Did Gault make this story up?

I have friends who feel the same way about all of the sub-4 miles that are celebrated in college and pros.

Shoes are worth 2-3% in performance. That's a lot but people love to be in denial of that. Depending on individual characteristics 12:51 might mean as slow as 13:15.

I think the performances are fun, but yes ... we all know the BU track (like the Monaco track) is fast and shoe technology help. It just means a different paradigm, not that the runs aren't impressive.

You think he made that story up?

No. I called him shortly after the race was over as I was super pumped, screaming at the screen for Woody not to fall too far back so he could win the race and get the AR. There's something magical about an AR attempt being set up for someone perfectly and then spoiled by someone no one is paying attention to (Rupp/Solinsky and this)

When I called him, I was shocked as he was being debby downer about it. Now, normally he's not as much of a fan as I am and is always wearing his journalism hat but clearly someone standing next to him had planted negativity in his head.

We don’t need to consciously do anything coz people following the sport automatically recalibrate over time when a benchmark previously thought to be tough becomes increasingly common.

For the average joe who has no calibration of what a good 5K time is, they are simply going to ask what the WR is and go “oh, so that’s almost half a minute slower”.

Why are you screaming at the screen, rojo?

I tend to think the shoes can be worth a lot but the one thing that doesn't make any sense is the top times aren't getting any faster.

It's not like Ingebrigtsen is running 3:25. Can someone explain that to me?

What theories do you have?

Is it the Canova theory of "You can't do better than perfect." I've had top coaches tell me they think the shoes help lesser athletes with inefficient form more than top athletes.

Either that or improved drug testing? Or are the very top guys such outliers that it's hard to quantify.

The simplest theory is that all of the analysis about the advantage of a super shoe was done on high stack shoes meant for the roads, and that analysis does not apply to track spikes. From everything I’ve read, the benefit of the super shoes is attributed to huge slabs of super-resilient foam. But track spikes don’t have that, and there’s no similar analysis showing that the thin layer of foam in a track spike has the same effect. In the absence of such evidence, people are denigrating track performances for no reason. (And bald assertions that “the spikes are good for one second per 400 m” are not such evidence.)

Because he hasn't run at BU yet.

Your reaction is exactly how I felt. It's a bummer to be hyped up about the races/performances & read a great article about it only to get to the end and have it be like "...well that all was sooooo great tonight, BUT...." and then get the shoes + track lecture. Gag. Like get over it, move on. We all have & are enjoying the races/performances. You're the annoying guy at the great party who is telling us in the middle of it that we're gonna be tired & hungover tmr. We get it. We don't care.

The BU track makes cheaterflys look like child's play.

"As the researchers lowered the stiffnesses, the runners ran with very similar support mechanics. The differences only appeared at the extremes, where on the most compliant set-up, the runners had a modest 4% decrease in contact time and step length. However, with the decreasing treadmill stiffnesses, the energetic cost of running steadily decreased. At the most compliant setting, the 75 kN/m surface, the runners had a whopping 12% reduction in their energetic cost at that speed."

"When Boston University renovated their indoor facilities in 2002, former BU coaches Pete Schuder and Bruce Lehane seized the opportunity to implement the features of the fast tracks they had known so well from the previous decades. They worked with the architects to design the plywood structure with a steep 18°, asymmetrical banking to facilitate faster racing. They even managed to pull Floyd Highfill out of retirement to help consult on the project. It’s been repaired and resurfaced over the years, but it maintains the distinct plywood substructure that provides an ideal surface to elevate distance running performance."

geoffreyburns.com

It pays be to be compliant: the physics of indoor track and “optimal” surfaces — GB

Geoff Burns

45 years ago, a young lad hailing from a southern suburb of Dublin ripped around the interior of Madison Square Garden 11 times. By doing so faster than six other gentlemen making the same prestigious rounds, he was crowned c...

Link:www.geoffreyburns.com/stream/it-pays-b...

Jon asked exactly the question I wanted to know about. Why does woody let himself get dropped when he obviously has more to give because then he speeds way up on the last lap.
unfortunately Woody’s answer didn’t really make any sense

For Woody it is 7 to 8%. The arrival of Woody on par with arrival of super spikes.

Think back to Woody's Portland dayz.......hmmm.

What I am saying is some people really benefit from the SS.

Well on the 1500 side of things, recall that Tim Cheruiyot ran 3:28.41 in 2018 in the old spikes with a really poorly paced race (52.9/58 mid). That season he maybe could’ve done some damage in the 3:27 range. He’s been hurt on and off since the end of 2019. Jakob ran 3:28.0 in the Olympic final which is not the ideal time to run you PB. He raced so many championships, I don’t really think last year we got his best time trial result. The rest of the 1500 guys are 3:28-3:30 types (Wightman, Hoare, Kerr, Katir) and I wouldn’t expect the outlier times from them.

I don't think he made the story up. I think a lot of people think what Gault says the guy said.

Here's a little perspective. Ten years from now, some other runners are going to be breaking these records because of some other new technology/training/track/dope, and people will be longer for the days Americans only ran an "honest 12:51." It's all relative.

Plus, the records from 10-20 years ago these guys are breaking now, were broken by people who had some advantage over the people who set the records 10-20 year before that.

Either enjoy what you're seeing, or don't. It's a choice.

Maybe I'd be a pessimistic if the rest of the world is running 3:45, 7:25, 12:35, but we have all the world leads, etc., so they are legitimately fast times on the global and historical scale.

Conveniently forgetting that

- Both the 5k/10k WRs for both genders have been lowered in the last 3 years

- The migration of East African talent to the roads, where "top times" have plummeted

- Times at the collegiate/HS levels have also plummeted. For example, the amount of sub 3:43 for D1 men's outdoor 1500 (4 minute Mike equivalent) TRIPLED from 2018 to 2022. I can remember the exact numbers, but it's something like 30 to 90.

Kincaid's performance did not make me almost fall out of my chair. I talked my my friend and he agreed.

Well, I don’t know about the spikes, but there’s no way to dispute that BU is a super track. What would have happened if a fit Jakob was in that 3000 or 5000? Jakob is at least 10 seconds or more talented than Woody or Klecker in the 5000. If we got Jakob to BU at the right time and under the right race conditions, there’s a good chance Komen’s record would finally fall.