Excellent Athlete Improving with Petrov Model

[ladyvolspvcoach]

Tim,
you are right about the latter parts of the jump. They will take care of themselves, and you are doing a fabulous job of focusing on the earlier parts of the jump. You have reason to be proud! I especially like the beginning of the approach. Her posture is pretty good and she is awesome on the runway. I have two suggestions: You might bring her in 6" to a foot. She looks to be over striding slightly from the middle of her approach to take off. I didn't count the steps to see just where that begins. Try that on the track and see if she hits her marks...I'll bet she will if she focuses on getting her feet down.
Secondly, during pole runs have her be aware of where her top hand is when her last right (oh is she left handed?? Then her last left) touches down. It should be directly above and infront of her forehead with her elbow bent somewhat. Hope that is helpful.....or ignore all the suggestions, and keep doing what you're doing....you're doing a GREAT job with her......

[Tim McMichael]

Man its a sad day when i see Tim teaching the petrov model.

Don't worry Kyle. I haven't given up on the Dial / Huvion model. I think it is important to be able to tailor teaching to a specific athlete's needs. Tracy high jumped 5'9" from five steps last week. The Petrov model is much easier to coach in terms of achieving success early. She has more than enough jumping ability to make it work, and we just don't have the time to spend six months learning to drive the pole and another six months learning to turn up and catch it. The problem with the technique that I used is that the goals of each half of the jump are entirely different. First you must stay low and behind the pole as long as possible. Then you must shorten up and try to get ahead of its recoil as soon as possible. You have less than five tenths of a second to make this transition. Tracy might never learn to do it. With Petrov, everything depends on the dynamics of the takeoff and the swing of the trail leg. If those are right, an excellent jump results. As you can see in Tracy's video, she is already clearing bars even with her top hand after only four months of work. Also understand, with all of the work we are doing on other events for her Heptathlon, that four months does not represent the time a pure vaulter would have spent on the runway with me. Also, the dynamics of the takeoff in the Petrov model will help with her long jump, this is not as much the case with the Dial / Huvion model where the takeoff angle is lower and the chin is down instead of up at takeoff.

[altius]

It sounds as though you are on the path to enlightenment Tim! One of the characteristics of any method is that it is easy for the athlete to master as you are discovering with the Petrov method. . In part this is because this method is so logical - form follows function.

The next step will be when you - or rather those who unthinkingly support the dial model - realise that staying long and low after take off is biomechanically indefensible. In the first place the pole vault is a jump with a pole - so that is what you should do - jump in the direction you want to go by using your take off leg as a stiff spring to convert the kinteic energy of the run up into lift at take off. If the take off is finished correctly as a result of this driving jump you are now perfectly positioned to IMMEDIATELY begin the inversion - without the passive phase inherent in staying long and low after take off and driving towards the back of the pad. In the latter approach you are using the energy in the pole to pick you up instead of using your athleticism to add energy in a jump at take off to drive you up.

I realise that you have always defended your model on the basis that you were a poor jumper but we both know that Joe Dial was an excellent long jumper -- probably in the Bubka class. So I believe that he was an underachiever because of the inherent limitations of his technique. That may also apply to you of course so the sooner you totally accept the petrov model - as I am sure you will - and lead your flock into the light the better for everyone

Now that should bring some life back to the board! - but note that i am not going to respond no matter what the provocation - bin there dun that! Hope my private thoughts continue to be of value.

[KYLE ELLIS]

Altius there is something said for jumping up off the ground at takeoff, it definately helps and if you don't it is impossible to "catch the pole". But i will also always believe that there is something for driving forward as your jumping up (and pushing your hands up). There are so many people "who are petrov model" vaulters who look nothing alike. For example burgess, bubka, fefanova, and isenbeijeva (?sp?) all use the petrov model yet look nothing alike. I hate that you judge other models without having a deeper understanding of that model. and because it biomechanically doesnt make sense in your head means nothing to me. With you it sounds like an endless sales pitch. One thing I have observed with both of these is that some beginner "petrov" jumpers slowdown and let their hips come slight forward before they leave the ground. (probably because its a scary feeling so the are bracing) and people who dont jump off the ground are just scary because they are going to takeoff uner and overbend the pole and their hips get stuck below their shoulders. So I think the happy medium is were its at and the closest i have seen to doing that is Bubka, not dial (to extreme of the "dial model" and not markov who used the "extreme petrov model")

[EIUvltr]

as far as I can tell "biomechanically," the only difference between the Petrov model and the Dial model is that the Dial model chooses to convert as much kinetic energy from the run-up into potential energy stored in the pole by taking off with a low angle and the intention of driving the pole towards the pit. Then following this drive phase, rapidly swinging to inversion so as to maximize the release of this stored potential energy back into kinetic energy in the vaulter himself.

The Petrov model is more geared towards keeping the kinetic energy from the run-up inside the vaulter himself.

...jump in the direction you want to go by using your take off leg as a stiff spring to convert the kinteic energy of the run up into lift at take off

- Altius

This is done by taking off with a higher angle and not attempting to "load the pole" as much as a Dial-model vaulter. The takeoff is then followed by an aggressive swing which Petrov claims to load the pole with additional rotational kinetic energy which the vaulter then tries to receive by covering the pole. Altius uses the word "convert" when talking about turning kinetic energy into lift but I believe this is still kinetic energy but just in a different direction (not a true conversion).

