One of the announcers said that the shoes should not return over 100% of energy the athlete gives. Does he not understand that shoes would need to have motors or would not need to obey physics to return 100% of the energy.
One of the announcers said that the shoes should not return over 100% of energy the athlete gives. Does he not understand that shoes would need to have motors or would not need to obey physics to return 100% of the energy.
Yeah, that was hilarious. All shoes are okay, as long they don't break the laws of physics *smh*.
Yeah that dude was a moron. I have no problems with the shoes and won't wear them but that as a justification is a pure marketing line of BS.
He has been coached by Nike to say this. It's a specious argument which all of Nike folks have been repeating on and on to defend the shoes.
The guy who said that was a NIKE employee.
Of course he realizes that shoes would have to have motors in them to return over 100%, and that was exactly his point.
Predictably bad coverage; as usual.
THISDUDE wrote:
One of the announcers said that the shoes should not return over 100% of energy the athlete gives. Does he not understand that shoes would need to have motors or would not need to obey physics to return 100% of the energy.
I don't think Craig was a STEM major.
I heard this too, but understood he was just speaking in hyperbole.
Before spouting off, you youngsters might just want to familiarize yourselves a bit with this announcer's background before you label him as mentally challenged and unqualified to discuss running or offer his opinion when asked.
- Graduated from Princeton University with honors
-At Oxford, he pursued a graduate degree
- Later earned a law degree from Yale where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal
-3:52 miler, former American record holder in the 2000, broke 4:00 30 times!
Since the early 1980s he has been perhaps the best spoken commentator on distance around - period. He also has serious credentials in journalism, sports law, and sports administration.
And yes.... he works for Nike. Of course he going to follow the company line. That is his job, boys
Oh and BTW his name because you either missed it or didn't realize who he was is Craig Masback
Signed,
A Boomer
Agree with everything you wrote except that it’s not hyperbole. Nike’s position is that anything short of “active” shoes is permissible. Honestly, it’s a compelling argument if only because it’s a clean, bright line. I’m in favor of regulating shoe design, am agnostic on the 4 and next %s and hate the alphaflys... but I recognize as anyone who agrees should, that the onus is on us to explain why 40mm is ok but 42mm is not. Or why 2% efficiency improvements are ok, 4% are forgivable but 7% is outrageous. It was a good segment but I’ve no idea why they cut from the race to show it.
Not Done Just Yet wrote:
I heard this too, but understood he was just speaking in hyperbole.
Are you trying to say that it's possible to walk faster than you can run?
Not Done Just Yet wrote:
I heard this too, but understood he was just speaking in hyperbole.
Before spouting off, you youngsters might just want to familiarize yourselves a bit with this announcer's background before you label him as mentally challenged and unqualified to discuss running or offer his opinion when asked.
- Graduated from Princeton University with honors
-At Oxford, he pursued a graduate degree
- Later earned a law degree from Yale where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal
-3:52 miler, former American record holder in the 2000, broke 4:00 30 times!
Since the early 1980s he has been perhaps the best spoken commentator on distance around - period. He also has serious credentials in journalism, sports law, and sports administration.
And yes.... he works for Nike. Of course he going to follow the company line. That is his job, boys
Oh and BTW his name because you either missed it or didn't realize who he was is Craig Masback
Signed,
A Boomer
I'm well aware of who Masback is, and his running achievements, educational background, and conflict-of-interest employment history. None of that mitigates the staggering stupidity that has come out of his mouth over the years in the commentary booth
Another Boomer wrote:
Not Done Just Yet wrote:
I heard this too, but understood he was just speaking in hyperbole.
Before spouting off, you youngsters might just want to familiarize yourselves a bit with this announcer's background before you label him as mentally challenged and unqualified to discuss running or offer his opinion when asked.
- Graduated from Princeton University with honors
-At Oxford, he pursued a graduate degree
- Later earned a law degree from Yale where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal
-3:52 miler, former American record holder in the 2000, broke 4:00 30 times!
Since the early 1980s he has been perhaps the best spoken commentator on distance around - period. He also has serious credentials in journalism, sports law, and sports administration.
And yes.... he works for Nike. Of course he going to follow the company line. That is his job, boys
Oh and BTW his name because you either missed it or didn't realize who he was is Craig Masback
Signed,
A Boomer
I'm well aware of who Masback is, and his running achievements, educational background, and conflict-of-interest employment history. None of that mitigates the staggering stupidity that has come out of his mouth over the years in the commentary booth
I am certain you could do much better, but just have not gotten that chance, yet. (Hint: I doubt you will).
Look for the MasbackFly coming in 2024 that is simply the alphafly upper on an in-line skate sole.
Abdoujaparov wrote:
Nike’s position is that anything short of “active” shoes is permissible. Honestly, it’s a compelling argument if only because it’s a clean, bright line..
Coming 2021, Nike rollerblades "it's permissible" running shoes.
last brain standing wrote:
Abdoujaparov wrote:
Nike’s position is that anything short of “active” shoes is permissible. Honestly, it’s a compelling argument if only because it’s a clean, bright line..
Coming 2021, Nike rollerblades "it's permissible" running shoes.
What is hidden in the Nike talking point is the timing of the energy return, and any amplification of a more dispersed energy return into a more acute energy return within the propulsion phase. Sure, the integral energy return will be lossy, but the peak energy return, if phased optimally, can effectively give you more energy than some average energy return.
As an athlete, he always gave 110%. Why would he expect shoes to be any different?
I believe he is quoting the rule book and is correct.
A shoe wouldn’t need a motor, but a spring or something with potential energy would allow you to receive more energy than you are forcing down on the ground.
Have you ever jumped on a trampoline? Do you think you are just hitting the surface super hard in order to get higher?