Insightful

[altius]

Again I will say in English: The whip adds the Lions share of energy to the Off-Ground phase of the vault!

My next statement I will say In Hungarian: Sok kicsi socra megy!

I have already interpreted the meaning of that statement throughout Agenda 21 and my Negative inversion thread. I'm afraid that even if I did it would do no good for some. Perhaps seeing is believing? Look at frames 1:56-2:06 and 5:11 of Bubkas greatest vault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QribYk ... sults_main

If that doesent convince you look at Tarasovs greatest cleareance. Frames 20-24

I hope folk notice that this clip was from my first DVD - before I learned to do voice overs. Not sure how someone can post it under their name without mentioning the author - but I suppose that is Utube for you.. And please whatever you do don't spent your time deconstructing it - there is fourth? edition out now and the fifth should be available later this summer. And the idea of this DVD was to simplify and clarify the Petrov Model and show how it could be introduced to young vaulters - for those who had never heard of it.

[PVDaddy]

Altius, I am not surprised to here you were the first one to use the phrase in regards to pole vaulting "a lot of little things add up to one big thing". You have coined and started a lot of good phrases. I do a lot of reading on pole vaulting and probably need to take stronger mental notes of authors. I do know that I got those Hungarian words "Sok kicsi socra megy" from you, directly from your post on my Agenda 21. In regards to the video, I recognized those words in it from one of your writings I had read a few years ago in a pole vault article. You said you were no tech savey so I was not sure you created the video? Is your name on it?

You should know by now EVERYBODY reads your post! I sure do. This was a perfect time to use this Hungarian phrase and I wanted to continue its promotion, in regards to pole vaulting. I apologize for not referencing you here. Did you use it in your B2B Book?

[altius]

After all of the furore of the previous few weeks I am not sure how to cope with any positive comments. However I would simply say that I am an avid reader and I am continually looking for anything that seems to capture the truth succinctly. All the chapters of each of my four books have a quote at the beginning and there are usually some attached to the foreword.

So I stole the quote, Sok kicsi sokra megy - Many small things can add up to a big one, from "The Janson directive" by Robert Ludlum, as it seemed to answer a lot of questions about a lot things. I did not use it any of my books -that I can recall anyway -and that is increasingly becoming a problem!

My favourite quote of all with regard to the vault was taken from "The Ionian Mission" by Patrick O'Brian, who although few vault coaches may have read him, may be the greatest novelist of the 20th Century. I put it into BTB1 under "Thoughts for sports educators working with pole vaulters", for folk to think about. I never got a bite!!!

The comment is made by a passenger, an intelligent landsman, commenting on the skills of sailing a ship of the line during the Napoleonic wars.
"...what a pity it is that an art so important, so difficult and so intimately concerned with the invariable laws of a mechanical nature, should be so held by its possessors that it cannot improve but must die with each individual. Having no advantages of previous education they cannot arrange their thoughts, they can scarcely be said to think. They can far less express or communicate to others the intuitive knowledge which they possess, and their art, acquired by habit alone is little different from an instinct. We are as little entitled to expect improvement here as in the architecture of the bee or the beaver. The species cannot improve."

I thought there was a message here for anyone interested in the teaching and coaching of the pole vault. Given recent discussions on the history of ideas in this event it may still be relevant. It was certainly one of the reasons that I decided not to let Petrov's ideas die -as seems to have been the case for those who are now attempting to show that they knew all this stuff years ago. But perhaps that was simply a case of suspended animation - or that they really were doing good things but didn't understand how good they were until a model appeared that seemed to match what they had been doing. But as my old mate Baggett would say "Waddever"!

[grandevaulter]

Minor point of interest, but worth noting. In the second Clymer video he has a page that addresses a certain position of the stride cycle. He says "punch the ground from above" . Then uses the hammer and nail analogy, followed by : " Do not fall or wait for the ground and re push.

