CC BY
28Comparative analysis of main characteristics of technique of elite hurdlers (men and women)
UDC 796.422.093.354
PhD S.I. Balandin1
Senior teacher I.Y. Balandina2 PhD, Associate Professor D.S. Zayko1 PhD, Associate Professor I.V. Dmitriev1 PhD, Associate Professor A.V. Maslennikov1
1Lesgaft National State University of Physical Education, Sport and Health, St-Petersburg
2 Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation
Corresponding author: sporttrainer@yandex.ru
Abstract
Objective of the study was to compare the main spatiotemporal and angular parameters of the technique of elite hurdlers (men and women)
Methods and structure of the study. This article analyzes the spatiotemporal and angular characteristics of running technique and hurdling by the finalists of the World Championships 2017 (London) in 110 m hurdles (man) and 100 m hurdles (women). The study used data from the IAAF Biomechanical Reports [2,3] and Statgraphics plus 5.0 for data processing.
Results and conclusions. The research shows that in the hurdle clearance phase statistically significant differences are observed between men and women in the take-off and landing distances and the hurdle flight time. While running between hurdles, the length and flight time of the first step in women is greater (p<0,001), and the length of the second step is shorter (p<0,05). The trunk-thigh angle at toe-off during the take-off phase and the lead leg knee angle at touchdown in the two groups also differ (p<0,05). Many of the studied parameters have a significant range of values: in women, the lead leg knee angle (53-90°) and the trail leg knee angle (141-173°) during the take-off phase, the trunk angle at touchdown (48-64°) and toe-off during the landing step (63-78°); in men - the trunk-thigh angle during the take-off phase (53-82°) and the lead leg knee angle at touchdown (150-177°).
Keywords: hurdling technique, biomechanical analysis, short hurdle events.
Introduction: Hurdling is a technical type of ath-letics0, in which the result is determined by both well-developed physical qualities, primarily speed-power, and motor skills, namely the technique of overcoming hurdles and running between hurdles. Different rules of competition for men and women hurdlers (height and placement of hurdles, distance length) and differences in anthropometrical data place specific requirements on the choice of training means[1].
The study and comparative analysis of the technical skill of the world's leading athletes allows us to model and form the optimal technique for motor actions when training athletes at various levels. In our work, the main spatiotemporal and angular parame-
ters of the technique of clearing and running between hurdles were studied.
Objective of the study was to compare the main spatiotemporal and angular parameters of the technique of clearing and running between hurdles by the world's strongest hurdlers specializing in the short hurdle sprint, and also to identify common factors.
Methodology and structure of the study. The
research involved a statistical analysis and a processing of the spatiotemporal and angular characteristics of the technique employed by the finalists in the 2017 World Athletics Championship (London) who were running the 110 m hurdles (men) and 100 m hurdles
(women). The initial data was obtained from IAAF Bio-mechanical Reports [2,3].
Results and Discussion. Table 1 shows the spatiotemporal characteristics of clearing the hurdle (the 6th one for men and the 5th for women) and running between hurdles by participants in the finals the 100 and 110 meters hurdles from the World Championship in 2017. The athletes are presented in order of final ranking.
The length of the hurdle step in men is significantly greater than in women (p <0.001). Average values are 3.80m and 3.16m, respectively. Moreover, the greatest difference is observed in the landing distance. In men, it is half a meter more (1,56 ± 0,06 m and 1,06 ± 0,04 m, respectively, p <0,001). The take-off distance is on average 15 cm longer. We can see the greatest range of values among men within the groups. The world record holder at this distance, A. Merrit, has the smallest landing distance of 1,34 m, but the longest take-off distance of 2,52cm. In women, H. Nelson, a silver medalist, has the smallest landing distance , and she has one of the longest take-off distance - 2,20 m.
The contact time during the take-off phase in wom-
en is also slightly better than in men, at an average of 0,12 s. Sally Pearson, Olympic and World Champion, has the best figure of 0,107 s. This value is similar to those of the contact time of the strongest sprinters.
