Solution is to have races on surprise courses. So you can't choose a shoe optimized for road,track. For instance.. a race you don't know if it's high tide beach sand, road, etc until race start.
It's silly to complain about 'super-shoes'
Running Shoes/Running Gear
Shoes
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
I am not sure how much of a difference the super spikes make yet, the jury is still out on that, however my fear is that the falling scenarios will develop
2 runners walk into a bar, one competed in the NCAA in 2010, the other in 2020.
The 2010 runner is a 4:07 miler and placed at his conference meet
The 2020 guy ran 4:03 and didn’t score or place at any of his conference level meets
Is the 2020 guy really faster then the 2010?
I hope we don’t get to a point where runners have to adjust their PRs with modern runners. Imagine even being a runner in the NCAA like 3 or 4 years ago, do you now have to say “yeah I ran sub 4 but before the super spikes.” Or you have a better PR but technically my slightly slower time is better then it yours since it was run in non super spikes.
From what I’ve seen they don’t seem to make a crazy crazy difference, I’m hoping the difference is less then 2 percent. I could live with that. But I’d hate to see these things make like a 4 or 5 percent difference and get to the point where a 4:10 talent runs like 4 flat. -
Can create issues on non pro level too wrote:
I am not sure how much of a difference the super spikes make yet, the jury is still out on that, however my fear is that the falling scenarios will develop
2 runners walk into a bar, one competed in the NCAA in 2010, the other in 2020.
The 2010 runner is a 4:07 miler and placed at his conference meet
The 2020 guy ran 4:03 and didn’t score or place at any of his conference level meets
Is the 2020 guy really faster then the 2010?
I hope we don’t get to a point where runners have to adjust their PRs with modern runners. Imagine even being a runner in the NCAA like 3 or 4 years ago, do you now have to say “yeah I ran sub 4 but before the super spikes.” Or you have a better PR but technically my slightly slower time is better then it yours since it was run in non super spikes.
From what I’ve seen they don’t seem to make a crazy crazy difference, I’m hoping the difference is less then 2 percent. I could live with that. But I’d hate to see these things make like a 4 or 5 percent difference and get to the point where a 4:10 talent runs like 4 flat.
PEOPLE ALREADY DO THIS. Every time Jim Ryun gets mentioned, people (correctly) say he could have run faster on modern tracks with modern spikes and modern training. What's wrong with a 4:10 talent running 4:00? It doesn't make any previous 4:00 runners any worse. All it means is people get to run a little faster. Do you think we should all race barefoot out in the woods? If no, then you should not complain about any other technology either, as long as it is safe (the problem with doping). -
Can create issues on non pro level too wrote:
I am not sure how much of a difference the super spikes make yet, the jury is still out on that, however my fear is that the falling scenarios will develop
2 runners walk into a bar, one competed in the NCAA in 2010, the other in 2020.
The 2010 runner is a 4:07 miler and placed at his conference meet
The 2020 guy ran 4:03 and didn’t score or place at any of his conference level meets
Is the 2020 guy really faster then the 2010?
I hope we don’t get to a point where runners have to adjust their PRs with modern runners. Imagine even being a runner in the NCAA like 3 or 4 years ago, do you now have to say “yeah I ran sub 4 but before the super spikes.” Or you have a better PR but technically my slightly slower time is better then it yours since it was run in non super spikes.
From what I’ve seen they don’t seem to make a crazy crazy difference, I’m hoping the difference is less then 2 percent. I could live with that. But I’d hate to see these things make like a 4 or 5 percent difference and get to the point where a 4:10 talent runs like 4 flat.
Why are you afraid of this? Second off your whole conference analogy is crap. A 4:03 miler right now might not score in pac-12, but a 4:07 miler could score in the Patriot league. I’d say the 4:03 guy is better lol -
This isn't about Runner A ran X seconds faster because of the shoes. It's a philosophical debate about whether shoe specifications should be consistent with previous eras or not. Unfortunately, our governing body didn't make that decision for the sport and instead the shoe companies did.
