El G, Lagat, Ngeny (3:43.3 mile). Morceli - 3:27x and 3:44x. You might add Komen over the 3k-5k. Kiprop 3:26.6 later.
These runners are mostly all still faster than the best today (with the exception of Ingebrigtsen over 3k) and yet they didn't have the benefit of superspikes. If the shoes aid performance then those athletes would be even faster than they ran - and conversely, the best today would slower than their recorded best if they ran in the old spikes. That's what the "shoes" argument logically requires.
This point has been made over and over in the last several years and the shoe worshippers still don’t get it. If super spikes are worth 5 seconds per mile, Nick Willis is a 3:25.00 guy lol.
That is too absurd to acknowledge so the argument effectively becomes that the shoes make less and less difference the better you get. Nonsensical.
Super shoes reduce injury, help recovery, and importantly which no one seems to talk about, they make running more fun. People are training more and harder with less physical fatigue but also less mental fatigue. When a no-name kid runs sub-4 in high school, the 4:05 kid is motivated to train harder, which motivates the 4:10 kid to train harder, which motivates the 4:15 kid to train harder, etc. So now the kids who were previously quitting running due to injury and burnout are sticking around, and the fields become deeper than ever before. Every person who complains about the shoes needs to put on the shoes and go run.
In the past, there were many runners that competed years and years without suffering any significant injuries. Are there any studies that show current milers are suffering fewer injuries? Running a theoretical one second per lap faster, makes running fun? If I, as you suggest, run with the new spikes, will I feel that one second difference.
Whether a 4:05 HS miler is the best in the nation, or not in the top 10, he’s going to train the same way. If he puts in a super human effort because someone else is running 4:00, he’ll burn himself out. There were seven HS sub-4 kids in 2025 and three in 2024, so I doubt if the ones that would have run 4:05 without the super spikes are now running 4:00.
You are an evasive bullsh*tter. The claim on the thread is that the shoes give an advantage of 5 seconds over a mile. I explained what that means if it applies to the best athletes pre supershoes. But you avoid that because it makes the claim an absurdity.
The studies do not show the shoes would give El G a half second advantage and slower runners a 5 second advantage. It is all guesswork.
That is not my claim. If anything, I'm just evading arguments that were never mine to begin with. I even declared you the undisputed winner, and you are still prattling on and on like you still have some point you think you haven't made.
I've consistently said that a 5 second improvement, which might work for the 5-minute high school miler, would be too much for the 3:26 runner in non-super spikes -- pointing to the half dozen studies mentioned early in this thread, not to mention appealing to basic intuition and logic. I think no one has said otherwise, for runners like El G, besides you. It is an absurd claim. Who are you arguing with?
The studies do not show so much anything as observe and measure and discuss, and cannot be used to predict what would happen in any individual case, without some margin of error. These are guesses, but the most educated guesses. Yet caution is always advised when attempting to extrapolate observations to the extremes far beyond what was observed and measured.
This point has been made over and over in the last several years and the shoe worshippers still don’t get it. If super spikes are worth 5 seconds per mile, Nick Willis is a 3:25.00 guy lol.
That is too absurd to acknowledge so the argument effectively becomes that the shoes make less and less difference the better you get. Nonsensical.
DIdn't we acknowledge Nick Willis at the beginning of the thread, about 2 1/2 weeks ago? He himself said superspikes would give him 2-3s in the 1500m/mile, which would make him a 3:27-3:28 guy.
Correct. 1500 runners are not marathon material. That's why they run the shorter distances. And as you say, marathon runners aren't 1500 runners - unless they like being beaten.
Rod Dixon says you are an idiot.
Yeah, Dixon and Farah are the two outliers. For a random 3:50 miler, what are the chances of him having that kind of range? Less than 1%?
El G, Lagat, Ngeny (3:43.3 mile). Morceli - 3:27x and 3:44x. You might add Komen over the 3k-5k. Kiprop 3:26.6 later.
These runners are mostly all still faster than the best today (with the exception of Ingebrigtsen over 3k) and yet they didn't have the benefit of superspikes. If the shoes aid performance then those athletes would be even faster than they ran - and conversely, the best today would slower than their recorded best if they ran in the old spikes. That's what the "shoes" argument logically requires.
