Incredible Read. Ross Tucker: The Vaporflys Need To Be Banned

Then the athletes shouldn't take a sponsor with inferior shoes. Simple as that. I don't see anyone out there running in Zips. Why? They are inferior.

Is anyone here still using a flip phone or a rotary dial? After running 6 marathons all in different shoes, and with progressively increasing fitness I think the shoes might be worth 60 seconds compared to a crappy old racing flat. The secret is just a good fitting shoe with great cushion. Should athletes really run marathons in crappy shoes? Maybe we need to get rid of nutrition and modern training.

Why did it take decades for shoe engineers to add foam to a marathon racing shoe.

^ wrote:

He’s 100% correct; starting to make the sport unwatchable.

no one watches running , it is a hobby event . Golf Channel and NBC have devoted 23 hours of Network tv for the great sport of Golf . $700,000 for Charity events , and a $7,800,000 purse.

Rupp will be racing for $400 first prize in his comeback 1/2 marathon.

matbar wrote:

He has been anti vaporfly since they are release, the responders vs non responders can be used for any shoe and he is always obsessed over the 4%. Great marketing from Nike to sell shoes, but if it was just called the Nike Vaporfly then he would just have referred to it as a fast shoe.

Not it’s all about efficiency, oxygen uptake and fast performance and not the training the athlete had done.

It’s great that everyone is choosing the same shoe which is light and cushioned enough for any distance. Versus the racing flat that not cushioned enough that meant there were a far higher numbers of non responders (well not at elite level).

+1

Total blowhard that likes to hear himself talk. Classic person that thinks they’re smarter than they really are.

What Ross Tucker never says is that he is on the Adidas payroll. He flips with the wind exactly the same story with Caster Semenya he went to the side that paid him.

Woss is deluded wrote:

What Ross Tucker never says is that he is on the Adidas payroll. He flips with the wind exactly the same story with Caster Semenya he went to the side that paid him.

He actually does say that he gets paid by adidas.

60-90sec wrote:

Maybe we need to get rid of nutrition and modern training.

Better nutrition and better training make athletes better and therefore faster. Mechanical advances in shoes don’t make athletes better on faster. Your faulty comparison only distracts from the debate.

The hype is way overblown.

Our sport is incredibly boring and the shoes have actually made running slightly relevant again.

I think this website and running as a whole is probably getting more traffic and attention than ever. It would be foolish to handcuff Nike and other shoe companies. These are businesses that need to sell shoes and get people out running. Mission accomplished.

I read it and I am not convinced. I didn't find it powerful or an "incredible read."

What am I missing? What new evidence or perspective did he introduce?

That's insane. Some people gain 0% while others gain a 6% benefit.

This is unfair. Running shouldn't be based on how lucky you are to genetically fit with the shape and mechanics of a shoe.

alexander popoff wrote:

^ wrote:

He’s 100% correct; starting to make the sport unwatchable.

no one watches running , it is a hobby event . Golf Channel and NBC have devoted 23 hours of Network tv for the great sport of Golf . $700,000 for Charity events , and a $7,800,000 purse.

Rupp will be racing for $400 first prize in his comeback 1/2 marathon.

Golf is a sport? Seems more hobby than sport.

facts and reason wrote:

That's insane. Some people gain 0% while others gain a 6% benefit.

This is unfair. Running shouldn't be based on how lucky you are to genetically fit with the shape and mechanics of a shoe.

So we all should have the same VO2max, the same lactate threshold, and the same running economy! That will make the field fair!

jeezloueeze wrote:

You clearly didn't read the article, but go ahead with your hot take troll, bubba.

Lol, yes.

He starts so well talking about physical characteristics of the athlete but then goes to it’s all about the tech.

In running we already have self determinative with the lightness and shortness person runs long distance. Take the graph for example, you could map mens heigh or shoe size for top 10 finish and you would get a very similar distribution. I’m sure we would see that for races 60mins (ish) the weighting would be for smaller men with smaller narrow foot size.

We all know that you want to be wearing the lightest shoe that does not impact you pace for the distance raced.

Now tell me if we have not done exactly what his article is stating about developing racing shoes that mean responders?

I’ve not see any studies that were conducted like the vaporfly test that show racing flats from the last decade from each of the shoe companies looking at performance distribution based on efficiency.

Didn’t the vaporfly one also show there was distribution with the Adidas adios 2?

60-90sec wrote:

The hype is way overblown.

Our sport is incredibly boring and the shoes have actually made running slightly relevant again.

I think this website and running as a whole is probably getting more traffic and attention than ever. It would be foolish to handcuff Nike and other shoe companies. These are businesses that need to sell shoes and get people out running. Mission accomplished.

Yes, but where to draw the line? E-bikes are also making more people interested in actually riding a bike regularly. They are great and everything, but should not be allowed in the same sports categories where other people are doing all their propulsion purely by their own muscles.

Highly cushioned shoes are great, but for competitions, there should not be anything more than the mid and outsoles that are getting more and more efficient over time and not some additions like specially formed spring plates, or anything like that.

You can easily make shoes with large stack heights stiff for toe off efficency, but don't add any more technology than that. That's just my opinion of course.

It's a very difficult to have a reasoned debate on this because most of the people adamant that they make little difference and they're completely fair are those people who would never wear another shoe and have smashed all their times using them. (Of course, nothing to do with the shoe that they will defend to the death, all their own training and hard work.)

I don't get the argument of how the controversy around the shoes has brought attention to running. How is that positive? It's the same kind of attention it would get if Kipchoge, Bekele, Farah, Keitany, and Rupp were busted for EPO in a calendar year. That'd be great for the sport, right? Lots of attention!

old hobby jogging fart wrote:

Highly cushioned shoes are great, but for competitions, there should not be anything more than the mid and outsoles that are getting more and more efficient over time and not some additions like specially formed spring plates, or anything like that.

Part of the problem is that so many still think that the plate is acting as a spring.

Yes carbon fiber can act aa a spring but when you paste it the middle of a big stack of squishy foam and then have a 115 pound runner exert force on it with neither end of the plate attached to any thing how much do you think it’s going to deflect? Not much.

The shoes work by having the foam and the shape of the plate working in conjunction to in crease efficiency.

sesamoiditis wrote:

Woss is deluded wrote:

What Ross Tucker never says is that he is on the Adidas payroll. He flips with the wind exactly the same story with Caster Semenya he went to the side that paid him.

He actually does say that he gets paid by adidas.

He added that only AFTER been called out by a commentator on Twitter...