pushing back out during the swing?

[Branko720]

I honestly don't post much but here goes. KISS, If you want to go up, why would you down swing? You have a limited amount of time to get your body from take off to a clearance so why downswing, and why not pull? Wouldn't that accelerate your swing and assist you in moving your body quicker? Also keep in mind while you are down swinging the pole is still moving forward and you are wasting time that could help you move up the pole quicker. I mean it's grip plus push. I don't think there are many guys that can push 3+ feet and downswing.

[AVC Coach]

Branko,

My understanding of what's been described as the downswing is this.....You have to finish your take-off (trail leg far behind the hips) and keep your trail leg straight throughout the swing. I can't envision it as literally swinging down or my rational thought process wires would spark and probably catch on fire. With that in mind, I do believe that finishing the take-off is essential to jumping high. If you don't finish it... and you pull....mediocrity is the best you can hope for.

[KirkB]

My understanding of what's been described as the downswing is this.....You have to finish your take-off (trail leg far behind the hips) and keep your trail leg straight throughout the swing. ... finishing the take-off is essential to jumping high.

I'm the one that coined the terms "downswing" and "upswing", so an explanation is in order. Prior to this, only the generic term "swing" was used. The intent of distinguishing the downswing from the upswing (which summed together is the "swing") is to emphasis certain things that should happen during the downswing, and other things that should happen during the upswing.

The downswing is the part of the swing that occurs prior to your trail leg passing the chord of the pole. The upswing is obviously the part AFTER passing the chord.

The term "downswing" is admittedly a bit of a misnomer. Just as the minute hand on a clock sweeps "down" from quarter past the hour to half past the hour, the "downswing" actually refers to swinging (or whipping) in a rotational direction - hinging at the hips, but in unison with popping out of the elastic C position with your entire body (arms and torso included).

Bubka certainly had a good downswing, as well as most other vaulters that adhere to the Petrov Model.

However, it's not the only way to do it, and if you're trying to vault like Okkert Brits, then you might think that a downswing is unnecessary. Brits went 6.03 by purposely taking off under, purposely bending the pole before takeoff, and hanging low on the pole (almost vertical) before tuck-shooting.

I'll call this the Brits Model - but that's not what it was called. Maybe it's the American Model? But he's South African.

He doesn't have much of a downswing (but having no downswing whatsoever is almost impossible). In fact, Brits doesn't seem to be trying to swing at all while he's hanging under the pole. He appears to be focused on just getting as much bend as he can.

Here's his vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MeM_kyiMjw

Branko, is that the model you're following? If so, I can understand why you think a downswing isn't needed. But if not (if you're striving to follow the Petrov Model), then I'm baffled.

I'm actually doubting that you follow the Brits Model, because if you did, you wouldn't be saying that you need to swing up as quickly as possible. Brits was purposely NOT swinging up!

Kirk

[altius]

One of the problems of spending one’s professional life as an educator is that it is difficult to walk away from ignorance, so just some thoughts for you PVDaddy.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein

Anyone can make the simple complicated. Creativity is making the complicated simple. Charles Mingus

When you first start off trying to solve a problem, the first solutions you come up with are very complex, and most people stop there. But if you keep going, and live with the problem and peel more layers of the onion off, you can often times arrive at some very elegant and simple solutions. Steve Jobs

Theorists are so divorced from nature, from real experience of nature they have no unconsciously absorbed perceptual knowledge to draw upon. Anon

Come to one of the clinics I am involved in and make your mind up if I am an intelligent fool or a genius. It might become your epiphany.

[IAmTheWalrus]

Branko has helped me out a lot over the past several years, and my understanding is that he follows the 6:40 model coached by Roman (Agapit). Good examples would be Bubka, Lojo, Blankenship, Michelle Favre (DIII record holder), and I think Otto would be close if he wasn't so far inside. Basic premise as I under stand it: create space between you and the pole at takeoff, execute free takeoff where the vertical component of the jump is critical, pull immediately with the left arm, win. Perhaps he'll chime back in and correct me if I'm off base, but its fundamentally the same as the petrov model except you are trying to eliminate passive phases like chest penetration (drive phase).

[IAmTheWalrus]

Also I'm not sure I'd call that Brits jump a tuck and shoot. His hips seem to move up continuously. No slow and 6am on a saturday though, so my eyes are not working great...

[KirkB]

I'm not sure I'd call that Brits jump a tuck and shoot. His hips seem to move up continuously.

Yes, he has very little pause. And it's not strickly a tuck - it's more of a pike. But it is a pause. It's just not as pronounced as most tuck-shooters.

However, I do agree with you that he has an amazing ability to turn what's basically a vertical hang under the pole into a rather nice inversion and extension!

It is hard to see without slo-mo, but I was able to pause the vid in a couple key positions - on takeoff (under) and while hanging under the pole. I'm quite sure that he's holding that hang by upwards pressure with his bottom arm - but as you say it would be easier to see with slo-mo. I'm also going to guess that once he feels he's hung long enough, he turns that press with the bottom arm into a pull. There's really no other way that he can flip upside down so quickly!

