Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby jamal00005 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:27 pm

by Alfons Juck, EME News

LONDON (GBR): Spikes asked top hurdlers Sally Pearson and Eilidh Child which athletics rule they’d change if they had the chance, and both said that they should be jumping over bigger hurdles. Currently female sprint hurdlers clear barriers 83.8cm, while 400m hurdles are 76.2cm. This is compared to the men’s 110m hurdles of 107cm and 91.4cm (3ft) for the 400m hurdles. Sally Pearson, Australia, world and Olympic 100m hurdles champion: "This is a bit controversial… I’d like the women’s sprint hurdles to go up higher, to 91cm, to get rid of the sprinters, and keep the technicians in. And I think the women’s 400 hurdles need to go up a height, because they’re way too small.
jamal00005
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:46 pm

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby Daisy » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:41 pm

Long overdue.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby mump boy » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:12 am

Absolutely
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby cheetah69 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:45 am

I'm not surprised. A change that would benefit her.
cheetah69
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby aaronk » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:31 am

Sounds like an okay idea.
Except for one small item......

It would completely DISCREDIT the ENTIRE RECORD BOOK of women's hurdles results!!!!

IMO, it would be akin to what happened to the 100 YARDS records and lists when the 100 METERS became de rigueur.
Or what happened to all the old javelin records and lists when they changed the jav's specifications!!

You'd have to start a whole new 100H and 400H record book and set of lists!!
The old lists and records would go the way of the old 100 yards lists and records!!
And all the ATHLETES who ran those times with the "old" heights would also be eradicated!!!

And Tim Hutchings is also suggesting they change the 3000SC for women back to 2000......because "the current crop" of female runners can't handle that distance!!
Huh?????
Hell, if they want to change the SC distance for women (AND men!!!!!).....how about LENGTHENING the race distance to FIVE thousand meters!!!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:02 am

Utter and complete horseshit, Sally!

Though the event probably wouldn't be hurt by raising the hurdles 3" and most could agree on that, the "raise the hurdles" cry is a canard propagated mostly today by Europeans under the guise of "we're more technical - but the athletes of NACAC (North America the Caribbean and Mexico) are not." Think about this: Even Sally herself says, "...I’d like the women’s sprint hurdles to go up higher, to 91cm, to get rid of the sprinters..." But make no mistake, she's not talking about "sprinters" she's talking about the perceived "advantages" of NACAC. How do we know this? Because she'd be getting rid of herself! Someone needs to ask Sally of the 11.14 100m PB to name all of the 100m hurdlers who have run under 12.70 and have a PB faster than 11.15?

Dawn Harper? 11.90 at 21
Joanna Hayes? 11.41
Brianna Rollins? 23.04 for 200
Anjanette Kirkland? N/A
Michelle Perry? 11.34
Lolo Jones? 11.24
Queen Harrison? N/A
Damu Cherry? 11.53
BFH (JAM)? 11.17
Ginnie Crawford? 11.10
Perdita Felicien? 11.78
Danielle Carruthers? 11.43
PLS (CAN)? 11.44
DEL (JAM)? 11.77
Freeman? 11.32
Wells? 11.58
Ali? 23.90 for 200
Devers? 10.82

and that's just the ones under 12.53!!

Now look at Europe:
LUDMILA ENGQUIST: 11.04
SUSANNA KALLUR: 11.30
OLGA SHISHIGINA: 11.13
OLENA KRASOVSKA: 11.53
JOSEPHINE ONYIA: 11.37
SVETLA PISHTIKOVA: 23.10 for 200
PATRICIA GIRARD: 11.11

Newsflash: The w100h is a Sprint event! If they raise the hurdles 3", you'll see even FEWER European athletes in the finals of w100h!
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby lexvid » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:03 am

batonless relay wrote:Utter and complete horseshit, Sally!

Though the event probably wouldn't be hurt by raising the hurdles 3" and most could agree on that, the "raise the hurdles" cry is a canard propagated mostly today by Europeans under the guise of "we're more technical - but the athletes of NACAC (North America the Caribbean and Mexico) are not." Think about this: Even Sally herself says, "...I’d like the women’s sprint hurdles to go up higher, to 91cm, to get rid of the sprinters..." But make no mistake, she's not talking about "sprinters" she's talking about the perceived "advantages" of NACAC. How do we know this? Because she'd be getting rid of herself! Someone needs to ask Sally of the 11.14 100m PB to name all of the 100m hurdlers who have run under 12.70 and have a PB faster than 11.15?

