The debate is OVER - super spikes make a MASSIVE difference

here is the truth wrote:

13 women sub 4 - just 9 in 2016

Nope, 9 this year and 2016.

13 was in 2019.

here is the truth wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Nothing looks dumber than cherry picking to "end" a debate. End it for you, maybe. You folded right off the bat.

Did they have the "super spikes" in 2014 yet cuz I'm pretty sure there was at least 9 or 10 under 3:31, including an American (Manzano). World lead 3:27, not from Kiprop

Aren't you cherrypicking when you only pick 1 event out of 5 that I listed??

That one's called "shifting burden." You're the one taking the affirmative position that all these modern results are GOAT by comparing them to 2016. My counterexample merely exposes that fallacy and is not meant to support some other hypothesis.

It's on you to compile data for all the years and see if you can make a case that 2021 is the best. And then you still face the burden of proving that correlation has a causation behind it.

That's all I needto say, so debate class dismissed for the day, I may check back much later to see if you are serious.

here is the truth wrote:

All the deniers look like FOOLS now.

7 men under 3:31 in the 1500 - just 2 in 2016

13 men sub 13 in the 5k - jut 4 in 2016

12 women under 1:58 (without intersex athletes) - just 8 in 2016

13 women sub 4 - just 9 in 2016

39 women under 15 in the 15k - just 27 in 2016

There were a ton of people that were saying only the college athletes were running faster, that the pro's weren't. Those people like DUMB now.

Below are the worldwide Top-Ten Average Men's 1500 Times from 2001 to 2020 according to WA. Still watching 2021, but up through last year, I don't see a pattern indicating a big shift with the introduction of super shoes. The year 2015, before they were introduced, was particularly fast.

03:29.8 (2001)

03:30.5

03:30.7

03:30.0

03:30.9

03:30.8

03:31.4

03:31.9

03:31.1

03:31.0

03:31.3

03:30.6

03:30.5

03:29.6

03:29.3 (2015)

03:31.3

03:31.6

03:30.9

03:30.7

03:31.3 (2020)

here is the truth wrote:

All the deniers look like FOOLS now.

7 men under 3:31 in the 1500 - just 2 in 2016

13 men sub 13 in the 5k - jut 4 in 2016

12 women under 1:58 (without intersex athletes) - just 8 in 2016

13 women sub 4 - just 9 in 2016

39 women under 15 in the 15k - just 27 in 2016

There were a ton of people that were saying only the college athletes were running faster, that the pro's weren't. Those people like DUMB now.

Was this a deliberately sarcastic/ironic post?

I'm not even going to bother diving further into results here but let's just look at the 1500m. You conveniently chose 2016 to compare results against - I'll do the same and arbitrarily pick a year prior in 2015.

Monaco 2015 alone had 10 guys under 3.30 and a whopping 6 guys under 3.30. Friday night in Monaco was 7 under 3.30 and 4 under 3.30.

Therefore clearly based off your logic the product was better in 2015 and therefore by this continued logic you are in fact DUMB. If your post was deliberately ironic then I take it all back and you are a genius, well done.

Good night.

bannned i got wrote:

alphas only wrote:

It’s actually a treadmill it just moves in reverse to propel the athletes forward.

Its 1m short. I did a big reply and used math to show how 1m would give 2-3 seconds faster for a 1500, and 25 seconds faster in a 5k…..and nope it got deleted

1m per lap would make 3.75m in 1500m. That's 0.5s max.

In 5k it would come to 12.5m and 2s.

So yeah, buddy. Now you know why your thread got deleted.

These spikes are not making runners better!!!

It's more accurate to compare Olympic years to Olympic years. A lot of the top runners didn't chose to run Monaco this year because they are focusing their preparation on the Olympic games.

Let's take a closer look at 2015. Kiprop and Manangoi - BANNED FOR DOPING. Farah, Makhloufi, Iguider are all highly suspicious dopers. Wote and Willis are almost 40.

here is the truth wrote:

All the deniers look like FOOLS now.

7 men under 3:31 in the 1500 - just 2 in 2016

13 men sub 13 in the 5k - jut 4 in 2016

12 women under 1:58 (without intersex athletes) - just 8 in 2016

13 women sub 4 - just 9 in 2016

39 women under 15 in the 15k - just 27 in 2016

There were a ton of people that were saying only the college athletes were running faster, that the pro's weren't. Those people like DUMB now.

hahahahah this guy thinks correlation=causation

here is the truth wrote:

It's more accurate to compare Olympic years to Olympic years. A lot of the top runners didn't chose to run Monaco this year because they are focusing their preparation on the Olympic games.

Let's take a closer look at 2015. Kiprop and Manangoi - BANNED FOR DOPING. Farah, Makhloufi, Iguider are all highly suspicious dopers. Wote and Willis are almost 40.

