D'Encausse on ideal technique

[grandevaulter]

David, are you still there? I've been on the edge of my seat since PVstudent asked the questions. Here are a couple of simple ones from a simple person.

If the Hubble telescope doesn't transmit a super nova, should we presume that it doesn't exist?

Is Petrov currently teaching his technical model and would he use it with a 12-14 year old ?

??

[willrieffer]

Is this supposed to be "science"?



I don't see any science there at all. Is there a model? Sure, I guess, floating around somewhere in there. Is there some ideal that is being worked toward as a goal? Certainly. Is it "scienctific"? Hardly.

That the PB model never worked with gravity vector analysis tells me everything I need to know. It was quasi scientific. Or it was scientific in some areas, say on take off analysis where it could stop frame the analysis, but not on others where its adherents made and continue to make claims about methods of performance based on results. That, "The results speak for themselves", you guys do understand is at best a tautology, right? Or is in fact one continually used as a logical fallacy that is at almost all times used to justify the minutia of technique and analysis here. Gentlemen, it just doesn't work that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct ... evolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

I've seen little to no science concerning the PB Model, and what I have has been suspect from box energy considerations to the real world problem of take off variance. Petrov was rightly worried about the hips being thrown forward, but for what reason? What scientific reason? As far as I know it never appeared until I came along...

One of the problems I have is that in knowing something about Soviet history I know it was rife with problems where politics trumped scientific thinking. They had repeated "scientific" disasters because they would favor party sycophants over better scientists. Did this occur with Petrov? Maybe. Maybe not. What is never argued is that he got results. The coaching method worked. But politically, since he got results was there a movement to take everything he said in regards to physics as true and correct? I think so. It is not to be taken as a given that his coaching approach, which again DID yield results AND a paradigm shift, means that he gets carte blanche as a scientific author, without reproach. There is a difference, a BIG difference between being a good PV/Sports coach and being a scientist with a grasp of physics, mechanics, and math.

There is also here, a continual move and counter move to say, "Well that's intuitive." I could say it about his take off methodology, and express it as, "Don't get bound up in your take off." Science!

I've applied science, gravity vector analysis, to the swing giving an explanation for why such things as the double leg offer a certain advantage. This may have been known, but no one that I have seen applied scientific reasoning, that is worked out with scientific terms, that is under the well established laws of science, regarding the CoM mass relation to the swing velocity and its effect on the pole.

(a) Could you please share with us what you believe to be the invariant elements without which a successful pole vault clearance cannot be made?

(b) How do you coach/teach the introduction to the take-off to beginners and address the criteria you use to determine the “limits” of safely allowable variation when assessing the learner’s attempts at take-off? What criteria do you use to decide a learner’s readiness to increase the number of steps in the run up and to judge the amount to raise the grip length on the pole?

(c) In coaching an intermediate to advanced level pole vaulter what technical method of inversion do you coach and why do you coach that method? When working this same element of the vault would you coach male and female vaulters of this standard to attempt the same method? On the other hand if you teach/coach each vaulter at this level according to their individual capacity and ability, how do you make this assessment and then what criteria do you apply in deriving a method of inversion tailored to suit the specific individual?

a) The vault pole system has to reach a particular energy to time relation based on the chord and its angular velocity along with the position and speed of the CoM. This is to say that the CoM path is bounded during compression. Once that state is reached, all the vaulter has to do is cover. The invert is still effective of pole energy state, chord change, etc., which is why having the CoM out away from the pendulum fulcrum where gravity can drain from the CoMs angular momentum and energy, and where you spend more time with a slower swinging longer lever and thus less time with the CoM/gravity compressive moment on the pole seems like a really bad idea. There is a relationship still with the path of the CoM to the decompressing pole. Again with the CoM having a relation to gravity and the pole contact effecting its decompression rate and chord change.

