There should be much stricter limitations on shoe technology. One of the great things about our sport is that athletes frequently break world records. That doesn't happen in football, basketball, soccer or baseball.
Pretty soon, all world records are going to be broken as a result of the shoe technology, not because the athletes are better. It takes a dump on the history of our sport.
Earth to NJ fan: Houlihan did not wear the new shoes, thus making the shoes that KS wore irrelevant. It's the runner, not the shoes.
NJ fan wrote:
There should be much stricter limitations on shoe technology. One of the great things about our sport is that athletes frequently break world records. That doesn't happen in football, basketball, soccer or baseball.
Pretty soon, all world records are going to be broken as a result of the shoe technology, not because the athletes are better. It takes a dump on the history of our sport.
The regulations have been set through World Athletics. They are perfectly reasonable. World records will always be broken until some point. Keep in mind the first sub 4 mile was only 66 years ago. Technology advances in every sport and running should not be any different. No spike or shoe makes the runner, they still need to put in the work and preform on the day.
Do you think that things like better coaching, more competition, larger understanding through science, better recovery technique, better nutrition do not have an effect as well? Should NormaTec boots be banned because they reduce recovery time? It is a ridiculous argument you make
cheesewiz wrote:
The regulations have been set through World Athletics. They are perfectly reasonable. World records will always be broken until some point. Keep in mind the first sub 4 mile was only 66 years ago. Technology advances in every sport and running should not be any different. No spike or shoe makes the runner, they still need to put in the work and preform on the day.
Do you think that things like better coaching, more competition, larger understanding through science, better recovery technique, better nutrition do not have an effect as well? Should NormaTec boots be banned because they reduce recovery time? It is a ridiculous argument you make
There are countless examples of one certain shoe giving a significant advantage in the marathon. Hell, even the NCAA Northeast Regional 10k that was run on the roads showed teams in vaporflys overperformed in a huge way.
A runner that is best at everything you listed - recovery, talent, has better coaching, nutrition - will STILL LOSE to a LESSER runner using a certain type of shoe. It takes away from the integrity of our sport.
Sapel wrote:
Earth to NJ fan: Houlihan did not wear the new shoes, thus making the shoes that KS wore irrelevant. It's the runner, not the shoes.
NJ fan wrote:
There should be much stricter limitations on shoe technology. One of the great things about our sport is that athletes frequently break world records. That doesn't happen in football, basketball, soccer or baseball.
Pretty soon, all world records are going to be broken as a result of the shoe technology, not because the athletes are better. It takes a dump on the history of our sport.
Kind of blows the whole argument out of the water, doesn’t it?
NJ fan wrote:
There should be much stricter limitations on shoe technology. One of the great things about our sport is that athletes frequently break world records. That doesn't happen in football, basketball, soccer or baseball.
Pretty soon, all world records are going to be broken as a result of the shoe technology, not because the athletes are better. It takes a dump on the history of our sport.
I agree
cheesewiz wrote:
Taking it with a grain of salt. No spike is going to make someone that much faster over 1500-5k.
The victory elite spikes Houlihan wears also have a carbon fibre shank/plate in them. Not necessarily new tech, they came out in 2012.
No studies have been done on the performance effects of Nike’s Zoom Air pods. While they probably provide some benefit in tension and rebound, I would say the benefit is negligible considering they’re used in the 1500m spike and the Alphafly, but not the 5k-10k spike. Once again, Nike has been using similar technology to Zoom air pods for years. Air max in the 90’s used compressed air for cushioning.
ZoomX foam is completely legal and is a product of innovation and experimentation. There’s nothing wrong with making a spike more cushioned.
No foul play here. And Schweizer was wearing those spikes during her 3000m record which counted, so if a new record comes down tonight it will count as well.
This here ^^^ nails it. You are 100% right on.
PogostickObserver wrote:
asking wrote:
Out of curiosity, what aspect of the shoe is the cheating part? If it’s against the rules I’d like to know which one.
The pogo part. Boing, boing.
Oh man...you don’t know how pogo sticks work. Truly unfortunate.