Punching the ground and using the hammer and nail analogy are two entirely different mechanical functions. The hammer is swung much like the discus it thrown, it is "swung" and not driven and there is a waiting period with a hammer or we would still just pound nails in with a rock.

[clymb]

Hello all,

Just wanted to attempt to clear up one debate about the "negative inversion" term I use in two of my vault videos...which I'm glad to hear a majority of folks have enjoyed and/or appreciated on some level. I'll just say this right off the bat, I don't know of many coaches who are able to use a cue or technical term that they themselves have created. Almost everything in our sport is borrowed...I'm sure Gerard Mach saw someone else do some sprint drills in a high knee fashion, he was just the first one to organize them and put them into some sort of system. A few years ago, I first heard the term negative inversion used by Dan Pfaff in an excellent video of his called "Classroom to Track - Pole Vault" which you can find on the Canadian Athletics Coaches Centre website. I believe the video was created in 2008 or 2009, and I'm just assuming Pfaff has been using the term for a while and learned of inverting behind vertical from someone else. In his video, Pfaff uses video of Bubka's famous vault in the old school knee high striped socks, I think from Helsinki maybe, to describe the concept of negative inversion. Gratuitous plug: CACC is by far the best coaches' education resource I've been able to find on the web...I highly recommend clicking on anything and everything on that site. I am currently of the opinion that watching all the videos offered currently rivals a week at USATF Level 2 learning 30 year old sports science and creating an antiquated periodization model. Many of the lecturers on the CACC site are the original creators of the USATF Coaches' Education School...who have all evolved in their own philosophies and moved on to other coaches education organizations. I don't know if Pfaff is the first one to use the term, but it's the first place I heard it and I'm fairly active looking for new articles, videos, research, etc.

Although Pfaff is the first coach I've heard use the "negative inversion" term, the first person I saw communicate the concept was Tim Werner, who introduced his AdvantageAthletics website in the late '90s. I found the site in 1997. Tim didn't actually use the term negative inversion on his site (as far as I know), but he is adamant about striving to invert beyond vertical. Tim's site is where I basically learned most of what I now consider to be a correct technical model of Petrov's once off the ground. He spent a bit of time with Petrov and does a great job of translating his model. Tim's great info in combination with my own investigation of the concepts while I was still vaulting and then coaching the last however long, led to the presentations I put up on YouTube. AdvantageAthletics is where I learned about the gymnast's tap (Tim has a great side-by-side comparison of Bubka and a gymnast performing a wind-up giant swing).

The only other thing I might try to clear up is about what I meant to communicate about the run. I try not to over-communicate in the videos, or they will all be way to long and nobody would ever click on them. Regarding the 'punch the ground from above" and "hammer and nail" analogy...they are both cues (along with "do your work while there is no resistance") that I use to get kids to be active on (or to the) ground contact while coming down the runway...all runways. The first two concepts are not different if your emphasis is from the hip. To run fast with a pole or without you must be active, or applying force, early once on the ground. I address sprint stuff regarding all the jumps in other videos on the YT site, most specifically in the sprint cycle vid, but also in the first half of the long jump tech model video...some of what I discuss in an upcoming upload about a former athlete's LJ run is applicable to the PV. Vaulters frequently lose frontside sprint mechanics because they passively "land" on the ground while the lever (pole) is increasing in weight in their bottom hand...even if you're attempting the mythical "weightless" pole drop. When running and jumping, the foot will always naturally strive to strike a little bit ahead of the COM. In the video, I assume it is understood that the vaulter and pole have a combined COM (pulled toward the bottom hand) that is a little bit ahead of the vaulters natural COM. Again, I don't explain everything so that the vids aren't too long. In my experience, if the athlete strives to strike from tall hips and under his/her COM, then they will most likely strike a more ideal distance in front of their combined COM with the pole. Ideally, cueing stuff like this is customized to whatever the kid's main "virus" is, and more geared to what they are feeling rather than what the coach is necessarily seeing. You try to get what they're feeling to match what you're seeing. Having many cues in your quiver is helpful, as all kids won't respond to the same cue the same way.

