26 Toma{ Kampmiller, Milo{ Slamka, Marian Vanderka (1999). Comparative biomechanical analysis… KinSI, 5(1–2) : 26–30
COMPARATIVE BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS
OF 110 m HURDLES OF IGOR KOVÁ^ AND
PETER NEDELICKÝ
PRIMERJALNA BIOMEHANI^NA ANALIZA
TEKA NA 110 M OVIRE IGORJA KOVA^A IN
PETRA NEDELICKYJA
Toma{ Kampmiller
Milo{ Slamka
Marian Vanderka
Abstract
The biomechanical characteristics of two athletes’
technique in 100m hurdles were analysed, trying to
find the parameters leading to the difference in their
running results. The measurements were performed in
the final race of the IAAF-II meeting Slovnaft ’97 in Bra-
tislava. The subjects were I.K. with a personal best of
13.13 s and P .N. with 13.97 s. They were filmed with a
S-VHS camera at 50 Hz on the 8
th
hurdle. The film was
analysed with the BAF 2D video analysis system, the
time, space and velocity parameters were obtained
and joint moments of the knees and hips computed.
The competitors realise the support phase before and
after the hurdle in different ways. The position of C.G.
before the hurdle is lower for I.K., he has a longer brea-
king and acceleration phase. However, differences are
mostly in the kinematics after the hurdle. I.K. goes to
touch-down with a higher C.G. position. His elastic
stiffness is more developed because of quicker dece-
leration of C.G. lowering during the first part of the sup-
port phase after the hurdle. Also, during take-off, the
position of C.G. of I.K. is higher. This leads to I.K.’s hig-
her velocity with shorter support and acceleration pha-
ses.
Keywords: hurdle clearance, braking and accelera-
tion phase, kinematic structure, takeoff and landing
Izvle~ek
V delu so bile analizirane biomehani~ne zna~ilnosti
tehnike prehoda ovire dveh tekmovalcev v teku na
110 m ovire, z namenom ugotoviti kateri parametri
pripeljejo do razlike v njunem tekmovalnem rezulta-
tu. Meritve so bile opravljene v finalu IAAF-II mitinga
Slovnaft ’97 v Bratislavi. Subjekta sta bila I.K. z najbolj-
{im ~asom 13.13 s in P .N. s 13.97 s. Posneta sta bila s 50
Hz S-VHS kamero na osmi oviri. Posnetki so bili anali-
zirani z BAF 2D video sistemom, dobljeni so bili ~asov-
ni, prostorski in hitrostni parametri ter izra~unani mo-
menti v kolenih in bokih.
Tekmovalca izvajata podporno fazo pred in po oviri na
razli~en na~in. Polo`aj te`i{~a telesa I.K. pred oviro je
ni`ji, ta tekmovalec ima tudi dalj{o zaviralno in pospe-
{evalno fazo. Vendar je najve~ razlik v kinematiki po
oviri. I.K. ima vi{ji polo`aj te`i{~a telesa ob pristanku.
Njegova elasti~na togost je bolj razvita, kar se vidi iz hi-
trej{e deceleracije pri spu{~anju te`i{~a telesa v prvem
delu podporne faze po oviri. Ta tekmovalec ima tudi
vi{ji polo`aj te`i{~a telesa pri odrivu. Vse navedeno pri-
pelje do ve~je hitrosti in kraj{e podporne in pospe{e-
valne faze pri I.K..
Klju~ne besede: prehod ovire, zaviralna faza, pospe-
{evalna faza, kinemati~na struktura, odriv,  pristanek
Received: 22. 06. 1998 – Accepted: 02. 06. 1999
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Comenius University, 
Nabr. L. Svobodu 9, SK-814 69 Bratislava, Slovakia.
