I never think of these numbers as hard and fast guarantees. 5 seconds for the high school miler will not be be 5 seconds for a peak Nick Willis, and 2-3 seconds for Nick Willis in a 1200m timed workout may not fully translate to a 3-4 second mile PR.
But maybe Nick Willis breaks into the 3:27s like Cole Hocker, in a perfectly paced race, and Farah breaks into the 3:26s like Ingebrigtsen.
You're just letting off gas as usual. There is nothing to support any of what you have just said; it is total guesswork on your part.
Of course it is. I havebeen coaching for a long time. My guys are doing the same workouts as 20 years ago and 10 years ago and 5 years ago. Our top 10 lists in the 1600 and 3200 are essentially all from the past 4 years. The guys who hit particular times in a workout that used to correlate to 9:20 now correlates to 9:05, only because they wear different race shoes than the guys did 10 years ago.
No, it’s not as if a 3:55 miler will improve to 3:50, but a 3:50 runner will not improve to 3:45. Whatever the effects of the shoes are, it’s across the board.
It’s the same for your workout warriors that you think have improved from 9:20 to 9:05 based on workouts. If the new shoes are worth 15 seconds, then Verzbicas could have run 8:15 with them, or do you believe the new shoes help 9:20 guys but not 8:30 ones.
I don’t understand how a coach of many years can believe the shoes result in massive improvement in PRs.
Then here’s an idea: you don’t need $200 bouncy-spikes. There are lots of cheap alternatives. Heck, I’ll give you a pair. But I bet you continue to spend a ridiculous amount on them. I would bet any 29:00 10k runner that they won’t run within 30 seconds of their bouncy-spike PR without bouncy-spikes.
I never think of these numbers as hard and fast guarantees. 5 seconds for the high school miler will not be be 5 seconds for a peak Nick Willis, and 2-3 seconds for Nick Willis in a 1200m timed workout may not fully translate to a 3-4 second mile PR.
But maybe Nick Willis breaks into the 3:27s like Cole Hocker, in a perfectly paced race, and Farah breaks into the 3:26s like Ingebrigtsen.
You're just letting off gas as usual. There is nothing to support any of what you have just said; it is total guesswork on your part.
I meant this as a reply to "high school xc coach" above, and not to myself.
Obviously a statement that starts with "But maybe ..." can be considered guesswork.
However, there is the world class athlete Nick Willis's statement supporting it, not to mention an unprecedented slew of runners, including about a dozen or so from North America and Europe, running a bunch of sub-3:30s in the supershoe era.
Not 5 seconds,but i read somewhere its about 3. One good way to tell is maybe hold a diamond league meet,on an older track,where everyone has to wear regular spikes. Sprinters,middle and long distance runners,hurdlers,long jumpers.I know id be curious.
I recall Nick Willis saying something like 2-3 seconds for a 1200m workout, so it sounds like that is in the ballpark.
does nick willis think he'd be challenging for the ElG's record if his prime was in these superspikes?
mo farah could have run a 3:25?
this is all laughable.
This is the same Nick Willis who predicted Jakob would skip the 1500 last year because too many people were running fast. He had a great career and is obviously knowledgeable, but some of his takes are awful.
Not 5 seconds,but i read somewhere its about 3. One good way to tell is maybe hold a diamond league meet,on an older track,where everyone has to wear regular spikes. Sprinters,middle and long distance runners,hurdlers,long jumpers.I know id be curious.
I’d watch. You don’t need an “older track” though - any track will do.
does nick willis think he'd be challenging for the ElG's record if his prime was in these superspikes?
mo farah could have run a 3:25?
this is all laughable.
This is the same Nick Willis who predicted Jakob would skip the 1500 last year because too many people were running fast. He had a great career and is obviously knowledgeable, but some of his takes are awful.
Nick Willis should technically be the 2008 olympic champion, doper Kiprop got in his way. I think I trust an olympic champions opinion over some average Let’s runner that has 0 experience of wearing this spikes in a racing and training environment, especially coming from a professional athlete that has worn all sorts of spikes throughout his career.
And yeah, farah would run 3:25 in these things. Double double olympic champion? Yup. Pr is 12:53? Hes running sub 12:40 in them, at a minimum.
el G is the goat. Even he believes the super spikes are RIDICULOUS. He would run 3:21-3:22 in the exact same world record breaking race. Sorry BUDDY, but your performances are HANDICAPPED.
You're just letting off gas as usual. There is nothing to support any of what you have just said; it is total guesswork on your part.
So, now you know better than Nick Willis?
