why does it have to be so ugly wrote:
Well, seems like they adjusted the shoe to meet the rules. Too bad they didn't adjust the look. I don't think I could wear even the tempos, I hope this doesn't mean this is the only racing shoe choice from Nike from this point on.. because I'm not wearing those.
I wish they would have made the outsole to look like a regular shoe, but that is probably what they like, that it is different.
Personally I think the whole VF/AF issue has been and will continue to be great for the sport. It’s obviously increasing the attention paid to the sport, which is great because it needs more attention.
Sporting technology is always improving in all sports, running shouldn’t see this as a bad thing.
600mRunner wrote:
These shoes are simply not in line with core Olympic values, and indeed all sporting values, in regards to a level playing field and the fairness of sport.
If I were a Nike athlete, I would feel very unsportsmanlike and would not derive the same satisfaction in beating my opponents, knowing I have a clear advantage.
If I were a non-Nike athlete or other shoe company, I would now be questioning whether or not it is possible to appeal to World Athletics as to the fairness of these shoes and the obvious inside information Nike has on the new rulings of shoes, which has allowed them to release this conveniently 40mm thick heeled shoe in a suspiciously short amount of time. Also as to whether they can be banned from the Olympics as they are clearly against the spirit of the sport. Maybe a petition should be started against these shoes?
A good, hypothetical, example on twitter I saw, was to imagine wings were attached to one companies athletes javelins, and that they allowed them to throw about 5% or 3-4m farther. This would be a blatant advantage in javelin, so why are World Athletics not taking the same stance on shoes? Yes, they have new regulation, but Nike obviously knew what these were going to be and their competitors will not have time to release an alphafly rivaling shoes before the Olympics.
I might further add that I believe some sort of independent review should be conducted into World Athletics themselves, to source out any potential (haha) bias towards Nike.
Oh please. The Nike 4%s have been out for 4 years! And the competition is just now coming out with their version of it? Brooks’ shoe isn’t even Taylor Ed for full energy return, but for more stability. It’s pathetic that the non-Nike companies have had no answer for +4 years
I wonder if the integrity of the sport will be broken at some point.
I don't see how anyone could think that one shoe sponsor having a material performance advantage over all other competitors' athletes is good for the sport.
Disagree.
It's not good for "the sport" if the "the sport" has become corrupted.
Running is supposed to be about running. It's pure and you should be able to judge the sport's heroes by how they stack up against the sport's heroes of the past.
The corruption of the technology now makes this impossible for "running". It's like trying to compare a Moto GP rider of today against a tour de France cyclist of the past. Maybe the layman would find that kind of comparison nonsense but those of us who actually love what the sport was know that is exactly what has happened with running. And it has been funded and paid off by the corporate dollar.
Disgusting.
FiBay wrote:
I wonder if the integrity of the sport will be broken at some point.
You wonder IF!?
The IAAF (World Athletics now) wouldn't exist without Nike as it's currently structured.
https://static.highsnobiety.com/thumbor/dal3-HLYe1JhXKd5Tissi-FUhUE=/fit-in/1200x800/smart/static.highsnobiety.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/05100057/nike-zoom-viperfly-03.jpgThey said this is okay.
Just use your brain for, like, three seconds, and you know this isn't okay. They say they optimized that specific spike for the 100m. Suddenly, beating Bolt's WR doesn't seem so impossible.
ex-runner wrote:
Wildhorse wrote:
Nike won't stop until they ruin the sport for good. Take a look at the current F1 championship, that's the future of road running.
F@ck Nike. I'm never buying one of their products again, even if they make my favorite trail shoe. F@ck them.
You wish that the future of road running looks like F1.
Literally 10s of millions of fans tune in to watch F1, drivers are paid more than nearly every other sportsman, and comparitively no-one watches road running races.
F1 is not a sport anymore, nor is it fair: only one or two teams have a chance to get the championship, everyone else are there as filler and to promote sponsors.
Millions of fans? At what cost?
F@ck Nike.
It's ok with the sports association because this is a huge american company. I don't think they would be ok if a chinese manufacturer was pulling this off instead with corresponding patents of course
I"m a life long fan of the sport, run, competed in multiple marathons, coach hs for 20 years... and this turns me off of the sport as much as drugs. The fact that this is allowed makes the sport stupid. The olympics will be joke. But, as long as nike makes money its all good.
Seriously mate? wrote:
I wonder if the 40mm stack height refers to average stack height? If the heel was 45mm and the forefoot 35mm then it would average out to 40mm and still be "legal."
Was wondering about that too given what looks like a massive stack in the back and also since 45mm is mentioned by that article. The bending of the rules starts...
