Gebrselassie says we've got to factor in the technology of shoes when discussing world records

Disclosure: Forgot to say the Great Ethiopian Run paid for my trip

Definitely valid. Doesn’t necessarily mean the current record holders weren’t fit enough to break the old records.

Who cares about shoes.

How is the coffee in Addis?

And do you like Injera?

Tough to put Tadese on the spot like that. Cool that the Eritreans are there though!

Yeah I mean we talk about this kind of thing all the time right? Back in the day they ran on cinder tracks and used different shoes than we all do now, and that's one of the reasons why it's hard to compare performances across eras. In the pole vault the pole materials have changed over time. In cycling the aerodynamics improve. In swimming there was that huge controversy surrounding the special suits. In speed skating the clap skates were a big deal when they were introduced.

A while back there was that company (spira?) that put springs in their shoes and had their runners run super fast marathons, even though the times wouldn't count. Letsrun covered that pretty closely iirc.

So Track and Field has some rules for their shoes. So far nobody seems to be trying to claim that the new Nike ones don't break those rules. The ability to show that these shoes are a bit faster than their competitors is a great marketing gimmick, but I'd like to think that shoes (especially spikes) have been gradually improving all along.

Geb ran so many world records, he is clearly one of the greatest if not greatest of all time. Even if those records don't stand forever, he'll still forever remain one of the greatest of all time.

I mean, it usually comes up when talking about jesse owens or roger banister, etc. Same concept

Look I love Kipchoge but you only have to watch the footage of him crossing the line in Berlin to realise we're looking at something completely different here...

there is no foam invented yet that gives you back more than 1% in running economy over another

and carbon PLATE is another level with another 1% from stiffness

but vaporfly is not just a flat plate at the insole or bottom of the shoe like a track spike plate that adds the benefit of stiffness

it's an engineered, shaped leaf-spring designed to return energy far beyond a foam and do it in a way that guarantees forward propulsion of that energy

there are now three studies that prove this, it can't be fairly doubted, and it's shown that some people don't just get 4% economy improvement BEYOND the already fastest shoes on the market, some people get 6% depending on their form

even more, runner weight no longer matters to a degree because the carbon spring does not bottom out like a conventional shoe

for quick reference, every 1% at 2:30 pace is 1.5 minutes

do you think it's a level playing field for someone to have a SIX minute advantage regardless if they both had the same ability in conventional shoes?

Lets standardize all races with grass tracks/courses while barefoot

Should we factor in unfettered EPO usage?

Bring it back wrote:

Lets standardize all races with grass tracks/courses while barefoot

This really is the most moranic argument you read on the matter. It's like if someone "rode" the tour de France on a motorbike and people complained, someone going "well, let's get back to everyone taking part in penny-farthings".

Yeah technical innovations (within the ballpark) are part of any sport but the Vaporfly's carbon plate is a mechanical device, elevating the device from the realms of running shoe to something else, in exactly the same way putting a motor on a bike makes it a different device. You really don't have to be a genius to recognise that.

Efficiency/economy varies from one run to the next due to neuromuscular factors. It's like the claims for the efficiency of barefoot running, they are very small or none at all.

I agree- I started running in 1971- there were no "good" running shoes.

I think if I had the shoes now- for training and racing I would be a better runner and certainly would have suffered fewer injuries.

So, yes, shoes make you faster in the immediate sense, but also help you train faster and more.

Wow, Haile "Sour Grapes" Gebrselassie.

Only idiots would buy into that 4% nonsense. It won't make you faster than you are in other racing flats. Case closed.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

Bring it back wrote:

Lets standardize all races with grass tracks/courses while barefoot

This really is the most moranic argument you read on the matter. It's like if someone "rode" the tour de France on a motorbike and people complained, someone going "well, let's get back to everyone taking part in penny-farthings".

Yeah technical innovations (within the ballpark) are part of any sport but the Vaporfly's carbon plate is a mechanical device, elevating the device from the realms of running shoe to something else, in exactly the same way putting a motor on a bike makes it a different device. You really don't have to be a genius to recognise that.

Did you just compare the 4% shoes to a motor? ?????

And you called the other guy moronic ??????

Macdaddy wrote:

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

This really is the most moranic argument you read on the matter. It's like if someone "rode" the tour de France on a motorbike and people complained, someone going "well, let's get back to everyone taking part in penny-farthings".

Yeah technical innovations (within the ballpark) are part of any sport but the Vaporfly's carbon plate is a mechanical device, elevating the device from the realms of running shoe to something else, in exactly the same way putting a motor on a bike makes it a different device. You really don't have to be a genius to recognise that.

Did you just compare the 4% shoes to a motor? ?????

And you called the other guy moronic ??????

No, re-read. I compared the spring inside the 4%s to a motor as they are both mechanical aides.

And like I said, you don't need to be a genius to understand that.

There is now sufficient anecdotal evidence to support the 4% as a superior, faster running shoe. If Nike would reduce the price point to $120 or so, I'd buy it for racing.

I often run track workouts alternating shoe models. I just did it Thursday wearing the Hoka Cavu and the ON Cloud X. Both weighed 8.3 ounces. On the track, the Cloud X felt noticeably lighter and responsive. Shoe design can make a big difference.

In my opinion, the best design, other than the 4%, is the Newton Distance. If your forefoot can handle the increased impact pressures, it is a very responsive shoe.

runn wrote:

I agree- I started running in 1971- there were no "good" running shoes.

I think if I had the shoes now- for training and racing I would be a better runner and certainly would have suffered fewer injuries.

So, yes, shoes make you faster in the immediate sense, but also help you train faster and more.

True. I have several chronic, permanent injuries due to poor shoes in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

The first major advance in shoe design that I can recall is the Saucony Kinvara. When was that? 2005? 2007? Shoes have come a long way since then.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

Bring it back wrote:

Lets standardize all races with grass tracks/courses while barefoot

This really is the most moranic argument you read on the matter. It's like if someone "rode" the tour de France on a motorbike and people complained, someone going "well, let's get back to everyone taking part in penny-farthings".

Yeah technical innovations (within the ballpark) are part of any sport but the Vaporfly's carbon plate is a mechanical device, elevating the device from the realms of running shoe to something else, in exactly the same way putting a motor on a bike makes it a different device. You really don't have to be a genius to recognise that.

Spikes are mechanical devices too ya big dummie

This needs to be said.

The Ethiopians just can't accept the fact that Kenyans have upstaged them in the marathon and the half marathon events.

It is that simple.

Bekele is a Nike guy. He can wear whatever he wants.