Mid Mark Chart

[powerplant42]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't think that a shallow or deeper box matters to the mid (other than adjusting the grip height accordingly,) because to hit a free take-off, one should really only be concerned with the box length, not depth. Right? Therefore the take-off and MID mark would stay the same.

[ADTF Academy]

First box length. Never heard anyone bring up box length. Where do you measure your approach from the top of the box or in the pan. Box length would seem to have no affect except maybe a longer box will me a deeper box. Not sure on that one.

Ok do this.

Go out back and dig an eight inch deep hole and then a 9 inch deep hole and a 7 inch deep hole.


Take the same pole and hand hold and plant it in the three holes and tell me where your toe is at away from the back of the hole IE the box.


Yes it makes a difference it changes the pole angle to the box at plant and will thus change the ideal takeoff spot which will in return change the mid to correspond to the new ideal takeoff spot. This is also why on low boxes vaulters tend to get in easier there normal takeoff spot is now out slightly and makes it easier to rotate into the pit plus other advantages with a lower box as well.

[powerplant42]

Yeah, you're right, I just did the math...

[dj]

good afternoon

There has been so much “incorrectâ€

[VTechVaulter]

just a few random numbers to put out there

ive been watching some of the big guys here working out in the past few weeks, and talking to Earl Bell about midmarks of some of his guys.

Yesterday derek miles jumped 5.80 in practice
his grip was 16'8, his step was 13'9, and his mid was 60' even

back when jeff hartwig was jumping 6.00m, his mid was 58'6 for a 14' step and a 16'7 grip

and jeremy scott has a mid around 59' for a 12'6 step or so, and has jump 5.75

now i do know a lot of vaulters who are pretty much right on the numbers there in terms of mids and heights. and i think this chart is also a very useful reference. but even in "physics", we know that there are exceptions to every rule so i dont think it should be a point of major concern if some vaulters just dont line up

[dj]

hey

i will close with this..

there is no spoon...

dj

[dj]

good morning

but you cannot have the 6.40 model without the "correct" run.. nor a free takeoff or a correct swing..

just as petrov's grip, vaulter/pole system and the first step is vital to his model and agapit's 640 model the "correct" run is equally as vital.

if a "MID" of 57'5" with 9.9mps of speed at the takeoff is correct for Bubka to jump 20'2" .. it seems to me (logic and/or science) that a "longer/slower" stride (an indication of much more "ground" time and a greater parabola) would not be the correct way to run to obtain greater speeds, higher grips and higher vaults?

brought this over from the "free takeoff" post. sorry i posted there before i saw where we were asked to "move".

volteur

unless i missed something you just described it all.. for this and the "MID" MARK post...

the chart simply puts an athlete very near where they should be at 6 strides to run correctly and grenerate the "force" to use that grip effectively.

thank you

dj how are you

i've been thinking about the MID thingy and have come to the conclusion that i like it. It is an extension of finding the correct position at takeoff.

As you clearly know one person can reach the correct takeoff point in a better position and with a better tempo than another so simply using the takeoff on it's own does not provide enough information.

I lived in perth for a few years and trained under Steve Rippon alongside Jimmy Miller and Paul Burgess. I got to see Budgy develop from soon after he stepped off the gymnastics mat and i listened to Jim snore nightly one meter from me in Finland for a month. Budgie was in the next room with Rippo who apparently didn't snore quite as much. Wrong combo for me and Budge.

The point of this is that whilst in Perth there was a lot of biomechanical analysis done. Also Nick Linthorne was training in the squad and his interest in biomechnics as many know is very high. The upshot of this is that the scientists needed to also measure take off velocity as well as velocity at ten meters out from takeoff. I'm assuming this information went along with take off position and was used to determine if the parameters were correct or not.

Possibly this MID system disables the need for such testing? If a MID is known to be relative for an individuals grip height and takeoff position then there is immediate feedback for the coach as to whether over or understriding has occurred. Of course this requires that something like the difference in grip heights between Chistiakov and Huffman are relative to the difference in their take off and MID positions. Can you check that information out?

Still having said all of that i believe a coach should have developed the 'eye' for coaching sufficiently to be able to visually know whether the athlet is over or under striding, whether the athlete can be quicker or whether the athlete should drop the intensity slightly because strain is becoming evident. These are only the broadest factors to be considered as well.

So i guess if a coach does not have this 'eye' also developed then reliance on a systematic approach appears to be the next safest bet. How would you describe your own coaching in this way dj?

i feel the chart is the best "check point" on the approach to keep the athlete "close" and this in turn helps the coach develop "the eye" and begin to put the vault into the "continous chain" model. from first step to completion..

RUN....PLANT....SWING

physics...

dj

[ladyvolspvcoach]

I have been following this thread with some interest, but was not interested in getting into the contentious theoretical and what I thought was a bit obtuse discussion about the relationship of speed to both the chart and the vault. But I have some experience with the chart and perhaps a slightly different approach to it that might be of some value to at least some coaches and indeed some athletes. So I thought I’d share my experience and see if it can contribute some positive value to this thread.