When I see someone "pry the pole" on takeoff (apply pressure with bottom arm while takeoff foot is still on the ground) then I'm already skeptical that he's going to have a nice swing - just due to the physics of that technique. But I must say, he does recover miraculously. You can see from his run that he's got great runway speed, but he must also be a good gymnast to pull off that inversion!

Kirk

[KirkB]

... he follows the 6:40 model coached by Roman (Agapit). Good examples would be Bubka, Lojo, Blankenship, Michelle Favre (DIII record holder) ... Basic premise as I under stand it: create space between you and the pole at takeoff, execute free takeoff where the vertical component of the jump is critical, pull immediately with the left arm, win. ... its fundamentally the same as the petrov model except you are trying to eliminate passive phases like chest penetration (drive phase).

OK, I understand Branko's point of view now, based on the 640 Model. I have always made my position clear that I didn't really understand the intricacies of the 640 Model, and I still don't. Not having experienced it myself, I'm unable to relate to it. This sounds rather ironic, give that I have huge respect for Agapit and his Continuous Chain of Motion Theory. At least we're both basing our models after the same physics!

I'm not going to debate his model against the Petrov Model or my style variation of the Petrov Model. Suffice to say that I actually see Bubka as the epitomy of the Petrov Model rather than the 640 Model, so it's rather ironic that Bubka is quoted by you, Walrus, as a good example of the 640 Model. Lojo - yes. He was coached by Agapit. Blankenship - well, he has this weird lead knee drop that Agapit and I discussed on a different thread last month, but if he's the best 2013 example of the 640 Model, then OK - if he says so. But this leaves me even more confused than every what the heck the 640 Model is all about. I know it's not about that lead knee drop, but how can someone with that "style" possibly be the best example of the model? I dunno.

I do like MIchelle Favre's technique, and I can appreciate why that might be called a 640 Model technique. However, she does stretch to C (slightly) after takeoff, and she does have a downswing before her upswing. Maybe not as pronounced as Bubka, but it's still there. I would say that she needs to stretch more, and then she would have a more powerful downswing that would result in a better upswing, extension, and fly-away. But maybe that's just my personal style preference. It's just a pity that such a good athlete is almost there, but could be even better with a few minor adjustments like this.

I do understand the point of eliminating passive phases (part of the Continuous Chain Theory), and I definitely agree that TOO MUCH chest penetration is bad - I was guilty of that myself on my "bad" jumps".

But getting back to Branko's original comments, I don't agree that the downswing is a passive phase. It actually ACCELERATES the upswing - which is what you want!

Yes, you want to raise your CoG as quickly and as continuously as you can, but not at the expense of failing to rotate to an inversion as quickly and as powerfully as you can.

I maintain that as long as you're ALWAYS MOVING - including stretching to the C and popping elastically back out again - the movement is not passive. Same goes for the downswing. It may APPEAR to be a motion in the wrong directions (rotationally, rather than upwards), but as long as you're ALWAYS MOVING then this is not passive at all. In fact, it's an extremely ACTIVE motion! And this ACTIVE motion is what's generating more energy into the vaulter-pole system!

I know that Agapit doesn't teach the downswing, but I do. He thinks that the energy to rotate upside down on the pole is generated by a lat pull of the arms on takeoff (which in turn causes the legs to swing), whereas I think that the INITIAL energy to rotate comes from the downswing - hinging at the hips (which in turn ripples up the body to the torso and arms).

Lately, I've asked if we're actually both half right, and the optimal technique should be a FULL BODY pop out of the C, with the arms and trail leg generating this energy SIMULTANEOUSLY?

Agapit: I'm still waiting for your reply to this question. How about it?

BTW, if you want to see a good downswing, look at Brad Walker's new technique. He didn't have such a pronounced C a few years back, but now he gets a TREMENDOUS C, and pops out of it with a really great downswing. This is what gives him the momentum for his upswing. If he wasn't on such damn big poles (and if his muscle memory didn't cause him to habitually tuck/shoot), he wouldn't be tucking shooting at all - he'd be pure Petrov!

Kirk

[agapit]

I do like MIchelle Favre's technique, and I can appreciate why that might be called a 640 Model technique. However, she does stretch to C (slightly) after takeoff, and she does have a downswing before her upswing. Maybe not as pronounced as Bubka, but it's still there. I would say that she needs to stretch more, and then she would have a more powerful downswing that would result in a better upswing, extension, and fly-away. But maybe that's just my personal style preference. It's just a pity that such a good athlete is almost there, but could be even better with a few minor adjustments like this.
Kirk

Kirk, I do not know you and your real life coaching accomplishments if there are any. I do not know if you ever coached anyone at all, but I can tell you that Michelle Favre is a D-III record holder and Branko showed with her and with other 100+ kids, the understanding of the modern pole vault model.