Is that scientific enough for you guys? Or perhaps too scientific...

b) I start with extremely low grips and use my eye and apply some coaching art to make an on the fly judgement about their energy state. Is the pole moving fast enough? Are they landing in the safe zone? Increments toward maximizing grip height are generally small. One does need to note here that when bend starts that the progress is not linear. This is to say, at a point when elevating hand height on longer poles and using bend, it actually shortens the chord. This is to say there is, in most cases, a "no mans land" with grip height on poles, at least for those of us without a lot of poles...

c)I try to extend the vaulters natural proclivities to the model. Not to take off, as it has a static model, but to swing and inversion. I can see no reason to worry about gender, at all. Since no vaulter reaches actually reaches any ideal model, concessions must be made. Trade offs. Scientifically again this is because the compression phase has boundary limits, but as there are several factors that go into reaching the passing state, there are options to get there. This is the nature of complex systems in terms of system dynamics as we know them today with chaos studies. I have a vaulter that naturally wants to tuck. I can work to slow and extend their swing phase. I have another that has a natural beautiful long extended swing, so I intend to work to make that longer and smoother. I saw another kid who had a natural double leg, and 11 sec speed. I coulda made that kid a star. But he was with another coach already progressed in his career. I said nothing...

So here was my problem. I saw some science with the PB model, and in other areas, well, I can't call it anything but anti-science. The box energy problem. Idealization of the take off to real world take off variance. A complete lack of concern for the gravity vectors relation to the Com In chord shortening as well as for the relation to swing speed deceleration and energy loss in the swing to gravity. That the model is really limited itself to idea and then data points, and where again I call it a linearization method to a complex curve problem. It wasn't wrong in every area. Far from it. But it's adherents, without a deeper understanding of physics, have failed to see its ultimate limitations. It appears RL has forced a bit of a paradigm shift, at least as far as swing mechanics go.

Will

P.S. for good measure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

[KirkB]

Is this supposed to be "science"?

No, I don't think it's "science", and I don't think Petrov intended it to be "science".

It appears to me to be a well-worded (well-translated) explanation of Petrov's idea of how to swing and how to use the shoulders during the swing / rock-back / inversion. It's coaching lingo --- not scientific lingo. At best, it's a very incomplete description of the Petrov model, as it says nothing about the pole carry, run, plant, or take-off. Way too much emphasis on the movement of the shoulders (mentioned 8 times!).

The English grammar is excellent (much better than if Petrov had written this himself), but I suspect that the translator lacked the scientific knowledge to give a more scientific translation. And in fact, I suspect that Petrov's Russian words that were translated were not very scientific in the first place. I could be wrong about this, but I'm not so sure that Petrov had any higher education scientific training or credentials --- he just understood the science behind PV quite well.

This is not to say that there's no science behind the Petrov Model. There is. It's just not documented as well as we'd all like. Ironically, in large part due to Launder's BTB2 book, the PM and the science behind the PM is the most well-documented model in the history of PV! But Launder's book is no more scientific than Petrov's papers!

This brings us to this year (and the last couple years), where Bussabarger's claims were pooh-poohed as junk science (or lacked a scientific basis), and when you appeared on PVP (later than DB), you have met similar road-blocks to acceptance of your "claims" or "explanations" of what it is about RL's technique that gives him the edge over SB.

Don't take offense to this, but I think your words (your lingo) mean a lot more to you, and a lot less to us. Your explanations are (IMHO) mostly vague (or misunderstood) jargon. So yeh - not scientific enough; not articulate enough.

Let's not hash over old arguments about which technique is better. Let's identify the invariants that are needed for ANY successful vault, and (for lack of being able to agree that RL has a specific technical model that's DIFFERENT from the Petrov Model) let's try to synopsize the similiarities and differences of each.

I know we've hashed this out umpteen times, but the more we talk about it, the more confusing it seems, because the emphasis seems to be on our DISAGREEMENTS rather than on our AGREEMENTS.

So tell me again, in a single sentence or a single short paragraph:

How is RL able to invert so early (earlier than most other tuckers) and so quickly from his hang?

RL presses with his bottom arm (to force more energy into the pole, and to hang lower for longer), whereas SB doesn't apply this bottom arm pressure, and instead has a steady swing to inversion without the slow-downs and speed-ups that RL has.

