Actually elites gain more of an advantage in the super shoe than the hobby jogger because of their better mechanics. A hobby jogger with bad mechanics derives little to no benefit just from having the super shoe. Emily Sisson's "lesser" NB super shoe may actually be a better super shoe for a runner with good mechanics. Reasonable????????????
Remember, the original Nike super shoe was invented SOLELY for Rupp (a bouncy runner who would have cratered at 20 miles but for the cheater shoe). FACT - Rupp never raced a 'thon prior to the cheater shoe.
The ‘less materials —> less money’ is something a below-average consumer might assume (not calling you that just that it is so rarely the case). Size 7 shoes cost the same as size 13 for a given model yet they have a lot less material. Same for clothing (in all but rare cases and extreme sizes). Yet, the effort to produce a shoe like the Pacer can’t possibly only be 60% of what it takes to make the Elite. It seems New Balance is clearly either a. taking advantage of the pricing model championed by Nike or b. attempting to make back a lot of their development money selling the Elite model. Or a combination of both.
Regardless, the appeal to me of the Pacer far outweighs that of the Elite.
Point taken. Definitely wasn't talking about sizing, but meant more less use of expensive superfoams, carbon plate, new technological bells and whistles etc.
It can't really 4 - 5 % for the elite. 5% would be 6 minutes in a two hour marathon, and we already had a few sub 2:04 marathons before the carbon shoes came.
World records pre and post carbon shoes (road: 2016; track: 2019)
Marathon 2:02:57 (’14) – 2:01:09 (’22) – 2.6 s/km in 8 years Half marathon 58:23 (’10) – 57:31 (’21) – 2.5 s/km in 11 years 10000 m 26:17.53 (’05) – 26:11.00 (‘20) – 0.7 s/km in 15 years 5000 m 12:37.35 (’04) – 12:35.36 (’20) – 0.4 s/km in 16 years 3000 m 7:20.67 (’96) – unchanged 1500 m 3:26.00 (’98) – unchanged 800 m 1:40.91 (’12) – unchanged 400 m 43.03 (’16) – unchanged 200 m 19.19 (’09) – unchanged 100 m 9.58 (’09) – unchanged Marathon 2:17:42 (’05) – 2:17:01 (’17) – 1.0 s/km in 12 years Half marathon 1:06:25 (’07)-- 1:05:16 (’20) – 3.3 s/km in 13 years 10000 m 29:17.45 (’16) – 29:01.03 (’21) – 1.6 s/km in 5 years 5000 m 14:11.15 (’08) – 14:06.62 (’20) – 0.9 s/km in 12 years 3000 m 8:06.11 (’93) – unchanged 1500 m 3:50.07 (’15) – unchanged 800 m 1:53.28 (’83) – unchanged
I see the two minutes mentioned a lot. Does this mean Denis Kimetto is actually better than Eliud Kipchoge?
I think Kimetto's time is at least on par with Kipchoge's WR. He only had on early version of Boost. Kipchoge could not have run sub 2:03 in Nike Streak or even new Streak Fly at Berlin. That is just a fact.
Actually elites gain more of an advantage in the super shoe than the hobby jogger because of their better mechanics. A hobby jogger with bad mechanics derives little to no benefit just from having the super shoe. Emily Sisson's "lesser" NB super shoe may actually be a better super shoe for a runner with good mechanics. Reasonable????????????
Remember, the original Nike super shoe was invented SOLELY for Rupp (a bouncy runner who would have cratered at 20 miles but for the cheater shoe). FACT - Rupp never raced a 'thon prior to the cheater shoe.
Congrats for giving the dumbest take I've read today 👏👏
It can't really 4 - 5 % for the elite. 5% would be 6 minutes in a two hour marathon, and we already had a few sub 2:04 marathons before the carbon shoes came.
