As runners we measure ourselves by our prs. It is harder to see all these fast times in the super shoes and say hey I didn’t have those 10 years ago. Although I did have a mondo track and not cinder surface like 60 years ago. So those in their 80s and 90s can say the same thing about track surfaces.
It is what it is. We likely won’t even care 5 years from now when all this record breaking goes back to normal. It’s just the initial shock of super times.
HRE wrote:
We've spent a year where there was very little out of competition testing because of COVID and in that time everyone comes out with super shoes. The shoes create a great cover, a legal explanation for the performances other than the absence of testing, i.e., the shoes are part of the explanation and the part you're supposed to notice.
^^^ This ^^^^
That should be common knowledge, actually, but gets routinely ignored.
fxhjb2 wrote:
Racetraining1 wrote:
There is an on going mental adjustment to what any recent times mean and how new times fit in with older times.
We now have current vs pre "2016" or so times.
Obviously when looking at all-time lists the informed running community will understand that a guy that ran 2:09 back in the 1980's would be running 2:04 today. Although Americans are putting down some amazing times (with better shoes) I am not seeing any change in the gap to close in on the African runners.
I ran on cinder tracks in HS and I am fine knowing that I would have run much faster with todays equipment.
You wouldn’t have. Ron Clarke ran 27:39 and 13:16 in ‘65 and ‘66 on cinders. Despite running several races on a synthetic track, he never ran faster than his times on a cinder track. Do we really think Clarke was, what, a 13:05 guy if he’d run on synthetic back in ‘66? Hardly.
Synthetic was introduced not long after but it wasn’t until ‘72 (years after synthetic was introduced) that we finally saw his 10,000 WR broken by, get this, 1 second. Synthetic was such a revolutionary new material that it took several years after its introduction to break Clarke’s WR by one second.
The same holds true for Ryun’s 3:51.1 which was run on cinders. Despite racing many times on synthetic, Ryun never ran faster than 3:51. Years later, after synthetic had been around for some time, Bayi finally broke Ryun’s record by .1 second on a synthetic track. Wow! What an advantage Bayi had running on synthetic. Or is it possible that Bayi was just .1 second better that Ryun? I’ll bet the latter.
Even when mondotrack was introduced in the 80s we hardly saw any progression. From 1978 to 1989 we only saw the WR in the men’s 10,000 broken twice despite new and improved track surfaces that had been around for many years by that point. In 11 years the record had only been improved 14 seconds. It wasn’t until, ahem, the mid 90s that things really took off. By that point fast tracks had been out for many many years and the spikes weren’t that much different from what the were wearing in the 70s and 80s (eva foam, nylon, and a plastic spike plate).
Fast forward to today. Super spikes were introduced in Aug of 2020. Since then we have seen WRs in both the men’s and women’s 5 and 10,000 (twice in the women’s). The men’s NCAA indoor mile record (two different athletes and a third that just missed the record) and, of course, the HS 1500 record which is 4 seconds better than Webb (arguably the most talented American miler ever). Americans are now running low 27s regularly and we’re not even done with the year. Records that used to take years or decades are now being broke night to night. Of course peds likely play a big part (as they always have) but I think the biggest change has come from shoe technology.
Yes, super spikes are the biggest technological advantage since steroids. There’s no denying the effect it is having on current times.
Great post!
The bottom line is that we can't choke out new technology. It's always going to be moving forward to make life (and athletics) bigger, stronger, and faster. I think the real question is how it's regulated so as to let it progress but not at the break-neck speed to destroy the integrity of the sport. Life is going to evolve, as will athletics and we need to embrace the change and make it work in a manageable way so as to benefit all who choose to participate.
Agreeance wrote:
USADAWADA wrote:
EPO but the shoes don't provide a 60 sec advantage or even a 30 sec advantage. They also don't provide a 4 sec advantage in the mile.
EPO does not provide instant improvement (takes weeks).
Yes, preliminary research has indicated that supershoes provide on average 4-5sec per mile and upto 60sec over 10km performance improvement dependent on the athlete's spring mass system efficency.
What improvement do you propose that EPO gives?
And why?
fxhjb2 wrote:
shocked I tell you again wrote:
Shoes ARE a mechanical advantage. they always have been. And as they improve, they continue to provide a greater advantage. Track surfaces are an advantage. There are limits even to these advantages though. and once the world records are adjusted to the new technology, it'll all even out again.
They have never been a technological advantage until just recently. There is practically no difference between spikes from the 70s and spikes from the 2000s.
