masterstrack.com

Typically, the hurdlers who need to chop their strides between hurdles are at the elite level in open competition. Having competed in national masters meets dozens of times, I have not seen that situation. In most cases, it's just the opposite -- guys trying to reach to get the next hurdler. I don't see how moving the hurdles farther apart helps that. Can you three-step hurdles at the olympic spacing?

I could train as hard and long as possible to do that and could not possibly do so. I ran that distance in the 45 bracket and it was difficult then. I have not become any faster in the 10 years since. Though I can make it over a hurdle or two at your specs, it's pretty ugly and pretty slow. Do you know any 50 or 60 year olds who can three step that distance?

I think the best thing you could do would be to host some meets with the proposed specs and see how it goes before imposing it at a national level. I'd also like to see a list of names of those who support the proposal. From what I've seen on this group and the old yahoo group, most of the posts were opposed to the proposed specs.

As for why the specs are what they are now, who knows? I suspect they were adjusted to keep the character of the event similar to what it was for the hurdlers when they were younger, taking three steps between hurdles.

If you want to keep the spacing the same for everyone, why does it change in the oldest group? Why do you lower the hurdles as the hurdlers get older? Couldn't they just adapt and train for it as you suggest? Come to think of it, they wouldn't have to adapt since they have been running that height and distance since college. My point is that the hurdles are adjusted through the age brackets to allow the hurdlers to continue to run the race in the manner to which they are accustomed. As you get older, the hurdles get lower and closer together so a three-step race is still possible.

I wonder if Courtland Gray, the best in the world at his age, could three step even the lowest hurdles at olympic spacing. I'd be surprised. Courtland, have ever tried this? Sorry to say, I'd have to bet against you on completing a full flight.

As a meet manager, I've never found setting up hurdles to be a problem, and I still think this is what drives the proposal -- simplified meet management. I don't think there is much support among hurdlers. Have you ever conducted a survey among all of the hurdlers at nationals?

a) Can I 3 step at the olympic spacing? yes

b) Do you know any 50 or 60 year olds who can three step that distance? Many in their 50's, and I'm confident there are some in their 60's that can 3 step. Just a quick list of M50's that would have no trouble 3-stepping the proposed specs:

Druckery, Stan
Wilson, Thaddeus
Price, Stacey
Bujalski, Philip
Murray, William
Broun, James
Zahn, Robert
McKinley, Brian

I have no doubt that Courtland could 3 step my proposal. Nevertheless, 3-stepping is not my goal. My goal is to provide specs that maintain the spirit of the event while making allowances for the decreasing performance of the master's athlete. You appear to be fixated on 3-stepping, which is a learned technique that some hurdlers can do, and some can't. I don't believe leadership should implement rules for any event that focus on supporting a particular technique (which subsequently then harms the chances of other athletes). How the athlete wins the race is up to the athlete. (See the bottom).

c) List of supporters: I can provide that. Put your email address in your profile or send it to me at hurdle4fun at hotmail.com

d) ". . . why does it (spacing) change in the oldest group?" Spacing between the hurdles doesn't change in the proposal.

e) Why do you lower the hurdles as the hurdlers get older? To offset the performance loss due to aging. Lower hurdles provide less of an interruption to the stride, which allows the trained hurdler to maintain better speed.

f) Couldn't they just adapt and train for it as you suggest? 1st of all, hurdlers can definitely train and adapt to a whole variety of things. Regarding what I suggest, you'll need to reread information in this forum or on the website for my suggestions.

g) Have you ever conducted a survey among all of the hurdlers at nationals? No. Some don't want more participation. Some don't want more competiton. Some want their medals or records in a poorly-attended event. Some are hesitant to change because of the dedication they've put into training for an event, understandably. These things color their perspective. Unwillingness to change, fortunately, doesn't equal inability to do so. While the "desires" of current hurdlers have been heard and will be heard, they are not the only voices in this issue.

Ok, hopefully I haven't overlooked some of your questions.

Would you please take time to justify the current specs, that's all I ask. Just provide research/evidence/anything to justify the current specs. THIS IS THE MAJOR ISSUE. DON'T AVOID IT, PLEASE.

If you can't, tell us why you can't, and tell us why you won't consider change in light of the fact that the current specs can't be justified.

You seem to want to focus on a technique. That's akin to focusing on rules to allow the high jumper to flop better than the scissor jumper, or implementing rules to allow the shot put glider to throw better than the spinner. You don't change an event to fit a technique. Period.

Regarding Jeff B’s proposal for hurdle specification change:I am open to what ever the majority wants. I just enjoy the competition.
HOWEVER – the Masters hurdlers that I have an opportunity to speak with have ALL stated “no change.”

