wow..down votes..I am shocked LOL
We merged two threads into 1. The other thread was entitled "52 sub-4 at BU."
-
13
-
The Insider wrote:
Brian D wrote:
If it was a gradual change in coaching methodology, dating back to the 90s let’s say, you wouldn’t have a sudden 2x increase in sub 4s in a single indoor season. It has nothing to do with anything other than the footwear. There has yet to be a single argument that is not easily jettisoned with elementary logic.
Hmmm, that's interesting. Why are there so many this year then? People are wearing the same shoes they wore last year. If the shoes haven't changed from last year to this year, it must be something else.
As has been talked about many times, the shoes help not just with racing, but also with training, such as reduced recovery time. This will have an accumulated effect, such that anyone using them will still be benefitting the 2nd year, and every year after, though lessening over time. Though people will still reach their physical limit, it will be with times far better than without racing/training with the shoes. And yes, this would predict in 2 years we will be seeing more sub 4's than we are seeing this year. Eventually a new plateau will be reached, because even with the shoes you need a certain level of talent, but we are still on the upswing.
11 -
stop denying wrote:
stop denying wrote:
# of DI Indoor Sub 4-Minute Miles
2023* to date
2023: 89
2022: 90
2021: 38
2020: 35
2019: 33
2018: 30
2017: 30
2016: 35
2015: 32
2014: 26
2013: 30
2012: 33
2011: 22
2010: 22
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.
Wow, that is compelling data. Thanks for researching it. There shouldn’t be any deniers after seeing those numbers. As Spike Lee once said in that famous Nike commercial, it’s gotta be the shoes.
74 -
How do you know coaches haven't improved their training programs in the past few years? Not all, but many.
I don't deny the shoes help a bit, but so does better training.
78 -
king999 wrote:
wow..down votes..I am shocked LOL
Do you actually come back online to see who voted on your posts? LOL
Did you ever run competitively, or do you just live vicariously through those that did and than bless everyone with your insightful wisdom? Asking for a friend.
54 -
Its gotta be the shoes wrote:
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. :(
So the carbon fiber "spring" is the key difference... except said carbon fiber spring doesn't exist as far as I know except on New Balance's spikes. Nike uses a hard plastic Pebax spike plate, Adidas has fiberglass rods, others use Pebax or nylon plates. Those materials have been used in spike plates for decades.
I'll concede that the super spikes are worth about 3 seconds over the previous generation of spikes... but the Zoom Jasaris or whatever spike Webb was wearing plus a modern synthetic track were probably worth 3 seconds vs. what Jim Ryun had.
If records are gonna fall en masse, I'd much rather it be due to transparent technology available to everyone (and which may reduce injuries) than illegal PEDs available only to cheaters (and which may kill you).
92 -
Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:
How do you know coaches haven't improved their training programs in the past few years? Not all, but many.
I don't deny the shoes help a bit, but so does better training.
Honestly, what is more likely, that all of these coaches independently decided to change their methods at the same time and all of their athletes responded positively at the same time…. Or the footwear that was released at the time is really good…. Come on, man
92 -
King is a legend on message boards and knows the sport inside and out. There are a number of college coaches who think that as well.
34 -
Pete Schuder wrote:
kiowavt wrote:
Add tuned indoor banked tracks (read Scientific American about the first such tuned track, at Harvard)
The indoor track at Harvard was not "tuned" other than it had wooden supports. Over the years, it got slower as it was resurfaced with a hard latex surface put on by Cape Cod Surfacing. There is an article about the guys who built that track, and I saw the actual plans for that track, brought to me by the son (Mike) of one of the builders, who was also in the track building business and was interested in building the BU track using his father's plans.
The "tuned" track at Harvard was their outdoor track. It had a fiberglass base over the asphalt and then a sheet good surface (I believe it was an early Mondo or might have been Tartan). I remember that the track started to buckle with huge bubbles from the heat and cold over the years and eventually all that was taken out and a polyurethane surface was put down.
I sometimes trained at that indoor track in the 70’s. It seemed super fast to me. Also I remember running at Harvard on an upstairs short track, I think boards which was also fast.
00 -
He was top 5 after losing a shoe and putting it back on mid-race! He has the strength and speed to compete!
20 -
At D3 Nationals in the snow of Lansing, Michigan.
30 -
What is going on here? Was it a short track? It must be something to see such a spike.
