appendix to does the russian model represent ideal tech.

[david bussabarger]

1. petrov describes his model ( by this the writer means a standard or example such as bubka's tech. style, for imitation or comparison ) in a detailed manner in several sources. the best single source is the 13th congress of the european athletics coaches association The Jumps 1985 ed. Another good source is l. lohre's The Vault Standard, now out of print. Petov's own descrption of his model can be used to eliminate the mistaken inclusion of vaulters who do not belong in his model ( a common problem ). b. ferry,s book includes trandenkov and yegorov in the russian or bubka/petrov model. both vaulters are tuck and shoot vaulters, which is anathema in the b/p model. tarasov used a pronounced stiff arming action during the take off ( petrov says the pole should be bent by the speed and mass of the body during the take off and not by stiff arming ), so he does fit the b/p model. tim mack also used a pronounced sfiff arming action as well as taking off about 6" to 9" under, which is also anathema in the b/p model.
2. mike tully of the U.S. developed a technical style very similar the b/p model at least 5 years before bubka rose to prominence ( tully's technique, inturn, was based on the technique of american great john pennel, the first man to clear 17' in1963 and the father of modern fg. technique ). petrov also owes a debt to w. nordwig and w. kosakiewicz who were the first to maximize the vertical extension action by dropping the shoulders back as they extended. yet these vaulters have never been credited or mentioned in regards to the development of the b/p model.
3.if we make a list of vaulters who are a good fit for the b/p model that are contemporaries of bubka's or come after him ( d. volz,d. starkey, l.borges and r. holzdeppe ), why is it that if the b/p model is the best way to vault so few vaulters follow the model? also, the best non bubka mark by another vaulter is only 19'-43/4". pretty mediocre if ,again, the b/p model is the best way to vault.
4. if by chance, the advocates of the b/p model are wrong, claiming that the b/p model cannot be improved on:
a. they are falsely claiming that all other possible models and variations in exection are inferior or constitute flawed execution.
b.they are inhibiting the possible development of new ideas that could lead to improved results. it is the writer's point of view that the complexity and the number of variables involved infg. vaulting technique are so great that it can potentionally be refined and improved indefinately. to quote leonardo da vinci, "never be limited by whatever has been done before".
5.how do you prove that the b/p model is the best possible way to vault? this is especially troublesome since you only have one outstanding exponet to judge by.all pole vaulting perfomance is determined by a combination of factors such as: sprint speed, gymnastic body control, physical srength and power, mental toughness and the technical style used.
based on reports from legitimate sources ( such as TandF news ) bubka was reported to have run the 100m.s in 10.3. this is 3 tenths faster than anyother vaulter in his time period and still probably the fastest, by far, ever for a vaulter. note, this fact is disputed by australian coach a. launder. observation of many of bubka's vaults by the writer convinces him that the 10.3 time was legit.( he came down the runway like a "frieht train" ). launder also disputes that bubka was stronger than other vaulters. however observation of bubka's vaults indicates that he had tremendous explosive power ( he executed the vault like a rapid series of explosions ).
ineffect, if bubka was as fast and explosive as reported, his technique could have been good ( but not great ) and he still would have been able to dominate the vault as he did. secondly, as previously mentioned, there are only a small number of vaulters throught the history of the event that closely conform to b/p model. however this small sampling does tend to indicate, when combined with all the other factors mentioned in this appendix, that buka's technique was good, but not ideal.

[IAmTheWalrus]

This is getting ridiculous. You are either missing or ignoring what is perhaps the most important fundamental fact here: VAULTERS AREN'T PERFECT!

Most elite vaulters are several steps away from perfecting whatever technique they feel is correct. In addition, some vaulters have trouble performing certain aspects of they're model. After 11 years of vaulting I continue to be inside, however I try to continually improve my takeoff point by working on my run, pole carry, and mentality. I would call myself a petrov vaulter, its what I'm trying to do, but I haven't come close to achieving perfection in it yet.

Elite Vaulters have similar problems. I'm relatively certain Steve Hooker wants to have a free takeoff, but has not been achieving them (I may be wrong here). Bubka took off inside often, but he would be the first to tell you of the importance of a free takeoff.

