So was Sarah Sellers (12th, 6th US, 2:31:49) in her Altra Escalante Racers the first springless woman?
Would she be sub-2:30 and top 10 with the green shoes?
Taylor Ward was 10th (5th US) in a PR of 2:30:14.
So was Sarah Sellers (12th, 6th US, 2:31:49) in her Altra Escalante Racers the first springless woman?
Would she be sub-2:30 and top 10 with the green shoes?
Taylor Ward was 10th (5th US) in a PR of 2:30:14.
After seeing your post and digging around on Sellers instagram her and Ward were team mates in college. Furthermore, the 17th overall (9th American) also ran at the same college. Kinda crazy to see three former college teammate run that fast.
Since you were involved in shoe tech in the '80s, don't you remember the Etonic Alpha - I want to say around '82 or so - with the graphite plate throughout the heel and into the midfoot? ...gold and blue upper? "Rob McGregor" heel cup? My first experience w/ graphite plates, because I sold them at a running store in south Jersey. Etonic later shortened the plate and put it in their Quasar model.
Look Here wrote:
I agree with this guy. Unremarkable that the Nike-sponsored are Nike-shod. Before this, they wore something else with a swoosh. There even was a period when stars wore another Nike even though the carbon thing existed already. Bekele won Berlin in something else. So did a women's winner in Berlin who's name slips me (she was in this year's Berlin which is what reminded me of that). Some people may have thought the women's winner in the WC marathon wore some version of it, and it may have been, but if you payed attention when the camera showed the bottom of the shoe, it was not the one on RW, where they also show the bottom.
What's different real recently, it seems, is that they now tell there sponsored superstars they HAVE TO wear a certain one. Look at the quote of the day. She wasn't all that hot on it but her agent told here that was part of the deal. Look at all the pacers in the INEOS thing. All the exact same shoe. The star wore something else - there may be only 1 or 2 pair of those in existence - but all the Nike minions HAD to wear the shoe they're trying to sell.
So if you catapult enough $$ into the sport that you sponsor so many of the main contenders AND you sponsor certain races, not inviting those at the very top wearing a competing brand, assuring the winner will be wearing yours AND they all are contractually obligated to wear a certain shoe, that might seem to prove it's by far the best shoe out there. But it might just prove that they really want you, the public and the consumers, to think so.
We really are falling for a marketing ploy here. I wouldn't be surprised if Nike has actually talked to the IAAF and has been like "Hey look at this testing we did, they don't really provide a significant advantage over other racers." But the narrative is allowing them to kill it, so it keeps going.
And you're point is best, every Nike runner is wearing identical bright pink shoes. If that isn't hardcore consumer conditioning I don't know what is. Even if the Next%/4% were the "best" shoes, you wouldn't have this kind of scenario. You'd at the very least have some runners preferentially selecting the 4%. But no, every Nike runner is wearing the EXACT SAME SHOE. Not because it's the best, but because they were told to.
FYI- Mizuno has reduced the size of its performance line made available in the US. Their Wave Sonic, a purposed road racing flat is thin and rock hard. It seems like Japanese protectionism for their athletes. I was a Mizuno enthusiast for years in the Wave Ekiden, but they've reduced their American lines to chunky trainers and a horrible "flat."
Etonic also had the VO2 shoe that had a plate as well as Brooks had the Propulsion plate in a couple of their shoes
wejo wrote:
A bunch of guys ran 2:10:XX and many of them weren't near 2:10X in the past. Yes Americans should be able to run 2:1X but if the shoes help you even 1 or 2 minutes that IS HUGE at this level.
The fact Mizuno guys from Atlanta Track club wore them is telling.
As per Atlanta Track Club's statement, Mizuno US doesn't make any racing flats. You'll notice the track club guys also don't race in Mizuno spikes on the track. Because they don't make them in the US line. Mizuno US is geared towards casual runners. That's the market they're pursing. So yes, given the choice, Atlanta Track Club guys chose Vaporfly's. What else should they choose? Prototypes from other companies? No. The older Nike's just to prove a point? No.
Get over it dude, you act like these guys didn't bust their A** to get 4 and 5 minutes better in the marathon. The shoes didn't run 120 miles a week for them. The irony is, the people on this board throw a fit about how American men "just don't have it anymore", then when they suddenly do, you look for reasons why it can't possibly be because they deserve it and work hard. Typical boomer, looking down from your pedestal, blathering on and on about fairness and "back in my day". Christ.
EssosLindi wrote:
If almost all the americans ran in Vapofly and that still none of them were able to run sub 2:10, the shoes are clearly not magical, they are still far away from the international competition.
You beat me to it. In fact, if you look the 100 fastest times by American men in the marathon since 2009, Galen Rupp is third. Then you have to scroll down to 50th place to find the next guy wearing Vaporflys.
