The 90s have long been recognized as the era that got away, as everyone decided low mileage was the way to go, right?
What will we blame these days for? We already know it as "any day now" for these guys to run a time that would have been okay if it was the late-60s.
I would contribute that to East Africans clearly have a doping problem, Kenya especially. And if you actually look at the top 20 Americans a fair amount of them weren’t wearing vaporflys.
How many sub 62 minute men were wearing carbon fiber plate shoes?
You’re comparing American blood with Kenyan blood, no match! Kenyans will win.
I think you’ll find any reason to post about the shoes and hate even when you don’t have any proof or data but that is totally just a hunch.
wejo wrote:
the effects are either bigger in the marathon or maybe just more noticeable
You've fallen for the marketer's confirmation bias. Runners who get faster are noticeable. Runners who get slower get ignored.
I'm sure you could find plenty of 2:03-5 guys from 2-4 years ago who have dropped off the radar despite the advances in magic shoes.
If Nike put a chicken-comb on the head of every top elite likely to run 2:03, people would be convinced chicken-combs gave them some kind of aerodynamic advantage.
Quit saying it's the shoes! wrote:
Look at how deep the NCAA has been in the past 10 years. Last year there were 33 sub 29 10k guys in division 1.
Go back to the 90's and you had maybe 15 sub 29 guys. At my division 1 school we had some school records or top 5 all-time at the school from the 90's and early 2000's of like 28:45-29:00 for 10k, and 13:50's/14 flat and we'd hear how they were conference champions in a P5 conference and were all-americans. Those times don't hardly get you anything in the past 10 years. They might get you a couple points at your conference meet and if you're lucky you might qualify for nationals and be at the back of the pack. All of this depth has moved to the roads and we are now seeing more and more guys running faster times in the half marathon. Most of these guys from this weekend are 23-30 years old, in the NCAA in this past 8 years that I'm talking about. They'll be translating up to the marathon. In the US history we've had 19 guys go sub 2:10 in the marathon. I'd bet we'll have a new 5 guys in the next four years, which is way ahead of the average rate. There are more fast guys running 5k/10k in college and that's translating to faster times on the roads, it's not the dang shoes. Jared Ward just won without Nike shoes, it is not the shoes. Sarah Hall did it on the somen's side, it's not the shoes. 10k world record was set in Adidas shoes. The dang Nike shoes do not automatically make you faster. Emma Bates runs CIM two years ago in Vaporfly 4%, runs FASTER in Chicago the next year in Asics shoes.
These are not good comparisons if understand the context behind these performances and prototypes are at least going to close the gap. These are running shoes, you can't make microcomparisons. We aren't saying "it is not the runners".
BOHICA wrote:
They're the eternal critics who never have the answers. Teddy Roosevelt spoke of them relative to the proverbial man in the arena. This would be why no high level man in the arena takes them seriously.
Regardless of what you think about the Brojos, to say that they are/were not "men in the arena," particularly for Wejo, isn't fair.
That is the collective status quo, like it or not. By all appearances, they have zero skin in the game and are rather the ring masters of a sideshow.
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
What is the most stupid running advice you've ever heard?🤣(It can be funny)
Are Asics, Saucony, and New Balance envious of Brooks, Hoka ,and On?