Lastly, a lot of coaches (possibly to the detriment of the sport) pick and choose what they want to teach. You will find (if you take the time to look) several discussions about what the hell the left arm does after takeoff. You will also find that there are people on these threads (who follow the petrov model) who have not come to agreement.

If you don't want to include people like Tarasov as part of the petrov model, then I'm afraid you are going to end up with a different model for every athlete, or at least every coach. I think you are going about this the wrong way. If you want to find the ideal technique, and possibly break the world record, then why are you looking to athletes who are extatic to jump 6m when Bubka was bombing over this height for a decade.

[Branko720]

Nicely said Nick. I just wish david bussabarger would answer some of these posts.

[david bussabarger]

as I have previously stated, visual analysis ( which consitues empirical evidence ) of large numbers of elite vaulters convinces me that there are certain elements of technique that are virtually universally employed by nearly all of them. at the same time many other aspects of technique vary significantly from vaulter to vaulter ( take off point, forward arm position and action during the take off, the exact action and positon of the lead leg during the take off, exact rock-back style and so on ).
this leads me to conclude that there is no one ideal model or style of technique.
however, it is the responders position, in general, that there is one ideal model ( the b/p model as personified by the technique of s. bubka ). this is despite the fact that empirical evidence does not support this claim. the general arguement here is that very few vaulters have ideal technique and so they naturally do not conform to the b/p model in all respects. however, virutally all vaulters strive as best they can to master the b/p model. therefore any vaulter who belives in the b/p model and attemps to emulate it, is a b/p vaulter.
this stikes me as a kind of religious agrument: I belive in christianity, but , being an imperfect human being, I can not live up to all of it's dogma all the time. even so, I consider my self a christian.
there no possible way to argue against a belief based on this kind of reasoning. so I choose not to bother. I have stated my point of view on these issues in my posts so that at least an opposing point of view is avaiable for those who might like to hear 2 sides of the arguement.

[ADTF Academy]

as I have previously stated, visual analysis ( which consitues empirical evidence ) of large numbers of elite vaulters convinces me that there are certain elements of technique that are virtually universally employed by nearly all of them. at the same time many other aspects of technique vary significantly from vaulter to vaulter ( take off point, forward arm position and action during the take off, the exact action and positon of the lead leg during the take off, exact rock-back style and so on ).
this leads me to conclude that there is no one ideal model or style of technique.
however, it is the responders position, in general, that there is one ideal model ( the b/p model as personified by the technique of s. bubka ). this is despite the fact that empirical evidence does not support this claim. the general arguement here is that very few vaulters have ideal technique and so they naturally do not conform to the b/p model in all respects. however, virutally all vaulters strive as best they can to master the b/p model. therefore any vaulter who belives in the b/p model and attemps to emulate it, is a b/p vaulter.
this stikes me as a kind of religious agrument: I belive in christianity, but , being an imperfect human being, I can not live up to all of it's dogma all the time. even so, I consider my self a christian.
there no possible way to argue against a belief based on this kind of reasoning. so I choose not to bother. I have stated my point of view on these issues in my posts so that at least an opposing point of view is avaiable for those who might like to hear 2 sides of the arguement.

This is actually a really good post...... I do think its funny cause most of the people are like this. Visual doesn't mean reality. Just cause something is happening doesn't mean they are trying to do it. If you see something and it is not confirmed by the athlete and the coach they in fact are meaning to do it. What you see may be an error to them, but you see as a must. Be careful when you try to analyze what someone does unless you can confirm that is in fact what they are trying to do.