It isn't what Nick Willis says; it's what rekrunner makes up. But Nick Willis isn't the Bible on shoes. If he was we would see him referred to like Moses.
I recall Nick Willis saying something like 2-3 seconds for a 1200m workout, so it sounds like that is in the ballpark.
does nick willis think he'd be challenging for the ElG's record if his prime was in these superspikes?
mo farah could have run a 3:25?
this is all laughable.
If he was in super spikes, in his prime ABSOLUTELY.
Nick Willis is one of the GOATS. Bronze in 2016. Technical gold in 2008. LONGEVITY.
But he wouldnt break his record if El G had the same spikes because he would be even FASTER.
Is that too complex to understand?
You think Jakob is an aerobic monster? Man did you not see what Moe Farah did from 2012-2016? Not sure if he was doped, thats a different story… but he would absolutely run a 3:25 in those TRAMPOLINES!!!
You know whats more laughable? Running a sub 4 minute mile today in super spikes, then saying “its all in the training” HA!!!! What a JOKE!
does nick willis think he'd be challenging for the ElG's record if his prime was in these superspikes?
mo farah could have run a 3:25?
this is all laughable.
If he was in super spikes, in his prime ABSOLUTELY.
Nick Willis is one of the GOATS. Bronze in 2016. Technical gold in 2008. LONGEVITY.
But he wouldnt break his record if El G had the same spikes because he would be even FASTER.
Is that too complex to understand?
You think Jakob is an aerobic monster? Man did you not see what Moe Farah did from 2012-2016? Not sure if he was doped, thats a different story… but he would absolutely run a 3:25 in those TRAMPOLINES!!!
You know whats more laughable? Running a sub 4 minute mile today in super spikes, then saying “its all in the training” HA!!!! What a JOKE!
“iTs aLL in ThE TrAiNinG”
“ITs AlL iN ThE ReCoVeRY”
“ITs ThEsE nEW HiP WoRkOuTs wE Do”
”ItS… ITs…BaKiNg… BAKING SODA!!!”
Meanwhile wearing the most ridiculous spikes Ive ever seen… “It cAnT be ThE SpiKeS… just CANT BE”….
If he was in super spikes, in his prime ABSOLUTELY.
Nick Willis is one of the GOATS. Bronze in 2016. Technical gold in 2008. LONGEVITY.
But he wouldnt break his record if El G had the same spikes because he would be even FASTER.
Is that too complex to understand?
You think Jakob is an aerobic monster? Man did you not see what Moe Farah did from 2012-2016? Not sure if he was doped, thats a different story… but he would absolutely run a 3:25 in those TRAMPOLINES!!!
You know whats more laughable? Running a sub 4 minute mile today in super spikes, then saying “its all in the training” HA!!!! What a JOKE!
“iTs aLL in ThE TrAiNinG”
“ITs AlL iN ThE ReCoVeRY”
“ITs ThEsE nEW HiP WoRkOuTs wE Do”
”ItS… ITs…BaKiNg… BAKING SODA!!!”
Meanwhile wearing the most ridiculous spikes Ive ever seen… “It cAnT be ThE SpiKeS… just CANT BE”….
It isn't what Nick Willis says; it's what rekrunner makes up. But Nick Willis isn't the Bible on shoes. If he was we would see him referred to like Moses.
The point was that you don't know better than Nick Willis. You didn't contest that, and rightly so. Yet here you are trying to sell your own bibles.
I simply acknowledged that maybe the seasoned world class veteran Nick Willis is right, and applied his reaction to his own personal experience to "high school xc coach"'s examples of Willis and Farah, still conservatively tempering it: maybe it's not 5 seconds, but maybe it's more like 2 seconds for these sub-3:30 performers/performances. Note that "maybe" can also mean "maybe not" -- individual responses will vary depending on where athletes are weak. Maybe Willis and Farah respond even less, because they are already highly efficient and economical.
The real answer is that the super spikes are worth a different amount at different paces. I did a quick analysis using the World Athletics data a while back in an old post that apparently didn't get that much traction because no one ever seems to remember the take-away message from it (less benefit the faster you go) or ever refer to it. The person behind a later published study even referenced my theory (link also includes link to my original thread in the first post):
Runners running mid-4:30s pace in super spikes are getting about 5 seconds a mile benefit on average over the old spikes. I'm sure on the slower end of the speed spectrum (hobby joggers), the benefits also probably decrease, but you wouldn't that information in World Athletics database.
If he was in super spikes, in his prime ABSOLUTELY.
