hey
your point is correct vteck... thank you
i got a pm from a reader that has quite a bit of technical knowledge himself... he asked me " dj, are you against the petrov/bubka model? i was a little taken "a back" that he or anyone on pvp had gotten that message from my writing.
the opposite is true.. i mentioned before that i have two articles that i have with me at all times.. 1.. bubka interview, jamaica... and petrov, youth athletics newsletter, 2004. i have highlighted points in each paper and try to follow them religiously.. just like i feel bob seagran and his coaches made minor adjustments, with or without a change in "verbage" over pennel... dave roberts and his "coach" improved over seagrin.. then telez/tully, bell/kochel.. volkov for heavens sake... the french didn't always use "the model" but the night bubka and vigneron squared off...world records back to back to back... there was a distinct difference in vigneron's technique. not much "tuck" more "bubka-est"...
no..no..no.. i support and use the bubka/petrov model that i derive from the writings/papers i have and the others i have studied... i also know that t-mack and B do the same.. roman has been mentioned on here several times... i support and will defend his manifesto/model... to me he has said it right and correct from the ground to the top of the vault... the only difference i have ever had with any of these two (petrov/bubka - roman) models is in the run.. petrov describes the technical aspects of the pole carry and run brilliantly and even though i had been using the grip, posture at the start, position of the left elbow by the ribs and the lower hand "V" in the middle of the chest (i actually wrote an article for 19+PLUS newsletter in 1985 describing this position and that was before i had read a petrov description of that position) i didn't get the benefit until a couple of years ago while working with ms randalene sargent.. wow.. work with something for years and it took petrov to get me to "listen".. and randalene to show me why..........
i guess where i'm having difficulty is with alan's interpretation of the "model"... not the model itself.. Lawrence johnson used "the model" from leaving the ground to max height, before roman... he just didn't have the pole carry and proper run.. i know a change in his run/pole carry was discussed with him , john smith tried and possiblely roman .. but that was the only thing wrong with Lawrence not being able to follow the "model".. and jump a world record..
and we are back to...
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...
in the early/mid 80's, maybe it was petrov's first publication.. where bubka's beginning and yearly progression was first written... some of you may have the same article.. my original is packed/filed somewhere ... what i do have in my hand is the trajectory of his vault from takeoff, through the swing to max bend to max height.. when i first compared this to one of earl bell's jumps the first thing i noticed was bubka went in further before he started to "curve" toward the bar.. bubka's was more of what i called a "pipe" curve... what I mean by pipe curve is the path his top hand followed from take off to maximum bend. bubka's top hand only elevated 55cm from takeoff to max bend.. this point was approximately half way to the back of the box and shortened the cord of the pole 30%. when i overlay t-macks trejectory there is a very minor difference.. earl's was at a steeper angle and his max bend was 28%...
this also matched up with the appropriate maximum pole bend....
the point i tried to make before was/is it is not a detriment to travel on a seemingly low trajectory to maximum bend and the "takeoff angle" is in most part created by the stiffness of the pole.... not the athlete trying to "jump up" and continue at a steeper angle at the takeoff.
it is very important to shorten the cord appropriately to match with all the other variables..........
point two.. you can readily see the "inefficiency" of going to a pole two stiff by viewing t-mack's series of jumps at the trials in 2004. on his third jump at 604 he switched to a 5.20 pole that belonged to hysong... his run was the same speed, all of the checks were pretty much the same that he used on the first two attempts on the 5.10 pole.. but he couldn't shorten the radius as much because he didn't increase the force at the plant/takeoff... therefore he did not get the pole to vertical... and didn't complete the jump...
inefficient use of a pole ... the only way to use a stiffer pole efficiently would to.... have more speed or a improved takeoff or both.
and to close... i believe in the pretov/bubka model.. it follows physics... i just don't follow alan's line of thinking and interpretations.........
dj
Come out of the back... Get your feet down... Plant big