What shoe will Riley sign with?

Considering he remained unsponsored for the trials to wear Nikes that seems unlikely.

"Boring" shoes got him to the Olympics.

Shoes don't magically make you run fast. He got to the olympics because he ran a great race. Look at the women's race, only one pair of Nike's even close to relevant even though the vast majority of people in the race wore Nikes. The differences in shoes is minimal, as long as they are comparable in weight. You can't take a person placing well with Nikes as evidence that the Nike shoes are better and then ignore other people that place poorly in Nikes as potential evidence that the shoes don't matter.

Not the shoes wrote:

Shoes don't magically make you run fast. He got to the olympics because he ran a great race. Look at the women's race, only one pair of Nike's even close to relevant even though the vast majority of people in the race wore Nikes. The differences in shoes is minimal, as long as they are comparable in weight. You can't take a person placing well with Nikes as evidence that the Nike shoes are better and then ignore other people that place poorly in Nikes as potential evidence that the shoes don't matter.

You don't understand the subtleties of how spring-assist works in properly designed shoe. This picture describe what is going on, at a much smaller physical level, within Rupp's trampoline shoes:

And yet, were there not folks back then also arguing that athlete did not have an unfair advantage?

It's really not the same thing.

Not even close... for starters they aren’t springs, they reduce energy expediture by providing a more economical gait.

I have nothing against Nike. Peg 35’s are my favorite shoe. I just think it would be more interesting if he picked a different company. Nike’s elite running marketing is boring.

Not the shoes wrote:

Shoes don't magically make you run fast. He got to the olympics because he ran a great race.

Listen to his interviews.

1. He chose to stay unsponsored to ensure he could wear the shoes.

2. He chose to wear his free pair of Alphaflys even though he NEVER trained in them, because he believed they were better.

So please don't even the fairy tale about how the shoes don't matter.

They absolutely matter and Jake fully admits it.

And to the guy who said "they aren't springs." Yes they are.

Reebok

Who the hell cares? What a superficial, trendy, mainstream question for teenage girls.....

They do. They really really do. Having raced in the next% for the first time on Sunday I’ve arrived at the conclusion that anyone saying ‘it’s not the shoes’ simply hasn’t run in them, as they wouldn’t say this otherwise.

Can you confirm my theory by telling me if you’ve run in the Nike shoes please?

I've raced in the Next%. They're great!

But when Nike hands out a free pair of Alphaflys to anyone who wants them before the race, it's not the shoes that made the difference.

To those of you without the mental aptitude to realize that a an airbag can act as a spring, or a shock absorber, or both, really are not qualified to even debate the matter.

The designers can tweak the spring restitution of those pods, integrated in the totality of the shoe. They absolutely can store and return energy, just like tendons and muscles, just like the carbon blades of the 'blade-runner'.

These are facts, and to try and argue against them just informs everyone of your ignorance.

Or maybe he just fades off into the history books ..a total waste of money spent on a single performance on the last day of February 2020.

Ultra > Marathon wrote:

Nike is boring, how about Hoka?!

Surely he will be announcing a shoe contract in the coming weeks?

It doesn't matter. He has no chance of medalling.

PS, I'm a Hoka fan.

Bro, I swear by the OG's. So much so when the flyknits came out I disliked them despite running my PR in them. The foam in the flyknits to me was slightly firmer. As a result, once I retired them I grabbed 2 pairs of OG's and have been killing it. In January I grabbed the BRS Next %. Did 9 mile run on the treadmill one day. 1 mile in my OG's which felt great. Then switch to the Next % for 4 more miles and...HOLY SH*T!!!! Back to the OG's for the final 4 miles and when I put them on they felt like they had 500+ miles on them. Raced this past Sunday in the Next % @ the USATF 50K Championship Road race. Went through the marathon in 2:39:40 for a new PR and 3:13:19 for the 50K. Best shoe to me. Woke up the next morning and my entire lower body felt like it didn't run on Sunday at all. Went and did 10 miles on Monday morning.

keep on keeping on wrote:

They do. They really really do. Having raced in the next% for the first time on Sunday I’ve arrived at the conclusion that anyone saying ‘it’s not the shoes’ simply hasn’t run in them, as they wouldn’t say this otherwise.

Can you confirm my theory by telling me if you’ve run in the Nike shoes please?

Yes I have worn the 4% and the next%. I was in the race over the weekend, chose to not wear the alphas. In my experience there's no difference, unless I magically got slower even after working out the same paces. I do not wear them in practice, I save them for races. I have gotten incrementally faster over the past four years very steadily, that steady increase continued during my first couple races with 4% and his continued well over a year after getting them. If they do make you faster than other racing shoes that are ~6-7oz in weight then it's marginally, like less than a second per mile. I could wear 11 oz trainers and run within 8 seconds per mile of the next%, and can run same paces in other flats like the Streak compared to the vaporfly series.

So many elite runners wear them 'just in case' they make you faster. If there is the slightest chance they make you faster, why wouldn't you wear them? I stand by saying if they are faster, it's by a very small amount. Just like if you compare the best Saucony and best Asics shoes, one of them will be a bit better than the other.

How did 7 of top 8 women over the weekend NOT run in Nike if all of those other people wearing Nike were wearing far superior shoes?

You have proven your idiocy.

If they make you even 0.5 seconds/mile faster, that is 13 seconds over the course of a marathon. Jake Riley finished 4 seconds ahead of 4th place Leonard Korir.

You can understand that math, right?

Congrats on running the race, but you clearly aren’t racing at the level where marginal fractions really matter. They did for Jake. Kudos to him for having the stones to do what he thought was right. He deserves credit for his honesty and decision making.

So you admit that you ran faster in the 4%/Next% than you did in your older shoes?