Dawn Harper? 11.90 at 21
Joanna Hayes? 11.41
Brianna Rollins? 23.04 for 200
Anjanette Kirkland? N/A
Michelle Perry? 11.34
Lolo Jones? 11.24
Queen Harrison? N/A
Damu Cherry? 11.53
BFH (JAM)? 11.17
Ginnie Crawford? 11.10
Perdita Felicien? 11.78
Danielle Carruthers? 11.43
PLS (CAN)? 11.44
DEL (JAM)? 11.77
Freeman? 11.32
Wells? 11.58
Ali? 23.90 for 200
Devers? 10.82

and that's just the ones under 12.53!!

Now look at Europe:
LUDMILA ENGQUIST: 11.04
SUSANNA KALLUR: 11.30
OLGA SHISHIGINA: 11.13
OLENA KRASOVSKA: 11.53
JOSEPHINE ONYIA: 11.37
SVETLA PISHTIKOVA: 23.10 for 200
PATRICIA GIRARD: 11.11

Newsflash: The w100h is a Sprint event! If they raise the hurdles 3", you'll see even FEWER European athletes in the finals of w100h!


This ^^
lexvid
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:53 am

If it aint' broke, don't fix it. The 100h is widely thought of as the most interesting/competitive event in the sport, year-in, year-out. If you make the hurdles taller you will lose a non-trivial share of the athletes. And, by-and-large, those athletes are not fast enough to make it in the flat sprints.

There are a number of women who want womens college XC to be lengthened from 6km to 8km or even 10km (of course, this is the 10,000m runners). I think it is a mistake because the current length allows the very good 1500m runners (Reid, for instance) to be very competitive and you would lose that and have a much less interesting with athletes strung out over a very long distance. At 6km, the womens race is about as spread out as the mens 10km because the difference in depth.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby drdan » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:02 pm

Ambivalent about the 100h, but the 400h? Definitely!
drdan
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:58 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby tm71 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:06 pm

jamal00005 wrote:by Alfons Juck, EME News

LONDON (GBR): Spikes asked top hurdlers Sally Pearson and Eilidh Child which athletics rule they’d change if they had the chance, and both said that they should be jumping over bigger hurdles. Currently female sprint hurdlers clear barriers 83.8cm, while 400m hurdles are 76.2cm. This is compared to the men’s 110m hurdles of 107cm and 91.4cm (3ft) for the 400m hurdles. Sally Pearson, Australia, world and Olympic 100m hurdles champion: "This is a bit controversial… I’d like the women’s sprint hurdles to go up higher, to 91cm, to get rid of the sprinters, and keep the technicians in. And I think the women’s 400 hurdles need to go up a height, because they’re way too small.


going to 88 or 90 cm might not be such a bad idea. while they are at it change the hepta to deca since so many women are pole vaulting very well now. keep the steeple at 3k. dont change the implement weights in the throws.
tm71
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby jamal00005 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:13 pm

I say leave things just as they are ....changing things now will only cause a chain reaction and then other athletes will want other things in particular events to change :D
jamal00005
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:46 pm

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby DJG » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:32 pm

I am with Sally on this. This event should test both speed and hurdling ability. Raising the hurdle height will put more emphasis on the hurdle component, which, I believe, is what a hurdle race should do. Sally Pearson is both a sprinter and a hurdle technician. It is not either/or ;It is both/and. The event should test both.

question: do you go to 110 distance with the same spacing as the men's?

As for the old records being discredited, they are just made permanent, they are still records for the old heights.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:41 pm

DJG wrote:I am with Sally on this. This event should test both speed and hurdling ability. Raising the hurdle height will put more emphasis on the hurdle component, which, I believe, is what a hurdle race should do. Sally Pearson is both a sprinter and a hurdle technician. It is not either/or ;It is both/and. The event should test both.

question: do you go to 110 distance with the same spacing as the men's?

As for the old records being discredited, they are just made permanent, they are still records for the old heights.

You would be.

But, if either of you bothered to look at the top-20 hurdlers from NACAC versus the top-20 from EAA then it would be obvious that the faster hurdlers -NACAC- are ALSO better technically.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby cheetah69 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:03 pm

batonless relay wrote:Utter and complete horseshit, Sally!

Though the event probably wouldn't be hurt by raising the hurdles 3" and most could agree on that, the "raise the hurdles" cry is a canard propagated mostly today by Europeans under the guise of "we're more technical - but the athletes of NACAC (North America the Caribbean and Mexico) are not." Think about this: Even Sally herself says, "...I’d like the women’s sprint hurdles to go up higher, to 91cm, to get rid of the sprinters..." But make no mistake, she's not talking about "sprinters" she's talking about the perceived "advantages" of NACAC. How do we know this? Because she'd be getting rid of herself! Someone needs to ask Sally of the 11.14 100m PB to name all of the 100m hurdlers who have run under 12.70 and have a PB faster than 11.15?