Tel: +421 7 5311-302
Fax: +421 7 5313-327
E-mail: kampmiller@pobox.sk

27 Toma{ Kampmiller, Milo{ Slamka, Marian Vanderka (1999). Comparative biomechanical analysis… KinSI, 5(1–2) : 26–30
INTRODUCTION
110 m hurdles has a extraordinary demands to the
hurdler from the point of view of sprint speed, explosi-
ve strength, special co-ordination and rhythm. Their
characteristics are clearly shown in the parameters of
the technique economy. A lot of authors have been al-
ready interested – in hurdling technique. The biomec-
hanical models defined by time, spatial and velocity pa-
rameters are presented in the contributions of the follo-
wing authors: Oros (1980), Schlüter (1981), Kollath
(1983), Kampmiller – Ko{tial (1987), McDonald – Da-
pena (1991), LaFortune (1991), Hommel Vernon
(1991), McLean (1994), Milerová a kol. (1996), ^oh
(1997). They coincide that hurdling inevitable needs to
minimise the velocity loss during the takeoff phase and
mainly by the landing phase at the moment of touch-
down. As base parameters for the technique economy
evaluation in these phases are usually used the angle of
takeoff and landing angle at the moment of touchdown.
Individual analysis of the technique and rhythm of the
hurdling are done by Glad Brüggemann (1990), Mero –
Luhtanen (1991), Dapena (1991), Arnold (1993), Hom-
mel (1995), Iskra (1995) on the sample of the world best
hurdlers. They refer to claims of creation of the indivi-
dual models of the hurdling technique. At the same
time they analysed insufficiency each individuals from
the point of view of rational generalised model.
The object of our research was the hurdle clearance
with support phases before and after the hurdle. In par-
ticular the landing phase and following support phase
after the hurdle clearance are significantly different
from sprint support phase and takeoff preparation pha-
se of jumping events. The main aim of the movement
during both support phases of the hurdling before and
after the hurdle clearance is to maintain the velocity as
much as possible.
METHODS
The measurement was performed on the final race of
110 m hurdles during IAAF II meeting Slovnaft ’97 in
Bratislava. Sample was made by I.K.with personal best
(P .B.) 13.13 s and 13.48 s performance during analysed
race. The second member of the sample was P .N. with
personal best 13.97 s and 14.09 s performance during
analysed race. The movement for analysis was filmed
by S-VHS camera with frequency of 50 Hz on the 8 the
hurdle. Record movement has bee analysed by two di-
mensional (2D) video analysis system BAF . By the 2D
analysis we have obtained the time, spatial and velocity
parameters. Also resultant and total joint moments of
knees and hips were calculated. We were going out of
contributions, which have been done by Carol (1991)
and Sanders (1996). We assume that resultant force of
C.G. (centre of gravity) is based on the principle of ac-
tion and reaction and therefore compensated by the
force with equal value and opposite direction in the
support place. The reaction force can by divided to ho-
rizontal and vertical parts. It is a  basis for the creation of
the force moments in the joints of lower extremities.
The addition of these moments equals the resultant
joint moments (RJM). During the lash phases following
forces affect to the segments of unsupported leg: centri-
fugal force evoked by angular velocity, inertial force ex-
cited by angular acceleration and forces effected by gra-
vity of each segment. These forces are included in total
joint moment (TJM) of unsupported lash leg. To elimi-
nate the random errors we applicate to the entry data
the method of cascade gliding averages (Kendal,1976).
RESULTS
The trajectory of C.G. and the curve of vertical and ho-
rizontal velocity are presented on the figure 1 and 2.
Table 1 contains the high of C.G. in selected positions.
I.K. has a wider angle of activity during support phase
before hurdle an about 9°. P .N. presents a higher posi-
tion of C.G. (P .N.’s 106.4 cm vs. I.K.’s 103.4 cm) during
the first part of support phase before takeoff to the hurd-
I.K. P.N.
