Nope. Consider how many Americans have broken 4:00 since it was first done in 1958.
It's about 600, a little more maybe.
How many people have run the mile?
Even people whose only experience is the dreaded Gym Class Mile can understand the specialness of a Sub 4.
You just lost the argument. You actually made my case. 52 in one meet? Your mind cannot grasp the fluidity of the situation. It is no longer special. I am not arguing it was not special in the past. So if 600 people had run under 2:10 in the marathon in history and then 52 did at one race, you would start to see how it is not so special anymore.
I was at the meet. When we reached heat 6 and there were already a few dozen people who had seen sub-4 miles that day, the stadium ERUPTED when Ryan Wilson ran the D3 record, possibly even louder than for heat 1. The stadium got loud again for heat 7 at which point we had been watching sub-4 miles happen for over a half an hour. It didn't matter that every heat was having guys break 4. If anything it was inspiring other runners to take big swings, and try for something special. Everyone was cheering to see the athletes do something they had set their sights on, probably from a relatively young age.
It was an incredible energy, and even if next year 100 people break 4 at BU valentine, I imagine that it will be at the same level of hupe. People seeing their teammates achieve a goal they've had for years is a special thing. Sub-4 is just an extremely easy barrier to understand, and a pretty common goal among high-level collegiate runners. People will always get excited over breaking whole-number barriers, and at least for now, I didn't see any change in how special the sub-4 barrier felt to anyone, spectator or athlete, who was at that meet yesterday.
I always wish people like you can go back in time and run a mile on a cinder track in the Onitsuka Tiger spikes I ran in. I welcome the new technology in shoes.
To me, the pre-super shoe spikes and flats were so much faster and more technological than what I ran in when I was 12-25 years old.
This. Thank you. I was wishing I had the shoes available just before the “super” shoes in my day. Less injuries, soooo much better. And tracks as well. My HS track was made in large part from recycled tires. Add tuned indoor banked tracks (read Scientific American about the first such tuned track, at Harvard) with no wind & weather variables and lots of competition (like having your own rabbit to reach sub-4 in each heat). And smart watches for training. And shared top training techniques thanks to the internet and social media. It’s an accumulation of helpful aspects. The shoes are better, yes, as has been the case every few years since I ran seriously in the 70s and 80s, but they are not super. It’s a recipe of many parts.
I appreciate these perspectives from our respected elders. The key difference between super shoes and previous tech improvements that bothers me is the carbon plate that acts like a spring. That just seems like going too far.
Even with the advances in technology over the past few decades prior to super shoes, we were still able to compare Jim Spivey and Steve Scott to Jim Ryun, and we could compare Alan Webb to all those guys. Now it seems impossible to compare today’s generation to previous ones. :(
As someone who runs in both, I think that training in new supershoes is more impactful (ironically by lowering impact stress) than racing in superspikes. The recovery process is 100% reduced.
Isn’t the same thing true for PEDS? If so, then why are PEDS banned but not supershoes?
I love that we are part of a sport where 52 guys can be stoked that they crushed a huge historical barrier and are now sub-4 minute guys (obviously, some already were). In most sports there is one team of winners and one team of losers. Today, 52 dudes can be 100% stoked about the outcome of their race. That is cool.
NFL roster has 53, so we can still sign a free agent. Go chiefs.
Don't forget that many of these guys got extra COVID eligibility. 6 of 8 UW guys, for instance, who were under 4 a few weeks back, were beyond the usual eligibility period. So, you have more people running paced races on the fastest of our indoor tracks with the belief that they can do it--and the need to run fast to qualify for nationals. What role the shoes have is a question.
Super shoes have made a mockery of our sport. Sad.
BU’s track was already widely known to be extraordinarily fast - it was designed by scientists to give just the right amount of spring to maximize the energy return for an athlete running at about the range of speeds of an elite m-d runner. I wonder if it has a synergistic effect with super spikes, I.e., if the net benefit of running at BU in super spikes is even greater than just adding the benefits of the track and the shoes individually. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of athletes in this era never run faster anywhere else, indoors or out, than they run at BU.
