100 meter time and 110 H time.

I do not think there are any set conversions just because of the different variables and challenges that the hurdle adds to the race.

There are a whole lot of variables, but just off the top of my head I would say approx 3.5 seconds. This is from experience with HS athletes that could hurdle decently and easily 3 step the whole race.

So a 10.0 100m guy won’t go 13.5, ever? 😉

I know a guy who last year ran 6.7 in the 55m (it was a personal best and not 60m) and 13.6 in the big boy hurdles. I’m not sure there is a set conversion or even anything close, esp. w/ guy hurdles.

Hip height and flight time are major factors in the 42’s. A sprinter who has some stumpy legs is never going to be a great hurdler.

And for great hurdlers, 3.5 seconds is probably a little steep. That would put Allen Johnson at 9.4 in 100. Who, by the way, is still running some sick times for being 38.

Little connection beyond the obvious.

For the males, the HS or College height makes a big difference. Contrary to the “Devers Effect” as women’s hurdles have needed to go up for years. They should be at least 36″ if not NCAA IAAF 39″ and HS 36’s
Women can vault, and want to change the Hep to Dec but hurdle race might as well be running over painted lines on the track cause it aint hurdling.

Guys have to raise their C of M right away to set up the first hurdle, unlike in the sprint. Perhaps the greatest detriment to a guy hurdler running them similar to the 100 is analgous to why the women in fact can.
It’s the deceleration that comes from having to ground each step (pre-hurdle) in front of the C of M. This because otherwise the C of M wouldnt elevate enough to clear the barrier.

Start to first hurdle being so different than a flat out 100m because of the need to set up the first hurdle.
Lower heel recoveries to avoid overstriding between hurdles also results in greater frequency.
Arm action needed to counteract trail leg, etc… etc…

In a pure view, both use spikes, blocks, a starter and are run in a straight line. After that, not so close…

I actually think you can be too fast for hurdling….at least too fast and too tall. Guys over 1.90m need to be a little slower to negotiate the hurdles well without really cutting steps too bad. People have done it other ways but if you are either tall and (very) fast you really have to modify mechanics.

What if the hurdler is short but has a fast 100m time?
Is there even any chance of him to make it to the elite level?
Just curious because all the hurdlers today are pretty much at least 6 feet.

well allen johnson is 5’10”, so you dont have to be that tall. i dont think there are too many elite 110 hurdlers over 6’2″ though.

If you’re really fast it’s almost an advantage to be shorter (below 6′) because you likely won’t have to cut steps as bad.

If you’re really fast it’s almost an advantage to be shorter (below 6′) because you likely won’t have to cut steps as bad.

I would be more interested in seeing inseam lengths rather than actual height. Wouldn’t the change in vertical displacement be more of a detriment than cutting steps?

Yeah I think inseam length is probably a better indicator…certainly is at 400H. Other than the rare exception (Bershawn) you NEVER see guys with short inseams compete at the world class level in the intermediates. Allen and Tramell don’t really seem to have long inseams. If you’re shorter and faster you can probably move the takeoff point back slightly so that even though the vertical displacement may be slightly greater (than for a hurdler with a greater inseam) the projection angle can be lower.

Oddly, our fastest hurdler (14.29) is taller but actually has shorter legs and a long torso and neck. Also, his flat speed isn’t great but he’s a pretty good technician.

Florian Schwarthoff was 6’7″ if my memory serves me right and ran a 13.05 in the highs with 10.57 speed in the 100m….

the cut steps and running stride length is much different for those of all heights so it’s not a big deal. The taller the athlete the more important tight hurdle runs must be done.

Since the steps are all equal in a race you must work on stepping over and preventing too much backside mechanics.

The shorter the athlete the more strength is required eccentrically to handle the landings off the hurdles even if the lead leg comes down fast…..