Incidentally, in Petrov's quoted paper (above), he refers to a rock-back. I don't believe for a minute that SB had a rock-back. I believe that a rock-back is only applicable to tuck-shooters --- not to followers of the Petrov Model. I believe that Petrov used the term "rock-back" (or his translator used it) merely because it's been a popularized PV term since at least the early 1960s. Heck, back in the day, I even referred to my inversion as a "rock-back", even though I went straight from swing to inversion (just like Bubka).

I'm still trying to figure out how RL can (seemingly) "defy gravity" (or at least contradict the Theory of Continuous Motion) by his slowing down and speeding up, and not striving to increase his altitude on each and every millisecond of his vault. I still don't understand.

Kirk

[KirkB]

BTW Will, I give you full props for attempting to answer all of PVStudent's questions (1-6 and a-c) that were addressed to DB.

And you're doing a good job of keeping (or trying to keep) this discussion on an even (scientific?) keel, without getting personally offended!

Kirk

[willrieffer]

Is this supposed to be "science"?

No, I don't think it's "science", and I don't think Petrov intended it to be "science".

It appears to me to be a well-worded (well-translated) explanation of Petrov's idea of how to swing and how to use the shoulders during the swing / rock-back / inversion. It's coaching lingo --- not scientific lingo. At best, it's a very incomplete description of the Petrov model, as it says nothing about the pole carry, run, plant, or take-off. Way too much emphasis on the movement of the shoulders (mentioned 8 times!).

The English grammar is excellent (much better than if Petrov had written this himself), but I suspect that the translator lacked the scientific knowledge to give a more scientific translation. And in fact, I suspect that Petrov's Russian words that were translated were not very scientific in the first place. I could be wrong about this, but I'm not so sure that Petrov had any higher education scientific training or credentials --- he just understood the science behind PV quite well.

This is not to say that there's no science behind the Petrov Model. There is. It's just not documented as well as we'd all like. Ironically, in large part due to Launder's BTB2 book, the PM and the science behind the PM is the most well-documented model in the history of PV! But Launder's book is no more scientific than Petrov's papers!

This brings us to this year (and the last couple years), where Bussabarger's claims were pooh-poohed as junk science (or lacked a scientific basis), and when you appeared on PVP (later than DB), you have met similar road-blocks to acceptance of your "claims" or "explanations" of what it is about RL's technique that gives him the edge over SB.

Don't take offense to this, but I think your words (your lingo) mean a lot more to you, and a lot less to us. Your explanations are (IMHO) mostly vague (or misunderstood) jargon. So yeh - not scientific enough; not articulate enough.

Let's not hash over old arguments about which technique is better. Let's identify the invariants that are needed for ANY successful vault, and (for lack of being able to agree that RL has a specific technical model that's DIFFERENT from the Petrov Model) let's try to synopsize the similiarities and differences of each.

I know we've hashed this out umpteen times, but the more we talk about it, the more confusing it seems, because the emphasis seems to be on our DISAGREEMENTS rather than on our AGREEMENTS.

So tell me again, in a single sentence or a single short paragraph:

How is RL able to invert so early (earlier than most other tuckers) and so quickly from his hang?

RL presses with his bottom arm (to force more energy into the pole, and to hang lower for longer), whereas SB doesn't apply this bottom arm pressure, and instead has a steady swing to inversion without the slow-downs and speed-ups that RL has.

Incidentally, in Petrov's quoted paper (above), he refers to a rock-back. I don't believe for a minute that SB had a rock-back. I believe that a rock-back is only applicable to tuck-shooters --- not to followers of the Petrov Model. I believe that Petrov used the term "rock-back" (or his translator used it) merely because it's been a popularized PV term since at least the early 1960s. Heck, back in the day, I even referred to my inversion as a "rock-back", even though I went straight from swing to inversion (just like Bubka).

I'm still trying to figure out how RL can (seemingly) "defy gravity" (or at least contradict the Theory of Continuous Motion) by his slowing down and speeding up, and not striving to increase his altitude on each and every millisecond of his vault. I still don't understand.

Kirk

It was a question. Here, technique explanations seem to get somewhat taken as "science", so there is some push to read something like that as "scientific".

