Liz McColgan Interview: doesn't agree with Nike carbon-plated shoes. She is losing love of the sport....

dhdueuisidj wrote:

Sapel wrote:

She is wrong about cycling. New bikes and materials come out every year to improve speed.

And for those that think two athletes line up and the one with the better shoes wins, does not understand racing and running. I can provide 1000 examples of runners in Next% losing to athletes without Next%.

+1

New road and track cycling bikes are more aerodynamic than almost all of the “super bikes” that were made in the 90s and cost thousands upon thousands of dollars...and the aerodynamics are only one part of the equation when it comes to bikes. Try Dura-Ace components versus whatever comes on a $500 bike and it’s a world of difference in terms of weight, functionality, etc.

Who cares about bikes? This is a shoe with a spring in it.

albanese wrote:

Who cares about bikes? This is a shoe with a spring in it.

There was a post on here some time back that referred to a study of East Africans, and it concluded that most had longer achilles tendons, than Europeans. They effectively had a greater genetic spring.

I have not been on here since the Pandemic in March. Nothing has changed as far as the cheater shoes. I read half the article. The only thing I found out is that Liz McCoghan is a babe!

Those idiots who said it would not change the sport were wrong!

albanese wrote:

"I feel strongly that the time has now come to cap technological input, all athletes should compete at the same level of shoe technology, no one should gain an advantage. Cycling and swimming saw this very early on in their sport and put a stop to it. Nike is dominant and has resources far above what other sporting brands have. Their shoe technology is aiding in athlete performances so they have a clear and unfair advantage. All athletes should be on the start line as equals and presently they are not."

Extremely well said. Very concise and to the point.

I disagree. There are other carbon-plated shoes out there and a lot of athletes have had tremendous success in them. Look at Molly Seidel in the Endorphin Pros (which according to almost every review are a knock out shoe and pretty much as good as the VFs).

She gives Nike too much credit. Other shoe companies are catching up quickly.

Korir, Jepkosgei, and Keitany all made the podium at NYC 2019 wearing Adidas. Does she want to ban Adidas shoes too?

Carbon 3 iron wrote:

She is against the Nike Carbon Plated shoe. She is for the ASICS carbon plated shoe. Fyi , she is still on Asics contract , along with her daughter.

Oh, the irony....

So we can't really take her seriously then. She hates her competitor (Nike) cause they have better designers and engineers. Jealousy is a bad look...

albanese wrote:Who cares about bikes? This is a shoe with a spring in it.

If you’re referring to the foam, then you’re correct, it does have a spring as does every other running shoe.

If you’re not referring to the foam then you actually have no idea what you’re taking about.

sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:

The problem with the shoes is that you could have two athletes of similar fitness on the line and the one with the better shoes will win. That's not the point of the athletics; the point is to determine who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoes.

I've noticed myself losing interest due to the ridiculous shoes, constant doping busts, incompetent management of the sport, terrible coverage, clandestine training groups, and athletes that rarely compete. What's the point of following a sport that is dirty, secretive, and poorly managed? I'd rather focus on being a local road race hero.

Two identical runners both train hard to the max etc.

One has blood tests and tunes their training accordingly the other has gait analysis and tunes their running style accordingly.

Which, if any, is the natural runner and deserves to win?

Alfie wrote:

Liz is convinced she was cheated out of a Gold medal.

1988 in Seoul. Probably should have won the silver in Rome in 87. IMHO her Barcelona 92 result was legit but who can tell for certain. I too am losing my love of the sport as doping is probably more prevalent today than when Liz competed.

Sapel wrote:

She is wrong about cycling. New bikes and materials come out every year to improve speed.

But in professional cycling, bikes are severely restricted, to the point where everyone is essentially competing with the same equipment: 6.8 kg minimum weight, diamond shape, no aerodynamic fairings. Much lighter and / or aerodynamic bikes are available commercially, but not allowed in professional racing. The UCI is notoriously corrupt (like the IAAF etc.), but in this respect, it's a good example.

Rhodium Nights wrote:

Carbon 3 iron wrote:

She is against the Nike Carbon Plated shoe. She is for the ASICS carbon plated shoe. Fyi , she is still on Asics contract , along with her daughter.

Oh, the irony....

So we can't really take her seriously then. She hates her competitor (Nike) cause they have better designers and engineers. Jealousy is a bad look...

Have you spoken to her to confirm that’s the case? Or are you just making stuff up?

