This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you. The fact that this is even a debate is insane. Runners from previous eras are hyped up to an insane degree on these boards.
I mean you have ERIC JENKINS listed as being in comparable if slightly better fitness to Nico Young. May I remind you that Nico Young is an American born collegiate who just ran 26:52 (!!!) outkicking an Olympic medallist in the process? Do people realize how insane that is? 12:57 for Nico Young is a comparable time to previous eras. The whining about shoes is just getting old at this point. These young runners are actually just better now, in most cases. They are GLOBALLY competitive. Guys like True, Solinsky, and even Ritz never were.
This thread played a big role in the WTW that was just published:
Talk to any college coach who is coaching right now who coached in both eras and they'll tell you the shoes make a MASSIVE difference.
We can quibble a second or two on the times but I think overall it gets the talent levels about right. It makes sense for a former world champ to be #1. It also makes total sense for Kennedy, Ritz and Fisher to be very similar as they were all superstars in HS xc.. For Centro and Webb to be near each other, etc.
Bob Kennedy certainly would be very competitive in this era. Dude won NCAA xc as a freshman. Won NCAA 1500 title as a sophomore. Had the lead in the Olympic 5000 in the during final 800 in 1996. Fisher probably has better coaching than Kennedy but the talent levels are VERY similar.
Somone actually thinks Nico Young's 26:52 is better than Solinky's 26:59? I don't. Yes Young is better than Solinksy was in college (but he's also at altitude and training like a pro) but a 26:59 back then is better than 26:52 now. In that 26:59 race, let me remind you that Solinsky absolutely destroyed Rupp who's triple the year before at NCAA indoors was certainly more legendary that Young's super impressive NCAAs this year. And Rupp had had finished 8th at Worlds the pervoius year. RItz, he was never healthy. Ritz OWNED Webb and Hall in HS. Hall is better than any and all US marathoners right now without super shoes. Webb ran 3:46 in the GD mile without super shoes.
What does high school have to do with any of this? Again, you are nostalgic for one of the worst eras of American distance running in history. The training sucked, the tactics sucked, the mentality sucked. None of those guys were globally competitive. We have Americans NOW who are kicking for the win with some of the best global competitors in history, and you want to say that they actually aren't as talented as the non-factors from a different era? You're saying that if you put "super shoes" (with no carbon plate) on Ritz he runs a 12:46? That's insane. You've obviously never run in these spikes.
I agree that the current American 5kers are a bit more competitive internationally than the US has been in a while. I also agree that part of the effect is better training today (partly due to super shoes).
However, I wrote on another thread that 10 seconds seemed pretty fair to me if we want to compare abilities across the supershoe era. Internationally, I think El G, Bekele, Farah, and perhaps prime Lagat would in today's era dominate the 5k over everyone but Ingebrigtsen. Including over the 12:35 guy and low-12:40s guys.
They are better shoes. They are not 2.5% better over the 5k distance. That's insane. Even if they were only 0.1% better, athletes would wear them preferentially. Besides, you cannot buy the old spikes anymore, so it is a moot point.
Of course they’re better. 15 seconds in a 14:00 5000 with zero additional effort. I’d be wearing them too. Don’t kid yourself - you’re not shelling out $200 for nothing.
Who is paying $200 for track spikes? Care to list a few models that fit your description?
To the comments on Solinsky, he was only at his best for basically one year (2010). But that year he ran 26:59, 12:56, 12:55, and 12:56. If you look at those results, he was 1-3 seconds behind the winners but still beat some of the world's best. Very similar to Fisher in recent years.
Not a bad effort at converting. When I intereviewed the scientist who stidied the 4% before they were made available, he told me he came up with the 4% based on the range and just picked the middle number, Nike went with it.
The range was 2% to 6% improvement depending on the athlete. I asked who benefits more and he said, "that study has not been done yet." But, we know that someone who is more of a forefoot runner with good knee left and more dramatic swing through phase will benefit more than a shuffler, or someone with a low-profile stride.
So, what we have here is not an even playing field, even if everyone wore the same shoe.
How about a size 8 men's vs size 12? Does a longer carbon plate or a short carbon plate add to the push off response more?
Doped athletes with 6% response (in the 4% shoe), therefore potentially a bigger response in one of those one-time wear $500 shoes, may be one of those outliars who have ridiculous performances. ....
Then there is the quicker recovery from lower leg stress. This benefit of recovery must vary from one runner to the next.
Good list of conversions, but I don't think we ever really know.
Wavelight matters a lot too and I think its importance is being discounted both in terms of (i) higher max performance and, more importantly, (ii) much greater likelihood of performing near one’s ceiling in any given time trial style race. So people can run a bit faster now than without it (absolutely perfect pacing sans wavelight is just not possible), and, in paced races, people are way more likely to run really fast, because pacing is perfect say 75% of the time in a real TT now (maybe sometimes they just don’t follow the lights or something) vs. near-perfect maybe 10% of the time previously. Just look at any pre-wavelight WR (or SB) splits to post-wavelight splits and this will be very obvious, especially at ~3k and up
Overall I’d guess the shoes are worth a few seconds at most at 5k. Which means Jakob’s 2mi is even crazier than it seems
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you. The fact that this is even a debate is insane. Runners from previous eras are hyped up to an insane degree on these boards.
