Insightful

[altius]

I could make many points in response to your post Clymer. But I will stick to just a few. Firstly as an academic for over thirty years I do understand the role of theory and I have even read some books - and actually written four. Re you comment on learning from triple jump and javelin you should note that I had considerable success with the triple jump at WKU in the late 60'/early 70s and actually wrote my first article for Scholastic Coach on "Active landings in the triple jump" around that time. I have also had considerable success coaching the javelin in OZ - four girls over 57metres and one boy (among many junior champions - only in OZ of course) with a national junior record at the time of 78.20m.

But what I was concerned about - and it was something you alluded to -was what seemed to me to be plagiarism. Claims that did not seem to me to be valid. Which I used the quote I did.

In fact I can claim to have developed something new - in the teaching of sport generally and in the teaching of games specifically. As with all my ideas, Play Pracitce, was not the product of genius, but was merely based on observation and reflection on what youngsters preferred to do when learning to play sport. My problem is that my profession was being lead by the nose by theorists who, in the main, had never taught children. I rejected that situation and I have done my best - little enough in fact - to protest against it, and I reject what has been going on here. By all accounts you are a successful practical coach so I just hope you can bring some of THAT expertise to this forum; mine is clearly no longer - if it ever was - of value.

[PVDaddy]

Kirk:

Daddy, Daddy, Daddy - you should NOT be teaching your 13-foot vaulters about negative inversion. Don't confuse them with stuff that's not important until they're clearing well over their grip!

The BOTTOM half of the vault is where it's at!

Kirk, The ONLY thing we have worked on up to this point is proper run Mechanics (Much of what I learned from Clymb and much of what I developed on my own ,"The simulation of the swinging arm in the vault") and what I believe to be proper 6 step plant mechanics (After listening to Petrovs Reno speach in 2005 for the upteenth time and combining that with the The simulation of the swinging arm in the vault that I see Bubka perform from the first step to the last) I have not even mentioned "Negative Inversion" to them (I said it was something we were working TOWARDS in a totally different thread. Why do you bring it up here, other than to fuel quarrels?) I have however been employing much of what I have learned from Clymb and others on how to get there. That's why I said working TOWARD that direction. You say the bottom half of the vault is were its at! I say the run-up and 3 step plant is were its born!

I will not be talking about there activities anymore in this forum. I mostly brought it up on the other thread as it was directly related to the subject matter at the time and was mostly just relaying my own and their experiences. I do hope to post videos of our progress (With Stats) on the intermediate forum.

[KirkB]

... be a little careful about posting stuff as your own. This above quoted post is just about verbatim from my other pole vault tech model video uploaded on my YouTube channel...looks like you left out a word here or there, and misunderstood a concept, but it would not survive Turnitin.com.

When the author of the original article (Brian Clymer) characterizes your Agenda 21 as being largely HIS work (give or take a word here or there), then that's plagiarism - no other way to describe it.

You've been caught with your pants down, PVDaddy. Admit it. Stop trying to dance around the truth.

I understand that you were testing us, to see what we would say about your negative inversion theory by hiding the true author of "your" theory. You wanted to see if we would accept the theory at face value, despite your lack of credibility.

Your plan was devious, and it backfired on you. You did actually get your answer though - your theory was pooh-poohed simply because you lack credibility. Sad, but true.

You should not be puzzled by this. If you even TRY compare YOUR credentials to Clym's credentials, there is no comparison whatsoever. You apparently have two 13-foot vaulters (even that is being questioned by one skeptical person on this forum - not me). Clym has coached how many? Altius has coached how many? You see what I mean? CREDIBILITY!

You'll get there Daddy, if you keep coaching. But so far (other than the recent progress of your 2 proteges) you've been digging a hole for yourself. Turn it around, Daddy! It's going to take years and years of solid effort, but you CAN become a good coach if you want it bad enough, and if you spend enough time with the kids to "make a difference".

You can do it!

Kirk

[KirkB]

I found Altius' credentials here: http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=25661&start=12

Boys 1986 – 2000
Patrick Jesser 18 17’8”
Matt Filsell* 18 17’4
Adam Steinhardt 18 17’3
**Steve Wilson 18 17’2
Aaron Grey 18 16’9
Greg Halliday 18 16’9
Chris Lovell 18 16’5
Tom Lovell 18 16’5
Sam Christie 18 16’3
David Cardone 18 16’1
Adrian Barei
 18 16’1
Tim Foster *** 18 15’9
Matt Broadhurst 18 15’9
Andrew Bernacki 18 15’9
John Mattinson 18 15’ 5
Brant Oxlade 17 15’1
Tom Wilson 17 15’ 1
James O’Brien 18 15’1
Mike Heynen 
14’9
Jon Walsh 14’9

Keiran Modra**** 14’7
All but two of these athletes were introduced to the event in Adelaide.

21 boys, all over 14-7+. Also 13 girls, with 2 over 13-0 and the rest in the 11 to 12 foot range. Nice work, Altius!

These 34 athletes were very lucky to be living in the same city as you!

