Just a few minor corrections: - Kelvin Kiptum’s record is 2:00:35 not 2:00:25 - the first image show labelled vapourflys are actually the 2nd edition of the shoes named the vapourflys next% so the image is misleading - Kipchoge’s Alphaflies were not banned - it was unknown at the time what world athletics would do but the regulations imposed still allowed the alphaflies to be road legal I know I make small mistakes regularly - it gets hard to keep track of everything when you have worked on a video for hours and hours! I appreciate any respectful corrections as I want information on this channel to be trusted. Luckily, none of these mistakes impact the central argument of the video.
Its just progress, its matter of time for the wa admit shoes with 2 carbon fiber plates or higher stacks of foam, the barrier to control was carbon Plate i think, when you admit that you must admit what comes next
In my opinion it’s not super shoes giving a boost, it’s shoe technology helping athletes train harder and longer without getting injured. Also think nutrition and rest is also a lot better now than back then.
Yeah the extra training is something I did not even consider. Still I think it falls into the same category because a "purist" could argue that being able to train better due to shoes devalues records achieved by said extra training
Gebresalassie marathon PB at 2:03:59 in 2008 Kipchoge debut was 2:05:30 in 2013. A mere 1min31s slower than Gebresalassie PB, way before the super shoes and before Kipchoges peak. His next marathon, just some months later - still in 2013, he ran 2:04:05 - just 6 seconds away from Gebresalassie record (Kipsang set the world record in the race by 2:03:23. Faster than Gebre, and pre super shoes. 2015 he ran 2:04:00 - 1 second from Gebresalassie PB, still before super shoes. I think Kipchoge was the better marathon runner.
@@AdamJansen786 I'm in favor of their use in general. I'm just not so sure when it comes to official world records. I'll be interested to hear your take.
@@AdamJansen786 Огни применяли ещё в 70 е годы прошлого столетия в легкоатлетическом цирке О' Хары, но, несмотря на наличие таких звёзд как Райан, Кейно , Джипчо, ни один из рекордов не пал, другое дело карбон, он даёт эффект минимум один процент , именно с этим связан резкий рост результатов.
I'd heard that Nike had made a big deal of the carbon fibre plate being the crux of the supershoe rather than the foam due to a patenting issue. Nike had the patent on the plate but not the foam so they'd not put as much emphasis into the foam which many manufacturers could use. In terms of the plate's function, apparently it's no more than 10% of the transformative effect of the shoe, acting more as a scaffold to the typically weak foams of the time, which have since been improved. I can't remember the source, I'm just an internet rando. Etc etc
Fair enough - had not heard of that myself. I have heard whispers that the carbon plate is not as effective as is made out but I think the fact that plates are a staple in nearly all speed and race shoes tells you something.
Super shoes have helped improve running performance, but not as much as many claim. There are many other factors that are ignored that will have contributed too: nutrition, our understanding of physiology and training methods l, and the psychology of having a benchmark to chase to name but three. Times would have come down a lot anyway. I’m reminded of some of the magnificent feats in athletes, like Gunder Haag of Sweden, who broke 14 minutes for the 5k in clogs in cinder tracks - the incredible is possible even without the latest tech. A lot of old athletes whine about the new tech because they are bitter about their records being broken… can’t blame them, just a normal human reaction. And Nike said what they wanted and was convenient to them by saying there was an improvement in efficiency by 4%, but that was unprovable and frankly nonsense, so they dropped that claim. By the way, the shoe you showed and labelled the Vaporfly 4% was in fact a Next %. They had stopped using the misleading claim by then.
@josephgonzalez_ yeah I know they had to drop the 4% claim and I did say to take the studies with a grain of salt given Nike funded them. I will probably make a small correction as you are right it is the wrong image (gets very difficult to spit the small mistakes after hours of editing haha) Technology isn’t all but I don’t think you can put the sudden huge drops in world records the moment athletes started wearing these shoes down to nutrition or other factors. They may have played a significant role but the shoes had a huge effect.
@@AdamJansen786 that’s the received wisdom, but I don’t believe they had as huge an effect as is stated. Sure they have had an effect but it’s overstated. By the way, you know that doping is also a big issues these days, even amongst East Africans whose performances for years had been put down to genetics and the way they grew up. Things we thought we knew and didnt really know… I’d take a lot more than a Nike claim with a pinch of salt.
@@josephgonzalez_ seems it’s best to agree to disagree. I did say that doping is a huge problem today but 25 years ago EPO tests weren’t even a thing. I also gave more evidence that the vapourflys showed benefits such as with athletes showing huge drops in times in races after wearing the shoes. I appreciate your response though - we have definitely made huge progress through more than shoes!
@@AdamJansen786 Реальное улучшение от карбоновых шиповок , думаю 1 процент. На это указывает сравнение результатов одних и тех же бегунов до 2020 года и после, у кого то больше, у кого-то меньше, но в среднем 1 процент . Правда для того что бы улучшить свои результаты вы должны быть в отличной форме. Пример Черуйот : до карбона 328.41, после 328.28, но он то как раз свою форму резко снизил и из супер бегуна превратился в просто хорошего
Just a few minor corrections:
- Kelvin Kiptum’s record is 2:00:35 not 2:00:25
- the first image show labelled vapourflys are actually the 2nd edition of the shoes named the vapourflys next% so the image is misleading
- Kipchoge’s Alphaflies were not banned - it was unknown at the time what world athletics would do but the regulations imposed still allowed the alphaflies to be road legal
I know I make small mistakes regularly - it gets hard to keep track of everything when you have worked on a video for hours and hours! I appreciate any respectful corrections as I want information on this channel to be trusted. Luckily, none of these mistakes impact the central argument of the video.