Position High (cm) Position High (cm)
Start of takeoff 7 103.4 10 106.4
End of takeoff 13 115.6 15 119.3
14 119.6 16 123.4
Start of touchdown 30 123.1 35 119.4
31 120.2 36 115.5
End of touchdown 34 114.7 40 107.9
35 113.5 41 106.7
Tab.1 High of C.G. in the choice positions during the
hurdle clearance
Figure 1

28 Toma{ Kampmiller, Milo{ Slamka, Marian Vanderka (1999). Comparative biomechanical analysis… KinSI, 5(1–2) : 26–30
le. It results to the keener angle in the moment of
touchdown (65° vs. 67°) and the longer breaking pha-
se (53 cm vs. 47 cm). This activity is going to higher
decreasing of horizontal velocity for I.K. an about 0.7
m.s
–1
while as for P .N. it is only 0.56 m.s
–1
. The takeoff
angle is for I.K. 67° and for P .N. 74°. It corespondates
with longer acceleration phase of I.K. (54 cm) than
P .N.’s (34 cm). It makes a higher increasing of horizon-
tal velocity (0.20 m.s
–1
vs. 0.19 m.s
–1
). The value of
vertical velocity after the takeoff is in spite of different
solution of the movement structure almost the same
(1.70 m.s
–1
vs.1.73 m.s
–1
).
The stride length over the hurdle (so called »clearance
phase«) is very similar 376 cm for I.K. and 370 cm for
P .N. The highest position of C.G. over the hurdle is 29
cm vs. 30 cm. Despite of higher position of C.G. over
the hurdle P .N. slightly strikes the hurdle as it is visible at
figure 4. We find out also the differences between the
hurdlers in distances of the takeoff positions 220 cm for
I.K. vs. 207 cm for P .N. The deviations are also found
by distances from instep to the hurdle during the mo-
ment of touchdown (so called »landing distance«) 156
cm vs. 163 cm. Owing to different takeoff angles has
I.K. less value of vertical velocity of C.G. in the moment
of touchdown 1.16 m.s
–1
vs. 1.71 m.s
–1
. We can af-
firm that I.K. at the moment of touchdown falls down
more slowly than P .N. It entails to the less value of ver-
tical force and resultant joint moments of knee and hip.
The high of C.G. positions at the moment of touch-
down after the hurdle is in table l. For I.K. it is in 30th
position and high of C.G. in this moment is 123.1 cm
and for P .N. it is in 35th position with high of C.G. 119.4
cm. That is probably caused by different length of lo-
wer extremities, higher position of ankle, knee and hip
joints. (We do not have any antropometric parame-
ters.) It is possible that I.K. is able to deviate the axis of
hips in frontal plane more than P .N., but this phenome-
na is unidentified from the sagital plane view, which
was used for 2D analysis. Landing angle at the moment
of touchdown after the hurdle is for I.K. 78° vs. P .N. 85°,
so that breaking phase is by I.K. an about 9 cm longer
Figure 2
Figure 3 Figure 4

29 Toma{ Kampmiller, Milo{ Slamka, Marian Vanderka (1999). Comparative biomechanical analysis… KinSI, 5(1–2) : 26–30
than P .N. s (27 cm vs. 16 cm), also I.K.’s decreasing of
horizontal velocity is larger than P .N. s (0.26 m.s
–1
vs
0.04 m.s
–1
) The length of C.G. s trajectory during the
support phase has I.K. shorter than P .N. (44 cm vs. 72
cm) and takeoff angle is for I.K. 69° vs. P .N.’s 57°. This
kinematics parameters also exert the influence upon
increasing the horizontal velocity (I.K.’s 0.26 m.s
–1
vs.
P .N.’s 0.34 m.s
–1
).
Figure 3 and 4 presents the kinograms of landing pha-
ses up to the touchdowns before and after the hurdle.
I.K. use the active way of touchdown that is characte-
rised by negative horizontal velocity of instep after the
hurdle clearance tightly to touchdown. On the other
hand P .N. has more active touchdown before the hurd-
le. As for landing phase we observe by P .N. wider ran-
ge and dynamics of vertical velocity. It corespondates
with larger maximal values of vertical force of C.G. and
RJM of knee. The flight parabola is more fluent by I.K.,
all of kinematic and dynamic parameters confirm this
statement, because the vertical part of the movement
are smaller.
Different situation sets in RJMs. We can analysed only
the RJM of lash (lead) leg. This movement is going
through the sagital plane, which is perpendicular to ax-
is of recording. During the support phase after the
hurdle is lashing movement limited so that RJMS. I.K.
best specifies the movement in this plane has relatively
smaller values of RJM during this support phase. It cau-
ses by smaller range and dynamics of C.G. movement.