You're confident that none of the runners this year were doping? Seems premature -- e.g. Kiprop wasn't caught til late 2017.

Ho Hum wrote:

here is the truth wrote:

It's more accurate to compare Olympic years to Olympic years. A lot of the top runners didn't chose to run Monaco this year because they are focusing their preparation on the Olympic games.

Let's take a closer look at 2015. Kiprop and Manangoi - BANNED FOR DOPING. Farah, Makhloufi, Iguider are all highly suspicious dopers. Wote and Willis are almost 40.

You're confident that none of the runners this year were doping? Seems premature -- e.g. Kiprop wasn't caught til late 2017.

Not confident that these current runners are dopers. But it's also disingenuous to point to the results of athletes that are currently serving drug bans and say those results prove the shoes don't work. It just proves that it takes drugs to beat runners in supershoes.

My question is what are the supershoe-adjusted WRs for the 400m, 800m, 1500m, Mile, 3k Steeple? None of these have been touched yet with the new shoe tech yet.

high school xc coach wrote:

lol. there have been years that monaco has had something like 6 people under 3:30.

We expect that this year should be the same as 16 because of the olympics? a sample size of 2 is not statistically significant.

Thank you.

For the men there was 13 under 13 in 2003 and like 10 under 331 in 2014.There are weak years and strong years for events maybe we just better athletes this year. I believe the shoes make a difference, but not a MASSIVE difference.

Do you guys not remember there were 2 WORLD RECORDS in the women's 10k in just 3 days? The men's and women's 5k and 10k records were both DESTROYED recently with these super shoes.

People were denying that the fast times college kids were running were because of the shoes. Their argument was that the pro runners weren't running fast this year. My original post was to show that the pro runners did in fact run FASTER this year. You can find a couple years that had better results in one event, but as a whole the times in 2021 are MUCH FASTER ACROSS THE BOARD.

If they are so good then why can't Centro run under 3:35?

You don't think it's a little odd that a random 20 year old white kid, not at altitude, is now running times faster than LEGENDS like Cherono, El Gueroujj, Kipchoge, Bekele, Kipketer, and Gebreselassie ran in 2003?

2003 was far weaker in every other event I listed though. You don't think it's odd that in every other year some events were good and some events were bad, but somehow every event in 2021 is the best ever or top 3 ever? Just a coincidence?

here is the truth wrote:

All the deniers look like FOOLS now.

7 men under 3:31 in the 1500 - just 2 in 2016

13 men sub 13 in the 5k - jut 4 in 2016

12 women under 1:58 (without intersex athletes) - just 8 in 2016

13 women sub 4 - just 9 in 2016

39 women under 15 in the 15k - just 27 in 2016

There were a ton of people that were saying only the college athletes were running faster, that the pro's weren't. Those people like DUMB now.

The Biggest error you're making is that.... Correlation is NOT Causation.!! Just because you can point to two different years and show a correlative difference, that does not mean that the one item you can find that is different (in this case shoes) is the sole cause of that difference.

bannned i got wrote:

alphas only wrote:

It’s actually a treadmill it just moves in reverse to propel the athletes forward.

Its 1m short. I did a big reply and used math to show how 1m would give 2-3 seconds faster for a 1500, and 25 seconds faster in a 5k…..and nope it got deleted

Wait, is it really 1m short?

I'd have to see how you calculated before believing that an extra 4 meters gives you such an exaggerated advantage of 2-3 seconds on a 1500 since even 5 min/mile pace converts to over 5 meters per second; but if it is 1 m short, that is something.

Shocked I tell you again wrote:

here is the truth wrote:

All the deniers look like FOOLS now.

7 men under 3:31 in the 1500 - just 2 in 2016

13 men sub 13 in the 5k - jut 4 in 2016

12 women under 1:58 (without intersex athletes) - just 8 in 2016

13 women sub 4 - just 9 in 2016

39 women under 15 in the 15k - just 27 in 2016

There were a ton of people that were saying only the college athletes were running faster, that the pro's weren't. Those people like DUMB now.

The Biggest error you're making is that.... Correlation is NOT Causation.!! Just because you can point to two different years and show a correlative difference, that does not mean that the one item you can find that is different (in this case shoes) is the sole cause of that difference.

Ha ha. Sometimes correlation DOES equal causation. Just because you say it doesn’t, doesn’t mean it’s true.

Give it time. We’re only part way through the season. If the weather is cool enough during Tokyo I predict Oly records in the men’s 10,000 and 5,000. And women’s 5,000 record. Also possible in the women’s steeple. I think the shoes have less of an effect on the 1500 but it’s possible to see those go too this year. Wait and see. If the weather is good and no fast times it’s possible the shoes have little effect. But I don’t think that’s the case. And neither does 99% of the running world or why bother with the super shoes at all?