The only people complaining are old and no longer run. People who are actually running now, at elite and amateur level, like the shoes.
You're welcome to your own opinion on the shoes, but you're wrong about this. Plenty of runners who are currently running don't like the super shoe phenomenon. I myself hate that the shoes exist and I'm not old and I still race competitively (I pick up a bit of prize money here and there, but nowhere near elite). I have running buddies who feel the same and one friend refuses to buy them even though he knows he's at a disadvantage in races.
I respect your one friend who hates the shoes and refuses to wear them. Anyone who says they hate them but continues to wear them isn't being honest with themselves
You're welcome to your own opinion on the shoes, but you're wrong about this. Plenty of runners who are currently running don't like the super shoe phenomenon. I myself hate that the shoes exist and I'm not old and I still race competitively (I pick up a bit of prize money here and there, but nowhere near elite). I have running buddies who feel the same and one friend refuses to buy them even though he knows he's at a disadvantage in races.
Unless he's wearing these your friend has drawn an arbitrary line.
His line is not arbitrary. He wants to compare himself to his past self and doesn't want to use the super shoes to artificially boost his performance. Even though he recognizes this means he may lose to people in a race he would have otherwise beat.
I guess this motivation is really only relevant to people of a certain age who were well into their running career during the transition to super shoes, but aren't so old that they're past running fast times. Someone who was only in high school when super shoes came out or who was already well past the days when they can chase PRs wouldn't come at the issue from this perspective.
His line is not arbitrary. He wants to compare himself to his past self and doesn't want to use the super shoes to artificially boost his performance. Even though he recognizes this means he may lose to people in a race he would have otherwise beat.
I guess this motivation is really only relevant to people of a certain age who were well into their running career during the transition to super shoes, but aren't so old that they're past running fast times. Someone who was only in high school when super shoes came out or who was already well past the days when they can chase PRs wouldn't come at the issue from this perspective.
Still kind of arbitrary. I remember when the New Balance 800 spikes came out. Those things were way better than any other Mid-D spike at the time. Had a carbon fiber insert in them. Nobody cared.
If the innovation of super shoes happened over the course of 20 years rather than 5, would he complain? Probably not.
I remember when fat ski's came out, I remember when jumbo drivers came out. For many people these were game changers. With the shoes, cost, fit whatever right now may keep some away, but the tech may trickle down to what we now call regular shoes. People have a choice, and can't we just all get along.
More to the point, if you think about how the shoes function, there's every reason to think they'd be less variation among elite athletes. The shoes compensate for poor biomechanics by helping to improve running economy. The group of people who have the very best biomechanics are elite runners. How much further can you really improve the running economy of people like Kipchoge and Gidey?
Kipchoge’s marathon time improved by 2 minutes with super shoes.
I've got no problem with the shoes. Just admit that the shoes boost performance.
I've got a problem with super shoe enhanced times being measured against non-super shoe times and having pretend like there's a level playing field. There isn't.
Same. Thinking that today’s runners are better just because their shoes help them run faster is both illogical and unfair to previous runners.
Speak for yourself. I’ve never sought to improve my times through equipment. My improvement comes from hard work and that’s it.
I guess that means you're wearing wool running clothes and leather shoes with hard soles.
No, it means I’m using generally the same quality of shoes and clothing I used when I started running 20 years ago. That gives me a consistent basis for comparing my times across that span.
I’m very interested in how you compare your times over a 20 year span. I’m not looking to troll, genuinely curious.
Are you the same speed as you were 20 years ago? Do you use an age grader to look at your times? Do you do the same races every year and compare your time/placement?
Anyone still crying about these shoes has nothing better to do. I was done competing by the time super shoes/spikes became a thing and honestly can’t imagine obsessing over something more trivial. The whining about integrity of the sport, like this is some kind of moral issue, is bullsht. Admit you’re insecure about today’s kids running faster than you did and move on.
Silly thread. Why would people who wear super shoes and run faster in them not like them? They are also the least likely to suggest that they gain much of an advantage wearing them.
I run right now, and I'm not fond of the pospect of someone buying a placing ahead of me in a race.
I've only just adjusted to the previous iteration of super shoes, and I'm not keen on the idea of forking out $500 on a pair of shoes - that I can only race in once - or else be beaten by people I would've otherwise beaten.
Seems like an arms race; one in which runners shoulder exorbitant costs in order to compete. All the while shoe brands enrich themselves.