World records pre and post carbon shoes (road: 2016; track: 2019)
Marathon 2:02:57 (’14) – 2:01:09 (’22) – 2.6 s/km in 8 years Half marathon 58:23 (’10) – 57:31 (’21) – 2.5 s/km in 11 years 10000 m 26:17.53 (’05) – 26:11.00 (‘20) – 0.7 s/km in 15 years 5000 m 12:37.35 (’04) – 12:35.36 (’20) – 0.4 s/km in 16 years 3000 m 7:20.67 (’96) – unchanged 1500 m 3:26.00 (’98) – unchanged 800 m 1:40.91 (’12) – unchanged 400 m 43.03 (’16) – unchanged 200 m 19.19 (’09) – unchanged 100 m 9.58 (’09) – unchanged Marathon 2:17:42 (’05) – 2:17:01 (’17) – 1.0 s/km in 12 years Half marathon 1:06:25 (’07)-- 1:05:16 (’20) – 3.3 s/km in 13 years 10000 m 29:17.45 (’16) – 29:01.03 (’21) – 1.6 s/km in 5 years 5000 m 14:11.15 (’08) – 14:06.62 (’20) – 0.9 s/km in 12 years 3000 m 8:06.11 (’93) – unchanged 1500 m 3:50.07 (’15) – unchanged 800 m 1:53.28 (’83) – unchanged
The 4-5% is over racing in a daily trainer/shoe with archaic foams right? I feel like if you look at the studies they have Bostons/Adios conferring 2-3% improvements on many runners. So in reality the supershoe bump is probably half of that. 90 seconds for the typical elite man, and 2 minutes for the women seems in the ballpark.
I'm pretty sure the 4-5% refers to decrease in oxygen consumption, not time savings. The time savings for two runners with the same reduction in oxygen consumption may be very different--so far as I understand--because of different running economy/biomechanics, etc.
The Cornell study estimates about 3 minutes average time savings for sub-elite and elite men, but that's the average for all men who run relatively fast.
We collected marathon performance data from a systematic sample of elite and sub-elite athletes over the period 2015 to 2019, then searched the internet for publicly-available photographs of these performances, identifying wh...
Add 2 minutes to every marathon in the super shoe era to compare to times run in the previous 25 years.
Emma ran 2:18:29 today. Add 2 minutes to that and you get 2:20:29. Deena ran 2:19:36, so Deena is still the fastest American female in the marathon.
What a joke. The world marathon record has been beat on average every other year for decades and decades. Dennis Kimetto ran 2:02:57 in 2014. So you're saying he would be 2:00:57 in super shoes and it would be a record that lasts more than 8 years, likely even longer since I doubt anyone including Kipchoge will be running faster than that in the next few years? From when Khalid Khannouchi ran WR of 2:05:38 in 2002 to Dennis Kimetto's 2:02:57 in 2014 the world record got broken 6 times in those 12 years, so every other year on average. And got broken by an average of 27 seconds. Let's say the trend contined every other year since 2014 but the average dropped down to only 20 seconds. We'd expect the world record today to be 1:20 faster, or 2:01:37... Which is what the record was a month ago... The trends lead pretty much exactly to where we are today, and in another 5 years we'll have a record legal sub 2:01, probably around 2:00:40 or so by somebody. Not because of new shoes, but because times have been trending faster forever as more people train hard and take cracks at the old record, pushing the limits of what people can run. Every world record people wonder if that's the fastest a human can run, and yet those records constantly get broken. 2:02:57 8 years ago was not the peak of human marathon running.
The shoes make a difference of at best a minute to these top runners in the world, possibly less, definitely not more. Just like shoes in the 1980's probably weren't as good as shoes in the year 2000.
You’re the joke if you don’t think super shoes are causing all these super fast marathon times. Kipchoge was a 2:04 guy before super shoes came along. Now he’s running 2:01. That should tell you everything.
I don't think shoes have changed the who of who holds the records, but they for sure have impact on when that individual lowers the record and by how much.
This is to say that I don't think there is a record out there held by someone "undeserving" of the record; someone that only holds it due to the fact they had access to the shoes and happened to be superresponders.
Without a doubt, shoes absolutely make a big difference. Without super shoes these records would not be broken as they are, now. Deena's performance, I find more impressive.
Nike's VF and AF have Pebax foams that provide documented energy return/efficiency. ASICS, Puma, and Saucony have Pebax-based super shoes, though only the ASICS has supportive data similar to Nike's. New Balance still lacks a Pebax-based super shoe, so it makes no sense to assume the NB shoes gave her a big advantage, much less a VF/AF type advantage.