So Morceli with 3:27.37 is a 3:27 guy?
Ngeny has run 3:28.73 and 3:43.40.
Lagat 3:30.56.
So you have to add Komen with 3:29.46 PB and Kiprop who was 10 at the end of the 1990s to your "list" of "3:26 - 27" athletes from the 1990s.
Btw, you were asking if the 3:45 guy Hocker is a 3:40 guy. Compare the numbers carefully, Dumb. You spotted some difference?
But like 107 others he has a PB in the 3:40s, that's right, Dumb.
That is too absurd to acknowledge so the argument effectively becomes that the shoes make less and less difference the better you get. Nonsensical.
DIdn't we acknowledge Nick Willis at the beginning of the thread, about 2 1/2 weeks ago? He himself said superspikes would give him 2-3s in the 1500m/mile, which would make him a 3:27-3:28 guy.
What he says and what he does are two entirely different propositions. His views on what he might have achieved with the spikes remains speculation that can never be confirmed.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
El G, Lagat, Ngeny (3:43.3 mile). Morceli - 3:27x and 3:44x. You might add Komen over the 3k-5k. Kiprop 3:26.6 later.
These runners are mostly all still faster than the best today (with the exception of Ingebrigtsen over 3k) and yet they didn't have the benefit of superspikes. If the shoes aid performance then those athletes would be even faster than they ran - and conversely, the best today would slower than their recorded best if they ran in the old spikes. That's what the "shoes" argument logically requires.
So Morceli with 3:27.37 is a 3:27 guy?
Ngeny has run 3:28.73 and 3:43.40.
Lagat 3:30.56.
So you have to add Komen with 3:29.46 PB and Kiprop who was 10 at the end of the 1990s to your "list" of "3:26 - 27" athletes from the 1990s.
Btw, you were asking if the 3:45 guy Hocker is a 3:40 guy. Compare the numbers carefully, Dumb. You spotted some difference?
But like 107 others he has a PB in the 3:40s, that's right, Dumb.
El G 3:26, Lagat 3:26x, Ngeny 3:43.3 mile, Morceli 3:27x, Komen 7:20 3k. All in the '90s. So what that Kiprop ran 3:26.6 later (which I pointed out but you can't read)? The point is they were all pre-supershoes, wavelight, bicarb, "modern training and nutrition" and all the rest of the bs referred to here. But if the superspikes allow a gain of several seconds for athletes over a mile these athletes in supershoes are all way faster than their best times, and far faster than the best runners today.
You chuck your petty insults in with every post but the only intellect shown to be deficient here is yours.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
That is too absurd to acknowledge so the argument effectively becomes that the shoes make less and less difference the better you get. Nonsensical.
DIdn't we acknowledge Nick Willis at the beginning of the thread, about 2 1/2 weeks ago? He himself said superspikes would give him 2-3s in the 1500m/mile, which would make him a 3:27-3:28 guy.
How could he possibly know that? Did he use the super spikes in a parallel universe? Does his adjustment apply to all the guys that ran faster than him in the old spikes, or is it just for him?
His claim is in stark contrast to LRers that believe new spikes aren’t beneficial at near 1500n WR pace.
DIdn't we acknowledge Nick Willis at the beginning of the thread, about 2 1/2 weeks ago? He himself said superspikes would give him 2-3s in the 1500m/mile, which would make him a 3:27-3:28 guy.
What he says and what he does are two entirely different propositions. His views on what he might have achieved with the spikes remains speculation that can never be confirmed.
Just the same, you said "That is too absurd to acknowledge", but in fact it was acknowledged.
We seem to all be on the same page that 5 seconds is too much for these sub-3:30 runners.
DIdn't we acknowledge Nick Willis at the beginning of the thread, about 2 1/2 weeks ago? He himself said superspikes would give him 2-3s in the 1500m/mile, which would make him a 3:27-3:28 guy.
How could he possibly know that? Did he use the super spikes in a parallel universe? Does his adjustment apply to all the guys that ran faster than him in the old spikes, or is it just for him?
His claim is in stark contrast to LRers that believe new spikes aren’t beneficial at near 1500n WR pace.
