So tell me about how all these talented 1500 runners today have been turning to the hm and the marathon. So Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are not the "best" today?
As for the best today winning with slower times, isn't the complete opposite being argued, that everyone is getting faster than a decade or more ago and it's because of the "shoes"?
I thought I just did. Most of the talented 1500m runners are not trained for that, but start training for longer distances on the road, which may even include the half-marathon and the marathon if they are good enough.
Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are among the "best" today, but with 1990s spikes, they are more comparable to Coe, Cram, Wheating, Centro and Webb.
I can't speak for other arguments, but my argument is that Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are running faster with the superspikes than without. They are just not comparable to El G and Bekele.
So explain how the carbon plate aids a runner at cruising speed but not in a sprint? It aids the lungs but not the muscles? Really? The shoes seem to operate according to the principles of diminishing returns; the faster you go the less you get out of them. Is that "efficient"? So when has a shoe ever been like that and why now?
It's not the carbon plate, but the whole shoe which improves running economy. This is not important for short sprints which use non-oxygen sources of energy.
Efficiency has a specific meaning in physics, as a fraction of the energy used to do the desired work versus the total energy.
This law of diminishing returns appears everywhere and always has done.
This post was edited 34 seconds after it was posted.
What is still not being addressed by "the shoes are making everyone faster" proponents is that if the shoes enable gains of several seconds it must mean the best runners today are nowhere near as talented as the best in the '90s and 2000s.
Even if it is claimed the shoes may enable a gain of 2-3 secs (and not 5 secs) over 1500 that must mean El G, Lagat, Ngeny and Kiprop could have run 3:23-24 in superspikes and that Ingebrigtsen is only a 3:28-29 runner without them, and Hocker and Kerr aren't even 3:30 runners. That has to be the conclusion if it is argued the spikes add even a couple of seconds over that distance at the top of the sport. I can anticipate the fall-back argument that the shoes mostly make a difference at a lower level - which no research supports.
I guess if no one is contesting it, these consequences and conclusions must be true, or at least undisputed.
So tell me about how all these talented 1500 runners today have been turning to the hm and the marathon. So Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are not the "best" today?
As for the best today winning with slower times, isn't the complete opposite being argued, that everyone is getting faster than a decade or more ago and it's because of the "shoes"?
I thought I just did. Most of the talented 1500m runners are not trained for that, but start training for longer distances on the road, which may even include the half-marathon and the marathon if they are good enough.
Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are among the "best" today, but with 1990s spikes, they are more comparable to Coe, Cram, Wheating, Centro and Webb.
I can't speak for other arguments, but my argument is that Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are running faster with the superspikes than without. They are just not comparable to El G and Bekele.
With drug testing El G and Bekele are not comparable
You are just so sold on today's runners. Do you really believe that Hoey, Fisher, and Kessler are the fastetest runners in history? They all went under world records this year.
Those are indoor times and which brings in another variable as the fast indoor tracks were not available prior to the use of super spikes. Indoor times should now be compared to those run outdoors. Indoor times might even be faster than outdoors.
Sure they were. BU has been crazy fast for decades but they just didn't set up as many fast races in the early 2010s. Do we all really think Galen Rupp could replicate his 3:50 mile or David Torrence (RIP) could run an AR anywhere else?
I don't know sbout the elite, but I can guarantee about 5 seconds per mile for those in the 4:10-5:00 range because I have had hundreds of athletes to look at. It doesn't matter if the athlete is doping. It doesn't matter if they are training harder. When they show up to a workout or a race, those factors exist on a Tuesday workout or a Friday meet. I don't coach women. But college women are about the same speed as the boys that I coach. I was shocked to compare college women from the past to today. 10th in the mile is 4:25. It was 4:35 ten years ago. 25th is 4:30. It was 4:38 ten years ago. That is about an 8 to 10 second improvement since super shoes.
But Simpson still holds the 1500m CR at 3:59.9, which was run in 2009, and converts to 4:19.1 Unless Simpson was a superwoman, there has only been an increase in depth. You’re guaranteeing a false premise.
In a lot of ways, Simpson was a superwoman. Her 3:59 looked like an outlier performance, but then she backed it up by winning a world championship 2 years later, and backing that up with a number of medals in the following years. I don't know what spikes she was wearing when she ran 3:59.
Interestingly, 2009 was around the time the original Nike Victory was released, and we started to see an increase in 3:55-3:57 indoor mile times during this period. Waldrop's 3:55 record stood until this era, before guys like Batty and O'hare started chipping away at it.
With the current era, it is hard to determine all the factors leading to the improvements. Are Gary Martin and Ethan Strand actually 6+ seconds better than everyone who ran before 2010? Is a recently graduated Adam Fogg 5+ seconds better than the entirety of NCAA runners prior to 2010?