Question # 1: Will this change reduce the number of injuries?I was amazed how many Masters hurdlers were injured during 2005 and 2006. “Injury Management” is important and a term that was shared by our hurdler friend from Wisc. on being wise on how to prevent / reduce injuries. Ken Stone has mentioned the term “occupational hazard” regarding the number of Masters hurdlers that have been injured.

Question # 2: Will this change increase the number of hurdlers competing?I have to give Jeff Brower and Andy Hecker a large thank you for all their efforts to bring more people to the local meets, and indirectly bring more hurdlers into the meets as well.

Height of the hurdle: One M70+ masters hurdler shared with me several years ago that it took him an additional 1.0 second to complete the 60 meter hurdles when they were 3” taller in height. By comparison, looking over the 2006 National Outdoor Championship meet results the M85 and M90 high jump were won at 3’-5.25” (1.05) and the M85 high jump was won at 3’-9.25” (1.15). Since the goal is to “run” hurdles and not “jump” hurdles, it makes a lot of sense to use either 27” or 30” tall hurdles for those age brackets. The problem with the 27” height is that many of the local colleges / local high schools do not carry hurdles with this height; hence scissor hurdlers or duct taping the hurdle to the side can be used while training at this height.

Advantage of Jeff B’s proposal: (a) less setup time, (b) easier for officials and meet directors, (c) tracks are already marked with these settings, and (d) potential of more hurdlers competing.

Disadvantage of Jeff B’s proposal: (a) resistance from many Masters hurdlers, (b) more difficult for some to “three step”, (c) buy in from the WAVA community – if the USA changes, would the world change it specs?

The 1968 Masters Track and Field Outdoor Championships:
Based on Olson’s book, it appears that the first championship (1968) did not include the hurdles event. Ugh! Thankfully they were added later.

How did we get our current hurdle specs: David Pain, Al Sheahen, Peter Mundle, Rex Harvey, WAVA, and others have assisted with many of the standards used today. I would like to add from what I have read from past National Masters News magazine reports and from studying Peter Mundle’s Single-Age-Records book it shows that in the 1960’s and 1970’s there was a great deal of experimenting with the heights and spacing
. . . all those efforts helped established what is being used in 2006. Several months ago I published a suggestion on-line to see if other Masters hurdlers would be willing to attend one meet and try the different spacing and different heights – from the response that I saw, it appeared few were interested in changing the specs., and few desired an opportunity to get injured.

42” Tall High Hurdles: In case there is those that are curious. The past two seasons there have been several M40-49 Masters hurdlers that have competed successful over the 42” hurdles against the college and open athletes. I personally know of at least five athletes. Of these five, at least two of these five run the 39” much faster than the 42”.

All Comer Meets: Few all comer meets are able to change hurdle settings for one Masters hurdler – so I just enjoy the moment! And run at their spacing and their heights.

Jeff B – thank you again for getting everyone to brain storm about how to get more people involved with the Masters track and field meets, and our favorite hurdle event.

Hope all have a great 2007 season!
- Jeff Davison
- M45 Bracket
- http://www.woodhurdles.com

Im sorry Jeff, but I can't 3 step at your proposed spacing. As a matter of fact the pins in my ankle are a result of a "crash and burn" resulting from my efforts a a novice master (3 years ago) before I knew the spacing that my age group ran at! ( trying to run at international 110 spacing). I came up short at the second hurdle and tried to jump it anyway and spent the night in surgury! The hurdle race in my opinion is meant to be run with three steps and over with your prefered lead leg, otherwise you cannot run "all out" but must either short step or change lead legs. Neither makes the race comfortable or natural especially for those of us over 50. If you check with Stacy who is in your list he is opposed to the proposal and so is Courtland. I do know you are trying to stimulate discussion and change for the good and I appreciate your efforts, but as one ages it is a physiological fact that stride length decreases and the current system has spacing between hurdles that accounts for this. I do not know who devised it but after my long recovery and with a little training it seemed to be very natural and comfortable for me! This is personal data, but still valid as I am as testament to the fact that the present system works. My degree is in Health and Phyiscal Education, not that it means anything other than I am fairly aware of how the aging process changes physical abilities; so the decreasing spacing in the older age groups make all the sense in the world to me. Are you familiar with the Australian proposals for hurdle spec changes? They can be found on the internet and favor even lesser distances than current specs. The WMA turned them down but the justification paper can be found online. I thank you for your efforts to improve the race but I am not in favor of the specs in your proposal as I can't run the race comfortably at that spacing. Believe me, I have tried because I train at a high school and get some flack for running from the "ladies marks" so from time to time I have jumped in only to pull out at hurdle two to keep from crashing. For me...the current spacing works. By the way, what is the word on your protest of the results at Charlotte. I have not heard one way or the other. Best to you and the other hurdlers. "Keep on trackin"

Well said, Jimmy.

