Checker of Grammar wrote:
What shoes is he wearing?
No. What shoes are he wearing.
Lol. Nope.
Checker of Grammar wrote:
What shoes is he wearing?
No. What shoes are he wearing.
Lol. Nope.
illinoisjones wrote:
Rojo,
On your podcast you always exclaim that the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympic Men's Marathon should be "invalidated", since the top 3 and other Nike sponsored athletes had the prototype 4% shoes. Do you believe this British 40+ marathon record set by Andrew Davies should be "invalidated" as well?
No. Because he's just trying to keep up with the other commercially viable shoes. I'm not opposed to better shoes - I'm just opposed to only a tiny part of the field having access to those shoes.
What happened in 2016 was wrong. Not all Nike athletes had them in 2016. Just the favored few.
If we are going to allow these shoes moving forward, I don't think this mark should be invalidated but I certainly don't think this performance was actually a better run than the previous record. This guy was in that record race and finished 2-3 minutes back.
It's very reminiscent of the suits in swimming to me.
jimhruns wrote:
How about the Hoka Carbon X? That's a nice-looking shoe! Strava says it's the hot new shoe on its platform.
The term "hobby jogger" is the silliest thing I've heard on LetsRun. It's even worse than "moran" and "discus" if that's possible. That said, Strava is for hobby joggers.
rojo wrote:
Originally, I started this thread as a question, "Is this guy wearing New Balance flats or Next%?"
https://www.marathon-photos.com/scripts/event.py?event=Sports%2FCPUK%2F2019%2FValencia%20Marathon&match=87Andrew Davies set the British record for 40+ in Valencia. 2:14:38. What shoes is he wearing?
We now have the answer. See below.
Thanks Rojo for keeping track of these changes in running technology and how it changes FAIR competition.
Nike breaking rules of fair play is a big concern to me. I am not concerned about innovation, which is great for the sport!
rojo wrote:
I'm not opposed to better shoes - I'm just opposed to only a tiny part of the field having access to those shoes.
These are inconsistent positions. When a shoe company, whether it's Nike or Adidas (remember that the Adios Boost was shown to cause a measurable improvement in running economy over the Streak), comes up with a "better shoe," it is ALWAYS limited to a portion of the field because athletes are locked into contracts with a single shoe company. You can't be both pro-equipment innovation and pro-equal access to equipment.
If your complaint is just that Nike didn't even give its shoes to all of its athletes, that doesn't seem to address the fairness issue. What if Skechers had come up with a super shoe and made it available to all of its sponsored athletes? That would have been only Meb. So an even tinier percentage of the field would have had access to the shoe.
rojo wrote:
illinoisjones wrote:
Rojo,
On your podcast you always exclaim that the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympic Men's Marathon should be "invalidated", since the top 3 and other Nike sponsored athletes had the prototype 4% shoes. Do you believe this British 40+ marathon record set by Andrew Davies should be "invalidated" as well?
No. Because he's just trying to keep up with the other commercially viable shoes. I'm not opposed to better shoes - I'm just opposed to only a tiny part of the field having access to those shoes.
What happened in 2016 was wrong. Not all Nike athletes had them in 2016. Just the favored few.
If we are going to allow these shoes moving forward, I don't think this mark should be invalidated but I certainly don't think this performance was actually a better run than the previous record. This guy was in that record race and finished 2-3 minutes back.
It's very reminiscent of the suits in swimming to me.
Come on rojo, I don't like carbon plate shoes but that is a lame argument. It is possible to improve 2-3 minutes from one marathon to another through training at that level.
Thanks Rojo for keeping track of these changes in running technology and how it changes FAIR competition.
Nike breaking rules of fair play is a big concern to me. I am not concerned about innovation, which is great for the sport!
Sorry, its pretty hard for me to get worked up about the "unfairness" of a race where maybe one place would have changed (Rupp might not have gotten the bronze.)
There are a lot of other things Nike has done wrong, but on this shoe issue, I have to give them credit for technological innovation. Most people on this site, including Rojo, have allowed their anti-Nike bias to influence their reaction, and make it one of perpetual outrage, claiming all results were solely due to the shoes, calling anyone who wears the shoes cheaters, etc. etc. as if wearing these shoes was the moral equivalent of someone pumping themselves full of steroids.
Now, as is often the case, in responding to Nike's competition, the other shoe companies are also coming through with great shoes of their own, that will likely be just as fast. This is actually GOOD for the sport, not damaging to the sport, the way revelations about Salazar and Mary Cain were. No one is going to die of a heart attack at age 39 from wearing faster shoes.
800 dude wrote:
rojo wrote:
I'm not opposed to better shoes - I'm just opposed to only a tiny part of the field having access to those shoes.
These are inconsistent positions. When a shoe company, whether it's Nike or Adidas (remember that the Adios Boost was shown to cause a measurable improvement in running economy over the Streak), comes up with a "better shoe," it is ALWAYS limited to a portion of the field because athletes are locked into contracts with a single shoe company. You can't be both pro-equipment innovation and pro-equal access to equipment.