All this goes back to what is a model and what is style. People keep using the word Model. Very few even know what the b/p model is except for the small documents that are published and the videos of Sergey. Unless you were in his camp in Formia for years while he trained. You don't know his model you only know the stories you here. We all know people tend to make stories a tad greater than they were. You see elements of what he was trying to do. You hear answers to questions that I doubt even Sergey knew we would be analyze what 20+ years later as the law. In fact his english was probably iffy back than and he may have even said things incorrect that if asked the same questions today his response may be different. I'll take it one step further and say this

If you believe in the B/P technique utilized by sergey and you try to emulate that style of jumping, than you are a b/p vaulter. There was more than one vaulter in the Petrov Model and they didn't' look like Bubka. Therefore you can't say it was the model that created Sergey it was Sergey's adaptation of the Petrov Model. If you try to match some of the principles seen and documented in your own ways than you are a pole vaulter of your own style. The Petrov model is the whole training package very few to none of us will ever know.

The concepts as a whole hold true; pole carry and drop, takeoff position, posture, hip action throughout the swing, ability to catch the ride, initiation and timing of turn and clearance mechanics. The way each of us handle those concepts will be different. Find the key positions needed to enhance height and than you will find what is needed to make your vaulter better. If you want to mimic Sergey good luck. It's about individuality!!!!!

[david bussabarger]

I agree with alot of what adtf academy wrote. howerver, to expnd on my last point: In his first post on my orginal article,launder wrote that the term technical style was meaningless. he also later claimed that hartwig and gibilisco followed the p/b model. well, if you expand the definition of the b/p model to anyone tying to follow the b/p model regardless of how closely or not they adhere to precise dictates of the model, then the term technical style does become meaningless and so does the the b/p model. the situation becomes alot like the current art world where any one can claim to be an artist ( regardless of their education or their accomplishments, if any ). and anything the so called artist presents as art ( as in duchamp's exhibition of a store bought urinal ) can be called art. so the whole situation is reduced to meaningless joke.

[altius]

QUOTE DB "I agree with alot of what adtf academy wrote. howerver, to expnd on my last point: In his first post on my orginal article,launder wrote that the term technical style was meaningless. he also later claimed that hartwig and gibilisco followed the p/b model. well, if you expand the definition of the b/p model to anyone tying to follow the b/p model regardless of how closely or not they adhere to precise dictates of the model, then the term technical style does become meaningless and so does the the b/p model. the situation becomes alot like the current art world where any one can claim to be an artist ( regardless of their education or their accomplishments, if any ). and anything the so called artist presents as art ( as in duchamp's exhibition of a store bought urinal ) can be called art. so the whole situation is reduced to meaningless joke."

It really is a pity that you do not read all of other folks posts - because clearly you do not. To take just one example - "Launder" - ALAN to most people on PVP - never claimed that Hartwig used the Petrov model. In fact in C28 of BTB2 I critique his technique and said - as i have said many times about many athletes - that he would have jumped higher IF HE HAD USED THE PETROV MODEL. Of course Gibilisco DID follow the Petrov model BECAUSE HE WAS ACTUALLY COACHED BY VITALI FOR MOST OF HIS CAREER - including the crucial period as a junior - when he only jumped 5.30m. However he is a good example of an athlete overlaying his STYLE onto the model - in part because although he won the 2003 World Champs WITH 5.90M -he was not an especially talented athlete.

I must also say that after your comments about modern art I am beginning to wonder where you are going with this! I seem to remember that A. Hitler had similar feelings to yours about the 'modern' art of his time!! However you are also seriously off topic and I doubt you will return to it with a postiive contribution because your ideas are fixed in the past!

However I believe that we have passed the point where further debate with you is pointless -although I am happy to interact with folk who are interested and do in fact read my posts. I suggest that anyone who really wants to know what I believe about pole vaulting and how best to teach it, should buy a copy of BTB2 from Becca - If you are a cheapskate and unwilling or unable to contribute to her retirement fund contact me and I will personally send you electronic copies of the chapters at the centre of these "debates". Sorry Dave that does not include you because you will not read them anyway.

[superpipe]

It's about individuality!!!!!

The only individuality is your limitation in creating and using energy. The ideal model for creating and using energy, based on human biomechanics, is always the same.

[Branko720]

I wish there was a like button for some of these posts.

[ADTF Academy]

It's about individuality!!!!!

The only individuality is your limitation in creating and using energy. The ideal model for creating and using energy, based on human biomechanics, is always the same.

