There are forever people complaining on this forum "Oh, the cheaterflies are ruining the sport! I'm not watching it anymore!" Let me tell you why that's just being silly:
A) Many, many athletes of the past were very likely drugs cheats who got away with it. Runners who set world records when they're 20 and then had little success after that *Cough*Komen*Cough* clearly were doping in their younger years and stopped due to fear of getting caught/long-term health impact and then never achieved much after that because they reverted to the standard they would've been without the drugs. We still unfortunately have records like the 1500 and mile which were almost certainly not clean so seeing these records wiped from history is a very positive thing for the sport.
B) Seeing records broken makes the sport more exciting and entertaining. If we never had advancements in technology we'd end up at a point where many records are untouchable times set decades earlier and it would make the sport less enjoyable to watch. Who doesn't enjoy stuff like Cheptegei's WR attempts a few months back?
C) Runners have ALWAYS benefitted from technology. Do you think the athletes from the 1950's had all the same access to quality trainers/ facilites etc. as athletes from the 80's and and 90's? Of course not!
D) Just because someone today runs a faster time than someone from the 70's or 80's in no way implies that the modern athlete is 'better'. Obviously running a 2:10 marathon in the 80's was much more impressive than achieving the same thing today. It's not 'ruining' the sport just because someone you watched as a kid is sliding down the all-time list.
E) It's not as though the technologies aren't available to anyone. Sure, the elites get 'early-access' but anyone can now purchase a pair of VaporFly's and Alphafly's. Yes, these things do cost money, but so does everything that will make you a better runner. Eating a balanced diet? Costs money. Getting a massage? Costs money. Visiting a phsyio? Costs money. Travelling to group training sessions as opposed to training alone around your house? Costs money.
It's silly to complain about 'super-shoes'
Report Thread
-
-
Don’t agree.
The shoes are a joke. Soon making all historical times and context meaningless. And that’s a pity.
I share all the concerns about what is happening..... -
non-british guy wrote:
Don’t agree.
The shoes are a joke. Soon making all historical times and context meaningless. And that’s a pity.
I share all the concerns about what is happening.....
I have to disagree. Historical times will never become 'meaningless'. Roger Bannister will forever be the first sub-4 miler. Seb Coe will forever be one of the greatest 800 runners of all-time. Haile Gebrelassie will forever be one of the all-round greatest distance runners of all time. I fail to see how people beating their old times changes their legacies. -
British Guy wrote:
D) Just because someone today runs a faster time than someone from the 70's or 80's in no way implies that the modern athlete is 'better'. Obviously running a 2:10 marathon in the 80's was much more impressive than achieving the same thing today. It's not 'ruining' the sport just because someone you watched as a kid is sliding down the all-time list.
"In no way implies"? Come on now. It at least in one way implies that the athlete is better.
Or you could take the pedantic stance that there is no implying needed because faster times are better times.
Sports evolve just like everything else. Athletes do get better. Sometimes they are also aided by new technology. A faster time is a better time. Get over it. -
I can't afford vaporflies, personally. Of course none of us earn a living from running so it doesn't really matter, but it would be nice to have the best shoes available. The UK prices are outrageous.
-
I don't think it's silly, I think the shoes are ridiculous. We may as well just all strap pogo sticks to our feet.
-
Yes. Plus certain swimsuits, golf clubs, bicycle technologies etc are all banned. For god reason.
It's a shame Rupp is aging and wasting time marathoning. I'd love to see him strap up and run a 3:4x or a 7:2x
Think he's too old for that sadly, even with the shoes. -
OK but there is a HUGE difference between complaining and observing. One may observe the difference made by the shoes without complaining. Some of us who are smarter may observe without feeling the sport is being ruined. It may be noted that the shoes are altering the value of a given time without necessarily detracting from its meaning within a certain context. You are correct that if one accepts PEDs have not ruined the sport then the shoes do not necessarily ruin it either. These are simply factors in analyzing performances. The weather is also. There are many other factors.