I do NOT think the PB model is devoid of either science OR merit. But there is a continuous pressure that because of its overall merit as a practiced coaching model, that its also the best model in regard to physics principles. Well, physics might say that the best way to vault is harder to do, so that few could do it, a la RL. The PB is scientific in some ways in some areas. PVStudent is generally scientific, but as I have pointed out, its an incomplete view because things have been left out.

My "lingo" is generally scientific nomenclature, and not PV coaching nomenclature. But as with "gravity vector" I can, and will, at least try to thoroughly explain it. I did not pull "gravity vector" out of thin air!

There were from the outset claims that I was not scientific or versed in science. Still are. Launder had every chance to dialog with me on these terms, physics, and he never once chose to do anything but belittle me. And then when I show he seemed, from his words here, and in concert with his lack of any effort to engage me on this forum at any point other than to belittle me and avoid a physics conversation, well, I make my claim that he didn't know a lot of physics. I'll probably still get grief over it. But it is what it is. Again, doesn't mean he didn't know the event or couldn't coach it. It's just my judgement that he had an uneducated sports coaches grasp of physics.

In my view, technique explodes in possibility in the post take off. This is because of the complexity of the system, its many variables, and the body differences of vaulters. And one thing that say, both PVStudent seem to agree on is that shorter vaulters face different challenges. It takes them into a different vault form, technique, and CoM path.

Lavillenie and his swing/invert

As I said, the vaulter has to "push"* the pole to a state where a certain set of values are reached. And, post take off there are different ways to get there.

Anyway, to put it as simply as possible, he hangs and then rolls up under the handgrip and then extends over the pole. It's different. He looks different and I've provided a different way to look at what he does which is counter to what everyone here thinks of the event. It's a paradigm shift. He's not really using "continuous motion" in the way you guys think of it where everyone thinks that the swing has to be "free" or straight leggedly whipped out of the C, or what have you. He does every thing he can to lengthen the distance of the CoM to the top hand AND keep it back in time. Then when he approaches the compression to decompression transition, he very rapidly shortens his swing radius and rolls up and back moving the CoM as close as he can back again under top hand. That shorter radius is going to speed what swing he had, and be easier and faster to "muscle" over. So he goes from a state of having the CoM act on the pole by hanging to acting on it tucked under, to then over the top, top down. Rolled up and tucked under its still doing the same thing, affecting the decompression rate, and keeping the chord shorter and moving forward faster. He spends as little time as possible out away from the pole letting gravity drain swing energy by acting on a long lever perpendicular to gravity.

You have to think about pendulums and gravity, because gravity is the thing that governs pendulum action. And the PV is a double pendulum acting in the field of gravity. And yet no one seems to think of it this way. This is the problem of "covering". It's what makes it hard. It's what slows a pendulum, stops it, and makes it reverse direction. Its one of THE considerations.

I dunno. I keep saying the same things over. Think about it. Pendulums. Gravity. Conservation of Rotational Energy.

Will

*I'm trying to use some less scientific terms. Always have been as a matter of fact. I don't know that it makes things either better or worse! LOL!

[willrieffer]

Let me try this another way...

Jeremy Scott is listed at 6' 9" and Joe Dial was listed at 5' 8" or so in tall spikes. Do you think their swings could possibly be the same? Based on the relationship between the length of the pendulum lever and its angular speed?

This is to say that Scott is necessarily going to swing slower by being physically a longer lever/pendulum.

This says that IF all other considerations are equal, this is to say they plant/take off the same, and their speed is equal, their CoM's cannot follow the same path through the vault to equal results. This doesn't even consider the angular disadvantage Dial starts out with at take off concerning the pole angle. This demands that their swing approaches be different and consequently that their technique is different. This is why one can take most of the PB model up until take off. It's actually very good. Near perfect I think. The quantitative differences in the vaulters bodies don't matter there. After take off they do. A lot.

This is where any ideal singular pole vault model is interrupted.

Since the shorter Dial's body (or RL) is necessarily going to rotate faster by being shorter, he may need to do something about it, which is to say, press the left arm and slow his swing. Okay, that's different. But like RL, he gets an advantage later. He's short and small, again has a smaller lever he can easily make even smaller, to speed through the invert transition.