When you have 30 runners per year running faster than anyone ran in NCAA history up through 16 years ago, a number of factors are at play. Spikes, bicarb, running at fast tracks in fast paced races, different training, etc - all of these play a role. Even with increased interest, I don't think the talent pool has been a huge factor in the improved times. I imagine if all the NCAA runners in history between 1965-2010 were put in today's competition (with maybe a year to adjust to training), we'd see huge numbers running between 3:47-3:54.
So tell me about how all these talented 1500 runners today have been turning to the hm and the marathon. So Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are not the "best" today?
As for the best today winning with slower times, isn't the complete opposite being argued, that everyone is getting faster than a decade or more ago and it's because of the "shoes"?
I thought I just did. Most of the talented 1500m runners are not trained for that, but start training for longer distances on the road, which may even include the half-marathon and the marathon if they are good enough.
Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are among the "best" today, but with 1990s spikes, they are more comparable to Coe, Cram, Wheating, Centro and Webb.
I can't speak for other arguments, but my argument is that Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are running faster with the superspikes than without. They are just not comparable to El G and Bekele.
It doesn’t manner how someone trains. If a runner is 800/1500m or 1500/5000m, he’ll never be good at 10000m or the roads. No one has a range of 1500m through to the marathon. Lutkenhaus is 400/800m and is not going to run 40 mpw and become world class at 1500m. It’s the same thing for moving down in distance. Mantz isn’t going to change his training focus and make an Olympic or WC 1500m team in the 1500m.
In sports, athletes focus on what they’re good at.
What is still not being addressed by "the shoes are making everyone faster" proponents is that if the shoes enable gains of several seconds it must mean the best runners today are nowhere near as talented as the best in the '90s and 2000s.
Even if it is claimed the shoes may enable a gain of 2-3 secs (and not 5 secs) over 1500 that must mean El G, Lagat, Ngeny and Kiprop could have run 3:23-24 in superspikes and that Ingebrigtsen is only a 3:28-29 runner without them, and Hocker and Kerr aren't even 3:30 runners. That has to be the conclusion if it is argued the spikes add even a couple of seconds over that distance at the top of the sport. I can anticipate the fall-back argument that the shoes mostly make a difference at a lower level - which no research supports.
I guess if no one is contesting it, these consequences and conclusions must be true, or at least undisputed.
Congratulations, you won this argument.
it's obviously correct unless youre dumb enough to think the previous generation is 4 seconds more talented than the current.
the easy answer is that the increased efficiency benefits less talented runners, but those at the very top are already blessed by god with peak efficiency in similar ways to the newer spikes having little affect on sprinters
The whole thread you are saying super spikes don't work. But when it comes to belittling current athletes suddenly you say this.
You are stupid and dishonest beyond belief.
You really need to sit this out. You can't follow anything. I was taking the claim made here that if the shoes enable a considerable benefit it must mean the best runners today are nowhere near as good as the best in the past. I wasn't saying I believe the shoes enable those gains - I don't believe that - but it is a necessary conclusion that if the shoes do provide those gains today's best are not as good as the 3:26-27 runners in the '90s who didn't have supershoes. You embarrass yourself. You cannot follow a straightforward argument.
This post was edited 31 seconds after it was posted.
I thought I just did. Most of the talented 1500m runners are not trained for that, but start training for longer distances on the road, which may even include the half-marathon and the marathon if they are good enough.
Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are among the "best" today, but with 1990s spikes, they are more comparable to Coe, Cram, Wheating, Centro and Webb.
I can't speak for other arguments, but my argument is that Hocker, Ingebrigtsen, Kerr, Nuguse and co are running faster with the superspikes than without. They are just not comparable to El G and Bekele.
It doesn’t manner how someone trains. If a runner is 800/1500m or 1500/5000m, he’ll never be good at 10000m or the roads. No one has a range of 1500m through to the marathon. Lutkenhaus is 400/800m and is not going to run 40 mpw and become world class at 1500m. It’s the same thing for moving down in distance. Mantz isn’t going to change his training focus and make an Olympic or WC 1500m team in the 1500m.
In sports, athletes focus on what they’re good at.
Correct. 1500 runners are not marathon material. That's why they run the shorter distances. And as you say, marathon runners aren't 1500 runners - unless they like being beaten.
I guess if no one is contesting it, these consequences and conclusions must be true, or at least undisputed.
Congratulations, you won this argument.
it's obviously correct unless youre dumb enough to think the previous generation is 4 seconds more talented than the current.
the easy answer is that the increased efficiency benefits less talented runners, but those at the very top are already blessed by god with peak efficiency in similar ways to the newer spikes having little affect on sprinters
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Doping aids athletes at whatever their level, and the same applies to the shoes; if they aid performance they will do it for elites if they also do it for journeymen. The essentials of running "efficiency" are the muscles and the cardiovascular system; the shoes don't add anything to those or favour lesser over more gifted athletes. Nor do they improve coordination where it is deficient or lacking.They primarily offer support and traction and that is basically it. The rest is marketing.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Doping aids athletes at whatever their level, and the same applies to the shoes; if they aid performance they will do it for elites if they also do it for journeymen. The essentials of running "efficiency" are the muscles and the cardiovascular system; the shoes don't add anything to those or favour lesser over more gifted athletes. Nor do they improve coordination where it is deficient or lacking.They primarily offer support and traction and that is basically it. The rest is marketing.
