26mi235 wrote:Again, why in the world you change the event that is widely believed to be the most competitive in track and field and to be the event with the least ducking (by far?). May be the nature of the event is related to the technical specifications and changing them would alter the competitive make up.
Because right now it is not a hurdles race but a 100m with speed bumps
That's not true. Currently it IS a hurdle race, only that the level of difficulty might not be enough; but make no mistake, it's still a skill. And, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread: the top women run over 36" hurdles in practice right now (hell, I've seen some over 39"). The game won't change; you'll just be creating barriers to entry for the same lesser athletes who think their technique over hurdles 3" lower will translate to the 36". It won't. It will be harder for them to maintain what little speed they have, for the ones who aren't fast, to carry them for 3 steps between hurdles.
The issue: is not the hurdles height or that sprinters can run over them, it's that too many countries are not developing their athletes to be competitive on a global stage. If you have a 13.1 hurdler, maybe you need to move her up the 400m hurdles. If you have an 11.4 sprinter maybe you need to convert her to the long jump or the 400m. If you don't have any sub-13's or sub-11.10's why are you not asking why? The sport has a development problem, and it's that unequal development that is leading to a sport where 90% of the countries can barely qualify for globals.