This list ...

Druckery, Stan
Wilson, Thaddeus
Price, Stacey
Bujalski, Philip
Murray, William
Broun, James
Zahn, Robert
McKinley, Brian

... is pretty short. None of them are 60. I doubt as Jimmy verified that the rest of that group could do three steps for a full race let alone a few hurdles. Druckrey says he can't do it. I don't have email for many of the others, but I'll check around.

The rationale for keeping the specs close to what they are is to retain the ability to three-step a race. It's what you do in high school, college and at least until now, masters. Some may take an extra step or two at times but most run the three steps between hurdles.

I don't see the point in changing. Would you get more entrants? Is that goal? Is it easier administration of a meet? Those seem like secondary considerations. To me, the goal in setting the specs should be to retain the character of the event, making concessions to age by adjusting spacing and heights.

So you haven't surveyed the hurdlers, and you haven't tested these races with any exhibitions. You just developed this on a whim?

I guess I still don't see what problem the spec changes solve. Seems like it creates more problems.

I also don't see how you can adapt to the event as you get older. Hurdle height alone won't get it done as far as allowing you to still make three steps between, but you won't know that until you get to be my age.

How about putting this aside until you get a little older? Or maybe consulting the hurdlers at indoor and outdoor nationals? Or maybe having some meets where this could be attempted?

If I read the specs correctly, the older categories had a longer approach to the first hurdle and then the same spacing as everyone else. Why do they have a longer run to the first hurdle? Was this tested? Did you conduct a survey for some input?

How do you know these specs have any merit? You ask for justification about the current specs but have not made a case for new ones.

speedz - Please identify yourself, name & age. You think it's OK for people to answer your questions, and not expect you to do the same. You are wrong. It's apparent to me you're not reading all the facts, and I'm not interested in repeating and/or reasoning with a closed mind. We can agree to disagree and that's that.

(BTW, I'm extremely capable of throwing "darts" in forums, and I can demean other opinions just as well as you. It takes no talent and produces no fruit. I won't back down, but I may choose not to waste my time, either. To the rest of this reading audience, you can explain why you're so threatened, defensive and scared of change.)

Jim, thanks for the great input, and I respect your position. As I've written before, the greatest advantage the "incumbents" have is the fact that the current specs are in place. No one can justify these specs, but they're in place and that's what folks have been training on for years.

Training for years . . . Imagine what YEARS of training on different specs would produce.

Naturally, there are many experienced, great hurdlers that don't want to learn some new specs. (Does age have anything to do with this?) Why on earth would a medalist or record-holder want to change? In fact, a few would adamantly oppose change if their records got replaced or wiped out. Some, sadly, don't want more competition or more participation. I believe the reasonable person can see the psychology behind this. It's predictable.

Well, obviously those that hold these positions can argue against change for self-centered reasons, but what's best for the sport is paramount.

Thankfully, most are not self-centered, but let's not be naive and think they don't exist or don't post on forums such as this. I'm hoping objective minds prevail. I could be wrong. Could be part of my proposal is adopted, and part is not. I firmly believe that any change should be accompanied by a commitment for further analysis and additional changes down the road as supported by data.

One of our philosophical differences is around 3-stepping. I've asked this question before, and will ask it again: When do you know you have the right specs for an age-group? What is the measureable criteria that defines success?

It should be easy to understand that the opinions of top hurdlers is "colored." While the opinions of the top hurdlers shouldn't be ignored, it must be tempered. Neither should the opinions of the multi-eventers or the not-as-proficient hurdlers be ignored or treated as "absolutely right". The elite hurdler may think their opinion is the most important. Imagine that! This has truly become a "trees versus the forest" issue.

I believe new specs are needed, AND analysis must continue for years to tweak them as needed.

The folks that came up with the current specs didn't have the information (i.e., AGF tables) we do now, and I believe they pretty much rolled the dice, took a shot and proposed some specs, and it got rubber-stamped in place. I believe there are hundreds of variations in the HH specs that could be suggested, and you can't convince me that you're only capable of the current set. Do you sincerely believe there is only 1 set of specs you can train with and conquer?

In an event such as ours, a change to the specs is a BIG deal, and one that will require careful training for. It's not like some thrower that's told he gets to throw a shot 2 lbs lighter than before. A hurdle spec change will require training. Some will pick it up faster than others, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that some needed weeks or months to finally get comfortable with a change.

