Coaches Episode 2: I hate USAG girls compulsory vaults

[CoachTodd]

I'm not sure if Bob is adding the run into this issue or just verifying what I said about not judging the run. i.e. If the run is wrong, the vault will not turn out well most of the time. This isn't just based on the gymnast's ability to run but if they start their run at a good distance to get the hurdle they need. I was once told and have since verified that a good vaulter can vault from just 3 steps. This is where the added strength would come in to obtain the power needed off the board to actually vault and obviously there are many vaults that couldn't be done out of just 3 steps but a front hand spring isn't that difficult.
As far as the weakest gymnasts being the ones that can't run, I find it a bit more random than that. I've seen kids that just don't know how to run. Many of the run on their heels and get no speed at all. Physical strength isn't really the issue in this case. I'll agree that running strengthens the core muscle and a strong core is needed to actually bounce on vault.

 

[caraburn]

As a head level 5/6 coach I completely agree with you Geoffery. I have had such a hard time transitioning the level 4's to a handspring vault. You need hardly any power to do the level 4 vault so a heel drive is completely foreign concept to them. I have a lot of kids get stuck on top of the table because they are way too hollow to generate any power. I'm also a level 5/6 judge. If you read the JO Code of Points for Compulsories, it is up to a 3.0 deduction for an arch on the preflight. This eliminates any kind of heel drive because the goal is a straight body position. There is no angle on entering the table if you are straight and then you lose all power as soon as your hands hit. The whole compulsory vaulting program needs to be relooked.

 

[CoachTodd]

If you look at the level 5/6 they also take off for lack of repulsion so which do you do, come in and stay hollow or do it right for the power?

 

[Valentin]

There is no question in my mind (but always open to different approaches and flexible in opinion) at this point that handspring vaulting progressions needs to go as
1- Straight jump, arms to horizontal
2- Dive roll, with under arm action to horizontal
3- Layout to level surface and progress to 60cm high... Best if learned with an underarm action.
4- Handspring flatback on table (no resi mats for comps) to leveled mats of course
5- Handspring to feet.

Pre-flight body should be straight ideally, but a tight arch is definitely better than being hollow.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

There is no question in my mind (but always open to different approaches and flexible in opinion) at this point that handspring vaulting progressions needs to go as
1- Straight jump, arms to horizontal
2- Dive roll, with under arm action to horizontal

I'm not particularly fond of either the straight jump or the dive roll.

I don't like the straight jump as a competitive vault, because if you hit a board correctly, you rotate. In order to avoid rotating, you have to arch while still on the board, unless there's some trick to it I'm not aware of.

I really don't like the dive roll, because I think it discourages a strong heel drive and discourages kids from opening their shoulders for a proper block.

3- Layout to level surface and progress to 60cm high... Best if learned with an underarm action.

Agreed -- though in my opinion the underarm action isn't as important as many coaches (not to mention the USAG boys compulsory vaults) make it out to be.

4- Handspring flatback on table (no resi mats for comps) to leveled mats of course

Agreed; I love handstand flatbacks over the table.


Here's the progression I would use:

1) Straight jump from one or two steps and a hurdle (noncompetitive -- train it only as long as is necessary for the kid to learn how to hurdle to a springboard)
2) Handstand flatback on resi WITH THE BOARD CLOSE, THE HEAD WATCHING THE HANDS, AND THE BODY SLIGHTLY ARCHED. If this is to be done as a competitive vault, there should be no deduction for a tight arch with the head out; rather, there should be a deduction if the preflight is too long/slow.
3) Handstand flatback over table to mats stacked at least 8" higher than the table (the higher the mats are stacked the better)
4) Front handspring to feet
5) Front handspring to feet on mat stack; the eventual goal being to do this to feet on mats stacked at least to table height.

So far I haven't really seen a need to have my guys work front layouts off a springboard as a vault progression, but definitely think it would not be a bad drill to use.

The boys future stars program in the US has a rule for vaults that I really love: there are no landing deductions for overrotation. In my opinion, this rule should be applied to all compulsory vaults done to the feet.

Actually, this reminds me of another topic I've been meaning to start for awhile...

 

[Deleted member D3987]

As a head level 5/6 coach I completely agree with you Geoffery. I have had such a hard time transitioning the level 4's to a handspring vault. You need hardly any power to do the level 4 vault so a heel drive is completely foreign concept to them. I have a lot of kids get stuck on top of the table because they are way too hollow to generate any power. I'm also a level 5/6 judge. If you read the JO Code of Points for Compulsories, it is up to a 3.0 deduction for an arch on the preflight. This eliminates any kind of heel drive because the goal is a straight body position. There is no angle on entering the table if you are straight and then you lose all power as soon as your hands hit. The whole compulsory vaulting program needs to be relooked.

wrong, wrong, wrong. it is the code of points and judges. direct contradiction of technique on what needs to be done to develop lay out fronts and front handsprings. high level coaches disregard what the "book" says and could care less about the deduction.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

high level coaches disregard what the "book" says and could care less about the deduction.

I will agree with this; but wouldn't it make more sense to rewrite the "book" so that higher level coaches wouldn't disregard it?

That's the whole point I'm trying to make here; if a coach has to choose between scoring well and training a better gymnast, there is something fundamentally wrong with how we're scoring.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

absolutely. see if you can get connie maloney to get nawgj to change their evil ways...

they do not listen to the senior coaches. they never have. so we continue on with what we have to do.

nowadays, there is a deduction for every time a gymnast breathes, eh? such nonsense.

 

[BlairBob]

there is a huge barrier between the USA judges and coaches and has been for years. it's not such a problem in the men's since there is more crossover (many national coaches are judges or brevet judges).

and this is also why I just found the culture of women's judging, off to say the least.

it's a daunting measure just to get most of the group that writes the compulsories to agree on what to do, in either camp.

and ultimately, higher level coaches with big gyms could give a damn about compulsories since they are training those talented kids in an elite format (basics, lots of hours, etc)