Just a thought to ponder. This topic comes up in many conversations when discussing hurdling. Should High Hurdlers race in open 60’s and 100’s? Many coaches believe it takes away from the rhythmic pattern, while others believe that it will assist in frequency development. Let’s role with this one.
Tough to say. I know Brent McFarlane spoke against open races in The Science of Hurdling. But then you have a freak like Trammell doing some of his best hurdling while running a ton of open 60s, often in the same meet.
I’ve done both in the same meet, and didn’t feel that it had a negative effect. However, I’m not at a super elite level.
Other thoughts?
i think it is a must for hurdlers to sprint. eventhough hurdles is condsidered a rhythm event. There is rhythm or frequency in 60m, 100m, 200m, long jump. etc that all hurdlers would like to reach. Speed is still asset that has to be developed as technique is perfected.
runfast71, I agree with you. It is suprising to hear so many coaches that do not believe that hurdlers should sprint in open events during the season, especially early on. I have had great success in improving rhythm and frequency with the incorporation of open sprinting for my hurdlers.
For example, one hurdler who is coming out of a program that was more volume intensive (300-600m intervals), has had much improvement from the shorter work, as it has given him an opportunity to learn the feeling of sprinting without reaching.
What are some experiences with other forum members (or other hurdling topics)?
Open races are fine- after the hurdle event, but I’d be concerned about the open 100m disrupting the stride pattern before the hurdles.
Good point. I was just meaning the use of open sprints in general. I have met more than a handfull of coaches that do not believe in any sprint work that does not involve hurdling, which I believes would never lead to true speed development.
This isn’t really related to hurdling as an event, more of an observation. Has anyone noticed that the women’s 100H is effectively a sprinter’s race? A perfect example of this is Gail Devers. Her hurdle technique is shocking compared to say shishigina. Whereas in the men’s event, the most technically competent hurdlers win races, Anier Garcier, Colin Jackson and Allen Johnson to name but a few. How do you guys think the event would change if the women’s hurdles were made higher?
Body types would change…taller women and longer legs…no more scat types.
Wasn’t the IAAF planning to move the women’s hurdles to 36" after Athens? Perhaps it was never finalized, but there has been quite a movement to make the womens sprint hurdles a hurdle race.
Clemson asked for other hurdling topics. How about Allen Johnson’s trail arm? I was watching the Athens 97 final the other day, and his trail arm is awesome. No wasted motion, no flailing. I think this is one area of his technique that is far superior to his competitors. Is he the best overall technician out there? How about his tendency to hit more hurdles than average?
Originally posted by duck
Wasn’t the IAAF planning to move the women’s hurdles to 36" after Athens? Perhaps it was never finalized, but there has been quite a movement to make the womens sprint hurdles a hurdle race.
I definitely heard that there was supposed to be a switch from 33’ to 36’ after Athens. Being MUCH more of a sprinting event than the men’s 110h this increase in height would seem to devestate hurdlers like Gloria Aloize (sp?). But it should be intersting to see how smaller hurdlers like Gail and Aloize adjust. People will definitely have to get their hips up now.
This is interesting, because i was talking with my coach aboutthis a while ago, and she was saying how she was part of an experiment with what was then BAF (British Athletics Federation) into how it would affect women and hurdling if they were to raise the hurdle height to 3’. She said she coped fine, but then being almost 5’7" it’s not exactly surprising. Good thing being is the she strongly believes that the women’s 100H should be made higher.
Being 5’7 would definitely help her out in terms of her hip height. I coudl definitely see why she would be in favor of raising the hurdles form a personal standpoint. If she were 5’3 she may feel differently.
It will definitely be interesting to see the evolution of the event as the need for increased technical proficiency comes into play.
I don’t agree re-Devers has a bad technique.
The difference between 100m and 100mH isn’t a good indicator of hurdling technique level. The issue is much more complex than that.
How can we say that a 12.3 hurdler has a bad technique. She’s only 1.60m tall, and it’s a feat to be able to finish a 100mH with that body height!
Like every small top class hurdlers, she uses her 100m speed (10.82, see also Glory Alozie 10.90, Patricia Girard 11.11, etc…). Same thing can be found in male side, Allen Johnson and Harrison Dillard were the smallest Olympic Champions, and both very very fast over 100/200m. The smallest international class male hurdler i know was Keith Gardner (1.75), and was Commonwealth Games winner at 120yH in 1954 and 1958 as well as 100y in 1958.
Also, Devers in spite of her small body height, has very long strides at top speed during 100m, much longer than other hurdlers (2.35m, compared to Donkova 2.25m). Jackie Joyner too had a 2.35 stride (but she was much taller, 1.78m), and both JJK and Devers met often problems with that in 100mH races, coming too close to hurdles at take-off, and hitting them, in spite of a circle movement of the leading leg. It must be note that both had the same coach and they didn’t concentrate their training exclusively on hurdles, so their stride pattern wasn’t conditioned for hurdles.