I've read the Australian proposal, and thought it was an unjustified nightmare. I didn't know it had been proposed formally, so I certainly didn't know it had been turned down by WMA. Do you have a link or more info regarding what you wrote?

The Charlotte results will be reviewed this week by the Jury of Appeals. We'll see. (I don't really care about the outcome, but there's one official that needs to know he's accountable.)

Jeff inquires about the history of the Aussie hurdles proposal.

Here's all I know:
http://masterstrack.com/blog/000597.html

Unfortunately, the masterstf mailing list has crashed or been closed -- and the archive of my postings on the Aussie hurdle ideas has been lost.



But this site summarizes the Aussie plan:
http://www.bvaf.org.uk/hurdleschanges.htm

I have a few thoughts on the proposal to change the hurdle races.

1. I don't support a change to the current specifications.

2. A question was asked as to why the current specifications are what they are. The current specifications for my age group (M50 – 59) have the same spacing and are 3 inches higher than high school girls. Sprinters in my age group (M50 – 59) are about as fast as high school girls. If you look at the ranking list (100, 200 meter) for our age groups you will see that we would be very competitive if we were running against above average high school female sprinters. It makes sense to me that we run a hurdle race that matches our sprint speed.

3. I don’t think that changing the specifications are going to increase participation. It has been my experience that many people are afraid of running the hurdles. The idea of running over 10 metal and hard plastic barriers at full speed is very scary regardless of the height or spacing.

4. One of the arguments for a change is to make life easier for meet directors. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a meet director that complains that it is too hard to set up a flight of hurdles that do not correspond to the permanent markings on the track. When they advertised that their meet would have hurdle races for masters in all age groups they have a responsibility to provide those races. If it is too much trouble for them to do that, they should get out of the meet director business. As for slowing down a meet, setting up hurdles will always do that, but I get the feeling that the spectator’s feel that the wait is worth it. The hurdle race is one of the most exciting events to watch. I don’t think that most spectators care that they had to wait a few extra minutes while they were being set up.

5. My name was on a list of hurdlers that supposedly have no trouble running a full flight at the proposed specifications. We will never know if I can do it unless the specifications are changed. I have no intention of risking injury just to satisfy someone else’s curiosity.


Thad Wilson
M56 Hurdler/Sprinter/Horizontal Jumper

The Aussie suggested specs are more reasonable than the specs Jeff suggests. However, I still support the current specs, though minor tweaks may be in order in some division.

Thad makes good points, particularly equating the speed of hurdlers in his division to the speed of high school girls, which run the same specs but three inches lower.

As said before, there's nothing you can do to make hurdles a one-size fits all type of race - unless everyone sets their own spacing - which still seems like a more reasonable proposal. I often run in races with various heights and distances in adjoining lanes, and it's not a problem. It would be a problem trying to run a spacing not suited for a three-step pattern as Thad says.

As for "throwing darts," I'm not sure what darts were thrown. If you make a proposal, it seems like you open the concept to criticism. That's what these forums are about - to exchange ideas. There has been no personal attacks from anyone in these posts that I've read, just critiques of the proposal.

Jeff argues that the current specs are not justified but what justifies the proposed specs - other than "simplified" meet management (which seems like a poor reason to change specs)?

Let's keep the dialog going. Maybe we can arrive at a reasonable solution. Anyone care to discuss the Aussie specs? I'd be willling to give those a go.

I've read the posts and am trying to catch up on what's going on.

From my perspective, I have enough trouble with the race as it is, and the proposal does nothing to make it easier (for the hurdlers). How does making it more difficult enhance participation?

I think I'm missing something here. Is the point to make it easier to set up the hurdles?

Sorry to join late and ask for more info, but I'm new to this discussion. Looks like Jim, Thad and speedz made good points, but I'm not sure what they are responding to. Can someone summarize what's happening?

Robert Zahn
M52

Hi Jeff Brower (Texas),
From reading the responses so far,
I still see four questions:
(1) how do we reduce injuries to hurdlers?
(Does changing the specs. decrease injuries?)
(2) how do we increase the number of participants?
(Does changing the specs. increase participants?)
(3) how to get "buy in" from the WAVA community?
(4) Is 3-stepping what everyone wants,
or is this negotitable? (It appears most
prefer to have the spacing to be able
to three step).


Regards,
Jeff Davison
Laguna Hills, Calif.
jad-calif@cox.net
http://www.woodhurdles.com

I think Jeff Brower will be in Indy, starting today or tomorrow. But I'm not sure when the hurdle-specs proposal will come up during the Rules Committee sessions -- which last pretty much all day Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

They have an "Internet cafe" at the host hotels for the USATF annual meeting, so I'm hoping Jeff reports on what went down.

