Another giver of +1 wrote:
From Breaking2, less aerodynamic drag with that heel shape.
Seriously? Versus the extra foam weight (not much) and cost? I thought it may have something to do with stabilization of the heal or possibly (but not publicly admitted) more foam to store strain energy (from the straightening of the composite plate during the gait cycle).
Chris in the past has raced in ON singlets with much larger and more noticeable logos on it. They know it's a thing, not sure what the thinking was today though, it really was a horrible singlet.
I liked it.
I’ll agree that he ON uniform was hideous. Poor choice.
Like them or not On are doing a great job of expanding their company and doing well. Here in the UK 5 years ago they were a rare sight. Now almost every bricks and mortar or online running stores sell On. They must be doing ok too as you never see them heavily reduced. They know their market and they look different, it's not just yet another foam shoe. The fact they are supporting Chris after he was let go by Nike and then Puma is a good thing. I have no doubt that they will only get bigger.
They will have a number of Olympians in Tokyo, not bad for such a young company. Good for them.
I wouldn't go anywhere near On shoes but I know a lot of people at my club who like them. They're supposed to be really comfortable so people where them as a lifestyle shoe. I like On apparel, it's minimalist but for their elites, they might want some more prominent logos, and as we saw with Thommo's vest, a silver logo on a grey background is pretty dumb.
What happened to all the hype man ‘Tom Evans’ did he drop out or not start? I expected him to figure highly and at least place top 5 and run sub 2.15!
I saw he posted a photo from the hospital on his Instagram, but have no idea what happened to him.
Old men bitter because athletes today have better shoes.
lol
You think I'm bitter because I have to pay over $240 in order to get the best racing shoe?
You think I'm bitter because on top of having to pay $240, it has to go to the Darth Vader of running?
You think I'm bitter because, as Burnsy said, Nike basically gave them the blueprint two or three years ago, and we still await for the competitors to step up? (Maybe the Adidas shoe is comparable, but the wear-through of the rods was being reported; makes sense with the more uneven distribution of load they present versus a plate.)
No, you think I'm 'bitter' because I'm 'old'.
Correct. You’re bitter because you’re old and life has passed you by. Are you competing for an Olympic team? If not than you don’t need care about $240
shoes.
Perhaps take up Paganism if technologically and progress frighten you.
Try to at least have an intelligent conversation. Trolling is just a waste of my time.
All you’re doing is trolling because advances in shoe technology make you feel inadequate.
If there is only one point I want to emphasize out of the shoe discussion, it is this:
Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:
Regarding the shoes, I would like them to support Burnsy's view on shoe regulations, which is: STACK HEIGHT regulation ONLY.
If you one is a little short on intelligence and engineering acumen, or they work for and/or have a vested interest in NIKE, then they would not support this position. Otherwise, supporting that position is the best for ALL parties (competitor companies and runners purchasing shoes) involved.
Open the gates and let the innovation happen, rather than restricting the technology to forcing the competitors to have to skittle around the NIKE patents.
Anyone in the UK want to give insight into why there is such a lack of top level talent and/or depth in British marathoning on both genders?
Callum Hawkins is quite a big talent I’d argue.
Does the USA really have more depth? Aside from Rupp really, aren’t they all quite similar?
UK is a smaller country than the US. Really, the UK punches above its weight - until the Marathon Project in December 20202, the UK had more men under 2:10 than the US. We occasionally get exceptional talents like Radcliffe, Farah, Bedford, Jones, Hill, etc so UK athletics has to nurture those talents. If you compare the UK to other similar sized countries then the record is actually very good - how many French, German, or Italian marathon stars can you name off the top of your head?
A more general problem is the dominance of football in the UK. If you have any reasonable athletic ability, you're almost automatically funnelled into football rather than athletics. Most schools don't have an athletics team but all have a football team. The talent is siphoned off. It's a bigger problem for the sprints. Any young kid who can sprint will be pushed into playing on the wing or up front in the football team and why wouldn't you? The rewards for being even a second rate footballer are substantially more than a top sprinter will earn
runderun wrote:
trollism wrote:
I think they can select Purdue and Piasecki but they like to do everything they can not to select marathon runners so I bet they'll only pick Purdue (fitness proven of course)
British selectors can be weird but they'd be crazy to leave a 2:25 runner at home if they don't have to
The first woman I looked for at the start was Partridge. Does anybody know why she wasn't running? Was she not invited? Injured?
She started but dropped out between 35 and 40km. She looked upset talking to Thommo afterwards. She seems quite fragile over the marathon. I think she's in that a bit unfortunate positive n where her best event is HM