With the seven or eight steps being the talk in hurdle circles, the question is what performance in the 1980s to 2000s had the fastest first hurdle ever? Talking to PJ Vazel it seems on record the fastest was Mark McKoy in 1992 while running in Barcelona. Two people such as Mark Crear and Dayron Robles have run close (2.47) but 2.46 is so far the best documented performance. I personally believe
Hurdle One- Best Ever?
-
-
Participant -
Participant
Just spitballing here, but just like 0-10m isn’t an accurate predictor of 100m ability I don’t think that time to first hurdle is an accurate predictor of whether a 7 or 8 step is more beneficial. I would like to see 1-2 and 1-3 times on those races in order to see which is more beneficial, whether or not the 7 or 8 is setting the athletes up for the next hurdles better, etc. Would the trend started by the Jamaicans of the extended first step/toe drag, etc be an influence on why some hurdlers are now as feeling bunched to the first hurdle if they are attempting to do the same?
Do we have any coaches on here who are currently attempting an 8 to 7 switch, or have successfully in the past? I would imagine that the time it takes to get the athlete comfortable with a switched block start makes it hard to come to any conclusions as you will have such a gap in time that a lot of athletic development can take place and make times rather hard to compare.
-
Participant
Interesting blog, but I agree with Josh. I’d like to see the fastest times to hurdle 2 or 3 and whether those have come from 7 steppers or not.
-
Participant
Interesting blog, but I agree with Josh. I’d like to see the fastest times to hurdle 2 or 3 and whether those have come from 7 steppers or not.
Does anyone think the coaches (self coached for one) and athletes compromised the entire 110m to get a good first hurdle split. It’s a race and be faster everywhere. With so little time nobody is going to take it easy early and just close, especially when the event is so deep.
Also each race was fantastic, so clearly no “ill effect” was there as Mark performed brilliantly in all rounds. Robles set a world record in his race, and Mark Crear set a personal best of 13.0x I believe.
I understand in the open 100m you can’t try to do too much in the first ten, but in the 110m the 7 step club has no margin of error and in the circa 2008 runs you can see Dayron blowing out all seven steps literally. No mystery on exertion.
Nobody tests the 10m for potential or ability Josh, but the first hurdle has impact in racing. Now the question is what is the seven step model doing differently than the eight step race for the other hurdles? Any taking a stab at what one should look for and have race and practice data to back it up? This is not a call out it’s just some of the recent discussion from Coach Kelly has really stirred the pot.
Now if the first hurdle has some unexplored aspects that can be exploited by doing the right things in practice I am all for it. I am just confused why nobody is asking for the step details and characteristics of great performances in any of the parts of the race.
Another good set of data is the indoor meet in Doha because no wind exists and every athlete is trying to go full tilt. How is that data different than the 110m outdoors.
So it goes back to how can we get better times or performances. If having a good start and first hurdle is ruining a race in it’s entirety I would like to see some solid explanations or history lessons.
As for switching blocks for 8 -7 steps Mike Young interviewed Andreas and it can be found here.
https://speedendurance.com/2012/10/04/interview-with-andreas-behm-by-mike-young/
-
Participant
I think I came off wrong. I’m just saying that the time to hurdle one is the same thing as time to 10m, essentially, in the they are both measures of acceleration. Time from H1 to H2 however, or start to H2 would show whether or not the change that was made is improving the race after H1, from better launch angle, smoother acceleration, etc.
-
Participant
I think I came off wrong. I’m just saying that the time to hurdle one is the same thing as time to 10m, essentially, in the they are both measures of acceleration. Time from H1 to H2 however, or start to H2 would show whether or not the change that was made is improving the race after H1, from better launch angle, smoother acceleration, etc.
In addition, it’s possible to come off the first hurdle at the same time, but have a higher velocity. Though it definitely makes you think about why we are switching steps if the overall time is the same.
-
Participant
Right, that was one of the points I was attempting to make. The first post states that the fastest to hurdle 1 was an 8 step, and that the times in the 80s-00s were faster than Dayron. The blog ends with the question ” The question is what are the benefits later in the race and how do we analyze that?” and I was just trying to throw around some ideas on some easy ways to already analyze the changes, and how H1 isn’t an accurate way to compare the differences in 7 and 8 step when it comes to the race on the whole.
