Tweet
Originally posted by sprintblox
-
Again, is 2 feet really that much? I don't think it is, others disagree. -
Watching world class athletes it's easy to come to the conclusion that it'st ime to raise the women's hurdles but there are many opposed to it-
1. If you raise the hurdle heights you would need to adjust the distance between the hurdles.
2. Non world class female hurdles have trouble getting three steps. I was amazed to see my local high school hurdlers learning to alternate lead legs for the highs because of the difficulty getting 3 steps.
3. Many Federations are against it. They say it scares away grassroot participation.
4. Many top coaches in the US are split over the topic. Some say yes, it's time - while others say point out the increase in fatigue over the last few hurdles resulting in a breakdown of form and steps.
The debate goes on!Comment
-
??!!Originally posted by measurer
I have never seen that. My hurdlers and I hurdle at all different heights, from 30" to 42" (boys, girls go up to 36"), and we never have trouble adjusting our steps.Comment
-
There is no reason to change the high school hurdle heights. But once in college I vote we do raise the women's hurdles.
I am not a fan of lengthening the race, there is no point and you do start to insert a limiting factor into the race. As it stands today the women clear hurdles high enough to negotiate a man's high hurdle, and that is the 400h women.
Some argue that we will eliminate the shorter hurdlers, oh well. We do the same on the men's so what's the difference? By the way, Mark McKoy is 5'9", and Allen is less than 6 feet tall. What we are talking about is requiring a higher talent quotient and skill requirement for the women. As much as I love Gail we cannot allow pure speed to dominate an event that is meant to test the dynamic ability of the athletes.
If you ever get the chance to see the technical breakdown of the top women in the world you would understand why many call for raised barriers at the elite level. There is minimal hurdle skill required in the women's race, and I believe the race would benefit from a higher barrier.
As for the high schoolers, they are strong enough. There are a lot of 4 steppers at 33" due to pure intimidation.
If you need an example of why hurdles should be raised check out hurdle eight of the 400h Olympic final and watch our gold medalist negotiate that barrier, there is no better example than that.Comment
-
All my 4-steppers in the last 16 years were DESPERATE to 3-step, but simply weren't fast enough to achieve the required stride length. I haven't seen many 17-18 second 100Hurdlers who could 3-step, and that's what your average HS girl runs.Originally posted by SmokeComment
-
Sorry but no sympathy here for this 4 stepping nonsense. I remember the girls who ran the 100 hurdles in high school and I NEVER saw one who didn't 3-step. I could be wrong, maybe a trip to the Ontario schools championships will reveal something to the contrary, but I'd be damn shocked to see it. Average HS girl 17-18 seconds? Average WHERE? Sorry but I think we're on different planets, and yours has stronger gravity.Originally posted by MarlowComment
-
Yeah most of the HS girls are 3 stepping, especially the top level ones.on the roadComment
-
Go ahead and raise the women's hurdles to 36" for the straight & 33" for the oval. This should truly test their hurdling ability.
While you're at it...increase the college/junior/senior women's shot weight to 12lbs.Comment
-
The "top level ones" don't represent the average or the majority. If you believe that "most" of the girls are 3-stepping then I have to assume your experience is mostly with large invites and championship-season meets, where the MINORITY of kids are competing. Go to any dual meet, small invite, or league championship meet in California and I'll bet you good money that you'll see more than half of the 100h girls 4 or 5-stepping at least part of the race.Originally posted by SpeedfirstComment
-
I'm sorry, but you are really out of touch with the reality of HS track.Originally posted by skiboo
Here are the FACTS. In Florida (a very good track state - we start practicing outdoors in January!) we have flrunners.com, that lists EVERY girl that has been in a FAT meet - which are very common now, so this is pretty much everyone. Here are the numbers for the 100H
There are 1,167 girls listed.
Here are the ranks and the times. I was too conservative. The average time is in the 19s!!!!
1 13.83
100 16.18
200 17.14
300 17.81
400 18.43
500 18.95
600 19.56
700 20.02
800 20.42
900 20.98
1000 21.54
1167 31.02Comment
-
I am referring to large invites amd championship meets, sorry for not stating that. But I definitely have the girls I coach 3 step, including Jr. high.Originally posted by Grasshopperon the roadComment
-
Then you misstated when you said most of the top level ones are 3-stepping. ALL of the top-level girls are 3-stepping. Now go look at my numbers again and tell me what %-age are 3-stepping - a small minority, I'd say the girls under 17.Originally posted by SpeedfirstComment
-
I would agree on the small percentage based upon the list. You however have some 3 steppers who because they are still developing, the times are slower than those who are more developed.Originally posted by Marlowon the roadComment
-
folks, sorry but I think your discussion on the current high school standards and hurdle heights is pointless and beside the issue.
I say, keep the high school setting as they are. these are fine, for high school.
the transition should occur at the college and international level.
and, I do think it makes sense to raise the women's 100 hurdles to 36". the women's 400 hurdles could also go from 30 to 33".
regards distance between: remember, the distance for the 110 hurdles does NOT CHANGE between high school 39" and college/international 42".
An this basis, I do not see the need for change the distances of the women's 100 hurdles.
look at Jackie Joyner, or say, Karoline Kluft, both are extremely tall, incredible powerful, all around athletes that have efficiently adjusted to the constraints of hurdling. both could have essentially run the same race over 36" barriers.
part of the art of high hurdling is the stride pattern. look at the variance in heights for men's world class hurdlers: F. Swartoff of Germany was 6'7" and he ran 13.06; Mark McKoy, Colin Jackson, Terrence Trammell and Allen Johnson are much shorter - and they are clearly among the best in history in the event. this is part of the beauty of the 110 hurdles race.
for women, however, pure sprint speed is a much greater predictor of success than it is for men's high hurdles. technique and leaping ability, also ability to efficiently negotiate and constrainted stride pattern, are less influencial factors in the women's 100 hurdles.
i think that raising the women's 100 hurdles to 36", and keeping everything else the same would make the women's race more interesting, and give it greater separation from the flat sprint discipline.Comment
-
I am a bit out of my depth compared to most of the posters here but I have an observation and a guess at the interpretation.
The men hit the hurdles much more often then the women hurdlers do (I am seeing high-level competition primarily). Is this because the cost of hitting the hurdle are greater for women than for men? Does this, in part, come from the women's hurdles often being set at too high a tipping force and hence does not allow them to push through the hurdle and hence they learn to clear the hurdle by more? Is the women's hurdle height effectively 'higher' as a result (and is this related to the comment about the 8th hurdle in the w400m)?Comment
Comment