Kirk

[PVDaddy]

Kirk:

When the author of the original article (Brian Clymer) characterizes your Agenda 21 as being largely HIS work (give or take a word here or there), then that's plagiarism - no other way to describe it.

Sorry old boy but you are sadly and rudely mistaken! The Final version of Agenda 21 that I first posted (The very first post) on FRI March 1, 2013 is ENTIRELY my work.
I did reference David Butler's article on Pole carry and active pole drop and Petrov's speach he gave in Reno in 2005. I also made use of Bubkas famouse vault that I found on you tube( little did I know a pirated version) that I later discovered was produced by Alan Launder.

The updated Version were I added "Negative Inversion" as an additional "Element" was the result of research on the subject that I found first from Tim Werner and another source (I believe it was a Dan Pfaff video). The BEST info I found on the subject was from Brian Clymer's video and I DID describe much of that in the same fashion while it was fresh in my mind.

Another post I made on that thread were I discussed how imperative it is that a vaulter Exploits every opportunity to add energy into the vault and that the vault most be viewed and performed as one integrated system is also entirely my own work

There is also a post were I talk about important points of emphasis and much of that is also described in a very similar fashion to Clymer's.

Another post I made " How to run fast with the pole like Bubka" I begin by describing in the first 8 points "what I learned from Brian Clymer" And the second half under my thoughts and observation were I describe and coined the phrase "The Simulation of the swinging arm of the vault is again ENTIRELY my own work I reference Clymers video on the bottom of that post.

Finally the 6 step planting drill that I created were I break down every step and show how every step has a corresponding simulated swinging arm motion is also ENTIRELY my own work.

So yes on the subject of negative inversion I did phrase much of that very similar and did use his excellently described phrases as they were still fresh in my mind but the rest of Agenda 21 (BY FAR MOST) is entirely own work.

[PVDaddy]

Me on an earlier post on this thread:

Kirk, You are being extremely inaccurate and untruthful by suggesting that I led the readers down rat hole. I don't even want to hear your rationale for such a statement as I don't want to get into your motives behind Saying it. I believe that I have shared a great deal of valuable information that was explained both concisely and accurately In my negative inversion thread. It does not matter that I obtained much of this information from my studies and other sources but what is important is the fact that I shared it for the benefit of others. I purposely did not quote the The source of my information up front for two reasons. Reason number one, I honestly did not know who to give the original credit to ask I could not find the original article that I read. The second reason was that I purposely put the information out there from a pole vaulting nobody such as myself just to see If it would be respected. It's very humorous how suddenly now it is !
It has become very apparent to me that some of the Supposed experts on this board Are more concerned with their own prestige then they are with seriously debating and learning together as colleagues searching for the truth. More concerned with maintaining prestige Even if it requires belittling others, Rather than gaining knowledge and wisdom. I am here for one thing and one thing only and that is to fully understand this great Event And share what I can with others, by completely understanding the correct mechanics required in order to achieve it to its maximum efficiency. This is not intended in any way to be disrespectful but the difference between you and many of the experts on this board and myself is that I am willing to learn from anyone And will and have even from a homeless toothless can collectors on the street if it advances my knowledge even only the slightest in the process. I must tell you that you are indeed missing out in many of the joys in life if you are only interested in those with high credentials.

Clymb:

There are (or should be) an infinite number of possibilities of places you can learn something about anything. My advice to any coach would be, don't be scared of theorist, whether they are actual practitioners of their theories or not. I'd advise to always check it out, then make your own decisions whether on not you think its valuable to you or whether you think its crap. It could be that most of something is crap but you might be able to find one little aspect that makes sense and strikes a chord with you, and influences what you do in a positive way.

Brian, I DID use a lot of your same phrases and yes almost verbatim, from your excellent video when I was attempting to promote Inverting beyond vertical< NEGATIVE INVERSION. I had read other references on the subject prior, but NOTHING that described it in as vivid detail as yours. Part of the reason was that I truthfully could not find its original source were I first heard the term, and the other reason was that I have from the very beginning felt like "THE TOOTHLESS, HOMELESS CAN COLLECTOR here, and was testing that point. I realize that much of that came at your expense and I was wrong to do that, you did not not receive the upfront credit , for your thoughts in my post. I apologize.

[KirkB]

... I realize that much of that came at your expense and I was wrong to do that, you did not not receive the upfront credit , for your thoughts in my post. I apologize.

Thanks for manning up and admitting your mistake. That's all I was getting at.

Now, onwards and upwards!

Kirk

[coachjvinson]

Thanks for watching my YouTube videos. I have a few more in the works, including one on a former multi-event athlete's PV and LJ PRs, one on Danny Ecker's good vaults in comparison with his best vaults, one I've tentatively titled "Kjell Isaksson Doesn't Get Enough Credit", a LJ vid on Saladino, and one or two more sprint vids. I'm having a hard time finding time to work on them but still plugging.

Hope all is well,
Brian Clymer

Thank you for taking the time to post on the forum; moreover, thank you for taking the time to publish the instructional items on YT... keep 'em coming!!
V