Carl-
I know you’re working with an emerging elite high hurdler of above average height. Can you address any specifics on how you handle the points mentioned above. Specifically, how tight do you place the hurdles? Do you ever use competition spacing in practice? Do you cheat the height of the hurdles? If you had a shorter hurdler how would you handle eccentric strength development?
Thanks-

I find some aspects useful

Look at the arm action of the hurdlers as Steve has a great article listed here:

https://www.hurdlesfirst.com/hurdlespeed.htm

I like doing curve fly’s so the shorten stride helps keep people from doing long strides during speed work (we missed an entire fall phase).

Also keeping the hurdles near women’s length helps teach the cut step more at full height.

Competition height and distance is usually at the first hurdle but I like to see good step sounds and front side mechanics. The fitter the athlete the more they can do similar distances and heights.

Confidence is huge and athletes in the tall 110s (42) will have more issues than women in their “highs” so we do a lot of starts over 42 unless they are not attacking. I have had them go 36 a few times.

Eccentric strength I have found to be of use from the faster speeds of the good hurdlers so at the elite level I am not sure. I tend to get shorter and “B” level sprinters that need to be worked with typical plyo work.

I like doing curve fly’s so the shorten stride helps keep people from doing long strides during speed work (we missed an entire fall phase).

Does running on the curve significantly decrease an athlete’s stride length? Some simple calculations I performed yield a decrease in stride of 0.155 inches (0.00395m) for a 2 meter strider and 0.066 inches (0.00166m) for a 1.5 meter strider in lane 1. As you go out to further lanes, the decrease in stride length becomes even less significant.

Details of my simple calculation (up for critique):
1) Assume 2 meter stride length or 50 strides per 100m and that each stride is the same length from beginning to end of 100m.
2) The athlete in lane 1 has to turn 180 degrees over 100m and 50 strides, so 3.6 degrees per stride (virtually straight)
3) Setting up your triangle with the hypotenuse of 2 meters, and solving for the next longer side of the triangle gives you the results above. Coincidentally, the shorter side of the triangle is a significant amount (between 2 and 5 inches for the 1.5 and 2 meter strider), but I think that this is not the shortening of the stride, it is the amount that the athlete has to turn their body around the curve with each stride.

Cody Vandermyn

fuzzy math…

Let’s refer to the research as your calculations are not making sense to me.

Limitations to maximum running speed on flat curves- by Chang and Kram (see attached)

Track (m) (steps·s-1) time (s)

Straight 2.07±0.12 3.72±0.19 0.159±0.005

Curved radius (m)
Outside leg
6 1.70±0.10* 3.56±0.12 0.190±0.006
4 1.45±0.05* 3.66±0.18 0.198±0.007
3 1.41±0.07* 3.35±0.10 0.226±0.008*
2 1.18±0.08* 3.30±0.18 0.242±0.010*
1 0.80±0.04* 3.56±0.26 0.261±0.022*
Inside leg
6 1.53±0.02* 3.88±0.13 0.203±0.008
4 1.30±0.03* 4.05±0.11 0.221±0.009*
3 1.21±0.03* 3.78±0.06 0.233±0.008*
2 1.01±0.07* 3.74±0.23 0.263±0.008*
1 0.77±0.02* 3.82±0.12 0.290±0.004*
Values are means ± s.e.m. (N=5).
*Statistically significant different to the straight path condition
(P<0.05).
Symmetry was assumed on the straight path.

note stride length changes and 10.5 guys have longer than 2 meters. Colin Jackson was 2.0 meters for his hurdle strides but was 1.6 off the hurdle.

Cody what are your thoughts now?

Carl,
I will look at the study in more detail in the days to come, but my initial reaction is to notice that the curvature of radius was 6m. What is the curvature of radius for the 100m curve? Some googling give me about 31m for the radius of curvature. Given that fact, you can see from the data posted that with the increase of radius of curvature, the stride length is increasing and approaching the straight-away stride length. I don’t think it will ever reach the stride length of a straight-away, but if at 6m you are already at 82% of your straight-away stride length (outside leg), then a radius of curvature that is more than 5 times greater will increase that percentage a significant amount, bringing it closer to the straight-away stride length.

Cody

Read the research Cody. Read the post data. I showed you that the curve had shorter strides.

