The shoes are worth 3 seconds a mile. It’s ducking retarded to not accept that. The training and the pacing etc are worth the extra 3-4 seconds per mile we are seeing in high school and college improvements.
Wait, So Jakob is actually just a 3.49.5 miler and only a 12.58/9 5000m guy?
God dammit man - what a fraud this all is.
I’d say thats about right. Give or take 1 second per mile.
I think it's lazy (& a disservice to the sport/fast times) to only mention super shoes as causation for a fast time. That's what this website does whenever there's a good performance & it's supposed to drop the time down a peg in our minds. We know that the spikes are not as good as the road racing flats (not going to go there but you still need a slew of factors in road racing- weather/fueling/pacing/etc to get your best result).
I think you need to add in all of the other factors that lead to fast times if you want to talk about shoes in this context.
How about BU's fast track? How about everyone traveling to the same meets (instead of going to local/regional meets) to chase times in paced races? Look at the entries at BU over the weekend & where those runners are from. Decades ago you didn't have college runners from Oregon/Michigan/UCLA/BYU/etc flying to a meet in Boston. You didn't have pros jumping in college meets like this. Context matters. We're not supposed to be excited about sub-4's anymore but the conditions to chase the time are better than ever. It's not simply the shoes. It's having a pro pace you at BU and 5 heats of 12-15 guys getting after it. Talent is up in the sport. Time trials in perfect conditions are up. Training is better than ever.
Thank you!! Add in that the shoes 10 years ago made the shoes I ran in college look like hiking boots. I think this is confluence of incremental improvements in all areas.
Based on the World Athletics indoor scoring tables, a 4:00.0 mile for a male is accorded 1,132 points. For a female, a 4:32.57 mile is accorded 1,132 points. At the BU Valentine meet, there were 432 male finishers in the mile and 52 broke 4:00.0 (12.0% of all male finishers). In the women’s mile, there were 288 finishers and only four broke 4:32.57 (1.4% of all female finishers). Why the huge gender difference! Granted, “I want to be a sub-4:32 miler” is not exactly a rallying call for a female runner, but is there something else going on too?
Based on the World Athletics indoor scoring tables, a 4:00.0 mile for a male is accorded 1,132 points. For a female, a 4:32.57 mile is accorded 1,132 points. At the BU Valentine meet, there were 432 male finishers in the mile and 52 broke 4:00.0 (12.0% of all male finishers). In the women’s mile, there were 288 finishers and only four broke 4:32.57 (1.4% of all female finishers). Why the huge gender difference! Granted, “I want to be a sub-4:32 miler” is not exactly a rallying call for a female runner, but is there something else going on too?
Maybe the men are afraid the women are going to catch them, because they have been narrowing the gap.
Another idea: men have bouncier running stride, so the new shoes help them more?
The shoes matter, the track matters. Here's a very good piece on why the BU track is like the super shoes of track... mix super shoes and running on the track and you're talking like a 5% increase in performance....
I do think as a whole, we are improving, but trying to compare times between era's is kind of irrelevant. 4 minutes was a nice, clean barrier to break, now I think it's probably 3:55 in terms of performance. It's all still fun to watch and love all these guys running so fast, but it's silly to think the shoes and track don't matter.
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...
In well trained athletes, the conversion seems to be ballpark 1% of the previous performance. There will always be long term progress where times will creep down in the NCAA / globally, but the jump of a few years ago is wildly outside this trend. To say this is exclusively from training improvements or runners being more motivated is a disservice to great runners from previous eras. Based on rough estimates:
3:57.6 is the new 4:00.0 Mile 12:52.2 is the new 13:00 5000m 2:08:42 is the new 2:10:00 Marathon
You can easily compute other distances if you wish. These figures seem to approximate the one-time jump fairly well.
Of course they do. And the same statement mattered back in 1967 when the first ever competition on a synthetic track happened. The same statement mattered in 1975 when Brooks first did a shoe using an EVA midsole instead of Polyurethane.
The point we have had these milestones before in the world of track and field and even though I wasn't around for either milestone I wonder if there was the same visceral reaction to them. I think also back in this era, society as a whole (not specific to track) was more curious and excited with change and saw the possibilities with how it could improve their lives. Now we live in a society where we are scared of change and see it as a contributing threat to our egos (like really, you care so much how your 5000m PR shapes up now vs back in the 90's?).
In well trained athletes, the conversion seems to be ballpark 1% of the previous performance. There will always be long term progress where times will creep down in the NCAA / globally, but the jump of a few years ago is wildly outside this trend. To say this is exclusively from training improvements or runners being more motivated is a disservice to great runners from previous eras. Based on rough estimates:
3:57.6 is the new 4:00.0 Mile 12:52.2 is the new 13:00 5000m 2:08:42 is the new 2:10:00 Marathon
You can easily compute other distances if you wish. These figures seem to approximate the one-time jump fairly well.