I appreciate these perspectives from our respected elders. The key difference between super shoes and previous tech improvements that bothers me is the carbon plate that acts like a spring. That just seems like going too far.
the carbon plate doesn’t act like a spring and you Google article after article about this. In super shoes, you can cut the plate in pieces and the shoe still performs. There were also carbon/rigid plates in shoes, especially spikes, long before this.
10 of the top 10 and 39 of the top 45 D1 5k times have been run at BU.
The BU track is the same as it's always been, but its reputation has spread. BU is where runners go to set records, where they know there will never be a tactical race, where nobody cares about placement but only about time. If they ran championships there, we wouldn't see these crazy times because placement would be more important than time.
BU’s track was already widely known to be extraordinarily fast - it was designed by scientists to give just the right amount of spring to maximize the energy return for an athlete running at about the range of speeds of an elite m-d runner.
Not really true. The original surface had bushing under each of the 180 plywood sections to add spring, but these were removed when Beynon redid the track, taking out the bushings and putting two layers of plywood on the wood supports along with Beynon's polyurethane, and that was updated a third time with a new polyurethane pour for the two inside lanes. The original 2002 layout had the Rekortan polyurethane surface. The bushings were taken out by the Beynon crew, as the movement from the track bushings caused the polyurethane to rip from the constant pounding by the runners.
The elevation of the turns were a compromise, as originally they were to be 42 inches (if I remember correctly) and Bruce Lehane and Lesley Lehane were in favor have having it the same height as the Harvard track (36 inches). The compromise was 38 inches. The old Armory track, designed by Davies was elevated to 60 inches for the 4 lanes, if I remember correctly (old age has set in).
So, no scientific studies done prior to putting up the track. I was given the opportunity for lots of input in the facility design and I wanted a sunken fixed track totally made of wood so it would have a "runner's bounce", as I described it to the architects and have a spectator friendly view from the stands. The original thought was to build a portable track, similar to the old Armory, but I felt if it was portable, we would end up not having it available as other groups would want to come into the facility and use the flat floor (as was the case in the old Armory). That was also accepted and the fixed track was accepted by the University.
The original plans for the track was to be a copy of the Reggie Lewis track, as the same design team (Cannon) worked this project. I was able to convince them we could have a better venue. Bruce Lehane came up with the idea of having a jogging lane outside of lane 6, that helped take some traffic off the main track. (I think I had previously mentioned some of this years ago).
So, the present track is a hybrid of the original track designed by Athletics West and Floyd Highfill (who was an engineer by profession). As far as I know there have been no real "scientific" studies done on the track surface to show how much the track improved performances.
I don't think anyone really cares how it works. But it's a pretty silly idea that all of these factors developing over the last 80 years suddenly all converged at the same time to make everyone faster... and oh yeah the shoes came out within the past few years too. But it's not the shoes... It's everything else. Nobody discredits Peter Snell for running 3:37 and 3:54 but he would be nobody today. It would be laughable to say Amos Bartelsmeyer is superior to Peter Snell, and nobody is saying that. So why do we have to pretend a 3:59 collegian today is equal to a 3:59 collegian in 2000 or 2010? They're not.
It's really a philosophical question about what performances are worth celebrating. Nobody can win this argument because one side will say that sub 4 was only special because it was rare but now it's not, while the other side says it's just a round number that's exciting to break and anyone who complains is a whiny loser.
The truth is, track and field is about racing. Yesterday at Millrose Josh Kerr and Laura Muir kicked some serious butt in legitimate races. That was awesome. I highly doubt the excitement will continue when pretty much everyone knows a sub 4 miler from their school or conference. There used to be a handful in the NCAA and they were icons because you didn't know them or anyone like them. They ran those times to get into the big race and compete against the best for titles. That's just not how it is today when you break 4. Can't wait for NCAAs when all the 3:59 guys are sitting at home watching on TV like their lowly 4:04 brethren from 2010 did while the big boys compete for glory.
