Kelvin Kiptum
pinno
Posts: 52,552
World record at Chicago marathon: 2hrs 35 seconds! Fcuking unbelievable.
Under 2 hours will be humanly possible, surely?
Under 2 hours will be humanly possible, surely?
seanoconn - gruagach craic!
1
Comments
-
13.04 mph. average.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Quite happy to be his pace man next time.pinno said:13.04 mph. average.
I'll be on my bike. 🤣The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
All about the shoes.0
-
Was he wearing those single use ones?verylonglegs said:All about the shoes.
0 -
Said he decided to really go for the time after doing a 4:18 mile at the 22nd mile point ! Crazy fast mile time, after having run 21 miles already. How many runners can ever do a 4:18 mile on it’s own - I couldn’t, that’s for sure.0
-
-
It was the 'should be humanly possible' comment that made me comment.pinno said:0 -
The shoe development should help a lot.
I remember a part from the sports gene book where they talk about how very narrow legs and small ankles are so critical to running; having light ends-of-legs is really important for running efficiency.0 -
Even a my lowly level of running the shoes make a big difference. My pace is quicker as soon as I put my Vaporflys on even when I'm just doing a warm up jog. People get very weird about it being cheating (or certainly did when they first came out) whereas it is just a technological advance of the like that happens all the time in other sports. They're not even expensive in comparison to the sorts of things people buy to improve their cycling.0
-
I am sure all the talented aspiring African runners, who are already at elite level, yet often can't afford a pair of new running shoes (sometimes turn up to training / local races bare foot), and I mean any proper running shoes, let alone £300 super shoes, must consider themselves incredibly lucky in comparison to elite cyclists.Pross said:They're not even expensive in comparison to the sorts of things people buy to improve their cycling.
Btw, the Nike ones are rated at 400 racing miles, so an elite runner needs 3-4 pairs per year, while cycling stuff can last forever if properly looked after.
And they don't have Black Firday or end of season 30% or whatever price drops in Kenya either.
0 -
I don't see the sense of personal achievement in getting quicker because you have bought fast shoes.Pross said:Even a my lowly level of running the shoes make a big difference. My pace is quicker as soon as I put my Vaporflys on even when I'm just doing a warm up jog. People get very weird about it being cheating (or certainly did when they first came out) whereas it is just a technological advance of the like that happens all the time in other sports. They're not even expensive in comparison to the sorts of things people buy to improve their cycling.
If someone is giving you a bunch of cash for being quick, fair enough.0 -
There's no difference between that and cycling though is there and it has no relevance to elites running world records. What a strange comment.katani said:
I am sure all the talented aspiring African runners, who are already at elite level, yet often can't afford a pair of new running shoes (sometimes turn up to training / local races bare foot), and I mean any proper running shoes, let alone £300 super shoes, must consider themselves incredibly lucky in comparison to elite cyclists.Pross said:They're not even expensive in comparison to the sorts of things people buy to improve their cycling.
Btw, the Nike ones are rated at 400 racing miles, so an elite runner needs 3-4 pairs per year, while cycling stuff can last forever if properly looked after.
And they don't have Black Firday or end of season 30% or whatever price drops in Kenya either.
Edited to add - how many sets of wheels do you think a top flight pro gets through a year?
FWIW a friend of mine is a decent national level distance runner sponsored by one of the big companies and gets several thousand euros a year to spend on kit through their portal but it is discounted so much that she struggles to spend it all.0 -
Again, it's no different to buying a set of deep rim wheels or high end TT bike in cycling though is it? You only get the benefit once. It certainly isn't cheating which was the claim you regularly saw when they first came out (it might be less so now that all the companies are making 'super shoes'. At the end of the day it is just some foam and a carbon plate ensuring the amount of energy you lose through your shoe is less than it was with traditional soles. The benefit and lower levels is that it saves your legs a fair bit on longer races.kingstongraham said:
I don't see the sense of personal achievement in getting quicker because you have bought fast shoes.Pross said:Even a my lowly level of running the shoes make a big difference. My pace is quicker as soon as I put my Vaporflys on even when I'm just doing a warm up jog. People get very weird about it being cheating (or certainly did when they first came out) whereas it is just a technological advance of the like that happens all the time in other sports. They're not even expensive in comparison to the sorts of things people buy to improve their cycling.