The total time taken to clear the hurdle for women is significantly better than for men, on average by 0,05 s. The average value for women is 0,280±0,006 s, for men 0,331±0,006 s (p<0,001). The best result among men is 0,307 s by the Jamaican, 8th placed H. Parchment. One of the best hurdlers in the world of recent years, 2015 World champion and the silver medalist in this final, the Russian, Sergey Shubenkov, clears the hurdle in 0.320 s, which is the third-best result. It is worth noting that in women, the winner of this championship, S. Pearson, has one of the worst result - at 0,30s. The best values belong to the 7th and 8th places respectively, to N. Visser and N. Ali with 0,26 s.
The following pattern can be distinguished in running between hurdles. The average value of the contact time at the landing phase has approximately the same value for men and women at 0,09 s. At the same time, the flight time of the first step in men is much less - 0,046 ± 0,002 s; in women 0,072 ±
Table 1. Spatiotemporal characteristics of the hurdle clearance phase and steps between hurdles for the 110m and 100m hurdles for the 2017 World Championship finalists
Finalist Hurdle clearance First step Second step
Contact-time (s) Takeoff, (m) Landing (m) Flight time (s) Contact-time (s) Flight time (s) Length (m) Contact-time (s) Flight time (s) Length (m)
Men (110 m hurdles)
O. McLeod 0,127 2,15 1,73 0,333 0,093 0,053 1,37 0,113 0,100 1,91
S.Shubenkov 0,127 2,10 1,73 0,320 0,087 0,053 1,42 0,120 0,100 2,04
B. Baji 0,113 2,21 1,79 0,347 0,100 0,033 1,36 0,120 0,100 1,89
G. Darien 0,140 2,28 1,39 0,313 0,087 0,053 1,47 0,127 0,093 2,01
A. Merrit 0,127 2,51 1,34 0,347 0,087 0,047 1,45 0,113 0,120 2,07
R. Brathwait 0,133 2,11 1,55 0,327 0,100 0,040 1,35 0,107 0,133 2,14
O. Ortega 0,120 2,24 1,63 0,353 0,087 0,040 1,35 0,120 0,120 2,06
H. Parchment 0,133 2,30 1,34 0,307 0,093 0,047 1,42 0,127 0,113 2,20
x ± Sx 0,127± 0,003 2,23± 0,05 1,56± 0,06 0,331± 0,006 0,091± 0,002 0,046± 0,002 1,39± 0,02 0,118± 0,002 0,110± 0,005 2,04± 0,04
o 0,008 0,13 0,06 0,017 0,005 0,007 0,05 0,007 0,14 0,11
Women (100 m hurdles)
S. Person 0,107 2,11 1,15 0,300 0,087 0,067 1,70 0,113 0,113 1,67
H.Nelson 0,127 2,20 0,80 0,267 0,093 0,067 1,54 0,120 0,107 2,05
P. Dutkiewich 0,113 2,11 1,11 0,280 0,087 0,087 1,70 0,107 0,100 1,80
K. Harrison 0,120 2,08 1,06 0,280 0,100 0,073 1,57 0,113 0,107 1,90
C. Manning 0,127 2,10 1,02 0,273 0,087 0,067 1,57 0,120 0,100 2,01
A. Talay 0,113 2,23 1,10 0,313 0,087 0,060 1,63 0,113 0,113 1,71
N. Visser 0,127 1,95 1,08 0,260 0,093 0,093 1,72 0,113 0,107 1,95
N. Ali 0,133 2,05 1,15 0,267 0,113 0,060 1,54 0,120 0,100 2,02
x ± Sx 0,121± 0,003 2,10± 0,03 1,06± 0,04 0,280± 0,006 0,093± 0,003 0,072± 0,004 1,62± 0,03 0,115± 0,001 0,105± 0,002 1,88± 0,05
