If Vaporfly weren't made by Nike no one would ever want to ban them

Oh and yes... I want coffee, energy gels and electrolyte tablets to be banned as well.

If Vaporfly weren't made by Nike, Nike would want to ban them.

FYP.

I agree with your conditions for banning them!

longboat wrote:

If Vaporfly weren't made by Nike, Nike would want to ban them.

FYP.

Give us an example or has Nike always been the “top” innovator (or at least market responsive) since its inception?

Or maybe they didn’t ‘sperg out about Adidas’ sub-2 Boost campaign, as an example, because:

1. They already had the VF in the works. But weren’t as public in their declarations as Adidas?

2. Or they scrambled to catch up with then outcompete Adidas in spirit of free competition for this market?

3. Other?

Maybe I tune out most of the recent JUVENILE SHRIEKING around this topic but I don’t recall Adidas or their athletes b!tching about the VF. This behavior seems to be relegated to inconsequential, non-innovative brands (Oiselle lol? GTFO) and/or has-beens (Ryan Hall— king of non-record eligible courses ignoring everything about INEOS being an exhibition) rather than relevant players in this sport.

Waaaaa! What do we want? PARITY! When do we want it? NOW!

"If Vaporfly weren't made by Nike no one would ever want to ban them"

--I'm no particular fan of Nike products (having been crippled by an early Nike shoe), but I think that this is accurate.

I think it’s the opposite. If anyone other than Nike, the largest sponsor in the sport and the former sponsor of the IAAF president, had made them they would’ve been banned already.

Conversely, if the Vaporfly wasn't made by Nike it may already have been banned.

Fill Night wrote:

Conversely, if the Vaporfly wasn't made by Nike it may already have been banned.

If Spira, or Skechers had pulled off the Next%, Nike would have put a stop to it.

Ironically, in the early-80s lots of runners under contract with other companies were wearing the Mariah, taping over or tearing off the swoosh design. Seems that shoe had a bit of a pop to it.

It must be exhausting to so vehemently hate one sweatshop company’s products while allying with another and theirs.

I pity each of you who have to grapple with this when, in fact, you should be on your knees thanking Nike that this sport exists beyond the local amateur level. Please add fuel to the cognitive dumpster fires that are your minds by realizing that any company of Nike’s current status/footing would behave exactly in the manner you dopes convince yourselves is “wrong.”

Keep chasing your tails, morans.

You’re selling more Vaporflies than you can imagine with this noble crusade. ?

Nobody would want to ban them because nobody would have heard of them. They would have been banned long before they became mainstream.

I'm FFF wrote:

Fill Night wrote:

Conversely, if the Vaporfly wasn't made by Nike it may already have been banned.

If Spira, or Skechers had pulled off the Next%, Nike would have put a stop to it.

You can't imagine my joy at seeing several posters see the light here. It may be easy to think that our friends in Beaverton are simply the smartest or hardest working when in fact the reason no one else tried the spring thing since Spira is because they thought there was a rule against it. Why didn't NB, ASICS, Saucony, whoever design a Spring 20 years ago? They considered it against IAAF rules so they didn't try or spend any effort thinking about it.

There WAS a rule against it. Who was big enough and influential enough to change that? Well, the manufacturer of the only shoes Lord Coe has ever worn, that's who. Those who suspect that any one else trying it a decade earlier would have been stopped are absolutely correct. Especially an upstart like Skechers. Imaging the army of lawyers that would have stopped it. No need to bribe Coe since he's been on their payroll for 40 years already. Those who dispute this can feel free to post a pic of the Lord in a pair of Mizuno.

Everyone else HAD thought of it. They didn't have the audacity to try it. I pointed out there WAS a rule against it. 5 years ago. But when you're the one who makes the rules.......

Lord Coe was sponsored by Didadora late in his carer (1988 on wards). You can still purchase some of his shoes

https://www.80scasualclassics.co.uk/trainers-c12/diadora-seb-impact-trainers-white-p1750

If they weren't made by NIKE they would have never been allowed on the course in the first place.

Our problem isnt that they are made by nike but that all of a sudden everyone is running crazy times almost unimaginable years ago wearing clown looking shoes.

If the Vaporfly weren't made by Nike, it's possible no top athlete would have worn it. Maybe if Hoka or Saucony had come up with a shoe far better than the competition, one or two Americans would run 2:07 but no one would suspect anything because they would still be far behind the top Africans.

mount bushmore wrote:

Nobody would want to ban them because nobody would have heard of them. They would have been banned long before they became mainstream.

Or maybe the Vaporfly is what it is because Nike has Kipchoge, Bekele and Desisa etc. Something tells me that if Hoka made the Vaporfly, KIpchoge and the crew would still be killing everyone while wearing the Zoom Streak 7.

If Fauble and Stephanie Bruce lower their PRs in the "Hoka Vaporfly", people would just assume a natural progression, since their times aren't at the top of the elite field... they went from 7th to 5th, which no one even noticed. In fact, both Fauble and Bruce have improved pretty much the same amount as Kipchoge over the last few years.

doot doot wrote:

It must be exhausting to so vehemently hate one sweatshop company’s products while allying with another and theirs.

I pity each of you who have to grapple with this when, in fact, you should be on your knees thanking Nike that this sport exists beyond the local amateur level. Please add fuel to the cognitive dumpster fires that are your minds by realizing that any company of Nike’s current status/footing would behave exactly in the manner you dopes convince yourselves is “wrong.”

Keep chasing your tails, morans.

You’re selling more Vaporflies than you can imagine with this noble crusade. ?

+1

nv4 wrote:

Oh and yes... I want coffee, energy gels and electrolyte tablets to be banned as well.

High jump and pole vault pits, too. Or at least limit them to a thickness of, say, 4 and 9 inches, respectively.

And ban compression socks, too.

In fact, ban ALL clothing. It undoubtedly provides aerodynamic advantages for hairy people.

Let's REALLY set this sport back a century or two!

The truthteller wrote:

Our problem isnt that they are made by nike but that all of a sudden everyone is running crazy times almost unimaginable years ago wearing clown looking shoes.

But I thought anyone who ran really fast was doping? Now you say it's their Elton John shoes?

Or could it be that a guy who can run 4:06/mile for 5,000m really can run 4:34/mile for 42.195 km (i.e., 7 seconds slower per 400m)?

doot doot wrote:

It must be exhausting to so vehemently hate one sweatshop company’s products while allying with another and theirs.

I pity each of you who have to grapple with this when, in fact, you should be on your knees thanking Nike that this sport exists beyond the local amateur level. Please add fuel to the cognitive dumpster fires that are your minds by realizing that any company of Nike’s current status/footing would behave exactly in the manner you dopes convince yourselves is “wrong.”

Keep chasing your tails, morans.

You’re selling more Vaporflies than you can imagine with this noble crusade. ?

The OP pointed out that the impetus for banning Vaporfly and Next% shoes was coming from Nike haters. He then added (sarcastically) some "conditions" under which they could be banned.

I don't hate Nike, and I don't want to ban Vaporflies (I hope they sell more; I like what they do for my Nike shares). But as others after me agreed, given a chance, Nike would definitely be capable anti-competitive behavior.