I agree to an extent. But the controversy around the shoes isn’t how it makes modern competition unfair. Everyone has good shoes and the playing field is fair. People are complaining about how it makes comparison across eras of running much more difficult.
I agree to an extent. But the controversy around the shoes isn’t how it makes modern competition unfair. Everyone has good shoes and the playing field is fair. People are complaining about how it makes comparison across eras of running much more difficult.
Well, that is the case with any technological advances the sport has witnessed.
But the controversy around the shoes isn’t how it makes modern competition unfair. Everyone has good shoes and the playing field is fair.
Not necessarily true. Ross Tucker has spoken a lot about the evidence of 'super responders' to these shoes based on the runner's individual physiology and running gait. We then have a situation where the percentage of time gained by a super responder over the course of a marathon makes up for the fitness they would have needed to beat the competitor in front (who had a relatively low response to the shoes).
I've been stating that super shoes are just starting. Imagine where this is going. We are basically on versions 1 & 2 so the improvements will continue to come...
Not necessarily true. Ross Tucker has spoken a lot about the evidence of 'super responders' to these shoes based on the runner's individual physiology and running gait. We then have a situation where the percentage of time gained by a super responder over the course of a marathon makes up for the fitness they would have needed to beat the competitor in front (who had a relatively low response to the shoes).
Some runners do better in the heat. Or the cold. Or at altitude, indoors, running clockwise, on hills. Having (regular) shoes at all is a huge performance aid for many.
how much do the shoes change the game other than slightly faster times? If they fundamentally change the mechanics of running or make things unsafe I think we should make rules around limiting their use in competition. Technology is not new to the sport. Shoes are less problematic than altitude tents, cooling vests, and other things like, um, micro dosing…
Again, this is an inane argument. The shoes have contributed to the downfall of what once were times only for the greats. Do the shoes make everyone a potential WR holder? No. Do they crack the door for people that need an additional boost? Absolutely. Technology advances, and with advancement comes obsolescence in the form of outdated times and records.
Point is- enjoy the new records; they are remarkable and the shoes shouldn't take away from that. But never forget the Bekele's/Kipchoges/Gebs, Ngeny's, Komen's etc that were world beaters and stewards of the sport long before Grant Fisher's and Cheptegai's were threatening for new records...
And reinforces Trail is the only pure sport remaining... one could argue Cross Country as well.
I don’t have a problem with super shoes, but they are definitely being used on many XC courses and companies are trying to figure them out for trail running.
I love the Incredibles analogy, I use it all the time. Comparing across different eras of sport is never really possible, as so much changes regardless of the sport. Babe Ruth did not face the depth of pitching that today's hitters face. There were no Black pitchers, and certainly none from central america. Imagine if Pete Alonso or Aaron Judge only had to face white pitchers, how many home runs might they hit??
But the controversy around the shoes isn’t how it makes modern competition unfair. Everyone has good shoes and the playing field is fair.
Not necessarily true. Ross Tucker has spoken a lot about the evidence of 'super responders' to these shoes based on the runner's individual physiology and running gait. We then have a situation where the percentage of time gained by a super responder over the course of a marathon makes up for the fitness they would have needed to beat the competitor in front (who had a relatively low response to the shoes).
The implicit assumption here is that running shoes before super shoes were a level playing field. But they also provided some people with more of an advantage versus others. Some people are likely super responders to regular shoes vs running bare foot.
Injury risk is also an important factor. Super shoes may increase injury risk for some and decrease it for others. But if the number of people for whom they decrease injury risk is greater than the number for whom they increase it, then one could argue they create a more competitive playing field and allow some great runners to achieve maximum potential when they otherwise would have been restrained by injuries that resulted from one shoe technology instead of another.
Not necessarily true. Ross Tucker has spoken a lot about the evidence of 'super responders' to these shoes based on the runner's individual physiology and running gait. We then have a situation where the percentage of time gained by a super responder over the course of a marathon makes up for the fitness they would have needed to beat the competitor in front (who had a relatively low response to the shoes).
Some runners do better in the heat. Or the cold. Or at altitude, indoors, running clockwise, on hills.
The point you're evading of course being that supershoes aid a super responder in *every situation*. So your hypothetical runner who does well in the heat smashes Dubai marathon, good for him. Then he runs a road race in Norway and it's a totally different situation. However, studies have shown (think it was Hoogkamer et al) that a super responder can get 8% of benefit from super shoes compared to essentially 0% for a non-responder. 8%!!! That's 8% efficiency gains that follows them into every conceivable road race (or track race for the new spikes), not just those races that suit their niche advantage like heat or altitude. I do get your general point but the pure joy of competitive running is knowing that the fastest person won, not that the person who responded best to carbon plates and foam edged out a fitter competitor on the day.
Not necessarily true. Ross Tucker has spoken a lot about the evidence of 'super responders' to these shoes based on the runner's individual physiology and running gait. We then have a situation where the percentage of time gained by a super responder over the course of a marathon makes up for the fitness they would have needed to beat the competitor in front (who had a relatively low response to the shoes).
The implicit assumption here is that running shoes before super shoes were a level playing field. But they also provided some people with more of an advantage versus others. Some people are likely super responders to regular shoes vs running bare foot.
I agree with that in principle, but I haven't seen any studies on it. However, I would be very surprised if the level of advantage was found to be reliably above 1-2% between two athletes wearing non-carbon plated shoes.
I've been stating that super shoes are just starting. Imagine where this is going. We are basically on versions 1 & 2 so the improvements will continue to come...
The Vaporfly 4%s came out five years ago, and even Nike has barely improved on them if at all - if they had, they'd call them the 5%s or the 6%s instead of the Next%s. You do have a lot more choices now, but I think any improvements for the foreseeable future will be incremental. Just look at other technology improvements - the original synthetic tracks in the 60s were a huge leap over cinders, but we haven't improved on the originals much in the last 60 years. Synthetic spikes with nylon spike plates were a huge leap over leather spikes, but they evolved pretty slowly afterwards until super spikes came along.
I agree to an extent. But the controversy around the shoes isn’t how it makes modern competition unfair. Everyone has good shoes and the playing field is fair. People are complaining about how it makes comparison across eras of running much more difficult.
Well, that is the case with any technological advances the sport has witnessed.
At this point, people who moan about super shoes are just the old men shouting at a cloud. The shoes are with us, they've been the reality for at least 4 years now. I'm sorry that it's easier for people to run the same times you did back in the day but you have your memories and the extreme self-satisfaction of having run in basic shoes. Kudos to you
At this point, people who moan about super shoes are just the old men shouting at a cloud. The shoes are with us, they've been the reality for at least 4 years now. I'm sorry that it's easier for people to run the same times you did back in the day but you have your memories and the extreme self-satisfaction of having run in basic shoes. Kudos to you
And...you youngsters will continue to compare your assisted times with the legends of the past, pat yourselves on the back, knowing full well that your time is not your own.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.