Due to her height, Devers has to elevate her CG much more than others, and her hurdle clearance is longer.
So in the same way, the clearance time is not a good indicator of good hurdle technique, as it is also related to body height or leg length.
“So in the same way, the clearance time is not a good indicator of good hurdle technique, as it is also related to body height or leg length.”
Perhaps it would be better to use the “clearance” time as a personal measure of how the particular hurdler is doing during that trainign session?
Perhaps the use of “touchdown” times over each hurdle woudl be better suited to comparing and contrasting different hurdlers. In the end the goal is to get from point A to point B.
Originally posted by Tunnelvision1285
“So in the same way, the clearance time is not a good indicator of good hurdle technique, as it is also related to body height or leg length.”Perhaps it would be better to use the “clearance” time as a personal measure of how the particular hurdler is doing during that trainign session?
Perhaps the use of “touchdown” times over each hurdle woudl be better suited to comparing and contrasting different hurdlers. In the end the goal is to get from point A to point B.
Indeed, the clearence time would be better as a personal indicator, as it varies with fatigue, and through the 10 hurdles in a same race. But you should time at at the 0.001 rather than 0.01. Accuracy is the key here.
Touch down times are useful to compare runners, but becareful for the time at after the first hurdle (approach run) and the time between last hurdle and finish line (run-in), as they depend on the landing contact after the hurdle.
Devers, for example has a landing contact farther than other hurdlers, so even if she (her body) is leading clearly at the first hurdle, her approach time will be similar to others (her contact time will happen in the same time as others). On the other hand, her run-in times are usually impressive (close to 1.00) because of the same reason.
“Devers, for example has a landing contact farther than other hurdlers, so even if she (her body) is leading clearly at the first hurdle, her approach time will be similar to others (her contact time will happen in the same time as others). On the other hand, her run-in times are usually impressive (close to 1.00) because of the same reason.”
I would be willing to bet that just because her landing point may be consistently farther than her taller counterparts she would be content with this. And what I mean by content is that I doubt she would not try to make “improvements” on where she steps off of the hurdle. Regardless of who you are or your skill level you want to step off of the hurdle as close to the hurdle as possible.
Originally posted by Tunnelvision1285
I would be willing to bet that just because her landing point may be consistently farther than her taller counterparts she would be content with this. And what I mean by content is that I doubt she would not try to make “improvements” on where she steps off of the hurdle. Regardless of who you are or your skill level you want to step off of the hurdle as close to the hurdle as possible.
This is also related to body height! As she is smaller than her counterparts, if she has her take-off and touch down at the same place, her center of gravity movement over the hurdle would have a bad curve: in order to prevent this wrong vertical direction, the best way is to have a longer stride (clearance) over the hurdle.
"This is also related to body height! As she is smaller than her counterparts, if she has her take-off and touch down at the same place, her center of gravity movement over the hurdle would have a bad curve: in order to prevent this wrong vertical direction, the best way is to have a longer stride (clearance) over the hurdle. "
I didn’t mean anyone’s take off or touchdown shoudl be at the same place. I simply meant that regardless of who you are you want to “step off” the hurdle as quickly as possible. A primary cue in hurdling is hip height. The onyl problem with your first illustrationis that it depicts a lowering of the hips in order to “load” up to jump the hurdle rather than hurdle the hurdle. If you watch a hurdle race from behind or the front you will 99x out of 100 see that the winner is the person whose hips drop the least.
A couple of hurdlers who illustrate tall hip height and stepping off the hurdle are Jack Pierce in the 96’ US trials semi’s where he ran 12.97
- Anjanette Kirkland who ran 12.42 in 2000 to win a world title
-Allen Johnson who ran 7.39 just this past year to wint he US indoor title.
If anyone can post clips of these races you can see excellent hip height and what stepping off the hurdle will do regardless of height .
Gail Devers has improved significantly her technique since 1999. Before her landing distance was about 1.70m (in 1996), now it’s around 1.50. For most of hurdlers, it’s between 1.00 and 1.15 (WR holder Donkova did 1.05-1.10), but Narozhilenko did like Devers 1.50 at her prime! The quality of impulse at take-off and touch-down is much more important than landing distance. On the other hand, Devers and Narozhilenko had a very dangerous technique, if Devers still hits hurdles at nearly every meet, Narozhilenko was much more steady, but fell several times in her career (remember 1996 GPF, or was it in 1997?)
Greg Foster is her agent AND coach…great concept. Some of the elements that the male hurdlers are integrated into her training such as parabolic curve paths.