Does anyone seriously want vaporflys banned?

I'd like to see them banned. There is a difference between gradual shoe improvements over four decades and a radical change that pushes the limits of legality. There are restrictions on what a shoe can be composed of ( no springs, for example) and the vapor flys really push it. A medal should not be determined by the equipment; it should be determined by the athlete.

The tech hasn't improved. Why are consumers such suckers for every gimmick that comes along, decade after decade? Remember Nike Air?

About a third of the sub-2:04s ever run happened between 2011 and 2014, before the 4% shoes, including the first sub 2:03. Slightly under two-thirds happened since 2015. That is not an abnormal progression at all. It didn't happen because of shoes, but because the runners got better - in particular, Kipchoge who first dared to experiment with paces previously considered suicidal. His breakthrough is what led to every other sub 2:03 since Kimetto.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The tech hasn't improved. Why are consumers such suckers for every gimmick that comes along, decade after decade? Remember Nike Air?

About a third of the sub-2:04s ever run happened between 2011 and 2014, before the 4% shoes, including the first sub 2:03. Slightly under two-thirds happened since 2015. That is not an abnormal progression at all. It didn't happen because of shoes, but because the runners got better - in particular, Kipchoge who first dared to experiment with paces previously considered suicidal. His breakthrough is what led to every other sub 2:03 since Kimetto.

So Wigs....the reason that runners do not experiment with paces considered suicidal is because they always die. That is why they are termed suicidal. Kipchoge has the benefit of the shoes and drugs. That is what makes the previously suicidal pace now his racing pace. Got it? You are welcome.

ALL shoes are about minimising efficiency lost, some do it better than others.

Ban the vaporfly, no, unless you ban spikes (grip), or racing flats (lightness) or cushioned shoes (protection) as they are providing a technological advantage which affects the results of a race.

So yep, all shoes should be banned because their entire purpose is to make us run faster for long, this is through the technology which provides either protection and/or grip.

However unlike cycling (which the vaporfly technology is compared to) us runners can’t put zero effort in and get a reward.

they should ban sports drink and energy gels too

The tech has improved dramatically, but the real question I think is that it provides a clear and unlawful advantage by that amount of energy return that it gives (bouncing it is?).

The actual facts are that the top 4 perfonmances (and 8th, 9th and 10th) in mens marathon are made with these shoes in the span of a year. Along with the WR in HM last month, wich in turn bettered the previous record of last year, also with the vaporfly.

Kipchoge may be an exceptional athlete, as Bekele is, or Kamworor, or Kosgei, but we are talking minutes here from their own PB, athletes who are in some cases aged 34-35, I don't think that is an age apt for much progression.

To get them banned, or at least regulated, is for the good of sport and equality among the athletes and perfonmances, it sounds awful to get things banned, but such was the case of swiming and those swimsuits some years ago. And nobody made a fuss about it.

I am all in favor of better shoes, tech etc. However, in order to judge real progress we must know how much 4% helped

Kipchoge. Ron Clarke ran 27:39 on a dirt track in 1965. With modern spikes and tracks, I think he could have dipped under 27, 28 yrs before it really happened.

The problem with swim suits is improvement argument is that they were they passive, you did not have to do anything for the advantage whereas atleast with running you need to actually need to run

I think that we'll see a shoe that gets banned quite soon but it's not going to be the Vaporfly because that one is kind of history already. AlphaFLY maybe .... difficult to say because there is no real evidence what is inside the pods etc. So someone should get a pair and cut it open. What probably will happen is that they aren't going to ban that one either. As a result, more and more men in tracksuits get furious. Then when Nike launches another wonder shoe in 2022 it will push the envelope so far that the shoe will be banned - especially because there is so much repressed anger involved in the case.

No don’t ban them. I’d rather other companies innovate so everyone is on an even playing field

Matbar wrote:

The problem with swim suits is improvement argument is that they were they passive, you did not have to do anything for the advantage whereas atleast with running you need to actually need to run

As opposed to those swimmers who don't swim, right?

Utter nonsense.

No reason to ban them.

Are the LT4, the fastest shoe over 5k and 10k on road races banned? No!

Are spikes, the fastest shoes on the track banned? No!

If you want to ban the best shoes, you need to ban them everywhere where they bring a performance benefit and not just on road HM and marathons.

