I didn't make up the range. It's empirical observable evidence.
I repeat, not everyone responds the same exact way. For some, it's closer to 2 minutes. For high responders, it's closer to 3 minutes. That's the difference. A big difference.
Work on your arithmetic for Mantz. A super shoe effect range of 2 to 3 minutes means Mantz would be between 2:06:43-2:07:43 in regular shoes. That sounds right. Ritz ran 2:07:47 in Chicago. Mantz is better in the marathon than Ritz was on their best days, but not by more than 64 seconds. Mantz is probably between 45 and 60 seconds faster than Ritz in the same type of shoes on the same course.
You did make it up because you are saying the 2-3 minute improvement is solely from supershoes. That’s not empirical evidence. It’s nonsense! Training has changed, nutrition has changed, many things have changed. For you to be correct that all improvements are solely from supershoes would mean the world record would still be the same as when Hall ran if we took the shoes away. That’s absurd!
My arithmetic’s for Mantz saying he is a 2:07+ guy under your analysis is exactly what you just posted. Work on your reasoning and reading comprehension.
BS! When super shoes became available en masse, times dropped 2 to 3 minutes across the board. That is an undeniable fact.
I said Mantz's regular shoe range starts at 2:06:43. That's below 2:07. Work on your reasoning and reading comprehension.
You did make it up because you are saying the 2-3 minute improvement is solely from supershoes. That’s not empirical evidence. It’s nonsense! Training has changed, nutrition has changed, many things have changed. For you to be correct that all improvements are solely from supershoes would mean the world record would still be the same as when Hall ran if we took the shoes away. That’s absurd!
My arithmetic’s for Mantz saying he is a 2:07+ guy under your analysis is exactly what you just posted. Work on your reasoning and reading comprehension.
BS! When super shoes became available en masse, times dropped 2 to 3 minutes across the board. That is an undeniable fact.
I said Mantz's regular shoe range starts at 2:06:43. That's below 2:07. Work on your reasoning and reading comprehension.
2009 - 2:10 New york (4th), 2:09 Boston (3rd), 1:01:52 / 1:02:35 halfs
2008 - 2:12:33 Olympics, 2:06:17 London (5th place)
2007 - 2:09:02 OT win, 2:08:24 London (7th place), 59:43 Houston
I believe 2007 was his debut, before that we have a 3rd place finish at USA champs in 5k which ended in 16th place at worlds in Helsinki (his PR is 13:16 at 5k)
From these results I would look at this stretch from 2007-2011 where he is getting those 4th/5th place finishes to try and get a picture of where he would be at today. 4th/5th these days is worth 2:04 - 2:07 today based on a cursory glance of the last few year's worth of data (that 2:06 in london would have gotten him 5th in 2023, 3rd in 2024, and 8th in 2025).
I think that the 2:04:58 in Boston, the 2:06:17 in London and the 59:43 in Houston were definite outliers (seems like he was more of a 2:08/2:09 guy all things considered).
Probably the most likely benefit of super shoes would be more races below 2:08 or even 2:07, it's possible he wouldn't have been able to run much faster than those flash-in-a-pan performances. Maybe with a perfect storm (so, same level of outlier + super shoes), that 2:06:17 in London would become a 2:04:30, but would require a lot of things to go right on a given day
Not sure why all the down votes here. This seems like a pretty systemic argument/rational look at things. Hall/Mantz are good comps in different eras. Top domestic marathoner. Fast half marathoners. Usually 4-10 range at majors, but not making the podium. Lots of 2:04-2:07 times today to get those results. Most of the legitimate studies on super shoes have them at ~60-90s faster in a marathon. & obviously you cannot discount other factors like weather/pacing/course/feuling/etc. Super shoes doesn't automatically equate to a 60-90s bump. If you put it all together then, sure, optimized expect that kind of a bump. I think Hall's marathon results from 2007-2011 put him roughly in line with Mantz's last two results. The London 2:06 effort @ 2025 Chicago would have made for an interesting battle with Mantz for the AR. I think the people saying 2:02-2:03 are a bit off. Don't give the shoes more than they're worth. Keep it rooted in what we actually know (60-90s optimized).
Here's a cool study put out a few years back looking at the top 50 marathon major's annual performances by elite male and female athletes, from 2010 to 2019 in super shoe-wearing athletes. The average time of the top 50 performances dropped 2.3% (2.3 minutes) in the men and 2.6% (4.3 minutes) in the women, pre vs post-super shoes. They also looked at the subset of individual men and women with repeat performances, pre and post super shoes, who were identified in both groups, finding a 0.8% (1.2 minutes) and 1.6% (3.7 minutes) improvement in those individual's performances, respectively.
There is scientific and legal controversy about recent technological advances in performance running shoes that reduce the energetic cost of running and may provide a distinct competitive advantage. To better understand the p...
Knowing that Hall would be at near the very top of the top 50 list, it is likely his improvement wouldn't be as much as the male average, as this study provides predictive values for:
Training, footwear, nutrition, and racing strategies (i.e. drafting) have all been shown to reduce the metabolic cost of distance running (i.e. improve runni...
The new road shoe technology is worth about one minute for the HM and two for the marathon. That would convert his fastest marathon time on a certified course, to 2:04:17
So you're saying the road racing scene has stagnated the past decade? We had a 2:02 before super shoes and 58 flat half. Remove Kiplimo's hard to believe sub 56:40's half marathon, the record is 57:20's, less than a minute from the record a decade ago. The record has been getting beat on average every few years for decades, now you think no one should be faster in a decade with the new shoes?
Well the thread question was about "in super shoes", which does not include any advances in training, nutrition, and pacing strategies/pacer numbers.
The world record has improved by 2:22 in the last 11 years. Yes, only part of that comes from the super shoes. For comparison, the WR improved by 1:59 (Tergat's 2:04:55) in the 11 years before Kimetto's 2:02:57.
More specifically for Hall's 2:06:17, the WR in 2007 was 2:04:26. As others have said, less than two minutes separated Hall from the WR. Or, look at the top 5 then and now, to see whether the WR holder was a special outlier:
I think that the 2:04:58 in Boston, the 2:06:17 in London and the 59:43 in Houston were definite outliers (seems like he was more of a 2:08/2:09 guy all things considered).
You don't run 2:06 then get relegated to being a "2:08-2:09 guy", sure there were a few years where he was clearly at the top of his game (2007-2011) but we have the benefit of hindsight now. We don't have to speculate...he WAS a 2:06 guy, and with the shoes he'd probably be 2:04ish
