us mere mortals. And then I believe the Bemiller/Mack model would certainly reign supreme, depth-, performance-, and consistency-wise.

However, because Bubka did vault and vault ridiculously high in an era that saw many freakish performances (?) now we all have to beat our head against a dead horse (I think thats how it goes).

I think we should have this discussion without bringing up the name Bubka for depth of model purposes and compare the two models.

However, I have a feeling deep in my stomach that the idea that many other 6 meter vaulters were in fact using that "model" but with a different "style", even though the jumps don't resemble each other.

Huh.

[Tim McMichael]

what shouldn’t be said is… that it only takes an "out" takeoff (the extreme version), higher takeoff angle, bigger poles and more grip to be efficient... or to even jump high...

I could not agree more. Alan's focus is on safety, as he has stated many times, and the Petrov model he presents is one of the safest ways to vault. But ONLY if the pole is matched properly to the athlete, the fundamentals of the approach are taught effectively, and the athlete’s takeoff angle is matched to their ability.

Isn't that exactly what Alan has been promoting? There will always be people/coaches that are looking for shortcuts, but their existence doesn't negate the validity of the model. The method of those coaches is what should be challenged, and it should be respectfully done whenever we observe it (or read it on this board).

- master

I’m sorry if I did not make my point as precisely as I ought. Alan has indeed been promoting and teaching a safe vault. He emphasizes the safety issues I suggest, but too many coaches either have not heard or have disregarded these essential elements. I hate to generalize, and understand that my observations certainly do not apply to all or even most coaches. I am coming from the particulars of my local situation. But that being said, too many consider the vault from the plant up and think of nothing else. They have heard that Bubka griped high on huge poles and insist that their athletes do the same. They emphasize a high angle and a high grip when their athlete’s posture, stride, and pole carry make this impossible to do safely. The result is an athlete that consistently stalls out upside down over the box.

I am teaching the Petrov model exclusively right now. As Alan suggested, until I come up with a systematic and successful technique of teaching another method, I ought not try to do it. The Petrov model is astonishingly easy to teach, but most of the work needs to be done on the runway, the rest is relatively easy once the preliminary elements are established.

I also agree with dj’s observations on pole bend and efficiency. It is a comprehensive theory. It explains a lot of what is happening in successful vaults and offers an analysis that focuses on elements that the Petrov model largely ignores, such as the optimal amount of pole bend. It is fascinating stuff that I have experienced first hand in my own vault.

It is exciting that this kind of in depth information is available on this board. Let’s please stay in the spirit of productive debate.

I think Shakespeare was right 400 years ago when he said, “There are more things in heaven and earth . . . than are dreamed of in your philosophy.â€Â