Well stated and I agree 100%.
https://scottfauble.com/writing/2021/3/9/lets-all-take-a-chill-pill-super-shoes-edition
Well stated and I agree 100%.
https://scottfauble.com/writing/2021/3/9/lets-all-take-a-chill-pill-super-shoes-edition
At least the shoe debate took a lot of focus off of the doping epidemic.
I really hope most people on this board read this article and this is the last post debating shoe technology again.
As Fauble stated, it is sad that after a race people on Letsrun are discussing the athletes’ shoes and not their previous training, background or really anything about the athletes.
It’s too bad most of the people on letsrun are too dumb, and don’t have the attention span, to read an article like this because it’s dead f*cking on.
DirtyT wrote:
It’s too bad most of the people on letsrun are too dumb, and don’t have the attention span, to read an article like this because it’s dead f*cking on.
Fauble sounds like just another cancel culture oppressor. Lighten up Fauble. You are lucky people discuss these races at all and now you want to dictate to them how they should discuss them? Narcissistic much?
Rojo will disagree, it's a guarantee.
This is a good take.
The gray text on white background is an eye strain. Almost as bad as yellow and gray backgrounds.
Stop reading when I came to the realization I’m reading the diary of a pro runner for hoka... wtf
No, the improvement in track surfaces is not a performance enhancer.
The new shoe technology actually is a performance enhancer, the shoes make you run faster and conserve energy.
Swimming had the balls to ban the swimsuits, track and field does not have the balls to ban the shoes, too bad.
A-F**KING-MEN!!! Well done, Scott. It's long past time to stop allowing commentary on this sport to be defined and dominated by angry grey haired old men that were not very good nor talented to begin with. (Disclaimer: I am an aging and greying man that was nowhere near elite.). This sport will be killed off by the jealousy of frustrated ex-jocks that didn't win the genetic lottery and retired middling performers trying to protect a legacy that exists only in their own minds.
DC Wonk wrote:
Well stated and I agree 100%.
https://scottfauble.com/writing/2021/3/9/lets-all-take-a-chill-pill-super-shoes-edition
it has to be said: his entire online personality is curated off shea serrano
7.5/10 on the article
springbok wrote:
No, the improvement in track surfaces is not a performance enhancer.
That’s a joke right?
If you have to wear Hoka shoes, you need to have this kind of attitude
Trackfan55 wrote:
springbok wrote:
No, the improvement in track surfaces is not a performance enhancer.
That’s a joke right?
Well, yea the surfaces are now faster, just like the gutter helping in a pool, just like pavement over grass.
But, the new show tech actually propels you forward faster, it is a different world now.
springbok wrote:
Trackfan55 wrote:
That’s a joke right?
Well, yea the surfaces are now faster, just like the gutter helping in a pool, just like pavement over grass.
But, the new show tech actually propels you forward faster, it is a different world now.
Not to nit-pick, but the shoe is not adding energy you did not put in. It is more efficient at using what you put in. That is why it should be fine, but putting a "motor" with some other fuel source is not ok (like e-Bikes).
So, you don't have to train and use your muscles anymore, the shoes just push you forward through perpetual motion physics? You have a naive understanding of how things actually work, hoss.
springbok wrote:
Trackfan55 wrote:
That’s a joke right?
Well, yea the surfaces are now faster, just like the gutter helping in a pool, just like pavement over grass.
But, the new show tech actually propels you forward faster, it is a different world now.
But you could argue the same thing in regards to the amount of energy return there is from the track surfaces vs cinders. It’s a massive rabbit hole really
I largely agree with Faubs, but I think there are a few things he's missing.
1) The obsession with shoe tech is based on a misconception about running that other sports don't have, namely, that tech never mattered in running before. Researchers have understood for some time that shoes are faster than running barefoot, but the general public (or rather the subset of the general public that is into competitive running) didn't understand this. So when Nike made a breakthrough, people believed, incorrectly, that these were the first shoes that acted as springs.
2) Much of the obsession with shoe tech centered on the fact that, for a while, only athletes with a particular sponsor had access. That's different from gutters in pools or all weather tracks. This objection was also amplified by a misunderstanding of a very poorly drafted IAAF rule, which I won't get into here. This equity argument seems to be dying down now that more shoe companies have models that are comparable to the Vaporfly.
3) As for focusing more on the competition rather than the times, that's been a problem since long before the shoes, and athletes bear at least some part of the blame. Mostly, though, this is simply a product of the fact that our sport is so niche, and the Olympics are the only thing that truly matters. If your entire career is validated by making one team, then getting qualifying times is the name of the game. I do hope that the continuing rise in the profile of major marathons (ironically driven in part by Kipchoge's pursuit of faster and faster times) will help us to move towards a pro sport that is on the radar several times per year, rather than once every four.
I read the article and it fails to recognize that the shoes technology is not equal and not available to all. Flip turns in swimming and cinder tracks were. A better analogy is letting some swimmers use the full body suits and banning them for the rest. I could focus more on the competition aspect of running if the access and effects of the technology were equal to everyone that enters the race. Also, golf is a way more skill-based game as opposed to running, so it's not the best analogy. Other endurance sports prove to be a better analogy.
Also his writing style is annoying. It's like trying so hard to be edgy and attention getting but it's just cringe. I had trouble getting all the way through.
The one thing I can appreciate about super shoes is they reduce the effects of the pounding from the marathon and high mileage. So that's a plus.
Your analogies blow. The tech is being used by multiple brands, it's ubiquitous enough. Your goofy hair-splitting nonsense is exactly the problem that inspired Fauble's rant.