My take is that we're in an phase similar to the MLB's steriod era where something is definitely different, but how much to attribute directly to shoes vs natural improvement (better physio, better biotracking technology, better training, etc) is impossible. You could spend hours debating this, but there will never be a clear answer and we just have to live with the fact that the main implement used to perform the sport has changed. What's aggravating is that it seems like this advancement happened without an upfront decision in 2016 about the ramifications. Again, shoe companies (not the governing bodies of T&F), in the name of innovation, made the decision for everybody and we're left to hash out what it all means.
I'd respect the IAAF more if they came out and said "the importance of comparing times relatively equally across eras is no longer of importance to us, and for that reason we are not going to restrict advancements in shoe technology. Our philosophy is that championships are the measure of performance of peers in the context of their era and existing technology of their time". But instead they passed some reactive legislation that now sides neither with comparing times over the history sport nor unleashes innovation to see how far technology can take it.
Serious question for the board... if they outlawed super shoes tomorrow, would we go back and put an asterisk next to all the times run in them? -
OK so for those of us who have competed at a certain level, we have been drug tested and that became something we got used to. What about the shoes? I never recall anyone inspecting my shoes. Is that done now? Are there shoes that are not permitted?
-
British Guy wrote:
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.
The difference is the shoes use a carbon plate for stored energy from the weight of the runner to spring the athlete forward. The energy is artificial. Should we be ok with allowing motors to assist for bicycle races? If you understand physics well enough, you would know there is no difference.
None of the examples you have given address this. -
otter wrote:
The difference is the shoes use a carbon plate for stored energy from the weight of the runner to spring the athlete forward. The energy is artificial. Should we be ok with allowing motors to assist for bicycle races? If you understand physics well enough, you would know there is no difference.
Thanks Otter. This is what I was trying to imply in my previous post. I think everyone can admit that there has to be a limit to technological assistance at some point. If not, we will end up as you say, using motors or other assistance until it ceases to be actual running. I have no idea if these shoes are coming close or crossing that line but it should be discussed.
Here is an interesting read I saw this morning:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/feb/22/super-spikes-seismic-shift-athletics-track-nike-air-zoom-victory-tokyo-olympics?fbclid=IwAR2tNtnkzF6W0Ap9rw68WuKTX9jsw3iKdC_xcNE51L_YqMySth76MuEFgzo -
Let's get rid of high jump pits and go back to sawdust. That should get people to stop using that new-fangled fosbury flop!
Starting blocks too! How can Jesse Owens compete anymore?
Carbon fiber and fiberglass vaulting poles.....gone!
I mean, we're talking about the purity of the sport! -
Dairyland wrote:
Can create issues on non pro level too wrote:
I am not sure how much of a difference the super spikes make yet, the jury is still out on that, however my fear is that the falling scenarios will develop
2 runners walk into a bar, one competed in the NCAA in 2010, the other in 2020.
The 2010 runner is a 4:07 miler and placed at his conference meet
The 2020 guy ran 4:03 and didn’t score or place at any of his conference level meets
Is the 2020 guy really faster then the 2010?
I hope we don’t get to a point where runners have to adjust their PRs with modern runners. Imagine even being a runner in the NCAA like 3 or 4 years ago, do you now have to say “yeah I ran sub 4 but before the super spikes.” Or you have a better PR but technically my slightly slower time is better then it yours since it was run in non super spikes.
From what I’ve seen they don’t seem to make a crazy crazy difference, I’m hoping the difference is less then 2 percent. I could live with that. But I’d hate to see these things make like a 4 or 5 percent difference and get to the point where a 4:10 talent runs like 4 flat.