I mean you have ERIC JENKINS listed as being in comparable if slightly better fitness to Nico Young. May I remind you that Nico Young is an American born collegiate who just ran 26:52 (!!!) outkicking an Olympic medallist in the process? Do people realize how insane that is? 12:57 for Nico Young is a comparable time to previous eras. The whining about shoes is just getting old at this point. These young runners are actually just better now, in most cases. They are GLOBALLY competitive. Guys like True, Solinsky, and even Ritz never were.
This thread played a big role in the WTW that was just published:
Talk to any college coach who is coaching right now who coached in both eras and they'll tell you the shoes make a MASSIVE difference.
We can quibble a second or two on the times but I think overall it gets the talent levels about right. It makes sense for a former world champ to be #1. It also makes total sense for Kennedy, Ritz and Fisher to be very similar as they were all superstars in HS xc.. For Centro and Webb to be near each other, etc.
Bob Kennedy certainly would be very competitive in this era. Dude won NCAA xc as a freshman. Won NCAA 1500 title as a sophomore. Had the lead in the Olympic 5000 in the during final 800 in 1996. Fisher probably has better coaching than Kennedy but the talent levels are VERY similar.
Somone actually thinks Nico Young's 26:52 is better than Solinky's 26:59? I don't. Yes Young is better than Solinksy was in college (but he's also at altitude and training like a pro) but a 26:59 back then is better than 26:52 now. In that 26:59 race, let me remind you that Solinsky absolutely destroyed Rupp who's triple the year before at NCAA indoors was certainly more legendary that Young's super impressive NCAAs this year. And Rupp had had finished 8th at Worlds the pervoius year. RItz, he was never healthy. Ritz OWNED Webb and Hall in HS. Hall is better than any and all US marathoners right now without super shoes. Webb ran 3:46 in the GD mile without super shoes.
Maybe wave light and better shoes make some differences but this is a big exaggeration of effect. I think this is getting out of control. And you are overvaluing the late 2000s to 2010s US runners. As a fan of runners from that time, I don’t have a problem noting that the current guys are better. I think you should get over it.
Wavelight matters a lot too and I think its importance is being discounted both in terms of (i) higher max performance and, more importantly, (ii) much greater likelihood of performing near one’s ceiling in any given time trial style race. So people can run a bit faster now than without it (absolutely perfect pacing sans wavelight is just not possible), and, in paced races, people are way more likely to run really fast, because pacing is perfect say 75% of the time in a real TT now (maybe sometimes they just don’t follow the lights or something) vs. near-perfect maybe 10% of the time previously. Just look at any pre-wavelight WR (or SB) splits to post-wavelight splits and this will be very obvious, especially at ~3k and up
Overall I’d guess the shoes are worth a few seconds at most at 5k. Which means Jakob’s 2mi is even crazier than it seems
Agreed. Wavelight is by far the bigger factor for elite times. You basically have a metronomic pacer for the entire race now.
Not a bad effort at converting. When I intereviewed the scientist who stidied the 4% before they were made available, he told me he came up with the 4% based on the range and just picked the middle number, Nike went with it.
The range was 2% to 6% improvement depending on the athlete. I asked who benefits more and he said, "that study has not been done yet." But, we know that someone who is more of a forefoot runner with good knee left and more dramatic swing through phase will benefit more than a shuffler, or someone with a low-profile stride.
So, what we have here is not an even playing field, even if everyone wore the same shoe.
How about a size 8 men's vs size 12? Does a longer carbon plate or a short carbon plate add to the push off response more?
Doped athletes with 6% response (in the 4% shoe), therefore potentially a bigger response in one of those one-time wear $500 shoes, may be one of those outliars who have ridiculous performances. ....
Then there is the quicker recovery from lower leg stress. This benefit of recovery must vary from one runner to the next.
Good list of conversions, but I don't think we ever really know.
You realize we're talking about the SPIKES, not the road shoes, right? There is no carbon plate in the spikes. Stop conflating the two.
What does high school have to do with any of this? Again, you are nostalgic for one of the worst eras of American distance running in history. The training sucked, the tactics sucked, the mentality sucked. None of those guys were globally competitive. We have Americans NOW who are kicking for the win with some of the best global competitors in history, and you want to say that they actually aren't as talented as the non-factors from a different era? You're saying that if you put "super shoes" (with no carbon plate) on Ritz he runs a 12:46? That's insane. You've obviously never run in these spikes.