Where during any post did I say it isn't based off human biomechanics, physics and the creation and using of energy???????????? Thats like saying humans should walk on all 4's instead of 2 legs. I think we are beyond that if not than we are more doomed than people think.

However, that model needs to be applied to the person in front of you and not some kid you had 20 years ago who jumped this high so you must do it just like that kid to the dot because it work for that kid once upon a time. Principles yes but some of it will be individualized to that athlete you are working with.


Physics dictates the limits on the creation and use of energy not us as simple humans. Its our habits and movements that physics is applied to. We can't go, "on this movement apply physics and on that movement nope physics turn off." In the end all we have is theories and as DJ put it before as well as Baggett and Alan maybe others too it comes down to who has the background and ability to teach what you think. Part Art and Part Science......

At the end of the day no one can show me hard data of what really works and what is really going on. Its all from observation. Hard data like EMG readings or cool science stuff like that. You know real science on the vault. What are the muscles really doing during ever segment of the vault for Sergey Bubka or for any vaulter for the matter. Nothing we talk about here is hard data and exact science. Its one persons word against another in their beliefs of how to jump. Prove it with an athlete you are coaching thats the only proof we all have. If you disagree with Petrov show us. If you agree with him show us. Otherwise its just talk!

I also attend a lot of the USA Top Sprint Clinics as well. The sprint world is easy they have real hard data to show what the muscles do when you sprint. Where you want the recovery mechanics to be. At what moment should you stop applying force and begin recovery. I've seen the data and work with it even on vaulters. Makes coaching so much easy to have real science behind you as a coach. In the vault all we have is a little information and a lot of theories.

I'll say it again believe in a model and find a way to make it work for each individual athlete in front of you.

[david bussabarger]

I continue to contend, as I previously stated, that the b/p model has strict parameters . this means that a limited number of elite vaulters fit the model well. vaulters who seek to emulate the b/p model, but cannot successfully do so, are in effect devotees of the b/p model, but not exponets of it.
I also have to believe that at least some coaches and vaulters must think independently
( have their own ideas about technique ). tarasov, for instance, was obviously influenced by the b/p model, but developed his own interpretation of it. I contend, that is, that he or his coach deliberately added a pronounced stiff arming action to his take off ( which violates petrov's parameters for the execution of the take off ). hartwig appears to me to have been influenced by preceding american vaulters dial and pursley when developing his form ( in my view the "dial/pursley" model is much more influencial today than the b/p model).gibilisco had developed his technical style ( which appears to based on dionisi and vigneron ) before being coached by petrov. in the case of gibilisco, it appears that petrov simply refined his existing technique. earl bell also appears to work in much the same way. that is, he simply works with the existing technical style of the given vaulter he is coaching, and tries to refine it or make it better.

[pv161]

I have been reading all the posts on pvp about which technical model is best and have a few questions.

first of all I'm just a long time high school coach. I have never coached college or elite vaulters so my expertise isn't at the same level as most of you posting here

I have read btb and think it's an excellent book. even if you don't follow it word for word there is lots of good information. My question to Allen. is the book all info you have researched over the years from great coaches like Petrov or are there things you have added or maybe changed from your years of experience coaching? Alan, I'm only asking you this because yours is the only pv book I have read and was curious if you thought you must follow what the other great coaches have said or if a good coach should be open to incorporating there own ideas

I have read on here that Bubka himself said he didn't have his great success because he was a better athlete then most ( I think he was just being humble) so my question is does anyone have a list of other vaulters that trained under Petrov and how high they jumped? not just 1 big bar but consistently jumping high. I ask the question because if Bubkas success was because of Petrov's coaching and not his outstanding physical and mental abilities then either Petrov didn't have any other good athletes or his model is so difficult to perfect that only 1 guy was able to do it.

my next question is does anyone think Bubka could have jumped as high if he had trained somewhere else?

my last question is if a vaulter comes along who is fast as lightning, holds high on big poles and tucks and shoots and starts jumping higher then Bubka did would everyone change there minds about the best method? I don't coach the tuck and shoot method but there have been guys jump high that way