For someone with poor hurdle form and poor flexibility looking to run around 10:20, is it faster to step on all the barriers in a steeplechase?
For someone with poor hurdle form and poor flexibility looking to run around 10:20, is it faster to step on all the barriers in a steeplechase?
If you can get your foot on it, you can get your foot over it, and you'll expend less energy hurdling (even badly) than if you lift yourself up with the step then come crashing down.
Just practice for a few minutes twice a week.
old steepler wrote:
If you can get your foot on it, you can get your foot over it, and you'll expend less energy hurdling (even badly) than if you lift yourself up with the step then come crashing down.
Just practice for a few minutes twice a week.
Amen.
Maybe this is obvious, but I think the consensus would be to step on the water barrier.
It's not about what is fastest for one barrier, it is about what is most efficient for 28 of them (not talking water here.) If you are not a good hurdler, step the barriers. Hurdling to be faster is like taking a 10 minute 3k out in 65 because it's faster. Especially at speeds it takes to run over 10 minutes you don't have the momentum to clear the hurdle efficiently which means you will be need to surge to each barrier to hurdle it. It is absolutely false to say if you can put your foot on it, you can hurdle it. It is also false to say there is a greater force coming down from steeping a hurdle than from hurdling. Both statements lack a basic understanding of physics. Even nine flat guys or better should always have stepping the hurdle as an option if the approach isn't desirable.
The energy to clear a hurdle is far greater than to touch it. (This is why there is a rule that you cannot intentionally hit hurdles in the 110s.) It's quicker to crash through than to actually clear them. Stepping is the same principle. I hurdled when I was young and quick. now that I am older and somewhat slower, I step all of them. I also tell the 8 and change guys I work with to step if they don't have a good approach instead of making a huge leap to get over. (None of this applies to women's hurdles at 30 inches.) Almost every female steepler has an inseam over 30" so they don't need to lift their center of gravity to clear a hurdle.
old steepler wrote:
If you can get your foot on it, you can get your foot over it, and you'll expend less energy hurdling (even badly) than if you lift yourself up with the step then come crashing down.
Just practice for a few minutes twice a week.
Ok lets say the race in on Saturday and you've run one workout over hurdles?
If you are not a good hurdler then do not run a race with hurdles, simple.
Ninetonite wrote:
If you are not a good hurdler then do not run a race with hurdles, simple.
I know a couple All Americans who would disagree with you. Hurdling is just one option. Stepping the barriers can be very efficient.
Ninetonite wrote:
If you are not a good hurdler then do not run a race with hurdles, simple.
but it's fun
Medal Detector wrote:
I know a couple All Americans who would disagree with you
Name them?
I'll make you a deal Malmo. You name the people you have personally coached that give you the right to be such a know it all, and I will name two All-Americans who step barriers. (I did not specify DI but that kind of goes to prove my point more that as you go North of nine minutes you want to step more.)
Someone is on tilt.
It's a simple question. Id like to know who these All Ameriacs are?
SmallTimeTC wrote:
Why are you always an a hole malmo? Seriously i would be shocked to hear if you had any friends
Yes. "Name them" is an incredibly offensive thing to say in response to someone claiming that they know of a bunch of people who fit some given description. How dare you not simply unquestioningly accept the fact that these people exist.
WTF?
It was a simple question, directly related to the guys post. I'm curious who the All Americans are?
Malmo can be a bit difficult sometimes, but this isn't bad at all. If anything, the other guy is in the wrong for asking Malmo to name the steeplers he's coached, as if being a former American record-holder isn't good enough or something. Like him or not, the guy knows what he's talking about. I think most would agree that his presence makes this website better.
It's not an offensive question at all but there is a certain irony that someone who refuses to give any credentials since before the end of the Cold War is challenging the specifics of another poster's statement. There is a difference between being a great athlete and being a competent coach. The way Malmo expects to be revered on this site I think it takes more than having run some very good times before many of us even started running. I thought with him asking for specifics it was a good time for me to do the same since usually that question gets deleted. But maybe I'm just "on tilt." Is that something they said back when you actually had something to do with the sport Malmo?
He Hate Me wrote:
Malmo can be a bit difficult sometimes, but this isn't bad at all. If anything, the other guy is in the wrong for asking Malmo to name the steeplers he's coached, as if being a former American record-holder isn't good enough or something. Like him or not, the guy knows what he's talking about. I think most would agree that his presence makes this website better.
What you say is fair enough but I seriously don't think it's accurate. A 10+ steeplechaser asked for advice and Malmo has zero credentials of note to respond to that specific question. I gave reasons in my first post why a slower steepler would run differently than a faster one. I responded to someone who was being a bit of a jerk that if you can't hurdle you shouldn't steeple. I've got the names - and I won't list anyone I know personally - but I've been close to this sport for a while and every time I see someone run very well without being a good hurdler I make note of it. My top steeplechasers hurdle, which I've already said. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to.
Medal Detector wrote:
It's not an offensive question at all but there is a certain irony that someone who refuses to give any credentials since before the end of the Cold War is challenging the specifics of another poster's statement. There is a difference between being a great athlete and being a competent coach. The way Malmo expects to be revered on this site I think it takes more than having run some very good times before many of us even started running. I thought with him asking for specifics it was a good time for me to do the same since usually that question gets deleted. But maybe I'm just "on tilt." Is that something they said back when you actually had something to do with the sport Malmo?
So you have to currently coach to know anything about running? I guess we should just ignore all the guys that were once faster than 99%+ of everyone on this site. Also, Malmo can correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he basically coach himself? It's safe to say he knows a thing or two about the steeple. Is he a world-class coach? No, but he had more success than nearly anyone here ever will, so I think we can stand to hear what he has to say.
You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. You specifically cited "several All Americans" in an attempt to add gravitas to your ridiculous statement that stepping on the barriers is efficient. When called on it you simply attempted to try to make it about me.
I think there's a difference between currently coaching and never having coached. I wouldn't go to Todd Marinovich for advice on how to best quarterback possible. There is also better feedback than "name them?"
Talk about the physics of lifting the center of gravity and how running faster than 12mph does or does not differ in such an equation than running a little better than 10mph. To discuss such things, one does not need a name to back them up but if you want to be trusted on your name alone, I think there is more to knowledge than running some good times 30 years ago. You don't. Good luck with that.