Don't forget that many of these guys got extra COVID eligibility. 6 of 8 UW guys, for instance, who were under 4 a few weeks back, were beyond the usual eligibility period. So, you have more people running paced races on the fastest of our indoor tracks with the belief that they can do it--and the need to run fast to qualify for nationals. What role the shoes have is a question.
First, that UW number is factually incorrect. Second, this is another one of those lame arguments that holds significantly less water than people think. The number of 6th year seniors is not as great as you think it is. Take them all away and you’re still looking at 70 sub 4s so far this season.
This is the weird level of mental gymnastics. It's the 6th years, the double thresholds, the popularity of the sport on social media, the nutrition, the tracks, the drugs are back etc etc but it is DEFINITELY NOT THE SHOES. Remember when guys like Kennedy Kithuka or the BYU teams, or Fitzsum were older than other collegians? There haven't always been 6th years but there have always been 25 year olds. Nothing has really changed but the shoes.
10 of the top 10 and 39 of the top 45 D1 5k times have been run at BU.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this stat is meaningless. Where else has there been a high quality 5k this season?
My point is that if literally every good collegian all goes to the same place to race, then all of the top qualifiers will come from there. It literally does not matter what track it is, if everyone who is good only runs there, that's where the qualifiers will come from. If they all ran at the Armory, or in Washington, or in Arkansas, etc. you'd see the same thing.
Sub 4, sub 5, sub 13, sub 16 and any other barriers have meaning. Breaking a big round number is something special.
Those barries have no meaning any more. The Super Shoes have turned hobby joggers into world beaters.
I am pretty sure all of the downvotes are by people currently wearing the Super Shoes. They want to pretend their fast times are a result of their hard work and talent when instead it is the Super Shoes.
Some of this could be resolved very quickly if someone or folks had the stones..BU Track has pretty much been like this for well over a decade I believe. Have the best of the best line up..wear the last generation before these "shoes"..get a high quality pacer..and.....
Never happening, but it would generate a ton of interest!! LOL
Some of this could be resolved very quickly if someone or folks had the stones..BU Track has pretty much been like this for well over a decade I believe. Have the best of the best line up..wear the last generation before these "shoes"..get a high quality pacer..and.....
Never happening, but it would generate a ton of interest!! LOL
Great idea. We would find that the Emperor(s) have no clothes.
First step change in 2012 coincides with the second iteration of the Zoom Victory / Elites.
Then, no real progress for almost 10 years.
Then the 3x jump once the current iteration of spikes becomes widely available (Not just Nike, all brands)
Additionally, during this time the tracks at BU, Washington, Arkansas, Armory, etc. were all hosting meets on a weekly basis. Top coaches in the NCAA were also active during this period and are unlikely to have materially adjusted their long standing approaches to training. The internet existed the entire time. Social media existed the entire time. Older athletes and 6th year seniors also existed the entire time. The only variable that changed in 2021 was shoe tech. Own up to it.
Some of this could be resolved very quickly if someone or folks had the stones..BU Track has pretty much been like this for well over a decade I believe. Have the best of the best line up..wear the last generation before these "shoes"..get a high quality pacer..and.....
Never happening, but it would generate a ton of interest!! LOL
Great idea. We would find that the Emperor(s) have no clothes.
I do not think so Pepe..I actually think there would be a slight drop off..BUT..I am a believer and apparently in the minority especially of older folks on here, that guys are clearly better..today...II have tons of examples.. of guys that were really good HS'ers and are progressing normally..not at all out of what most would allow for. Here in one thought..Jim Ryun broke 4 over 57 years ago..we now have over 100M people more...better everything..everything..shouldn't we be having 3-5 kids a year breaking 4? By now? I do not think that an unreasonable premise at all. Add in much faster..especially Indoor tracks and this gets at least more frequent..the fast running that is.John Walker ran 3:52.x at Sunkist 40+ Years ago..11 lapper, shouldn't guys be running fast and more of them?