illegal for what? do you really think someone would run a national or world class time to draw any attention for a stack measurement? this is not a "running" shoe. though marketed as such, this is a hipster, overpriced, lifestyle shoe. where do you think all the money comes from for shoe sponsorships? it's from non-runners buying running and basketball shoes.
Most definitely is a running shoe but not a racing shoe. Much like the glizzy max it’s basically a springy recovery shoe. I would be surprised if someone could run 4:50s comfortably in it. Let alone the less coordinated runners who will feel incredibly unstable in the shoe.
One of my freshman runners got a pair and ran a “chocolate milk mile” in them. When I realized they were not WAF Approved I disqualified his 9:43 jog fest of a performance and suspended him for the track season. No cheaters in this sport.
Uh, no. The IAAF shoe rules never previously prohibited the use of prototypes or shoes not available to the general public. That has been a longtime practice in our sport. Everyone knew about it, and nobody thought there was anything wrong it it. Geb set a marathon WR in prototype shoes in 2008. He also wore carbon plated shoes in other races which were never released to the public. Nike had been making one-off shoes for its athletes since the days of Pre. Deena won a bronze medal in Asics that were custom made to her specs. Heck, Bannister had custom 3 oz spikes when he ran the first sub-4.
What was different was that Nike's prototype shoes in 2016 turned out to be way better than any shoe made before. People didn't care about prototypes when all shoes were basically the same; they suddenly cared once the shoes really mattered.
You are wrong. The IAAF rule in place in 2016 did not mention prototypes. You are thinking of one of the many revisions of Rule 143 that happened in the fallout of the Vaporflys. Here is text of IAAF Rule 143 as of 2016:
IAAF 2016 wrote:
Rule 143: Clothing, shoes and athlete bibs
- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.
So are you arguing that the 2016 prototypes were not constructed to give athletes unfair assistance or advantage and were reasonably available to all? You admit yourself that they turned out to be way better than any before. Those Vaporfly prototypes were the first racing shoes to actually provide a step change improvement in performance. And the technology ("type of shoe") definitely was not reasonably available to all, where other brands having shoes of similar technology and performance could be considered reasonably available to all.
Uh, no. The IAAF shoe rules never previously prohibited the use of prototypes or shoes not available to the general public. That has been a longtime practice in our sport. Everyone knew about it, and nobody thought there was anything wrong it it. Geb set a marathon WR in prototype shoes in 2008. He also wore carbon plated shoes in other races which were never released to the public. Nike had been making one-off shoes for its athletes since the days of Pre. Deena won a bronze medal in Asics that were custom made to her specs. Heck, Bannister had custom 3 oz spikes when he ran the first sub-4.
What was different was that Nike's prototype shoes in 2016 turned out to be way better than any shoe made before. People didn't care about prototypes when all shoes were basically the same; they suddenly cared once the shoes really mattered.
You are wrong. The IAAF rule in place in 2016 did not mention prototypes. You are thinking of one of the many revisions of Rule 143 that happened in the fallout of the Vaporflys. Here is text of IAAF Rule 143 as of 2016:
IAAF 2016 wrote:
Rule 143: Clothing, shoes and athlete bibs
- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.
So are you arguing that the 2016 prototypes were not constructed to give athletes unfair assistance or advantage and were reasonably available to all? You admit yourself that they turned out to be way better than any before. Those Vaporfly prototypes were the first racing shoes to actually provide a step change improvement in performance. And the technology ("type of shoe") definitely was not reasonably available to all, where other brands having shoes of similar technology and performance could be considered reasonably available to all.
Oh, and you can't just say Nike made the first shoes that just happened to be, somehow unknowingly by Nike, way better, as you say. They had the data on it. They just didn't release the data showing how good the technoloogy was until March 2017, well after the 2016 US Olympic Trials and the 2016 Olympics. By then the cat was out of the bag, too many people had been using them before the IAAF could react, just like the Uber analogy I made in the first post. IAAF had no choice but to have to change Rule 143, and they've revised it several times since then.
Easy, no top level marathoner, or casual marathoner looking for performance would ever wear this shoes other than for their easy runs. This is not even a question, nor the first max shoe to be above the 40mm stack height rule limit. Noob
illegal for what? do you really think someone would run a national or world class time to draw any attention for a stack measurement? this is not a "running" shoe. though marketed as such, this is a hipster, overpriced, lifestyle shoe. where do you think all the money comes from for shoe sponsorships? it's from non-runners buying running and basketball shoes.
Most definitely is a running shoe but not a racing shoe. Much like the glizzy max it’s basically a springy recovery shoe. I would be surprised if someone could run 4:50s comfortably in it. Let alone the less coordinated runners who will feel incredibly unstable in the shoe.
