## 1 Introduction  
The hurdles events have been analyzed through different approaches such as biomechanics, conditional, teaching and learning, talent identification, psychological, or medical [1, 2]. Within biomechanical analyses, two types of studies stand out: temporal and spatial. The obication of the hurdles serves as a useful reference for the division of the event into the following phases [3]: approach run phase (from the starting line to the first hurdle), hurdle unit phase (race and clearance of the hurdles), and run-in phase (from the last hurdle to the finishing line). Temporal analyses are commonly focused on the split times between each hurdle clearance (foot landing) [4, 5, 6, 7]. The times from the athlete's foot landing after one hurdle to the following hurdle are employed for practical reasons, as it allows an easy visual identification of the splits. [PERSON] et al. [6] showed that the correlation between intermediate times and final performance was decisive from the fifth obstacle onwards in the 110 m obstacle event (r = 0.77 to 0.98), while [PERSON] et al. [7] found a correlation between split times with the official time in the 60 m indoor event in most of the intervals, both for elite men (r = 0.65 to 0.84) and women (r = 0.55 to 0.87). Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [8] found an almost perfect correlation (r = 0.99) between the mean of the hurdle-unitsplit time and the official time in the 60 m hurdle race. In addition to the split time analysis, it is frequent to refer to the flight time over the hurdle (from take-off to landing) in temporal studies. [PERSON] et al. [7] found a correlation in not all of the hurdles between the flight time and the official time, while [PERSON] et al. [8] found a very large correlation (r = 0.82) between the mean flight time of the five hurdle steps and the official time. Among the spatial analyses, three-dimensional (3D) studies stand out, even though they are habitually carried out in a single hurdle-unit interval (between the second and fifth hurdle), in a training situation or employing a small sample of subjects due to the costly analysis of the data [9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16]. The organization of the steps that make up the hurdle-unit phase within the studies depends on the selection of the phase of interest: following a deterministic model which comprises the preparatory, hurdle, landing and recovery steps [9; 17], only the hurdle and landing steps [10; 11; 13; 14; 15], or from hurdle to hurdle [12]. There is a single precedent of the analysis of all ten hurdles during the 110 m hurdle event [18], who performed a two-dimensional analysis and calculated take-off (2.04 \(\pm\) 0.07 m) and landing (1.47 \(\pm\) 0.03 m) distances. Complementarily, [PERSON] et al. [8] analyzed the average of every step of the hurdle-unit phase, in addition to the approach run and run-in phases, finding differences between international and national hurdlers in various parameters during 60 m hurdles event, for both men and women. Most of these kinematical studies indicate that an efficient hurdle clearance technique is associated with the take-off contact time, take-off and landing distances, take-off angle, and to the hurdle flight time. However, the differences found between some studies may be due to the analysis of different single hurdle intervals, since the kinematic parameters in hurdles and sprint events change as the running speed varies [18; 19]. Also, differences could rely on the different criteria when defining the split times of each hurdle-unit [11; 13; 14; 15] as not many studies consider both the preparatory and recovery steps on it. Therefore, the aims of the present research were: (1) to compare the five hurdle-unit split times from a deterministic model with the hurdle to hurdle model and with the official time, (2) to compare the step kinematics of each hurdle-unit intervals, and (3) to relate these variables to their respective hurdle-unit split times.