If someone is giving you a bunch of cash for being quick, fair enough.0 -
There are more drugs in road running than in cycling in the 1990s . Just saying 😀Van Nicholas Ventus
Rose Xeon RS0 -
One obvious difference is that in cycling, perhaps because historically technological improvements have always played a significant part in improvements in speed, there doesn't seem to be any particular interest in particular barriers being beaten e.g. sub 4 minutes for the IP and before that, sub 60s for the kilo. The underlying assumption is that sooner rather than later, some technical invention will occur and the next barrier will be broken.Pross said:
There's no difference between that and cycling though is there and it has no relevance to elites running world records.katani said:
I am sure all the talented aspiring African runners, who are already at elite level, yet often can't afford a pair of new running shoes (sometimes turn up to training / local races bare foot), and I mean any proper running shoes, let alone £300 super shoes, must consider themselves incredibly lucky in comparison to elite cyclists.Pross said:They're not even expensive in comparison to the sorts of things people buy to improve their cycling.
Btw, the Nike ones are rated at 400 racing miles, so an elite runner needs 3-4 pairs per year, while cycling stuff can last forever if properly looked after.
And they don't have Black Firday or end of season 30% or whatever price drops in Kenya either.
In running, however, technology has traditionally had little impact on performance levels, hence a competitive time from the 70s is still reasonably competitive now. So in running, particular "barriers", which generally involve round numbers, have always been very significant e.g. the 4 minute mile, the 10s 100m, the 13 minute 5k etc. For the men, the most obvious barrier out now there has long (*) been the 2 hour marathon, which pre-supershoes, may have been beyond the limits of human performance.
Post-supershoes, there is a strong likelihood of the barrier being broken by someone who no-one has really heard of, in only their second or third marathon. So the advent of supershoes has basically killed off the intrigue behind a long-standing challenge. It's just a matter of which "super-responder" (**) first gets to race in the next version of shoes on a fast course.
(*) There was a film in 1970 - The Games - in which a Brit called Harry Hayes - played by Frank Spencer - was on target for a sub 2 hour Marathon at the half way point before folding like a pack of cards!
(**) Not all athletes get the same benefit apparently. It depends on their technique.
1 -
Maybe that's the reason sprinters continue to insist on running in relatively baggy kit and in the case of many (mainly the women) with their hair flying all over the place which at 20mph plus in an event decided by hundredths of a second always seems completely bizarre. I would say nutritional advances and general sports science will have made as big a difference in the sub 2 hour marathon as the shoes though (with the shoes having been the only real bit of kit that is available to improve). I wonder if they also called it cheating when athletics moved away from cinder tracks?0
-
Who's calling the supershoes cheating? I'm certainly not. Just highlighting that they have taken all the intrigue out of the sub 2 hour marathon, which is now a matter of "when" rather than "if".Pross said:I wonder if they also called it cheating when athletics moved away from cinder tracks?
I agree re hair extensions. It may or may not be relevant that Sha'carri Richardson has only fulfilled her potential this year after ditching the extensions!
Disagree strongly re nutrition being as big a factor as shoes. The shoes are game-changing in a way that nothing before it in road running has been. The "super responders" get circa 5% benefit from the shoes. That is huge. Way more significant than nutrition changes. It doesn't matter from an ethical viewpoint though as using the shoes is perfectly legit, so there's no need to attribute miraculous improvements to spurious factors like diet, cadence etc. in the way that was common for those who benefited from EPO. The miracle is genuine here - the new shoe technology.
0 -
I was referring back to my earlier post. Running forums and even running media were regularly talking about cheat shoes back when the Vaporfly first came out. I think there’s still a lot of people who talk that way but it seems to have dropped off since all the big companies entered the field and I suspect part of their issue in a lot of cases was that it was Nike that came up with them first.wallace_and_gromit said:
Who's calling the supershoes cheating? I'm certainly not. Just highlighting that they have taken all the intrigue out of the sub 2 hour marathon, which is now a matter of "when" rather than "if"..Pross said:I wonder if they also called it cheating when athletics moved away from cinder tracks?
