NIKE’s ultimate irony—the cheaterflys destroyed RUPP’s career!

I don't get how you consider his career destroyed thanks to the Vaporflys. He won the trials, an Olympic medal, Chicago and had a top three at Boston within two years. Most don't accomplish that in ten years of running marathons.

Don't get this so called ultimate irony here - Rupp was one of their sponsored athletes and they've developed a cheat shoe which lets hobbyjoggers believe the are competent, competents believe they are sub-elites and sub-elites believe they are elite.

The marketing potential from the later far outstrips the marketing potential from the former but asides from that where's the "ultimate irony"?

It's ironic that Nike made a shoe which would make the sub-elite Rupp barely elite, and in wearing it, he destroyed his career.

I don't know if that fits the definition of ironic, or Alannis' definition, but that's how I see it.

Rupp actually wears structures which are hard as a rock, so more likely the Vaporfly's mushy foam didn't provide enough support

I do not think you can say the shoes did it. He had a bone deformity. Maybe just higher mileage and time wearing on it caught up.

Nike stopped caring about Rupp when Mo beat him every race.

Rupp has already competed in three Olympics.

Maybe the accumulation of time and intense running have more to do with injury than a pair of shoes.

Judging by Filip's video in the Next% it seems like it takes a lot less load off the bottom on the feet, but puts A LOT of stress on the achilles. Great for short term, but obviously not long term. Probably should only do 1 hard workout and 1 important LR in it before a race and that's it. I think there's actually a psychological benefit to knowing the same pace you ran in pegasus or structures feels a lot easier in the race.

Same here, I have been using Bostons since the #6's and when the #7's came out I started having issues with my Achilles. Now I have switched to the Reebok Floatride Run Fast for faster workouts and HM races and, although they don't "invite you to run fast" as I felt wearing the Bostons, the Achilles problems have disappeared. Plus, they are super light and responsive, very happy with them.

achillesheel wrote:

I do not think you can say the shoes did it. He had a bone deformity. Maybe just higher mileage and time wearing on it caught up.

You are correct, it was not the the Vaporflys. The Vaporflys actually have a soft heel counter which would not aggravate a Haglund's Deformity like Rupp had.

Cho chaang wrote:

In the ultimate irony, the vaporfly designs, with their ridiculous stack heights and mushy foam, caused the previous bulletproof Rupp to develop a career ruining Achilles injury.

I noted, watching both Kipchoge and Berkeley in these monstrosities, that it causes the heel to torque inward and the toes to point outward upon toe off.

A runner with beautiful form like Rupp who needs just a neutral shoe and was always healthy was crippled by these unstable gimmicks.

A tragedy for Rupp, and a joke on our sport.

Wrong. Rupp trained in the Structure, a stability shoe. All the more reason to never wear Vaporfly.

matt_london_413 wrote:

Where's the article of Rupp stating this himself?[/quote]

It's just an opinion. Did you noticed the OP also wrote Berkeley instead of Bekele? What else you expect from him or her? Maybe a University of California, Berkeley fanboy(girl)?

tarckstar wrote:

It's ironic that Nike made a shoe which would make the sub-elite Rupp barely elite, and in wearing it, he destroyed his career.

I don't know if that fits the definition of ironic, or Alannis' definition, but that's how I see it.

Jealousy is a real ugly demon in you brother.

Yes! Boston boost gave me achilles problems. It's the heel cup. It dug into my achilles and caused scarring. Never been the same. Stop using the Boston boost if you have the same issue.

Every 4 weeks I change out cheap $20 or cheaper shoes. I don't bother with all this "fancy" stuff. I grew up running barefoot and still do at least 10/40 mile weeks barefoot at over 50 years old. I never have foot injuries from shoes or not.

Children today are ruined by shoes and fake grass fields or pavement.

I have been saying the same thing since the 4% came out a few years ago. Of course there is increased chance of injury when you instantly alter your form. I rarely see it mentioned. In fact it's the opposite, many people claim they are better for injury prevention. But I have never heard Nike say this. Surely that would be a major selling point if true.

Yeah, I used the Boston 6 for months w/no issues. But the 7, along w/the Skechers hyperburst razor - I mean like after 3 runs of 7 miles each - gave me piriformis/hamstring issues for the entire summer. I went to the NB 890 v7 - hard as a rock - and the issues gradually resolved. SO, seeing the adios 4 on sale for $45, like an idiot, I picked them up and immediately aggravated the same injuries. Some of us just can’t handle too-soft midsoles; whereas, others have no problems.

I have a pair with 500 miles on them that I only use for workouts now and I agree... I think they've lost some of the pop but they're still fine and seem to be in a much better state than other shoes I have with a similar mileage.

I was initially concerned as to how long they would last as they lost a few chunks from the sole pretty early on but the sole seemed to stay the same from then onwards.

This thread would be way better if everyone stated their medical education background in their post. You know, so we don't have to guess which kind of doctor you are. Because ya'll are doctors right? Commenting on a person's gait?