This is how you should celebrate a marathon (video). 14:54 guy who couldn't make DIII nats runs 2:16 marathon!!

Rojo not only decides who should win award money, but how you should celebrate when you win.

Dncirk wrote:

Another point to keep in mind here is that to state that a 14:54 guy ran 2:16 is a tad misleading. This guy ran 8:26 which is probably worth at least 14:40 and he seems to get better in the longer distances so for sure he was capable of running faster than 14:54 in college. I.

You are correct. 826 and 3037 are better than 1454. But not that much better. What's interesting is his 3k PB and 10k were almost dead on according to JK.

If the banked conversion is taken into consideration, an 8:26 on the banked track converts to 8:32 flat track. An 8:32 3k time and 14:54 5k line up closely. Doesn't much really matter though. Glad to see him running really well. This is great for the sport. Congrats Alex Burks. Bigger things still to come.

I don't know Rojo I only ran like an 8:24 for 3km in college. I'd say its no surprise someone with at least sub 8:30 "speed" for 3km could eventually crack 2:17:00 in the marathon. Heck I even ran 1:04:32 / 2:16:52 in Brooks T6 racers. I do think it's interesting this guy thinks "the shoes" are "only worth" 60-90 seconds in a marathon though? I mean it depends on the runner and their individual running economy, but I'd say the shoes (compared to non-carbon fiber plated old school foam shoes) are worth more like 2+ minutes for a guy in that time range on average?

rojo wrote:

Dncirk wrote:

Another point to keep in mind here is that to state that a 14:54 guy ran 2:16 is a tad misleading. This guy ran 8:26 which is probably worth at least 14:40 and he seems to get better in the longer distances so for sure he was capable of running faster than 14:54 in college. I.

You are correct. 826 and 3037 are better than 1454. But not that much better. What's interesting is his 3k PB and 10k were almost dead on according to JK.

https://www.letsrun.com/2007/jkconversion.pdf

I really do look at the sport pre super shoes and post super shoes. I ran faster than this guy in college, trained my but off and ran low 2:20’s. I will take my times any day of the week knowing that I did not mechanically dope.

S. Canaday wrote:

I don't know Rojo I only ran like an 8:24 for 3km in college. I'd say its no surprise someone with at least sub 8:30 "speed" for 3km could eventually crack 2:17:00 in the marathon.

Heck I even ran 1:04:32 / 2:16:52 in Brooks T6 racers.

I do think it's interesting this guy thinks "the shoes" are "only worth" 60-90 seconds in a marathon though? I mean it depends on the runner and their individual running economy, but I'd say the shoes (compared to non-carbon fiber plated old school foam shoes) are worth more like 2+ minutes for a guy in that time range on average?

I figured that the topic of the shoes would keep coming up here, but I'll at least say that I'm happy its stayed civil!

It could certainly be my own cognitive dissonance telling me the shoes are "only worth" 60-90 seconds, haha. I agree with you that it probably varies from runner to runner, but I still think its up in the air as to exactly how much. I've looked through some of the studies that have tried to address this from a scientific perspective , and although the studies show a clear, undeniable increase in performance - which lets face it, anyone could tell on observation alone - I still feel that the amount of time that they take off is still up in the air.

I certainly wouldn't rule out guesses over 2+ minutes, (which in thinking about I'm not sure what my accepted UPPER limit would be) but if that were the case I feel like we should have seen more Americans going sub-2:10 within the past few years. At the same time what do I know? I think its an interesting conversation, that's for sure, and also kind of incredible that people are still trying to figure it out however many years after their initial release!

S. Canaday wrote:

I don't know Rojo I only ran like an 8:24 for 3km in college. I'd say its no surprise someone with at least sub 8:30 "speed" for 3km could eventually crack 2:17:00 in the marathon.

Heck I even ran 1:04:32 / 2:16:52 in Brooks T6 racers.

I do think it's interesting this guy thinks "the shoes" are "only worth" 60-90 seconds in a marathon though? I mean it depends on the runner and their individual running economy, but I'd say the shoes (compared to non-carbon fiber plated old school foam shoes) are worth more like 2+ minutes for a guy in that time range on average?

rojo wrote:

You are correct. 826 and 3037 are better than 1454. But not that much better. What's interesting is his 3k PB and 10k were almost dead on according to JK.

https://www.letsrun.com/2007/jkconversion.pdf

You sound butthurt, Sage.

Don't be like that.

Good for him. Was in his region at the same time. It's funny how crazy passionate guys can pull off stuff like this meanwhile I completely stopped caring about racing after age 22 lol.

As a guy who sucks at distance, the new shoes interest me.

Drugs, never. Not even coffee. Among other things such as morality, scared of the possible health effects.

Blades, never. Changing the physical morphology is just as bad as changing the physiology with drugs. Mechanical doping.

All shoes, except a simple sole to prevent abrasion, modify the runner mechanically, but because there is with these shoes no modification of the physical levers of the body, it is IMO more akin to running on a different surface—like a sprung floor in gymnastics. Today’s tumbling is unthinkable on an unsprung floor, without certain injury, if possible at all.

It’s like taking a surface with you to run on. Combine it with a hard sub-surface and you have your new, sprung surface. Like in gymnastics, if it reduces injury, GREAT! Enhanced performances are a side-effect.

I am in favor of them, as long as records are kept separate, like they unofficially do in swimming. Unlike speed suits, which afaik have no injury-prevention quality, these new shoes should not be banned, but instead endorsed, if it can be scientifically proved that they reduce the incidence and/or severity of injury.

I would like to try them, they sound like fun. I am back to my mixed-up training, now spending significant time in the pool working toward an open-water swim, and so would still be interested to do 5k-type stuff like I did last year. Because I don’t want to lose weight, maybe I would benefit disproportionately from better energy return.

Ha ha ha! Nice share. I know you are partially trolling, but as for requiring, sorry, you cannot “require” emotion. It’s emotion after all. But if a pro shatters a PR like that, not sure you will need to. Plus, c’mon, they might have made it to the line with every last bit of effort left in them (in the Dixon photo I don’t think Geoff Smith would have celebrated even if he had wanted to).

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Lhotse wrote:

If it was the shoes, then Seth Demoor would already be 1:04/2:16

Sarcasm? You mean, without the shoes, DeMoor might instead be 1:08/2:29?

From Seth's PR to 2:16 is about 4%

For the “shoe doping” bashers, can I assume that you have tried the shoes yourself, and couldn’t improve your PR in them, and thus conclude that you are one of the unlucky “non-responders“?

If not, then why don’t show us your PR improvements and convince people they are really “doping shoes”?

I think the opposite should apply as well. For those running huge PRs with the super shoes, run your next marathon without them and see if you can PR or come close to the time run with them. Has this been done?