Does the article address her battering her husband?

I don't think it says she is losing love for the sport just because of the shoes. Appears to be other factors which others would agree with.

Such as:

I feel there is a lot of politics and money behind decisions being made or ignored in the sport of athletics presently.

Probably the biggest issue. Nike run the sport for themselves and the IAAF elite are on the Nike payroll/close friends. It's not a sport anymore, it is Nike's personal advertising platform.

I'm not opposed to adverting at all, I believe there should be more of it. But the point is to have diverse sponsors.

ex-runner wrote:

I don't think it says she is losing love for the sport just because of the shoes. Appears to be other factors which others would agree with.

Such as:

I feel there is a lot of politics and money behind decisions being made or ignored in the sport of athletics presently.

Probably the biggest issue. Nike run the sport for themselves and the IAAF elite are on the Nike payroll/close friends. It's not a sport anymore, it is Nike's personal advertising platform.

I'm not opposed to adverting at all, I believe there should be more of it. But the point is to have diverse sponsors.

Why is Asics still the worldwide sponsor of World Athletics if as you say, numerous "IAAF elite are on the Nike payroll/close friends" ?

Asking for a friend.

albanese wrote:

"I feel strongly that the time has now come to cap technological input, all athletes should compete at the same level of shoe technology, no one should gain an advantage. Cycling and swimming saw this very early on in their sport and put a stop to it. Nike is dominant and has resources far above what other sporting brands have. Their shoe technology is aiding in athlete performances so they have a clear and unfair advantage. All athletes should be on the start line as equals and presently they are not."

Extremely well said. Very concise and to the point.

I think running is more complex than swimming in regards to how equipment factors into time.

In swimming there's what you wear I think that's all. (Or are there "fast" and "slow" pools? I don't know because I'm not a swimmer.)

In running there's

* shoes you wear: this can be the dominant factor since it's what propels you

* aerodynamicity of clothing (this seems to be trivial as plenty of runners in professional races have long/frizzy hair, non-compression shorts, sometimes t-shirts, etc.)

* wind/drafting

* heat/humidity

* speed of course/track

* the actual length of the course (let's no pretend like all "USTAF-certified" courses are accurate or that the runners don't run mere approximations of where the wheel measured)

Side issue wrote:

I know it’s not the point of the interview but I found it interesting that Liz was running 90 mph as a 16 year old girl.

Lots of armchair coaches would ridicule that sort of mileage for a teenage girl or boy.

Seems like going that fast would put a lot of strain on a teenager.

sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:

The problem with the shoes is that you could have two athletes of similar fitness on the line and the one with the better shoes will win. That's not the point of the athletics; the point is to determine who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoes.

I've noticed myself losing interest due to the ridiculous shoes, constant doping busts, incompetent management of the sport, terrible coverage, clandestine training groups, and athletes that rarely compete. What's the point of following a sport that is dirty, secretive, and poorly managed? I'd rather focus on being a local road race hero.

Please explain to me/us how this is, on a first principal level, different from any other footwear comparison in the history of the sport.

Two athletes of similar fitness on the line and the one with shoes that are 100g lighter will win because we know a 100g saving translates to approximately 1% less energy expenditure due to the weight saving. This scenario could have potentially happened for the last century as it also does today.

The argument you are trying to make is so stupid and easy to deal with. If you have an issue with how much better you think Nike running shoes are then say that. Or perhaps give that company kudos for being really good at their job.

jamin wrote:

In swimming there's what you wear I think that's all. (Or are there "fast" and "slow" pools? I don't know because I'm not a swimmer.)

Yes, there are pool differences. Should be at least 8’ deep (turbulence bouncing off the bottom or something). Special gutters with a spillover instead of a wall (prevents waves from bouncing back). Better lane lines.

Generally, high-level meets have minimum pool requirements, I believe.

The biggest example of suits were the neoprene layers from like eight years ago or something. Extra buoyancy led to way more WRs falling than usual until they were banned.

One more thing, there is a little bit of drafting in swimming. In open water, it’s a huge effect, but most people think of pool swimming. In that case, the lane lines minimize it, but it’s still there. You can kind of “surf” the wake of the guy next to you and wait for the kick at the end. Really only works for 400m and up at a high level of racing, though.

Running is not a pro sport it’s a fitness hobby.

Like some have said on this thread focus on your own fitness and forget about this “pro” mess. With Covid there won’t be any real races for a long time anyway.