Why did we just listen to Nick Willis’s assumption on the benefit of the spikes? He literally just pulled a second per 200 out of his azz. Can we please get some real data before we start calculating how much the shoe helped? Your assumptions mean nothing when the parameters used are assumptions themselves.
How in the hell did Kieran Tuntivate, a guy with a 13:57 pb, just run 27:17?
Pro News/Info/Results
Distance
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Americans born here who compete for the US are natives. His parent(s) moved here and gave birth to him but he competes for his "native" land. The US Olympic Committee requires an athlete to be a national of the country for which they compete. US military members live overseas and give birth while being there. Do you consider GI Joe's child who is born in Germany and lives their first 3 years there? Is Grant Fisher a native Canadian in your eyes?
-
DuffMan wrote:
kanga shoe wrote:
The shoes
I was resisting this but now I'm starting to wonder. And not just because of this guy. He could be totally legit for all I know but ALL these crazy times all of a sudden?
Look, the dude BALLED OUT. But the problem is a lot of people don't understand the massive divide between 27:17 and say 27:45. They just think it's fast as hell but one second per lap is a massive gap.
A 3:30 1500 runner is a medal threat. A 3:34 runner is a final filler on a good day.
The problem is humans have a problem understanding small but signficiant changes. We could envision maybe one of these guys doing something sick at 10k, so we try to come up with an explanation that doesn't credit the shoes. But when 4-5 people in seemingly in ever race at every meet this winter running A++++++ races, then we need to think what do they have in common?
The shoes.
Even I was somehow denying it. Why? I don't know. We had a leading shoe expert predict this very stuff to us on our podcast a few month ago. We didn't really reallize what that prediction meant until it became reality.
It's not just Tuntivate. Ben True at age 35 after being a pro for 10+ years just ran a 26+ second pb. Is all of that the shoes? I'm not willing to say that. Is half of it? Almost certainly.
Stats people think of it this way.
Let's say at the beginning of the year, I said to you. What do you think the odds of the following happening this year are?
Two Oregon guys will run 3:50 in the mile
Kieran Tuntivate will run 27:17
Hobbs Kessler will run 3:57
Ben True will run 27:14
Would you have given a greater than 1 in 50 chance of any of those things happening? Well the odds of them all happening would then be 1 in 6,250,000. Maybe you'll say Tuntivate and True ran in the same race - take that out. Ok, well the odds of all three are 1 in 125,000.
Now I'm sure some higher level math guy is going to complain I'm not doing probablity right. As I self selected these events after the fact. Yes, I plead guilty. But I'm trying to get people to understand 1-2% differences.
Now I understand why so many global warming scientists are pulling the hair our of their head. -
trackislife12 wrote:
Why did we just listen to Nick Willis’s assumption on the benefit of the spikes? He literally just pulled a second per 200 out of his azz. Can we please get some real data before we start calculating how much the shoe helped? Your assumptions mean nothing when the parameters used are assumptions themselves.
He said 2 seconds in a 1200 which is 1 second per 600.
But your post is the PERFECT example about why I've been ranting about the shoes for the last few years. The real data doesn't exist. People think I overplay the shoe talk but the more I think about it I underplay it.
I'm advising an athlete right now who is hoping to run in the Olympic marathon. I'm having to buy him $300 shoes from a bunch of companies to test them out (or get them to comp them).
Also, it's very hard to test spikes out. Much harder than regular shoes on a treadmill.
Geoff Burns thinks Willis is in the right ballpark. He's a scientist with a PHD.
Here's what he texted me.
Burns wrote:
"That being said, from my rough mechanical estimates, observations, and thoughts from other athletes, ~2.5-3 sec in a high level mile/1500 might be a good average guess. But again, different guys/gals will see different benefits"
But Nick Willis is a master of pace. He's extremely knowledgeable so I think going with his observation isn't a bad way to do it.
And then if you add 1 seond per 600 to every time, does it make more since? Yes it does. Ben True, instead of running 27:14 runs 27:30. Still a big PB but not something crazy. The Oregon guys still run really well but 353-4. Kessler runs 4:00, etc. -
You didn't want to say it out loud because then people call you a HATER
Combine the shoes with the very real possibility that COVID or a COVID quarantine could derail your season, and athletes are going for it every time they step on the line. No time for many rust-busters. -
I would consider this all good for track and field. Improved equipment doesn't affect any other sport as much as it seems to affect track and field. No one questions when a new tennis racquet comes along. No one questions when better golf clubs come along. Only deflated footballs and footwear seem to be an issue for track guys. Let it go, just as track surfaces have helped improve times from running on the old cider tracks, so now shoes help improve times. Big deal. Enjoy the moment as much as the guys and gals that ran some fantastic times during a really down time in this world of ours. I applaud the results and give a huge thumbs up for all these athletes who have managed to continue training and competing when a lot of the country is shut down.
-
I’m not gonna say it.
