Helmut Winter: Stats reveal elite marathon times have dropped 1:45 for men, 3:00 for women in last 2 years possibly due to VF

Marathon depth was actually declining from 2014 to 2017 before the Vaporflys entered the picture. There's not some trend that causes times to always improve and the "Bannister Effect" is mostly a myth.

A while ago I calculated the average improvement for Nike vs. non-Nike athletes who had a SB in both 2016 and 2019 listed on the alltime-athletics site (about 50 such athletes). The assumption was the Nike athletes wore Vaporflys in 2019 and not 2016 (Kipchoge and Bekele excluded). On average the non-Nike athletes ran 76 seconds slower in 2019 than 2016 while Nike athletes ran 55 seconds faster, for a net difference of 131 seconds.

Non-Nike

Athlete SB_2019 SB_2016 Improvement

Albert Korir 2:08:03 2:10:08 125

Yohanes Gebregerish 2:08:26 2:09:48 82

Evans Chebet 2:05:00 2:05:31 31

Sammy Kigen 2:08:12 2:08:19 7

Yuki Kawauchi 2:09:21 2:09:11 -10

Robert Chemosin 2:10:09 2:09:48 -21

Raymond Choge 2:09:02 2:08:39 -23

Lemi Berhanu 2:05:09 2:04:33 -36

Tadesse Abraham 2:07:24 2:06:40 -44

Lucas Rotich 2:09:48 2:08:53 -55

Felix Kandie 2:08:07 2:06:25 -102

Martin Kosgei 2:10:19 2:07:22 -177

Festus Talam 2:09:25 2:06:26 -179

Daniel Wanjiru 2:08:40 2:05:21 -199

Sammy Kirop Kitwara 2:09:52 2:05:45 -247

Wilson Kipsang Kiprotich 2:09:18 2:03:13 -365

Non-Nike average improvement -75.8

Nike

Athlete SB_2019 SB_2016 Improvement

Dejene Debela 2:05:46 2:10:13 267

Asefa Mengistu 2:04:24 2:08:41 257

Evans Korir 2:07:09 2:10:04 175

Kelkile Gezahegn 2:06:09 2:08:56 167

Laban Mutai 2:06:40 2:09:16 156

Thomas Kiplagat 2:06:00 2:08:34 154

Mule Wasihun 2:03:16 2:05:44 148

Philemon Rono 2:05:00 2:07:20 140

Stephen Mokoka 2:07:58 2:10:18 140

Reuben Kerio 2:07:00 2:09:06 126

Marius Kipserem 2:04:11 2:06:11 120

Sisay Lemma 2:03:36 2:05:16 100

Lawrence Cherono 2:05:45 2:07:24 99

Barnabas Kiptum 2:08:02 2:09:21 79

Limenih Getachew 2:07:30 2:08:48 78

Solomon Deksisa 2:05:16 2:06:22 66

Chala Dechase 2:08:25 2:09:19 54

Kaan Kigen Özbilen 2:05:27 2:06:10 43

Edwin Koech 2:08:24 2:09:06 42

Yihunilign Adane 2:09:11 2:09:48 37

Dominic Ruto 2:09:43 2:09:28 -15

Abera Kuma 2:08:14 2:07:48 -26

Stephen Kiprotich 2:08:31 2:07:46 -45

Dickson Chumba 2:08:44 2:07:34 -70

Yitayal Atnafu Zerihun 2:10:08 2:08:53 -75

Gilbert Koech 2:09:57 2:08:04 -113

Cyprian Kotut 2:09:18 2:07:11 -127

Geoffrey Kirui 2:08:54 2:06:27 -147

Laban Korir 2:09:36 2:05:54 -222

Nike average improvement 55.4

Excluded because they wore VFs both years

Kenenisa Bekele 2:01:41 2:03:03 82

Eliud Kipchoge 2:02:37 2:03:05 28

Excluded because I didn't know sponsor

Emmanuel Kichwen 2:08:42 2:10:15 93

Birhanu Teshome 2:08:20 2:09:05 45

Hardloper wrote:

On average the non-Nike athletes ran 76 seconds slower in 2019 than 2016 while Nike athletes ran 55 seconds faster, for a net difference of 131 seconds.

So, in conclusion, non-Nike athletes got a bigger amount of time slower than Nike athletes got faster, yet their gear didn't change at all and they surely hadn't to wear a -4% shoe. That might show that especially adidas' sponsoring game got weaker (after all we don't see east african Vaporflyers crushing other athletes all day, but the leading groups nowadays are often almost purely Nike right from the beginning), but also shows that it isn't that easy to draw conclusions about the influence of a shoe.

trollism wrote:

Are you remotely involved in the sport these days?

People are buying these shoes and knocking chunks of their times en-masse.

Not just one person who might have had a training breakthrough, but whole groups of people. Leaving behind those who are not wearing the shoes who they've been running with forever.

Then back in training sessions in normal footwear, it's back to level again.

They work. You're still a halfwit.

Nobody is knocking "chunks of[f] their times." Even this study suggests that the VF is improving speed by just a few seconds per mile. That's not a "breakthrough" for most people; that's within their normal day-to-day variation. It's significantly less than the effect of losing a few pounds.