I think we are just seeing some backlash over unreasonable hype like the above. In the 5k, the US is not doing much better internationally than it has ever since Lagat. Fisher's best races are similar place-wise to Ritz's or Solinsky's. Sorry but that's the case. The international competition is good now but not much better than any other time in the modern era. Hopefully the current group of Americans can continue to improve and compete.
What does high school have to do with any of this? Again, you are nostalgic for one of the worst eras of American distance running in history. The training sucked, the tactics sucked, the mentality sucked. None of those guys were globally competitive. We have Americans NOW who are kicking for the win with some of the best global competitors in history, and you want to say that they actually aren't as talented as the non-factors from a different era? You're saying that if you put "super shoes" (with no carbon plate) on Ritz he runs a 12:46? That's insane. You've obviously never run in these spikes.
I think we are just seeing some backlash over unreasonable hype like the above. In the 5k, the US is not doing much better internationally than it has ever since Lagat. Fisher's best races are similar place-wise to Ritz's or Solinsky's. Sorry but that's the case. The international competition is good now but not much better than any other time in the modern era. Hopefully the current group of Americans can continue to improve and compete.
That is categorically not the case. Ritz' best finish was 6th in the 10k at Worlds, and he was dropped like a hot potato by 6k. Fisher is WAY more competitive.
16. Ryan Hill (2015 Brussels) - 12:55.87 (adjusted)
17. Eric Jenkins (2017 Boston) - 12:56.00 (adjusted)
18. Nico Young (2024 Boston) - 12:57.14
19. Chris Derrick (2013 Brussels) - 12:58.19 (adjusted)
20. Lopez Lomong (2020 Portland) - 12:58.78
21. Cole Hocker (2024 Los Angeles) - 12:58.82
22. Adam Goucher (2006 Huesden) - 13:00.13 (adjusted)
23. Matthew Centrowitz (2019 Beaverton) - 13:00.39
24. Emmanuel Bor (2022 Boston) - 13:00.48
25. Alan Webb (2005 Berlin) - 13:00.98 (adjusted)
Please provide the monster excel file where you analyzed thousand of race results to determine your conversion factor. How did you find so many runners that used the new shoes in one race, and the old shoes in another, during the same season?
My estimate of the conversion factor is 1. Prove me wrong.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you. The fact that this is even a debate is insane. Runners from previous eras are hyped up to an insane degree on these boards.
I mean you have ERIC JENKINS listed as being in comparable if slightly better fitness to Nico Young. May I remind you that Nico Young is an American born collegiate who just ran 26:52 (!!!) outkicking an Olympic medallist in the process? Do people realize how insane that is? 12:57 for Nico Young is a comparable time to previous eras. The whining about shoes is just getting old at this point. These young runners are actually just better now, in most cases. They are GLOBALLY competitive. Guys like True, Solinsky, and even Ritz never were.
This thread played a big role in the WTW that was just published:
Talk to any college coach who is coaching right now who coached in both eras and they'll tell you the shoes make a MASSIVE difference.
We can quibble a second or two on the times but I think overall it gets the talent levels about right. It makes sense for a former world champ to be #1. It also makes total sense for Kennedy, Ritz and Fisher to be very similar as they were all superstars in HS xc.. For Centro and Webb to be near each other, etc.
Bob Kennedy certainly would be very competitive in this era. Dude won NCAA xc as a freshman. Won NCAA 1500 title as a sophomore. Had the lead in the Olympic 5000 in the during final 800 in 1996. Fisher probably has better coaching than Kennedy but the talent levels are VERY similar.
Somone actually thinks Nico Young's 26:52 is better than Solinky's 26:59? I don't. Yes Young is better than Solinksy was in college (but he's also at altitude and training like a pro) but a 26:59 back then is better than 26:52 now. In that 26:59 race, let me remind you that Solinsky absolutely destroyed Rupp who's triple the year before at NCAA indoors was certainly more legendary that Young's super impressive NCAAs this year. And Rupp had had finished 8th at Worlds the pervoius year. RItz, he was never healthy. Ritz OWNED Webb and Hall in HS. Hall is better than any and all US marathoners right now without super shoes. Webb ran 3:46 in the GD mile without super shoes.
What a poor level of journalism. Let’s look at some athletes in the middle of their prime pre and post-super shoes. Selemon Baraga ran 12:43 in 2018 (Pre-Super Spikes). Still his P.R Yomif KEJELCHA ran 12:46 in 2018 (Pre-Super Spikes) and now 12:41 in 2023 Hagos Gebrhiwet ran 12:47 in 2012 and now 12:42 in 2023. 1996 and 2023 are so arbitrary to look at. If you remember 2012, in the Paris 5k, 11 people broke 13 there. As you have said yourself, pacing makes a HUGE difference. You had great weather and pacing in L.A. So the times shouldn't be too surprising.
So no. I don't believe 12:55 is the new 13:05. I’ll give the super spikes 4 seconds, maybe 6 MAX.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.