When eliud first wore the vaporfly years ago, the same question was raised. Fast forward to today, now everyone's wearing the same tech but can't achieve what he have done.
"At the 2023 Boston Marathon, Eliud Kipchoge aimed to win his fifth of the six major marathons. However, after missing his water bottle and due to a left leg problem, At the 2023 Boston Marathon, Kipchoge aimed to win his fifth of the six major marathons. However, after missing his water bottle and due to a left leg problem, the 38-year-old was unable to stay with the lead group on a hilly section after the 30 km mark. He suffered the third defeat of his marathon career, finishing sixth with a time of 2:09:23 the 38-year-old was unable to stay with the lead group on a hilly section after the 30 km mark." Now that Fall has taken some of the Spring out of his step let's all chip in and buy him a decent pair of running shoes. Cacciola, Scott (18 April 2023). "Eliud Kipchoge Was Supposed to Win the Boston Marathon. What Went Wrong?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
i get the thing about performances not being created equal since the shoes, but the shoes also improve recovery and almost certainly lengthen careers. to me that's reason enough to allow them
I find it amusing that the only individuals expressing dissatisfaction are those who likely wouldn't have had a chance to win the event in world record times, without any disrespect intended. The current record holders predominantly hail from East African backgrounds. Maybe, if athletes from regions not traditionally associated with such prowess suddenly started competing on par with East Africans, it might suggest a technological advantage over innate abilities. As long as these shoes are accessible to all, there shouldn't be a ban on them.
EXACTLY! I saw a video about shoe technology a couple years ago. They said 25 years ago athletes would run a marathon & then limp around for a month! But with todays technology most world class athletes are fine physically within a couple days. That's amazing recovery. Why would anyone want to take that away from these young athletes? So they can destroy their bodies like athletes did year's ago? I think it's more about older & retired athletes who are worried about their own records being broken.
And do we want to extend careers by cheating, and do we want the federations that can pay 2000$ shoes to have another unfair advantage. Even in Formula One, we have regulations.
If this record is in doubt then every record ever is out. Shoe tech has advanced with the record book. This is more a product of opportunity for performance trainers to grow and disruptions in marathon running . Men will be next. The fact that a 40 year old far beyond his physical prime is world number one says a lot. As incentives to run the marathon continue to shift, and more athletes dedicate their entire career to it, the men will have absolutely zero problem going under 2. What you’ll likely see is custom shoes coming along with sponsor agreements. Something that happens in sports already - and a bit of that in sprinting already.
Custom Colors, Custom shoes specific to the racer is ban due to needing for a world record or podium to stand have the shoes available to the public. This came about as runners in Rio who were Nike sponsored most who chose to use the new shoes in both Track and in Marathon/Race Walking model or the 5k/10k model were the only ones with the latest tech that conformed to the then rules. Nobody else was able to get the shoes. Some runners who were not used to the new shoes wore older models but then becuse of this older model even if other Nike runners/other shoe sponsored runners allowed to be using Nike tech were better trained over the other runners that just leaned into the new shoes a bit more then training, they often lost podium by just enough to need World Track and Field to make this ruling for world record attempts/podium finishes as well as people competing in Olympics/World Track and Field Championships.
@@threatened2024 Was thinking the same thing. He'd be past his prime as far as VO2max goes which is why he doesn't run 5 or 10k's on the track anymore, but the marathon is much more influenced by running economy and endurance which he is definitely not past his prime for.
@@pete5691 they probably cant afford them, the difference in performance is reflected in the stupidly high pricetag and not everyone can afford them especially if its a one off race deal
Lots of athletes from 100 years ago never had the chance to use the better clothing, shoes, training and nutrition we have now. Innovation has always been a part of all sports. Like NASCAR and Formula One the technology they have trickles down to all drivers eventually.
Yeah I think we need to see it that way and not say it’s all about the shoes but it’s a combination of brand and athlete and era. Maybe there should be strict rules like F1 and NASCAR that are reviewed each year then we remember the winners and not say that he had a faster car in 2023 vs 1968.
Of course shoe and track technology is contributing to better performances, but the athletes themselves still make the difference. These technologies are open to all elite runners.
Not really. Athletes need sponsors to survive. So unless you are sponsored by Adidas or Nike, you have no business in the road marathon, no matter how good you are.
i like his videos but he frequently leaves out important notes, like the video about how the Norwegian guy lost to the British guy in the 1600 meter, he totally missed the fact that the Norwegian guy had really bad positioning and is know to have a not very good sprint and the British guy clearly tactically out positioned and out sprinted him. Idk how his video missed that
@@MrObear I like how they are just british guy and norwegian guy lol; just fyi Ingebrigtsen ran slow because had some viral illness that day, not really because of what you mentioned. Just look at his more recent 2k, 1 mile, and 3k where he was at full strength, soooo much more power
Yes but no. Kiptum ran his times in Valencia and I forgot the other race, but both incredible times and not at Berlin. I still agree with you though, Berlin has historically been the fastest race. Can't wait to see what Kelvin Kiptum can do!
