Shoes erasing the sport’s history…sad

Your analogy is an unfounded claim. The shoes do not provide gains for every runner that uses them, which they would if they were of another order of progress, like a fibreglass versus a wooden pole. The analogy you might just as well use is that they are like a motor in a cycle. But they aren't. Whatever improvements they may offer it is nothing like what is being claimed here. The biggest gains are still coming from plain old doping.

You can't conclude it is just the shoes when doping continues largely unchecked.

You have never done anything else in this forum than unfounded claims.

When Adidas came out with their Boost foam, they called it Boost because it provided a degree of energy return. Newer foams do it better. It's not just cushioning. Certainly carbon fiber plates and rods provided much more energy return, but your statement above about foam not changing mechanics and just reduce pounding is incorrect.

Flip side. If your only concern is super shoes, life's probably pretty good.

The shoes do provide an advantage to everyone that uses them. You know this.

I don't think anyone is saying it's just the shoes. At the world class level it's certainly a combination of the shoes and doping.

At the lower levels, high school etc., it's mainly the shoes.

You can see the shoe's impact in high school by comparing the improvement in track times vs the lack of improvement in cross country times.

Track times are improving, while cross country times are stagnant. The energy return of the shoes is negated by the soft ground of a cross country course.

Faster tracks also helped lead to world records. The introduction of weightlifting to running/sprinting helped lead to world records. Better clothing helped lead to world records. Understanding nutrition helped lead to world records. Scientific research on training effects and physiology generally helped lead to world records.

Does anyone think less of Jesse Owens because he "only" ran 10.3 in 1936? No, we understand his greatness by evaluating him relative to his competition and to the conditions under which he competed.

One day, Bolt's 9.58 will be beaten - perhaps by a lot. So what? How is that erasing history?

People who make this argument can never muster up an explanation of why the records from THAT era are on equal footing with the ones before it (Jesse Owens and Charlie Paddock, or whatever) while THESE advances are illegitimate.

How is anything today having any effect at all on history? Howard Drew will always be the first Wolds Fastest Human. Jesse Owens will always be the "Buckeye Bullet" Ivory Crockett will always hold the 9.0 100 yard dash record.

Everyone acknowledges that modern tracks are faster than cinders. Everyone recognizes that Jessie Owens, Roger Bannister, Rudolf Harbig and company would have been much faster on a modern track.

When Bannister said that modern tracks were worth about 1 to 2 second a lap people didn't doubt him. 3:58 on cinders converting to 3:50 to 3:54 range on a modern track is reasonable.

The shoe's probably give another second a lap. Taking Bannister down to the 3:46 to 3:50 range. Also reasonable.

The problem is this. Current runners that deny the shoes impact want credit for those 4 seconds of artificial improvement. They want to keep Bannister in the 3:50 to 3:54 range, while giving Cole Hocker credit for 3:48. Maybe it's dumb to be bothered by it.

When synthetic tracks were introduced, it took 5 years for the WR in the mile to improve .1 second. Same goes for the other distance WRs. Artificial tracks, when compared with cinder, are not worth 1 second per lap. Are they faster? Probably.

The shoes are worth ~.5 per lap for longer events. For mile - 1500 probably 1-2 seconds overall for world-class. If you’re a 3:50 miler, more than likely, the shoes can get you under 3:50. Worth more for a 4:00 miler. If you’re a 4:03 runner, shoes will get you under 4. For 10000m between 10-20 seconds depending on runner. This is all based off top 100 averages. For a world-class runner, for example, 10 seconds. Cheptegei is, at best, a 26:22 runner in regular spikes. And I would bet my next paycheck he doesn’t break 26:25.

Other than PEDs, there is nothing out there that has improved times so dramatically, and with no additional effort, than supershoes. Like traveling back in time and telling a 29:00 10000m runner you can instantly improve their time by 20 seconds by doing absolutely nothing other than changing shoes. They would probably question it and think it was cheating.

People will laugh at this, meanwhile shelling out $200+ on supershoes.

I think this is an incredibly lazy take. New shoes are not erasing that people won marathons or medals or even the incredible times they ran. Doping also has not except for the laziest who only look at the record books.

I am not sure that doping or shoes are the reason athletics is not more popular or changes it one bit.

You are categorically wrong on this.

I think you are conflating two things here. Just because there is a lack of knowledge of a bunch of high schoolers does not mean a sport does not value its history and legends. Think back to when you were 16 and go back a comparable number of years to see if high schoolers knew of a great running back from that era.

BS...a "sport" does not forget them but it is incumbent on fans to read and learn. My 18 year old son ran track and XC in HS and knows runners from the past even going back to Paavo Nurmi. Why? Well first I have a lot of books about them lying around and he reads. Then he gets curious and goes on Youtube and finds videos of their races.

Lance was not "just following orders". He was seeking out any way to make himself better because he cared more about winning and being rich than about the morals of the sport.

A big part of the whole Lance mess was his scorched earth approach to suing and destroying anyone who accused him of doing exactly what he later admitted he was doing. He sued, and won, courts cases that cost people money and their professional careers.

I think that if he had just doped and not been an a--hole with the suits and such that he would be viewed a little differently.

He also ran a scam foundation that did nothing close to what he claimed it would do. It was a bit of sportwashing.

Marion could have said "no".

I don't think that is evidence of any such thing. How many ran in "super shoes"? Seems like a great weather day and BQ friendly course are more critical for almost all of them.