Spot on. I agree. The difference between spikes from 1970 to 2020 is probably 10 seconds for a 10k. The new spikes have almost a 30 second advantage over spikes from 2020.
We are not talking about a gradual evolution of technology. We are talking about a completely new innovation. Athletes now are able to bounce around the track in such a way that it’s almost an entirely new sport.
When El Guerrouj and Rudisha lose
Their world records this summer people will start to care.
Well, all of the arguments people have posted trying to justify the use of super shoes are exactly the same arguments people made in 2008-2009 to try and justify the super swim suits of that era.
Please note that the reductions of impediments to race performances (swimming pool depths and wave quelling lane lines eliminating drag forces are equivalent to improved track surfaces and shoe sole "grips") are NOT equivalent to ehancements of natural body performances (swimming flotation suits, hand paddles, fins or PEDs, track shoes that add spring or speed, etc.)
Swimming and running are NOT like equipment sports (tennis, pole vault, cycling etc.) Which are predicated on the quality and equality of equipment to make the sport competitive.
International swimming organization was wise to cancel the flotation suits after 2 seasons of use that resulted in 40+ world record performances.
Sadly they refused to asterisk those records, so 13 years later some of them still stand, like the men's 200 meter long course freestyle of 1:42.0, which no one has come within a second and a half of equalling since then.
9 people ran under 3:35 in some low-key meet in Marseille this evening. Elliot Giles, a jumped up 800m guy with a previous 3:40 PB, is now a 3:33 1500m guy.
Times mean nothing anymore. But sure, if you want to believe the shoes don't help for the mid-d events then go ahead, live in your fantasy world.
It’s called innovation. Just like in life, you’re always striving for greatness.
Dragonflys 4% wrote:
fxhjb2 wrote:
They have never been a technological advantage until just recently. There is practically no difference between spikes from the 70s and spikes from the 2000s.
Spot on. I agree. The difference between spikes from 1970 to 2020 is probably 10 seconds for a 10k. The new spikes have almost a 30 second advantage over spikes from 2020.
We are not talking about a gradual evolution of technology. We are talking about a completely new innovation. Athletes now are able to bounce around the track in such a way that it’s almost an entirely new sport.
When El Guerrouj and Rudisha lose
Their world records this summer people will start to care.
Lets be honest. Neither the 1500m or 800m is getting touched this summer. If so, who’s taking a crack at it?!
Agreeance wrote:
USADAWADA wrote:
The first sentence is wrong improvements are nowhere near PEDs and may be comparable to past technological jumps. The improvement on the track in my opinion greatly exaggerated, people thought they would have as big of an affect as the road shoes. The second per lap advantage is obviously wrong and the advantage probably isn't even half a second per lap.
The shoes do however provide an obvious advantage and should be restricted.
Name a drug that you can instantly improve up to 60sec in a 10k and up to 5sec in mile as soon as you take it (like slipping on supershoes).
Cocaine
Folks, you tend to exaggerate the effect of super shoes and completely forget other aspects. The marathon WR prior to supershoes was 2:02:57, now it's 2:01:38 - that's 2 seconds per kilometer. And that's not an average gain, but a top performance.
If you apply this to shorter track distances (and I doubt that the effect of the combo superspike+track is as significant as the combo supershoe+road), then the gain would be 15-20 seconds. However, I think that the pacing lights play a strong role as they act as a WR pacer w/o a real pacer.
And - don't forget - what you also see is the "it can be done" effect. Once a barrier is broken, a lot of other runners believe they can do it, too.
And you could argue that the Adios Boosts were the supershoes at their time, as Adidas owned the records before Nike decided to contract a lot of top runners.
Trucker Hat wrote:
As runners we measure ourselves by our prs.
Sad for you if this is the only or most important takeaway you have from the sport. I far more treasure my experiences, friends, travels than some set of stats. Trust me, you're worth more than your collection of stats, too.
Gentleman Savage wrote:
Trucker Hat wrote:
As runners we measure ourselves by our prs.
Sad for you if this is the only or most important takeaway you have from the sport. I far more treasure my experiences, friends, travels than some set of stats. Trust me, you're worth more than your collection of stats, too.
