masterstrack.com

The No. 1 site for masters track discussions

Login | Register

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 

Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:33 pm

Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm
Posts: 5
Location: apopka, florida

Anyone going to national meeting in Indianapolis and discuss hurdle issues?



Top Top
  Profile

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:50 pm

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
User avatar
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: San Diego

I think Jeff Brower will.

_________________
Ken Stone
http://www.masterstrack.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:50 am

 
Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm
Posts: 5
Location: apopka, florida

Expected that, but who will speak for hurdlers?



Top Top
  Profile

Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:26 am

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:47 pm
Posts: 71
Location: sarasota, florida

I'll second that jumpin joe!

_________________
Jimmy Broun



Top Top
  Profile

Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:45 am

 
Offline
Journeyman Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:20 am
Posts: 39
Location: rochester, n.y. area

I, for one, hope that the hurdle specs are left alone! Yes, by may age the 100m hurdles are an adventure, but I don't want the challenge lessened. The event will change for me when I turn 60, and that's soon enough. And in the intermediates, I do not look forward to the day when the challenge of the 400m hurdles is behind me--not by choice, but because the event isn't contested.
So I hope Jeff's well-meaning rule change is defeated.

Bill Pontius
m56 hurdles



Top Top
  Profile

Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:43 am

Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:19 am
Posts: 9

Agree that the proposal as stated should be defeated. I can't see how an M50 guy could three-step hurdles at the Olympic spacing. Probably not an issue for the 4-step hurdlers but how many can pull off that trick?

Hope there's someone there to inject some reason into the discussion from the hurdlers' perspective and not just make this a decision driven by administrators who are looking out for their own interests.



Top Top
  Profile

Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:02 pm

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:47 pm
Posts: 71
Location: sarasota, florida

Exactly, the men's 50-59 guys would either have to change lead legs or 5 step making it something where you could not run "all out". Besides the markings for 50-59 are on all tracks already as they are the womens marks, so it is not difficult for meet management to set up. It is another case as you hit 60 but the spacing seems to work well so that the 60+ hurdler can still make steps as his stride shortens. I think the current spacing was well thought out! With proper preparation and help from the age group hurdlers in setting up their races we can continue to run what the rest of the world runs! It seems to be non hurdlers or younger hurdlers who want to change races they are not even old enough to run in! The last time this topic came up it was apparent that the majority wanted to leave the hurdles alone. International standards should be upheld. "Long live the integrity of the race!" Thats my two cents.

_________________
Jimmy Broun



Top Top
  Profile

Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:49 am

Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:08 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Perhaps we can reason together. Hope all my fellow hurdlers are doing well.

The initial reaction to ANY change is "Why change it? Leave it alone, everything's
fine." Afterall, you've been training for years on certain specs, and you're
in your comfort zone.

It's a predictable response, and I understand it fully. But not wanting to
change doesn't mean you are unable to do so. Fundamentally, the issue
comes down to what's best for the sport versus what's best for a few. So
please consider what's best for the sport in your thoughts.

One problem regarding the current specs is justification. Where did they
come up with these specs, and what data supports them?

Six things can be altered regarding the Masters HH, so there are actually
thousands of possible variations that they could be set to. Who's able to
say the current settings are ideal, and provide evidence to that fact?
(No one has been able to do so yet.)

Why are ALL women over 39 and men over 59 UNABLE to go to a track and set up their
HH race on common available marks? What impact does this have on participation?

So, back to the question, "why change it?". How about "Why keep it?"

Regarding some specific comments,

Bill - How will the proposal lessen the challenge? Is it a substantial change?

Speedz - Many can three step these settings in the proposal, but an event shouldn't
be altered to fit a particular technique. Analogy - Shall some throwers get together
and try to pass a rule that benefits gliders versus spinners? The main problem with
spacing changes is that they don't help ALL hurdlers! Some will be helped, some won't.
We shouldn't change an event specificataion that harms anyone! (If you'd like to see
some videos of masters athletes reducing their steps to fit 3 steps in the spacing,
and consequently running slower, I can provide that.)

