Sisson 66:52 American Record!

Any idea what shoe she’s wearing? Doesn’t look like any NB (her sponsor) model I’m familiar with and it seemed to have branding removed in the videos I saw. Heel doesn’t look like a Nike though. Curious if she’s sporting a non-NB shoe, or if it’s a NB prototype.

Niiya ran three minutes slower than her performance equivalent from last year's Houston half; a reasonable estimate is she would have been 45-60 seconds slower if she ran it this year, at minimum.

A worthwhile question in a sea of posts attempting to disparage a great performance. Shoes do matter, although the playing field is pretty level now. Comparing times to a few years ago is pointless. The shoes moved the goalposts.

How is it racist, exactly? You interpret 'clean' as 'white' for some reason.

Methinks you are the one obsessed with race.

It is almost certainly the SC Pacer but in a custom (or yet to be released) white or light silver color-way. The photo from the race in the article below shows the distinctive ‘notch’ in the heel that only this shoe has (also visible in the outsole view on the NB website). The big ‘N’ on the side of the shoe is difficult to see due to being the same color as the rest of the upper.

Article:

nerunner.com

Emily Sisson Resets US Half Marathon Record in Houston

Bob Fitzgerald

Emily Sisson Resets US Half Marathon Record in Houston reported in New England Runner Magazine.

Link:www.nerunner.com/2023/01/16/emily-siss...

Never thought the day would come when an American woman running a 1:06 half is considered a solid, but not great performance on the world stage. 4 minutes off the world best, and quite possibly not quick enough to be a pacer at a major marathon. The day has come.

Good question. I noticed Paige Stoner wore Vaporflys while wearing a Reebok race kit at CIM. She didn't even bother to remove the branding. I've seen some Brooks Sponsored athletes wearing Vaporflys or Alphaflys. To some extent, I don't understand why the shoe companies care so much about race day shoes. Nike has the market cornered there, but definitely not in the daily trainers market (New Balance and Brooks lead there). On the TV coverage, and on videos seen on YouTube, etc, the runners cadence is too fast to make out the shoes. And the cameras tend to focus on the upper half of runners anyway, meaning the branding (which, in general, brands do a terrible job of maximizing) is visible. To me it'd make sense to bring back the looser fitting singlets and gave a giant "NEW BALANCE" across the shirt above the number. Instead they have these weird color schemes and a small "NB" or "A" on the shoulder. A smart company could very easily say, "Our daily trainers prevent injury and let you maximize the race shoes of other companies." And probably sell a crap ton of shoes. Not sure why nobody has tried to do that. Maybe Brooks is flirting with it.

KG sub 67 GNR

Tristan Van Ord wore Flys at Houston while in an On kit, as another example. I don't know why she didn't wear the On super shoe (OAC at least has them), but On has also been accommodating in the past about their athletes wearing other shoes (at least before its racers came out).

On and Reebok are the 2 that are totally OK with them wearing Nike. On actually encourages as much it seems. Here's my reaction to that policy: I don't believe I will ever wear an On shoe. They are so bad that On pays people to race in Nike. That's how bad they believe their shoes are; the don't wany races lost because of them. I trust their judgement. If they people trying to sell them think they're unwearable, who am I to argue?

Inferring from Van Ord's post race instagram post, Zap is no longer sponsored by On. So she was able to wear whatever she wanted. It looks like she still wore the On kit though.