-
One of the best posts on this forum, but sadly it will get a lot of hate because this place is full of idiots.
-
On point E - clearly not all athletes on other sponsorship deals can run in Nike or NB shoes. Playing field is not level. Moreover, we are de-facto now observing the combination of human+shoes (given that some people are super-responders, etc.). Running has turned into Formula 1. When I see a race, i want to know that the winnner would have won the race even if he would have run in the shoes worn by Nr 2. Integrity of performance is the issue
-
my two pennies wrote:
One of the best posts on this forum, but sadly it will get a lot of hate because this place is full of idiots.
We're likely to have posers in fancy shoes erasing legends from the history books.
Spikes especially have not changed significantly in decades nor have tracks. Running performance had been largely comparable over a long period of time.
Now we've bifurcated everything. At a minimum we should do as javelin does and keep the old records separate. -
Irishguy3 wrote:
On point E - clearly not all athletes on other sponsorship deals can run in Nike or NB shoes. Playing field is not level. Moreover, we are de-facto now observing the combination of human+shoes (given that some people are super-responders, etc.). Running has turned into Formula 1. When I see a race, i want to know that the winnner would have won the race even if he would have run in the shoes worn by Nr 2. Integrity of performance is the issue
This is a fair point but it's only a problem in a very specific scenario - two runners of very similar ability racing each other while one is sponsored by a company that has superspikes while the other is sponsored by a company yet to develop them.
I agree this is a bad thing, but it's a VERY specific and temporary problem too as it wont be long until all elites have access to super spikes. Additionally, simply gaining access to them a year or two later isn't exactly going to ruin an athlete's career. It may, in the absolute worst case scenario, cost them a position in a race, but they won't spend very long with such a disadvantage and will end up with access to that same technology pretty soon. -
This is why I’ve been advocating a return to cinder tracks and wool jerseys.
-
fynnhyvbnki wrote:
my two pennies wrote:
One of the best posts on this forum, but sadly it will get a lot of hate because this place is full of idiots.
We're likely to have posers in fancy shoes erasing legends from the history books.
Spikes especially have not changed significantly in decades nor have tracks. Running performance had been largely comparable over a long period of time.
Now we've bifurcated everything. At a minimum we should do as javelin does and keep the old records separate.
Why are people 'erased from the record books'? You can easily find in countless places a list of all former world records. They are forever engraved in history. I fail to see what's the difference between listing something as a 'former world record' or listing it as an 'alternative world record'. They're essentially the same thing. -
elvid32 wrote:
British Guy wrote:
D) Just because someone today runs a faster time than someone from the 70's or 80's in no way implies that the modern athlete is 'better'. Obviously running a 2:10 marathon in the 80's was much more impressive than achieving the same thing today. It's not 'ruining' the sport just because someone you watched as a kid is sliding down the all-time list.
"In no way implies"? Come on now. It at least in one way implies that the athlete is better.
Or you could take the pedantic stance that there is no implying needed because faster times are better times.
Sports evolve just like everything else. Athletes do get better. Sometimes they are also aided by new technology. A faster time is a better time. Get over it.
The point I was trying to make is that you can't really compare athletes of the past to those of the present. You can't really quantify the advancements in technology. How exactly do you determine the exact amount of time 'saved' by wearing VF's? If I want to beat someone's marathon time that they ran in 1985, how much do I have to ACTUALLY beat them by for my time to be considered 'better'? 3 minutes? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? You can't measure it, and therefore you can't compare at all. It's like trying to compare Ronaldo and Messi to Pele and Maradonna... completely different eras. -
British Guy wrote:
A) Many, many athletes of the past were very likely drugs cheats who got away with it. Runners who set world records when they're 20 and then had little success after that *Cough*Komen*Cough* clearly were doping in their younger years and stopped due to fear of getting caught/long-term health impact and then never achieved much after that because they reverted to the standard they would've been without the drugs. We still unfortunately have records like the 1500 and mile which were almost certainly not clean so seeing these records wiped from history is a very positive thing for the sport.
