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.
If the shoes are said to enable a 5 second improvement over the mile there is nothing that says this only applies to hs runners or mediocrities and that the best like El G shouldn't similarly benefit. It is only your speculation that would say otherwise. You simply evade what the 5 second or thereabouts claim requires, that the shoes should apply a similar benefit to anyone that uses them. To claim El G would gain only a fraction of a second at best but a journeyman gain several seconds is an absurdity with nothing but guesswork to support it. The shoes aren't designed for some body types and not others and lower level athletes. That is why the best are using them.
This post was edited 53 seconds 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.
Who is "we"? He ran 3:29x so a 2-3 sec improvement makes him a 3:26-27 runner. Acknowledging that doesn't make it less than credible.
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.
You assume an argument being acknowledged means that it is accepted. It doesn't mean that. Try to be more literate.
If the shoes are said to enable a 5 second improvement over the mile there is nothing that says this only applies to hs runners or mediocrities and that the best like El G shouldn't similarly benefit. It is only your speculation that would say otherwise. You simply evade what the 5 second or thereabouts claim requires, that the shoes should apply a similar benefit to anyone that uses them. To claim El G would gain only a fraction of a second at best but a journeyman gain several seconds is an absurdity with nothing but guesswork to support it. The shoes aren't designed for some body types and not others and lower level athletes. That is why the best are using them.
The absurdity is a direct result of your garbage-in/garbage-out argument.
When you say "nothing", I guess you must mean all the studies I linked, one of which said greatest economy improvements occur at 14-18 km/h, and another which observed that the rate of improvement in the top-100 in the superspike era declined as a function of speed, between ~5 m/s to ~8 m/s (between 18 km/h to 28 km/h). A 5:00 high school miler runs about 19 km/h. 30:00 for 10000m for elite women is 20 km/h. A 3:30 for 1500m is 25.7 km/h.
After ignoring what studies have looked at and measured and characterized in great detail, you are inventing a new, unobserved Armstronglivs' law, that says "the shoes should apply a similar benefit to anyone that uses them", as if the economy improvements in seconds must be roughly linear for everyone. (You could reasonably think a linear % rate of improvement would make more sense, and it does fit better, but even this doesn't appear to be the case.)
While my statements are not my speculation, but rather based on these (and many other) studies and their measured observations, it is your idea that is supported by nothing but your personal speculation. You picked a similarity law which is the furthest that can be from what has been observed and measured, and argue that the resulting consequences are absurd.
This is your Don Quixote style of attempting to argue by absurdity -- create an imaginary rule based on nothing connected to reality, and then proceed to debunk your imaginary rule with a garbage-in, garbage-out argument of absurdity.
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.
Who is "we"? He ran 3:29x so a 2-3 sec improvement makes him a 3:26-27 runner. Acknowledging that doesn't make it less than credible.
He ran 3:29.66, so rounding instead of truncating makes him more a 3:27-3:28 runner.
Note when he said 2 seconds, he was running around 3:37 for 1500m.
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.
Who is "we"? He ran 3:29x so a 2-3 sec improvement makes him a 3:26-27 runner. Acknowledging that doesn't make it less than credible.
So he is a 3:29 runner.
Good that you finally accepted to be wrong on this issue.
You chuck your petty insults in with every post but the only intellect shown to be deficient here is yours.
Accuses poster of chucking petty insults and follows it by chucking a petty insult.
Dumb, chucking petty insults is you M.O. You do it every single day, dozens of times a day.
My comment was a response to your petty insult. But you are supposed to be allowed to do that but complain when you get called out for it. What a baby.
This post was edited 48 seconds after it was posted.
El G 3:26, Lagat 3:26x, Ngeny 3:43.3 mile, Morceli 3:27x, Komen 7:20 3k. All in the '90s. .
I already told you 3:43.3 is wrong.
Lagat was not in the 1990s.
Morceli with 3:27.37 is a 3:27 runner for you.
Komen's PB is 3:29.46, a 3:26-27 guy for you.
You are contradicting yourself every day regularly.
I didn't say Komen was a 3:26-27 runner over 1500, I said he was a 7:20 runner over 3k. You don't read a comment before you respond with your irrelevant drivel - as the rest of your brain-dead comment is. It doesn't matter when Lagat competed against El G, he ran sub 3:27 over 2 decades ago, Ngeny ran 3:43x behind El G in the mile, and I said Morceli ran 3:27x. The fractions of a second don't matter in the context of the ballpark of their times. Your pettifogging complaints only show you are unable to understand a simple point that runners in the now distant past were as fast if not faster than the best today but without the benefit of superspikes. I don't contradict myself, I contradict a clueless clod as you always show yourself to be.
