Steeple is tougher on men than women

joedirt wrote:

Segregation is bad wrote:

This Segregation is sexist either way. Let all humans race the same. May the best human win

Says the insecure man with 15X as much testosterone. Learn to respect the accomplishments of female athletes in their own light.

Yeah, it’s not just the height difference. Men have more testosterone which gives you more strength to push off the ground (go higher).

joedirt wrote:

Hfhshsufcidifchsh wrote:

How does your 3000 flat to steeple comparison hold water if none of the same runners are participating in the events? Some might argue slower runners gravitate to the barriers because their flat out speed isn't top notch.

By slower runners you mean those like Jenny Simpson, who basically broke every collegiate distance record she attempted while in college and won a world championship, numerous world championship medals and an Olympic medal at 1500 meters?

You use Simpson - who hasn’t steepled in forever (because she’s actually a good runner) - as your example? LOL.

It’s common knowledge that steeple is generally for B-list flat runners.

I mean... remember Coburn in every flat 3k she’s ever run? Or Jager getting hawked in every 5k? I do.

but has any body mentioned center of Gravity. Generally women have a lower COG. So if they both have to displace their center of gravity a similar amount to clear the barrier, women will be working harder to do so because that 4"-ish displacement represents a larger change relative to total height.

other sports wrote:

joedirt wrote:

This thread really has revealed how whiny, insecure and pathetic a number of men on these boards are that they constantly have to bring up how unfair the women's steeple height is. Get a life.

A discussion is not whining. Women use the same size of obstacles in many other sports so why not in track and field? Should women tennis players have to hit the ball over a lower net?

Even though women run marathons, they do not play 5 sets of tennis like men do.

other sports wrote:

joedirt wrote:

This thread really has revealed how whiny, insecure and pathetic a number of men on these boards are that they constantly have to bring up how unfair the women's steeple height is. Get a life.

A discussion is not whining. Women use the same size of obstacles in many other sports so why not in track and field? Should women tennis players have to hit the ball over a lower net?

Nice try, but people aren't jumping over the net in tennis. Actually your argument about tennis supports my position as in general women use smaller, lighter rackets than men as that is the part that is used the most and play fewer sets. Women also use smaller basketballs, smaller shot puts, hammers, javelins, discuses, etc. As far as the whining, there are no women advocating for the steeple to be raised, only whiny weak men.

joedirt wrote:

other sports wrote:

A discussion is not whining. Women use the same size of obstacles in many other sports so why not in track and field? Should women tennis players have to hit the ball over a lower net?

Nice try, but people aren't jumping over the net in tennis. Actually your argument about tennis supports my position as in general women use smaller, lighter rackets than men as that is the part that is used the most and play fewer sets. Women also use smaller basketballs, smaller shot puts, hammers, javelins, discuses, etc. As far as the whining, there are no women advocating for the steeple to be raised, only whiny weak men.

What about this discussion makes anyone whiny or weak? And why? From the standpoint of setting up a meet, it sure would be easier if the implements and settings were the same. Can you discredit that?

Whiny and weak because it is only men that are bringing up the issue. If you want to know why the women's steeple looks low, it is because the top women's steeplers are mostly tall beautiful amazon women. Here are the top 5 US women's steeplers and where they are in percentile height (Simpson is the outlier, but still taller than average):

Coburn - 5' 8" 93%

Frerichs - 5'7" 87%

Simpson - 5'5" 67%

Quigley - 5' 9" 97%

O'Connor - 5'9" 97%

Here are the men (And I would argue that Lincoln and Jager both make the barriers look small as well):

Jager - 6'2" 95%

Kebenei - 5'9" 46%

Lincoln - 6'2" 95%

Bor - 5'6" 13%

Marsh - 5'10" 60%

So the reason the barriers look short in the women's race is because the event is dominated by taller women, and is the reason that the stride was more affected in the one race that the study was performed in is because for the most part, the womens race consisted of taller runners (Briana Shook is 5'9", Kassi Andersen is 5'10", the shortest person was Lisa Aguilera at 5'3", which is still about average height). The men's runners (other than Lincoln) were about average height.

Get over it. Life is tougher on women then on men. Who the f cares about the steeple.

joedirt wrote:

The times are already there. A fast men's time is 8:00, a fast women's time is 9:00. That is a 12.5% differential. What you are advocating for is beyond that. This thread really has revealed how whiny, insecure and pathetic a number of men on these boards are that they constantly have to bring up how unfair the women's steeple height is. Get a life.

That's misuse of "differential," but no worries.

I'm not sure why you feel necessary to name-call and bully people (calling them "whiny, insecure and pathetic"). It seems adolescent and counterproductive. No one wants to take your points seriously when you do this.

If this discussion is so silly, and such a waste, that we should "Get a life," then why did you contribute 5 of the first 20 posts?