20 -
Pete Schuder wrote:
kiowavt wrote:
Add tuned indoor banked tracks (read Scientific American about the first such tuned track, at Harvard)
The indoor track at Harvard was not "tuned" other than it had wooden supports. Over the years, it got slower as it was resurfaced with a hard latex surface put on by Cape Cod Surfacing. There is an article about the guys who built that track, and I saw the actual plans for that track, brought to me by the son (Mike) of one of the builders, who was also in the track building business and was interested in building the BU track using his father's plans.
The "tuned" track at Harvard was their outdoor track. It had a fiberglass base over the asphalt and then a sheet good surface (I believe it was an early Mondo or might have been Tartan). I remember that the track started to buckle with huge bubbles from the heat and cold over the years and eventually all that was taken out and a polyurethane surface was put down.
Um,Says indoor, not outdoor. I read the article back when. Lots of analysis to build it. So, maybe Scientific American made it all up??
"On a springy new indoor track at Harvard University runners can run faster than they can on standard tracks. The design of the track was arrived at through a close analysis of the mechanics of human running"
By Peter R. Greene, Thomas A. McMahon on December 1, 1978This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted. Reason provided: added detail12 -
I saw that too! Great time for a true freshman. So many fast times some things are getting overlooked lol
00 -
Thanks for the link. I must be confused or something. Mike DiNatale's father built the indoor track and it was wooden, symmetrical banking with a nice polyurethane surface. It was either Tartan or Borden or it could have been an early Beynon surface, but I don't remember if he was already in business back then. The track was fast at that time, as you indicated. Was it tuned? I don't know how, as I did see how it was constructed, both via the plans and when the inside lane rotted because there were no air vents to let out humidity from the track, so they had to replace the first two lanes. If their track was tuned, so was the old BU track, which I and a few of my team members but up, took down and repaired for 16 years. We set a record one year in putting up that old monstrosity in 8.5 hours, all done by our team. When I first got to BU, B&G took a month to make repairs and two weeks to set it up. I became pretty good at carpentry as there were always dead spots to fix. David Callum, who clerked our meets for many years worked with me during his senior year, helping me put in new 2x4's where the old ones had snapped. We had to repair about half of the boards.
I also know that the term "tuned" track was used for the outdoor facility at Harvard where they used fiberglass panels under the Mondo surface to provide "bounce".
What can I say. I certainly can be wrong.
60 -
stop denying wrote:
stop denying wrote:
# of DI Indoor Sub 4-Minute Miles
2023* to date
2023: 89
2022: 90
2021: 38
2020: 35
2019: 33
2018: 30
2017: 30
2016: 35
2015: 32
2014: 26
2013: 30
2012: 33
2011: 22
2010: 22
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.
This was a nice bit of research on your part in trying to figure out why there are so many sub 4:00 milers at BU. I think you may have hit upon it and should get more credit for your work. Add to that, however, the setting up of races with pacesetters for most of the heats (we only used to do that with the top heat), where everyone knows what pace they will be going at and you have some fast times.
60 -
ragingclue wrote:
I almost missed it but Gary Martin was 16th and ran a PR
Also DJ Principe (3:58.62 in Heat 6) broke 4:00 for the first time, as far as I know.
DJ ran 4:01 in high school, and then (correct me if I'm wrong) he didn't improve on that during his four years at Stanford. Now he has moved back to Rhode Island for a fifth year at Providence College, and he made it happen!
Kudos to DJ. I ran with him once or twice when he was just a little kid. He's been working hard at this for a long time.
61 -
Must be the shoes......
41 -
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth:
2023: 52/430
2022: 12/275
2020: 10/340
2019: 12/278
2018: 6/347
2017: 2/307
2016: 3/316
2015: 12/308
2014: 8/30110 -
The Insider wrote:
Brian D wrote:
If it was a gradual change in coaching methodology, dating back to the 90s let’s say, you wouldn’t have a sudden 2x increase in sub 4s in a single indoor season. It has nothing to do with anything other than the footwear. There has yet to be a single argument that is not easily jettisoned with elementary logic.
Hmmm, that's interesting. Why are there so many this year then? People are wearing the same shoes they wore last year. If the shoes haven't changed from last year to this year, it must be something else.
….what? Are you an idiot? The insane increase started last year with the new shoes and has only accelerated this year. What don’t you understand here? Are you trolling?
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.