Dawn Harper? 11.90 at 21
Joanna Hayes? 11.41
Brianna Rollins? 23.04 for 200
Anjanette Kirkland? N/A
Michelle Perry? 11.34
Lolo Jones? 11.24
Queen Harrison? N/A
Damu Cherry? 11.53
BFH (JAM)? 11.17
Ginnie Crawford? 11.10
Perdita Felicien? 11.78
Danielle Carruthers? 11.43
PLS (CAN)? 11.44
DEL (JAM)? 11.77
Freeman? 11.32
Wells? 11.58
Ali? 23.90 for 200
Devers? 10.82

and that's just the ones under 12.53!!

Now look at Europe:
LUDMILA ENGQUIST: 11.04
SUSANNA KALLUR: 11.30
OLGA SHISHIGINA: 11.13
OLENA KRASOVSKA: 11.53
JOSEPHINE ONYIA: 11.37
SVETLA PISHTIKOVA: 23.10 for 200
PATRICIA GIRARD: 11.11

Newsflash: The w100h is a Sprint event! If they raise the hurdles 3", you'll see even FEWER European athletes in the finals of w100h!


Thank You!!! :D
cheetah69
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby user4 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:16 pm

DJG wrote:...Raising the hurdle height will put more emphasis on the hurdle component, which...

question: do you go to 110 distance with the same spacing as the men's?


Maybe it is time to raise the mens hurdles too.
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby Smoke » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:00 pm

This is not new news. 99% of all hurdlers and coaches have been crying for this change for decades. The women's hurdles heights are laughable.
The 4h women get away with technical murder, solely due to the LACK of proper hurdle technique required by the mini hurdles.
The thoughts around hurdles is sometimes baffling. I just watched the WYC and the young men run over 36" hurdles in the 110!!!! Why? I know all of the USA boys only run 36" in the intermediates and spend their lives running 39". Some train over 42" in preparation for the collegiate level. So why drop the hurdles for kids that are over 6 feet tall???
As for the women, we know from studies they jump high enough to clear a 36" hurdle right now, even though their hurdles are 33. So the argument that it is too demanding is not proven. The facts speak to the opposite. It is time the race require more technical expertise. Many of these women are very good hurdlers, but due to the hurdle height they are not required to execute. So we see lazy trail legs, and "sprinters" get away with murder and still run fast. Unlike the men's race where there is a consequence to having poor technique.
Now there is a valid question of can you raise them, and keep the same distance in between in the shorter hurdles?
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby gh » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:30 pm

DJG wrote:I am with Sally on this. This event should test both speed and hurdling ability. Raising the hurdle height will put more emphasis on the hurdle component, which, I believe, is what a hurdle race should do.



bingo!

Those of us of an age, of course, remember when the women only ran 80 meters, so as not to stress the poor darlings. (Sexist thinking at its max)
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby no one » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:01 pm

gh wrote:bingo!

Those of us of an age, of course, remember when the women only ran 80 meters, so as not to stress the poor darlings. (Sexist thinking at its max)


even in early/mid 60s I couldn't figure out why the 80m. made no sense. prelude to the adult world
no one
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby lonewolf » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:47 pm

Leave all the hurdles as they are.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8811
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby Per Andersen » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:22 pm

Smoke wrote:This is not new news. 99% of all hurdlers and coaches have been crying for this change for decades. The women's hurdles heights are laughable.
The 4h women get away with technical murder, solely due to the LACK of proper hurdle technique required by the mini hurdles.
The thoughts around hurdles is sometimes baffling. I just watched the WYC and the young men run over 36" hurdles in the 110!!!! Why? I know all of the USA boys only run 36" in the intermediates and spend their lives running 39". Some train over 42" in preparation for the collegiate level. So why drop the hurdles for kids that are over 6 feet tall???
As for the women, we know from studies they jump high enough to clear a 36" hurdle right now, even though their hurdles are 33. So the argument that it is too demanding is not proven. The facts speak to the opposite. It is time the race require more technical expertise. Many of these women are very good hurdlers, but due to the hurdle height they are not required to execute. So we see lazy trail legs, and "sprinters" get away with murder and still run fast. Unlike the men's race where there is a consequence to having poor technique.
Now there is a valid question of can you raise them, and keep the same distance in between in the shorter hurdles?