I think you're over-emphasising Assefa's performance which is very much an outlier even compared to others that used the shoe. A bunch of other runners had the $500 shoe in Berlin and didn't run times that were off the charts. We'll get more data from Chicago, NY, and Valencia, but my guess is this new shoe is worth fractions of a minute, if anything, for most runners. If Adidas were really confident if the performance benefits of this shoe, they'd release the test data as Nike did with the OG Vaporfly. As they aren't releasing it, I would bet a lot of money that it's only within 1% of other supershoes. In short: those $150 Vaporfly's you got on sale are perfectly fine. Nike shoes were good enough for Kipchoge to run 2:02 for the win
These are the details of how much of an outlier it was.
Her new shoes at the absolute most gave her a 1% RE improvement over her old (2.15.37) shoes (the Adios Pro 2). The only difference is the midsole foam which is 75g lighter. Really this should only translate to around 0.6% improvement but I'm going to be super generous as assume (in the shoes favor) that there is a further benefit in terms of the foams faster compression, tension and resiliency. That's very generous btw.
The labs suggest this is 1% should translate to a velocity improvement of 0.67% so let's say 0.7%.
Assefa's velocity improvement was 2.63% and her RE improvement based on this was 3.92%. Somehow we need to explain this 1.9% velocity improvement and 2.92% running economy improvement.
A year more training? More experience in race? Felt better on the day? Responded to the shoe even better than she did to a highly comparable one a year earlier? Does this add up to those (%) values - and especially at this level of performance?
The carbon plate is hard and doesn't bend. At most it has some lever-like effect.
It's the foam that is spring-like. No super shoes without super foam.
The carbon plates in my Asics certainly bend. And they spring back when released.
Sure, the super foam probably contributes the most to the mechanical advantage that the super flats provide, but WA at least tried to limit that by limiting the stack height.
And the super spikes don't have much stack height at all. As I recall, it was the carbon plate in the Nike spikes that Warholm was complaining about.
The carbon plate is hard and doesn't bend. At most it has some lever-like effect.
It's the foam that is spring-like. No super shoes without super foam.
The carbon plates in my Asics certainly bend. And they spring back when released.
Sure, the super foam probably contributes the most to the mechanical advantage that the super flats provide, but WA at least tried to limit that by limiting the stack height.
And the super spikes don't have much stack height at all. As I recall, it was the carbon plate in the Nike spikes that Warholm was complaining about.
Nike Victories had carbon fiber plates in them 15 years ago.
More to the point, if you think about how the shoes function, there's every reason to think they'd be less variation among elite athletes. The shoes compensate for poor biomechanics by helping to improve running economy. The group of people who have the very best biomechanics are elite runners. How much further can you really improve the running economy of people like Kipchoge and Gidey?
Kipchoge’s marathon time improved by 2 minutes with super shoes.
Almost 3 minutes. And do you think that's all down to shoes? You're saying the most dominant marathon racer we've ever seen (as measured by victories rather than just times) never really ran faster than 2:04?
This post was edited 26 seconds after it was posted.
Silly thread. Why would people who wear super shoes and run faster in them not like them? They are also the least likely to suggest that they gain much of an advantage wearing them.
Plenty of athletes who wore the shark suits in swimming didn't like them and campaigned to have them banned.
Athletes will oppose equipment if they think it is detrimental to their sport
Kipchoge’s marathon time improved by 2 minutes with super shoes.
Almost 3 minutes. And do you think that's all down to shoes? You're saying the most dominant marathon racer we've ever seen (as measured by victories rather than just times) never really ran faster than 2:04?
That would be a reasonable assumption considering his age. Yes, all down to shoes, about 3 minutes for him. I don't see his "intrinsic" being any faster than around when he had that race in normal racers with the insoles flapping out of it.
The carbon plate is hard and doesn't bend. At most it has some lever-like effect.
It's the foam that is spring-like. No super shoes without super foam.
The carbon plates in my Asics certainly bend. And they spring back when released.
Sure, the super foam probably contributes the most to the mechanical advantage that the super flats provide, but WA at least tried to limit that by limiting the stack height.
And the super spikes don't have much stack height at all. As I recall, it was the carbon plate in the Nike spikes that Warholm was complaining about.
Take your asics shoes, bend it in the direction that it would when you are running in it, then really look at how the plate "springs" back. Really take note in particular of the directionality of it etc. Now if you can, try and think about how that directionality of the "spring back" really is going to help you in terms of moving forwards in the shoe.
You still think this plate is helping you in terms of any "spring" effect?