Okay, I’ve read the research, and I’ve read the post data. I think that the paper is great and its main focus was on force output changes and time spent on the ground. I won’t argue that the curve has shorter strides; I agree, its just the significance of the shorter stride that is at issue here and whether or not the significance can be used as an effective training tool. Are you going to tell me that the researchers would have seen a stride length of 1.7m around a 100m curve just like the paper showed for the 6m curve? I hope not. It looks to me like the stride length was increasing with each radius of curvature increase. In fact, from 3m to 6m it increased by over 17%; 6m to 12m lets say 10% increase…now the stride length is at 1.87m; 12m to 24m lets say another 5% increase…length of 1.9635m (4.2 inches less) and we aren’t even at the curvature of the track in lane 1 so lets add another 2% increase for a final stride length of 2.003m which means a 2.6 inch difference. Plus, I think I’m being generous with my percent increases, it may even rise faster.

The main point of my original post was that when you are on a curved surface and you take a short enough distance, you are essentially going straight. Think about the earth. We all know it is round, but for short distances do we take into account the curvature of the earth? Not usually. Same case for the track. When I looked at my track and I marked out 2m, it was virtually straight, try it and see. Especially if you go out into lane 8.

Well, I think I’ve beat this horse to death, if I’m way off base then I apologize, but I just don’t think that one can suggest that the fact that a 6 meter radius of curvature showing significant decrease in stride length immediately means that a 30 meter radius of curvature will show the same significant decrease especially when the same research shows stride length increasing towards straight-away length with increasing radius of curvature.

Conclusion from the paper: “In summary, we have shown that maximum sprint velocity
on curves is not only limited by a physiological limit to axial leg force since: (1) direct evidence indicates that maximal physiological force generation is not achieved during maximal effort sprinting at all radii; (2) externally supplying centripetal forces did not increase maximum velocities on the curve to expected values and revealed the importance of the underlying asymmetry between inside and outside legs; and (3) the power fit exponent of our empirical velocity data was significantly different from Greene’s theoretical predictions.”

Cody

Cody,

If I show race research that the curve has shorter strides will you admit that you are wrong and move on? The larger the track radius (outdoor) will be a factor but remember the speed of the athlete in a race will be faster than the research. Also indoor tracks is a factor that you should look at as they did research on 200m tracks.

The outdoor 200m has a quarter of the stride length changes of an indoor 200m and we are talking about an indoor track not outdoor like you keep bringing up. Your math is wrong.

The splits at the 4 x 100 are clear and the strides are shorter statically. Obviously people are not running in a circle but in a oval and the oval radius is far larger. Still the speed into the curve is different than acceleration from the top of the curve.

With stride lengths needing to be near 2m for hurdles yet are likely to be 2.4 meters or so for open sprints running a tight curve makes a lot of sense. We are looking at strides near 210-220 cm. Nobody will going 1.4 unless one is running on a toddler or peewee indoor soccer field.

I think a drum helps as ground contacts are longer with curve runs.

Yes, why didn’t you lead off with this research? It would have saved much time. If you show me research that uses a curve nearly equivalent to an outdoor track and that research shows a significant decrease in stride length (say, from 2.4m to 2m like you say above), what else can I say? (we don’t have access to an indoor facility where I’m at, so I’m limited to outdoor tracks)

That being said, if you were talking about an indoor track and doing strides there a few posts ago, then I can agree that it would be a beneficial training tool because the radius in indoor is low. But the post does not make that clear and if an outdoor hurdle coach ran across the post and thought, “Man, I should be doing edit: sorry, flying sprints because it significantly decreases stride length and will get the athlete used to the shorter stride required” that coach may not have the correct idea. It is clear that the stride length will be decreased, but is it a significant decrease? If it is a foot or more, then that is significant…6 inches, maybe; less than that, probably not. That’s what I’m after.

Cody

He didn’t say curve accels–he said flying sprints on the curve.

Anybody who has ran 3rd leg on the 4×100 knows this happens.