Well said! I'm with you 100%. Also the hurdles in the 400h are absurdly low. 30" for women who are on an average considerably taller than the 100 hurdlers.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby croflash » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:26 pm

Per Andersen wrote:
Smoke wrote:This is not new news. 99% of all hurdlers and coaches have been crying for this change for decades. The women's hurdles heights are laughable.
The 4h women get away with technical murder, solely due to the LACK of proper hurdle technique required by the mini hurdles.
The thoughts around hurdles is sometimes baffling. I just watched the WYC and the young men run over 36" hurdles in the 110!!!! Why? I know all of the USA boys only run 36" in the intermediates and spend their lives running 39". Some train over 42" in preparation for the collegiate level. So why drop the hurdles for kids that are over 6 feet tall???
As for the women, we know from studies they jump high enough to clear a 36" hurdle right now, even though their hurdles are 33. So the argument that it is too demanding is not proven. The facts speak to the opposite. It is time the race require more technical expertise. Many of these women are very good hurdlers, but due to the hurdle height they are not required to execute. So we see lazy trail legs, and "sprinters" get away with murder and still run fast. Unlike the men's race where there is a consequence to having poor technique.
Now there is a valid question of can you raise them, and keep the same distance in between in the shorter hurdles?

Well said! I'm with you 100%. Also the hurdles in the 400h are absurdly low. 30" for women who are on an average considerably taller than the 100 hurdlers.


There are hurdles in the w400H? :D
croflash
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:29 am
Location: Germany

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby DJG » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:54 am

batonless relay wrote:
DJG wrote:I am with Sally on this. This event should test both speed and hurdling ability. Raising the hurdle height will put more emphasis on the hurdle component, which, I believe, is what a hurdle race should do. Sally Pearson is both a sprinter and a hurdle technician. It is not either/or ;It is both/and. The event should test both.

question: do you go to 110 distance with the same spacing as the men's?

As for the old records being discredited, they are just made permanent, they are still records for the old heights.

You would be.

But, if either of you bothered to look at the top-20 hurdlers from NACAC versus the top-20 from EAA then it would be obvious that the faster hurdlers -NACAC- are ALSO better technically.


So because a certain geographical group is un-competitive an event can not be made more competitive?
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby DJG » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:59 am

gh wrote:
DJG wrote:I am with Sally on this. This event should test both speed and hurdling ability. Raising the hurdle height will put more emphasis on the hurdle component, which, I believe, is what a hurdle race should do.



bingo!

Those of us of an age, of course, remember when the women only ran 80 meters, so as not to stress the poor darlings. (Sexist thinking at its max)


GH, I am of a certain age for sure. The "weaker sex" ain't so weak from where I roam.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby DJG » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:00 am

Per Andersen wrote:
Smoke wrote:This is not new news. 99% of all hurdlers and coaches have been crying for this change for decades. The women's hurdles heights are laughable.
The 4h women get away with technical murder, solely due to the LACK of proper hurdle technique required by the mini hurdles.
The thoughts around hurdles is sometimes baffling. I just watched the WYC and the young men run over 36" hurdles in the 110!!!! Why? I know all of the USA boys only run 36" in the intermediates and spend their lives running 39". Some train over 42" in preparation for the collegiate level. So why drop the hurdles for kids that are over 6 feet tall???
As for the women, we know from studies they jump high enough to clear a 36" hurdle right now, even though their hurdles are 33. So the argument that it is too demanding is not proven. The facts speak to the opposite. It is time the race require more technical expertise. Many of these women are very good hurdlers, but due to the hurdle height they are not required to execute. So we see lazy trail legs, and "sprinters" get away with murder and still run fast. Unlike the men's race where there is a consequence to having poor technique.
Now there is a valid question of can you raise them, and keep the same distance in between in the shorter hurdles?

Well said! I'm with you 100%. Also the hurdles in the 400h are absurdly low. 30" for women who are on an average considerably taller than the 100 hurdlers.


Ditto, per Andersen!
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:45 am

DJG wrote:So because a certain geographical group is un-competitive an event can not be made more competitive?

It really doesn't surprise me that you, as a fan wouldn't understand so I'll try to make it clear for you: THE EVENT IS NOT BEING MADE MORE COMPETITIVE BY RAISING THE BARRIER! There is a vast difference between MORE competitive and MORE technical. Making an event more technical (raising the standard) will not make it more competitive and it CERTAINLY won't make it more diverse (since that is what they're talking about). Do you get that? If you coached the sport on a level that garners proficiency you would. If you did, you would realize that the Europeans are just making excuses. Their athletes who suck also suck technically; raising the hurdles will not help them. There will be no "gains"; the event will not become more competitive. The number one component of the hurdles is speed. Speed over, speed to or speed between. When Europe finds hurdlers with these components, they are successful; when they don't, they're not. The question they should be asking themselves is why they're not trying to find FASTER sprinters to hurdle instead of raising the hurdles for "slower" ones. Because we can find NACAC hurdlers who are better than the fastest NACAC athletes technically, but slower than the fastest on the clock. And, those "slower" NACAC athletes are still faster than almost all of the Europeans.