My questions/observations are these:

1. Is there any proof that a higher takeoff allows the vaulter to create more force than a lower takeoff, or vice versa?

2. What evidence is there that loading the pole and receiving the energy back out of it is more or less efficient than attempting to simply change the direction of the kinetic energy created on the runway upwards towards the bar.

Assuming the lower takeoff creates more energy (which I believe is the argument in favor of the Oklahoma style), then the only question as far as which model is better is does the Dial vaulter lose as much energy in loading the pole then receiving it back out as the Petrov vaulter gains by loading the pole with rotational kinetic energy via an aggressive swing?

[souleman]

I was really hoping this wouldn't get into a Dial vs Petrov discussion. Points made regarding either style (on this thread anyway) does not help Tim train this talented athlete. As I remember, Tim has chosen to teach this vaulter by using the Petrov model. Therefore I would hope we keep our contributions focused on her advancement using that model. I think it would be more productive for her, for Tim and for all of us who are watching her progress. (OK, I'm off the soap box now). Later...........Mike

[altius]

Agree with Souleman - but occasionly pearls do apear on pvp, eg. " Altius uses the word "convert" when talking about turning kinetic energy into lift but I believe this is still kinetic energy but just in a different direction"

You are correct - although it may probably be more accurate to say 'redirect and convert' since both occur in the Petrov take off, because some of that energy does go to initiate the bend in the pole.

[Tim McMichael]

as far as I can tell "biomechanically," the only difference between the Petrov model and the Dial model is that the Dial model chooses to convert as much kinetic energy from the run-up into potential energy stored in the pole by taking off with a low angle and the intention of driving the pole towards the pit. Then following this drive phase, rapidly swinging to inversion so as to maximize the release of this stored potential energy back into kinetic energy in the vaulter himself.

The Petrov model is more geared towards keeping the kinetic energy from the run-up inside the vaulter himself.

...jump in the direction you want to go by using your take off leg as a stiff spring to convert the kinteic energy of the run up into lift at take off

- Altius

This is done by taking off with a higher angle and not attempting to "load the pole" as much as a Dial-model vaulter. The takeoff is then followed by an aggressive swing which Petrov claims to load the pole with additional rotational kinetic energy which the vaulter then tries to receive by covering the pole. Altius uses the word "convert" when talking about turning kinetic energy into lift but I believe this is still kinetic energy but just in a different direction (not a true conversion).

My questions/observations are these:

1. Is there any proof that a higher takeoff allows the vaulter to create more force than a lower takeoff, or vice versa?

2. What evidence is there that loading the pole and receiving the energy back out of it is more or less efficient than attempting to simply change the direction of the kinetic energy created on the runway upwards towards the bar.

Assuming the lower takeoff creates more energy (which I believe is the argument in favor of the Oklahoma style), then the only question as far as which model is better is does the Dial vaulter lose as much energy in loading the pole then receiving it back out as the Petrov vaulter gains by loading the pole with rotational kinetic energy via an aggressive swing?

Awesome summary, and I think those are the right questions. Dial looked at the vault as storing maximum energy into a system and then taking it back out with minimal loss. I have often summarized Petrov's model as an assisted high jump, though that is probably an oversimplification.

[Tim McMichael]

I was really hoping this wouldn't get into a Dial vs Petrov discussion. Points made regarding either style (on this thread anyway) does not help Tim train this talented athlete. As I remember, Tim has chosen to teach this vaulter by using the Petrov model. Therefore I would hope we keep our contributions focused on her advancement using that model. I think it would be more productive for her, for Tim and for all of us who are watching her progress. (OK, I'm off the soap box now). Later...........Mike

I really have made up my mind on this. The worst thing I could do at this formative stage would be to change models on her.

[Tim McMichael]

This is why I am going with Petrov. 5'9" from a short run with almost no arch. I call her HJ technique the "power pancake".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9GKJuqTJU68

[altius]

She needs to aim for the same cadence over the last five steps as she should in the last six of the vault -she is overstriding badly at present. Also could drive the shoulders to the pad for a fraction longer before bringing them up - needs to turn into a 'circle' to rotate around the bar. You are right about the power but pancakes dont get it in the high jump - big points here in a critical event. I know you are having fun in the vault but if she really wants to make the games and score big next year she needs to spend more time on refining the hj - and perhaps other events???? That is unless the vault has no been included in the heptathlon - perhaps in place of the 800?? She looks like an athletic girl but you have to run under 2.20 to even close to decent points and the good ones are going to run sub 2.10 - but I am sure you have studied all of this! Hope to see y'all in January!!

Would like to know how she stands in her other events - then i will tell you if she has a chance!!!

[Tim McMichael]

Thanks for the HJ advice. We are definitely working on her arch. I know she is overstriding, but this is a five total step approach, and because this bar was her lifetime PR, I let her attack it. We are working on nothing but cadence in her long jump. When we back up we will have the room to refine her high jump approach. Her bests are.

100H 13.38
HJ 5'9"
SP 40'5"
200 24.40
LJ 20'6"
JT 135' 1"
800 2:17.11

The most exciting thing is that the problems you see in her high jump are present more or less in all of her events. There is room for improvement everywhere. It makes my job interesting to say the least. We are only really working on the vault one day a week, and usually after a hard running workout, but she loves it. I think it will help her long jumping a great deal, and if she can reach the low 15's it will allow her to earn a living. You can't make enough money in the multis alone unless you are in the top three or four in the world. I'm not sure she is going to get there at 23, but I have no idea what her lifetime potential might be. I really feel inadequate to be her coach, but she picked me, and I am going to do the best job for her I can. Your observations and advice certainly help.