I think it’s similar to EPO. Although I don’t agree with Canova that EPO doesn’t work on top tier Kenyans at altitude, it probably benefits them less than a non Kenyan who grew up at sea level from sea level ancestors as well.
So explain how the carbon plate aids a runner at cruising speed but not in a sprint? It aids the lungs but not the muscles? Really? The shoes seem to operate according to the principles of diminishing returns; the faster you go the less you get out of them. Is that "efficient"? So when has a shoe ever been like that and why now?
It's not the carbon plate, but the whole shoe which improves running economy. This is not important for short sprints which use non-oxygen sources of energy.
Efficiency has a specific meaning in physics, as a fraction of the energy used to do the desired work versus the total energy.
This law of diminishing returns appears everywhere and always has done.
There is nothing that supports the law of diminishing returns will apply in a shoe that favours slower speeds. Unless you're talking about gumboots.
Here’s an idea - ban all super shoes for two years at world, collegiate and HS levels. Collect the data and, ta-da! we will have much better assessment of how much the shoes are worth (or not worth).
Of course, this might cause a lot of tears in the running community because, although current competitive running climate is that the shoes offer no substantial boost in performance, competitive runners now know that there will be a substantial decrease in their performance. This will be very sad for them and they might not recover. 14:58 5k runners will now be forced to admit they are 15:15 5k runners w/o the shoes, severally disrupting their social status in the running community.
But no need to get upset since this is only temporary.
Guess no one liked this idea even though it would wrap up the argument fairly quickly. I knew the bouncy-shoe crowd would hate it but what about the rest of LR?
What is still not being addressed by "the shoes are making everyone faster" proponents is that if the shoes enable gains of several seconds it must mean the best runners today are nowhere near as talented as the best in the '90s and 2000s.
Even if it is claimed the shoes may enable a gain of 2-3 secs (and not 5 secs) over 1500 that must mean El G, Lagat, Ngeny and Kiprop could have run 3:23-24 in superspikes and that Ingebrigtsen is only a 3:28-29 runner without them, and Hocker and Kerr aren't even 3:30 runners. That has to be the conclusion if it is argued the spikes add even a couple of seconds over that distance at the top of the sport. I can anticipate the fall-back argument that the shoes mostly make a difference at a lower level - which no research supports.
I guess if no one is contesting it, these consequences and conclusions must be true, or at least undisputed.
Congratulations, you won this argument.
If you aren't contesting it then you are conceding it. So El G, Lagat and Ngeny in supershoes are faster by several seconds over the best today over 1500/mile.
But Simpson still holds the 1500m CR at 3:59.9, which was run in 2009, and converts to 4:19.1 Unless Simpson was a superwoman, there has only been an increase in depth. You’re guaranteeing a false premise.
In a lot of ways, Simpson was a superwoman. Her 3:59 looked like an outlier performance, but then she backed it up by winning a world championship 2 years later, and backing that up with a number of medals in the following years. I don't know what spikes she was wearing when she ran 3:59.
Interestingly, 2009 was around the time the original Nike Victory was released, and we started to see an increase in 3:55-3:57 indoor mile times during this period. Waldrop's 3:55 record stood until this era, before guys like Batty and O'hare started chipping away at it.
With the current era, it is hard to determine all the factors leading to the improvements. Are Gary Martin and Ethan Strand actually 6+ seconds better than everyone who ran before 2010? Is a recently graduated Adam Fogg 5+ seconds better than the entirety of NCAA runners prior to 2010?
When you have 30 runners per year running faster than anyone ran in NCAA history up through 16 years ago, a number of factors are at play. Spikes, bicarb, running at fast tracks in fast paced races, different training, etc - all of these play a role. Even with increased interest, I don't think the talent pool has been a huge factor in the improved times. I imagine if all the NCAA runners in history between 1965-2010 were put in today's competition (with maybe a year to adjust to training), we'd see huge numbers running between 3:47-3:54.
I don’t know where your 6 seconds comes from, but none of the 2010 guys could have finished in 7th in an ultra competitive NCAA XC championship, like Martin did.
Huge numbers running 3:47? Since the advent of super spikes, there have been three. Even though there was far fewer elite runners in 2010, if they were beamed to 2026, there would be a huge number of 3:47-52 guys? They really were supermen.
As you listed, we’ve got:
Super spikes
Bicarb
Fast tracks in fast paced races(there have such races since forever)
Better training
You left out pacer lights and altitude.
If people are allocating 4-5 seconds for the spikes that means the other variables can provide no benefit. If not, we could have a total improvement of something like 10 seconds.