Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raising the Hurdles

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    i don't know or care what a frosh or soph is and what happens in schools is of no intertest but the hight of the womens hurdles in both eents is a disgrace :evil:

    raising the hurdles would also raise the quality of the events for too long women have been able to get away with awful technique in both events
    i deserve extra credit

    Comment


    • #17
      OMG, I can't believe that someone is seriously suggesting that the women run the 110H. The elite women would certainly adapt and some would thrive. But only the elite. The college rank-and-file would never be able to do it without serious over-striding. It would be a disaster if we did it across the board. Is no one else in touch with the reality of HS and college T&F?! The average college - all colleges, all hurdlers - 100Her is in the 15-16 seconds range - they would not be able to handle 110m, but . . . they all could hurdle at 36", albeit a little more slowly. Elite men could hurdle at 45", with 12-yard spacing. That doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone.

      Comment


      • #18
        Marlow the girls and women would have to run an additional 2 feet between barriers. If they can't do that, maybe it isn't the right event for them?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Marlow
          The average college - all colleges, all hurdlers - 100Her is in the 15-16 seconds range -.
          Surely these are not athletes on scholarships. These are mediocre times which would not make it to the finals of the Ontario High School Championships, a meet where Felicien once ran 13.43 and Jessica Zelinka 13.79. Athletes running the times you're talking about are too slow to be on a track team, sorry. :wink:

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Marlow
            OMG, I can't believe that someone is seriously suggesting that the women run the 110H. The elite women would certainly adapt and some would thrive. But only the elite. The college rank-and-file would never be able to do it without serious over-striding. It would be a disaster if we did it across the board. Is no one else in touch with the reality of HS and college T&F?! The average college - all colleges, all hurdlers - 100Her is in the 15-16 seconds range - they would not be able to handle 110m, but . . . they all could hurdle at 36", albeit a little more slowly. Elite men could hurdle at 45", with 12-yard spacing. That doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone.
            I've never seen anyone jumping over 45' sticks............WOuld like to see it though

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by skiboo
              Originally posted by Marlow
              The average college - all colleges, all hurdlers - 100Her is in the 15-16 seconds range -.
              Surely these are not athletes on scholarships. These are mediocre times which would not make it to the finals of the Ontario High School Championships, a meet where Felicien once ran 13.43 and Jessica Zelinka 13.79. Athletes running the times you're talking about are too slow to be on a track team, sorry. :wink:
              See, that's what I mean. You see D1 results in eTN and think that's normal? It's the very tippy-top of a huge iceberg of athletes, MOST of whom are NOT on scholarship!!! There are plenty of mediocre D1 athletes who are on teams because many teams have no-cuts (and there's also the Title IX imperatives - many colleges are desperate for women athletes, of ANY caliber). But now take a look at D2, D3, NAIA,and JCs!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by skiboo
                Marlow the girls and women would have to run an additional 2 feet between barriers. If they can't do that, maybe it isn't the right event for them?
                Thats bad logic. The stride pattern, stride frequency, and stride length makes that unfeasable.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by guruof track
                  I've never seen anyone jumping over 45' sticks............WOuld like to see it though
                  Um . . . I put inches, you put feet, so yeah, I'd like to see 45-foot hurdles also. On the other hand, I at 58, can hurdle 45-inch hurdles.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Marlow
                    See, that's what I mean. You see D1 results in eTN and think that's normal? It's the very tippy-top of a huge iceberg of athletes, MOST of whom are NOT on scholarship!!! There are plenty of mediocre D1 athletes who are on teams because many teams have no-cuts (and there's also the Title IX imperatives - many colleges are desperate for women athletes, of ANY caliber). But now take a look at D2, D3, NAIA,and JCs!
                    Well for one I would far rather see how the sport can allow its best performers to truly challenge themselves, and the only way we can see whether speedy hurdlers can handle 110s would be, first have them run it at 33". If they are handling the spacing, then go to 36". I don't profess to know how the IAAF would go about this if they ever got serious about looking into it.

                    ALSO: Parity for women in athletics. If they're gonna pole vault, let 'em run a hurdles race that takes REAL hurdlers to deal with the heights. I'd compromise and say go 36" with 100 hurdles first, but that's my second choice.

                    edit I also don't know much about the US college system, I just don't think it should dictate what events are run by elites, at the end of the day.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Marlow
                      Originally posted by guruof track
                      I've never seen anyone jumping over 45' sticks............WOuld like to see it though
                      Um . . . I put inches, you put feet, so yeah, I'd like to see 45-foot hurdles also. On the other hand, I at 58, can hurdle 45-inch hurdles.
                      Never saw anyone jump 45 inch hurdles competitively either.........

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by skiboo
                        ALSO: Parity for women in athletics. If they're gonna pole vault, let 'em run a hurdles race that takes REAL hurdlers to deal with the heights. I'd compromise and say go 36" with 100 hurdles first, but that's my second choice.
                        Yes, and women should throw the 16-lb shot and hammer and the men's disc and jav. Parity, baby.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I'd raise the collegiate & elite women's hurdles to 36" and consider eventually stretching the spacing further to some degree but not equal to the men - maybe have 110 meters but the women would have more space between the last hurdle and the finish line. I'd leave the high school girls at 33."

                          I'd also eliminate the high school 300 meter hurdles in all states, making the 400 meter hurdles universal.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            [quote=guruof track]
                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            Originally posted by "guruof track":3hv2eq8m
                            I've never seen anyone jumping over 45' sticks............WOuld like to see it though
                            Um . . . I put inches, you put feet, so yeah, I'd like to see 45-foot hurdles also. On the other hand, I at 58, can hurdle 45-inch hurdles.
                            Never saw anyone jump 45 inch hurdles competitively either......... [/quote:3hv2eq8m]
                            Gimme $20 bucks and I'll put up a youtube video of me over the ol' 45s. 8-)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              Originally posted by skiboo
                              ALSO: Parity for women in athletics. If they're gonna pole vault, let 'em run a hurdles race that takes REAL hurdlers to deal with the heights. I'd compromise and say go 36" with 100 hurdles first, but that's my second choice.
                              Yes, and women should throw the 16-lb shot and hammer and the men's disc and jav. Parity, baby.
                              Now you're just being silly, you know what I meant. Should the women's shot be lighter?

                              I never said women should run 42" sticks, did I? :roll:

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by skiboo
                                Now you're just being silly
                                Um . . . that was kinda my point too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X