Or, I always go back to the Bubka/Tradenkov distinction. Lets say they again take off the same. Easy here as they had the same coach. And they are roughly the same size length wise. But Tradenkov is one of the slowest guys over 6m. So he enters with a different set of CoM constraints. Since he's slower he gets a different pole brake force into his rotation and the inertial energy value of his CoM is less so he swings a bit slower. This causes the general problem that he has more trouble covering as you know it. So he tucks. Or if someone doesn't like that word he shortens his lever length during invert transition. He had to to get over. You can see the difference in video of the two.

Hope that helps

Will

[grandevaulter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9s3I2FuOaQ 6' 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TWAbc5TdpM 5' 3"

These gals look eerily similar in take off and swing. Very PB.

Can you process them in your "rotating body conservation gravity vector analyzer" ?

This is why one can take most of the PB model up until take off. It's actually very good. Near perfect I think. The quantitative differences in the vaulters bodies don't matter there. After take off they do. A lot.

[willrieffer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9s3I2FuOaQ 6' 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TWAbc5TdpM 5' 3"

These gals look eerily similar in take off and swing. Very PB.

Can you process them in your "rotating body conservation gravity vector analyzer" ?

This is why one can take most of the PB model up until take off. It's actually very good. Near perfect I think. The quantitative differences in the vaulters bodies don't matter there. After take off they do. A lot.

It's rather easy to say they are "PB". You guys do that for everyone that jumps high.

They are both left lockers, which I don't particularly put in the PB class. Feofanova in particular drops the front foot, and looks, well in a lot of ways in the early post take off like Lavillenie.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you want me to do or say. I don't think you have read me thoroughly as I have explained that to actually do CoM analysis would take vector calculus analysis and to do it discretely would take either a lot of time or computer and program to do it. Also, you haven't provided all the necessary information.

If you want to have a theoretical physics discussion in terms of the vault. I'm open for that.

But all you've really provided here is some political labeling and a value judgement. So not really about the PV. Birds of a feather...

Will

P.S. IF you really want to do this, here's the challenge. Describe the advantages to the straight legged swing form in terms of physics. I'll be looking forward to it.

P.S.S. Here is video of Isaksson using the PB method in '72...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeBBYSZW7_8

P.S.S.S. Here is Vigneron going against Bubka where both set new WRs in the same meet. They seem pretty similar to me and so both are PB. i guess Petrov must have said something to Thierry...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH_TN-73rTg

[grandevaulter]

This is why one can take most of the PB model up until take off. It's actually very good. Near perfect I think. The quantitative differences in the vaulters bodies don't matter there. After take off they do. A lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9s3I2FuOaQ 6' 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TWAbc5TdpM 5' 3"

If you want to have a theoretical physics discussion in terms of the vault. I'm open for that

Also, you haven't provided all the necessary information.

What else would you like?
5' 3" Feofenova

6' 0" Suhr

[willrieffer]

Also, you haven't provided all the necessary information.

What else would you like?

In my writings here I've provided everything you need to know to figure this out. So figure it out. If I had to tell you, you'd still never get it.

Also, you might join in the other thread...

http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=46741&start=132#p212747

Will

[grandevaulter]

grandevaulter wrote:

willrieffer wrote:
Also, you haven't provided all the necessary information.

What else would you like?


In my writings here I've provided everything you need to know to figure this out. So figure it out. If I had to tell you, you'd still never get it.

Also, you might join in the other thread...

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=46741&start=132#p212747

Wil

You claim that I haven't provided you with necessary information. I believe that I'll have no problem with that. You went to far out on a limb with your scientific theory regarding tall and short vaulters. Now you want out of this thread.

There were from the outset claims that I was not scientific or versed in science. Still are. Launder had every chance to dialog with me on these terms, physics, and he never once chose to do anything but belittle me. And then when I show he seemed, from his words here, and in concert with his lack of any effort to engage me on this forum at any point other than to belittle me and avoid a physics conversation, well, I make my claim that he didn't know a lot of physics. I'll probably still get grief over it. But it is what it is. Again, doesn't mean he didn't know the event or couldn't coach it. It's just my judgement that he had an uneducated sports coaches grasp of physics.

