Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hurdle height disparity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hurdle height disparity

    from another thread

    An additional issue is that the women's hurdles are
    disproportionally easier to clear than the men's (although possibly
    not to the same degree as in the 100h/110h), which implies that the
    ratio between the 400h and 400m WRs should be lower for the women's
    events than for the men's. Exactly how much lower is unclear, but it
    would not take much to drop even a Perec-based comparison below 52s
    from wiki

    The sprint hurdle races (60 m, 100 m and 110 m) use high hurdles, which are 42 inches (1.07 m) high (39 inches, or 0.99 m, in U.S. high school competition) for men and 33 inches (.84 m) high for women. Long hurdle races (400 m) use intermediate hurdles, which are 36 inches (.914 m) high for men and 30 inches (.762 m) high for women
    using ratio of average hts of men women : 5'10/5'4, the women's hurdles shoud be

    - 100h - 38.4" from 33"

    - 400h - 32.9" frpm 30"

    maye possible to estimate how times change with higher heights but it's fidgety ( as you'd expect )

  • #2
    let's try 1st stab at it

    pecho at 5'10" ran 52.34 over 30" ( 0.762m )

    what is that over 32.9" ( 0.836m ) ?

    now, c o m given as ~ 0.62 of ht, so makes her's ~ 43.4" ( 1.10m )

    this is tricky part : hurdling requires you to raise your c o m to clear it - in this case, from 0.762m to 0.836m or increase of 0.074m or raising her c o m by 0.074/1.10 = 1.067 ratio which effectively is the ratio increase in potential energy ( m*g*h )

    now, give her 50.00 when she ran 52.34 ( ran 51.00i early season )

    i'd figure

    energy of 400 flat = energy of 400h + energy clearing hurdles

    if she ran 50.00, then 1st part is kinetic energy of 0.5 * v^2

    = 0.5 * ( 400/50 )^2 = 32u

    k e of 52.34 = 0.5 * ( 400/52.34 )^2 = 29.2u

    so,

    32 = 29.2 + hurdles energy

    -> hurdles energy = 2.8

    now, from above, this is increased by 1.067 with higher hurdles = 2.99u

    going back into formula,

    32 = energy of new 400h + 2.99

    -> energy of new 400h = 29.01u

    29.01 = 0.5 * v^2

    -> v = 7.61m/s

    new time =

    ~ 52.52

    this is fastest possible as higher hurdles needs taking off from further back/more energy sapping technique to cope/etc. but it's something on the board...

    Comment


    • #3
      trying it with 100h & say with generic 11.20/12.50 gals of 5'4/5'10 with hurdles raised from 33" ( 0.838 ) to 38.4" ( 0.975m ) or 0.137m raise

      - 5'4 has c o m of 1.01m, so raise is 0.137/1.01 = 1.13 ratio

      initially

      0.5 * ( 100/11.20 )^2 = 0.5 * ( 100/12.50 )^2 + hurdles energy

      hurdles energy = 7.86u

      jack up by 1.13 for higher hurdles -> = 8.88u

      -> ~ 12.71


      - 5'10 has c o m of 1.10m, so raise is 0.137/1.10 = 1.12 ratio

      initially

      0.5 * ( 100/11.20 )^2 = 0.5 * ( 100/12.50 )^2 + hurdles energy

      hurdles energy = 7.86u

      jack up by 1.12 for higher hurdles -> = 8.80u

      -> ~ 12.69

      not to sure, other than it may slow times down by coupla tenths

      Comment


      • #4
        Eldy, you prove again why you are a T&FN messageboard legend, an international treasure and institution. Fans of the world salute you.
        ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

        Comment


        • #5
          We can't just look at women's heights, we should also consider that they have less leg power than men. We're not designing for men who are 5'4 tall. So something less than the proposed 38.4/32.9 heights (but more than the current heights, of course) would be more suitable.

          With the greater heights requiring a longer takeoff and landing, the hurdles would likely need more spacing in between, requiring the 100h race to become 110h.

