Armand Duplantis is very precocious (born 10 Nov 1999, so 17 years old as I write). I realize that he may have not finished growing yet, but still, he is not especially muscular for a pole vaulter. What makes him so good?
Armand Duplantis is very precocious (born 10 Nov 1999, so 17 years old as I write). I realize that he may have not finished growing yet, but still, he is not especially muscular for a pole vaulter. What makes him so good?
He's no less muscular than Renaud or Kendricks. I wouldn't expect him to physically develop much at all beyond where he is now.
He will hopefully add just a little more speed to get to that next level and go over 6 meters.
What makes him good?
- Great speed with the pole
- zero hesitation with a very tall plant
- excellent timing to maximize the swing and gain energy in the vault through his swing
- absolutely full inversion, completely to vertical
- great turn and like to use every inch he gained in the previous steps
- he does all of these things incredibly consistently, so he can capitalize when it matters and jump high rather than needing to go do a dozen meets to get in one great jump.
Not so simple but 1) his training age is WAY beyond his chronological age and 2) he's had world class coaching from day 1 and 3) awesome genetics.
Let's say that the competition was speaking English and 99% of the competitors had only spoken English during a one hour daily window, but not year round--usually just one season a year--for the past three or four years.
But there was one competitor who had been speaking English ten to fourteen hours a day from an early age, and who had 24-7 access to coaches who were expert in the language. Who would win?
Translated to the pole vault, this is precisely Duplantis's situation with regard to the rest of the world's pole vaulters.
drugs
PoisonIvy wrote:
1) his training age is WAY beyond his chronological age
How does the math work on this? Does it mean he's been training, presumably in some alternate reality, before he even inhabited his current body? Training longer than he's been alive. I'm struggling with this one.
Duh. He started vaulting at age 5, so he has 12 years of training. Most vaulters who are 17 years old started at age 14 or 15, thus 12 years vs. 2 years of training for two 17 year olds. You try competing against someone in anything who has practiced for 10 years more than you have, especially that early in life.
homerduh wrote:
Duh. He started vaulting at age 5, so he has 12 years of training. Most vaulters who are 17 years old started at age 14 or 15, thus 12 years vs. 2 years of training for two 17 year olds. You try competing against someone in anything who has practiced for 10 years more than you have, especially that early in life.
That doesn't make his training age greater than his chronological age. His training age is 12. His chronological age is 17. 17 is greater than 12.
17 is greater than 12 wrote:
homerduh wrote:Duh. He started vaulting at age 5, so he has 12 years of training. Most vaulters who are 17 years old started at age 14 or 15, thus 12 years vs. 2 years of training for two 17 year olds. You try competing against someone in anything who has practiced for 10 years more than you have, especially that early in life.
That doesn't make his training age greater than his chronological age. His training age is 12. His chronological age is 17. 17 is greater than 12.
It's ok, we see this is over your head for what is being discussed.
homerduh wrote:
17 is greater than 12 wrote:That doesn't make his training age greater than his chronological age. His training age is 12. His chronological age is 17. 17 is greater than 12.
It's ok, we see this is over your head for what is being discussed.
No, I understand that he has been training longer than other people his age. I simply reject the idea that his "training age" is greater than his chronological age. He training age may be a larger percentage of his chronological age that typical, but that isn't the claim being made.
If I'm wrong, link me to a peer reviewed journal article that uses "training age" in the manner used above.