During unsupported phase of hurdling clearance (flight
parabola) are vertical and horizontal forces equal to ze-
ro. We neglect aerodynamics resistance. The charac-
ter of the movement progression is determined by cen-
trifugal force which is evoked by angular velocity, iner-
tial force excited by angular acceleration and forces ef-
fected to the gravity of the lower extremities segments.
P .N. achieves high values of total joint moments (TJM)
in both observed joints during the support phase after
the hurdle. Especially TJM of hip is an about 40 % hig-
her than by I. K. (1 000 N.m vs. 600 N.m). The C. G. of
P . N. is during breaking phase after the hurdle falling
down more than by I.K. It results to the sharper angle of
takeoff (57° for P .N.) and longer acceleration phase
(72cm), which presents the branch of vertical force ac-
tivity. P .N. falls down at the moment of touchdown
more aggressively from the point of view of the high va-
lue of vertical force and longer branch of this force. It
results to the higher RJM of hip. P .N. achieves RJM and
about 700 N.m and I.K. only 400 N.m. The difference
between TJM and RJM is for P .N. 300 N.m and for I.K.
200 N.m. The differences are evoked especially by the
effect of inertial force during the angular acceleration of
lash leg. P .N. has longer acceleration phase which ine-
vitable reflects to the longer trajectory of leg pulling. It
has influence upon growing the TJM. So that this gro-
wing is caused by lash work of takeoff leg in the end of
support phase. Owing to this results we are able to af-
firm that the economy of landing is much more effecti-
ve by I.K.
Well, following facts of P .N. limit the chance of the stri-
de frequency and velocity increasing. So that P .N. ac-
hieves during the landing phase after the hurdle larger
lowering of C.G., harder touchdown, longer accelera-
tion phases, sharper takeoff angle and higher value of
TJM of hip. He has to move his takeoff leg from longer
distance and must exert more effort to achieve a opti-
mal structure of the movement.
I.K. achieves during hurdle clearance higher moment
of the forces of hip and knee joints. Higher horizontal
velocity, higher intensity of lash movement and shor-
ter time of the movement execution by lower extremi-
ties is characterised for I.K. As for P .N.’s TJMs, there is
opposite tendency. Both support phases before and af-
ter the hurdle take 0.6 s by P .N. and 0.54 s by I.K. The
movement execution takes more time and therefore
P .N. needn’t exert so much effort for lashing work of
legs.
CONCLUSIONS
Both of competitors realise the support phases before
and after the hurdle by different ways. C.G. position
before the hurdle is lower by I.K. so that he presents
longer breaking but also acceleration phase. Total lost
of horizontal velocity before the hurdle is higher by I.K.
(0.51 m.s
–1
vs. 0.37 m.s
–1
). Differences are above all in
kinematics after the hurdle. I.K. is going to touchdown
with higher position of C.G. His elastic stiffness is more
developed because of higher intensity of deceleration
of C.G. lowering during the first part of support phase
after the hurdle. Also during the takeoff moment is C.G.
position of I.K. higher than P .N. These facts exert the
influence upon I.K.’s higher velocity with shorter sup-
port phases and shorter acceleration phases than P .N.’s.
The P .N.’s landing angle in the moment of touchdown
after the hurdle is 85°. His C.G. is during this moment
directly over the instep of support leg, which evokes
very short trajectory of deceleration. Further part of
P .N.’s support phase is characterised by higher inten-
sity of the C.G.’s lowering. We suppose that it prolongs
the time of contact and acceleration phase. The que-
stion is: how does it work in the following phases of the
hurdling’? The changes of horizontal velocity during
support phase after the hurdle is zero by I.K. and by P .N.
+0.3 m.s
–1
. Horizontal velocity during the clearance
phase together with both support phases decreases by
I.K. an about 0.68 m.s
–1
vs. P .N.’s 0.4 m.s
–1
In spite of
following better performance both of competitors du-
ring the ’97 season, we set great store by next recom-
mendations for hurdling clearance phase.