So yeah, Africans are getting faster in the marathon, but not Americans. American men wearing Vaporflys may be winning races , but the times aren't any faster (ex. CIM).
Marketing Schmarketing wrote:
We really are falling for a marketing ploy here. I wouldn't be surprised if Nike has actually talked to the IAAF and has been like "Hey look at this testing we did, they don't really provide a significant advantage over other racers." But the narrative is allowing them to kill it, so it keeps going.
And you're point is best, every Nike runner is wearing identical bright pink shoes. If that isn't hardcore consumer conditioning I don't know what is. Even if the Next%/4% were the "best" shoes, you wouldn't have this kind of scenario. You'd at the very least have some runners preferentially selecting the 4%. But no, every Nike runner is wearing the EXACT SAME SHOE. Not because it's the best, but because they were told to.
Oh, it's absolute madness. And good point.. a few months back, the 4% was the greatest thing ever and you'd be stupid not to use it. Now, everyone is using the Next%, claiming it's magically faster. We have all lost our minds.
No one even cares about the "Secrets to why Kenyans are fast" anymore... they just assume it's the shoes.
All NASCAR entries must adhere to a detailed set of specifications provided by NASCAR. Then before each race each car must endure a grueling inspection process. But it is up to each team to enter the best car that they can for race.
from
run_fly_101 wrote:
After seeing your post and digging around on Sellers instagram her and Ward were team mates in college. Furthermore, the 17th overall (9th American) also ran at the same college. Kinda crazy to see three former college teammate run that fast.
Ward went to BYU and Sellers went to Weber State. I don't know if one them transferred at some point, but those are the schools they are credited for graduating from.
skyboy wrote:
Get over it dude, you act like these guys didn't bust their A** to get 4 and 5 minutes better in the marathon. The shoes didn't run 120 miles a week for them. The irony is, the people on this board throw a fit about how American men "just don't have it anymore", then when they suddenly do, you look for reasons why it can't possibly be because they deserve it and work hard.
Sounds like the Lance Armstrong defense. You act like these guys never trained hard for a marathon before now.
UA Runner wrote:
EssosLindi wrote:
If almost all the americans ran in Vapofly and that still none of them were able to run sub 2:10, the shoes are clearly not magical, they are still far away from the international competition.
You beat me to it. In fact, if you look the 100 fastest times by American men in the marathon since 2009, Galen Rupp is third. Then you have to scroll down to 50th place to find the next guy wearing Vaporflys.
So yeah, Africans are getting faster in the marathon, but not Americans. American men wearing Vaporflys may be winning races , but the times aren't any faster (ex. CIM).
This is not true. Rupp is 2nd, 3rd, 12th, 21st, 23rd, and 37th. All of those were in Vaporflys. Other Vaporfly performances in the top 50 since 1/1/2009 are Riley in 25th, Mock in 26th, Bumbalough in 31st, McDonald in 36th, Abdi 43rd.
Other carbon plate shoes are Fauble in 9th, Ward in 14th, Stinson in 30th, Llano and Smith tied in 38th, and maybe Gregg in 49th.
https://www.iaaf.org/records/all-time-toplists/road-running/marathon/outdoor/men/senior?regionType=countries®ion=usa&drop=all&fiftyPercentRule=all&page=1&bestResultsOnly=false&firstDay=2009-01-01&lastDay=2019-10-15I was with you here until you put in the bit about "typical boomer..." I ran through the Golden Years of the '70s and '80s and was really happy to see the times some US runners put up on Sunday regardless of their shoes.
But what I really wanted to ask was whether you know that Mizuno is only interested in the "casual runner" market for a fact, and how,you know, or whether you're just assuming that is the case given their product line (which is a very reasonable assumption.) If this is the case, I don't get why they'd sponsor any "performance" runners at all but if they did see a reason to do so., and if they see some value in sponsoring such runners why they wouldn't bring in some racing shoes from Japan because having their sponsored runners racing in Nike would seem to offset the value of that sponsorship.
HRE wrote:
I was with you here until you put in the bit about "typical boomer..." I ran through the Golden Years of the '70s and '80s and was really happy to see the times some US runners put up on Sunday regardless of their shoes.
But what I really wanted to ask was whether you know that Mizuno is only interested in the "casual runner" market for a fact, and how,you know, or whether you're just assuming that is the case given their product line (which is a very reasonable assumption.) If this is the case, I don't get why they'd sponsor any "performance" runners at all but if they did see a reason to do so., and if they see some value in sponsoring such runners why they wouldn't bring in some racing shoes from Japan because having their sponsored runners racing in Nike would seem to offset the value of that sponsorship.
