LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Unpopular opinion, but shoes don't matter that much.
You could put Kipchoge in an Adios, or even barefoot with some training and he would still win it. Olympic marathons have been won before barefoot.
Most recreational runners and sub-elites are faster with the 4%, either due to more/better training or due to Placebo effect and them pushing more (the same way most meds work). Kipchoge is running each marathon at the absolute limit, so the effect of shoes would be negligible.
Saying Sisson would have run 2:21, or even 2:22 with 4% shoes only benefits Nike, as more people think the shoes would actually make them faster. She will run those times in future marathons simply due to natural marathon progression, no matter what shoes she will wear.
Yeah, yawn. Case in point. Men's fields are dominated by Vaporflys, not such is not the case with the women's fields. Men care about nerdy crap like this, just as they analyze golf clubs, disc wheels on triathlon bikes and so forth. Women generally (from my observations) just go out and kick ass, no excuses.
Plus I think adidas sponsors more top women than Nike does top men, so you see a much more equal playing field. And a lot more wins in adidas on the women's side.
Wilson Kipsang would have run a 2:10 on Sunday in Nikes, and Kipchoge would have still run a 2:02 in Adios. Amateur runners have more wiggle room in their times, so it's easier to jump from say, a 3:30 to a 3:17 and claim it's all shoes, when really the person was capable all along with the right training & mindset.
So dumb.. especially since Callum Hawkins is kicking ass in the NB, as is Patrick Lange at Ironman in the NB Hanzo.