But let's break the porcelain and recognize the pachyderm: there is a perception among many Europeans (and many Americans; yup, even the "liberal" ones) that NACAC (read: where you find fast athletes of W. African descent) is not capable of technical proficiency - even though, for hurdles, that's proven nonsense. It's this belief that making the event more "technical" (read: cerebral) that the NACAC coaches and athletes will not be able to keep up.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby user4 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:58 am

Maybe we could just add a few other events. Perhaps an 80m HH with 10 hurdles.. or just keep it simple and make it 110HH.
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby run4urlyfe » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:15 am

leave every event the way they are now. If you want you can create a brand new event in addition to what is already there if not just leave it alone.
run4urlyfe
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:25 am

user4 wrote:Maybe we could just add a few other events. Perhaps an 80m HH with 10 hurdles.. or just keep it simple and make it 110HH.

The events could be made more technical by adding 3" to w100h and w400h and I think the spacing COULD stay the same. I think it would change the womens race to the shuffle steps that you see in the men.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby user4 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:36 am

batonless relay wrote:
user4 wrote:Maybe we could just add a few other events. Perhaps an 80m HH with 10 hurdles.. or just keep it simple and make it 110HH.

The events could be made more technical by adding 3" to w100h and w400h and I think the spacing COULD stay the same. I think it would change the womens race to the shuffle steps that you see in the men.


We could raise the mens hurdles too. Make it just a bit more of a leap / jump.
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby DJG » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:39 am

batonless relay wrote:
DJG wrote:So because a certain geographical group is un-competitive an event can not be made more competitive?

It really doesn't surprise me that you, as a fan wouldn't understand so I'll try to make it clear for you: THE EVENT IS NOT BEING MADE MORE COMPETITIVE BY RAISING THE BARRIER! There is a vast difference between MORE competitive and MORE technical. Making an event more technical (raising the standard) will not make it more competitive and it CERTAINLY won't make it more diverse (since that is what they're talking about). Do you get that? If you coached the sport on a level that garners proficiency you would. If you did, you would realize that the Europeans are just making excuses. Their athletes who suck also suck technically; raising the hurdles will not help them. There will be no "gains"; the event will not become more competitive. The number one component of the hurdles is speed. Speed over, speed to or speed between. When Europe finds hurdlers with these components, they are successful; when they don't, they're not. The question they should be asking themselves is why they're not trying to find FASTER sprinters to hurdle instead of raising the hurdles for "slower" ones. Because we can find NACAC hurdlers who are better than the fastest NACAC athletes technically, but slower than the fastest on the clock. And, those "slower" NACAC athletes are still faster than almost all of the Europeans.

But let's break the porcelain and recognize the pachyderm: there is a perception among many Europeans (and many Americans; yup, even the "liberal" ones) that NACAC (read: where you find fast athletes of W. African descent) is not capable of technical proficiency - even though, for hurdles, that's proven nonsense. It's this belief that making the event more "technical" (read: cerebral) that the NACAC coaches and athletes will not be able to keep up.


The un-competitive Europeans hurdles want Australian Sally Pearson to make their case for higher hurdle heights on the mistaken belief that they are more technically sound than the faster NACAC (?) hurdlers. The Europeans riding an elephant made of porcelain are more cerebral and therefore better equipped to handled the greater technical demands from raising the hurdle height three inches, because everyone knows that the technique of going over a hurdle 36 inches high takes more brain power than it does to clear a 33 inch hurdle.

Bottom line, you want diversity, good. So does the IAAF and the IOC, and so do I
That why only three (4 w/wildcard) athletes are allowed from each country.
You want more diversity in the finals of each event, hurdles for women in particular, run faster.

Hurdle events should demand hurdling proficiency, I think you agree with that.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:00 am

DJG wrote:The un-competitive Europeans hurdles want Australian Sally Pearson to make their case for higher hurdle heights on the mistaken belief that they are more technically sound than the faster NACAC (?) hurdlers. The Europeans riding an elephant made of porcelain are more cerebral and therefore better equipped to handled the greater technical demands from raising the hurdle height three inches, because everyone knows that the technique of going over a hurdle 36 inches high takes more brain power than it does to clear a 33 inch hurdle.

Bottom line, you want diversity, good. So does the IAAF and the IOC, and so do I
That why only three (4 w/wildcard) athletes are allowed from each country.
You want more diversity in the finals of each event, hurdles for women in particular, run faster.

Hurdle events should demand hurdling proficiency, I think you agree with that.

I do agree. Completely.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby DJG » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:07 am

batonless relay wrote:
DJG wrote:The un-competitive Europeans hurdles want Australian Sally Pearson to make their case for higher hurdle heights on the mistaken belief that they are more technically sound than the faster NACAC (?) hurdlers. The Europeans riding an elephant made of porcelain are more cerebral and therefore better equipped to handled the greater technical demands from raising the hurdle height three inches, because everyone knows that the technique of going over a hurdle 36 inches high takes more brain power than it does to clear a 33 inch hurdle.