I wish you had said something more productive, like that because women have less testosterone they may be worse at power-activities, possibly including jumping, thereby justifying a hurdle-height difference.

Lama lama red pajama wrote:

Get over it. Life is tougher on women then on men. Who the f cares about the steeple.

Evidently the misogynist that started the thread and the misogynist that did the "research" with a sample size of one race. The time ratios demonstrate that the current height is appropriate. If you think that hip height is the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration, you are delusional. Men and women are built differently, so we make accommodations in almost all sports for those differences (smaller or lighter implements, lower barriers, etc.) and there is nothing wrong with that. A bunch of men complaining about the height of barriers in the women's steeplechase is pathetic and yet it is an issue that continually rears its ugly head on these boards every so often. So every so often I have to come on here and demonstrate what pig headed, sexist idiots these fools are.

Agree.

Men: Shaheen 5'8"

Women: Galkina 5'9"

The steeple barriers for women should be 33". Might add about 5-7 seconds to their PR's.

We don't lower the basketball hoop for women.

joedirt wrote:

other sports wrote:

A discussion is not whining. Women use the same size of obstacles in many other sports so why not in track and field? Should women tennis players have to hit the ball over a lower net?

Nice try, but people aren't jumping over the net in tennis. Actually your argument about tennis supports my position as in general women use smaller, lighter rackets than men as that is the part that is used the most and play fewer sets. Women also use smaller basketballs, smaller shot puts, hammers, javelins, discuses, etc. As far as the whining, there are no women advocating for the steeple to be raised, only whiny weak men.

The tennis beef is that women get paid more than men at tennis majors.

Also, Lisa Aguilera 5'3" was an AZ state 300 hurdles champion. Wouldn't Coburn trounce the competition if the barriers were raised to 33"? Would work for Quigley as well.

What is most shocking is the disparity in hurdles heights in the sprint hurdles - 33" VS 42".

joedirt wrote:

The times are already there. A fast men's time is 8:00, a fast women's time is 9:00. That is a 12.5% differential. What you are advocating for is beyond that. This thread really has revealed how whiny, insecure and pathetic a number of men on these boards are that they constantly have to bring up how unfair the women's steeple height is. Get a life.

What an idiotic post. So your definition of "a fast time" which happens to be a perfectly round number for both men and women, is the relevant comparison?

Wrong.

Try comparing WRs, or 8th-best time in the world all-time, or 50th best. Or anything other than some idiot's random speculation about "a fast time."

8:00 is almost never broken by men. 9:00 is not as extraordinary for women. Period. Women are too close in the steeple compared to other events. Because of the pitiful low barriers.

Make it 32" or 33".

Done.

My name is........hepcat wrote:

Study proves this. Salient points:

1. Women are 92% of men's height

2. Women's barriers are set 83% of men's barrier height.

Why aren't women's barriers set at 92% of men's barriers?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827574/

I see U17 women athletes here in local YDL's and SAL's clearing the barrier like its just a stool they're jumping over. On a serious note a 6' difference is unacceptable. Men are just as close to male height as it is!

Men = 36' barriers

Women = 30' barriers

(Difference of 6')

Make it 33' for either sex. Done.

EOT

joedirt wrote:

If you want to know why the women's steeple looks low, it is because the top women's steeplers are mostly tall beautiful amazon women. Here are the top 5 US women's steeplers and where they are in percentile height (Simpson is the outlier, but still taller than average):

Coburn - 5' 8" 93%

Frerichs - 5'7" 87%

Simpson - 5'5" 67%

Quigley - 5' 9" 97%

O'Connor - 5'9" 97%

the shortest person was Lisa Aguilera at 5'3", which is still about average height.

5'3" is average??????

You are a complete moron. 5'6" is average for 25-35 year-old women in the US. That is certainly not the 67th percentile lololololol. (You are probably idiotically and blindly taking the whole-population average of 5'4", which includes people born 60-100 years ago, who are shorter due to aging and worse childhood nutrition.)

"5'3" = average" lololololol that is shorrrrrrrt. Your whole argument is garbage.

Women's hurdle height = joke

50th percentile height for a female in the US is 5'3.8"

If I ever want further evidence of your idiocy, all I have to do is wait:

8:00 is almost never broken by men - The truth is 13 men have run 7:58 or faster

9:00 is not as extraordinary for women. - The truth is 4 women have broken 9:00

My name is........hepcat wrote:

Study proves this. Salient points:

1. Women are 92% of men's height

2. Women's barriers are set 83% of men's barrier height.

Why aren't women's barriers set at 92% of men's barriers?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827574/

This is a lot like saying that basketball is tougher on women than men.

bullying is not cool wrote:

women have less testosterone they may be worse at power-activities, possibly including jumping, thereby justifying a hurdle-height difference.

That's actually a good point that seems to have escaped joedirt.