Shoes erasing the sport’s history…sad

Carbon plate and other changes. Where have you been?

you really lost the scintilla of credibility you had with this question.

Data certainly shows that for many runners (not all for whatever reason) there is an improvement in running economy which is a key variable in endurance performance. A 4% improvement in running economy translates into about a 1-2% improvement in performance.

On a more practical level, the fact that every record is being broken by people wearing super shoes is certainly circumstantial evidence.

I do not think anyone is claiming they improve stride length. The evidence seems pretty strong that these shoes reduce the oxygen cost of running and that is a big factor in endurance performance.

It makes me think of when the cycling hour record was getting smashed with new more aerodynamic bikes and "superman" positions. The UCI thought the records were becoming a technology arms race (the US built amazing track pursuit bikes for the 1996 Games--sadly the cyclists were not trained well enough to take advantage of them at the Games themselves) so it created new rules that limited the technology to put the human power more at the forefront.

Sure - so, the shoes are a huge advantage. But why not?

To me, that's what your post is really getting at: the deeper question of whether and why there's some point at which we should consider the event to be "different events" for all practical purposes at different points in time. If we ran in mecha-suits that propelled everyone to sub-5 second 100 meter times, we'd probably say that's just a different event ---- and, I suspect, not just because there's an additional element involved with getting down the track; the huge difference in times would play a part in our prescriptive conceptualizing of same/different event.

But also think of something like American football. In the last few decades, the rules - both on paper and how they are enforced - have been changed considerably to facilitate greater passing. The ball is shaped differently than it once was for the same reason. Padding has changed, tackling has changed. Different rules, different equipment, different universes for statistics - and yet we think of Don Hutson as playing the same position as Tyreek Hill.* Would Hutson think it "cheating" that he had to beat guys who could essentially hold him off the line, while Tyreek does not have that problem? Maybe. But we still think of it as the same sport, and we think of Hutson as great relative to the era.

It's a good question, IMO, and I was overly dismissive earlier. To me, the degree of performances are similar enough that I don't think of this as "history erasing."

* Hutson allegedly ran 9.7 in the 100-yard dash as a freshman college without any practice. What's that work out to? Ivory Crockett did 9.0ht, and ran 10.1ht in the 100m a few years earlier, presumably before his peak. 100 yards = 91.44 meters, or you need to run an additional 8.56 meters to run 100 meters. By my math and estimates, with a normal finish, that's another 0.82-0.83, so.....10.5ish in the 100 meters, in 1931-1932, the world record was 10.3ht (around 0.2 ahead of Hutson), while the 100 yard record was 9.4 (around 0.3 ahead of Hutson).

Tyreek Hill's best 100 meter time is 10.19 FAT, or 0.61 off the current world record.

Relatively speaking, Hutson was much closer to world elite class speed than Hill is today. Imagine being a defensive back in 1940 and Hutson gets a sliver of space to run. Ouch.

I sound like Deno/Brutal now.

Stats are secondary for me. I want to see great competition. The stats are something that I look at between those competitions.

This is debatable if they work for everyone and we know that the improvement for those is not the same either.

FWIW, and more to the point - as a sprinter using the Nike Maxflys, I PR'd in the 100 meters in 2022 at age 37.

There was a whole lot else going on, but the shoes were definitely an advantage. Probably at least 0.10 over the course of the 100m, perhaps 0.15.

The same could be said for the switch to a tartan track. People have different mechanics. Different surfaces will benefit individuals differently.

Nobody said the advantage was uniform across all runners.

He hadn't lost any credibility here - the last rest of credibility for him was lost long long before.

They don't. Some using them haven't improved on their best. Not even the best runners are using them - Kipchoge didn't use them in his last marathon.

"Carbon plate" is a marketing mantra that you have all fallen for - hook, line and sinker. They could just as easily say they have filled the foam with helium capsules, to increase "elevation", and you would buy it without further proof. But filling the shoe with an athlete on drugs works much better.

It isn't uniform because some runners dope more than others.

I do conclude that as I think any doping going on has been going on all along. Do you think it has increased the past couple of years?

How does a shoe "reduce oxygen cost"? It isn't part of the human body. How does it do so in ways its predecessors apparently didn't?

If a shoe "reduces oxygen cost" - that's merely a pseudo-scientific way of saying they make running easier. Beyond comfort and support, how do they do that? Also, if they make the act of running easier - which means an athlete tires less - then that means a runner can increase stride length and/or cadence for the same given level of effort as without the new shoes. So where is the proof they do that? Ultimately, the claim they "reduce oxygen cost" is analogous to blood doping. So that's what they do?

I do. It is a virtual necessity at the top. It has increased over the last fifty or so years, and it has become an industry that changes and modernizes faster and in more sophisticated ways than what shoe manufacturers can achieve. Drugs are the true cutting edge of sport. Gene doping is next.

The "4%" claim comes from those marketing the shoes. Maybe they do offer those gains, maybe they don't. I also understand it was in respect of an earlier brand - the Vaporfly.

Yes - the shoes are circumstantial evidence but what is also evidence is that there is a considerable investment in doping by athletes world-wide. It means calculating the effect of the shoes is confounded by another factor that will have an effect on performance, but it is a factor that is invisible - and largely undetectable - and can't be directly measured.

I would say the shoes may have contributed to recent performance gains, but given it doesn't seem to be for all, and shoes are not revolutionary equipment in the sport, I still think the constant evolution in performance enhancing drugs is by far the bigger factor.

I am questioning your assumption that the claimed improvements in times (how different was this from previous years?) were achieved solely (sorry about the pun) by the shoes. There are other factors that could explain it - of which doping is one, but also conditions on the day.

i am late to this conversation and have not read the whole thread. that said, i'm sorry to see this point get hammered so badly because I believe it's essentially true.

until these springs showed up in the shoes, they hadn't changed that much since the late 1970s. i think most old-timers would concur. there was a big jump in materials and technology from the mid-to-late 70s that made it possible for more people to enjoy running, and also run more miles without getting hurt. that was about when i started HS.

by the time i got to college in 83, shoes had become pretty much what they were until 5 years ago. materials, design, feel...i just have never felt a whole lot of difference- certainly nothing that would change my PRs. certainly there was an improvement, but they just weren't that different out of the box: weight, flexibility, performance, midsole durability all similar...certainly from the mid-80s (at latest) till the mid teens.

the shoe springs have changed the meaning of times these people run today. I probably wouldn't want to hear either if i was in my prime, but the change since these things went mainstream is mind-boggling.