Troop/Riley training. No magic

rojo wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Sara Hall ran 2:22 at age 36. What do you think she is in Vaporflys rojo? 2:20? Is CJ Albertson a 2:07 guy on a flat course? Would Fauble have run 2:07 in Boston? At some point give it a rest and stop assuming the competitor shoes are 2 mins slower like they’re worse than Adidas Boost shoes.

1) Sarah Hall’s performance confuses me. But it should be pointed out her run came in a prototype (albeit without a fiber plate) and the weather was perfect.

2)Considering a coach told me his guys were running 1 minute faster over 10 miles in practice in the next% as compared to their normal flats, I say yes “at least 2 minutes.” I’d like someone to at least ask Riley how much fitter is he now than when he ran 2:13:16 in Chicago in 2014 under the Hansons. But clearly he could run 2:07 on a flat course in these shoes. Considering 10 Japanese guys just diid that in Tokyo, it’s not a shock one America not names Rupp could do it. As for Albertsons, 2:11:49 is a long way from 2:07:59. 3:50? I guess it’s possible with the hills but I’d doubt it.

3) I dont know how good the Hoka/Saucony shoes are so I can’t comment on Fauble/Ward.

rojo wrote:

1) Sarah Hall’s performance confuses me. But it should be pointed out her run came in a prototype (albeit without a fiber plate) and the weather was perfect.

2)Considering a coach told me his guys were running 1 minute faster over 10 miles in practice in the next% as compared to their normal flats, I say yes “at least 2 minutes.” I’d like someone to at least ask Riley how much fitter is he now than when he ran 2:13:16 in Chicago in 2014 under the Hansons. But clearly he could run 2:07 on a flat course in these shoes. Considering 10 Japanese guys just diid that in Tokyo, it’s not a shock one America not names Rupp could do it. As for Albertsons, 2:11:49 is a long way from 2:07:59. 3:50? I guess it’s possible with the hills but I’d doubt it.

3) I dont know how good the Hoka/Saucony shoes are so I can’t comment on Fauble/Ward.

rojo wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

While lab studies might show Rojo to be right, if the general trend/wave of performances for athletes wearing every brand of super-shoes is any indication ~ the difference are not as stark as like in 2016, and one competitor’s shoe vs. another is just one of many factors. It’s maybe a shame Nike’s group of women in the marathon was so weak, because it’s allow Rojo to say the shoes were irrelevant because no top athletes wore them aside from Hasay (bonk) and Kipchoge (finished around where you’d expect if she had a decent day and Hasay/Huddle/Sission bombed).

I'm tired of having this talk myself.

I'd like to do is this. Talk to Geoff Burns and figure out how much it will cost to do a scinetific stufy comparing all of the shoes that are our on April 1 (is that the deadline for the Olympics).

Then we scientfiically analyze the Hokas, NBs, Saucony, Brooks, adidas, Asics and all three versions of the Nike's if we can do it 4%, Next% and Alpphaflys. Ideally, we'd do it on both flat and hills. Ask Geoff how much it would cost to do it. Then we crowd fund it.

Publish it in a scientific paper.

Personally, I've gone back and forth on the idea of "Do I have a problem with the shoes in general if they are universally avaialble to all?"

I'd like to have more info before I totally come to an answer but I'm leaning towards yes. Even though I'd love to race in the new tech myself, my concern is way down the line. What if a HS kid can't afford a $300 racing flat? is he screwed?

What if the individual response to the new shoes is massive. Will shoe companies make college athletes test on treadmills to see if they are super responders before signing them? Might one athlete only run well in brand x but not brand y? THen that kills their contract leverage. IMagine if Mike Trout was only good at baseball if he used a bat the angels produced? He'd have zero leverage in free agency.

rojo wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

While lab studies might show Rojo to be right, if the general trend/wave of performances for athletes wearing every brand of super-shoes is any indication ~ the difference are not as stark as like in 2016, and one competitor’s shoe vs. another is just one of many factors. It’s maybe a shame Nike’s group of women in the marathon was so weak, because it’s allow Rojo to say the shoes were irrelevant because no top athletes wore them aside from Hasay (bonk) and Kipchoge (finished around where you’d expect if she had a decent day and Hasay/Huddle/Sission bombed).

I'm tired of having this talk myself.

I'd like to do is this. Talk to Geoff Burns and figure out how much it will cost to do a scinetific stufy comparing all of the shoes that are our on April 1 (is that the deadline for the Olympics).

Then we scientfiically analyze the Hokas, NBs, Saucony, Brooks, adidas, Asics and all three versions of the Nike's if we can do it 4%, Next% and Alpphaflys. Ideally, we'd do it on both flat and hills. Ask Geoff how much it would cost to do it. Then we crowd fund it.

Publish it in a scientific paper.

Personally, I've gone back and forth on the idea of "Do I have a problem with the shoes in general if they are universally avaialble to all?"

I'd like to have more info before I totally come to an answer but I'm leaning towards yes. Even though I'd love to race in the new tech myself, my concern is way down the line. What if a HS kid can't afford a $300 racing flat? is he screwed?

What if the individual response to the new shoes is massive. Will shoe companies make college athletes test on treadmills to see if they are super responders before signing them? Might one athlete only run well in brand x but not brand y? THen that kills their contract leverage. IMagine if Mike Trout was only good at baseball if he used a bat the angels produced? He'd have zero leverage in free agency.

rojo wrote:

I'm tired of having this talk myself.

I'd like to do is this. Talk to Geoff Burns and figure out how much it will cost to do a scinetific stufy comparing all of the shoes that are our on April 1 (is that the deadline for the Olympics).

Then we scientfiically analyze the Hokas, NBs, Saucony, Brooks, adidas, Asics and all three versions of the Nike's if we can do it 4%, Next% and Alpphaflys. Ideally, we'd do it on both flat and hills. Ask Geoff how much it would cost to do it. Then we crowd fund it.

Publish it in a scientific paper.

Personally, I've gone back and forth on the idea of "Do I have a problem with the shoes in general if they are universally avaialble to all?"

I'd like to have more info before I totally come to an answer but I'm leaning towards yes. Even though I'd love to race in the new tech myself, my concern is way down the line. What if a HS kid can't afford a $300 racing flat? is he screwed?

What if the individual response to the new shoes is massive. Will shoe companies make college athletes test on treadmills to see if they are super responders before signing them? Might one athlete only run well in brand x but not brand y? THen that kills their contract leverage. IMagine if Mike Trout was only good at baseball if he used a bat the angels produced? He'd have zero leverage in free agency.