As I have stated in the past, Altius was intelligent and knowledgeable. He published a book on kinetics that was used as text for Ohio State University. He was a math and PE major at Loughsburough University and received his masters at Western Kentucky. He chose not to dialog with you for the same reason he would not ask what the "price of snails in China" is. You didn't know Altius or the PB technical model. You are not qualified.

P.S. IF you really want to do this, here's the challenge. Describe the advantages to the straight legged swing form in terms of physics. I'll be looking forward to it.

No, lets get to the bottom of "

The quantitative differences in the vaulters bodies don't matter there. After take off they do. A lot.

They seem pretty similar to me and so both are PB. i guess Petrov must have said something to Thierry...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH_TN-73rTg

Petrov may have told Thierry that he started out of the back with too low of a pole carry and did not have a PB left elbow position at take off. He may have also told him that he'd coach several world champions and rule the men's world record board for twenty years. (womens too)

You can not claim science or lack there of in the PB technical model or any other if you cannot identify the key positions. Kjiel was PB before there was PB. Kirk identifies with it too.

[willrieffer]

You claim that I haven't provided you with necessary information. I believe that I'll have no problem with that. You went to far out on a limb with your scientific theory regarding tall and short vaulters. Now you want out of this thread.

And here I still am. Figure out what the necessary information would be and post it. I've told you what it would be, I'm just not going to do it again here and make things easy for you. Why should I? This is the first sign that you would do anything other than take shots at me. It's all here. I've written it. If you care, you'll find it.

As I have stated in the past, Altius was intelligent and knowledgeable. He published a book on kinetics that was used as text for Ohio State University. He was a math and PE major at Loughsburough University and received his masters at Western Kentucky. He chose not to dialog with you for the same reason he would not ask what the "price of snails in China" is. You didn't know Altius or the PB technical model. You are not qualified.

To be honest, I don't doubt that. But here's the problem with both you and him. He choose not to engage me on the subject in terms of math and physics. That's his fault not mine. So while he may not have been an idiot about math and science, he sure chose to look like one to me. His choice, not mine.

Petrov may have told Thierry that he started out of the back with too low of a pole carry and did not have a PB left elbow position at take off. He may have also told him that he'd coach several world champions and rule the men's world record board for twenty years. (womens too)

Or maybe he didn't tell him anything, and he still set a lot of WRs. That's another point...

You can not claim science or lack there of in the PB technical model or any other if you cannot identify the key positions. Kjiel was PB before there was PB. Kirk identifies with it too.

I can and I do, and I also explain where and how it works and where and how it doesn't. I can say it because it leaves very important scientific considerations out. I can because I have a theory of left arm action that is unique and hasn't been refuted. I talk about swing action using science and it too hasn't been addressed or refuted. And also, just because you point to some "key position" of the coaching model, doesn't make it scientific. That's not science. It's cargo cult science. I keep putting up science and you say it isn't science and show examples of not science to say I'm wrong. I really don't know if it could get any worse! Or, your arguments are completely political and anti science!

And I would say, since there was PB before the PB, there really isn't or wasn't any real groundbreaking merit to the PB in any terms outside of coaching schema(where it is visibly successful in results). That was the point. And I'm talking about again, you guessed it, science. That it looks an awful lot like Petrov intuited a good template from some good vaulters and then built a quasi scientific explanation for why it worked on the backside where you get something like the "box energy loss" idea that from a science perspective is completely ridiculous. So it looks like he made a pattern from several guys like Issakson and refined it. You guys look at any successful vaulter and claim them despite key differences. Again, more politics and no science. Thanks for clearing that up by admission.

You take shots at me and avoid any real discussion and then at this point you want to claim I'm not being charitable and honest. That I'm dodging you and the issue. I'm not. And I haven't been. You need to look in the mirror. You think I'm all wrong about the PB model. Show me, don't tell me. Take the time and work at it, or to be honest, quit wasting our time...

Will