-
Participant
Fastest to the first hurdle will more than likely produce the fastest race for elite hurdlers. From both personal and observed experiences, hitting that first hurdle smooth and fast had an amplified effect over the next few hurdles. Often the best hurdler will be the first to the first.
As far as correlation, looking at 8 steps v. 7 steps will likely yield mixed results. We have lots more data about 8 steps than 7 steps as it is only a recent endeavor. Also, the fastest times do not give a good indication of the field because there are always outliers. To be true to stats and data, we need to look at averages in order to compare. Are 7 step hurdlers, on average, getting to the first hurdle faster? Then maybe Mark Crear might have been faster with 7 . . .
Are there any studies on the average times to the first hurdle based on 7 v. 8 steps?
-
Participant
Chad,
The meeting data shows that a great hurdle 1 will show up in hurdle 2 and 3 provided it is clean (not falling into it). If one has a technically sound and clean hurdle 1 that has a great time, I would be interested to see if someone could share a youtube link or similar to a poor hurdle 2 and 3 caused by the technically sound and fast first hurdle. Anyone?
Athletes can make mistakes in later hurdles, but I need to see good evidence so post video if anyone has it. Forcing a great start is far different than developing one with sound approaches.
My purpose is not to force a 8 or 7 step pattern, but to look at the direct and indirect impact. So far I hear that it’s doom and gloom having a successful hurdle 1 TD time and the success of the above three examples shows it didn’t hurt hurdle 2 or 3 as they were lifetime or near lifetime performances.
To be positive and constructive, let’s see video to learn if this is not accurate.
-
Participant
Chad,
My purpose is not to force a 8 or 7 step pattern, but to look at the direct and indirect impact. [b]So far I hear that it’s doom and gloom having a successful hurdle 1 TD[/b] time and the success of the above three examples shows it didn’t hurt hurdle 2 or 3 as they were lifetime or near lifetime performances.
To be positive and constructive, let’s see video to learn if this is not accurate.
Show us where anyone said it was bad.
Some of us simply said time to H2 or H3 would be better indicators as it would show not only acceleration but successful take off, clearance, landing, and intrahurdle mechanics between 1 and 2, which is obviously of chief concern when switching from an 8 to 7.
-
Participant
I’ll say that from my experience (attempting to switch to 7 and then moving back to 8), I’ve been told that 8 -> 7 steps is basically the natural progression now, and that when “You’re ready to move to 7 steps, you’ll know it.” Well I would say that being 6’4″ and squatting 500 lbs would qualify me as begin ready for it, but it just didn’t come naturally to me. I can easily hit the takeoff mark, but the takeoff position that it puts me in is terrible.
On the other hand, I’ve also trained with people that would have a very hard time moving back to 8 steps from 7. I can’t really reach any conclusions comparing us, because our form is different, and he’s a generally better hurdler than me, so as far as I can tell, it’s really on an individual basis.
Additionally, I do think that times from start to H3 would be more indicative of how the approach to H1 is setting you up for the race, but that way, you can’t isolate that variable. You also have to take into account hurdle clearance and interhurdle running efficiency. So, in that interest, you need to test it with the same athlete to keep those variables constant. However, in my experience, with hurdling 7 and 8 step, it forces me into different positions during hurdle clearance, and changes my form over it (likely because I wasn’t really used to it).
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1365556051"]Chad,
My purpose is not to force a 8 or 7 step pattern, but to look at the direct and indirect impact. [b]So far I hear that it’s doom and gloom having a successful hurdle 1 TD[/b] time and the success of the above three examples shows it didn’t hurt hurdle 2 or 3 as they were lifetime or near lifetime performances.
To be positive and constructive, let’s see video to learn if this is not accurate.
Show us where anyone said it was bad.
Some of us simply said time to H2 or H3 would be better indicators as it would show not only acceleration but successful take off, clearance, landing, and intrahurdle mechanics between 1 and 2, which is obviously of chief concern when switching from an 8 to 7.[/quote]
So I stand correct. Nobody is showing a single video link just caught up in spitballing and sharing that the secret to a good 110m is a good 109m. Thanks.