Jimmy - What hurdlers are running "all out" now? What data do you have regarding
the M60 spacing being right? What evidence do you have regarding the current
specs being "well thought out?" Hurdlers in their 50's, 60's & 70's helped
develop the current proposal, so what non-hurdlers/younger hurdlers are you referring
to in your comments? What majority are you referring to? My communications with
hurdlers and potentials hurdlers shows a clear majority WANT CHANGE (Two to one).
Please justify your statement regarding the "integrity" of the current specs.
FYI - to make a worldwide change, the change must first be adopted by a country
(makes sense - why propose a change worldwide if you can't get support in your own
country.) My point is that a worldwide change will be sought after approval in the USA.

It's easy to make casual statements in a public forum. Please rise above that and
make intelligent injections that clearly prove your point. Opinions are fine, but
not worth as much as statements with supported data.

The current proposal was created by hurdlers only, both genders, multiple age-groups.
It is based on the age-graded tables which document the performance drop in masters.

I believe you're all mature, responsible & accountable individuals that have more
than an opinion to share, i.e., data supporting your comments. This issue would
have gone away if the currents specs had simply been justified. One need only look
at them closely to see multiple problems with them.

Do not be afraid of this change. Give it a chance, and give it the same training
focus you've given the current specs. Give yourself credit, and don't for a second
try to convince someone that you're capable of ONLY handling one out of a thousand
different spec settings.

Folks, I understand not wanting to change. Work past that, and come up with logical
justification. A great exercise would be to for each of you to individually start at
the open specs and then create HH specs for masters for each 5 year age-group.

It'll open your eyes.
http://waterlootrackandfield.org/hurdles/
Jeff Brower

_________________
Jeff Brower



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:59 pm

Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm
Posts: 5
Location: apopka, florida

Would like to see copy of the proposal. Sounds like it's been well researched. Am always for improvement. Don't know, exactly, how present hurdle specs were determined, but do remember the evolutionary process has involved the experiences of outstanding hurdlers and their maturation process (i.e. research). That and personal experience is justification enough for me, but I'm still open to change for improvement. Perspective is central to any issue (in this case it's easier to see where we've been than where we're going) and I have a great appreciation for those guys that came along ahead of me, devised these hurdle specs so I can still enjoy the race. I think if I trained for the 110m X 42" hurdles, I could get through all 10 without hurting myself very bad, but I won't because it wouldn't be as much fun as present system. :)

joe johnston

hurdle4fun wrote:
Perhaps we can reason together. Hope all my fellow hurdlers are doing well.

The initial reaction to ANY change is "Why change it? Leave it alone, everything's
fine." Afterall, you've been training for years on certain specs, and you're
in your comfort zone.

It's a predictable response, and I understand it fully. But not wanting to
change doesn't mean you are unable to do so. Fundamentally, the issue
comes down to what's best for the sport versus what's best for a few. So
please consider what's best for the sport in your thoughts.

One problem regarding the current specs is justification. Where did they
come up with these specs, and what data supports them?

Six things can be altered regarding the Masters HH, so there are actually
thousands of possible variations that they could be set to. Who's able to
say the current settings are ideal, and provide evidence to that fact?
(No one has been able to do so yet.)

Why are ALL women over 39 and men over 59 UNABLE to go to a track and set up their
HH race on common available marks? What impact does this have on participation?

So, back to the question, "why change it?". How about "Why keep it?"

Regarding some specific comments,

Bill - How will the proposal lessen the challenge? Is it a substantial change?

Speedz - Many can three step these settings in the proposal, but an event shouldn't
be altered to fit a particular technique. Analogy - Shall some throwers get together
and try to pass a rule that benefits gliders versus spinners? The main problem with
spacing changes is that they don't help ALL hurdlers! Some will be helped, some won't.
We shouldn't change an event specificataion that harms anyone! (If you'd like to see
some videos of masters athletes reducing their steps to fit 3 steps in the spacing,
and consequently running slower, I can provide that.)

Jimmy - What hurdlers are running "all out" now? What data do you have regarding
the M60 spacing being right? What evidence do you have regarding the current
specs being "well thought out?" Hurdlers in their 50's, 60's & 70's helped
develop the current proposal, so what non-hurdlers/younger hurdlers are you referring
to in your comments? What majority are you referring to? My communications with
hurdlers and potentials hurdlers shows a clear majority WANT CHANGE (Two to one).
Please justify your statement regarding the "integrity" of the current specs.
FYI - to make a worldwide change, the change must first be adopted by a country
(makes sense - why propose a change worldwide if you can't get support in your own
country.) My point is that a worldwide change will be sought after approval in the USA.

