Requiring athletes to use same equipment

What if someone's body is more prone to injury because of these standardizations?

TooCloseToHome wrote:

What if someone's body is more prone to injury because of these standardizations?

Maybe for track spikes. Maybe. I haven't seen the data on frequency of injuries now vs. 20-30 years ago.

Can't make this point though for surface (cinder or grass are going to be superior from a shock absorption standpoint), won't get hurt more often using the old aluminum frame bike, waxless skis, etc.

It all started going wrong around the time of the Nike Jasari.

Even the hammer throwers bring their own balls and chains, apparently. I bet the discus and javelin throwers do too.

Haha...yep. Pretty soon they'll have rocket powered javelins

A slightly different take on this:

When I was a kid growing up in England, show jumping was very popular. There was one type of competition where each rider would ride two rounds, one on his/her own horse and one on a rival's horse drawn at random. The riders never brought their best horses to the competition but rather the most awkward, ill tempered nag in their stable. The logic being the rider at least had some experience in controlling this truculent beast whereas his rivals had no hope. It was highly entertaining to watch professionals smash down every jump in a vain attempt to control a horse that would be more suited to a rodeo than a show jumping competition.

The counter argument is that the support requires sponsor investment to survive and thrive. The sponsors themselves need the sport to showcase their latest innovations.

If athletes all had to use old equipment for the sake of standardization over time, then there would be no incentive for a company to support the sport financially and track would become marginal and irrelevant.

One equipment spec?

Cycling basically has this. UCI mandates a triangle template that all manufacturer frames must fit into as well as a weight limit and some other smaller specs. Therefore all UCI events conform to this rules (i.e. road cycling, track cycling, XC, etc). Many high end bikes, components, you buy will have a UCI stamp on them. Those that don't are not "legal" for UCI events. It's also mandated how the ride can "sit" on the bike (i.e the cockpit), especially in the time-trial, so that everyone is on "even" form.

Another well known one is cycling is Japan's Keirin events. This may be the most relevant to what your question is. Keirin specs stopped somewhere around 1980/ish. Steel frames, one real shape, no carbon fiber, etc etc. As classic a bike as a racing bike gets (i.e. if you draw a racing bike chances are you will draw a Keirin bike). This is track racing but it was done to remove the gear from the events so that it was about athletes (the culture around Keirin in Japan is like horse racing in the US, as in it's big on gambling/OTB and ALOT of money is made from it). Honestly, when compared to UCI events the racing is rather flat in Keirin. The strong/aggressive athletes raise to the front and win, even with the constant shuffling to "equalize" the fields). UCI events also do a Keirin event, though the rules/distance isn't exactly the same as Japan's, and the racing is FAR more dynamic.

This is why Ironman and Tri bikes look so out there is that they don't need to conform to any template and can do whatever they want.

Nordic skiing has requirements for gear, though it's loose compare to the UCI's

Swimming has suit specs.

Running has shoe specs (as of last year).

All of these sports already have a single ruleset. What motivation is there for a company to manufacture white label equipment, that is the same is everyone else's when 90% of why manufacturers sponsor athletes/events is to promote their gear?

---

Outside of running... look at NASCAR/dirt track/modified cars vs. F1/F2/F3. Which racing is more interesting? Depends on what you like.

---

For the LRC answer... I thought the right-wingers here hated "being told what to do" and/or "don't tread on me (unless I'm the one treading on you then it's ok)"? That comment is not political, socialism/communism/etc... it's about "freedom" (to choose) no?

---

I personally would like to see spec racing in running. "Classic" gear (however that is defined) that is universal in the class IN ADDITION TOO the type of racing we have now. The reality though is that the spec class would probably attract only masters runners who want to try to relive their "glory days (when gear was simple)". No younger runner, looking for ANY edge, is going to race it especially if no manufacturer is offering contracts or sponsorship (which why would they, see above).

What's wrong with living in the present?

The reason T&F is becoming increasingly unpopular is because people in charge are trying to hold it to standards of the past.

World is evolving and so should our sports.

Shoes don't fit everyone's feet the same, and some can have foot problems and injuries from wearing certain shoes. Imagine mandating Nike and there's athletes that end up with bleeding or broken feet when they wear them. Do you want to shut them out just because you mandated a certain brand of gear?

It's not an either/or issue. You can standardize equipment regulations and still have varieties in what you use. Baseball leagues, even amateur ones, regulate the kinds of bats players can use. There are bats that will send balls farther than wooden ones do but professional leagues outlaw them while still allowing improvements in the technology of wood bats.

This is interesting stuff that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for sharing.

In your opinion, do you think the governing bodies for these sports are being too rigid, too lenient, or just right with these restrictions?

Of course not.

HRE wrote:

It's not an either/or issue. You can standardize equipment regulations and still have varieties in what you use. Baseball leagues, even amateur ones, regulate the kinds of bats players can use. There are bats that will send balls farther than wooden ones do but professional leagues outlaw them while still allowing improvements in the technology of wood bats.

Good point!

Sopa de Sabadell wrote:

What's wrong with living in the present?

The reason T&F is becoming increasingly unpopular is because people in charge are trying to hold it to standards of the past.

World is evolving and so should our sports.

Most old guys like me like to live in the past. Don't you know that? :)

Governing bodies need to set some standards but they also need to leave enough room for innovation. Sport is innovation. In both training AND gear. it always has been and always will be.

Cycling (and the UCI, which honestly most people don't like) has threaded a fine line and done well.

The late 90s in road cycling (i.e. Tour de France, etc) was a time before the modern UCI requirements, especially for time trial bikes. The sport saw some crazy things in the equipment for a few years, which resulted in more crashes/injury than faster riding (i.e. the strong riders STILL won, doping aside). But this was the period that forced the UCI to act. Since them modern road race bikes are remarkable in their weight, stiffness and rigidity...so stiff that energy transmission is direct and so light that mechanics need to add ballast to them to high the weight minimums. For consumers this has resulted in technology that has made even an entry level bike significantly better than even mid to top end bikes of 20 years ago. The changes in technology have been remarkable.

Last example, UCI cycling just went through a huge change in the past 3 years as well. The switch from rim to disc brakes was huge for pro-tour racing. You had ever naysayer talking about the danger of it as well as luddites complaining about "the record books". The end result has been much faster and aggressive racing. Riders can attack descents like never before. Riding in the wet, especially in mountain stages, is no longer a tip-toe on ice sorta event. There has been almost no downside to the peloton either...other than more crashing due to more aggressive riding (and less safe courses, especially finish chutes).

"Dont tread on me" aka the Gadsden flag if associated with any political party would be libertarian. But really it's just a symbol of patriotism from the Revolutionary War times.