The Moses story and the 13 steps saga

Those who follow my blog know that I like a lot the 400 m hurdles event. All the more so, since the decathletes have a fascination for this gruelling event. I have posted on several occasions articles on the low hurdles and there are frequent references to the ones I call the musketeers of the 400 m hurdles. This article is inspired by a post on the World Athletics site announcing a documentary on Edwin Moses entitled, "Moses  - 13 steps". 

Unfortunately the documentary does not appear to be available in Europe (but there is a trailer on youtube). Anyhow, interesting as it certainly is, the documentary is more biographical than technical (although it certainly contains most interesting clips from Moses' races). For me, it was the motivation to revisit the question of the number of steps between hurdles, where Moses did indeed revolutionise the discipline. 

In the 400 m the first hurdle is at 45 m from the start and the subsequent distance between hurdles is 35 m (and there remain 40 m after the last hurdle to the finish line). For many years, the graal was for the elite men hurdlers to be able to run in 13 strides between hurdles from the second to the tenth. The advantage of an odd number of steps is that every hurdle is passed with the same leading foot (and, clearly, everybody has a dominant one). 

The podium at the Helsinki Olympics

The first to attempt a 13-step race was Ch. Moore who won the 400 m hurdle title at the 1952, Helsinki, Olympics but only up to the fifth hurdle, switching to a 15-step rhythm afterwards. Moore ran in an Olympic record of 50.8 s, the 50.6 s world record of G. Hardin dating back to 1934. Second behind Moore was the soviet hurdler Y. Lituyev who noticed Moore's technique and decided to adopt it. He was the first to try 13 steps all the way to the last hurdle. And with this technique Lituyev broke in 1953 G. Hardin's world record with 50.4 s. However Lituyev's technique was not flawless and he could not avoid an occasional stumble. In fact, this is how he lost the European title in 1954, stumbling between the 7th and 8th hurdles, in a race won by A. Yulin with 50.5 s, Lituyev being second with 50.8 s. Had he not stumbled he might have been the first man below 50 s in the low hurdles.

It was Moses who mastered the technique of 13 steps and used it throughout his races. The problem is that one has to keep a 2.7 m stride, something quite difficult over the bends and towards the end of the race when tiredness sets in. Still, Moses, with his 1.88 m stature did not have trouble with this. He dominated the event, winning 122 consecutive victories. He won the 1976 and 1984 Olympics and would have won the 1980 ones were it not for the ridiculous boycott of the Moscow Olympics by the US. (But since he finished only third in Seoul in 1988, he would not have equalled Oerter's feat. In fact, he wouldn't have even surpassed Saneyev who obtained silver after three golds). 

Moses was prophetic in his predictions for the discipline. On one occasion he stated that a 12-step rhythm might be necessary in order to break the 47 s and perhaps 46 s barrier. Moses would have been perfectly capable to switch his style to 12-strides. In fact he had to do it in 1981, while racing in Zurich, over two successive hurdles in order to avoid falling. But his dominance of the event was such that he did not need to change anything. 

It was K. Young, who broke Moses' record and the 47 s barrier who tried a 12-step rhythm. His pattern was 20 strides to the first hurdle, 13 strides to hurdles 2 and 3, then 12 strides to hurdles 4 and 5 and finally 13 strides from the 6th hurdle to the end. (But let's not forget that Young, with 1.93 m, was even taller than Moses). 

In my article "Revisiting the 400 m hurdles..." I discuss the technique of Young along with that of double olympic champion F. Sanchez, who, being rather short (just 1.75 m), could maintain a 13-stride rhythm only over the very first hurdles. What is curious is that J. Culsón (olympic and world medalist), who is the tallest of the elite hurdlers with 2.01 m, was running with 13 steps up to the eighth hurdle and then switched to 14. 

World record holder K. Warholm is the shortest among todays' hurdling elite, but with 1.87 m he is just one cm shorter than Moses. Still, we see him often having trouble at the last hurdles either switching to 15 steps (Warholm is not equally at ease hurdling with either leg), or, if he tries to maintain the 13 rhythm, hitting the last hurdle and losing time. (In fact he switched from 13 to 15 for the last three hurdles during the Paris Olympics). A. Samba (1.92 m) and K. McMaster (1.91 m) both opt for 13 strides up to the 6th hurdle and then switch to 14. The one who seems to have mastered the 13-stride technique is R. Benjamin, who is of the same stature as the previous two (1.91 m). However, from time to time, he passes a few hurdles in 12 steps, but it seems as if he is "overstriding" rather than having planned that. The one who is really implementing the 12 steps is A. Dos Santos. Being 2 m tall and at ease with both legs, he has no trouble maintaining 12 steps up to hurdle five and then continuing with 13. (And he passes the first hurdle with 19 steps while most high-level athletes need 20). 

And how about women? They use typically 15 steps between hurdles. But S. McLaughlin (1.75 m) is changing this. She is hurdling with 14 steps up to the seventh hurdle and then switches to 15, and she is experimenting with a 14-stride pace throughout. It goes without saying that she is perfectly at ease with both legs. Her greatest rival F. Bol, somewhat taller at 1.80 m, but slightly less at ease with both legs, has also adopted the 14-step technique.  

