Bad news for Molly Huddle fans she's not a responder to supershoes, Good news for Jared Ward fans- he is and gets a 4.4% boost

I must say that the controversy about these shoes is just about ruining this sport for me. The fact of the shoes themselves, and the fact that the community is split over them--both factors feel like a tragedy for the sport. Combine that with the inability of the sport to govern itself with regard to doping--I am losing hope that track has much of a future as a meritocracy, rather than a sort of technological arms race. Maybe I am alone in this feeling? Not sure.

Its this site. its the site owners hill to die. The rest of the world is going to make it.

I remember a video from years ago with Huddle going through a pre-race routine...her foot work and 'connection with the ground' were details she paid attention to, and since the track was her forte, any issues she might have with thicker soles is not too surprising.

Ward seems to have a loping long stride that of a rhythm runner, maybe more suited to flatter courses.

I have a powder that gives runners an 8%-12% boost depending on your stride type. It might look, feel, and taste like beach sand, but it's not. It's the real deal.

Rojo, Wejo, and anyone else, please Paypal me $10,000 per ounce. Like the Vaporflys, this stuff makes you run super fast. You don't even have to train. Just take a teaspoon twice a day and you'll be a WR holder in a few years. I'll send you an amount equal to the Paypal amount.

Thank you and I look forward to future business transactions.

pretty confident Huddle will be in spikes in her race that matters for the trials

Esterhazy1 wrote:

I must say that the controversy about these shoes is just about ruining this sport for me. The fact of the shoes themselves, and the fact that the community is split over them--both factors feel like a tragedy for the sport. Combine that with the inability of the sport to govern itself with regard to doping--I am losing hope that track has much of a future as a meritocracy, rather than a sort of technological arms race. Maybe I am alone in this feeling? Not sure.

You are not alone in this feeling. However, based on my experience, you just find the parts of the sport that are still meaningful to you, such as your own running, and focus on that. Of course, that would be difficult if you were an elite pro runner and your livelihood was being affected, but that's not a big problem for me at this time.

super wrote:

Its this site. its the site owners hill to die. The rest of the world is going to make it.

Well, I agree with them. It IS a big deal. Prior to the new shoes, the sport really was more of a meritocracy (as the previous poster called it). At least as far as equipment worn in the actual races went. Nobody wasted any time worrying about what their opponent was wearing, because it was all assumed to be neutral and beside the point. And that is a key component of the sport - its simplicity, and the belief that in a given race, the best racer would win. Not to say there weren't problems (doping, etc), but equipment wasn't one of them. Now it is. So you might decide that you are in favor of the new shoes, but that doesn't mean the sport hasn't been changed fundamentally.

Your suggestion is a good one. Alas, my 42 years of running ended with an injury that seems insurmountable, but I appreciate the spirit of your suggestion.

wejo wrote:

So that is what Ross Tucker pointed out and that some people may be responders to super shoes and some aren't. Unfortunately if Huddle isn't she might be at like a 2-3% time disadvantage in the race.

It's what I pointed out here in the forum before Ross Tucker took the idea and wrote a more complete article.

If you are stuck behind the paywall:

It's unfair if someone will get a 4% boost while others get 0%.

facts and reason wrote:

It's unfair if someone will get a 4% boost while others get 0%.

Let’s not go down the “ Kara” path on this . People have to adapt to new Sports tech . Golf,Alpine skiing et.

facts and reason wrote:

It's unfair if someone will get a 4% boost while others get 0%.

If molly were to wear a different pair of shoes, what would her running economy be? If Jared worn the same shoes would his running economy be?

Simply put running economy has always varied depended on the shoes worn.

You may argue that one shoe could be far higher than the rest, but is naive to say it’s not fair that one shoe is better than another.

She is a sponsored athlete, have her sponsor developer shoes that give her the best running economy, isn’t that the point of when you are that level? So we, that run as our hobby go out and buy the shoes? If they are not doing that it’s just another lazy company and we are naive runners to accept sub standard shoes that just differ by colour

Esterhazy1 wrote:

I must say that the controversy about these shoes is just about ruining this sport for me. The fact of the shoes themselves, and the fact that the community is split over them--both factors feel like a tragedy for the sport.

Also previous racing flats were better for some runners than for others.

About Molly Huddle. Maybe shoe manufacturers should try to develop a "supershoe" with guiderails to provide some extra stability if a runner has weak or loose ankles.

facts and reason wrote:

It's unfair if someone will get a 4% boost while others get 0%.

Buy a pair of Ultra Boosts, then you get a lot of Boost.

What Alberta Separatist said.

https://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/categories/jumping/pole-vault/pole-vaulting-poles

In the 1972 Olympics, defending champ Bob Seagren wasn't allowed to use his favorite pole because it was ruled to be too new and an unfair advantage and he ended up with the silver using an unfamiliar pole.

The cheapest pole in the link above is $194 and the most expensive is over $1000. Where is the outcry about vaulting being inherently unfair because this kid or that school can't afford the expensive pole or maybe can't afford even one cheap pole? Poles break, get lost by the airlines, cost a lot to ship, etc. We're talking way more $ than a pair of expensive running shoes.

Ward is in my top 5. Huddle is not.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

What Alberta Separatist said.

https://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/categories/jumping/pole-vault/pole-vaulting-poles

In the 1972 Olympics, defending champ Bob Seagren wasn't allowed to use his favorite pole because it was ruled to be too new and an unfair advantage and he ended up with the silver using an unfamiliar pole.

The cheapest pole in the link above is $194 and the most expensive is over $1000. Where is the outcry about vaulting being inherently unfair because this kid or that school can't afford the expensive pole or maybe can't afford even one cheap pole? Poles break, get lost by the airlines, cost a lot to ship, etc. We're talking way more $ than a pair of expensive running shoes.

I'm sure the legion of pole vaulters on this site are up in arms

Alberta Separatist wrote:

facts and reason wrote:

It's unfair if someone will get a 4% boost while others get 0%.

Let’s not go down the “ Kara” path on this . People have to adapt to new Sports tech . Golf,Alpine skiing et.

This is exactly why running has a universal appeal. The hundred meters is pretty pure - put any human on the line and the fastest person wins. Or at least that’s how it should be.

I hate sports like sailing, motorcar racing, skiing, whereby the outcome can be determined by the choice of wax or how much money you have.

For me, running is meant to be technology free

For the person that mentioned polevault poles, who actually cares about pole vault. And if I did I would argue that pole vault poles should be standard so that there is no advantage.

the gooch wrote:

This is exactly why running has a universal appeal. The hundred meters is pretty pure - put any human on the line and the fastest person wins. Or at least that’s how it should be.

Shoe tech has always been hugely important in sprinting. There are two reasons you don't hear about it. (1) Sprinting is a niche sport, whereas distance running is the top participation sport in the world. (2) The shoe companies are at relative parity when it comes to sprint spikes.