Specifictions for Women's Sprint Hurdles - an Open Letter

Bob Birrell

Firstly I'd like a statement [from the IAAF] on the need for a review of the specifications. Is it part of a process in which events are periodically reviewed or is there a feeling that women's sprint hurdles is a particular event that is in need of change?

Is there a subjective feeling that the hurdles are too low and too close? Too close and too low for who, the average elite athlete or the larger, stronger athlete? Is there evidence that since the last change from 80m [2'6"] to 100m [2'9"] women have become much taller and stronger?

Is it felt that superior sprinters have an unfair advantage over the better hurdles technicians? I'm not sure what that means as I was always taught that hurdling is modified sprinting , so it would seem natural that good sprinters would have an advantage when hurdling

It is interesting to compare revision of men's sprint hurdles during the develop;ment of women's sprint hurdles - NONE! Have not men increased in stature and strength?

On the sprinters/hurdlers question, it reminds me of when I first got involved in hurdling and watched the 1948 Olympics. The best male sprint hurdler of the time fell foul of the USA selection procedure and didn't make the team for hurdles, but he managed to get in the 100m which he duly won. A certain Harrison Dillard was the [male equivalent] Gail Devers of the time but there seems to have been no move to alter the men's specifications then or since.

If a decision is taken to alter the women's specifications then the alteration should be bsaed on scientific evidence rather than on arbitrary decisions based on convenience or commercial reasons. As hurdles are at present manufactured with heights of 2'6", 2'9", 3'0", 3'3" and 3'6" it is likely that an increase in hurdles height would be to 3'0" rather than 2'10". 2'11"'or 3'1" or whatever any scientific research would suggest is appropriate.

Increasing the spacing will cut down the already short run in; 8.60m between gives a run in of 9.60m, 8.70m gives 8.70m, 8.80m gives 7.80m. A move to to a race over 105m in total would not be popular with stadium architects and the extra markings on the track would also prove unpopular. It is therefore likely that the spacing would stay as at present and the height would be put up to 3'0".

I have concerns about the affects specification alterations will have on the development in women's sprint hurdles. The transition at 17 years from 80m hurdles to 100m hurdles proves difficult with the current specifications and would be made more difficult by increases in height/distance between. We in the UK have tried running the u17 women's event over 100m hurdles at 2'6". Some coped well but it was felt inappropriate and discontinued. The proposed trials over increased specifications will prove some will cope well but because some will cope is not sufficient reason to change - some will not cope well.

I welcome reviews but my experience of committees set up to review possible change does not fill me with confidence. I hope the review body appreciate that a equally valid result of this review is NOT to change the specifications. If they decide on changes I hope they have will have based their decisions on as good a set of scientific results as can be obtained based on the average elite athlete and do not go on subjective observations or are too influenced by commercial or convenience reasons.