Watching TiVoed Brussels meet (on NBC earlier today), I noticed that none of the women in the 100 hurdles made contact with a hurdle. The men leave carnage behind in the 110's. Why are they so low (33")? I know it's just one race I'm referring to and I don't have any articles or evidence to support a change but it seems the women could be challenged a bit more.
They are not 33" they are 30".
Gail Devers and LoLo Jones seemed to have found a way to wack a hurdle on the wrong day.
i believe they are too low as well. there needs to be more of a challenge
I'm not saying they NEVER hit hurdles but it just seemed much too easy. If we had 12" hurdles, someone would find a way to trip over them.
30" for high school intermediates
chikin wrote:
Watching TiVoed Brussels meet (on NBC earlier today), I noticed that none of the women in the 100 hurdles made contact with a hurdle. The men leave carnage behind in the 110's. Why are they so low (33")? I know it's just one race I'm referring to and I don't have any articles or evidence to support a change but it seems the women could be challenged a bit more.
Maybe the men have the hurdles too high.
I've felt that for a long time. The college/pro highs are too high. Women stay the same from HS to pros.
The 100 HH are 33", not 30" (the height for the 400H). I believe that the 100m H heights should go to 36". Of course, I think that the college (and open) women should also throw a 10lb. Shot, and heavier Jav.
The Men's Hurdles at 42" are at the right height. If they were lower, the guys would still hit them because their strides are so long, and they really have to use high-knee drive. If they didn't have to hurdle as high, they'd come up too close to the hurdles.