A BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF

TOP HURDLING
By Antti Mero and Pekka Luhtanen

Mero and Luhtanen of the biomechanics laboratory of the University of

Jyvaskyla, Finland, present a detailed biomechanical analysis of the world
championships silver medalist Arto Bryggare, whose best time stands at 13.44
sec. Although rather technical, the analysis covers some valuable practical
information. Re-printed with permission from Modern Athlete and Coach.

The technique of hurdling has been investigated in many studies (e.g. Willimczik
1972, Schluter 1981) by describing in detail different phases e.g. the take-off to
the hurdle, the technique of hurdle clearance and the landing. Force production
has also been studied, both as reaction forces and as segmental forces, in
female hurdlers (Kollath 1983a and 1983b). The purpose of this study was to
investigate the technique and segmental force production of a top male hurdler
(110m) in the phase of maximal sprint hurdling.

METHODS

The subject was Arto Bryggare (second in Helsinki WC 1983; record 13.44 sec).
He ran maximally over three hurdles on an outside track. The clearance of the
second hurdle was filmed with a Locam 51-0003 camera, set to operate at 100
frames per second. The film samples were taken perpendicularly to the running
direction. Analysis was made by using a Vanguard film analyzer, a
Summagraphics 10 digital board and a HP 21MX computer. Based on the
standards provided by Dempster (1955), the mechanical model of the runner was
assumed to consist of 14 rigid body segments. Kinematic data in distance, time,
linear velocity, linear acceleration, angle and angular velocity was calculated with
computer programs. Kinetic variables (force production) of the total body and
body segments were computed with the basic law of dynamics (mass x
accel eration).Thecont actphasewasdi videdintoecc ent r
ic( “br
aking”)and
concentric (drive) work phases, according to the vertical movements of the centre
of gravity during the foot contact.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Variables of technique in the take-off contact, the hurdle clearance and the
landing contact (fig. 1 and 2) have been presented in table 1. Mean running
velocity during the three mentioned phases was 8.26m/sec. The take-off distance
of the subject was 2.26m. It is a little bit longer than in other studies (Willimczik
1972, Vaiksaar 1979, Schluter 1981), in which it has been between 2.00-2.20m.
The take-off distance varies through the race. When it is long, as with this
subject, it is possible for him to attack the hurdle horizontally with an aggressive
drive. This way the deceleration of the horizontal velocity is minimized.

At the beginning of the eccentric phase the inclination of the ground shank was
81degr eesshowi ngacl ear“br aking”ef f
ect( f
ig.2A) .Al so,thehor i
zontal
distance between the first contact point and the centre of gravity was too long
(0.29m). An economical position is where the shank is vertical (90 degrees) and
the horizontal distance is short, even under 0.20m in best sprinters, but over
0.30m in less-skilled sprinters (Mero et al. 1982). In this position the runner can
utilize t
heel asti
ci
tyandt hepoweroft hecont actl egandt he“ braking”effectwill
be very small. The eccentric phase lasted 0.04 sec. and during it the centre of
gravity fell 0.01m. In a more economic hurdling the duration should be shorter
and the descent of the centre of gravity should be zero. The latter is possible by
compensating with the swinging leg and arms the descent caused by the flexion
of the contact leg. The singing (lead) leg should come as quickly as possible
forward. This is possible when the minimum angle of the knee is small. The
subject had an angle of 39 degrees, which can be even smaller when the
moment of inertia around the hip decreases and the angular velocity of the lead
leg increases.

The values of the knee angles of the contact leg (166 degrees at the beginning
and 163 degrees at the minimum) are optional (diminution only three degrees),
showing that the power and elasticity of the large leg extensor muscles are good.
Thispar toft hemuscl eactionisA. B.’
sst rongpoi nt.Diminuti
onoft heangl eof
theankl ewas25degr ees.Thisi st oomuchandi sc ausedbyA. B.
’s“ braki
ng
technique”andpoorr el
ati
vestrengt hlev eloft ricepssur ae( t
ested).Al so,A.B.
had at that time too much body fat.
Theshor t comingsi
nt he“braking”phas ear ecausi ngl
ossesi nhor i
z ontalv el
ocit
y
0.39m/sec (4.8%), although the losses are rather good when compared to
Schlut er
’sst udy(1981).Bydev elopingt hest ructureofthetakeoffcontact, A.B.
may reach even values of about 2-3%, which are near those of sprinters (Mero et
al. 1982).

The duration of the hurdle clearance was 0.32 sec. and the highest point of the
centre of gravity (0.33m) was horizontally 0.46m before the hurdle. This is an
economical pathway for a fast hurdle clearance. A.B. has possibilities to run
lower when being over hurdle (he does not touch hurdles), because the value of
0.32 is more than Vaiksaar (1979) has reported. The maximal knee angle of the
lead leg over the hurdle was 171 degrees, showing that the leg was not straight.
This confirms some earlier conclusions (e.g. Balakhinichev 1977) showing that
tall and rather fast hurdlers can attack and cross the hurdle with a flexed leg.