          Comment


          • #6
            There's a study by Kristin Ringel done in 2002, on behalf of IAAF women's committee, with four female hurdlers including Kirsten Bolm, describing the difference between 0.84cm and 0.91cm hurdles height during 60mH training races.
            These are the best 60mH times (electronic timing) with the 2 heights for the 4 athletes

            hurdle height - athlete 1, 2, 3, 4
            0.84cm - 8.30, 8.85, 8.81, 8.85
            0.91cm - 8.56, 8.90, 8.98, 9.10

            The difference is about 2 tenths.
            Though specific training should reduce the difference.

            Comment


            • #7
              There is another issue, which is that the correct TIMING of coming up to the hurdles is necessary to be efficient. Even if they were only 2 feet high, the timing would still have to allow running uninterrupted. Look at the many top 400h runners that cannot get the timing right, and marvel at the non-supermen that COULD do so - exhibit A is EM.

              Comment


              • #8
                the women's hurdles are disproportionately shorter. That's why women's technique can be different. Women can just sprint through the hurdles, men cannot. Increase the hurdle height for women and you will see who the real technicians are.

                The men have issues getting through the hurdles as well, that's why Robles has to take those small steps in between the hurdles to keep from running up on them. Roger Kindgom did the same thing.

                Compare trail leg cycles for the men and women. You will see how much less women have to hurdle than men. It is also apparent because women do no not practice with their hurdles at the right distance. They practice with them jammed in.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wouldn't classify Edwin Moses as a "non-superman"...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OldSprint
                    It is also apparent because women do no not practice with their hurdles at the right distance. They practice with them jammed in.
                    That has been de rigeur for a while. Women train with shorter hurdles at smaller spacing (e.g., 30" - 8 yd spacing) much more than men do (39" - 9 yd spacing). .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sprintblox
                      We can't just look at women's heights, we should also consider that they have less leg power than men. We're not designing for men who are 5'4 tall. So something less than the proposed 38.4/32.9 heights (but more than the current heights, of course) would be more suitable.
                      It almost sounds like you would tailor the hurdle height and spacing to get women's times the same as men's times for the same distance. But that would be a farce. There are reasons, even in this age of equality, why women and men compete separately. :?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by sprintblox
                        I wouldn't classify Edwin Moses as a "non-superman"...
                        I meant that he was not running stunning 400m times in comparison to his stunning 400h times. He was a super technician/hurdler and was never going to set a 400i WR.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by George P.
                          Originally posted by sprintblox
                          We can't just look at women's heights, we should also consider that they have less leg power than men. We're not designing for men who are 5'4 tall. So something less than the proposed 38.4/32.9 heights (but more than the current heights, of course) would be more suitable.
                          It almost sounds like you would tailor the hurdle height and spacing to get women's times the same as men's times for the same distance.
                          I'm curious to know what hurdle height would allow a female 400 hurdler to run 46.78 :P
                          Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by George P.
                            Originally posted by sprintblox
                            We can't just look at women's heights, we should also consider that they have less leg power than men. We're not designing for men who are 5'4 tall. So something less than the proposed 38.4/32.9 heights (but more than the current heights, of course) would be more suitable.
                            It almost sounds like you would tailor the hurdle height and spacing to get women's times the same as men's times for the same distance. But that would be a farce. There are reasons, even in this age of equality, why women and men compete separately. :?
                            That's not what I would want to do at all. Even if you kept the same height for women's hurdles and simply added 10m to the race, women wouldn't be running under 13s.

                            The goal in this thread is about how to get the women's hurdles to require about the same level of technical proficiency as the men's. If you disagree with that goal and want to leave things as is, that's your right to do so, but it's our right to discuss how to meet that goal.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Powell

                              I'm curious to know what hurdle height would allow a female 400 hurdler to run 46.78 :P
                              Do not be silly: We would of course increase the height of the men's
                              hurdles until they run 52/53s ;-)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X