running review wrote:
...would you agree with her opinion that if the hurdles were made higher the event would be dominated by tall women only?
No, I wouldn't. Not completely anyway.
If the hurdles were higher, the step over the hurdles would be longer. That means the three steps between hurdles would be shorter. (Duh.)
But the steps between hurdles--at elite speeds, anyway--are already pretty restricted for the taller hurdlers. Raising the height of the hurdles would just make those three-steps-between that much more cramped for the taller woman. So it's not like the taller athletes would have this huge advantage if the hurdles went up to 36".
I do agree that the women's barriers in the steeplechase could profitably be higher, but that may stem from personal experience: in the early days of women's SC, when they just used the men's-height barriers, I coached a distancewoman who wasn't much over five feet tall. But we noticed that when she was fooling around with the women's 400m hurdles, she always cleared the hurdles by several inches; *lightbulb* "Why not see what she can do with the steeple barriers?" And a two-time conference SC champ was born.
The thing about the women's current (30in) steeple barriers is that the water jump's barrier is so low--yet the dimensions for the water itself don't change--so it's very difficult for a woman to one-foot the water landing, without making a really huge push off the barrier. I realize that some manage, but it does change the event a bit.
Anyway, on average male steeplers are maybe a bit under six feet tall--so not quite twice the height of their hurdles. The average female in the event is maybe around 5 1/2 feet tall, so for their barriers to present the same kind of challenge that men face, they should certainly be at least 33"--the height of the women's current "high" hurdles--and certainly not all the way down at 30". The SC doesn't put much of a premium on hurdling technique anyway, but at least it should present *some* hurdling difficulty for women...