The "downswing" as you call, it is not a scientific term and cannot be intelligently discussed.

[agapit]

I maintain that as long as you're ALWAYS MOVING - including stretching to the C and popping elastically back out again - the movement is not passive. Same goes for the downswing. It may APPEAR to be a motion in the wrong directions (rotationally, rather than upwards), but as long as you're ALWAYS MOVING then this is not passive at all. In fact, it's an extremely ACTIVE motion! And this ACTIVE motion is what's generating more energy into the vaulter-pole system!

Kirk

The definition of a "passive action/phase" is the action/phase that does not add additional energy into the system. I can assure you that stretching into a C-Position does not add any new energy into the system, neither does "Always Moving" add any energy into the system.

One can free fall like a brick from a roof and violently jig his legs and swing his arms continuously, but it does not add any additional anergy into the system beyond the original deadweight and when the brick hits the pavement and a scientist measures the impact it will be identical with or without "Always Moving" arms and legs.

I recommend to take a course in elementary physics and laws of Newton.

[PVDaddy]

So freakin what if Kirk happens to coin the beginning of the swing as the downswing and makes a clear distinction from that and the upswing. Of course the entire swing is the swing, but, it is imperative if one is to truly understand the correct arm mechanics involved (The when and how ) that they breakdown the swing into its various stages. One could in fact add a third stage of the swing after the vaulter breaks at the hips and call that the inverted swing, after all, does the swing ever stop until you leave the pole? Calling the beginning of the swing a downswing is entirely correct because the swing leg foot is behind the vaulters hip and moves to a position below the hip (from C to active -I). Also the term upswing could be thought of interchangeably as the movement from active-I to L What do you mean its not a scientific term Agapit? World class Gymnastic coaches use that term routinely? They also advocate pushing away from the bar during the downswing to place the gymnast as far from the bar as possible to place the COG as low on the swing as possible to increase torque, just as the vaulter should. Not pull on the bar at that time as you advocate a vaulter should in M640? Also, world class gymnast pull on the bar during the upswing (As a vaulter should, like Bubka does) because that is the best bio-mechanical time and place to apply that force in order to continue the speed of rotation as you are fighting the forces of gravity. The same reason you break at the hips at that time. Both activities are working together symbiotically at the perfect moment.Simply stated there is no better time to pull! Quit being so wishy washy Altius and state your case as I have stated mine. First you say that the forward extension of the bottom arm is in fact a pull and you agree with Agapit and not Petrov, then you say that you have never advocated when to pull? I don't care if you don't call that the downswing! Its the beginning of the swing, call it what you like? We know when you meant. Quit playing a game of semantics here and state your case plainly when you think the pull should occur as I have, during an "Ideal vault" and don't hide behind your one offs.You have had your vaulters perform umpteen million high bar swings and rope swings, ask them when they feel they pull? There's a simple reason why you couldn't get the students to swing up on a rope very well as you instructed them in your clinic with Altius, Agapit. It doesent work! Wrong place, wrong time!

By the way Agapit, you are also way off in your view that penetration into inverted-C with no bottom arm pull, as the vaulter/pole system is loaded, is a passive phase of the vault that hurts the swing and subsequent inversion and should be done away with! All the force from the run up has got to be exchanged to the vaulter/pole system and is obviously the BEST place and time to do it. Not only is it not passive, it is in fact ACTIVE! It is active because it is virtually loading (Stretching) every muscle fiber in the human body from the top hand to the swing leg toe! Yup, active energy loading the human rubberband ( I call it the full body coil. I suppose that's not scientific either right?)! The SCIENTIFIC term for the fastest, available human motion possible-the stretch-reflex! Guess what happens if you attempt to pull during this penetration? The energy from the run-up (the most amount of energy ever generated) is dissipated (Lost) between the vaulter and the pole and the stretch-reflex gets destroyed. Kirk, you are beginning to look at the downswing whip as a full body pull (I call it the body coil) and you are correct in the sense that the body is bent backward just as if you were to bend your index finger backward and "snap" it on the table. Try It. Look at how incredibly fast and forceful that is! That is what the entire body does after you load it, but you must load it first and the time and place to do it is immediately before the swing begins during "penetration". This pull however is not a pull of the arms it is a pull of the entire body (The full body coil). Like Petrov has stated the deep penetration of the body ensures the forward propulsion of the legs and hips up the pole through the active extension of the bottom arm. I believe the reason he called that an "active" extension is because it not only keeps the vaulter as far away from the pole as possible, which not only places the COG low on the vaulters body which produces a long deep powerful pendulum swing, but, also maintains the pressure on the body coil (The full body pull) throughout the entire downswing! The time to pull with the arms and at the same time break at the hips is during the "Upswing" as the body comes OUT of the coil and at the same time must fight the force of gravity.

[KirkB]

Kirk