Actually it's even worse than the average 35/45, the article says "39.5mm-45mm " so it seems they could be interpreting the rule as "the lowest height of the sole has to be a maximum of 40mm" ? What next ? A 39.5mm/51.5mm shoe with a 12mm drop ?
Not sure if anyone has already said this - and I have neither the intelligence nor attention span to read through multiple pages of comments - but I shall say this:-
Technology in other sports is one thing but they are generally vs sports. It's about who you beat on the day in the final. Tennis a fine example. Doesn't matter the tech because you can always say such and such won X grand slams or whatever against the best in his / her era.
It's different with distance running because the time differentials mean the best of a given era will always beat the rest, e.g. Kipchoge. However this tech is now making it impossible to judge where Kipchoge stacks up against the greats and that makes me so so sad.
I don't blame Nike for this farcical shoe, world athletics and Seb Coe should be ashamed that they let things go this far.
OTC times in 4 years probably 2.14. Kipchoge and Bekele could well be sub 2 in London if they can wear them there...
Gotta feel for non sponsored Nike runners. Task is insurmountable.
No way those trampoline shoes are under 40 mm, they look MUCH taller than the next%. ?
Give your grandmother back her pearls. Hoka changed the market and Nike has run with it. Now check out the shoes coming out. New foams, lighter and springier that save the legs. Sketcher, ASICS, NB, Saucony are stepping up. This has helped the sport for all.
600mRunner wrote:
These shoes are simply not in line with core Olympic values, and indeed all sporting values, in regards to a level playing field and the fairness of sport.
If I were a Nike athlete, I would feel very unsportsmanlike and would not derive the same satisfaction in beating my opponents, knowing I have a clear advantage.
If I were a non-Nike athlete or other shoe company, I would now be questioning whether or not it is possible to appeal to World Athletics as to the fairness of these shoes and the obvious inside information Nike has on the new rulings of shoes, which has allowed them to release this conveniently 40mm thick heeled shoe in a suspiciously short amount of time. Also as to whether they can be banned from the Olympics as they are clearly against the spirit of the sport. Maybe a petition should be started against these shoes?
A good, hypothetical, example on twitter I saw, was to imagine wings were attached to one companies athletes javelins, and that they allowed them to throw about 5% or 3-4m farther. This would be a blatant advantage in javelin, so why are World Athletics not taking the same stance on shoes? Yes, they have new regulation, but Nike obviously knew what these were going to be and their competitors will not have time to release an alphafly rivaling shoes before the Olympics.
I might further add that I believe some sort of independent review should be conducted into World Athletics themselves, to source out any potential (haha) bias towards Nike.
And on and on with all the pearl clutching. Please just stop. How is any of this unfair? Are the laws of gravity or physics or chemistry known only to those at Nike? How is it that Reebok also uses Pebax? Nike does not own the copyright on its use, nor on the use of CF plates. So, again, unfair how?
"Obviously" Nike knew early, you say. Really? Obviously? Highly doubt that World Athletics would have wanted to further ufck up their own sport by aiding the very company they're trying to regulate. If Nike knew, then they all knew....which actually would have been a smart move on WA's part.
I’ll be interested in seeing how many NR’s and WR’s fall in the next couple years with the release of the spikes and flats. I’m against Nike as much as the next guy/gal, but if I’m competing, I would be dumb to not use the best gear I possibly can.
I wouldn’t be able to say I’m going to boycott them and then go and complain that I’m getting beat by them. The other companies have had years to catch up and have failed to do so this far.
ATEA4RE wrote:
How is any of this unfair? Are the laws of gravity or physics or chemistry known only to those at Nike? How is it that Reebok also uses Pebax? Nike does not own the copyright on its use, nor on the use of CF plates. So, again, unfair how?
Does Nike not have patents related to their shoe technology? Can other shoe companies copy their design without being sued? Or do they have to come up with innovative tech that they can then patent and hope to be the new leaders for a year or two?
Cycling has had this problem for a while, where certain brands are simply better than others and then you see competitors using other sponsors gear but they try to rebrand it. It’s a frustrating side of the sport knowing you may have lost due your sponsors not making as good of equipment.
I don’t blame Nike on this one. It’s their job to move forward within the rules. So whoever makes the rules is to blame here, if anyone.
Those shoes really are ugly as sin, but if they work who cares.
Even with the regular shoes of today you can’t compare today’s runners to past runners. So much has improved in the world of running.
Even regular flats and other racing shoes are so much better than the past. Tracks aren’t cinders anymore so those times can’t be compared to today’s runners.
Technology improves over time and the sport should embrace it.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
