Former marathon WR holder Tegla Loruope slams super shoes - says those that use them are "Cheating...It's almost like doping."

Opinions are moot. The shoes have always been legal and are no different than innovation in tennis rackets, golf clubs, and pole vault poles.

We will keep having this debates about shoe tech. She ran a lot of rans barefoot so any shoes are like doping, much like living at altitudes or living in a warm dry climate.

I respect her opinions on shoes and our running group we discussed in detail too with equally opinions.

The moment you move away from barefoot everyone will have a biomedical advantage in shoes. Including spikes you also include a grip advantage we bigger gains.

Simple test of how much advantage shoes give, run 400m-800m on flat dry grass barefoot, then switch to the cheapest shoes you can find, then to premium shoes like the Pegasus, then repeat in the vaporfly or any carbon plate, then in spikes.

Most will find they run slightly slower barefoot (as they are not use it and that distance want do anything harm) the cheap shoes a few seconds quicker, the premium slightly slower, the vaporfly slightly quicker than the basic shoe and spikes double figures quicker again.

Increased distance is where the cushioning and biomechanical advantage will be sort mainly because we are not physically strong namely since a young age we have not be physically conditioned to deal with lack of comfort of our “easier” lives brings.

I’m glad limited are in place but it’s never been a level playing field. Plot the successful/average/best races times by runner height and you see the trend too. Let alone any coaching, diet etc a runner could choose.

With these more efficient and cushioned shoes these levels the playing field in respects to fitness and race tactics rather than all the other metric you wish to choose from that a athlete has.

We could also have the same discussion on coaching an athlete has and the training method and how can we compare athletes from the 50’s through to now which if trained differently they would be faster/slower etc.

You can't compare sports where you compete for time or distance to sports where are only competing against your opponents.

And in tennis (for the high quality racquets) one racquet is not necessarily better that the other, you pick one that complements your play style.In track all shoes are not equal, some are objectively better. I do believe that the effects of super shoes are exaggerated but even 40 secs in a marathon would be unfair.

But you can really only compare track to cycling and swimming when it comes to matters like this.Would it be fair if swimmers wore suits that drastically cut down resistance and allowed them to destroy records.

Ha, imagine a tennis player with a wooden racket competing against one with a graphite racket. Shoe innovation is no different than innovation in materials/design in other sports. We’re not going back in time to inferior materials.

I'm meant to say I was compare modern racquets to modern. Its obviously that wooden racquets are inferior, the have a smaller sweet spot, hit slower, and produce less topspin.

But since tennis is not a speed competition its easy to see why these situations aren't the same at all.

Comparing

Surely the speed at which the ball comes off the racket is a major factor in tennis???

I think it’s fair to not be a fan of the new shoes, but everything she said in support of her opinion is completely ridiculous.

Raysism wrote:

I think it’s fair to not be a fan of the new shoes, but everything she said in support of her opinion is completely ridiculous.

+1

"There is no human energy (input?). You don't use your own strength. What about those who can't afford them?" she says.

Any runner who is at the level where they can make money from running can afford them! You stand in the shoes and they propel you down the road?

My guess is she doesn't like B grade runners breaking her records, just like Hutchings wants two sets of records: before super shoes and after.

truth be told. wrote:

Ha, imagine a tennis player with a wooden racket competing against one with a graphite racket. Shoe innovation is no different than innovation in materials/design in other sports. We’re not going back in time to inferior materials.

End of thread.

The wooden racket to modern racket is a good example. I was thinking itd be similar to someone from the 1960s saying that cycling records are irrelevant today because they are using aerodynamic carbon fiber bikes. Someone with a round tube steel frame bike simply cant compete. They aren't using more energy than someone with a round tube steel bike, they just have less weight and less wind resistance. It's the same as doping. What if all you can afford is a steel framed bike? It's not fair

Waitforit4 wrote:

truth be told. wrote:

Ha, imagine a tennis player with a wooden racket competing against one with a graphite racket. Shoe innovation is no different than innovation in materials/design in other sports. We’re not going back in time to inferior materials.

End of thread.

No, it's not, because it doesn't acknowledge both defensible sides of the debate. Some are fine with maximal innovation in sports, and probably more are not. Swimsuits can and were faster than they are. Swimming decided they didn't like that (or at least those in charge did). Loads of other examples in other sports, including T&F.

I am part of what I think is at least a small majority who, while thinking that incremental improvements in shoes is fine, would would prefer not to have to wonder whether Runner A beat Runner B largely because his sponsor currently has slightly better chemists/engineers.

Put another way, we find talent and training and competitive effort interesting. We find equipment design far less interesting.

The problem with super shoes/spikes is not unfair competition. Every company can have the same opps, and the runners can make choices. It is a free market. Just as it is in tennis, golf, etc.

The problem is that the shoes make performances of the past irrelevant. The only sport that is like running with regards to the pure numbers being important is baseball. Drugs and tiny stadiums ruined baseballs numbers and history. The same thing is happening in track and field. People place great importance not just on competition, but comparing the current athletes to historic performances.

At the end of the day, it is not important that newer golf clubs and balls make longer drives; or that better racquets make faster serves. etc. etc.

Sadly, it is becoming more and more that way in baseball and running, as well. But I still love it, and it is something we have been dealing with for a very long time. (tracks, spikes, epo, etc.)

She’s right, everybody should compete completely naked, and preferably oiled.

Ahhh, the good old days😁👍

Baseball is a weird comparison.

Try track cycling, swimming or speed skating.

Swimming banned the super suits, skating embraced the clap skates.

Yes I play tenn modern racquets have changed the game, but tennis is not a speed competition breaking records is not a factor.

Your competing against the person on the other side of the net, not a person and a clock.

OriginalLurker wrote:

Baseball is a weird comparison.

Try track cycling, swimming or speed skating.

Swimming banned the super suits, skating embraced the clap skates.

I don't see that those sports have such a revered history and emotional connection with their records the way that track and baseball do. Maybe it's just because I don't care about them, but I do think track milestones are burned into our psyche a little bit more.

4 minute mile. 2 hour marathon. 10 second 100, etc. etc.

I got back into playing golf after mothballing my clubs for about 25 years. I had a set of Lynx metal woods from the late 1980s. I just got a set of Taylor Made SIM2s. Driver is easily an extra 50 yards (@230 to 280) for me.

Keeping technology static in sport is at the end of the day self defeating. Most pro sports exist because of funding from manufacturers who make lots of money on the amateur side of the sport. The manufacturers spend a lot of money on R&D not to make the pros better, but to make the equipment in your garage obsolete so you will buy a new racket, golf club, etc. If you take running shoe money out of distance running, it will be the end of the sport.

Everyone knows that the new shoes have made runners faster. That doesn't mean that we are going to look back on the old record holders and think any less of them. Laroupe was a great championship and set a new standard for the marathon WR. We know that Brigid Kosgei's WR has a minute or two for the shoes. That does not make her a cheater. And we understand that the shoes have an impact on times and can deal with it.

Tennis