B) Seeing records broken makes the sport more exciting and entertaining. If we never had advancements in technology we'd end up at a point where many records are untouchable times set decades earlier and it would make the sport less enjoyable to watch. Who doesn't enjoy stuff like Cheptegei's WR attempts a few months back?
C) Runners have ALWAYS benefitted from technology. Do you think the athletes from the 1950's had all the same access to quality trainers/ facilites etc. as athletes from the 80's and and 90's? Of course not!
D) Just because someone today runs a faster time than someone from the 70's or 80's in no way implies that the modern athlete is 'better'. Obviously running a 2:10 marathon in the 80's was much more impressive than achieving the same thing today. It's not 'ruining' the sport just because someone you watched as a kid is sliding down the all-time list.
E) It's not as though the technologies aren't available to anyone. Sure, the elites get 'early-access' but anyone can now purchase a pair of VaporFly's and Alphafly's. Yes, these things do cost money, but so does everything that will make you a better runner. Eating a balanced diet? Costs money. Getting a massage? Costs money. Visiting a phsyio? Costs money. Travelling to group training sessions as opposed to training alone around your house? Costs money.
If I developed a shoe that was 40 feet long and lifted the athlete 10 feet above the ground that could allow the runner to cover 100 meters in 4-5 strides, you would be okay with that? Your A-E above still apply. My guess is no.
I am using an extreme to establish that most rational people understand there are technology limits when it becomes less about human performance and more about technology innovations. This is especially true in a sport that relies so heavily on comparison to performances of the past, that didn't have access to the technology.
I am not trying to indicate that I think the new shoes should/should not be banned. I am tying to say that I think everyone feels there is a limit and advances that seem to provide an overwhelming advantage should be highly scrutinized before readily accepted. There are limits! -
agreed. in part. i think that for the spectator it is frustrating that we have to wade through of ~2 years of hard-to-interpret results before the dust settles. For the athletes - making or not making an olympic team, winning or not winning a olympic medal - that is career-changing. We are def. going to see, and have already seen, national qualifying trials and tournaments where in retrospect we will conclude that some people likely lost out because they couldnt race in the right shoe. which is frustrating. Moreover, it is just annoying that individual athletes get so denialist about the possible impact of the shoes.
-
Guess what, message board clowns? The shoes are NOT going to be banned! EVER! Pandora's box has had the lid ripped off on this, that ship has sailed, the cat is out of the bag, the cow is out of the barn, the toothpaste isn't going back into the tube. WA has set limiting parameters and that is the precedent we'll all be living with going forward. Those parameters could be updated at some point, but there will be no ban. You don't have to like it, but that's life. There is zero dissention within WA about this, nor from any shoe manufacturer sponsor. Nobody who has any power to do anything about this is listening to anyone who has an issue with it. Continue to dwell on it if that's where you want to live, but just know it's pointless and vain.
-
People are getting faster. Stop acting like it's impossible that people today are running faster than people decades ago. There are people running faster times in workouts in non 'super shoes' that would have been world records in the 1950's, let alone running fast times in actual races. There was a report of cheserek running sub 4 mile at the end of a workout, that would have obviously been a world record in Bannister's day. Someone today who runs 13 flat could easily run a 13:30 5k in their regular old trainers like the Nike pegasus, this would have been a world record in the 1960's and this is a far less than ideal shoe for optimal racing.
Population increases mean more people running, and more people running means more of them will be fast. You have more fast people running together the competition is stiffer and the fastest one of the group is faster than previous years. And way more people commit themselves to running now. Back in the day few people actually ran in the off-season so fewer people actually became really fast, now it's the norm. -
We should also go back to pounding plastic bags of coca-cola during marathons. Makes sense to do exactly what they did in the past to truly have a basis of comparison.