Hope this helped this thread out a little bit.

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

[PVDaddy]

Wow Clymb it is so awesome having you here! Welcome to PVP! I so hope you stay around! I must say your videos are the best I have ever seen regarding the Petrov model. You have opened my eyes into so many areas and have helped me understand it so much better.
I believe"Negative Inversion" will become the new standard in the future just as the "Free-take off" is now, all tough it will take some time for everyone to fully understand its benefits even though its not that complex just as the Free-take off is not hard to grasp its benefits. I had also read Tim Werners article describing the benefits of getting beyond vertical and another article, probably by Pfaff were I first heard the term "Negative inversion". I personally am a sold out fan to the concept and am training my vaulters in that direction. If I am not mistaken I believe you are suggesting that through the dynamic movements connecting the C, Active-I (TAP), L, and inverted-I the vaulter should swing all the way to and make contact with the top arm (About elbow) at about the waist of the hip? Is this correct? If so is this not something that a vaulter may actually be able to feel? A feel cue? If so I love the idea because its seem to me it makes it a lot more simple for the vaulter to understand and "feel" the correct position of the hips and coach it.

[KirkB]

SOMEBODY got caught plaguerizing!

I asked for clarification (trying not to outright accuse Daddy of plaguerizing Clym's work - you know, innocent until proven guilty). Deny. Deny. Deny.

While I'm not saying that PVD must have plaguerized this term from Clymer, I am seeking clarification. PVD just replied to this thread today, so I think an explanation in that post would have been in order.

Clym comes on PVP and - in the politest way he could - scolded Daddy for plaguerizing.

Caught red-handed, Daddy backpedals, and is now in damage control mode. [sigh]

End of story.

Kirk

[KirkB]

Moving on ...

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!

What are their grips now, and what are their PRs? That should give you a clue as to whether they're ready for a lecture about negative inversion or not.

Another friendly reminder: Comments about your 13-foot vaulters belong in the Intermediate Technique Forum - not here.

Kirk

[KirkB]

Ideally, cueing stuff like this is customized to whatever the kid's main "virus" is, and more geared to what they are feeling rather than what the coach is necessarily seeing. You try to get what they're feeling to match what you're seeing. Having many cues in your quiver is helpful, as all kids won't respond to the same cue the same way.

Good stuff Brian, and nice to hear that you "get" the concept of what the kids "feel", without dumping too much jargon and Bubka vid analysis on them (and great that you're matching the lessons and cues to their personal situations).

Glad Daddy is finally getting on the "feel" bandwagon.

Kirk

[altius]

Poor innocent me! Expecting enlightenment and finding only the continual, recirculating repetition of theory. I would just like to see film of the athletes who have been or who are coached by all of the theorists on this site. As my old gran used to say "The proof is always in the pudding".

When introducing my ideas at clinics and conferences I invariably make the point that anyone can analyse, interpret and pontificate on what Bubka did or didn't do. The challenge is to try and help young athletes benefit from the lessons we can learn from Bubka. Come on folks, stop talking about it, Show us the results of your work!

I came across with a good quote today, in a cross quiz in the Melbourne Age newspaper of all places. Perhaps it has some relevance here. Apparently Matt Sennett (not sure who he is or was) said "Anyone who tells you that he has discovered something new is a fool, or a liar or both".

[clymb]

Poor innocent me! Expecting enlightenment and finding only the continual, recirculating repetition of theory. I would just like to see film of the athletes who have been or who are coached by all of the theorists on this site. As my old gran used to say "The proof is always in the pudding".

When introducing my ideas at clinics and conferences I invariably make the point that anyone can analyse, interpret and pontificate on what Bubka did or didn't do. The challenge is to try and help young athletes benefit from the lessons we can learn from Bubka. Come on folks, stop talking about it, Show us the results of your work!

I came across with a good quote today, in a cross quiz in the Melbourne Age newspaper of all places. Perhaps it has some relevance here. Apparently Matt Sennett (not sure who he is or was) said "Anyone who tells you that he has discovered something new is a fool, or a liar or both".

