What would Daniel Komen and El G have run in super spikes?

Coevett wrote:

super spike denier wrote:

This is the easiest way to expose how ridiculous the super spike rhetoric has gotten. The notion of Komen running 7:12 is just comical, and that's not even including Monaco and wavelight. He'd be comfortably under 7:10 if half the clowns on this site are to be believed.

Why is this? Your father or grandfather probably expected Bannister to physically explode or his heart to give up while attempting to run the 'clearly impossible' sub 4 minute mile.

It's been over a quarter of a century since Komen's WR. A quarter of a century before he ran it, the WR was 7:39. Komen took 4 1/2 seconds off EPO juiced Morcelli's WR set just 2 years before. He ran 9 seconds faster than Aouita's WR set just 7 years previously, and which was likely the last non EPO WR, although Aouita was almost certainly blood doped and roided to the max.

Of course Komen would have ran a lot faster in super shoes and modern tracks. It's plausible he could have ran 7:12, and it's plausible El G would have ran close to 3:20 for the 1500m. That doesn't show how stupid super shoes logic is, it shows how insane the full throttle EPO era was.

More sensible is to look at guys like Coe and Cram. They ran 3:29 for 1500 and likely would have ran 3:25 today. Jakob could very well run 3:26 this year and was certainly in 3:27 form last year. So that seems about right - that Coe and Cram were about a second or two quicker than the best today are (currently).

Or look at it one other way. If there had been no testing for EPO worldwide for 10 years, zero random testing in East Africa for the last 10 years, and Gentleman Tim had been epo maxxing since he was a teen, with hgh and roids too, what might he have run at Monaco in the last 3 or 4 years? Probably something like 3:22

dopedtothegills13 wrote:

dudewhat? wrote:

Komen could have gone 7:08 for 3k with wavelight and super spikes which equates to 57.0X per lap.

You all should remember that Komen was not good at sudden shifts in pace. This was evident with his races against El G and Haile. He was more of a diesel that could just grind out 58-59 second laps consistently and look smooth doing it. His form looked the same running 7:20 as running 13:00 as running 3:46. I don't think he went 100% into the well in any of those races but just did the pace that was prescribed by the initial pacers and his agent.

With his incredible economical form, you set the wavelight to 57.0 per lap that guy could have become a metronome and gotten the record close to 7:08. No doubt in my mind. He was THAT special of a runner. Once in a generation. 

This is one of the funniest posts ive seen on letsrun in a long time

dafuq wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

If "super spikes" were real, some 7:27 guy would already have erased Komen's record.

Most people including runners don't really understand how the gait cycle works and why a bouncy shoe shouldn't theoretically improve it.

People point to new records, but it's mostly outliers like Cheptegei or at newly-popular, formerly soft distances like HM. There's still only two 2:01 marathons ever. Men's mile, 1500, 3000, 2 mile, all quite safe. Steeple? When was the last sub 8 even? (looked it up, El Bakkali 2018 is the only one since 2016!)

This argues strongly against an advantage available to everyone; that should have effect everywhere.

Yeah I don't buy the "time have gotten faster" theory. There have been a few outliers that have run fast times (like Cheptegei and Kiplimo) but the depth is still the same. Go on WorldAthletics Stats Zone and look for yourself. On the men's side all of the top distance times besides the 10k were not outside the norm at all, and in many recent years would not have been top marks. Especially in the 800. What, do the super shoes and the new PED's not work for the 800? Come on, man!

No, the shoe debate has gotten ridiculous and the only reason it's still alive is that the LRC pessimists will zoom in on individual outlier performances and claim they are PROOF that the shoes are "working," while ignoring the overall trends which are largely the same.

Stubby Joe wrote:

My view is, the shoes are quite effective at dropping "natural" times, but not as effective as EPO. It would make sense from a logical standpoint. Presumably, runners haven't gotten innately faster in recent decades - we're still dealing with the same old home sapiens.

So let's say, hypothetically, that without drugs or super-shoes, the very best runners in the world were capable of 7:35 to 7:40 for 3000m, and there were usually a few guys active at any given time who were capable of that. Well, here's what we might say in 3 different scenarios:

No drugs or super-shoes available: fastest time each year is in the 7:35 to 7:40 range, because that is pretty much as fast as a human can go.

EPO but no super shoes: fastest time each year in the 7:20 to 7:30 range, depending on drug testing, drug supplies, super-responders, etc.

Super shoes but no EPO: fastest time each years in the 7:30 to 7:35 range (I'm just going with a conservative 5-second improvement purely from the shoes).

But in today's era, we know we have the super-shoes, and we suspect PED use still abounds, but not as effectively as in the EPO era due to improved testing. So nowadays, you get all the benefit of the super-shoes, and a little bit from drugs.

I'm not trying to say this is definitely what's happening, because how would I know? It's not like athletes are publicizing their PED programs. I'm just saying it's not non-sensical to say that athletes are benefitting hugely just from having better shoes, even though many track WRs still stand.