It's easy to make casual statements in a public forum. Please rise above that and
make intelligent injections that clearly prove your point. Opinions are fine, but
not worth as much as statements with supported data.

The current proposal was created by hurdlers only, both genders, multiple age-groups.
It is based on the age-graded tables which document the performance drop in masters.

I believe you're all mature, responsible & accountable individuals that have more
than an opinion to share, i.e., data supporting your comments. This issue would
have gone away if the currents specs had simply been justified. One need only look
at them closely to see multiple problems with them.

Do not be afraid of this change. Give it a chance, and give it the same training
focus you've given the current specs. Give yourself credit, and don't for a second
try to convince someone that you're capable of ONLY handling one out of a thousand
different spec settings.

Folks, I understand not wanting to change. Work past that, and come up with logical
justification. A great exercise would be to for each of you to individually start at
the open specs and then create HH specs for masters for each 5 year age-group.

It'll open your eyes.
http://waterlootrackandfield.org/hurdles/
Jeff Brower



Top Top
  Profile

Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:24 am

 
Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:19 am
Posts: 9

I'd be interested to see the research on how many 50+ hurdlers can three-step a race at the olympic spacing. I suspect fewer than 10. Anyone have data to suggest otherwise? What data exists saying the olympic distance is optimum?



Top Top
  Profile

Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:30 am

 
Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:19 am
Posts: 9

The best approach may be to let each hurdler determine where to place their own hurdles. Just have the requirement be the height and the requirement that each hurdler take three steps between hurdles. This way, each hurdler sets his/her own hurdles, relieving meet management of that incredible burden and each hurdler gets to run a spacing that is best for all. Think about it.



Top Top
  Profile

Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:48 am

 
Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm
Posts: 5
Location: apopka, florida

YES !! Right on brother :lol:



Top Top
  Profile

Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:59 am

 
Offline
Journeyman Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:20 am
Posts: 39
Location: rochester, n.y. area

Jeff--thanks for your reply to our posts. Perhaps I misunderstand your proposal. Would you care to summarize it again here, please. I may have the Waterloo Relays spacing adjustment confused with your proposal.
If I read your post here correctly, however, it seems you are basing your proposal on two factors: 1) what will be efficacious for meet directors 2) what MAY be better for the sport. No doubt standardizing hurdle markings makes it easier for meet management. But then shouldn't we standardize height too? No more 39" hurdles for you, Jeff! And no more 27" hurdle problems for meet oprganizers either! And by the way, why are 30 year old women running over such low heighths? Well, it's because it's the tradition. And if we're gonna change the traditions it seems to me we had better be very sure that this is very likely to be better. I am open to being convinced, but I'm not yet.
--Bill



Top Top
  Profile

Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:07 am

 
Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:19 am
Posts: 9

Bill:

This question comes up from time to time. Specs have been tweaked in the past, and it's worth looking at some minor adjustments. This extreme proposal of Jeff's has been brought up before. Other than from Jeff, it seems to have little support. My European counterparts find it pretty amusing, though. Only in America. :wink:



Top Top
  Profile

Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:52 pm

 
Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:08 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Thanks for the great feedback! Keep it coming! I love it!

Sorry for the novel I've written here, but it IS a complex issue, and takes time to understand.

Based on some of the remarks, it sounds like several of you may not even know what the proposal is, yet that's not stopping some from firing darts at it. That's seems a bit odd, but it's predictable for people to fight change because many people simply hate change. Period. I believe it takes a higher level of reasoning to fight this human inclination within us, and discern what is truly best for our sport.

a) The whole proposal is at www.waterlootrackandfield.org/hurdles

b) Joe: I haven't met anyone that has any idea how the current specs were developed, and I've asked people in the depths of USATF to shed some light on this, to no avail. My understanding is that some group in the 80's got the current specs approved, that it was quite political and based on what a few wanted, and the new specs were not well received. Jack Greenwood (one of the best masters hurdlers ever) was one of many that wrote a stinging letter to NMN asking for the specs to be changed back.

