Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raising the Hurdles

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Marlow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • guruof track
    replied
    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.........

    Leave a comment:


  • skiboo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • guruof track
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • guruof track
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • skiboo
    replied
    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:

    Leave a comment:


  • skiboo
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mump boy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • guruof track
    replied
    Originally posted by GeorgiaFan1
    I think it would be dumb to raise high school hurdles for girls to a height that is higher than the international height. However, when I was checking 100H heights for middle school or junior high several years ago (I never found anything definitive), either Utah or Nevada was requiring 36 inches for the 300H race for both boys and girls - interpretation of Title IX or a misprint - I don't know which.
    Interesting analysis.

    My comment about raising the women's hurdles was obviously at the international and collegiate levels.

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgiaFan1
    replied
    I think it would be dumb to raise high school hurdles for girls to a height that is higher than the international height. However, when I was checking 100H heights for middle school or junior high several years ago (I never found anything definitive), either Utah or Nevada was requiring 36 inches for the 300H race for both boys and girls - interpretation of Title IX or a misprint - I don't know which.

    Leave a comment:


  • guruof track
    replied
    I will concede that the first 4 or so years we would see a significant drop off, but I think eventually we would start seeing 13.7 and 13.8s on a yearly basis.

    I am a former hurdler (albiet I contested the longer hurdles mostly), when we raised the heights in practice we didnt lose that mush time. I was a 14.8ish hurdler in HS, over 42's i would go 15flatish. We had a 14.4 hurdler who ran 14.5s over the 42s.

    I don't think the 3inches affects people as adversly as we would like to think. And if it does, your probably not good (or decent) hurdler in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • skiboo
    replied
    Originally posted by guruof track
    I'm not an expert either, but changing the actually LENTGH of the race would give me pause. The distance between mens hurdles and womens hurdle is significant enought to make a difference, considering that males stride patterns are longer, stride frequency is faster, and so forth..........that would be asking a bit much whn coupled with RAISING the hurdle.
    Pertaining to how much farther the women'd have to run between barriers:

    Men's hurdles : 9.14 meter spacing

    http://www.iaaf.org/community/athletics ... =9428.html

    Women's hurdles: 8.5 meter spacing.

    Haven't we seen a fair number of women hurdlers chopping their stride to successfully navigate barriers? Gail Devers '92 comes to mind. So the extra 2 feet (9.14 meters - 8.5 meters and approximating) to run between barriers could be a good thing? Thoughts?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X