o 0,009 0,09 0,11 0,018 0,009 0,012 0,08 0,004 0,005 0,15
p >0,05 <0,05 <0,001 <0,001 >0,05 <0,001 <0,001 >0,05 >0,05 <0,05
Table 2. Angular kinematics at the hurdle clearance phase of 110m hurdles and 100m hurdles for the 2017 World Championship finalists
Take-off phase Landing phase
Lead leg knee angle Trail leg knee angle le c a n io Trunk angle le gl c (0 h ig !E Lead leg knee angle Trail leg knee angle Trunk angle
ia > a a k-n 3 Touch-down Toe-off
Men (110 m hurdles)
O. Mc Leod 77,2 153,9 64,0 75,7 70,5 177,6 79,4 65,4 86,4
S.Shubenkov 74,7 159,0 64,4 64,1 53,9 175,4 80,2 62,6 78,9
B. Baji 76,0 167,7 65,0 71,8 68,9 169,3 76,4 65,9 79,3
G. Darien 77,1 158,9 60,8 72,4 65,1 165,2 81,8 60,3 73,5
A. Merrit 73,9 155,7 65,6 63,8 57,1 173,3 82,5 54,7 68,2
R. Brathwait 69,8 159,1 65,6 76,2 82,8 150,0 82,9 65,0 79,9
O. Ortega 70,9 163,7 66,0 76,6 80,4 161,4 81,3 61,0 82,5
H. Parchment 75,7 166,1 63,4 82,2 66,1 157,5 79,7 49,7 70,9
x ± Sx 74,4± 1,0 160,5± 1,7 64,4± 0,6 72,9± 2,2 68,1± 3,5 166,2± 3,4 80,5± 0,7 60,6± 2,0 77,4± 2,2
<J 2,7 4,9 1,7 6,3 10,0 9,5 2,1 5,7 6,1
Women (100 m hurdles)
S. Person 67,7 162,4 66,9 74,9 88,7 173,6 80,6 59,5 78,4
H.Nelson 53,2 156,6 63,1 71,0 74,8 150,6 83,7 48,7 63,5
Dutkiewich 63,9 155,5 63,1 67,6 67,7 153,4 77,4 64,2 76,5
Harrison 90,5 167,8 62,9 71,4 84,0 151,5 78,3 67,9 79,8
Manning 69,7 159,0 59,9 70,8 76,5 154,9 82,9 54,4 70,8
Talay 60,5 141,6 64,2 72,8 80,9 146,7 82,2 57,2 77,6
Visser 65,6 153,9 63,4 71,1 74,0 162,9 78,5 62,5 75,1
N. Ali 79,1 173,8 59,1 73,7 80,7 152,5 74,5 58,3 78,9
x ± Sx 68,7± 4,1 158,8± 3,4 62,8± 0,9 71,6± 0,8 78,4± 2,3 155,7± 3,0 79,8± 1,1 59,1± 2,1 75,1± 1,9
<J 11,5 9,7 2,4 2,4 6,5 8,6 3,1 6,0 5,4
p >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 <0,05 <0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05
0,004 s, (p <0,001). This data is consistent with the shorter first step length in men (mean value of 1,39 m). In women it is 1,62 m. The contact of the second step for almost all the athletes under consideration is 0,11-0,12 s. The average value of the flight time is somewhat faster for women (0,11-0,12 s), but for men there is a wider range of values (from 0,09 to 0,12 s). The length of the second step in men, compared to the first, is longer by an average of 15 cm. But strong differences are also observed within the groups. In men, one of the tallest participants R. Baji has the shortest second step of 1,89m and the largest one belongs to H. Parchment at 2,20 m. On average, the increase in the second step compared to the first is 36-55%.Curiously, women demonstrate both a decrease in the second step compared to the first (S. Pearson by 3 cm), and an increase of 8-10 cm in