Why are you afraid of this? Second off your whole conference analogy is crap. A 4:03 miler right now might not score in pac-12, but a 4:07 miler could score in the Patriot league. I’d say the 4:03 guy is better lol
Exactly, technology should be handicapped all in the name of settling fantasy dick measuring scenarios? Those two guys would probably just talk about more interesting things, by that point at least one of them would be mellow enough to not be worried about "who was faster?" These are the fears of a 4:50 miler. -
otter wrote:
The difference is the shoes use a carbon plate for stored energy from the weight of the runner to spring the athlete forward. The energy is artificial. Should we be ok with allowing motors to assist for bicycle races? If you understand physics well enough, you would know there is no difference.
None of the examples you have given address this.
That's - that's not at all how the supershoe plates work. Do some research, and then try and say that with a straight face. Even if it was how that worked, that energy isn't any more artificial than the energy returned by foam, which by your logic should be banned? -
CoachB wrote:
Let's get rid of high jump pits and go back to sawdust. That should get people to stop using that new-fangled fosbury flop!
Starting blocks too! How can Jesse Owens compete anymore?
Carbon fiber and fiberglass vaulting poles.....gone!
You are being disengenious to try to make a point. I have done so in the other direction.
You use the modern HJ pit and I will strap a rocket on my back and I bet I get higher.
Isn't there a middle ground? I think we can agree there are limits somewhere in which it is not as much about the human ability as it is about the level of technology that is being used. Again, I am not saying the shoes are at this level but there is nothing wrong with looking at possibilities. -
Check out the picture of Jim Peter's marathon shoe from the 1950s in the link below. The difference between those shoes and what people were racing in just before the carbon fiber shoes is probably 10x more performance enhancing then what carbon fiber shoes have done.
We all know that times are faster because of the shoes. We know that golfers hit longer because of the clubs. We know that tennis players return more winners because of the rackets.
Pro sports exist because of the companies that make the gear. If we force the gear to be static, the money for sports will dry up. And that is especially true for the already impoverished (comparatively) distance running.
Of course, it was not fair to see Nike athletes have an advantage just because their sponsor came up with the new design first. But the other manufacturers are catching up. And there are always advantages in sport that have nothing to do with the athlete's talent or coach's skill. Certain colleges have lots of scholarships and get all the best distance runners. Certain training groups are well funded and produce a disproportionate share of the top distance runners. Certain countries have better athletic federations than others and get the top athletes selected for WC and OGs and others are mired in politics and send inferior squads.
https://bcsportshall.com/curator-corner/the-jim-peters-collection/ -
Precious Roy wrote:
Check out the picture of Jim Peter's marathon shoe from the 1950s in the link below. The difference between those shoes and what people were racing in just before the carbon fiber shoes is probably 10x more performance enhancing then what carbon fiber shoes have done.
We all know that times are faster because of the shoes. We know that golfers hit longer because of the clubs. We know that tennis players return more winners because of the rackets.
Pro sports exist because of the companies that make the gear. If we force the gear to be static, the money for sports will dry up. And that is especially true for the already impoverished (comparatively) distance running.
Of course, it was not fair to see Nike athletes have an advantage just because their sponsor came up with the new design first. But the other manufacturers are catching up. And there are always advantages in sport that have nothing to do with the athlete's talent or coach's skill. Certain colleges have lots of scholarships and get all the best distance runners. Certain training groups are well funded and produce a disproportionate share of the top distance runners. Certain countries have better athletic federations than others and get the top athletes selected for WC and OGs and others are mired in politics and send inferior squads.
/
I am not anti-shoe advances in any way. I just ask the question if they are providing advances outside of what most people determine is acceptable. When high level athletes are saying they are worth up to 5%, is that normal advances?
Your example of golf and tennis "do" have rules limiting what can be used.
No one has answered if there is a limit although I know the answer. At what point would you personally find the use of technology detrimental to the sport? When I develop my oversized shoes that can cover 100 meters in 4 strides, or strap a rocket on my back to high jump, I suspect someone will cry foul.