This right here is it - "a disservice to great runners from past eras". Why is it a disservice? What does it matter? You think Jesse Owens lost sleep over Carl Lewis running half a second faster than he did over 100m because he had to run on crappy cinder with holes in the ground instead of blocks and leather shoes that weighed twice as much? Same with Nurmi? Zatopek?
Is there a narrative or sentiment in the running world that track technology (I'm mostly talking wavelight) and foam innovation has had zero impact on performance? I'm pretty involved in this world and never heard this. I think most rational people believe it's a combination of product improvements and also a groundswell of circumstances such as greater volume of talent in the sport, exposure and opportunities, the weird impact of a global pandemic that allowed many athletes the luxury of almost living like pros for 18 months and ramped up desperation to compete.
The thing with your conversions is that there are absolutely some athletes that will fall onto those points on the spectrum (4.00 milers now running 3.57 etc) but it's far too inexact a science to say that's a blanket conversion so trying to quantify it all just seems non value adding to be honest.
This right here is it - "a disservice to great runners from past eras". Why is it a disservice? What does it matter? You think Jesse Owens lost sleep over Carl Lewis running half a second faster than he did over 100m because he had to run on crappy cinder with holes in the ground instead of blocks and leather shoes that weighed twice as much? Same with Nurmi? Zatopek?
Is there a narrative or sentiment in the running world that track technology (I'm mostly talking wavelight) and foam innovation has had zero impact on performance? I'm pretty involved in this world and never heard this. I think most rational people believe it's a combination of product improvements and also a groundswell of circumstances such as greater volume of talent in the sport, exposure and opportunities, the weird impact of a global pandemic that allowed many athletes the luxury of almost living like pros for 18 months and ramped up desperation to compete.
The thing with your conversions is that there are absolutely some athletes that will fall onto those points on the spectrum (4.00 milers now running 3.57 etc) but it's far too inexact a science to say that's a blanket conversion so trying to quantify it all just seems non value adding to be honest.
Yes and this goes back to the Johnny Gregorek argument. He ran 3:49.9 at BU, but does anyone think he could go comfortably under 3:48 (3:47.7) in super spikes at BU? Same exercise for Sam Prakel (3:50.9-->3:48.6). Maybe it is 1% for BU + superspikes. If you did a scatter analysis of elites from 2015-2018 to 2019-2022, there's no way to me that top milers are looking at a 1% effect (2+ seconds in the mile) just from the spikes. From the supershoes in the marathon? Absolutely, and possibly more like 1.5%.
My opinion on this, especially when it comes to the mile is that it's almost impossible to know. The primary benefit of "superspikes" is lightweight cushioning that isn't at the expense of peak ground force. Simply put, you want to stop muscle fatigue from the impact on the track, but you can't (for example) strap pillows to your feet because even though that would do wonders dissipating impact, you'd never put enough force into the surface to run fast. In terms of in-race, this is where a linear or blanket number with respect to improved running economy doesn't work - you can't say "it's 1% for the mile and 1% for the 5000m because the primary function of the foams benefit isn't being utilized as much in a mile vs a 5k. Very few milers are experiencing any appreciable impact fatigue from the tracks surface - it's not long enough. 3000m - benefits starting to increase and by 5000m a much larger benefit. But then again when we understand that primary function we can then understand how an individuals physiology and even the way they train makes a difference because it's really in training the help for every happens. For example, my hypothesis would be that athletes who don't a lot of track work or work on the track in spikes will benefit less (they don't blast their leg muscles as much) but those who do a lot of track work in spikes can now do it without obliterating their lower leg muscles in particular and can recover so much better. So there are just far too many factors involved and the spectrum of benefit so wide ranging pointing to an exact figure. And I know there are candidates out there that could support this because I knew even 800m runners that did every workout they could on the track in spikes and others that would do 90% of their work in trainers and only very short work in spikes. Same for milers/3000m/5000m guys - the preferences were and are wide ranging.
One of the things that make track and field such a great sport is that it has comparable history built into it. The "Game" doesn't change, nor do the rules, or at least in principle. It makes it at easy as possible to compare your performances against the halls of time....
From an athletes point of view, yea, everyone has access to the same technology so there's no competitive edge (arguably, running on BU's track is a bit of an advantage compared to say a flat track). I'm totally cool with watching these guys race and race fast as long as they're all using equal equipment.