I train with a lot of fast amateurs who have VFs. I have them too. Sometimes we wear them for workouts; sometimes we don't. There's no obvious or detectable difference when people are wearing them. It's not like the guys in Vaporflys suddenly move from hanging onto the back of the pack to pushing the pace. In fact, I would say that if I had to rank my top 5 most impressive workouts, none of them were in the Vaporfly. Which is not to say that I don't think the Vaporfly works. I think it does, and I think those workouts would have been faster in the Vaporfly. My point is just that the effect is not so large that it raises runners to a different level.

If anyone is truly having a breakthrough, the shoes are only a small party of that.

Yep, originally I figured the vaporflys were ok, I was ok with the new times.

But now it seems they have created an unlevel playing field.

If you use those shoes, you are not competing in the same race as someone with regular shoes.

All vaporfly performances must have asterisks next to them.

trollism wrote:

whole groups of people. Leaving behind those who are not wearing the shoes who they've been running with forever.

You can arrange people however you want into a "group." You're addled by cognitive bias, and name-calling doesn't help your case.

Hardloper wrote:

Marathon depth was actually declining from 2014 to 2017 before the Vaporflys entered the picture. There's not some trend that causes times to always improve and the "Bannister Effect" is mostly a myth.

How was it declining? Have you got participation numbers, or are you cherry picking some form of performance stats?

In the latter case, here's one for you: there were 40 sub-2:07 performances in 2017, and 37 in 2014. Some decline.

In 2018, there were 50 sub 2:07's. Pretty good! But there were 50 in 2012 too. What shoes were they wearing back then?

In the years prior to 2012, the number was edging its way up from a few, through the teens, twenties and thirties. 64 sub 2:07s in 2019, compared to 50 in 2018, is less anomalous than 50 in 2012 vs 36 in 2011. Neither is inconsistent with the general upward progression over the decades.

While there were no message boards back in the 80’s, tre same things said about the VF was to some degree said about Nike shoes when they introduced air channels in the Tailwind. Same arguments— unfair advantage,, bounce, more energy return, etc. Guess what - Nike has sold many million shoes with air channels in the cushion, and no doubt some people ran faster. Did they need to be banned? Hardly...

Armstronglivs wrote:

Maybe the shoes. Definitely peds. But not better training or superior talent.

You're stuck in the past, old man.

DC Wonk wrote:

While there were no message boards back in the 80’s, tre same things said about the VF was to some degree said about Nike shoes when they introduced air channels in the Tailwind. Same arguments— unfair advantage,, bounce, more energy return, etc. Guess what - Nike has sold many million shoes with air channels in the cushion, and no doubt some people ran faster. Did they need to be banned? Hardly...

What do you mean no message boards in the 80s? I was dialing into BBS using my 300 baud modem!

Greg wrote:

Yep, originally I figured the vaporflys were ok, I was ok with the new times.

But now it seems they have created an unlevel playing field.

If you use those shoes, you are not competing in the same race as someone with regular shoes.

All vaporfly performances must have asterisks next to them.

Why? The shoes are legal. I wear them. I would say they are worth 5-10 seconds a mile, which is just about what the findings show.

Shouldn't we celebrate this amazing technology? It's not hurting anyone. In fact, it's allowing more people than ever before to improve their running without getting beat up.

The owners of this website either hate technology or hate Nike. This crusade against the Vaporfly is like arguing that golfers should continue to play with wooden headed drivers and golf balls made of feathers.

This shoe is the first game changer that I've ever worn. It reduces fatigue and returns more energy than other cushioned shoes. I don't believe they are a spring. If they were, you'd see them in track races. Most importantly, the testing proved they are not a spring.

800 dude wrote:

I train with a lot of fast amateurs who have VFs. I have them too.

Oh wow.

Someone else who wears them trying their hardest to convince the world they make very little difference.

I just had a few non-runner mates over and they asked me about the carbon plates and I had an unused pair of zoom fly flyknits that I let them try on, and run/bounce around my yard in and their minds where blown. They couldn’t believe they were legal and they weren’t even the vaporflys.

If you were a 2:30 athlete in the 200x's, and somebody else is a 2:30 athlete in 2020, you were probably the better athlete. But the times don't reflect it.

You could argue (as others have) that shoes generally only get better. I understand why people are so upset about these particular shoes since the jump is more pronounced than before.

Side note- as a numbers guy I LOVE seeing all these statistics and raw data. Awesome stuff.

RunningNoob420 wrote:

If you were a 2:30 athlete in the 200x's, and somebody else is a 2:30 athlete in 2020, you were probably the better athlete. But the times don't reflect it.

You could argue (as others have) that shoes generally only get better. I understand why people are so upset about these particular shoes since the jump is more pronounced than before.

Side note- as a numbers guy I LOVE seeing all these statistics and raw data. Awesome stuff.

I agree. Does it matter? In the golf world (my first love), it's understood a 300 yard drive 35 years ago would be more like 330-340 today. Pros today hit their 5 iron 220 yards. It's all due to the golf ball. So it's nearly impossible to compare scores from decades ago to today. It doesn't diminish the game in any way. Nor should it with running.

I completely agree regarding the golf comparison. The sport is getting faster, the races are getting more exciting and we can sit and watch more people chase down world records whats not to love? Of course the times today can not be compared to the times 20 or 30 years ago in the same way Jesse Owens 10.2 can not be compared to Bolts 9.58. Different technology and different understanding. I don't wear this shoes but I probably will buy them eventually and see for myself what they can do for me.