So, the way to astral performances passes through a reduction of the number of steps between hurdles. And Moses was the one who traced this way.

"Eleven wretched women" or how misogyny is still reigning

On January 2020 I wrote an article entitled "Eleven wretched women, or how fake news almost killed women athletics". It's one of the best articles I have written in this blog. Unfortunately it has gone almost unnoticed, with just over 300 views, while my article on the javelin controversy has more than 12 thousand. 

For those of you who have not read it (although I urge you to follow the link and read it in detail) here is a summary. 

In 1928, at the Amsterdam Olympics, after de Coubertin had retired, women events were admitted in the athletics program. The women's 800 m race was held on August 1 and 2. Twenty-five athletes in all presented themselves in the heats and 9 were qualified for the final. (It is most probable that E. Weber dropped out after one lap, but there is nothing about this in the official report. In any case we can see her on the right, smiling together with the winner L. Radke and 7th place finisher M. Dollinger, who had set an olympic record in the heats). 

Dollinger, Radke and Weber

The final was won by L. Radke in a new world record. She was followed by K. Hitomi and I. Gentzel. At the finish line F. McDonald, leaning in order to beat B. Rosenfeld, tripped and fell. She was helped to her feet by the judges and that was that. 

And then the opprobrious articles started raining. It started with the article of W. Shirer in the Chicago Tribune where he reported that 5 women collapsed on the track, F. McDonald needed to be "worked over" after her fall, and Hitomi needed a 15 min revival after suffering from complete exhaustion. Shirer was probably enjoying a drink at some Amsterdam bar instead of being at the stadium and, fearing for his career at the newspaper (he was just 24 at the time), he invented a sensational story. (It is really a shame that Shirer, who became a renowned historian, author of the famous "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", had started his career as a misogynist liar). The lies of Shirer were surpassed by those of J. Tunis, who, according to the Wikipedia, is the "inventor of the modern sports story". Well, his article in the N.Y. Evening Post is a perfect example of a sports horror story.

The consequence of these lies was that the IAAF banned the 800 m from the women's program. To tell the truth the IAAF Areopagus were itching to eradicate women events from the olympic program. And women had to wait till 1960 in order to see the 800 m reinstated.

But this is the story I have written already and telling it again would be an overkill. The only reason I decided to write again on this subject was a recent article on the World Athletics site. The article was an interesting one. It was comparing the women's 2024 performances to those of their male counterparts of a century ago, in the Paris 1924 Olympics. (In case you have not followed my series on the long and arduous road of women to the Olympics, there were no women's athletics events in Paris, 1924). A. Milliat had appealed to the IOC but met with de Coubertin's refusal who declared that he did not approve of the participation of women in public competitions. "At the Olympic Games, their role should above all be to crown the winners”). The WA article points out that many of the current women's world records are better than the men's ones of a century back. The ones I find most impressive is F. Kipyegon's 3:49.04 in the 1500 m, beating the one P. Nurmi set in 1924, 3:52.6, by a full three seconds and B. Chebet's 28:54.14 beating the 28:54.2 of E. Zatopek established in 1954(!).

I was enjoying the article and then I arrived at the following paragraph.

I was flabbergasted. That was an article published in the official page of the World Athletics federation. And it was perpetuating the calumny. I did not know if it was bad journalism or misogyny (or an unhealthy mixture of both) but I was really shocked. I wrote immediately to World Athletics pointing out that the article was based on century-old fake news. (It goes without saying that I never received an answer and the article was never amended). To my eyes the things are clear. While the people who are managing sports are pretending to favour women-men parity, deep in their hearts they do not give a damn about women. 

There is a great article in Women's Running entitled "The 1928 olympics scandal", talking about what happened in the women's 800 m in Amsterdam. (It's written by R. Robinson, author, among others, of what is considered as the reference book 'Running through time").

(Robinson's article is so good that, had it appeared before I wrote my own, I might have decided not to write on the subject). One thing I learned in that article was that H. Abraham, the 1924 gold medallist over 100 m, who worked as a journalist in 1928, wrote: "I do not consider that women are built for really violent exercise”. Clearly he was going along with the current prevailing in that era. But 30 years later, when women had started making a headway into athletics, he revised his position, writing: “The sensational descriptions of the terrible exhaustion which overcame the runners in this race, much exaggerated I can assure you, led to the abandonment of this event from the Games”. 

And of course, the worse enemies of women happen to be women (in case you are wondering, the main reason there is no official women's decathlon is because of the opposition of women heptathletes). B. Robinson, who won the 100 m race confided that “I believe the 220 yard dash is long enough for any girl to run. Imagine girls falling down before they hit the finish line or collapsing when the race is over! The laws of nature never provided a girl with the physical equipment to withstand the gruelling pace of such a grind”. Amazing!