Also let me explain exactly what and why these spikes are the way they are.
The reason the plate is now embedded in foam is really simple - Nike wanted to increase the pitch angle of the plate to allow for more midfoot to toe "drop" - the same principal that has worked so well on the 4%, NXT% and Alphafly shoes. The science is correct and it works.
When you have a large space to work with (think the thickness of a midsole that can be as thick as 40mm at size 9) this is kind of easy. When you don't have that space available - like on a spike, it's a bit more challenging. To visualize what they have done, think about keeping the upper orientation fixed and think about rotating the plate forwards or downwards towards the toe. Now think of the "gaps"/space that are made - you have to fill them in with something - Zoom X.
The problem doing this with a spike though? More cushioning. First thing to realize is that zoom X or any foam for that matter isn't some magic material that is capable of generating propulsion for a human of any weight - even a new born baby. In the road racing product the foam allows the necessary compression (10mm of drop) and there is of course benefit created with muscular vibration reduction etc that we know reduces fatigue, especially over extended duration (like a Marathon) - which is why the biggest gains are seen over a Marathon in particular from 35km onwards (why Rhonex Kipruto ran 26.24 in adidas flats with no plate or zoom X).
But in a track spike - max duration 10km running on a cushioned, elastically rebounding surface already? Hmmm, not so sure about that. So you can probably list the benefits as an increase in plate pitch and the accompanying midfoot>toe drop, and muscular "protection" benefit (very dubious this happens over such such distances on a track anyway) and they are offset by weight and reduced force transfer (due to the extra cushioning).
So what is it? It's mental. Anything an athlete believes makes them better is a huge help - maybe even more of a help than anything actual physical on shoe. I actually think the dragonflys will be an excellent training spike when athletes are out on the track for duration potentially of over an hour - but a race of up to 10000m?
The basis of the science Nike is usinng applies so much better to road surfaces than the track, that's the reality here. So I agree with cheeseballs, and the above is why.
I just watched Sondre Moen, in Next%, lose to an African in traditional spikes on a track in Norway. The shoes do not matter.
On the one hand, I am super excited about these performances. It is great to see athletes going to that next level despite all the challenges – whether they benefit from new shoe technology or not. In head-to-head competition I do not care much about the shoes as long as the technology is available to everyone. In this sense, it is perfectly “legal”. Innovation has been and will be part of the sport.
On the other hand, I also have mixed feelings when that innovation – at least apparently – takes a little bit away from the purity and historic comparability of the performance. Call it nostalgic or whatever. If we wanted to just maximize performance, there would be few limits thanks to technological advances. Think also about the throwing or jumping events (re-design javelins, take-off board).
One of the things I like most about track and field is the objectivity of performances. Times, distances… all has relevance in absolute terms unlike in other sports where it really comes down to the best athlete-material combination on race day (e.g. many winter sports, car racing…) that determines the winner. It does not matter if the loop was 6 miles or 6.2 miles or the winning time 24:23 or 25:40. Track and field is different. Swimming had a similar situation with the record-breaking suits a few years ago.
Why is this thread still up?
So, it's your position that the human race maxed out its running talent when the last record that you consider legit was set? Not possible for a more talented runner to come along than whoever the previous record holder you hold in such high regard?
Yeah the Vaporflys - literally everyone wears em, can buy em right now sitting on my couch, but Kipchoge has SO much company in the 2:00:XX and 1:59:XX clubs right....
It's not mechanical doping, it's just straight up doping.
Neik $$$ wrote:
It's not mechanical doping, it's just straight up doping.
The obvious is easily overlooked.
wejo wrote:
Sapel wrote:
Shoes don't make the runner. The new spikes are fine and legit.
That’s what I used to think. Until the new marathon shoes came out. Clearly shoes can have a significant difference that impacts races.
Weldon, dude - you are around this stuff all the time and surely have been able to piece together information around this to come up with a better and more educated POV on this.
Like surely you understand the differences between a road and track surface and the differences between 5000m and 42195m and the impact of these shoes based on the science relative to those factors.