The swimsuits are not comparable at all. They allowed mediocre, second-class swimmers like Biedermann to destroy world records set by the "Great's" in swimming. In running, no 2:10 guy is suddenly gonna win major marathons because of shoes, it's still the same old people on the top (Kipchoge, Bekele, etc.).

Be consistent please wrote:

Does anyone really want to place asterisks on every single performance by the shoe in the last 4 years just because shoe technology has improved? Or is it just talk?

Why are track fans so against technological improvement? If they were consistent, they'd also be opposed to the new scientific training research in the last 20 years, or the gradual shoe improvements in the last 40 years.

Either be fine with technological and scientific improvements in Athletics or be consistent and advocate for barefoot running without and physiotherapy, or coaching/nutritional books

I can see the arguments on both sides, but I personally would like to see them banned from competition. I admittedly can't provide a detailed argument against them -- there's no clear indication as to where we should draw the line in terms of technology. But after getting my first pair and taking them for a run, all I could think was "I can't believe these are allowed."

Unlike training research and access to information -- both of which still require effort and smarts to use effectively -- these shoes are an instant $250 boost for race times. All other shoes from the past few decades are at least in the same ballpark in terms of effectiveness. These are on a different level.

Why is that type of technological improvement a bad thing? For one, it does muddle history. Race times in the marathon and half marathon -- which used to be the great equalizer in terms of evaluating talent -- are no longer a reliable tool for evaluating accomplishments.

The shoes also create further divides between runners across different levels. Nike-sponsored runners can now train in these shoes full-time, which creates a massive advantage over all other professional runners. Perhaps more effective than the "spring" mechanism of the shoes is the shock-absorbing ability the shoes have for long runs. I ran a marathon in them a few weeks ago, and my lower limbs were barely sore the next day. Imagine having that day-to-day recovery all the time.

And on a lower level, club runners with the biggest bank accounts will have an advantage thanks to finances, which I hate. The more pairs of these shoes you can afford, the more you'll get that same day-to-day recovery.

Meoop wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

The tech hasn't improved. Why are consumers such suckers for every gimmick that comes along, decade after decade? Remember Nike Air?

About a third of the sub-2:04s ever run happened between 2011 and 2014, before the 4% shoes, including the first sub 2:03. Slightly under two-thirds happened since 2015. That is not an abnormal progression at all. It didn't happen because of shoes, but because the runners got better - in particular, Kipchoge who first dared to experiment with paces previously considered suicidal. His breakthrough is what led to every other sub 2:03 since Kimetto.

So Wigs....the reason that runners do not experiment with paces considered suicidal is because they always die. That is why they are termed suicidal. Kipchoge has the benefit of the shoes and drugs. That is what makes the previously suicidal pace now his racing pace. Got it? You are welcome.

Y’all are so salty you can’t do anything remotely impressive.

Bob Schul would like to request we ban all weather tracks and start running on Cinders again.

GTFOH with this crap. Evolve or die. The NFL isnt going back to leather helmets anymore.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The tech hasn't improved. Why are consumers such suckers for every gimmick that comes along, decade after decade? Remember Nike Air?

About a third of the sub-2:04s ever run happened between 2011 and 2014, before the 4% shoes, including the first sub 2:03. Slightly under two-thirds happened since 2015. That is not an abnormal progression at all. It didn't happen because of shoes, but because the runners got better - in particular, Kipchoge who first dared to experiment with paces previously considered suicidal. His breakthrough is what led to every other sub 2:03 since Kimetto.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL if you think that those shoes dont work. I have a pair....THEY WORK

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

No don’t ban them. I’d rather other companies innovate so everyone is on an even playing field

Exactly. New Balance, Asics, Skechers, Brooks and more all have competitor models on the way.

Besides, no one is complaining about Hoka, as they have two models with carbon plates. No one is even complaining about the Nike Zoom Fly, which has the exact same plate as the Vaporfly. So, it's likely the foam making the difference anyways.

But wait. Reebok has the same foam in their RunFast and RunFast Pro. Do we ban them?

So dumb. What they should ban is all the internet chatter over this topic. Surely Zuckerberg could figure out how to do that.

The people who want the VF banned either 1) can't afford them, so they're butthurt or 2) can't BQ (even with the VF) and are butthurt.

yep all found all the poor ppl ^^^^