I absolutely agree with your points. But I’ve been around running from high school to college to marathoning and often the first thing people ask ask runners is “what’s your time.” Even none runners are infatuated with people’s mile time. Because they are familiar the distance in relation to time. They likely we’re forced to do it in a school gym class.
casual obsever wrote:
HRE wrote:
We've spent a year where there was very little out of competition testing because of COVID and in that time everyone comes out with super shoes. The shoes create a great cover, a legal explanation for the performances other than the absence of testing, i.e., the shoes are part of the explanation and the part you're supposed to notice.
^^^ This ^^^^
That should be common knowledge, actually, but gets routinely ignored.
No testing in any sport, not just running. Maria Sakkari came back to the Australian Open saying she was so much better because she "had spent covid downtime working out." She looks like she could bench press light passenger vehicles. She has more shoulder definition than 90% of men. And now she's up a break, potentially making it to the French Open finals today.
czascp wrote:
Ah yes, we should just go back to barefoot running and cinder tracks, innovation is bad for the sport and Nike should be ashamed of themselves
Bringing back cinder tracks would be highly beneficial for the sport. You could have a mix of grass tracks, cinder tracks and mondo tracks and running would become a bit like tennis with the different court surfaces. Personally, I think the IAAF should offer the highest amount of prize money to the barefoot world records; these should be seen as the "real" world records. However, the major shoe companies who basically sponsor and run the sport would be against this.
The whole point of super shoes should be to make everyone be able to run fast enough to ditch all their cars.
fxhjb2 wrote:
You wouldn’t have. Ron Clarke ran 27:39 and 13:16 in ‘65 and ‘66 on cinders. Despite running several races on a synthetic track, he never ran faster than his times on a cinder track. Do we really think Clarke was, what, a 13:05 guy if he’d run on synthetic back in ‘66? Hardly.
Synthetic was introduced not long after but it wasn’t until ‘72 (years after synthetic was introduced) that we finally saw his 10,000 WR broken by, get this, 1 second. Synthetic was such a revolutionary new material that it took several years after its introduction to break Clarke’s WR by one second.
Not sure this is the best example. Clark had peaked in his career in 65 and 66 and he was going downhill after this; he ran a 27.4X 10000m in 1968 preparing for Mexico City, this was on a tartan track but in gale-force wind conditions showing the the tartan track was clearly a faster surface. Viren in 72 is not a good example either, he had ran 10000 m heats prior to the final and in the final he fell over, before easing through the field to run a burst on the last 2 laps to win gold - he broke Clarke's WR but he was clearly capeable of running much faster in a time trial situation with pacing etc ... Also how many runners started going under 28 mins once tartan tracks were introduced ? Before tartan it was pretty much just Clarke.
I think you might be right about the supershoes/spikes also giving a big boost in perfomance, but I have not tried them and am not knowedgeable enough to add to what you said.
byron evans wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
^^^ This ^^^^
That should be common knowledge, actually, but gets routinely ignored.
No testing in any sport, not just running. Maria Sakkari came back to the Australian Open saying she was so much better because she "had spent covid downtime working out." She looks like she could bench press light passenger vehicles. She has more shoulder definition than 90% of men. And now she's up a break, potentially making it to the French Open finals today.
Her physique has dramatically changed - she now looks like a female Schwarzenegger - and is crushing the ball like a man. No one says anything but it's doping in plain sight. Nadal has also built his career on it. Muscle power combined with freakish stamina that no else can match, even though he is 35, still running around like a 20 year old. HGH plus EPO. None of the youngsters can last against him. Tennis is rife with doping - its dirty secret. Just like running.
Agreeance wrote:
The current supershoe times are making a mockery of the sport. The improvements are far greater than even PEDs and unparallel to any previous training and technological progressions.
The onus should be on World Athletics (particularly technical commitee) for being so ill informed before formulating the current shoe rules (or succumbing to shoe manufacturer pressure?).
The purpose of footwear should be soley to "protect the foot" and "prevent the athlete from slipping", not to provide a unfair mechanical advantage.
Look, you clearly are not an athlete or ran in these shoes yourself in any competitive manner. These shoes don’t make that much of a difference. I could not off the couch PR in a 5k in these spikes.
Trucker Hat wrote:
Gentleman Savage wrote:
Sad for you if this is the only or most important takeaway you have from the sport. I far more treasure my experiences, friends, travels than some set of stats. Trust me, you're worth more than your collection of stats, too.
I absolutely agree with your points. But I’ve been around running from high school to college to marathoning and often the first thing people ask ask runners is “what’s your time.” Even none runners are infatuated with people’s mile time. Because they are familiar the distance in relation to time. They likely we’re forced to do it in a school gym class.
Never happened to me, true story.