So I was at the Paris Diamond League tonight...

I posted like 3 threads here last month asking if anyone wanted to go to the paris meet because im in europe now and I've never been to a meet before.

our first time could have been together. but it wasn't.

why do I think that is so common for lrc posters ?

Sorry, didn't see them. I bought my ticket in early May anyway.

wanted to go too wrote:

I posted like 3 threads here last month asking if anyone wanted to go to the paris meet because im in europe now and I've never been to a meet before.

our first time could have been together. but it wasn't.

why do I think that is so common for lrc posters ?

Hmm interesting observation about the women's steeple. They don't look that low on TV.

So are you saying that they make it too low? Too easy for female runners?

Say the average female is 5'4 and the average male 5'9.

How high do you think the women's hurdles should be?

I went to that meet in 2010 when Wheating ran 1:44 before his 3:30 at Monaco. The fans seemed to be there primarily for Usain Bolt. They cheered loudly for Lavillenie. They looked at me like I was crazy in yelling encouragement to the Americans in distance races. The female high jumpers were very good at getting the crowd into it and the American was a very good sport. I didn't get the sense that the crowd was very knowledgeable about track. But it was a huge crowd for the sport.

French people are not very knowledgeable about T&F. And the Paris event is oriented towards getting a large audience in the stadium. So communication is around stars such a Bolt or Lavillenie for french people. This is the only way to get around 40,000 people attending. I guess a DL "standard" meet would not gather more than 10,000 real fans. So you have something like 75% of audience with little knowledge. That makes a huge promotion for T&F in France but you cannot expect audience to have a very accurate view on the event. Most come to see Bolt or Lavillenie once again

PS: I am french and I am a fan - so your comments echo very well with why I see here. I don't know of any meet that can have 40,000 knoledgeable fans

Eureka wrote:

Hmm interesting observation about the women's steeple. They don't look that low on TV.

So are you saying that they make it too low? Too easy for female runners?

Say the average female is 5'4 and the average male 5'9.

How high do you think the women's hurdles should be?

Yes, too easy for female runners.

Paul Kipsiele Koech is 3cm (just over 2in) shorter than Emma Coburn.

EliteWannabe wrote:

Also, no idea what what jump/throw they were up to, who was winning, what the second place guy need to jump/throw to win (therefore no drama).

Try looking at the portable triangular scoreboard right next to the event. You'd have seen the name of the current competitor, the height/ distance attempted or achieved, ATT # showing the stage of the competition, and RK # showing where they were in the standings.

For example if the Frenchies were acting excited, maybe it said "Lavillenie ATT 3 RK 1 5.70m."

Field events progress quickly so you have to pay attention. That's why they start them first, then work in the sprints which are a brief distraction, and the distance events when the field events are mostly wrapped up or at least down to a two-way duel.

You should also pay attention to the events you like and feel free to ignore the ones you don't. A track meet is like a three-ring circus, something for everyone.

This sounds like a rant from any person who simply doesn't understand the sport. Kind of like all those people saying soccer is boring (who actually sit through a football game).

30 inches vs. 36 inches. Also for the 400m hurdles. In the high hurdles outdoors men are required to run 10 extra meters, and the difference in hurdle height is even greater (9 inches higher).

Other civil rights violations:

4 kg vs. 7.26 kg (shot)

1 kg vs. 2 kg (discuss)

.6 kg vs. .8 kg (javelin)

I've always thought the women's hurdles are too low, but then I thought "do we really need yet another event where height becomes such a huge advantage?" It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't type thing.

Do we keep them low so that the fastest raw sprinter usually wins or do we raise them making height a huge prerequisite?

Gail Devers used to kick her lead leg to the side to simply get enough room to get it over. Form, using the men as a guide, is not nearly as important for women although 'just different' some would say.

Women's open/collegiate hurdles are 33 inches. That's the same has high school and it allows a lot of technically flawed hurdlers to run well. Gail Devers is the prime example. The hurdles should raise from 33 to 36 for collegiate and open women to make it more "in line" with the men, who have to run 39s in high school and 42s as open/collegiate. I wouldn't say height is a prerequisite, but good technique should be required to be a top hurdlers.

alanson wrote:

Other civil rights violations:

4 kg vs. 7.26 kg (shot)

1 kg vs. 2 kg (discuss)

.6 kg vs. .8 kg (javelin)

Keeping with the ratios, they should only give half a medal for the discuss.

