Ok,
I'm going to be a contrarian and argue on behalf of the other side: Arms in front, chest hollow. Like Alorah, who created this thread, I grew up being told arms by ears; And I've been an advocate for that, passing it along to my gymnasts, up until less than a year ago.
My gym has a coach who used to be one of the national coaches for the jr. boys team in Australia. He's sold me on the idea of teaching arms in front, even to beginners (and yes, influenced from power tumblers); and part of the reasoning behind this is for the very fact that yes, beginners aren't going to be as powerful as more mature tumblers.
The Australian coach rationalized it this way (this is my understanding/interpretation, at any rate, partially in relation to discussing Yurchenkos with him, as well): If you simply isolate the arm-push and forget the ability to generate a powerful snap-down/snap-up scooped shape, which direction do you need to push off the floor to get your chest up? For beginners trying to keep their arms up by their ears and not having a powerful enough snap-down, they'd basically be pulling their arms off the floor by trying to keep them by the ears. The push direction is wrong when they're trying to stand-upright with their arms glued to the ears. The reality for them is that they simply don't have the fast turnover needed to punch into a long backhandspring.
That said, I wouldn't teach level 4s to do roundoffs this way, because it would likely cause more problems than it would solve -- the biggest problem it would cause is that the gymnast would be more likely to lead with the head in the backhandspring.
This problem is solved by the way this particular coach (and now, myself, although I've only experimented with it in modified form to ones who can already do BHs, since currently I'm not with team developmental groups) teaches backhandsprings. There's no reason for the gymnast to lead head first even with the arms starting out in front (I've gone from arm-swing, to no arm-swing, to small arm swing AND no-arm swing in teaching standing backhandsprings).
He has a series of progression drills that only work if done in conjunction with each other. Other methods and drills aren't "wrong" and of course there is more than one way to teach a backhandspring (just as there are more than one way to teach RO BHs and everything else- as evidenced by this very thread); but the drills he uses are very specific to what he's trying to get across to his gymnasts. As far as he's concerned, he's simplified the process and factored in the issue of young gymnasts who lack the strength/ability to generate a powerful round-off or standing backhandspring.
Going back to the head thing, among the very first drills he has kids do is get comfortable with falling backward and landing on their backs. Basically, going long and keeping the body flat. He then adds in the arms. And he drills it into the gymnasts that the head never throws back until the arms are by the ears (an image he's used is to imagine two pencils sticking out of your ears; the head does not move back until the arms swing up and hits the pencils- after which the arms and head move together as one unit).
Using his series of progressions, he boasts of having kids who will always have naturally long backhandsprings and none of the common issues you have to fix along the way, like head throwing back and too much lower back arching. He says once it's done, it's done and there's not much to really correct or fix as far as the backhandspring.
I do, however, teach my boys an exaggerated scoop right from the start -- I teach them to land with their arms by their ears, but with the head down and forward and the eyes on the floor
This is interesting to me, because it sounds similar to one of the Aussie's drills. Basically, he is eliminating any need for a power round-off in order to still end up with a long backhandspring. One of his drills basically puts the gymnast in the position which you are describing so that they are off-balanced (picture a cartwheel snap-up or round-off where the hands stay low to the ground as the feet land in a piked stand that has the hips far behind the feet with arms covering ears and head buried; the gymnast needs to jump back or end up falling on his butt in a pike sit).
It is definitely quite possible that I haven't fully comprehended all aspects of his method and concept of the standing backhandspring and the round-off backhandspring, as he understands it and teaches it (I'm learning from him every day). But after working with him for about the last 6 months, I think he's a genius.
So which method is better or superior? In the end, I'd advise everyone to keep an open-mind and not reject techniques without fully researching their own experience in trying and applying. The sport, along with technique, is constantly evolving. I've had to accept that things that I knew or thought I knew at one time are now "obsolete". Part of it is due to changes in the equipment (what technique to use for a rod floor? Spring floor? Panel mat? Wooden floor? Grass? Concrete? Vaulting table vs. long/side horse?). Things that I know today may one day also be abandoned in wake of something superior. Sometimes, also, what works for one gymnast might not work for another so it's sometimes good to have a bag of tricks that isn't a one-size-fits-all approach; different avenues can still get us to the same destination.