0 -
I presume that many athletes rely on sponsorship and this twinned with the sheer weight of aspiring shoe manufacturer sponsorship would make any advance in shoe technology and deploying it, just a matter of time.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
-
Thanks. Hadn't read your earlier post. I guess this relates to my comment about the different mindset of cycling vs athletics followers. The former are used to technological changes whereas the latter only really know of changes in track surfaces, which by definition, are available to everyone in a given race - mainly cinders to plastic over 50 years ago and the Tokyo "Magic Carpet" for the 1991 WCs, with increases in performance coming from athletes getting better or via doping.Pross said:
I was referring back to my earlier post. Running forums and even running media were regularly talking about cheat shoes back when the Vaporfly first came out.wallace_and_gromit said:
Who's calling the supershoes cheating? I'm certainly not. Just highlighting that they have taken all the intrigue out of the sub 2 hour marathon, which is now a matter of "when" rather than "if"..Pross said:I wonder if they also called it cheating when athletics moved away from cinder tracks?
0 -
That's cos athletic followers have their heads buried in the sand when it comes to doping.wallace_and_gromit said:
Thanks. Hadn't read your earlier post. I guess this relates to my comment about the different mindset of cycling vs athletics followers. The former are used to technological changes whereas the latter only really know of changes in track surfaces, which by definition, are available to everyone in a given race - mainly cinders to plastic over 50 years ago and the Tokyo "Magic Carpet" for the 1991 WCs, with increases in performance coming from athletes getting better or via doping.Pross said:
I was referring back to my earlier post. Running forums and even running media were regularly talking about cheat shoes back when the Vaporfly first came out.wallace_and_gromit said:
Who's calling the supershoes cheating? I'm certainly not. Just highlighting that they have taken all the intrigue out of the sub 2 hour marathon, which is now a matter of "when" rather than "if"..Pross said:I wonder if they also called it cheating when athletics moved away from cinder tracks?
We all know it goes on and there have been enough caught to prove it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
One would think so. Nike etc. have huge clout in the athletics world.pinno said:I presume that many athletes rely on sponsorship and this twinned with the sheer weight of aspiring shoe manufacturer sponsorship would make any advance in shoe technology and deploying it, just a matter of time.
At the other end of the scale, swimming went through its "supersuit era" in the late 00s with the overall conclusion being that their game-changing impact was not good for the sport as a whole, so they were banned. There's very little money in swimming so the kit manufacturers don't have the same clout as Nike etc.0 -
About what, specifically were you right? Not saying you weren't. It's just that the only factual issue re supershoes is that they make people run faster, which everyone with even the vaguest interest in athletics knows, because that's what the manufacturers are very keen to tell us.rick_chasey said:Glad I’m right about something for a change.
0 -
Seb Coe said that we made good runners as we learnt to run on ploughed fields.
Furnishing a few hundred kids in Gabon with half decent bicycles is a far more expensive than shoes.
I know a man locally who won lots in curling
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_McIntyre). When he was playing, he had to contend with scraping stalagmites off the floor at venues where water/condensation had dripped on the surface, paying his own expenses and travel including flights. He still worked full time and only had time off for events by virtue of the fact he worked for his father.
In contrast, his Norwegian counterparts got a salary and expenses which totalled £120k per annum!seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The shoes being a big deal for running times.wallace_and_gromit said:
About what, specifically were you right? Not saying you weren't. It's just that the only factual issue re supershoes is that they make people run faster, which everyone with even the vaguest interest in athletics knows, because that's what the manufacturers are very keen to tell us.rick_chasey said:Glad I’m right about something for a change.
0 -
Thanks. With all due respect, this is hardly unique or shattering insight!rick_chasey said:
The shoes being a big deal for running times.wallace_and_gromit said:
About what, specifically were you right? Not saying you weren't. It's just that the only factual issue re supershoes is that they make people run faster, which everyone with even the vaguest interest in athletics knows, because that's what the manufacturers are very keen to tell us.rick_chasey said:Glad I’m right about something for a change.
0 -
Yes, but, let's be honest, stating the blindingly obvious is a real forte of mine. Gotta get the wins where I can.1
-
Kelvin Kiptum is a great name.
"Nike, Kevlin Kiptums"0