1. By larger angle of touchdown before the hurdle can
I.K. achieve shorter breaking phase. As for the lan-
ding phase after the hurdle we approve the same
method: to increase the angle of touchdown with fi-
xing C.G. on the same or higher position so that the
lost of velocity can by lower.
2. For P .N. we recommend more aggressive attack to
the hurdle, sharper angle of takeoff connected with
shorter stride length before the hurdle, takeoff pla-
ce should be more distant to the hurdle. In spite of
the touchdown after the hurdle seems to be effec-
tive, the position of the C.G. needs to be higher. It
could decrease the values of vertical forces and ma-
kes the support phase-to be lighter. We also recom-
mend prolonging the length of the first stride after
the hurdle.
Based on these results we are able to affirm that the
way of kinematic structure execution during both sup-
port phases can exert the dominant influence upon re-
sultant efficiency of the movement over and tightly af-
ter the hurdle.
REFERENCES
1. Arnold, M., & Hommel, H. (1995). Colin Jackson –10 m hurdles.
New Stud. in Athletics, 3, 57–65.
2. Carol, A. P. (1991). A segment interaction analysis of proximal to-di-
stal sequential segment motion patterns. Medicine and Science in
Sport and Exercise, 130 –143.
3. ^oh, M. et al. (1997). A Bio-mechanical Model of the 100 m Hurd-
les of Brigita Bukovec. TV[, 7 (3), 32 – 39.
4. Dapena, J. (1991). Hurdle clearance technique. Track and Field
Quart.Rev.,116(3), 710–712.
5. Glad, B. & Brüggemann, G.P. (1990). Time analysis of the 110 metres
and 100 metres hurdles. Monaco: IAAF.
6. Hommel, H. & Vernon, J. (1991). 100 m hurdles. Yordanka Donko-
va. New Stud. in Athletics, 4, 64 – 72
7. Iskra, J. (1995).The most effective technical training for the 110 me-
tres hurdles. New Stud. in Athletics, 3, 51–55.
8. Jaïuï, I. (1995). Analýza závislosti preká`karskej rýchlosti na kinema-
tickej {truktúre preká`kového behu. Bachelor‘s thesis. Bratislava:
FTV[ UK.
9. Kampmiller, T. & Ko{tial, J.(1987). Preká`kové behy. In Kuchen a
kol.: Teória a didaktika atletiky. Bratislava: SPN, 121–158.
10. Kendall, M. (1976). Times – Series. Second edition. Charles Griffin.
11. Kolath, E. (1983). Zum Einflus einzelner Körpersegmente auf die
vertikale Abfluggeschwindigkeit des KSP beim 100 m Hurdenlauf.
Leistunssport, 4, 37–42.
12. La – Fortune, M.A. (1991). Biomechanical analysis of 110 m hurd-
les. Track and Field News, 70–72.
13. Mc Lean, B. (1994). The biomechanics of hurdling. New Stud. in
Athletics, 4, 55–58. 
14. McDonald, C. & Dapena, J. (1991). Linear kinematics of the men’s
110 m and women’s 100 m hurdles races. Med. Sci. in Sports Exerc.,
23(12), 1382–1402.
15. Mero, A. & Luhtanen, P. (1986). Biomechanische Untersuchung
des Htirdenlaufs wahrend der Weltmeisterschaften in Helsinki. Lei-
stungssport, 1, 42 – 43.
16. Millerová, V., [elinger, P. & [elingerová, M. (1996). Biomechanická
analýza techniky preká`kového behu. In Vyhodnocování trénin-
kového procesu sprinterek v roce 1996 (pp. 22–23).  Praha: FTVS. 
17. Oros, F. (1980). Gátfutás, In Koltai, J.: Atlétika II. Budapest: Sport.
18. Sanders, N.V. & Josep, H. (1996). An Alternative Model of the Lo-
wer extremity During Locomotion. Journal of applied Biomecha-
nics, 12, 269 – 279.
19. Schlüter, W. (1981). Kinematische Merkamale der 110 m Hürden-
technik. Liestugssport, 2, 118 – 127.
30 Toma{ Kampmiller, Milo{ Slamka, Marian Vanderka (1999). Comparative biomechanical analysis… KinSI, 5(1–2) : 26–30