It's interesting that PVDaddy would accuse me of purposely editing his post in order to change it's meaning. I did nothing of the sort.
I do occasionally fix his typos (so that they're at least readable), but I NEVER change the meaning of his quotes.
For example, I changed "
dies" to "
does", because
PVDaddy wrote: ... I believe he does this mostly to allow for a more free pole rotation.
makes a lot more sense than
PVDaddy wrote: ... I believe he dies this mostly to allow for a more free pole rotation
The quote that he's accusing me of changing does appear to have been changed from "
relies on his thumb grip" to "
relaxes his thumb grip", but (to my knowledge) the only way that could happen is if PVDaddy himself changed it. AFTER I quoted him (at about 6:09 PM), but BEFORE I posted my reply at 6:14 PM.
If he had edited it after 6:14, then an audit trail of his edit would have been logged on his post; and if he had edited it before I clicked the QUOTE button, then his edit would have been exactly as I quoted.
I don't mind that he edited his post; that's his prerogative. It didn't make sense the way he first worded it. But even with his most recent edit it still doesn't make much sense.
He must know full well that he edited his own post. Let's move on ...
PVDaddy wrote: No Kirk not " the pole twisting to the corner of the box"
I'm refering to the poles complete roation. Counterclockwise in lavelenies case.
Kirk:
is not an important aspect of modern fiberglass vaulting. There is no scientific basis for this speculation
Prove it!
I do not need to prove things that I know have no scientific basis. The way science works is that anyone asserting a theory must prove it by scientific means. That's the way it works.
And what the heck is "
roation" anyway. (I dare not edit this to "
rotation", for fear of reprisal! And before PVDaddy went on vacation, I believe I already advised him that he's using the word "
rotation" in this PV context in the wrong way. However, he continues to flog his dead horse. [sigh])
And what the heck does "
complete roation" mean? If we are to interpret him literally, then full rotation means 360 degrees. Clearly, he doesn't mean "
complete rotation".
PVDaddy wrote: Kirk:
Even if true, so what? So what if his CoM is lower for a split second?
In a game of centimeters every bit helps.
Again Prove it!
Again, it is PVDaddy's responsibility (not mine) to prove that lowering his CoM BY SOME NOVEL GRIP ON THE POLE is an important (
IMPORTANT) aspect of his WR technique.
PVDaddy wrote: ... How long does the entire pole support take Kirk? What percent of the total pole support time does he relax his bottom hand grip for?
Again, these are not questions that I must answer. If he feels that this is a significant aspect of RL's technique, then these are questions that PVDaddy must answer.
And let's be realistic here; let's not grasp at straws. We're looking for significant (
SIGNIFICANT) differences between his technique and others (particularly Bubka). Not some trivial detail (that may or may not even exist) that isn't going to boost him more than a few millimeters (if at all).
Other than SB clearing 6.15 in 1992, no one else had EVER cleared any higher than 6.05 until RL cleared 6.16 in 2014. Even RL himself cleared no higher than 6.03 (in 2011) prior to 2014.
So what are the SIGNIFICANT aspects of his technique that have boosted him 11 cm higher than anyone else in the past 22 years?
Let's get this thread back on track and answer THAT!
Kirk
p.s. I won't be replying to any more of PVDaddy's posts, unless he flings more false accusations in my direction.
I am asking Rainbowgirl to verify this. Kirk you have lied here and you have lied very often about me in the past. That makes you a LIER and everything you say suspect. 