-
kanga shoe wrote:
The shoes
It’s either that or the other thing that they won’t let you say on letsrun because it’s true -
Tennis's switch from small wood to large composite rackets changed the game but there wasn't a big deal made of it because its entertainment. Maybe there's resistance to technology enhancements in running because it's seen as pure like swimming. This won't last long.
-
Ben true ran a 13:02 5k. Him running a 27:17 10k isn’t some remotely shocking event. It is exactly what you would expect. Dude was just never in a fast race before.
My bet is the shoes are worth 1-2s/mile. That is a noticeable amount but not too crazy. We will have to see what happens this summer when we hopefully have tons of guys trying to run fast. If every 332 guy is running 328, I am willing to change my estimates... -
rojo wrote:
So there was zero chance Tuntivate was going to run sub 27. Maybe scott.
Tuntivate went 1446, 1431.
Still drinking in the morning? -
Tuntivate ran at a Nike sponsored track program, Harvard. He’s been wearing super shoes for years. This is not a sufficient explanation of his 10k PR.
-
tyler herro haircut wrote:
Tuntivate ran at a Nike sponsored track program, Harvard. He’s been wearing super shoes for years. This is not a sufficient explanation of his 10k PR.
Harvard was a New Balance school until recently, Tuntivate's senior year they swithced to the swoosh. You remember that year, the NCAA northeast regional was a road race and the Nike schools won the thing for both genders. I think Cornell was fifth in the conference and won, while the Hep's champion team Columbia was stuck in the NB shoes and couldn't keep up. Nothing to see here folks, shoes make no difference. -
sdddddddddd wrote:
Ben true ran a 13:02 5k. Him running a 27:17 10k isn’t some remotely shocking event. It is exactly what you would expect. Dude was just never in a fast race before.
Some previous Ben True 10ks:
2012 - 8th at Payton Jordan in 27:41 (winning time 27:27); 12th at the Olympic trials in 28:08 (winning time 27:25).
2015 - 2nd at Payton Jordan in 27:43, 1” behind Andy Vernon; 2nd at USAs in 28:14, 3” behind Rupp
2019 - 1st at Payton Jordan in 27:52 (4” ahead of Marc Scott in 2nd)
I was actually surprised he’d had that much success at the distance. Looks like you’re right in thinking he could have previously gone faster in a faster race, but 27:14, especially at 35 and perhaps a few years past his peak, is inarguably surprising.
(Less surprising in the context of Kieran Tuntivate...) -
rojo wrote:
It's not just Tuntivate. Ben True at age 35 after being a pro for 10+ years just ran a 26+ second pb. Is all of that the shoes? I'm not willing to say that. Is half of it? Almost certainly.
100% speculation. Disgusting -
Shoes are definitely A Factor that is worth discussing with this many fast times. In this race, I think another factor is that the Olympic standard was moved up from 27:45 in 2016 to 27:28. In previous years, races like Payton Jordan had a pacer for the Olympic standard, the field followed the, and the winner ran a negative split to finish ~15 seconds under the standard. The same thing happened here. Again, I’m not saying the shoes didn’t help, but I don’t think Jerry Schumacher would have had the pacers going as fast as they were if the Olympic standard had stayed the same.
-
CowboyBob wrote:
I would consider this all good for track and field. Improved equipment doesn't affect any other sport as much as it seems to affect track and field. No one questions when a new tennis racquet comes along. No one questions when better golf clubs come along. Only deflated footballs and footwear seem to be an issue for track guys. Let it go, just as track surfaces have helped improve times from running on the old cider tracks, so now shoes help improve times. Big deal. Enjoy the moment as much as the guys and gals that ran some fantastic times during a really down time in this world of ours. I applaud the results and give a huge thumbs up for all these athletes who have managed to continue training and competing when a lot of the country is shut down.
One can't 'enjoy the moment' of fantastic runs unless there's a reliable frame of reference, can they? Especially for those who don't follow T&F closely.
Bolt is not the most famous track athlete in the last 50 years because he won the big races. It's because he won the big races with the fastest times ever.
Historical time comparisons are an important way to keep people interested in a sport. Without meaningful comparisons, track will become even less popular than it is now.
Also, you're way off base about whether equipment advances are controversial for fans and competitors in golf, tennis and other sports; they have always been so. -
Just wait until the E. Africans start running even more insanely fast times than they already have....
T
H
E
S
H
O
E
S
!
!
! -
michiganrunner55 wrote:
Rojo in 2 years Fisher will be in Galen Rupp territory. With more even pacing tonight 27 flat could have been possible
What does this post even mean? Fisher will not be getting a silver medal in the Olympics. IF you mean Fisher will be running similar times to Galen, that is possible but with the shoes that does not mean he is quite the same caliber. I do believe that Fisher could be a similar caliber at 5000m one day because Galen was not a great 5000m runner. -
Ron Clarke ran ... 27:39.89 and 13:16.6 on DIRT in 1965
