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.
Jakob can make a real run at Komen’s records. It sounds like he got sick and missed weeks this Winter, but yes the baseline expectation for me is 7:22 for 3,000.
Kincaid's performance did not make me almost fall out of my chair. I talked my my friend and he agreed.
As I did not almost fall out of my chair as I was taking a nap as it was my hourly nap time as wow Elizabeth Holmes.
So, it is I hope by now that it is common knowledge that BU is THE fastest track in the world..indoor or out. And if you are in a perdiod of close to peak fitness you can run as fast or almost as fast as you can outdoors , even despite the 200M vs 400M..I have been saying this for years.The banking and spring mitigate the tighter turns and if run right they are not even that tight at all. I spoke to Ron Warhurst last night..he had never been there before..He said something to the effect of ..Never seen or stepped on a track like this...ever.
Now, on the other end of this..Marcus O'Sullivan ran 3:50.x on a ten lapper at the Meadowlands in 1988, that is 35 years ago . Eamonn Ran 3:49.x ar rhe same track in 1983..thats 40 years ago.
Shouldn't guys be running faster and by a bit 40 years later? I say this every time regarding shoes, tracks etc.
Meadowlands was fast in it's time, but it was 10 laps for a mile and certainly was no BU by a long shot.
I saw the Klecker workout and though he might run under 13 flat..and maybe 12:56-58, he ran faster, not out of my margin of error anyway. Kincaid? Now that's a puzzler no matter how you view it..and why would you be so disconected at 250 to go ? Only to pull that off? It was weird looking to me.
If you ask real expert coaches..in College..or that coach Pros, most of what they would say, is training is so much better and sounder than 10-20 or even 5 years ago. They will also say..that Tracks are better..Like a BU outlier..shoes help...but..not everyone has run absurdly low marks with them. Like for example..I think Webb could have run under 7:30 at BU for sure in peak fitness. Without any "shoe help". And that was quite a while ago now.
And do not forget..every single effort from prime time and big meets to even mid level ..every race has pacing..most of it good enough. Like some other person said..I try to enjoy it and have my own history of perspective to figure out how good guys are or were.
Just my thoughts and I would be more disturbed, I guess by wild outlier marks , than all the sub 4s etc. More guys should be running well under by now.
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 seomthing magical about an AR attempt being set up for someone perfectly and then spoiled by someone no one is paying attentino (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 waering his journalism hat but clearly someone standing next to him had planted negativity in his head.
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.
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.
The men's 10k was set in 1996. Is that in the last three years?
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 seomthing magical about an AR attempt being set up for someone perfectly and then spoiled by someone no one is paying attentino (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 waering his journalism hat but clearly someone standing next to him had planted negativity in his head.
Many, MANY so called runners on this site whine and complain that the US runners can't get under 13, that they are stuck a couple dozen seconds behind the top world leaders, etc...
Kincaid gets gaped, maintains the gap and then puts the hammer down and blows by Klecker who by the way ran a great race!!!!!
Kincaid does what many thought he couldn't, but he does do it, now comes the naysayers implying a background of drugs due to his previous team connections, his shoes, the track itself, etc...
I think some of you like to post conspiracy theories for your own egos as if you've split the atom.
Why do you Krying Karens even watch the races or is that all you've got going on in your lives?
The shoes ARE NOT worth a 24 second difference, 12:51 to 13:15.
How about celebrate as 2 American Runners broke 13 minutes? Will that work for ya?
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 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.
Maybe Jakob needs the super spikes just to get to 3:28 and 3:25 is out of reach for him. Maybe he needs another year or two of development. Maybe the top time in the 1500 was set in an era when other things besides shoes had a big impact on runners. There are many potential reasons why JI has not run 3:25, and most of them do not prove super spikes have not had an impact at the very top end.
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.
Rojo - the shoes make a massive difference. There's a reason all pros switched immediately to the new shoe tech. It makes you faster. It provides extra energy return and keeps your muscles fresher at the end of the race.
THE BIGGEST BENEFIT IS THE SHOES IN TRAINING. Pros now can do much harder workouts, much more often with 10% of the injury risk that easier workouts had 10 years ago. Imagine if Ritz had these shoes and never had injuries? Imagine if Solinsky had them and never got injured? They can run more mileage in these shoes too.
So you get mechanical benefits in the race itself, then you also get to run 20% more volume at tempo pace and 10% more volume at race pace and your legs feel better than doing lower volumes with old shoes.
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 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.
Sure this is easy. How often do you think a 3:28 runner shows up? There have been 5 guys ever. 1 has been busted for doping. 3 did it in prime EPO era. What are the odds of one them walking around?
Back it off to 3:29. Between 2010-2020 we had 7 people do it. A couple are known dopers. The odds of one being an active runner is low. Give it a decade and we will get a kiprop in super shoes running a 3:24.
Or maybe just wait til Monaco hosts it's next 1500m...
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 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.
Drug testing improvements are a massive reason. Think of how many big names have gotten popped recently. Bol, Amos, Houlihan, Kiprop, Ross, Coleman, Gay, Gatlin, Gabby Thomas, dozens more kenyans and I'm probably forgetting 10 more elite pros. The stuff athletes were on 15-20 years ago was POWERFUL.
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.
Sure this is easy. How often do you think a 3:28 runner shows up? There have been 5 guys ever. 1 has been busted for doping. 3 did it in prime EPO era. What are the odds of one them walking around?
Back it off to 3:29. Between 2010-2020 we had 7 people do it. A couple are known dopers. The odds of one being an active runner is low. Give it a decade and we will get a kiprop in super shoes running a 3:24.
Or maybe just wait til Monaco hosts it's next 1500m...
Shouldn’t need a decade for super shoes to kick in
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 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.
This is always my point. Why is it just the Americans that are sooo much faster? Guys have been running in the 12:40’s for 25-years now. Remember 2012 when like 6 guys ran in the 12:40’s in the same race? Shouldn’t they be a lot faster by now if the shoes were that big of a difference? There is one outlier, who also happens to be the same guy winning the gold medals. Shouldn’t there be a handful of guys in the 12:30’s if the shoes and tracks are sooo much better? The Americans being competitive on the world stage has been building for a long time. Remember 2016 when the Americans basically dominated the Olympic distance events? That had nothing to do with shoes or a BU track.
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 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.
Super spikes haven't been around that long, give it another couple of years.