I mean, Mantz basically had this shoe designed for him and he's done long runs with 4:30 mi pickups in them, but yeah not my first choice for running fast personally.
People have short memories or, more likely, weren't reading this board at the time when it was discussed. Yes, the early Vaporflys used by Galen as well as Kipchoge, Shalane, and whoever else were technically illegal according to the IAAF shoe rules at the time. The IAAF was in the dark about it at the time and couldn't really go back and change the results after the fact. It's the same kind of the same strategy tech companies have used in a lot of areas, such as Uber breaking taxi laws to get established and then forcing the laws to get changed afterwards.
Uh, no. The IAAF shoe rules never previously prohibited the use of prototypes or shoes not available to the general public. That has been a longtime practice in our sport. Everyone knew about it, and nobody thought there was anything wrong it it. Geb set a marathon WR in prototype shoes in 2008. He also wore carbon plated shoes in other races which were never released to the public. Nike had been making one-off shoes for its athletes since the days of Pre. Deena won a bronze medal in Asics that were custom made to her specs. Heck, Bannister had custom 3 oz spikes when he ran the first sub-4.
What was different was that Nike's prototype shoes in 2016 turned out to be way better than any shoe made before. People didn't care about prototypes when all shoes were basically the same; they suddenly cared once the shoes really mattered. That's why we have this entirely new rule that shoes must be available to the general public before they are legal in competition. It's kind of a silly rule, though, since it doesn't level the playing field at all. Pro runners' shoe choices are limited by their brand affiliation, not by what's on the wall at Fleet Feet.
Anyway, these super-stack shoes may be technically illegal in competition, but they aren't racing shoes. They're super-cushioned trainers. They aren't as fast as real racing shoes.
Also, most races these days have their own policies about shoes, which supersede WA's. Just like it's not cheating to use an aluminum bat in college baseball, it's not cheating to run in 50mm shoes in a local 5k that does not follow WA rules (or even a big city marathon, many of which only require adherence to shoe rules for people in the elite field).
Well said. I also agree that the prototype rule is effectively useless in practice because brands will basically only release a very limited amount of their prototypes to the public if they do (see the Evo 1), or they can just use them for the approved period while never actually releasing them - many such cases, and competitors like you said will have to stick to their sponsored brand anyway, even if said shoe from a rival brand is that much better.
You are wrong. The IAAF rule in place in 2016 did not mention prototypes. You are thinking of one of the many revisions of Rule 143 that happened in the fallout of the Vaporflys. Here is text of IAAF Rule 143 as of 2016:
So are you arguing that the 2016 prototypes were not constructed to give athletes unfair assistance or advantage and were reasonably available to all? You admit yourself that they turned out to be way better than any before. Those Vaporfly prototypes were the first racing shoes to actually provide a step change improvement in performance. And the technology ("type of shoe") definitely was not reasonably available to all, where other brands having shoes of similar technology and performance could be considered reasonably available to all.
Huh? I said prototypes were clearly allowed 2016. Not because the rules said they're allowed, but because they didn't say anything about shoes being widely available AND because it had been standard practice for athletes to compete in prototypes. Everyone knew it happened, and nobody said there was anything wrong with it.
The "reasonably available to all" language was added to the 2018 rules (published in November of 2017). It was not in effect in 2016.
These shoes are so bouncy that Nike had to put a warning on the heel that says "NOT APPROVED BY WORLD ATHLETICS."
How do we feel about this?
How would it be possible to enforce this and disqualify runners who race in these?
Obviously no one would get away with wearing these at the Olympics or World Championships, but how are you going to catch people in a major marathon with 30,000-60,000 runners?
I feel largely indifferent about this, but still just a little curious at the outrage.
Nike makes shoes for all of the public, not just World Athletic runners. As far as I know, Nike is not under any contract with, and has no obligation to conform to the arbitrary rules of some external body headquartered in Monaco.
Runners and races not subject to World Athletics have no obligation to conform to or enforce these rules of some outside organization. Do any major marathons require World Athletic compliant shoes for all of its competitors?
It's a good thing that Nike has the awareness and courtesy, under no obligation, to warn runners who participate in World Athletic events about the potential illegality of wearing these shoes.
This post was edited 29 seconds after it was posted.
These shoes are so bouncy that Nike had to put a warning on the heel that says "NOT APPROVED BY WORLD ATHLETICS."
How do we feel about this?
How would it be possible to enforce this and disqualify runners who race in these?
Obviously no one would get away with wearing these at the Olympics or World Championships, but how are you going to catch people in a major marathon with 30,000-60,000 runners?