Robinson (the author, not the sprinter) does not hesitate to allude to something that sounds like a conspiracy theory, namely that the IOC somehow made it known that they would welcome attention to the negative aspects in reporting the race. But the sad fact is that, at that time, (almost) everybody believed that women would be harmed by any endurance effort and they interpreted or twisted the facts accordingly. Sometimes that was cast in a (pseudo)scientific jargon, like the one of a woman doctor, correspondent of the London Times, who wrote: “Nature made woman to bear children, and she cannot rid herself of the fat to the extent necessary for feats of extreme endurance”.

Journalistic slopiness, conspiracy, unfounded scientific beliefs, one can more or less interpret what happened in 1928. But understanding what happened does not mean that one can forgive it. And, seeing that World Athletics is willing to repeat a blatant lie, one starts wondering whether flagrant jeering sexism (Robinson's expression) isn't still dominating the sports world.

World Athletics Ultimate Championship: some bizarre choices

In June World Athletics announced the creation of the Ultimate Championship to be held in Budapest across three evenings on 11-13 September 2026. Each session will be of three hours duration and the participants will represent their national teams. There will be 16 athletes in each track event, 8 in each field event and 8 relay teams. 

The good

The year at the midpoint between two olympiads is usually a low-tone one. Of course, there is always the Diamond League and it's the year where the continental championships can gather the discipline's elite, at least as far as European championships are concerned. By introducing the Ultimate Championship, World Athletics offers to the best athletes of the world one more occasion to shine. 

And it is clear that they will come, not only for glory but also for the prizes which are really very substantial: the champions will receive 150000 $, the total prize budget being 10 dollars.

Having a championship in mid-September will necessarily push the Diamond League meetings to earlier dates, making it a rather short season for the vast majority of athletes. 

Also, it was announced that the selection will be based primarily on world rankings. I don't know how "primarily" is to be understood in this context, but I am always wary when there is a question of world rankings. 

The only good thing with such a selection is that the athletes will not have to be subjected to national trials and can focus exclusively on the championships.

The bad

Things start getting bad is when it comes to the events program and in particular the field ones. 

I don't have any remark concerning the track individual events: 100 m, 200 m, 400 m, 800m, 1500 m,  5000 m, 100 m/110 m hurdles, 400 m hurdles. It is not clear yet which distances will be run in direct final and which in semis and final. There will probably be semis up to 800 m and direct final for the 5000 m, with the 1500 m being a question mark. 

But the choice of field disciplines is really strange. Pole vault, high jump and long jump are OK, but why is there a women's only triple jump? (Probably Lord Sebastian is a fan of Y. Rojas who would be coming back after a year spent backstage due to injury).

Adding the men's event wouldn't have burdened the timing. But perhaps the sponsors had put a strict limit to the number of events.

The ugly

But where things are really ugly it's with the throws. Who in their right mind could select javelin throw, a discipline where there has been a single 70+ woman's throw over the past decade (M.Andrejczyk 71.40 m in 2021) and where 2/3 of the men's 90+ throws are more than a decade old? Discus, both men's and women's would have been a far better choice.  

As for the choice of men's hammer throw it's a real mystery. There is just one great hammer thrower today: E. Katzberg. Fajdek and Nowicki have been great in their day but are reaching the end of their careers. Perhaps World Athletics chose the discipline to please the Hungarian organisers. Let's not forget that B. Halasz was third in the Doha, 2019 and the Budapest,2023 World's and second in this year's Olympics (and also second in the Europeans in 2022 and 2024). But, in my eyes, the men's shot put would have been a far better choice.

Having criticised the choice of the field events I would like to conclude my article on a more positive note. It concerns the relays. Back in 2017 I published a post entitled "Mixed relays, hurrah", celebrating the introduction of the 4x400 m mixed race in the program of the World Relays. The event is thriving, being now part of both the World Championships and the Olympics program. Moreover the fact that the order of the runners is fixed (man-woman-man-woman) had made the event much easier to follow.

But in that article I was also making a wish (a prophesy?). I was writing:

Speaking of mixed relays it's the 4x100 m that I would like to see even more than the 4x400 m. The short relay depends crucially on delicately balancing the speeds of the two runners at the exchange of the baton. So, adding the extra difficulty of different top speeds for male and female runners would make this event even more challenging. I cross my fingers for such an event to become part of official competitions. 

And now WA has added the mixed 4x100 m to the Ultimate Championships program. I am impatient to see how this event will turn out in real-life conditions. And I guess that we will not have to wait till 2026. The countries that would like to qualify are well advised to start preparing, organising mixed 4x100 m relays at national level. (And I am curious to see if the US team who is botching two out of three competitions with the men's 4x100 m relay will fare better with the team stabilised by the female presence).

In case you were wondering, there has never been any thought about a combined event in the form, say, of a triathlon. A speed-force event with long jump, shot put and 400 m or a more technical one with long jump, javelin and 110 hurdles would be compatible with the highly focused program of the Ultimate Championship and would be a recognition of the combined event stars. But, of course, one can dream.