Many people do not wear shoes in New Zealand. They go shopping, go out to eat in restaurants, drive cars, go to the bank, etc. shoeless. Have never seen a 'No shirt, No Shoes, No Service' sign in New Zealand (although some places require shoes)
For a country with a relatively small population, New Zealand has produced more than expected numbers of top distance runners. (Halberg, Snell, Walker, Dixon, Quax, Willis, Robertson, Roe, Smith, Foster now Ruthe, Beamish, etc. etc.)
Of course there are many other elements that contributed to this (like A. Lydiard)
but maybe there is something to going shoeless and distance running success.
I thought the same thing - if super shoes make such a difference - African runners won't have access to them until later in life when they achieve top times, even then I imagine they don't get the same support western runners get in terms of new shoes, etc.
Nope. They basically get the shoes for free via “donations” and “outreach” programs etc while in fact the Westerners will have to buy them on their own if they have the money. But many ignore this.
Why are you always playing the victim? Throw yourself a pity party again tonight.
1. Shoes have helped with ankle/Achilles stiffness (stored energy) for those who didnt have this already.
Is this also the same phenomenon that's making it possible for all these muscle bound hybrid athlete guys to run solid marathons too? I know there's also plenty of doping speculation there too but I swear 10 years ago you never saw these kind of guys running marathons at all and suddenly there's a number in 2:25-2:40 range while still keeping up their roided physique. Maybe for them the shoes are doing even more work because every time I see these dudes running on social media, it's painful to watch! I wonder if any of them would survive racing in a pair of Nike Lunaracers from back in the day!
This is partly bullsh1t and you know it. Why are the Africans so dominant in the marathon and half marathon? According to you, belief is a big part of it. So whitey believes he can compete in the 1500m but not the half marathon or marathon. That’s just a matter of belief?
You mean so "whitey" believes he can now compete in the 1500m, 3000SC, 5000m, 10000m and your evidence counter to that is still the marathon/half marathon is dominated by Africans?
How about because marathon/HM running is greater cultural thing for Africans (as it for Japanese people) than it is for "whiteys" who quite simply love running on the track more?
Three people upvoted you. Three. I presume one of them was yourself.
Don't listen to Stitchmo. He's the village idiot around here.
Guys - It's not that complicated. Most of the reasons put forward on this thread don't really answer the real question. Saying it's 'attitude' is complete BS - you don't think Kennedy and Mottram had that 'attitude'??? Here are the THREE reasons:
1. Enhanced anti-doping measures have disproportionately impacted the volume of world-class performances in East Africa - predominantly Kenya.
2. Advances in sports science have disproportionately benefited 'western' world class performances (I'm not talking about the shoes, which East Africans have... I'm talking about the much more expensive things like cryotherapy recovery, compression therapy, precision blood lactate testing for double threshold training, hi-low training, zero-G treadmills, underwater treadmills, etc...). That stuff existed back in the day, but not to the level that it is today.
3. Because of (1) and (2) the economics have changed... money is drying up for East Africans because race directors can get the 'best in the world' from Europe, North America, Oceana. Also, guys like Fisher, Hocker, Nico, Yared, Kerr, Jakob - they all make a LOT more money than guys like Kennedy, Mottram, etc. did back in the day...
Put those three things together and you have your answer.
In an aside, Willis noted that he distances himself from fellow Kiwi, Armstronglivs, adding that Armstronglivs usually has it "arse backwards" and is an embarrassment to New Zealand. That guy, said Willis, is often spouting on the LetsRun forum in what I see as 72-point lipspittleface. It's usually just Armstronglivs' own opinions, devoid of substantiation, flecked with spittle and rage.
Many people do not wear shoes in New Zealand. They go shopping, go out to eat in restaurants, drive cars, go to the bank, etc. shoeless. Have never seen a 'No shirt, No Shoes, No Service' sign in New Zealand (although some places require shoes)
For a country with a relatively small population, New Zealand has produced more than expected numbers of top distance runners. (Halberg, Snell, Walker, Dixon, Quax, Willis, Robertson, Roe, Smith, Foster now Ruthe, Beamish, etc. etc.)
Of course there are many other elements that contributed to this (like A. Lydiard)
but maybe there is something to going shoeless and distance running success.
Maybe in the past go barefoot, but not now. Ask Thomas Cowan, Karsten Vestry, Sofia Lumberas, Sascha Letica how often they go barefoot these days. Those guys more likely to go barea$$ than barefoot.