Nick Willis is one of the GOATS. Bronze in 2016. Technical gold in 2008. LONGEVITY.
But he wouldnt break his record if El G had the same spikes because he would be even FASTER.
Is that too complex to understand?
You think Jakob is an aerobic monster? Man did you not see what Moe Farah did from 2012-2016? Not sure if he was doped, thats a different story… but he would absolutely run a 3:25 in those TRAMPOLINES!!!
You know whats more laughable? Running a sub 4 minute mile today in super spikes, then saying “its all in the training” HA!!!! What a JOKE!
“iTs aLL in ThE TrAiNinG”
“ITs AlL iN ThE ReCoVeRY”
“ITs ThEsE nEW HiP WoRkOuTs wE Do”
”ItS… ITs…BaKiNg… BAKING SODA!!!”
Meanwhile wearing the most ridiculous spikes Ive ever seen… “It cAnT be ThE SpiKeS… just CANT BE”….
There are two equally dumb lines of argumentation.
The first is that it has nothing to do with the spikes. That the 5 sec/mi are all attributable to the other facts.
The second is that it is all the spikes. The entire 5 sec/mi is just spikes and none of the other factors matter at all.
You land in the latter camp and both arguments are bad.
The real answer is that the super spikes are worth a different amount at different paces. I did a quick analysis using the World Athletics data a while back in an old post that apparently didn't get that much traction because no one ever seems to remember the take-away message from it (less benefit the faster you go) or ever refer to it. The person behind a later published study even referenced my theory (link also includes link to my original thread in the first post):
Runners running mid-4:30s pace in super spikes are getting about 5 seconds a mile benefit on average over the old spikes. I'm sure on the slower end of the speed spectrum (hobby joggers), the benefits also probably decrease, but you wouldn't that information in World Athletics database.
Excellent post. Thanks for the links to previous discussions and the published study from "Bneedles".
It seems obvious (to me) that any such benefits will show some sort of declining trend for the faster runners, where the potential for improving any weaknesses declines.
Of course "5 seconds" for the inefficient high school miler will not translate to "5 seconds" for the more efficient elite milers. Expressing benefit as a percentage of speed or time is an improvement, but could still show the same declining trend.
The real answer is that the super spikes are worth a different amount at different paces. I did a quick analysis using the World Athletics data a while back in an old post that apparently didn't get that much traction because no one ever seems to remember the take-away message from it (less benefit the faster you go) or ever refer to it. The person behind a later published study even referenced my theory (link also includes link to my original thread in the first post):
Runners running mid-4:30s pace in super spikes are getting about 5 seconds a mile benefit on average over the old spikes. I'm sure on the slower end of the speed spectrum (hobby joggers), the benefits also probably decrease, but you wouldn't that information in World Athletics database.
I would entertain this thought… but how do you explain the 5 second per mile increase in performances from the 60M, 100m, 200m, 300m, 400m, 500m, 600m, 800m, 1000m?
example: 400m runners on average the past 4 years have seen a 1-1.25 second increase in their performances. Dont believe me? Just look at the lists, the 4x400 relays, ECETERA
The real answer is that the super spikes are worth a different amount at different paces. I did a quick analysis using the World Athletics data a while back in an old post that apparently didn't get that much traction because no one ever seems to remember the take-away message from it (less benefit the faster you go) or ever refer to it. The person behind a later published study even referenced my theory (link also includes link to my original thread in the first post):
Runners running mid-4:30s pace in super spikes are getting about 5 seconds a mile benefit on average over the old spikes. I'm sure on the slower end of the speed spectrum (hobby joggers), the benefits also probably decrease, but you wouldn't that information in World Athletics database.
I would entertain this thought… but how do you explain the 5 second per mile increase in performances from the 60M, 100m, 200m, 300m, 400m, 500m, 600m, 800m, 1000m?
example: 400m runners on average the past 4 years have seen a 1-1.25 second increase in their performances. Dont believe me? Just look at the lists, the 4x400 relays, ECETERA
The real answer is that the super spikes are worth a different amount at different paces. I did a quick analysis using the World Athletics data a while back in an old post that apparently didn't get that much traction because no one ever seems to remember the take-away message from it (less benefit the faster you go) or ever refer to it. The person behind a later published study even referenced my theory (link also includes link to my original thread in the first post):
Runners running mid-4:30s pace in super spikes are getting about 5 seconds a mile benefit on average over the old spikes. I'm sure on the slower end of the speed spectrum (hobby joggers), the benefits also probably decrease, but you wouldn't that information in World Athletics database.