Ryan Hall Deletes his faceBook rant against "ProtoType Nike Shoes "

You’re a nerdddddddd

Can you elaborate?

World Traveler wrote:

Deletes it today , after Sara runs in new "uninspiring" cushioned shoes.

glad you caught this. Join the cheater Fly club and u too can get a PR

It's completely ridiculous for runners to be complaining about faster shoes made with better foam.

You have to be mentally unstable to think this is cheating.

weirdos wrote:

It's completely ridiculous for runners to be complaining about faster shoes made with better foam.

You have to be mentally unstable to think this is cheating.

it was cheating when it was hidden or when there was not an equal playing field.

mouse wrote:

weirdos wrote:

It's completely ridiculous for runners to be complaining about faster shoes made with better foam.

You have to be mentally unstable to think this is cheating.

it was cheating when it was hidden or when there was not an equal playing field.

it is not cheating when companies can't make gear as well as others. when this all erupted last year, nike had been making this type of shoe for 3+ years, and the others still couldn't figure it out.

that is not on nike.

high school xc coach wrote:

mouse wrote:

it was cheating when it was hidden or when there was not an equal playing field.

it is not cheating when companies can't make gear as well as others. when this all erupted last year, nike had been making this type of shoe for 3+ years, and the others still couldn't figure it out.

that is not on nike.

And Des Linden wore a Brooks version to win Boston in 2018.

OK Boomer

And Des Linden wore a Brooks version to win Boston in 2018.[/quote]

you cannot seriously be implying that THAT is why she won in THAT specific race?

Ryan has reason to be upset. Every shoe innovation that occurs that adds X% to a runners speed pushes his marathon times further into "slow" territory.

mouse wrote:

weirdos wrote:

It's completely ridiculous for runners to be complaining about faster shoes made with better foam.

You have to be mentally unstable to think this is cheating.

it was cheating when it was hidden or when there was not an equal playing field.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.

Nike came out with a secret shoe, camouflaged it to look like old shoes, and only gave it to select pros. Cheating may be too strong for some but certainly against the spirit of the sport. Th eproblem was most shoes were probably technically in violation of the shoe rule.

"Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet. The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage. "

Why do you think Ryan deleted his facebook rant against mechanically-advantaged shoes at this time?

You either die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain.

just asking questions wrote:

Why do you think Ryan deleted his facebook rant against mechanically-advantaged shoes at this time?

Someone in a different thread said that it's not deleted and still there. I can't check for you because I'm not on facebook.

rojo wrote:

mouse wrote:

it was cheating when it was hidden or when there was not an equal playing field.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.

Nike came out with a secret shoe, camouflaged it to look like old shoes, and only gave it to select pros. Cheating may be too strong for some but certainly against the spirit of the sport. Th eproblem was most shoes were probably technically in violation of the shoe rule.

"Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet. The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage. "

https://twitter.com/glencottingley/status/1218153060100464640

rojo, how the heck does better foam and energy return in a shoe go against the spirit of the sport?

Isn't that and comfort over 26 miles exactly what we need in a shoe? It's not like they are artificially giving you more energy, like these new E bikes that have an electric motor. These new shoes are designed to reduce energy dissipation. All the best shoes I ever ran in were aiming at this factor.

check again? wrote:

just asking questions wrote:

Why do you think Ryan deleted his facebook rant against mechanically-advantaged shoes at this time?

Someone in a different thread said that it's not deleted and still there. I can't check for you because I'm not on facebook.

This basis of this thread is fake news, it's on IG

Looking at the comments that post has garnered, IGers are even stupider than LRCers. I would have deleted it if I kept getting notification of idiotic comments from mouthbreathers.

Gentleman Savage wrote:

Looking at the comments that post has garnered, IGers are even stupider than LRCers. I would have deleted it if I kept getting notification of idiotic comments from mouthbreathers.

After taking a stance on certain types of shoes, Ryan's wife had the race of her life in very similar shoes. It may be mouth-breath-y to ask ryan to reflect on his prior comments, but I'm certainly interested in his answer.

Whats the issue with sponsored athletes having access to prototype gear that is unique and special that sponsor?

Do you think ANY other sport (from cycling to baseball and anything in-between) the top-end athletes are using off the shelf gear? No way... it's all prototype or R&D or at least heavily customized for them.

That is the nature of athlete/sponsors. Said sponsors use their top athletes to R&D gear. Where better to get feedback on alpha versions than in races (or on the field).

Just because athlete A can get sponsored by Nike but athlete B can't doesn't mean it's "unfair" for athlete B. Work harder or find another sponsor.If athletes don't get results they get dropped. Those at a very elite level or at "legend" status can write their own tickets (i.e. Jordan, Tiger, Eliud, Schumacher). Thats how it works.

Nike out innovated everyone. Literally caught the entire industry flatfooted (no pun intended) and even almost 5 years later the industry is BARELY caught up, some better than others. Not Nike's fault, at all. Nike is just an easy target. I guarantee if Adidas has developed the OG 4% most of the complaining would have bene gone.

If anything, 5 years later, small companies like Atreyu are showing that it's not THAT hard to develop an amazing super shoe in a fully transparent and direct way.

---

The Halls

Now... to the Hall's. Ryan was a great marathoner... was is the keyword. Now he is no better than a keyboard warrior complaining to keep himself relevant (sorta like how LRC see Kara G). His ideas and opinions don't matter.

As for Sara... She too was whining about "unfair" super shoes... now she has one no one else has so it's totally fine. That gave her a great PR and an insane kick at the end (which also seems fishy TBH) so she is good. Sadly in her case no one really wants a Asics "super shoe"...very few will be excited. it's even more boring that Brook's super shoe. Literally no elite will care. Hobbyjoggers might.

Look at elite marathon fields... 80-90% is still Nike, 5-10% is Adidas...the rest is one or two poor saps in NB, On, Saucony, Hoka...whatever...or still blacked out Next%s...

In none elite fields still... 60-70% is in Nike, especially at the sharp end... the rest of a mix of whatever, even more so at the slower end. That says a lot about what works...what is good... and what people are spending money on.

---

Records and shoes

Lastly... I like running in simple "classic" and low profile shoes. Not the barefoot thing... but Nike Streaks, Takuma Sens, even Bostons. I actually even found Asics Metaracer really cool (carbon plate aside).

I'd love to see "classic" racing... done in low stack "classic" marathon shoes. I think it wold be very interesting. However, three problems with it.

1). Supershoes are here. That cat is out of the bag and it's not going to change. Plus where do you "draw the line" in what is a "classic" shoe? 1900? 1920s? 1950s? 1970s? 2002? It's totally arbitrary.

2). No elite, sub-elite, or even top age-grouper is going to race in non-supershoes in 2020/21. Regardless os the debate on energy return of the foam/plate combo... the thing all super shoes do is save the feet and legs over a long distance. Elite's are all about maximizing recovery and none of them will ever race in "classic" shoes on hard surfaces. It will never happen again. Even if the elite runners shift back to low stack shoes it will be with advanced foams and some type of plate/foam sandwich to give the benefits of the current super shoes within a low-stack. Again, I think the Asics metaracer or the On Cloudboom (also the Nike low-stack Vaporfly 5-10k racer prototype seen around the web) seen may be a bit ahead of their time. I also think the Alphafly has show the end of extreme stack... the next 2-5 years in marathon race shoes is going to be interesting.

3). Running, at the professional level, is already a small sport (track + road) when compared to team sports or even things like CrossFit. The sport doesn't need arbitrary distinctions between "classic" and "modern".

Your post is Triple U: unfunny, uninspired, and unreadable.