Now what is the argument again? I am talking about having a good hurdle 1 and now people are saying “I have better indicators” by going up the track to end of the race. First it was hurdle 3. Then it was the last hurdle. Soon someone will say that the best indicator is the gold medal B sample 8 years later after the synthetic testosterone test. Straw man arguments are getting old and contrarian arguments based on rhetoric and no providing of information to improve performance is getting really old.
Hurdle two or hurdle three is going to be impacted by hurdle one, so by logic, hurdle one has a big dramatic time impact. If this post was talking about successful 110m – the secret is hurdle 1 I can see that. The issue is hurdle 2 and hurdle 3 range of differences between medalist range .02-.03 on average, while a poor start can add .2, a near death sentence to a race and nearly impossible in the 60mh.
My summary and purpose is to improve the entire race, and nothing wrong with having a good start. I am sharing plenty of data and context of that data in the post to bring a perspective. What is the all time best hurdle1? We can go into hurdles 2-10 later to help drive my belief that sub 12.7 is possible because 12.5 is if one has the precision and metabolic gifts to string all the best splits together. It’s humanly possible but that’s why I took a more conservative bet and raised it to 12.67. Now people are eyeing 12.7x because of the 12.80 with no breakthrough single areas in the race by Aries, just a wonderful
Look at all the touch down tables. The faster the total time the faster hurdle one is. The reason is you have get better everywhere and no part can be “average” if you want to break a WR or be close to it.
Josh, why not talk about the details more and share what specific indicators in the first three hurdles (acceleration phase) you see are key?
A better H4 time is less influenced by H1 time, but H3 is more highly influenced by the first hurdle because the speed off of hurdle 1 has a dramatic influence in hurdle 2 and some argue that hurdle 3 has a strong relationship as well. Example WR of Robles. I will trust that the posts here are based on data not just for argument sake.
-
Participant
Chad,
The meeting data shows that a great hurdle 1 will show up in hurdle 2 and 3 provided it is clean (not falling into it). If one has a technically sound and clean hurdle 1 that has a great time, I would be interested to see if someone could share a youtube link or similar to a poor hurdle 2 and 3 caused by the technically sound and fast first hurdle. Anyone?
Athletes can make mistakes in later hurdles, but I need to see good evidence so post video if anyone has it. Forcing a great start is far different than developing one with sound approaches.
My purpose is not to force a 8 or 7 step pattern, but to look at the direct and indirect impact. So far I hear that it’s doom and gloom having a successful hurdle 1 TD time and the success of the above three examples shows it didn’t hurt hurdle 2 or 3 as they were lifetime or near lifetime performances.
To be positive and constructive, let’s see video to learn if this is not accurate.
I am in complete agreement with your hurdle one assessment and the data. I think the race is won or lost 99% of the time to the first hurdle. Hurdle 1 and the first 10m in a 100m are drastically different animals.
So what are you parameters for switching the pattern? I would think that height would have to be the number 1 factor for athletes switching.
-
Participant
I have never said a faster time to h1 was a bad thing. Nor have I said that I disagreed with Chad’s statement that the time to h1 is important enough that the race can be essentially won or lost within those 10m.
Even though the majority of your original post was about time to H1, your original ending question was “The question is what are the benefits later in the race and how do we analyze that?”
I attempted to answer that with just some thoughts off the top of my head, mainly that time to H2 would be more valuable. It would show not only differences in acceleration between the two step options, but also would shed some light on whether or not the change could be negatively (or positively) affecting the later hurdles by the athlete not being in the proper position after attempting the first hurdle. Ideally and practically I would probably use time to both H1 and h2 to get data on the important first hurdle acceleration as well as the time in between the first two in order to ensure quality is being maintained.
You said you are looking for the “direct and indirect impact” of the switch, but by putting such a heavy emphasis on just H1 you are not looking for indirect impact from switching, regardless of how much you say you are. Acceleration is not simple in the hurdles as everyone knows due to all of the factors involved, so after H1 if there is any loss of hip height, instability, etc, it doesn’t matter if a higher velocity had been attained in those first 15m because you have set yourself up poorly for the next hurdle. Maybe that’s where the disconnect is between us. You are talking about the elite of the elite, future world records and perfect races whereas I’m worried about getting my 14.9 hurdler down to a 14.5. Any error present from inducing a change will echo down the entire race.