Bottom line, you want diversity, good. So does the IAAF and the IOC, and so do I
That why only three (4 w/wildcard) athletes are allowed from each country.
You want more diversity in the finals of each event, hurdles for women in particular, run faster.

Hurdle events should demand hurdling proficiency, I think you agree with that.

I do agree. Completely.


Would raising the women's 100H heighte increase the premium placed on hurdling proficiency?
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:33 am

DJG wrote:
batonless relay wrote:
DJG wrote:The un-competitive Europeans hurdles want Australian Sally Pearson to make their case for higher hurdle heights on the mistaken belief that they are more technically sound than the faster NACAC (?) hurdlers. The Europeans riding an elephant made of porcelain are more cerebral and therefore better equipped to handled the greater technical demands from raising the hurdle height three inches, because everyone knows that the technique of going over a hurdle 36 inches high takes more brain power than it does to clear a 33 inch hurdle.

Bottom line, you want diversity, good. So does the IAAF and the IOC, and so do I
That why only three (4 w/wildcard) athletes are allowed from each country.
You want more diversity in the finals of each event, hurdles for women in particular, run faster.

Hurdle events should demand hurdling proficiency, I think you agree with that.

I do agree. Completely.


Would raising the women's 100H heighte increase the premium placed on hurdling proficiency?

Of course, but it also raises the premium on athletic ability. Speed is a function of the ability to produce force -so is jumping- as you know; the same athletes will just be required to make the adjustments. But, it will eliminate lesser athletes from consideration altogether. Rod Woodson, Ladji Doucure and Ryan Braithwaite were crappy technical hurdlers over 42", but they were either NCAA or WC champions because they were fast - and the mens highs are NOT considered low by anybody (except Stefan Holm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVZ3ZcorTF0).
Last edited by batonless relay on Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby user4 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:51 am

batonless relay wrote:Of course, but it also raises the premium on athletic ability. Speed is a function of the ability to produce force -so is jumping- as you know, the same athletes will just be required to make the adjustments. But, it will eliminate lesser athletes from consideration altogether. Rod Woodson, Ladji Doucure and Ryan Braithwaite were crappy technical hurdlers over 42", but they were either NCAA or WC champions because they were fast - and the mens highs are NOT considered low by anybody (except Stefan Holm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVZ3ZcorTF0).


was Ladji Doucure and Ryan Braithwaite really crappy over the hurdles ? .. I didnt think so... were they really fast ? ... I didnt know that.

No one gets to a 110final on speed alone and no one gets there without hurdling proficiency ...

My own sense is that, though the womens hurdles may be too low they certainly still require great hurdling proficiency to succeed.

It seems fundamental to the health of the sport that the hurdle events should test something other than flat speed. I think they do that now quite well. Could the women's event be improved in this regard with higher hurdles? That is a good question.
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby DJG » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:01 am

batonless relay wrote:
DJG wrote:
batonless relay wrote:
DJG wrote:The un-competitive Europeans hurdles want Australian Sally Pearson to make their case for higher hurdle heights on the mistaken belief that they are more technically sound than the faster NACAC (?) hurdlers. The Europeans riding an elephant made of porcelain are more cerebral and therefore better equipped to handled the greater technical demands from raising the hurdle height three inches, because everyone knows that the technique of going over a hurdle 36 inches high takes more brain power than it does to clear a 33 inch hurdle.

Bottom line, you want diversity, good. So does the IAAF and the IOC, and so do I
That why only three (4 w/wildcard) athletes are allowed from each country.
You want more diversity in the finals of each event, hurdles for women in particular, run faster.

Hurdle events should demand hurdling proficiency, I think you agree with that.

I do agree. Completely.


Would raising the women's 100H heighte increase the premium placed on hurdling proficiency?

Of course, but it also raises the premium on athletic ability. Speed is a function of the ability to produce force -so is jumping- as you know, the same athletes will just be required to make the adjustments. But, it will eliminate lesser athletes from consideration altogether. Rod Woodson, Ladji Doucure and Ryan Braithwaite were crappy technical hurdlers over 42", but they were either NCAA or WC champions because they were fast - and the mens highs are NOT considered low by anybody (except Stefan Holm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVZ3ZcorTF0).


