Those look sweet!
why the hell would you want heel cushioning in a shoe designed for an elite 100m sprinter?????????????????
It seems heavy to at 7.8oz...
I'm close to boycotting Nike
this guy wrote:
why the hell would you want heel cushioning in a shoe designed for an elite 100m sprinter?????????????????
It seems heavy to at 7.8oz...
that's the part i don't understand! after reading the little blurb about it, i thought, "well, ok, this might work for a 5k," but then i looked and it said, "Designed for the elite level 100 meter sprinter looking for a sprint spike with the latest in innovative technology that supports the foot and enhances performance like no other spike."
it goes on to say that the "Two-column Nike Shox™ support piece under the heel support the foot and provide correct sprinting form and foot position." After reading Explosive Running by Michael Yessis Phd, I cannot understand how the shox would help in sprinting by learning the biomechanics of the foot during intense 100m power sprinting! can anyone throw out a guess?
Could it work for a 400?
Personally, I always thought the Shox were downright moronic, but I'm trying to give Nike the benefit of the doubt here...but I still don't get it.
I knew an 800m runner who raced exclusively in 200-400 shoes because he ran the 800 barely letting his heels touch the ground. Then again I knew a faster 800m runner who raced exclusively in 5k-10k shoes. Both were solely 800m runners (until we convinced one to try the mile). Both ran in shoes more minimal than those.
It's really depressing how committed Nike is to this idiotic Shox gimmick. I was disappointed to see them insert it into the Bowerman line. Now a sprint spike? I wonder if they can pay any of their sprinters enough to wear it in competition.
In a market where the same leading shoe technologies are offered by every manufacturer, distinction requires inventing new technology or hyping a gimmick. These days Nike is doing the latter.
They were showing them off on The Today Show during the Olympics. Supposedly they filmed sprinters and saw that they went back on their heels, and the shox are to help keep them on their toes. At least that's what they say.
Stupid. Extremely stupid. Why on earth would you want to lessen your range of motion and power at toe off in a sprint shoe?!????!?!?!?!??!?. I've seen NB shoes made for 500 pound runners with a lower heal to forefoot ratio than those shoes. My god, I think I want to die after seeing those.
I agree the concept is completely stupid. Nikes reasoning is that in the final stages of a 100 meters race, as the athlete tires, it becomes hard for them to remain on their toes, and I guess the decided that putting springs in the heel of the shoe helps them remain on their toes for that last little bit of the race. The shox arent designed for cushioning, but to aid the runner in their foot placement.
If that is true, that the Shox are designed to help sprinters stay up on their toes towards the end of the race, doesn't it seem to border on cheating? The shoe is doing work the sprinter should be doing. I'm aware this argument could be made against any equipment runners use, but this would appear to cross the line. If that is the case, then Nike is really in a difficult position: If the shoe does what they say it does it's illegal, if it doesn't do what they say it does it's worthless.
but part of what gives sprinters, or any runners for that matter, extra push-off is that they achilles tendon stretches and then snaps back, giving you extra power. All these are doing is taking away power.
you know, I didn't even think of that, but you are totally right! What 100m runner strikes heel to toe??Seriously, I think sprinters will make of guys wearing these.
this guy wrote:
why the hell would you want heel cushioning in a shoe designed for an elite 100m sprinter?????????????????
It seems heavy to at 7.8oz...
illegal? Where is this rule? I don't understand how it could be illegal?
Undecided wrote:
If that is true, that the Shox are designed to help sprinters stay up on their toes towards the end of the race, doesn't it seem to border on cheating? The shoe is doing work the sprinter should be doing. I'm aware this argument could be made against any equipment runners use, but this would appear to cross the line. If that is the case, then Nike is really in a difficult position: If the shoe does what they say it does it's illegal, if it doesn't do what they say it does it's worthless.
It is gimic too make money. Crawford ran in them for the 100 and Gatlin did not and look who won. As a matter of fact, The second and third place finishers in the 100 did not wear them either.
In that case, you could say that spikes should be illegal because they give the runner traction that they wouldn't have with their bare feet. Or the way the spike plate is curved also helps them stay on their toes.
Crawford wore them in the 200, who won? thats a crap argument...
bad ass shoe, i've worn them, and they help alot when you start to fatigue in the last 20 or so meters. great invention i'll be wearing them all year
tester wrote:
bad ass shoe, i've worn them, and they help alot when you start to fatigue in the last 20 or so meters. great invention i'll be wearing them all year
if you're a tester, can you provide a detailed description of the shoe? is there a nike rep on here that would want to explain how this spike is supposed to work with the shox in them?
Crawford was whipping Gatlin all year long in the 200 without those shox spikes.
waz wrote:
Crawford wore them in the 200, who won? thats a crap argument...