Jeff also will learn the fate of his appeal against a Charlotte referee's ruling a week after the meet (the reversed DQ in the M45 short hurdles). That issue is discussed here:

http://masterstrack.com/blog/001087.html
http://masterstrack.com/blog/001089.html

Time for me to throw my hat in the discussion -

Bob Zahn has chime in - Bob you can not longer three step a race at the old spacing and height can you - I know Stan can not and same for Bill Murray - I switched to 4 step in M45 for the last part of a race -

Switching from current system has all kind of implications - records are out the window - what happens in combined events - will the USA do one thing and the rest of the world something else - so if you go to Worlds then what?

lets run standard 110 spacing for everyone and the good get penalized - the fast hurdlers now must 4 or 5 step like the rest of us and it brings them back to the pack - is that fair or right?

The other point about 27" hurdles - they are available - just not in catalogs - Gill does have them - not sure about others - also - most L shaped (not HS rocker type) can be modified to work -

I will be at the meeting and voice my feelings

Me- Jeff Watry M51 - need to be running well to three step a whole race at current settings - since I have learned how to four step - spacing what may help me is not what I feel is best - as for where did the spacing come from - the M50 using womens is common sense - as we age our stride does get shorter - for M50 the marks where already ther so use them - for the rest you see a .5m shortening going on - so that again makes sense - easy to measure with a metric tape - we do it for every masters - in fact Carthage College where the Masters Indoor Hept let us mark them on the track - and they have a flight or 27" hurdles

[quote="Jeff Davison"]Hi Jeff Brower (Texas),
From reading the responses so far,
I still see four questions:
(1) how do we reduce injuries to hurdlers?
(Does changing the specs. decrease injuries?)
(2) how do we increase the number of participants?
(Does changing the specs. increase participants?)
(3) how to get "buy in" from the WAVA community?
(4) Is 3-stepping what everyone wants,
or is this negotitable? (It appears most
prefer to have the spacing to be able
to three step).
[quote]

Jeff,

Thanks for the summary.

My thoughts on the questions...

(1) Injuries probably are not much of a factor in determining specs unless the hurdles are too high for most participants. Spacing is not much of a factor since it affects everyone differently -- what's optimimum for one is problematic for another.

(2) Participation level probably should not be a criterion in setting specs. Obviously, the lower the hurdle and further apart they are probably allows for greater participation. With that reasoning just have everyone run 27" hurdles and pull out every other hurdle -- but I wouldn't support that. I think someone else talked about retaining the character of the event. I don't mind adjustments where needed as long as the three-step pattern has a reasonable chance of being maintained. Would more participate at a wider spacing or fewer? Does it matter? Is the wider spacing being driven by a handful of elite runners who might still make that wider spacing as they get older?

(Jeff Watry: You are right, I can't 3-step the longer distance anymore -- I tried this last night and it was ugly regardless of hurdle height.)

(3) Not sure WAVA would buy into this. I'm still trying to figure out what's driving the need to change.

(4) I think 3-stepping is a big part of this -- at least for current participants who can't 4-step. I can see where a 4-stepper would like this setup -- though I suspect at about age 60, you would be forced to 5 step.

If the problem is meet administration, maybe we should figure out a way to make that easier (like painting color-coded markings on the track or something).

Jeff Watry: Good points about how stride shortens, etc., as you age. I wouldn't expect younger hurdlers proposing the new specs to understand that until they get there. I didn't appreciate the differences when I was younger, either. Turning 50 (with the shorter spacing) made hurdling fun (possible) again. I remember some of the M45 races turning into bounding contests late in the race. You also make good points about records and scoring for multis.

Jeff Brower: Thanks for taking the time to take a look at this. I haven't taken time to study your proposal thoroughly, and I don't think I could run the highs anymore at your specs. I'd probably have to more to 400 meter hurdles. But the discussion is interesting. I'm not sure what the rationale should be in setting the specs -- other than attempting to keep the event similar to what it was when you were younger (ability to 3-step and clear the obstacles).

Jeff Brower has stated in previous postings that I could 3 step with his proposed spacings and suggested heights. Although I have not tried or trained at Jeff's specifications, I am of the opinion that I would crash and burn if I tried to 3 step his proposed specs. Jeff and I and others discussed this at length at Indianapolis. His motion was basicaly tabled until additional information, statistics and athlete input is available. If you are a hurdler, expect to hear from Jeff.

Bill Murray