I do not want to start another pissing contest between us, but giving what you' be just posted, how is what Pearson said "utter and complete horseshit"? Regardless of the motives and carnards
you attribute to European coaches, and I have absolutely no insights into what they think, if they favor raising the height also, even if they are mistaken that it will help their athletes, why should that matter to the question of making the hurldle events place more on hurdling ability?
As for eliminating lesser athletes from consideration altogether, I have no answer for you, I' m just a dummy who has always thought that that is what competiton does.
The fact that poor technical hurdlers sometimes win big events doesn't bother me in the least, particularly on the men's side. They were good enough, and that's good enough for me, no style points in T&F.
As Smoke said above this is nothing new, and I doubt anything new will come about this question.
But it was fun to discuss this with the posters here.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:03 am

user4 wrote:
batonless relay wrote:Of course, but it also raises the premium on athletic ability. Speed is a function of the ability to produce force -so is jumping- as you know, the same athletes will just be required to make the adjustments. But, it will eliminate lesser athletes from consideration altogether. Rod Woodson, Ladji Doucure and Ryan Braithwaite were crappy technical hurdlers over 42", but they were either NCAA or WC champions because they were fast - and the mens highs are NOT considered low by anybody (except Stefan Holm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVZ3ZcorTF0).


was Ladji Doucure and Ryan Braithwaite really crappy over the hurdles ? .. I didnt think so... were they really fast ? ... I didnt know that.

No one gets to a 110final on speed alone and no one gets there without hurdling proficiency ...

My own sense is that, though the womens hurdles may be too low they certainly still require great hurdling proficiency to succeed.

It seems fundamental to the health of the sport that the hurdle events should test something other than flat speed. I think they do that now quite well. Could the women's event be improved in this regard with higher hurdles? That is a good question.

good point; crappy is relative. But, that might also be said about w100h. Some of the athletes being described as needing more technical proficiency are not that bad or different from their counterparts (be they NACAC or EAA). The Lundquist, Rollins and Pearsons are few and far between.

To answer your question: the women's hurdles can be improved and I think it can be done by raising the hurdles 3".
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:14 am

DJG wrote:I do not want to start another pissing contest between us, but giving what you' be just posted, how is what Pearson said "utter and complete horseshit"? Regardless of the motives and carnards
you attribute to European coaches, and I have absolutely no insights into what they think, if they favor raising the height also, even if they are mistaken that it will help their athletes, why should that matter to the question of making the hurldle events place more on hurdling ability?

Pearson's view is the prevailing view of non-NACAC coaches/athletes; this is a raging debate within the Technical and coaching committees of the IAAF and the EAA's view (and others) is that you would see fewer NACAC athletes if the hurdles were raised. Also if you reread what you just wrote you realize that I didn't say the VIEW of raising the hurdles was horseshit (something I've re-affirmed in the previous posts), just that the view that it would eliminate the "sprinters" is horseshit. A narrow view when you consider that she's the FASTEST current hurdler slated for Moscow.

DJG wrote:As for eliminating lesser athletes from consideration altogether, I have no answer for you, I' m just a dummy who has always thought that that is what competiton does.
The fact that poor technical hurdlers sometimes win big events doesn't bother me in the least, particularly on the men's side. They were good enough, and that's good enough for me, no style points in T&F.
As Smoke said above this is nothing new, and I doubt anything new will come about this question.
But it was fun to discuss this with the posters here.

The lesser athletes are being eliminated now (at 33"); and I never implied that technical aesthetics were necessary for elite performances; I said that "sprinters" are still going to reign (addressing Pearson's comments that it would eliminate sprinters. It won't, it will do the opposite).
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby Smoke » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:48 am

batonless I am not following you. It is widely recognized that European hurdlers are superior technically. The argument is not a NACAC one, it is a technical one. Now some may thinkwhat you say but raising these hurdles for women would make it more competitive because the hurdles are the great equalizers. Take the men's race, TT was by far the fastest on the track, but due to those 10 barriers, he could not win based merely on his speed. Conversely, Gail, for all her greatness was able to out gun her competition. Lolo at her height was faster than her competition. Sally the last 2 years has been faster than her competition. Having seen Brianna this year, I would guess she is too.
All I am saying is give us those 3 inches, and lets see. Some argue about the elimination of shorter women, well hell, that is what we are in the business of. I do not see any tears for the 5'9" high schooler that could not run the 110s in college.
The frustration is this is not a difficult call. Just do it. We will immediately adjust. Happily. The record books would adjust, the same as they did for yards to meters. It is not a big deal. I knwo one adjustment, we will have to teach women how to tuck and roll! :lol:
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby DJG » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:01 am

batonless relay wrote:
DJG wrote:I do not want to start another pissing contest between us, but giving what you' be just posted, how is what Pearson said "utter and complete horseshit"? Regardless of the motives and carnards
you attribute to European coaches, and I have absolutely no insights into what they think, if they favor raising the height also, even if they are mistaken that it will help their athletes, why should that matter to the question of making the hurldle events place more on hurdling ability?