I guess it just adds context into determining who's the best of all time. It used to be easier, now it's blurring, just like in every other sport. That's the part I think people care about when it comes to the shoes... the comparative aspect of fitness across era's is becoming more grey... is Jared Neguse really faster than Bernard Legat? Is Woody Kincaid really better than Bob Kennedy?
I don't care about the shoes, I love people just sending it... living through the 90's and watching people lose their minds over Tim Broe running sub 13:20 compared to now... I'll take now all day... but using time as a comparison across era's is becoming less relevant... boo.
One of the things that make track and field such a great sport is that it has comparable history built into it. The "Game" doesn't change, nor do the rules, or at least in principle. It makes it at easy as possible to compare your performances against the halls of time....
From an athletes point of view, yea, everyone has access to the same technology so there's no competitive edge (arguably, running on BU's track is a bit of an advantage compared to say a flat track). I'm totally cool with watching these guys race and race fast as long as they're all using equal equipment.
I guess it just adds context into determining who's the best of all time. It used to be easier, now it's blurring, just like in every other sport. That's the part I think people care about when it comes to the shoes... the comparative aspect of fitness across era's is becoming more grey... is Jared Neguse really faster than Bernard Legat? Is Woody Kincaid really better than Bob Kennedy?
I don't care about the shoes, I love people just sending it... living through the 90's and watching people lose their minds over Tim Broe running sub 13:20 compared to now... I'll take now all day... but using time as a comparison across era's is becoming less relevant... boo.
You've got a short memory dude. The game does change - you have to accept and get over it. The game changed for Owens to Lewis to Bolt. It changed for Nurmi to Viren to Bekele and even from Bekele to Cheptegei. Things evolve and they will continue to. I get it a lot of track fans - including myself, are sentimental "purists", and we do the same as other sports in comparing guys across eras in trying to figure out who the "GOATS" are etc. We tell ourselves we can do it because "a 400m track is a 400m track and a second is still a second" thinking we have cross-generational equality - but we don't and we have to accept this. And the point remains, every generation (and it track we tend to have longer ones because the nature of the sport does allow for massive shifts) could have a gripe with the one that precedes it on many things that support better performances.
Your final statement here drives me crazy - "you love people sending it"? What like Nuguse, Fisher, Kincaid etc aren't? Like they are just out there giving 80% effort and running these times? It's just tracks and shoes and lights and these guys are just having a laugh. You're a convenient track fan man with ulterior agenda my friend.
One of the things that make track and field such a great sport is that it has comparable history built into it. The "Game" doesn't change, nor do the rules, or at least in principle. It makes it at easy as possible to compare your performances against the halls of time....
From an athletes point of view, yea, everyone has access to the same technology so there's no competitive edge (arguably, running on BU's track is a bit of an advantage compared to say a flat track). I'm totally cool with watching these guys race and race fast as long as they're all using equal equipment.
I guess it just adds context into determining who's the best of all time. It used to be easier, now it's blurring, just like in every other sport. That's the part I think people care about when it comes to the shoes... the comparative aspect of fitness across era's is becoming more grey... is Jared Neguse really faster than Bernard Legat? Is Woody Kincaid really better than Bob Kennedy?
I don't care about the shoes, I love people just sending it... living through the 90's and watching people lose their minds over Tim Broe running sub 13:20 compared to now... I'll take now all day... but using time as a comparison across era's is becoming less relevant... boo.
You've got a short memory dude. The game does change - you have to accept and get over it. The game changed for Owens to Lewis to Bolt. It changed for Nurmi to Viren to Bekele and even from Bekele to Cheptegei. Things evolve and they will continue to. I get it a lot of track fans - including myself, are sentimental "purists", and we do the same as other sports in comparing guys across eras in trying to figure out who the "GOATS" are etc. We tell ourselves we can do it because "a 400m track is a 400m track and a second is still a second" thinking we have cross-generational equality - but we don't and we have to accept this. And the point remains, every generation (and it track we tend to have longer ones because the nature of the sport does allow for massive shifts) could have a gripe with the one that precedes it on many things that support better performances.
Your final statement here drives me crazy - "you love people sending it"? What like Nuguse, Fisher, Kincaid etc aren't? Like they are just out there giving 80% effort and running these times? It's just tracks and shoes and lights and these guys are just having a laugh. You're a convenient track fan man with ulterior agenda my friend.
You think Lewis ran faster than Owens only because of tech? You think Bolt ran faster than Lewis only Because of tech? They didn’t. And, no, Cheptegei isn’t a better athlete than Bekele. But there he is, on top of the list because of shoes. Cheptegei is a 12:45 5000m runner.