I can't see any logical pattern in the current specs (and no one has been able to show me a logical pattern, either). If you're going to change the spacing, the race distance or any of the specs based on how masters hurdlers slow down, then change the specs consistently. The current specs have no such methodical application to accommodate the decreasing performance of the masters hurdler.

In the 70's & 80's, they didn't have the benefit of the fabulous age-graded tables we have now, and upon which the current proposal is based. Quite frankly, from my perspective, those that approved the current specs either didn't study the changes deeply, or put their faith in those that were pushing the change at the time.

c) Speedz: If you'd like to make a friendly bet, I'll bet there's MANY more than 10 M50's that can 3 step the specs I'm proposing. I also firmly believe that all those that are successful hurdlers now will be the successful hurdlers after implementation of this proposal. They have nothing to fear, as I believe they'll adapt and conquer the proposed specs with little difficulty. Still, it won't click on the first workout. Athletes understand that any change takes time to master.

Nevertheless, I believe it would be a good exercise for you to start with the original event for men (110M, 42", etc.) and then propose what a M30, M35, M40, M45, etc., should run. Go ahead, ignore the current specs, ignore my proposal, and put a pencil to it. It's an extremely good exercise for interested parties to complete to understand the intricacies of the issue.

Your comment about optimum spacing is akin to that of finding the average person. It simply doesn't exist. The problem with spacing changes is that some hurdlers will love it, but some will be hurt by it.

Who would change the shot put throwing pad to give the gliders a benefit over the spinners? No one. You don't change a spec that prevents a competitor from doing his/her best at the benefit of another competitor. I can show you video footage of hurdlers reducing their strides to fit 3-steps in between the hurdles. (Oh, but naturally, those that are benefitting currently certainly don't want the current specs to be changed! Imagine that! I wonder if any are reading this, or if any have posted here on Ken's forum? Are there any brave enough to admit it? Of course, they may feel threatened, but I would hope that their deeper respect for this great sport would allow them to look at this issue objectively. The forest versus the trees.)

At some point, don't we say "That's the event, do it or don't". Right? The technique of 3-stepping is a difficult one, and quite frankly I don't see how hurdlers do it without practically year-round training. Still, the faster/long-legged/agile/hard working hurdlers are able to do it. Shall we change the event so these better hurdlers get to chop their steps, and a more mediocre hurdling group can now three step easier? Ludicrous, but that's what we have in place today.

I like your proposal, and have seen it proposed before (in 2004 or 2005). Not only would hurdlers have to set up their starting blocks, but they'd have to set up their hurdles. Due to the hurdling motion, adjacent lanes would really need to be empty to avoid injury from the placement of various hurdles, and of course that would then allow trail foot violations that officials would have to be on the lookout for. What would be the impact on the meet schedule or those running in the event after the hurdles?

BTW, do you have a history of the changes to the High Hurdles? I'd love to see when/where/why the specs were changed, but can't seem to come up with anyone that has that info. The current specs have been in place a long time.

People that have endorsed my proposal include male & female hurdlers in all age-groups from the USA, Europe, Australia, Canada and more, and I've spoken with many people interested in hurdling that would start hurdling now if the proposal gets implemented. Your opinion that the proposal is extreme is something I'd like you to elaborate more on. And perhaps you can have your amused European counterparts join in and NOT ONLY enlighten us, but justify the current specs, since no one else has.

I've run into some opponents that can't explain why they oppose it. They just don't want to change. "My minds made up, so don't confuse me with the facts." Are those the type of people that should be supported and entrusted to come up with rules for masters?

d) Bill: Read the link near the top (a) and let me know if you have questions. The impact to meet directors/officials is trivial, and NOT A MAJOR FACTOR AT ALL. In my opinion, the leaders of our sport decide what the masters rules should be, determining what's reasonable/unreasonable regarding actual implementation & application by officials, etc.

I do believe this proposal will be better for the sport, improving participation & competition (the MAIN impetus behind this proposal), but it's is not something that can be proven until after implementation. I wish I could. But I'm willing to make a large bet if there are any takers! Thanks again, Jeff

_________________
Jeff Brower



Top Top
  Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Moderators: Jess, trackinfo, Ken Stone, Larry Barnum, Quick Silver, runfast70


Search for:
Jump to: