If super shoes make such a big difference, then I guess Kipchoge's debut was the best marathon of his life. He ran 2:04:05 flat a decade ago in his first ever attempt. It's unfathomable that he could improve 2 minutes 56 seconds with many years of training for the marathon.
Also, the world record in 2013 was set at 2:02:57. If the shoes make you 1 minute 49 seconds faster, then this 2:02:57 would still be the record without the shoes, and it would be 10 years old. Only one other time has there been a gap of 6 or more years to break the world record in the past 100 years, and it was also a 10 year gap, so we would be in the longest marathon world record drought in history. Historically it has been surpassed every three years on average. So I would have expected it to get lowered 3 more times since the 2:02:57 was set in 2013. And that's exactly how many times it has been lowered. The progression perfectly lines up with what we've seen for decades. If the shoes make a difference, it's nowhere near the amount that people keep implying. It's about a second per mile at best, not a more dramatic difference than many other improvements in the past. I would guess that the shoes people had in 1950 were worse than in 1980. And the shoes in 1980 were probably worse than what we had in 2010.
And the shoes in 1980 were probably worse than what we had in 2010.
Good post and this is the best and most important part of it.
How about in the 50's and 60's when they were wearing shoes with full leather uppers and only insanely dense and firm full rubber outsoles that really provided zero cushioning/elastic rebound?
That jump to what we now see as rubbish mesh/EVA midsoles/curated rubber outsoles was a far bigger jump in "RE benefit" from the product than what we have just seen.
So the answer is no, no need for "supershoe records" - guys like Ross Tucker and Robert Johnson just need to get over it.
Yes also records for cinder tracks and different records for each iteration of drugs testing. For other sports we should separate stats between turf vs regular grass as well. Swimming lets have different record for different swimsuits. Basketball different stats and records before the 3pt line was changed. Football different stats and records for each era of different helmets and rules. I bet you’re fun to be around OP!
The data is clear. Since the road super shoes, Marathon times got 90-120s faster for elite men. More for women because it is a percentage improvement (longer time, same percentage = more time). For track shoes, nearly every WR has fallen above 1 mile for men and above 800m for women. Looking at the 100th best times is a much better indicator and that shows several seconds per mile improvement since the shoes were introduced after a decade of minimal changes.
Do we need a separate list? Probably not, but don't compare pre super shoe times to current times. They do not have the same value. Example NCAA Indoor 5000m pre shoes - best time was usually 13:30s, 100th = 14:15. Now 13:1x, 100th = 13:55.
The data is clear. Since the road super shoes, Marathon times got 90-120s faster for elite men. More for women because it is a percentage improvement (longer time, same percentage = more time). For track shoes, nearly every WR has fallen above 1 mile for men and above 800m for women. Looking at the 100th best times is a much better indicator and that shows several seconds per mile improvement since the shoes were introduced after a decade of minimal changes.
Do we need a separate list? Probably not, but don't compare pre super shoe times to current times. They do not have the same value. Example NCAA Indoor 5000m pre shoes - best time was usually 13:30s, 100th = 14:15. Now 13:1x, 100th = 13:55.
NCAA indoors is a silly thing to look at for a number of reasons. You had a better metric with 100th best marathon times worldwide. While not all of the progression there would be attached to the shoes, I bet it would be the biggest factor. Somewhere between 60-100 seconds for an elite man and 70-120 for an elite woman seems fair to me.
The data is clear. Since the road super shoes, Marathon times got 90-120s faster for elite men.
120 seconds faster for men? So back to my original comment, that means we're in the biggest drought of marathon improvement in the history of marathon racing, since we had a time of 2:02:57 a decade ago. Even if we accept your 90 second difference, that would mean Kipchoge's most recent record is only about a 15 second improvement over Kimetto 10 years ago, which would still be the smallest improvement of the world record in 10 years.
What is more likely, the shoes don't make you 90+ seconds faster, or the world's best marathon runners haven't improved in 10+ years? I'm going with the former. And that would also make Rupp's 2:06 equal to a 2:08, so our fastest male marathon runner in over a decade is only a 2:08 equivalent guy with old shoes? Even though he has two olympic medals, and clearly one of if not the best runner in US history.
One sample point is not useful data. Look at years of the 100th best time. There is a distinct improvement when the shoes were introduced (road and track). This is true for HS, College, pro.
I am not advocating a ban or a separate list. Just that there is a change that people should recognize. Running a 4 minute mile or a sub 14 5K is more common now than before the shoes. Therefore it has less ranking value. These are facts. Some people get emotional about it, but facts are facts.
They do this in swimming. Maybe not officially but it's cited all the time on the forums. They'll list the textile records and the non-textile records.
In a sport where doping is such a prominent factor it is impossible to accurately assess the effect of the shoes independently. What is interesting is that none of the governing bodies are officially recognising the latest shoes are changing the sport. Some of the fastest times weren't done with the new shoes and some of the athletes using them haven't improved on their best times.
If super shoes make such a big difference, then I guess Kipchoge's debut was the best marathon of his life. He ran 2:04:05 flat a decade ago in his first ever attempt. It's unfathomable that he could improve 2 minutes 56 seconds with many years of training for the marathon.
What’s more likely: he got nearly 3 minutes better naturally as he approached 40, or he got faster due to super shoes? I say the latter.
The slower frequency in improvement in the world record would be explained by us getting closer to the limits of human potential. Look at how long Bekele’s records lasted. It took super shoes to take them down.
If super shoes make such a big difference, then I guess Kipchoge's debut was the best marathon of his life. He ran 2:04:05 flat a decade ago in his first ever attempt. It's unfathomable that he could improve 2 minutes 56 seconds with many years of training for the marathon.
What’s more likely: he got nearly 3 minutes better naturally as he approached 40, or he got faster due to super shoes? I say the latter.
The slower frequency in improvement in the world record would be explained by us getting closer to the limits of human potential. Look at how long Bekele’s records lasted. It took super shoes to take them down.
Better doping explains both. It always has. It is far more sophisticated and more powerful than a sole on a shoe.
The data is clear. Since the road super shoes, Marathon times got 90-120s faster for elite men. More for women because it is a percentage improvement (longer time, same percentage = more time). For track shoes, nearly every WR has fallen above 1 mile for men and above 800m for women. Looking at the 100th best times is a much better indicator and that shows several seconds per mile improvement since the shoes were introduced after a decade of minimal changes.
Do we need a separate list? Probably not, but don't compare pre super shoe times to current times. They do not have the same value. Example NCAA Indoor 5000m pre shoes - best time was usually 13:30s, 100th = 14:15. Now 13:1x, 100th = 13:55.
NCAA indoors is a silly thing to look at for a number of reasons. You had a better metric with 100th best marathon times worldwide. While not all of the progression there would be attached to the shoes, I bet it would be the biggest factor. Somewhere between 60-100 seconds for an elite man and 70-120 for an elite woman seems fair to me.
Agree. Comparing indoor times isn't the best indicator. More state of the art tracks have been built and nowadays teams often travel a lot further to good tracks to chase times.