When I first saw the chart several years ago, I could not understand how it could possibly work - at least not for my athletes. But several weeks of discussions with DJ, while he visited friends in Knoxille and shared time with my athletes, helped me to begin to take a different view of the information on the chart. I decided to accept the assertion that this was simply a series of relational data, and that it was progressive in nature, linear and parametric. So, I decided to put it to the test to actually see if it could work for any athlete. My first assumptions were: when a new walk-on arrives at my program fresh out of high school she generally has a pr somewhere between 10 and 11 feet or so. That means that she probably isn’t holding any higher that 11’ +, certainly not over 12’. So I looked at the chart to see what the stride lengths would need to be for the last six strides for these vaulters to get their grips to vertical. Clearly for them to jump these heights they had be generating enough energy on the runway to hold around 11’8â€

[volteur]

good morning

volteur

unless i missed something you just described it all.. for this and the "MID" MARK post...

the chart simply puts an athlete very near where they should be at 6 strides to run correctly and grenerate the "force" to use that grip effectively.

thank you

dj how are you

i've been thinking about the MID thingy and have come to the conclusion that i like it. It is an extension of finding the correct position at takeoff.

As you clearly know one person can reach the correct takeoff point in a better position and with a better tempo than another so simply using the takeoff on it's own does not provide enough information.

I lived in perth for a few years and trained under Steve Rippon alongside Jimmy Miller and Paul Burgess. I got to see Budgy develop from soon after he stepped off the gymnastics mat and i listened to Jim snore nightly one meter from me in Finland for a month. Budgie was in the next room with Rippo who apparently didn't snore quite as much. Wrong combo for me and Budge.

The point of this is that whilst in Perth there was a lot of biomechanical analysis done. Also Nick Linthorne was training in the squad and his interest in biomechnics as many know is very high. The upshot of this is that the scientists needed to also measure take off velocity as well as velocity at ten meters out from takeoff. I'm assuming this information went along with take off position and was used to determine if the parameters were correct or not.

Possibly this MID system disables the need for such testing? If a MID is known to be relative for an individuals grip height and takeoff position then there is immediate feedback for the coach as to whether over or understriding has occurred. Of course this requires that something like the difference in grip heights between Chistiakov and Huffman are relative to the difference in their take off and MID positions. Can you check that information out?

Still having said all of that i believe a coach should have developed the 'eye' for coaching sufficiently to be able to visually know whether the athlet is over or under striding, whether the athlete can be quicker or whether the athlete should drop the intensity slightly because strain is becoming evident. These are only the broadest factors to be considered as well.

So i guess if a coach does not have this 'eye' also developed then reliance on a systematic approach appears to be the next safest bet. How would you describe your own coaching in this way dj?

i feel the chart is the best "check point" on the approach to keep the athlete "close" and this in turn helps the coach develop "the eye" and begin to put the vault into the "continous chain" model. from first step to completion..

RUN....PLANT....SWING

physics...

dj

So the MID chart is an approximation albeit a very close one. I can imagine for those vault coaches with a lower level of experience, the chart will help them to get their athletes close to what is precisely correct for them, improving performance and safety. As you agree the coaching 'eye' is necessary for further fine tuning i guess you agree that different vaulters can have subtle differences in stride length that need to be accounted for. Yet if the coach has a sufficiently developed 'eye' then the chart does become redundant for that coach. I feel Agapit is such a coach.

A small story about my coach Efim. Now Efim was the coach of Tim Forsythe even though another coach Sandro Bisetto is generally named as Tim's coach. Sandro was basically studying coaching under Efim whislt following Efim's program and technical model. So one year Tim came back from Europe with Sandro and a biomechanist from the sports institute came down to analyse Tim's takeoff. The results came back with many aspects off incorrect biomechanics ebing exhibited. Efim then coached Tim directly for 6 weeks without knowledge of the report. At the end of the 6 weeks the biomechanist took another video and sis another analysis. He was stunned to find that all of the errors present in the jump 6 weeks ago had been corrected.

A coaches 'eye' did this.

cheers

Volteur

[dj]

hello

Yet if the coach has a sufficiently developed 'eye' then the chart does become redundant for that coach. I feel Agapit is such a coach.

i have not found this to be true.. even the best 'eye' can use some "conformation".. sometimes more so.. "suttle" changes sometimes exhibited by worldclass "Thoroughbreds" is even more difficult to observe.

sorry but agapit does not use it or understand it....those that feel a 60 foot "MID" is ok and that the length of the legs makes a difference in how speed is created does not understand correctly........

dj

[powerplant42]

So hypothetically, if somebody 10 feet tall or 2 feet tall were to be holding at 17'1'', then their MID would still be 58 feet. How does one account for take-off measure with these situations? Would the MID really be relative to take-off, not necessarily the back of the box? I understand that for most people the take-off point is not a problem, but just hypothetically for my own understanding...

[ladyvolspvcoach]

No that's absolutely not the way to look at it!! The ratioes are based on a 6 ft tall athlete......They will NOT work on a 4' tall athlete....be very careful!! However they can be interpolated for the 4' athlete and they will work!!! Just an emperical bit of wisdom not to speak for DJ