Who is "we"? He ran 3:29x so a 2-3 sec improvement makes him a 3:26-27 runner. Acknowledging that doesn't make it less than credible.
So he is a 3:29 runner.
Good that you finally accepted to be wrong on this issue.
I said he ran 3:29x, not that he is a "3:29 runner", since I think a degree of accuracy should apply. You of course don't. But you also completely missed the point about the supershoes supposedly making him several seconds faster, a 3:26-27 runner.
You assume an argument being acknowledged means that it is accepted. It doesn't mean that. Try to be more literate.
No -- I make no such assumption that an argument has been accepted.
I acknowledged that a 5 second improvement for Nick Willis and El G is absurd.
We seem to agree on this point, so I'm struggling to find your dispute here in your vehement agreement.
You maintain that considerable improvement is possible for lower level athletes by virtue of the shoes alone but deny that anything like those gains would apply to top athletes. There is nothing that supports that argument. The shoes would be marketed and seen as a "journeymen's dream" if that were so. But the best athletes use them for the same reason anyone would.
No -- I make no such assumption that an argument has been accepted.
I acknowledged that a 5 second improvement for Nick Willis and El G is absurd.
We seem to agree on this point, so I'm struggling to find your dispute here in your vehement agreement.
You maintain that considerable improvement is possible for lower level athletes by virtue of the shoes alone but deny that anything like those gains would apply to top athletes. There is nothing that supports that argument. The shoes would be marketed and seen as a "journeymen's dream" if that were so. But the best athletes use them for the same reason anyone would.
Earlier you said "You don't read a comment before you respond with your irrelevant drivel". It turns out you have an oblivious habit of describing yourself.
You keep using this word "nothing" right after I show you some somethings. I don't think this word means what you think it means.
My argument isn't really an argument, nor mine, but a summary of (at least) the two studies I just mentioned. They have an improvement model, also for top athletes. It is just that it's not "5 secs per mile".
In fact you are right, the shoes not only would be, but are marketed and seen as a "journeymen's dream".
In fact you are right, the best athletes use them for the same reason anyone would -- because they cause economy improvements also for these top athletes. Even a 0.5% or 1% improvement is worth the purchase price.
You are contradicting yourself every day regularly.
I didn't say Komen was a 3:26-27 runner over 1500, I said he was a 7:20 runner over 3k. You don't read a comment before you respond with your irrelevant drivel - as the rest of your brain-dead comment is. It doesn't matter when Lagat competed against El G, he ran sub 3:27 over 2 decades ago, Ngeny ran 3:43x behind El G in the mile, and I said Morceli ran 3:27x.
Yes Komen is a 7:20 runner, good that you changed your completely out-of-mind-view.
You listed Morceli as 3:26-27 runner- you nonstop liar.
You listed Lagat as a 1990s guy.
You are completely unable to give correct facts. And you contradict yourself regularly.
Good that you finally accepted to be wrong on this issue.
I said he ran 3:29x, not that he is a "3:29 runner", since I think a degree of accuracy should apply. You of course don't. But you also completely missed the point about the supershoes supposedly making him several seconds faster, a 3:26-27 runner.
2 second improvement would make him a 3:27 runner for you, but he isn't a 3:29 runner for you...
I know it isn't how you actually think about it (and how you give times by yourself). You just have to be against it. Even when you contradict yourself quit regularly with it.
I didn't say Komen was a 3:26-27 runner over 1500, I said he was a 7:20 runner over 3k. You don't read a comment before you respond with your irrelevant drivel - as the rest of your brain-dead comment is. It doesn't matter when Lagat competed against El G, he ran sub 3:27 over 2 decades ago, Ngeny ran 3:43x behind El G in the mile, and I said Morceli ran 3:27x.
Yes Komen is a 7:20 runner, good that you changed your completely out-of-mind-view.
You listed Morceli as 3:26-27 runner- you nonstop liar.
You listed Lagat as a 1990s guy.
You are completely unable to give correct facts. And you contradict yourself regularly.
I'm wondering when you will ever say anything of the slightest relevance - to anything.
This post was edited 16 seconds after it was posted.