I shall race aesthete, thinkerer with him wearing the blades and me wearing my Hoka Cliftons for $1000.
I shall race aesthete, thinkerer with him wearing the blades and me wearing my Hoka Cliftons for $1000.
thoroughrice wrote:
Can you please post one of those studies? I've yet to see an actual legit study on this.
Well, good point. I haven't seen a real conclusive, scientific study either. The original lab study where they found it to be 4% more efficient is about as close as it gets, but it didn't necessarily say it was any "faster". And the NY Times article(s) give circumstantial evidence of people running faster with the Vaporflys, but they don't provide actual evidence that people ran faster because of the Vaporfly. Surely if the NY Times dug around, they could find a sample size of people who ran faster in the adidas Adios (or whatever) than they did before. But, the masses seem to buy into the NY Times studies and similar... so I was going with that.
Google isn't hard to use.
Kipchoge says its the person running and not the shoes. Wit h that being said why can he not wear other shoes and run just as fast??
Although I do believe the shoes definitely make elite runners way better on the contrary,
I do have a friend who is a engineer and he says according to physics the shoes aren't cheating they just dont waste as much energy. The runner still has to generate the energy.
I really want to see what Kipchoge can run without the shoes.
UA Runner wrote:
thoroughrice wrote:
Can you please post one of those studies? I've yet to see an actual legit study on this.
Well, good point. I haven't seen a real conclusive, scientific study either. The original lab study where they found it to be 4% more efficient is about as close as it gets, but it didn't necessarily say it was any "faster". And the NY Times article(s) give circumstantial evidence of people running faster with the Vaporflys, but they don't provide actual evidence that people ran faster because of the Vaporfly. Surely if the NY Times dug around, they could find a sample size of people who ran faster in the adidas Adios (or whatever) than they did before. But, the masses seem to buy into the NY Times studies and similar... so I was going with that.
The NY Times study showed data for every popular shoe. The Vaporfly did about 3% better on average than the Adios.
ThreadKiller wrote:
Kipchoge says its the person running and not the shoes. Wit h that being said why can he not wear other shoes and run just as fast??
Although I do believe the shoes definitely make elite runners way better on the contrary,
I do have a friend who is a engineer and he says according to physics the shoes aren't cheating they just dont waste as much energy. The runner still has to generate the energy.
I really want to see what Kipchoge can run without the shoes.
Kipchoges QOTD was terrible. Besides the fact that formula one does have rules restricting things the car makes a huge difference. Some teams are way better because of the car is better. There have been drivers who were dominant, then became garbage just a year later or after a team switch because of the car. Hamilton went from phenom to back of the pack to dominant for the reason of his team. So Kipchoges comparisson is pretty good but he made the opposite point of what he was trying for.
If we want running to be like Formula One where if you aren't running for a specific sponsor you have no chance then don't restrict shoes. If we want everyone on an equal playing field at the start of the race then set some restrictions and enforce the ones we have already on the books. Formula One may be about racing to the drivers and many fans but the whole sport is driven around selling cars.
Kipchoge's legacy is tied to these shoes. Of course he'll minimize their role.
What can Kipchoge run without them? 2:04'+
Wildhorse wrote:
Kipchoge's legacy is tied to these shoes. Of course he'll minimize their role.
What can Kipchoge run without them? 2:04'+
Besides, he’s sponsored by Nike. What else should he say, “yeah, these clown shoes are like trampolines that should have been banned years ago”?
Published just a few minutes ago:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/nike-vaporfly-shoe-ban-decision-2020-1
We should know by the end of the month.
Kipchoge will never race again without the Vaporfly. He has the option to, it is his own choice. The fact that he doesn't do so is all you need to know. The shoe allows them to run faster and recover quicker. If we went back to the multiple rounds for the 10k you would see every Nike athlete using them over track spikes, especially those that are attempting 5k/10k doubles. Come guys. Negassa is not a 2:03 type talent. You all know this.
LoneStarXC wrote:
Published just a few minutes ago:
It would make sense that Business Insider published it just a few minutes ago because it's not journalism; it's entirely recycled and mostly unattributed.
800 dude wrote:
LoneStarXC wrote:
Published just a few minutes ago:
It would make sense that Business Insider published it just a few minutes ago because it's not journalism; it's entirely recycled and mostly unattributed.
lolyup
It'll be Messy wrote:
I hope the Vaporfly is not banned. It's a natural progression of shoe tech. They should, however, ban the Alphafly.
How many OTQers didn't qualify with the Vaporfly?
It's too late to ban it.
Not sure the world of track and field cares enough about about what might happen to a trial race in a country that has next to no hope of winning Olympic marathons to be put all decision making on hold.
Should 16-year-old girls be running Sub 4:00 miles?
If you want to use it for training, have at it.
But NOT banning shoes that give this kind of advantage is bad for our sport.
Nutrition, medicine, drugs, tracks, clothing, etc, already give enough of an advantage
over what Snell, Ryun, Walker, and others had access to.
Seb Coe is banning the 5 and 10. Our sport and specifically distance running
is in enough trouble already.
waltertompatton wrote:
Should 16-year-old girls be running Sub 4:00 miles?
If they are able to, yes.
Sesamoiditis wrote:
nv4 wrote:
Regarding this whole Vaporfly situation there are two clearly distinct and polarized groups – one that wants them to be banned and the second that doesn't want them to happen. It seems however that those who wants them to be banned are mostly people who are beyond their running prime or those who are in their prime but are sponsored by other shoe brands or slower hobby joggers that for some reason rant about it. Basically all those who insist on banning are those who for some reason can't use the shoes now to run fast times.
Nope. After he ran 2:10 in Chicago Jake Riley said "It feels like running on trampolines." Rei Yonemitsu who won the first stage of the Hakone Ekiden while tying a legendary record said "I'm not especially psyched about it. These days there are the shoes, the Vaporfly. There's definitely an effect from those."
Many competitive runners wear them because they know they need to wear them to compete. They know that while their performances are not tainted that their times are.
The ones who don't want them to be banned are the ones who know they will never PR again if they are banned and who don't have any other goals to chase besides a PR. Similarly, they are the runners who know that they will never run an OTQ or a BQ without them.
Agree with this... Every elite race now is all about the shoes...
It started at the last USA trial. Princess Shalene and Amy Cragg had a distinct advantage. That's not sport.
I always wondered about how former WR-holder first-guy-under-2:06 Khalid Khannouchi feels about these rando scrubs bouncing their way to 2:03s when they'd be hitting 2:10 otherwise. How many people in history are actually faster than Khannouchi? Five??
I've read nothing that suggests that the shoes will be banned. Lots of speculation about an unlikely outcome of the review, IMO.
webby wrote:
I've read nothing that suggests that the shoes will be banned. Lots of speculation about an unlikely outcome of the review, IMO.
There's plenty of chatter the alphafly will be banned. It's unfortunate. I could've used the extra two minutes.