I don't know enough to have an opinion on the shoes other than if athletes are gaining up to 5% increases overnight, we at least have to look at the situation if we care about the sport. -
seriously brah wrote:
otter wrote:
The difference is the shoes use a carbon plate for stored energy from the weight of the runner to spring the athlete forward. The energy is artificial. Should we be ok with allowing motors to assist for bicycle races? If you understand physics well enough, you would know there is no difference.
None of the examples you have given address this.
That's - that's not at all how the supershoe plates work. Do some research, and then try and say that with a straight face. Even if it was how that worked, that energy isn't any more artificial than the energy returned by foam, which by your logic should be banned?
I'm not buying research funded by shoe companies. Sorry.
I am aware of their running economy theories. So they should take the plates out seeing as they serve no real performance purposes. -
I have read a lot of articles about this. Even some of the scientific studies that were done were highly opinionated which I though was bizarre seeing as they should always be objective. Some swear they are not influenced which makes them suspicious.
Other studies say there is an energy return from the carbon plate but not significant but fail to quantify what significant actually means.
Most of the studies are done on a treadmill which is a really poor way to measure the energy return compared to actual racing surfaces. Just look at the methods. The research is very poor on this subject leaving us all to guess. -
Oh no! But if we allow the super spikes* then all the world records set in the EPO golden era/Cold War will get broken! Just think of the integrity of the sport won't you!
The sport can survive every single one of the top 20 100m times in history barring Usain Bolt being performed by someone with at least one ban, but we'll be a laughing stock if athletes get spikes that improve performance by 1%!
*No studies actually proven on their abilities yet, and given they have a tiny stack height compared to super road shoes will probably only provide a fraction of the extra return. -
Precious Roy wrote:
We all know that times are faster because of the shoes. We know that golfers hit longer because of the clubs. We know that tennis players return more winners because of the rackets.
Golf can adjust length of courses to account for advancements in tech and driving distance isn’t the metric for comparing golfers across eras. Championships is. Same idea with tennis, serving speed or spin rate aren’t the measuring stick for a player.
I’m not anti-super shoe, I just think one of the fundamental ways we assess athletes (PRs) has changed and that shift happened because World Athletics wrote their regulations based on technology Nike developed rather than the other way around. Can’t unring the bell now. -
Precious Roy wrote:
Check out the picture of Jim Peter's marathon shoe from the 1950s in the link below. The difference between those shoes and what people were racing in just before the carbon fiber shoes is probably 10x more performance enhancing then what carbon fiber shoes have done.
We all know that times are faster because of the shoes. We know that golfers hit longer because of the clubs. We know that tennis players return more winners because of the rackets.
Pro sports exist because of the companies that make the gear. If we force the gear to be static, the money for sports will dry up. And that is especially true for the already impoverished (comparatively) distance running.
Of course, it was not fair to see Nike athletes have an advantage just because their sponsor came up with the new design first. But the other manufacturers are catching up. And there are always advantages in sport that have nothing to do with the athlete's talent or coach's skill. Certain colleges have lots of scholarships and get all the best distance runners. Certain training groups are well funded and produce a disproportionate share of the top distance runners. Certain countries have better athletic federations than others and get the top athletes selected for WC and OGs and others are mired in politics and send inferior squads.
https://bcsportshall.com/curator-corner/the-jim-peters-collection/
Fantastic point! But nobody batted an eyelid when new shoes were coming out in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. -
gets it wrote:
Oh no! But if we allow the super spikes* then all the world records set in the EPO golden era/Cold War will get broken! Just think of the integrity of the sport won't you!
The sport can survive every single one of the top 20 100m times in history barring Usain Bolt being performed by someone with at least one ban, but we'll be a laughing stock if athletes get spikes that improve performance by 1%!
*No studies actually proven on their abilities yet, and given they have a tiny stack height compared to super road shoes will probably only provide a fraction of the extra return.
It's insane how people who are proven drugs cheats are allowed to come back and set records afterwards... absolutely! Every time I see a drugs cheat's time get beaten I consider it a win for the whole sport. I'd much rather see someone beat a record because of better shoes than because of EPO.