You're all trolling right? Please tell me you're all trolling (apart from those of you who were actually at the Paris DL meet).

Men's high hurdles are longer than women's because of the spacing needed for their relative stride lengths. They clear the same number of hurdles in a race.

I'm 6" taller than my wife. The average American man is 5" taller than the average American woman. Maybe there is a more globally representative stat here, but that seems like a reasonable enough difference to call for different hurdle heights.

The lower hurdles look dramatically lower when men are standing next to them at both heights. They don't look so easy when women are standing next to them. And as soon as you get ready to mention all of the 5'8" women out there, remember the number of 6'1" male hurdlers.

Hrm...Hrm... wrote:

You're all trolling right? Please tell me you're all trolling (apart from those of you who were actually at the Paris DL meet).

Men's high hurdles are longer than women's because of the spacing needed for their relative stride lengths. They clear the same number of hurdles in a race.

I'm 6" taller than my wife. The average American man is 5" taller than the average American woman. Maybe there is a more globally representative stat here, but that seems like a reasonable enough difference to call for different hurdle heights.

The lower hurdles look dramatically lower when men are standing next to them at both heights. They don't look so easy when women are standing next to them. And as soon as you get ready to mention all of the 5'8" women out there, remember the number of 6'1" male hurdlers.

I was a collegiate (DII) hurdle, and I am female. The spacing is longer for men than women (9.14m vs. 8.5m) which is justifiable but the hurdle height for ladies is the same as it is in HS. There is a 6 inch difference between HS girls and HS boys (33 vs. 39 inches for the sprint hurdles). The guys move up to 42 inches. The girls stay the same. So the ladies should be lower than the men, but they should not stay the same as their high school height.

EliteWannabe wrote:

- Women's steeples (and hurdles for that matter) are tiny. It's ridiculous. It looks like you could just step over the women's steeples. I saw them changing the heights between the men's 110mH and women's 100mH. The amount it goes down is absurd.

You had to go to a Diamond League race to learn this? :)

Yes, the women's steeple height is a joke. That is why they run so much closer to their 3000 time than men, and why there is so much overlap with flat track runners. It's barely different:

I have done this, too. No bites.

And after every meet people who were there in person are posting about it.

At the end of the day it seems like Letsrun is full of people with a lot to say on their computers but not much in person.

alanson wrote:

30 inches vs. 36 inches. Also for the 400m hurdles. In the high hurdles outdoors men are required to run 10 extra meters, and the difference in hurdle height is even greater (9 inches higher).

Other civil rights violations:

4 kg vs. 7.26 kg (shot)

1 kg vs. 2 kg (discuss)

.6 kg vs. .8 kg (javelin)

4kg is ridiculous. The women are huge! When I did Athletics as a 14 year old I was throwing a 4kg shot... as a skinny distance runner who weighed approx. 50 kg. But I guess it makes sense given that both the women and men throw roughly the same distance.

Hrm...Hrm... wrote:

You're all trolling right? Please tell me you're all trolling (apart from those of you who were actually at the Paris DL meet).

Men's high hurdles are longer than women's because of the spacing needed for their relative stride lengths. They clear the same number of hurdles in a race.

I'm 6" taller than my wife. The average American man is 5" taller than the average American woman. Maybe there is a more globally representative stat here, but that seems like a reasonable enough difference to call for different hurdle heights.

The lower hurdles look dramatically lower when men are standing next to them at both heights. They don't look so easy when women are standing next to them. And as soon as you get ready to mention all of the 5'8" women out there, remember the number of 6'1" male hurdlers.

Not trolling. It was just an observation. I guess it's justified but they just look really low. Like Coburn seemed to be just stepping over the hurdles.

runn wrote:

This sounds like a rant from any person who simply doesn't understand the sport. Kind of like all those people saying soccer is boring (who actually sit through a football game).

I love watching athletics. But this was my first Diamond League meet and I just left feeling underwhelmed. I think it would have been much more exciting on TV with some commentary.