-
Participant
I certainly see and understand Josh’s points. If you coach HS then things can fall apart after H1 quite easily. If that is the case, then switching steps should be a later consideration.
Those that are switching are the elites or already very technical hurdlers. For this data, H1 can be the marker. For HS hurdlers, video tape is necessary for the problems that Josh is referring.
I have no experience with the 7 step pattern and none when changing. I would welcome some insight from coaches whom have had athletes switch and athletes, why it was done, and how it affected the proceeding steps to the hurdle. I would imagine the 7 step rhythm could possibly put the athlete farther away at TO.
-
Participant
I have no experience with the 7 step pattern and none when changing. I would welcome some insight from coaches whom have had athletes switch and athletes, why it was done, and how it affected the proceeding steps to the hurdle. I would imagine the 7 step rhythm could possibly put the athlete farther away at TO.
The current US model is take off at 11.58m, which is slightly farther away than what I’ve seen Dennis Shaver advocate for 8 steps (11.70m).
It’s certainly a different rhythm – the first step is gigantic – 0.76m off the start line. I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t had to start training for 7 step without condensing their block settings to make that step until they get stronger. The most common reason that I’ve heard of athletes switching from 8 to 7 was that 8 became too crowded and close to the hurdle due to having more power in each step over time as strength increases.
-
Participant
[quote author="Chad Williams" date="1365698471"]I have no experience with the 7 step pattern and none when changing. I would welcome some insight from coaches whom have had athletes switch and athletes, why it was done, and how it affected the proceeding steps to the hurdle. I would imagine the 7 step rhythm could possibly put the athlete farther away at TO.
The current US model is take off at 11.58m, which is slightly farther away than what I’ve seen Dennis Shaver advocate for 8 steps (11.70m).
It’s certainly a different rhythm – the first step is gigantic – 0.76m off the start line. I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t had to start training for 7 step without condensing their block settings to make that step until they get stronger. The most common reason that I’ve heard of athletes switching from 8 to 7 was that 8 became too crowded and close to the hurdle due to having more power in each step over time as strength increases.[/quote]
What model is this? The average model from all elite athletes from races? USATF schools need to be more open where this stuff is coming from. Again what 7 step athletes that switched from 8 were getting crowded? I think that reducing ground contact time without increasing length can be done, but one question must be raised is leg length and power indices. How is this model adjusted for indvidual athletes?
-
Participant
[quote author="Roswell" date="1365727334"][quote author="Chad Williams" date="1365698471"]I have no experience with the 7 step pattern and none when changing. I would welcome some insight from coaches whom have had athletes switch and athletes, why it was done, and how it affected the proceeding steps to the hurdle. I would imagine the 7 step rhythm could possibly put the athlete farther away at TO.
The current US model is take off at 11.58m, which is slightly farther away than what I’ve seen Dennis Shaver advocate for 8 steps (11.70m).
It’s certainly a different rhythm – the first step is gigantic – 0.76m off the start line. I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t had to start training for 7 step without condensing their block settings to make that step until they get stronger. The most common reason that I’ve heard of athletes switching from 8 to 7 was that 8 became too crowded and close to the hurdle due to having more power in each step over time as strength increases.[/quote]
What model is this? The average model from all elite athletes from races? USATF schools need to be more open where this stuff is coming from. Again what 7 step athletes that switched from 8 were getting crowded? I think that reducing ground contact time without increasing length can be done, but one question must be raised is leg length and power indices. How is this model adjusted for indvidual athletes?[/quote]
Ralph Mann’s model, which as I understand to be and amalgamation of a few of the top people who 7 step (although I’m unsure who exactly). A guy that I train with says he’s unable to run 8 step anymore after switching last year – he runs 13.45, 6’1″, with his hipbone at around 4’10”. Ralph told me that Aries was too crowded with 8 steps too, but that’s second-hand information, so I’m repeating what I heard. How Ralph goes about it from what I’ve seen is he just tried to adjust people in the mid 13s to the model, and it’s just individualized via matching an athlete’s video to a stick figure model, but isn’t adjusted for their proportions.
As stated earlier, I personally think that 8 step is perfectly valid and the decision to switch or not is on an individual basis. Much as other people in this discussion, I’m not sure as to what criteria should be used to determine whether or not to switch.
-
Viewing 18 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.