If your complaint is just that Nike didn't even give its shoes to all of its athletes, that doesn't seem to address the fairness issue. What if Skechers had come up with a super shoe and made it available to all of its sponsored athletes? That would have been only Meb. So an even tinier percentage of the field would have had access to the shoe.
Galen Rupp had the Vaporflys while 4th place finisher, Ghirmay Ghebreslassie of Eritrea (also a Nike athlete) did not. I can see why rojo would be bothered because it looks like Nike favoring the more marketable white American.
Can't believe I'm saying this wrote:
jimhruns wrote:
How about the Hoka Carbon X? That's a nice-looking shoe! Strava says it's the hot new shoe on its platform.
The term "hobby jogger" is the silliest thing I've heard on LetsRun. It's even worse than "moran" and "discus" if that's possible. That said, Strava is for hobby joggers.
0/10. You should have ended with "discus, hobby jogging morans".
That being said I am a full blown hobby jogger and I certainly qualifies as a moron (feel free to spell the way you like), but you ain't ganna find me on strava, mate.
high school xc coach wrote:
RSAR wrote:
Looks much nicer than the Nikes.
It’s not as handsome as an Adios but not the affront to human dignity that is the VaporFly .
im not in love with the looks of the vaporfly, but this NB shoe almost couldn't be any uglier, imo
MohammedAA wrote:
high school xc coach wrote:
It’s not as handsome as an Adios but not the affront to human dignity that is the VaporFly .
im not in love with the looks of the vaporfly, but this NB shoe almost couldn't be any uglier, imo
im a fan of the 4% styling. NEXT% is very ugly though. still, no uglier than the NB, imo.
rojo wrote:
No. Because he's just trying to keep up with the other commercially viable shoes. I'm not opposed to better shoes - I'm just opposed to only a tiny part of the field having access to those shoes.
What happened in 2016 was wrong. Not all Nike athletes had them in 2016. Just the favored few.
If we are going to allow these shoes moving forward, I don't think this mark should be invalidated but I certainly don't think this performance was actually a better run than the previous record. This guy was in that record race and finished 2-3 minutes back.
It's very reminiscent of the suits in swimming to me.
Oh, so now that it doesn’t matter if it’s a prototype and reasonably available, it only matters if it’s too good. It’s so kind of you to have decided for the world that this guy’s prototypes aren’t good enough, so it’s totally fine. It’s probably only a 3% benefit anyways, not 4%.
4% or more? Burn them to death. 3%? Yeah, that’s fine.
That’s so brave of you, Rojo. Way to take a stand.
rojo wrote:
Originally, I started this thread as a question, "Is this guy wearing New Balance flats or Next%?"
https://www.marathon-photos.com/scripts/event.py?event=Sports%2FCPUK%2F2019%2FValencia%20Marathon&match=87Andrew Davies set the British record for 40+ in Valencia. 2:14:38. What shoes is he wearing?
We now have the answer. See below.
I’ve had enough of your shoe talk.
there is a verity of shoes in the world for better understanding you will visit different events for this you will visit this site
usaevents.net
Nike prototypes that aren't commercial available: unfair and constantly the subject of LRC commentary.
New Balance prototypes that aren't commercially available: totally fine.
Got it.
Short course FTW
By the way, that photo is not Andrew Davies:
https://www.runbritainrankings.com/runners/profile.aspx?athleteid=18432
This guy looks more like a marathon runner.
suburbanxcore wrote:
Nike prototypes that aren't commercial available: unfair and constantly the subject of LRC commentary.
New Balance prototypes that aren't commercially available: totally fine.
Got it.
Seriously. I am a fan of rojo and the comments he makes, but the inconsistent position makes no sense. "It's ok because NB is trying to catch up with Nike."
Ok, so rojo is officially not being objective at this point. If the 2016 Rio results are invalid, then so are any results from NB or any other manufacturer who is using shoes in violation of the IAAF rule.
If a guy smokes weed in public in Colorado, it's legal. A guy in Utah can't do the same and say "Well I'm just trying to emulate the dude in Colorado". Nikes weren't legal, but now they are. NBs are not legal, yet.
800 dude wrote:
rojo wrote:
I'm not opposed to better shoes - I'm just opposed to only a tiny part of the field having access to those shoes.
These are inconsistent positions. When a shoe company, whether it's Nike or Adidas (remember that the Adios Boost was shown to cause a measurable improvement in running economy over the Streak), comes up with a "better shoe," it is ALWAYS limited to a portion of the field because athletes are locked into contracts with a single shoe company.
The athletes could breach their contracts if they cared more about their performance than promoting a brand (a brand which apparently they don't even believe is the best). I don't think it is a race director's responsibility (or the responsibility of a governing body of the sport) to step in and remedy such issues.
high school xc coach wrote:
RSAR wrote:
Looks much nicer than the Nikes.
im not in love with the looks of the vaporfly, but this NB shoe almost couldn't be any uglier, imo
can you get this shoe in floresent Green and Pink