I understand it can get a little chippy on this board, and I absolutely don't want to contribute to any of that silliness in just my first few posts here... But I'll just put a couple of things out there...

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. Einstein was a theorist. He did not participate in actual in lab work in science. I am in no way comparing anyone who chooses to spend a lot of time thinking about something as relatively insignificant as the pole vault, to someone with the intellectual capacity of Einstein, just using the theorist vs. practitioner comparison. A theorist can change the world. At that time, all the practicing scientist who were stuck in the mud with what they already thought might be in jeopardy tried to destroy Einstein.

Someone who is a theorist that has effected our sport in a significant way, is Jesus Depena. Depena is not an on the track practitioner of all the brilliant stuff he has figured out about the HJ, but he has effected the event in a very real way. Years ago, coaches who poo-pooed his work and shut him out of their coaches' education experience in the event, just because he never coached anyone, probably didn't reach their full potential as a HJ coach. For instance, I learned a lot about coaching the pole vault by intensely researching the triple jump then trying to figure out how to communicate it to TJ jump athletes in a way they could feel, and not just explain the pure physics of it. It would be interesting to know how much the vaulters and vault coaches on this site try to understand other events of our sport, for instance, the triple jump and javelin have a whole lot in common technically with the pole vault. For instance, you can go research Kari Ihalainen and find many fantastic nuggets that you can apply to your pole vault coaching. I'd suggest not shutting him out of your coaches' education experience just because he hasn't coached any elite vaulters...yet.

There is a wonderful book called "Mindset" by Carol Dweck, that describes successful people in all walks of life as eternal learners. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes to read. I agree that there is nothing new in the world of the PV right now, but their are differences of opinion about what is correct and not correct. Also, I would suggest that Matt Sennett was not a very inspiring guy with a bunch of folks willing to follow him, and that he might not have contributed to the evolution or progress of whatever field he was involved in. Maybe he did effect people in a positive way, but I'd prefer not to promote the sentiment in that particular quote to young athletes and/or coaches, or anyone close to a science, whether it be sports science, physics, or whatever else.

Thank you Coach V for starting this thread. I look forward to positive future debate, correspondence and feedback on this site.

[PVDaddy]

Wow Kirk! I have said from the very beginning and on other post that I was not the one to coin the term "Negative Inversion"? Believe it or not I read a lot of other articles and go to other web sites such as Advantage Athletic and also watch videos to study the vault! Perhaps it was Pfaffs video were I first heard this term used and described? As I have already stated, I did not know who to give the original credit to and after studying the Petrov model in greater detail, I see were he alludes to this concept when he talks about covering the ARC of the pole. While searching for the source, I did indeed find Brian Clymer's excellent video (He describes this concept better than any other source I have found!) on the subject and studied it in great detail. Yes, I did use many of his thoughts and ideas, when trying to communicate its concept here on PVP. I will also admit to not disclosing any of my sources on the subject matter up front. As I have already said I did that on purpose (Perhaps that was a bad choice on my part) to see how the subject matter would be perceived by the Panel of experts and although I am a sold out believer, because, to me it all makes perfectly logical sense, it was not readily excepted as a GREAT benefit by many here. I did however, make sure to use the term "Negative Inversion" as that was the term used when I first heard it described and named. I never once said that the subject matter was of my own creation, but I did say that I could not find were it had been fully described here on PVP. End of story.

As a footnote I believe CLYMER has promoted the concept of "negative inversion" to the pole vault world better than anyone, with his excellent video demonstration! Of equal importance, he has GREATLY expanded my understanding of Petrov's model through his excellent communication of how Bubka is able to achieve it from proper run-up technique through the dynamic connection he makes from C to active-I (The Tap) to L to inverted-I and always staying with the chord of the pole! Well done Clymb! I Know all the thoughts were not your own, but, you did a fabulous job of putting them all together! I know I am a better coach because of your work! Thank-YOU!