I see the two minutes mentioned a lot. Does this mean Denis Kimetto is actually better than Eliud Kipchoge?
I think Kimetto's time is at least on par with Kipchoge's WR. He only had on early version of Boost. Kipchoge could not have run sub 2:03 in Nike Streak or even new Streak Fly at Berlin. That is just a fact.
How quickly we forget Kipchoge running 2:04 with his shoes falling apart. Saying he wouldn't be able to run 2:03 in the Nike Streak is asinine
Deena is not the fastest American female in the marathon considering Sisson is 1 minute faster. You can say that her 2:19:36 is more impressive than Sisson's 2:18:29, but that doesn't make it faster
...
The point is, most people want to see the actual intrinsic performances of the athletes improve - not their gear. And it wouldn't be that difficult to make that happen.
the issue with this has been demonstrated in the 1 hour world record on a bicycle. Using standardized old equipment, the margins become exceedingly slim for improvement on an old record. But if you're allowed to use modern equipment, records quickly fall. I think the same would be true in running, if all equipment were to be completely standard. WRs would be even fewer and further between than they already are, especially the WRs set in the free doping era.
Not trying to be shady at all (props to Emily Sisson) but was wondering about this during my jog today. When controlling for shoe type, how would Sisson’s American record compare to Kastor’s former record? I was wondering if Kastor’s record would have been worth a sub 2:18 had she run with super shoes. Does 1.5 minutes for a marathon seem like an accurate guess?
Great run. She literally has a bit of Bekele in her. Unfortunately I have bad genetics
The ‘less materials —> less money’ is something a below-average consumer might assume (not calling you that just that it is so rarely the case). Size 7 shoes cost the same as size 13 for a given model yet they have a lot less material. Same for clothing (in all but rare cases and extreme sizes). Yet, the effort to produce a shoe like the Pacer can’t possibly only be 60% of what it takes to make the Elite. It seems New Balance is clearly either a. taking advantage of the pricing model championed by Nike or b. attempting to make back a lot of their development money selling the Elite model. Or a combination of both.
Regardless, the appeal to me of the Pacer far outweighs that of the Elite.
Point taken. Definitely wasn't talking about sizing, but meant more less use of expensive superfoams, carbon plate, new technological bells and whistles etc.
I know you weren’t talking about sizing. It was my counterpoint to your ‘less materials —> less money’ comment. I can almost guarantee there’s a greater difference in the material content between a size 7 and 13 of a given shoe than the difference between the same size Pacer and Elite V3. Yet the the former are the same price and the latter are $100 apart. Both the Pacer and Elite V3 have carbon plates and use Fuelcell foam. The differences are pretty slim and definitely not justification for the price differential.
So what are you suggesting? We all run in leather shoes, with floppy socks on cinder tracks.
It's people like you who think we should still be riding around with a horse and buggy. Forget about electric lamps. Candles and kerosene lighting is good enough for me. Inter/web/net and things like that, who needs them. Maybe small pox and polio vaccines should be banned because it gives an unfair advantage to todays populace that wasn't available a few generations ago.
Some people are just dumb, ignorant, mentally disturbed or still can't break 18 minutes with new technology.
I think a better alternative would be to have different categories of performances for different surfaces and shoe types. So I would definitely reintroduce cinders and grass tracks and hold major meets on them - this would be like tennis which has maintained competitions on different surfaces. In races I would have competition categories for super shoes and normal shoes as well as barefoot and I would probably give the most prize money to the barefoot category. If we followed the barefoot records then we could see the progress in performance independant from the technological improvements in competition footwear.
If runners woud compete across different surfaces and shoe categories, this would settle the "how much time are the worth?" debate.
The reality is that there are clear infection points in race times over the years. Rubber tracks changed things. About 1993-7 track distance records got drastically faster. EPO came out not long before this. Road super shoes about 2016, but not widely avail right away. New world marathon records quickly followed. Now track super spikes are widely available and long standing records and depth have changed.
So yes, Sisson is faster. But shoes have had an impact on race times. It is clear there is an improvement.
Deena still stands as one of America's best ever distance runners despite her records being beaten.