My theory is that they chose to continue to sponsor Atlanta Track Club through the Peachtree Road Race's 50th anniversary year this year, but will probably not renew for next year. Time will tell whether they continue that sponsorship, but that was a huge money maker for them and as I understand it they are pretty desperate. There have been several changes in direction over the last few years that have led to poor performance in terms of product sales. Examples include no longer selling split shorts or singlets (They may have started again but they're trying to limit them), introducing the wave sonic and then discontinuing it after 2-3 iterations, dropping the ekiden and wave cruise lines, switching materials in their wave plates and then switching back 2 years later. It's been all over the place.
careershoeguy wrote:
What was it called? wrote:
What were those shoes with the actual metal coil springs? Spiro, Spira? Now, I don't remember the exact story. Did the IAAF weigh in and say no dice? Well, they'd be allowed now, wouldn't they? Something tells me that a well-founded outfit coming up with a Spring - it's specifically called a spring in the linked documents - is what made it OK.
So, I don't really think ASICS, et al were caught sleeping and unaware then scrambled to catch up so much as they never worked on Spring technology in the first place since they thought it was not allowed. I mean, why wasn't Brooks or whoever working on this 8 years earlier - or 28 years earlier? No one was even trying this angle and they all thought no one else would - you know, because it was against IAAF rules and look at what happened to Spira or whoever that was. Then when someone heavily sponsoring the federations and events does it (were there well-placed bribes? I believe Coe is on their payroll and has been for decades so he owes them big. In that case there doesn't need to be actual 'bribes') it's considered OK.
The other guys may not have immediately tried to do it thinking it was still not OK. We're they waiting for a ruling or sanction or something? It just doesn't seem like our friends in Beaverton got the jump on everyone because they thought of it first and everyone else was too dumb. Spira thought of it years earlier and others before that. It's just that they got the jump in the same way that the mob did with the booze trade during prohibition. If the cops were in on it, they got away with it. Were there rival gangs back then saying "Hey, we thought of that,too. Way before you did, in fact. We just thought we'd get busted."
Perhaps an imperfect analogy, since literal bribery didn't even have to take place. But something tells me that if Skechers comes out and their first gimmick is a spring - and they're directly calling it that - then it doesn't fly. They don't underwrite any big events or federations or employ any officials or even sponsor any A-list runners at this point in the theoretical story. They're a new gang trying to compete that the big guys accuse of cheating. No disrespect to Skechers (using them because they are a relatively recent entry into the market), just saying if someone came out of the blue with this imagine the army of lawyers in Oregon and what they'd be doing about it.
It took the big guys breaking the ice and paving the way. It's OK now. It wasn't 5 years ago. The ones who made it OK are going to have a head start. Fair? Read the rule again, but read the de facto rule between the lines. Is there one company that always seems to be on the cutting edge, or just one that gets to make the rules?
****Brooks WAS working on this 28 years earlier. More closer to 31 years earlier (around 1988 or so). I was the developer of the first running shoes to incorporate spring plate technology (the original Brooks Beast and the GFS-100). We tested looked at different ways of layering the carbon fibers to produce more spring. We tested at Michigan State Univ performance labs. As I recall we did find lab benefits but I believe we were limited by material technology of the time. EVA foam was much stiffer and heavier as were the uppers, and those shoes were not nearly as responsive as the Nike product is now. The technology was in it's infancy and did not catch on commercially. Kudos to Nike (whom I also worked for in the 90's) for sticking with it and improving it. The 4% does everything we thought it could do back in the 80's when we pioneered it at Brooks.
-thanks for the story! As a Michigan native I've always been biased towards Brooks. I remember buying the original Cheetahs at Wolverine's Discount store, "Little Red Shoe House" for $14!
What was your title at Brooks?
rojo wrote:
You think it's only a minute? I think it's more than that.
I'm not saying it's just Vaporfly. The only good news is the other shoe companies are finally now coming out with their Vaporfly copycats. Most of them still aren't commercially available.
Here is an email I got from a pro on the list below today.
"Not sure how much I’m allowed to say about the shoes. They are the same prototype racer you’ve seen us racing in for the last year or so. Just some changes to upper. I seem to remember *** *** doing a longer interview about them for this summer. They are set for a commercial release in the not so distant future. "
I'm a 2:17 marathoner who ran that time in the Altra Escalante Racer.
I got my first pair of the Next % last week and I've done two 10k pace workouts with them. They didn't feel any faster than other flats to me.
I was 1-2 seconds per rep faster than the last time I did the same workout a month ago, a reasonable improvement that could be attributed to increased fitness. I did notice, however, that my legs recovered much quicker than they have in previous workouts.
Once I start marathon oriented workouts, I expect this to be a big asset. I have always had trouble recovering from long marathon pace sessions in the past, and often I can't do another hard effort for a week. If my legs feel as good after those workouts as they do after what I've done recently in the Next%, it will let me do significantly more mileage at or near marathon pace without getting hurt or too tired, which I'm hoping will lead to a big improvement.
I ran Chicago and can’t even begin to tell to you how many people I saw walking the last 10k wearing vaporfly or next%s. They’re good shoes but they aren’t magic