He said 2 seconds after a 1200m time trial. He used them in this universe. I guess he just speaks for himself.
I'm sure some LRers believe this is too little, and other believe this is too much.
I think most everyone understands, or should, that "individual mileage may vary", and there can be high responders and low responders.
These shoes work by improving running economy. How much one improves is also a function of how bad the economy is without these shoes (in addition to racing speed).
OK, I'm a believer in the new spike tech. Ran 2 seconds faster than expected for a time-trial tonight. Wore the NB version that everyone has been tearing it up in.
El G, Lagat, Ngeny (3:43.3 mile). Morceli - 3:27x and 3:44x. You might add Komen over the 3k-5k. Kiprop 3:26.6 later.
These runners are mostly all still faster than the best today (with the exception of Ingebrigtsen over 3k) and yet they didn't have the benefit of superspikes. If the shoes aid performance then those athletes would be even faster than they ran - and conversely, the best today would slower than their recorded best if they ran in the old spikes. That's what the "shoes" argument logically requires.
This point has been made over and over in the last several years and the shoe worshippers still don’t get it. If super spikes are worth 5 seconds per mile, Nick Willis is a 3:25.00 guy lol.
Nick Willis is an Olympic bronze and silver medalist. Today he'd be every bit as fast as Nuguse.
How could he possibly know that? Did he use the super spikes in a parallel universe? Does his adjustment apply to all the guys that ran faster than him in the old spikes, or is it just for him?
His claim is in stark contrast to LRers that believe new spikes aren’t beneficial at near 1500n WR pace.
He said 2 seconds after a 1200m time trial. He used them in this universe. I guess he just speaks for himself.
I'm sure some LRers believe this is too little, and other believe this is too much.
I think most everyone understands, or should, that "individual mileage may vary", and there can be high responders and low responders.
These shoes work by improving running economy. How much one improves is also a function of how bad the economy is without these shoes (in addition to racing speed).
Still doesn’t mean much. When he ran his 1200m time trial, what did he compare it to? Did he run another one three days later with the old shoes, or was it all by feel?
High and low responders to the super spikes sounds like nonsense to me. Can you explain the physics behind the two types. Certainly, Hocker is high responders but who are the low ones?
This point has been made over and over in the last several years and the shoe worshippers still don’t get it. If super spikes are worth 5 seconds per mile, Nick Willis is a 3:25.00 guy lol.
Nick Willis is an Olympic bronze and silver medalist. Today he'd be every bit as fast as Nuguse.
Maybe not 5 seconds but easily a 3:27 guy.
Matt Centrowitz is an Olympic gold and World silver medalist, so by your logic he’d be every bit as fast as Jakob.
What he says and what he does are two entirely different propositions. His views on what he might have achieved with the spikes remains speculation that can never be confirmed.
Just the same, you said "That is too absurd to acknowledge", but in fact it was acknowledged.
We seem to all be on the same page that 5 seconds is too much for these sub-3:30 runners.
5 seconds is too much, but apparently 2.5 seconds (which would make Willis a 3:27.16 guy) is perfectly reasonable!
Still doesn’t mean much. When he ran his 1200m time trial, what did he compare it to? Did he run another one three days later with the old shoes, or was it all by feel?
High and low responders to the super spikes sounds like nonsense to me. Can you explain the physics behind the two types. Certainly, Hocker is high responders but who are the low ones?
Maybe it doesn't mean much, but then what does? What would you need to see or hear?
You might follow up with Nick Willis with all these questions to see what he really meant.
I guess at least it means he doesn't corroborate 5 seconds for him, or for El G.
I might add it might mean even less than that, considering it was Jan. 2021, and Nick Willis was running times like a 3:57 mile (short track) and a 3:37.5 1500m (short track).
I can't help what sounds like nonsense to you. What is your background education? I cannot explain the physics. I'm more of a numbers guy looking for correlations. I can re-point you to the papers I mentioned earlier -- some of them explain the physics of the bouncy foam around a shaped carbon fiber plate. Best I can do is what I've already said -- a shoe that improves economy (i.e. reduce oxygen cost) should help those with bad economy more than those who are highly economical.