If you ever want a refresher just let me know - I'll even come on your podcast to explain. And I know from your IP tracing that you know that I know, okay?
regards
SS
Wejo sunshine. Listen to Sal. He knows.
Last week he dropped the knowledge on Team Juicelian TTs over at The Big Freindly.
This week its Spenny Brown to the Beasts and shoe science facts.
Next week....?
Stay tuned for the big news from Monaco!!
Jsygdm23 wrote:
So, it's your position that the human race maxed out its running talent when the last record that you consider legit was set? Not possible for a more talented runner to come along than whoever the previous record holder you hold in such high regard?
Yeah the Vaporflys - literally everyone wears em, can buy em right now sitting on my couch, but Kipchoge has SO much company in the 2:00:XX and 1:59:XX clubs right....
My position is the sport is stronger, healthier, and more broadly appealing when we are certain any world records broken are done so because a more talented runner came along and not a pair of shoes that give you a 4% or higher advantage. Many athletes cannot wear those shoes because they are sponsored by a different company.
The fact that we are even having this conversation is proof that the shoe technology has caused a lot of people to question the integrity of the sport.
People are literally running with springs in their shoes. If you want to see the fastest speeds possible - go watch NASCAR.Fans of track want to see people test the limits of the human body and compete in a level playing field. The shoes negatively affect both of those appeals.
nj fan wrote:
Jsygdm23 wrote:
So, it's your position that the human race maxed out its running talent when the last record that you consider legit was set? Not possible for a more talented runner to come along than whoever the previous record holder you hold in such high regard?
Yeah the Vaporflys - literally everyone wears em, can buy em right now sitting on my couch, but Kipchoge has SO much company in the 2:00:XX and 1:59:XX clubs right....
My position is the sport is stronger, healthier, and more broadly appealing when we are certain any world records broken are done so because a more talented runner came along and not a pair of shoes that give you a 4% or higher advantage. Many athletes cannot wear those shoes because they are sponsored by a different company.
The fact that we are even having this conversation is proof that the shoe technology has caused a lot of people to question the integrity of the sport.
People are literally running with springs in their shoes. If you want to see the fastest speeds possible - go watch NASCAR.Fans of track want to see people test the limits of the human body and compete in a level playing field. The shoes negatively affect both of those appeals.
So the fact you said “people are literally running with springs in their shoes” voids anything you have to say because if you don’t understand the definition of “literally” then we are done here. Show me one shoe that “literally” has a spring in it. Some tips before you try - 1) a flat plate with curvature in it isn’t a spring 2) neither is a Nike air bag and 3) the closest thing to a spring, by definition, in any shoe is the midsole foam which almost every shoe has had since the invention of PU midsoles back in the 50s so I hope you are willing to make your case against basically every modern running shoe that has ever existed.
nj fan wrote:
Jsygdm23 wrote:
So, it's your position that the human race maxed out its running talent when the last record that you consider legit was set? Not possible for a more talented runner to come along than whoever the previous record holder you hold in such high regard?
Yeah the Vaporflys - literally everyone wears em, can buy em right now sitting on my couch, but Kipchoge has SO much company in the 2:00:XX and 1:59:XX clubs right....
My position is the sport is stronger, healthier, and more broadly appealing when we are certain any world records broken are done so because a more talented runner came along and not a pair of shoes that give you a 4% or higher advantage. Many athletes cannot wear those shoes because they are sponsored by a different company.
The fact that we are even having this conversation is proof that the shoe technology has caused a lot of people to question the integrity of the sport.
People are literally running with springs in their shoes. If you want to see the fastest speeds possible - go watch NASCAR.Fans of track want to see people test the limits of the human body and compete in a level playing field. The shoes negatively affect both of those appeals.
Doesn’t every shoe company have a shoe with a carbon plate that any athlete can use if they’re not sponsored by Nike? Brooks, saucony, hoka? I’m really not sold on the opinion that someone running in the Endorphin Pro or the Hyperion Elite is at some disadvantage. They’re getting to use the most advanced racer their company can give them. And 4% advantage over what? Over another company’s carbon fiber racer? Unless I’m mistaken I don’t think that’s the case right?