Its just progress, its matter of time for the wa admit shoes with 2 carbon fiber plates or higher stacks of foam, the barrier to control was carbon Plate i think, when you admit that you must admit what comes next
In my opinion it’s not super shoes giving a boost, it’s shoe technology helping athletes train harder and longer without getting injured. Also think nutrition and rest is also a lot better now than back then.
Yeah the extra training is something I did not even consider. Still I think it falls into the same category because a "purist" could argue that being able to train better due to shoes devalues records achieved by said extra training
Kiptums WR is 2:00:35
@@DODO-cb6gq correct - my mistake 😅
4:30 yes Gebresalassie is right
He is a better athlete than kipchoge
He’d run sub 2
Hicham and Coe would aswell run great
@@robinbauer1975 would have been amazing to see prime geb in this era. Arguably the GOAT of running.
Gebresalassie marathon PB at 2:03:59 in 2008
Kipchoge debut was 2:05:30 in 2013. A mere 1min31s slower than Gebresalassie PB, way before the super shoes and before Kipchoges peak.
His next marathon, just some months later - still in 2013, he ran 2:04:05 - just 6 seconds away from Gebresalassie record (Kipsang set the world record in the race by 2:03:23. Faster than Gebre, and pre super shoes.
2015 he ran 2:04:00 - 1 second from Gebresalassie PB, still before super shoes.
I think Kipchoge was the better marathon runner.
What are your thoughts on wave lights? Is it radical of me to believe that races that use them shouldn't qualify as world records?
@@RyanWalshGuitar I am gonna make a video of that soon. I see the arguments from both sides but I’m actually in favour of wave lights personally!
@@AdamJansen786 I'm in favor of their use in general. I'm just not so sure when it comes to official world records. I'll be interested to hear your take.
@@AdamJansen786 Огни применяли ещё в 70 е годы прошлого столетия в легкоатлетическом цирке О' Хары, но, несмотря на наличие таких звёзд как Райан, Кейно , Джипчо, ни один из рекордов не пал, другое дело карбон, он даёт эффект минимум один процент , именно с этим связан резкий рост результатов.
I'd heard that Nike had made a big deal of the carbon fibre plate being the crux of the supershoe rather than the foam due to a patenting issue. Nike had the patent on the plate but not the foam so they'd not put as much emphasis into the foam which many manufacturers could use.
In terms of the plate's function, apparently it's no more than 10% of the transformative effect of the shoe, acting more as a scaffold to the typically weak foams of the time, which have since been improved.
I can't remember the source, I'm just an internet rando. Etc etc
Fair enough - had not heard of that myself. I have heard whispers that the carbon plate is not as effective as is made out but I think the fact that plates are a staple in nearly all speed and race shoes tells you something.
Roles ahh Kipchoge ran 2:01 in super shoes
But ran 2:08 in even better supershoes (boston)
It doesn’t run for the athletes
You’re super late to this discussion bro.
@@wesleytwiggs7687 I feel like I had something new to offer to it
It's always a good time to revisit it.
@@RyanWalshGuitar nah
Type shit
Super shoes have helped improve running performance, but not as much as many claim. There are many other factors that are ignored that will have contributed too: nutrition, our understanding of physiology and training methods l, and the psychology of having a benchmark to chase to name but three. Times would have come down a lot anyway. I’m reminded of some of the magnificent feats in athletes, like Gunder Haag of Sweden, who broke 14 minutes for the 5k in clogs in cinder tracks - the incredible is possible even without the latest tech. A lot of old athletes whine about the new tech because they are bitter about their records being broken… can’t blame them, just a normal human reaction. And Nike said what they wanted and was convenient to them by saying there was an improvement in efficiency by 4%, but that was unprovable and frankly nonsense, so they dropped that claim. By the way, the shoe you showed and labelled the Vaporfly 4% was in fact a Next %. They had stopped using the misleading claim by then.
@josephgonzalez_ yeah I know they had to drop the 4% claim and I did say to take the studies with a grain of salt given Nike funded them. I will probably make a small correction as you are right it is the wrong image (gets very difficult to spit the small mistakes after hours of editing haha) Technology isn’t all but I don’t think you can put the sudden huge drops in world records the moment athletes started wearing these shoes down to nutrition or other factors. They may have played a significant role but the shoes had a huge effect.
@@AdamJansen786 that’s the received wisdom, but I don’t believe they had as huge an effect as is stated. Sure they have had an effect but it’s overstated.
By the way, you know that doping is also a big issues these days, even amongst East Africans whose performances for years had been put down to genetics and the way they grew up. Things we thought we knew and didnt really know… I’d take a lot more than a Nike claim with a pinch of salt.
@@josephgonzalez_ seems it’s best to agree to disagree. I did say that doping is a huge problem today but 25 years ago EPO tests weren’t even a thing. I also gave more evidence that the vapourflys showed benefits such as with athletes showing huge drops in times in races after wearing the shoes. I appreciate your response though - we have definitely made huge progress through more than shoes!
@@AdamJansen786 Реальное улучшение от карбоновых шиповок , думаю 1 процент. На это указывает сравнение результатов одних и тех же бегунов до 2020 года и после, у кого то больше, у кого-то меньше, но в среднем 1 процент . Правда для того что бы улучшить свои результаты вы должны быть в отличной форме. Пример Черуйот : до карбона 328.41, после 328.28, но он то как раз свою форму резко снизил и из супер бегуна превратился в просто хорошего