Does anyone remember an article being posted somewhere on Letsrun that provided evidence claiming the super spikes took off about 3 seconds per mile of a race? If so, can anyone link it?
Does anyone remember an article being posted somewhere on Letsrun that provided evidence claiming the super spikes took off about 3 seconds per mile of a race? If so, can anyone link it?
i believe the super spikes do take 3-4 seconds off your times...... but people who want them banned are dumb because whats the point of running if you cant use new tech to break barriers that werent once possible, that what people want to see, it makes the sport more interesting
Do Adidas mske em too?
I just bought some Adidas adizero avanti boost.
Are these considered a superspike?
I believe they’re worth about 1.5 seconds per mile
3secondspermile
I dont believe it's a raw 1 second per lap or something like that. Seems to be a percentage change with diminishing returns the faster you go. Maybe dragonfly could take a 4:02 guy with subpar form to 3:58 but it's not taking Hicham down to 3:22 or 3:23
Hey, yeah, cool! How ‘bout epo now!? Gotta take advantage of the tech…right!?
This data shows a 3s 1mi difference, 10s 3k difference and 15s 5k difference from before shoes to after.
Says guy who doesn’t understand data
You don't think Super Spikes would have taken Dave Bedford to a sub 27?
You don't think Super Shoes would have taken Ian Stewart to a real low 13?
Look at their running form and tell me Super Shoes wouldn't have helped hugely.
Compare them to David John Black.
by this logic we should just place trampolines in the ground and see who is fastest - because that's what people want.
Plus, if you'll recall Adidas came out with a shoe with a spring in the back a few years before carbon plates technology and it was ruled illegal. Why? Why one technology and not the other? answer: because NIke has people in high places.
also swimming came out with a suit that made swimmers faster. Guess what they did? the right thing and banned it. because just making swimmers fasters is not what people want to see...something about integrity of the records came into play.
what about a propulsion engine in the shoes, would that be good for the sport. It would make us faster. Would you be in favor of that?
what about track made like gymnastics floors (with springs in them), would you like that - that would make times fasters.
this is a great one, he claims 4:25 -> 4:19 adjustment in the 1600
People don't want to see it and "the sport" doesn't exist. It's an abstraction from competition and running as a whole. It frames races and events as things that have consequence in the grand history of "the sport" when the reality is that people will keep running and competing regardless of whether or not "the sport" exists. Running is something people do, "the sport" is something created by running companies and the media to sell tickets/streaming passes to events and garner attention. "The sport", much like "professionalism", in track and field is something that gives marginal benefits to the athletes and enthusiasts/appreciators ("fans" is a bad word) while giving shoe companies and media companies free reign over much of track and field.
If people want to wear super shoes and lie to themselves about their PRs that is fine with me. If someone started high school cross country/track when super shoes became widespread I'd give you a pass because they are all that they know.
You're that guy