By the same 'logic' we should raise the men's 400 hurdle height since Warholm is barely slowed relative to without hurdles.
Weldon also didn't understand how this race made want to make this point.
I've always thought the women's hurdles are too low. Running super fast is not the point. It's the fact that the hurdle was in some random spot and it barely impacted her as the hurdles are so easy to get over.
The easier way to understand my argument is to look at the ratio in the chart.
It didn't barely affect her. She stutter stepped multiple times. The only take away is that when she puts it together she will likely break the record again.
I ran a low key all comers meet a few years ago where they ran a single mixed heat of the steeplechase over the women’s height. It was incredible the difference those six inches make, especially the last few laps when you are getting fatigued. I felt like I was just stepping over the barriers rather than having to jump. But then again, I’m taller than the average woman, and as someone else pointed out, it’s not just height but also jumping ability. So IDK.
One big takeaway is that Sydney may already be in world record shape — one would think having the hurdles in the wrong spot would slow you down significantly as it would mess up your rhythm. The other possibility is this shows the women’s hurdles heights should be higher if the goal is to make the event different from the 400m.
The men’s hurdles are six inches taller than the women’s 400m hurdles, yet the average man worldwide is just 4.5 inches taller (67.5 inches (5′ 7.5″) vs 63 inches (5’3″)) than the average woman.
Not that the women and men have to have every event exactly the same, but to get the ratios even, you either need to lower than men’s height to 32.1 inches or raise the women’s up to 33.1. Since all hurdles have a notch at 33 inches, it seems like raising the women’s hurdles up a peg is the way to go.
LRC’s Wejo adds: What if the athletes didn’t know exactly where the hurdles would be each race? Sounds crazy, but track and field needs a little more variability. However, Sydney’s form was so good, she’d probably win wherever the hurdles are set up.
I like the idea of having hurdles in random places, but not in track of course (that would be ridiculous as the event has to be the same every time). It would work in a cross country race.
As for whether hurdles should be raised for the women because of something to do with the men, there's no connection. Men and women don't run against each other in hurdles races, records for one have nothing to do with records for the other.
The fact that the men's intermediate hurdles is the same height as the women's "high" hurdles is kind of goofy, but I also don't think hurdle heights need to be/should be changed.
It's not, men's intermediate are 36 inches, women's high are 33.
One big takeaway is that Sydney may already be in world record shape — one would think having the hurdles in the wrong spot would slow you down significantly as it would mess up your rhythm. The other possibility is this shows the women’s hurdles heights should be higher if the goal is to make the event different from the 400m.
The men’s hurdles are six inches taller than the women’s 400m hurdles, yet the average man worldwide is just 4.5 inches taller (67.5 inches (5′ 7.5″) vs 63 inches (5’3″)) than the average woman.
Not that the women and men have to have every event exactly the same, but to get the ratios even, you either need to lower than men’s height to 32.1 inches or raise the women’s up to 33.1. Since all hurdles have a notch at 33 inches, it seems like raising the women’s hurdles up a peg is the way to go.
LRC’s Wejo adds: What if the athletes didn’t know exactly where the hurdles would be each race? Sounds crazy, but track and field needs a little more variability. However, Sydney’s form was so good, she’d probably win wherever the hurdles are set up.
Horrible idea. 33 is the high hurdle height, so raising intermediates to 33 means raising high hurdles to 36.
High schools and colleges already struggle to get women to run the hurdles. In the state of PA, a pretty big state, only 8 high school women ran under 15 seconds for the 100 hurdles.
Raising the hurdles would cut the number of women racing them in half, and injuries would skyrocket. That would be devastating for the sport.
Do we always have to treat the women like babies and make things so soft for them? Look at the WNBA where the basketball is smaller because they have smaller hands but the rim circumference is not proportionally smaller. Why does we always have to make things so easy on them?
Robert years ago, a long time well known NJ coach who I consider to be an "expert" Coach on tons of event, he was that good, said to me that the Girl's/womens Highs were too low as well, stating, if you look at many, not all, they do not even hurdle the hurdles, they simply run over them. So, for years I have always thought the Highs were too low, there is one photo of Sydney I saw, where she is so well over the hurdle, it is kind of nutty looking, I think those are too low as well.
Weldon also didn't understand how this race made want to make this point.
I've always thought the women's hurdles are too low. Running super fast is not the point. It's the fact that the hurdle was in some random spot and it barely impacted her as the hurdles are so easy to get over.
The easier way to understand my argument is to look at the ratio in the chart.
I've very rarely stepped in on any discussions on LR but this is one I've thought about for many years. The barrier heights for both women's 100H & 400H are definitely too low. At 400H, Irina Privalova of Russia, won an Olympic title in her first season trying the event; she was world class at 100-400 (still has WR for 60m!), but it was ridiculous how she skipped over the low barriers, with virtually zero demand on competent technique, and Marie-Jose Perec made it look easy too, in her first year trying the one-lap hurdles. Athletes like Sally Gunnell, a truly high-quality hurdler, didn't get the advantage they probably deserved from being very strong technical hurdlers. And at 100H, the barriers are much too low; again top athletes just skip over them, hardly having to change their running technique at all. An argument can be made for this with stats (barrier heights, relative times, average male v female heights), but the best thing to trust is your own eyes. And after many years of watching both men & women over 100H/110H and 400H, it is very clear that the women don't have to have anywhere near as specialised technique as the men. Someone said that the women's 400 flat WR is an outlier as it was so dirty; of course it was, and that's another reason to not use comparative stats too much. Watch a men's hurdles race and you see great technique having to be applied to get over and/or round the lap; watch a women's hurdles and you'll see athletes being inconvenienced by the barriers. A review is long overdue.
If the height of hurdles for 400mH is changed to make hurdling more difficult for women, the event will eventually go away. There are not an endless supply of women, 5'9" to 6' with sub-51 400m speed to participate in 400mH.
Do you want to talk averages? The average woman has twice the body fat of the average man. The average athletic woman has twice the body fat of the average athletic man. The average elite male sprinter can free weight squat at least 2 1/2 times his body weight. The average elite female sprinter cannot come close to free weight squatting twice her body weight.
Horrible idea. 33 is the high hurdle height, so raising intermediates to 33 means raising high hurdles to 36.
High schools and colleges already struggle to get women to run the hurdles. In the state of PA, a pretty big state, only 8 high school women ran under 15 seconds for the 100 hurdles.
Raising the hurdles would cut the number of women racing them in half, and injuries would skyrocket. That would be devastating for the sport.
Do we always have to treat the women like babies and make things so soft for them? Look at the WNBA where the basketball is smaller because they have smaller hands but the rim circumference is not proportionally smaller. Why does we always have to make things so easy on them?
Why do you want them to be like men?
We already have a category for that. Stuffed into women's events.
I've ran hurdles since I started Track and Field in 1958. In the 220 Low Hurdles, at 6' I could just incorporate the hurdle in the race without actually hurdling it. This allowed me to run 23.5. When they abandoned the Low Hurdles and moved it from 30 inches to 36 inches in the Lows, I had to hurdle it and with my lack of flexibility, I was only 5th in the NCAA's and not close to the top 3.
Move up the women's HH and IH and they, too, will have to hurdle it and make it a hurdle race. Also, they will not be able to cheat as easily around the corners by dragging their trail leg around the outside of the hurdle and not over it. In big meets each hurdle used to have an official watching closely to catch the cheaters. Here's a link showing the officials at the 1978 Commonwealth Games officiating the 400mH race.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.