Pearson's view is the prevailing view of non-NACAC coaches/athletes; this is a raging debate within the Technical and coaching committees of the IAAF and the EAA's view (and others) is that you would see fewer NACAC athletes if the hurdles were raised. Also if you reread what you just wrote you realize that I didn't say the VIEW of raising the hurdles was horseshit (something I've re-affirmed in the previous posts), just that the view that it would eliminate the "sprinters" is horseshit. A narrow view when you consider that she's the FASTEST current hurdler slated for Moscow.

DJG wrote:As for eliminating lesser athletes from consideration altogether, I have no answer for you, I' m just a dummy who has always thought that that is what competiton does.
The fact that poor technical hurdlers sometimes win big events doesn't bother me in the least, particularly on the men's side. They were good enough, and that's good enough for me, no style points in T&F.
As Smoke said above this is nothing new, and I doubt anything new will come about this question.
But it was fun to discuss this with the posters here.

The lesser athletes are being eliminated now (at 33"); and I never implied that technical aesthetics were necessary for elite performances; I said that "sprinters" are still going to reign (addressing Pearson's comments that it would eliminate sprinters. It won't, it will do the opposite).


You are correct that the 'sprinters', at least the good ones, will not suddenly decide to give up the hurdles if the height is raised. As for the debate at the IAAF committee, they should be careful about what they wish for, because raising the women's height for the hurdles will not favor any group of athletes, except the one that hurdles well and runs fast. But , I confess, I have a hard time distinguishing the 'sprinters' from the 'hurdlers' in the short sprint/hurdle events. My preference is someone who can do both well. If the Europeans think this is the way to help their athletes get on the podium, they are in for a rude awakening.
I won't be holding my breathe waiting for the IAAF to decide anything on this topic.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: Sally Pearson wants sprint hurdles to go higher !!

Postby batonless relay » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:21 am

Smoke wrote:batonless I am not following you. It is widely recognized that European hurdlers are superior technically.

That was years ago. NACAC hurdle coaching has closed that gap. Watch the following races and aside from the HD quality there is not much difference between the European technique and the NACAC ones. Note: speed wins the Euro race
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XURfcCy6rQo - EC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTWQhbawm4Y - NCAA

Smoke wrote:The argument is not a NACAC one, it is a technical one. Now some may thinkwhat you say but raising these hurdles for women would make it more competitive because the hurdles are the great equalizers.

I seriously doubt that. Speed is the best equalizer; more so than technique. Raising the hurdles only make it harder to negotiate with lazy trail knees, but the added 3" will be benefit because the better athletes (faster) will still be moving faster.

Smoke wrote:Take the men's race, TT was by far the fastest on the track...It is not a big deal. I knwo one adjustment, we will have to teach women how to tuck and roll! :lol:

Again, re-read my posts from the beginning and you will see that I'm not against raising the hurdles and I also agree that it will require more technical proficiency AND possibly be a better race. But the adjustments in NACAC will be made. The problem I have is the belief that "sprinters" will not be able to compete. I think that's horseshit. It's as if the belief is that the adjustments CAN'T be made.

What Europe needs to do is stop trying to figure out ways to be competitive and get back to the job of talent identification and development; what they should be doing is finding 11.3/4 girls who can run hurdles; maybe they need to begin with the below list.

11.20+ 0.2 Anyika Onuora  GBR
11.20 -0.2 Asha Philip  GBR
11.22 1.3 Tatjana Pinto  GER
11.23 2.0 Viktoriya Yarushkina  RUS
11.26 1.0 Stella Akakpo  FRA
11.27 1.1 Nataliya Pohrebnyak  UKR
11.28 0.9 Katsiaryna Hanchar  BLR
11.29 -0.2 Yekaterina Kuzina  RUS
11.30 1.2 Ezinne Okparaebo  NOR
11.30 1.3 Myriam Soumaré  FRA
11.31 0.5 Lina Grinčikaitė  LTU
11.31 1.8 Hayley Jones  GBR
11.31 0.9 Céline Distel-Bonnet  FRA
11.32+ 0.2 Jodie Williams  GBR
11.33 1.1 Hrystyna Stuy  UKR
11.34 -0.2 Yuliya Kashina  RUS
11.34 1.5 Kateřina Čechová  CZE
11.34 1.3 Ayodelé Ikuesan  FRA
11.35 NJR 1.7 Iréne Ekelund  SWE
11.35 -0.2 Yuliya Katsura  RUS
11.36 1.3 Hanna-Maari Latvala  FIN
11.36 1.8 Annabelle Lewis  GBR
11.37 0.7 Andreea Ogrăzeanu  ROU
11.38 -0.3 Dina Asher-Smith  GBR
11.39 0.7 Inna Weit  GER
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], f/f and 4 guests