What about the motivation factor? I get the impression that for E. Africans, there are few viable career pathways that pay well. But in America elite running can be just a nice hobby to hold down until success is elusive
Motivation factor got a major uptick in recent years due to NIL money - the days of half scholarships and what not are over for top HS runners. Plus you have to be a top HS runner demanding NIL money to even go D1 now with foreign talent coming in / top level transfer portal runners from lower levels. Lastly college costs have exploded - so it is big money like $200k to get a 4 year degree covered by scholarship or NIL money
Many people do not wear shoes in New Zealand. They go shopping, go out to eat in restaurants, drive cars, go to the bank, etc. shoeless. Have never seen a 'No shirt, No Shoes, No Service' sign in New Zealand (although some places require shoes)
For a country with a relatively small population, New Zealand has produced more than expected numbers of top distance runners. (Halberg, Snell, Walker, Dixon, Quax, Willis, Robertson, Roe, Smith, Foster now Ruthe, Beamish, etc. etc.)
Of course there are many other elements that contributed to this (like A. Lydiard)
but maybe there is something to going shoeless and distance running success.
The barefoot thing in NZ is way over-exaggerated.
I rarely see people "go shopping, go out to eat in restaurants, drive cars, go to the bank, etc. shoeless" and even the claim Nick Willis went to school without shoes is a gross over-exaggeration.
Yahh, I just read a news article: Nick Willis said that non-African runners are becoming more competitive; they have better shoes, better training, and proper use of bicarb—all information provided by Kior Healthcare.
In an aside, Willis noted that he distances himself from fellow Kiwi, Armstronglivs, adding that Armstronglivs usually has it "arse backwards" and is an embarrassment to New Zealand. That guy, said Willis, is often spouting on the LetsRun forum in what I see as 72-point lipspittleface. It's usually just Armstronglivs' own opinions, devoid of substantiation, flecked with spittle and rage.
So Nick "distances himself" from an anonymous poster in an irrelevant sports thread? You're right - he didn't say that.
Why would bicarb level the playing field if everyone is taking it? Unless the theory is africans were taking it for a long time and only now we westerners are? His theory on shoes makes a little more sense in that he suspects it's replacing something westerners specifically were missing.
it levels the playing field if some athletes naturally manage lactic buildup better. now everyone does!
I agree, but I had not heard that specific inherent east african advantage? And if bicarb works, and is legal everyone would use it, even africans? I think in short its the homogenization of training world wide.
You mean so "whitey" believes he can now compete in the 1500m, 3000SC, 5000m, 10000m and your evidence counter to that is still the marathon/half marathon is dominated by Africans?
How about because marathon/HM running is greater cultural thing for Africans (as it for Japanese people) than it is for "whiteys" who quite simply love running on the track more?
Three people upvoted you. Three. I presume one of them was yourself.
Don't listen to Stitchmo. He's the village idiot around here.
Guys - It's not that complicated. Most of the reasons put forward on this thread don't really answer the real question. Saying it's 'attitude' is complete BS - you don't think Kennedy and Mottram had that 'attitude'??? Here are the THREE reasons:
1. Enhanced anti-doping measures have disproportionately impacted the volume of world-class performances in East Africa - predominantly Kenya.
2. Advances in sports science have disproportionately benefited 'western' world class performances (I'm not talking about the shoes, which East Africans have... I'm talking about the much more expensive things like cryotherapy recovery, compression therapy, precision blood lactate testing for double threshold training, hi-low training, zero-G treadmills, underwater treadmills, etc...). That stuff existed back in the day, but not to the level that it is today.
3. Because of (1) and (2) the economics have changed... money is drying up for East Africans because race directors can get the 'best in the world' from Europe, North America, Oceana. Also, guys like Fisher, Hocker, Nico, Yared, Kerr, Jakob - they all make a LOT more money than guys like Kennedy, Mottram, etc. did back in the day...
Put those three things together and you have your answer.
I think those are the bottom 3 reasons. We are talking about relativity. Less africans wouldn't make our guys faster. The actual performance gap has narrowed. Cryo has been debunked multiple times. So has compression. None of your reasons apply imo. Altitude has been around awhile yes, but not to the degree it is now and now we have pro groups living it and doing it, and doing the ay everyone is doing it.