The landing distance was 1.24m, which is also good when compared to other
studies (e.g. Vaiksaar 1979, Schluter 1981). It could be even shortened by
concentrating on it when hurdling, because the pathway of centre of gravity can
be lowered (nearly touching the hurdle) and at the beginning of the eccentric
phas et her ewasas mall“br
aki ng”ef fect( 88degr eesand0. 06m) .The
deceleration of the horizontal velocity was 0.65m/sec. (7.7%), which exceeded
the take-off contact. An explanation for it is that the vertical velocity of the centre
of gravity downwards is in this phase much greater. For utilizing the elasticity of
thel andi
ngl egther emustbeas mal l“
braking”distance.I fther eisno“ braking”
distance, the runner will lose his balance. The centre of gravity fell during the
whole contact 0.09m. This is typical of the landing contact (fig. 2 F-G). Most
important here is to minimize the descent. The diminution of the angles in the
knee and ankle joints should be avoided.

In the take-off contact phase (when the centre of gravity wasf all
ing) ,“braking”
horizontal forces were produced by the contact leg (-865 N), the swinging leg (-
417 N), the left arm (-17 N) and the head-trunk (-129 N). Accelerating horizontal
forces were produced only by the right arm (106 N). By shortening the “ braking”
distance A.B. could diminish the decelerative effect of the contact leg and could
accelerate the lead leg as in economical sprinting (Mero et at. 1984). Vertical
forces of the total body were on an average downwards accelerating (-5333 N),
(Table 2).

In the driving phase of the take-off (centre of gravity is rising) the horizontal
forces of the total body were accelerating (552 N) and only the left leg (swinging)
produced decelerating forces forwards. Vertical forces were all accelerating (total
body 2176 N) (table 2).

We have divided the landing contact into eccentric and concentric phases in a
different way. The eccentric phase took place when the first contact point was
established in front of the centre of gravity (duration 0.01 sec. and distance 0.06
m). It happened because the centre of gravity was falling all the time during the
landing contact. In the eccentric phase the total body was producing decelerating
horizontal forces (-2175 N) and only the right arm produced accelerating forces
(167 N). The vertical forces of the total body were negative (-1684 N) and the
effect of the head and trunk was significant (-1993 N). The acceleration
downwards was resisted (slowing) by the contact leg (876 N) and both arms
(together 201 N). The deceleration (0.65 m/sec) took place at the beginning of
thephas e( durati
on0. 03s) .I
tisint hisphasev er yimpor tantt ogett he“ braking”
distance near zero, so that the first contact point is only a little in front of the
centre of gravity. (Table 3).

In the driving phase of the contact the horizontal forces were on an average
accelerating (588 N). Decelerating horizontal forces were produced by the right
(swinging) leg and the left arm. The decelerating effect of these segments should
ber educedi nA.B.’straining. The vertical forces were totally accelerating (1179
N) but the swinging leg and both arms produced downwards accelerating
(decelerating forces) (table 3).
REFERENCES

Balakhnichev, V. (1977) 110 m hurdling styles. Soviet Sports Review, 14, 2, 73-
74, 1979. Translated: Legkaja Atletika, 12, 7-8, 1977.

Dempster, W.T. (1955) Space requirements of the seated operator. WADC

Technical Report 55-159. Ohio, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Kollath, E. (1983a) Zum Einffluss einzelner Korpersegmente auf die vertikale

Abfluggeschwindigkeit des KSP beim 100 m Hurdenlauf. Liestungssport, 13, 4,
37-43.

Kollath, E. (1983b) Kinematische und dynamische Analysen des 100 m

Hurdenlaufs. Die Lehre de Leichtathletik, 34, 26, 1373-1381.

Mero, A., Luhtanen, P., Komi, P.V. (1982) Zum Einfluss von
Kontaktphasenmerkmalen auf die Schrittfrequenz beim Macimalsprint.
Leistungssport, 12, 4, 308-313.

Mero, A., Luthanen, P., Komi, P.V. (1984) Segmental force production and
velocity of center of gravity in the contact phases of maximal sprinting. Submitted
for Dublication in Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences.

Schluter, W. (1981) Kinematische Merkmale der 110 m Hurdentechnik.

Leistungssport, 11, 2, 118-127.

Vaiksaar, V. (1979 Some aspects of high hurdles: hurdling technique. Modern

Athlete and Coach, 17, 3, 3-5.

Willimczik, K. (1972) Leistungsbestimmencle Bewegungsmerkmale den 110 m

Hurdentechnik. Verlag Bartels et Wernitz KG. Berlin — Munchen — Frankfurt
A.M.