Look, we all get it. All weather tracks are better than cinder. But it was an inevitable fact that, eventually, we’d start running on something that we were already driving on. Ryun ran his fastest mile on cinders despite the fact that he raced on both. Clarke ran his fastest 5000 and 10000m on cinders despite the fact that he raced on both. I don’t think the transition from cinder to all-weather tracks had as much of an effect on track times as the pro super shoe crowd would like to believe. It is no where near the effect super shoes are having today.
Super shoes have a 20-30 second advantage in a collegiate-level 10000m. I watch an athlete that couldn’t break 14:30 indoors run sub 29:00 after buying super shoes. You really think cinder to all-weather or 70s to 80s to 90s to 2000s era shoe technology had this much effect!? They didn’t otherwise Viren (or anyone else) would have demolished Clarkes WR (he bettered it by one second, 6 years after all-weather came out).
Where does it end? All tech is not equal. Just because we went from cinder to all-weather doesn’t mean we should go to rotating tracks. But there is little difference between rotating tracks and super shoes.
I think if you read my post over, you'd realize that you've completely misunderstood it... I actually think I'm in 100% agreeance with you. If you're going to quote me, use the entirety of the post... I said I would take "NOW" all day long because they're just sending it. I was making the analogy that 20 years ago, people thought Tim Broe was the greatest thing for running sub 13:20 at the US champs... I'll take today over that ALL THE TIME.
My point was that while it's nostalgic to think about how times compare across era's it's becoming less relevant due to the game changing even though in principle, it's the same... It's progress for sure, but I don't blame people for trying to hold onto the essence of it all.
And to the next poster, same deal... with tech changes, the arguments for who's better become more subjective than objective, which is ironic considering everyone races the same distances...
So chill out... I'm loving it, it just makes "whos the greatest" arguments harder.. but what else is this message board for!
This right here is it - "a disservice to great runners from past eras". Why is it a disservice? What does it matter? You think Jesse Owens lost sleep over Carl Lewis running half a second faster than he did over 100m because he had to run on crappy cinder with holes in the ground instead of blocks and leather shoes that weighed twice as much? Same with Nurmi? Zatopek?
Is there a narrative or sentiment in the running world that track technology (I'm mostly talking wavelight) and foam innovation has had zero impact on performance? I'm pretty involved in this world and never heard this. I think most rational people believe it's a combination of product improvements and also a groundswell of circumstances such as greater volume of talent in the sport, exposure and opportunities, the weird impact of a global pandemic that allowed many athletes the luxury of almost living like pros for 18 months and ramped up desperation to compete.
The thing with your conversions is that there are absolutely some athletes that will fall onto those points on the spectrum (4.00 milers now running 3.57 etc) but it's far too inexact a science to say that's a blanket conversion so trying to quantify it all just seems non value adding to be honest.
Yes and this goes back to the Johnny Gregorek argument. He ran 3:49.9 at BU, but does anyone think he could go comfortably under 3:48 (3:47.7) in super spikes at BU? Same exercise for Sam Prakel (3:50.9-->3:48.6). Maybe it is 1% for BU + superspikes. If you did a scatter analysis of elites from 2015-2018 to 2019-2022, there's no way to me that top milers are looking at a 1% effect (2+ seconds in the mile) just from the spikes. From the supershoes in the marathon? Absolutely, and possibly more like 1.5%.
Totally agree with this, here's my personal anecdote. Having had access to super spikes and vapor flies my final year of college, I think the biggest benefit is in the training as well as the changes in racing. I was able to train harder without my calves going uber-tight (was always a big issue for me). The spikes themselves maybe made a second per mile for me, I don't really think more.
People like to make the wave of improvement argument, but happily leave out the COVID-era training. A lot of us were able to stack high volume weeks with quality for far longer than we were able to in previous seasons. I was able to average 15 mpw more with quality because of the lack of outside pressure and NO RACING. Made a huge fitness jump because of that. A lot of my former teammates are racing less (lower tier D1 program) than we raced before COVID. Add in the ability to put in more work because your legs aren't beat up, that accounts for a big difference that could contribute to the wave of improvements as well. Throw super shoe recovery into it and I think you have a great explanation.
My 1500 PR in super shoes sure didn't feel any easier or come with any less work than my 800 PR in non super shoes. As someone who came heartbreakingly close to dipping under 4 with both super spikes and without, the whole super shoes change everything argument just seems like people being jealous of recent improvements. A lot like MJ fans saying LeBron sucks rather than giving him respect.
1) insistence that everyone is suddenly going faster, backed only by confirmation bias/anecdote
2) complete ignorance of even the very basis of running mechanics.
You'll refuse to believe it because it's me saying it. That's hilarious too. Here goes: bouncing has NOTHING to do with running fast. Absolutely nothing at all.