A. Talay and P. Dutkiewich -whilst the rest show an increase of 20-50 cm.
Table 2 shows the angular characteristics of the hurdle clearance. The value of the deviation angle in men is practically the same as in women - (64,4±0,6° and 62,8±0.9°, respectively, p>0,05). Moreover, in men, it has a direct correlation with the contact time at take-off phase (k=0,73, p<0,05). This means runners with sharper deviation angle clear it faster. In women, the deviation angle has a negative correlation with the contact time (k= -0,82, p<0,05). In this case, the indicators of the Olympic champion and the winner of this World Championship, S. Pearson, could be noteworthy. She demonstrates the fastest contact time (including men) - 0,107 s and at the same time the greatest deviation angle - 66,9°.
The trunk angle does not show significant differences - 72,9 ± 2,2° in men and 71,6±0,8° in women (p > 0,05). However, the range of values among male-hurdlers is significantly greater than among female-hurdlers - from the 64° of S. Shubenkov and A. Merrit to the 82° of H. Parchment. The lead leg knee angle at toe-off does not show any significant differences (p > 0,05). But if for men this indicator is relatively stable and is in the range of 70-77°, then for women there are some significant differences (53-90°). An analogous situation is in the trail leg knee angle. Among men, the trail leg during the take-off phase is flexed most strongly by O. McLeod (153°), who is the shortest among the participants in the final at 180 cm. The tallest flex the trail leg least of all, like B. Baji (167,7°) and H. Parchment (166.1°). Women demonstrate a significant range of values, from 141° for A. Talay to 173° for N. Ali. Significant differences between men and women are observed in the trunk-thigh angel at take-off phase (68,1±3,5° and 78,4±2,3°, respectively, p <0,05).
In the landing phase at touch down, significant differences were observed only in the lead leg knee angle: 166,2±3,4° in men and 155,7±3,0° in women (p<0,05). O. McLeod, S. Shubenkov and A. Merrit bend their leg least of all (about 175°, i.e. the leg is placed almost straight on the ground). For women, about the same value is observed for the winner, S. Person. For the rest of the participants, the leg bends significantly more (146°-154°).
There are relatively equal values for men and women in the deviation angle at landing phase (the angle between a straight line drawn from the center of mass to the spot where the foot is placed on the support and the horizontal): 74-83°. The average value of the trunk angle at touchdown in both groups is about 60°. Here, the minimum and maximum values are approximately equal, about 49° and 67°, respectively. During the first step, at the moment of removing the leg from the sup-
port, this angle increases on average to 77° for men, and up to 75° for women.
Conclusion. The main significant differences between men and women in a short hurdle sprint are observed in the take-off and landing distances, hurdle flight time and distance, in the flight time of the first step, the length of the second step and the change in the length of the second step in relation to the first. Among the angular parameters, there are significant differences in the trunk-thigh angle at toe-off, and the lead leg knee angle at touchdown. The presented findings can be used in the development and use of technical training means for top level athletes.
References
1. Balandin S.I., Balandina I.Y Spatio-kinetic characteristics of the technique of elite 110 m hurdlers. Track and field: the collection of scientific and methodological works. A.V. Maslennikov [ed.]; Lesgaft National State University of Physical Education, Sport and Health. St. Petersburg, 2019. p.37- 41.
2. Kolesnikov A.V. Opportunities of pre-competition training of hurdlers in sprint distances. Track and field: the collection of scientific and methodological works. A.V. Maslennikov [ed.]; Lesgaft National State University of Physical Education, Sport and Health, St-Petersburg. St. Petersburg, 2020.pp. 54- 58.
3. Pollitt L., Walker J., Bissas A., Merlino S. (2018) Biomechanical Report for the IAAF World Indoor Championships 2017: 110 Metres Hurdles Men. Birmingham, UK: International Association of Athletics Federations.
4. Pollitt L., Walker J., Bissas A., Merlino S. (2018) Biomechanical Report for the IAAF World Indoor Championships 2017: 100 Metres Hurdles Women. Birmingham, UK: International Association of Athletics Federations.