Don't take my word for it, I'm just repeating what the "experts" say about all the courses and it's pretty much universally agreed upon that Berlin is the fastest course. Let Google be your friend. @@vernonfrance2974
@@leonhardeuler675 Of course she is? Do you really think she or any of the top people are clean? I figured everyone knows and its just accepted. Like bodybuilding was in the 70s and 80s. Everyone uses and the best runners are still winning.
@@leonhardeuler675 the test for EPO is difficult to do designer PEDs and overall the test are not very good the test only for a specific substance or ratios that are easy to beat there are so many ways. It's almost common knowledge
As long as the shoe is not adding energy it should be legal, because the runner would still be doing everything by themselves. Edit: I know bicycles and wheels also don't add energy, so let's say that they have to be shoes and they can't have wheels.
I think the regulations need to be a bit stricter than that. If you could increase energy return by putting giant springs on the bottom of shoes, your shoes wouldn't actually be adding any energy, but it would seem to go against the spirit of running. I think the current regulations are fine. It does maybe make it difficult to compare current runners to runners from previous decades, but eventually the technological progress will level off and this will become less of an issue.
I think that the biggest problem is that this technology is not available to those not sponsored by company x. Runners can afford to switch their sponsor every time a new technology is added. The technology isn't the problem if all runners had access.
Shoes should be allowed as long as they are accessible to every runner... a super shoe with only 500 pairs being given to exclusive people should not be allowed
existing rules say that shoe must be widely available and they must be available 4 months prior. 500 pairs isn't widely available so i'm pretty sure they violated the rules.
@@sadiporter2966 does it states "widely available to the buying public" ? Its made available to public (at 500 pairs) and to all adidas pro athletes who are competing.
I agree with this statement, Olympics and World Track and Field Championships would not allow said shoe as it needs to be widely available to the market (think 2016 and Rio with the new model that was only on specific Nike athletes) and I thought that World Athletics would not allow a shoe like this either becuse of the rules in top two competitions and World Athletics having a similar stance, but I am wrong on that statement.
Personally, I think arguing that the time wasn't valid because of the shoe is like saying a race run on the Berlin course shouldn't matter because its easier than others. There are ideal situations for running, and ideal shoes, if you have both of these things, you'll run faster, but its still a completely fair record.
Great video, one thing. The rod tech isn’t new to the evo 1. It’s already in the pro 3 which has been out for years, a version of these rods are also in the Boston 12s though they arnt made of the same material, the form tech is the same.
@@28mouse85 true the point was that the rods are also in the pro 3s which arnt a new shoe and have sorta been the adidas way of incorporating a “plate” for a while
Edit: if you are talking about the alpha 3 prototype, kipchoge ran slower than his previous Berlin attempt. I don't think anyone is going to be worried about the exclusivity of a shoe that is seemingly not any better than its previous iteration. Similarly, no one would care if I ran a marathon in some home made wooden clogs. Are you joking? It was a massive deal. Kipchoge's shoes are the reason why they introduced stricter shoe regulations in the first place.
@@alexanderwhyte5316 i think he/she is referring to the current alpha 3 protos that Kipchoge wore last week,they aren't available to all ,but they are available to all nike pro athletes,just as the adidas evo 1 was.
@@nickatnite16 ok fair enough, i've seen a lot of people commenting on the prototypes for the 1:59 event, so assumed this was the same talking point. In any case, there's a pretty obvious reason why no one would be commenting on the alpha 3 prototype - because kipchoge ran slower than his previous Berlin attempt. I don't think anyone is going to be worried about the exclusivity of a shoe that is seemingly not any better than its previous iteration.
@@alexanderwhyte5316 just because he didn't run his fastest marathon in them(this new prototype, Alphafly 3) doesnt mean its an inferior product to the Alphafly 1 (when he ran sub 2 in an unofficial marathon) or Alphafly 2(which he set a new WR in last yr at Berlin). A lot of factors go into a marathoner's time on particular day(weather,how they felt that day,little injuries). Funny thing is,Kipchoge set the marathon WR last yr in Berlin in the Alphafly 2,but many people preferred the Alphafly 1 or Vaporfly 2 over the WR shoe that os the Alphafly 2
@@nickatnite16 yes of course, the new alpha fly could be even better than this new adidas shoe, but this race did not provide any evidence of that. What reason would anyone have to believe that Nike have made some massive breakthrough with the alpha 3 based on the result of the Berlin marathon? It could be the greatest shoe of all time for all we know, but we'd need to see some evidence of that before we start claiming that. This is the reason why no one is complaining about the alpha fly 3 (you guys probably know this too). Also, I said "seemingly not any better", not "inferior".
What would Ben Hogan do with today’s golf clubs and balls? What would Usain Bolt’s time be on a cinder track with 1924 spikes? Technology marches on, but it does make for a fun debate.
Track surface technology benefits all athletes, equally. Golf clubs have many restrictions such as: weight, length, striking surface area, and the grooves on the club face. Full body neoprene suits are banned from swimming competitions. Tennis rackets must conform to certain specifications. Trans athletes are completely banned from competing against women in rowing. Technology advances but when those adaptations lead to significant performance enhancing results they should be questioned and, if necessary, banned by the respective governing body.
the runners have the same amount of talent no matter the shoes. since assefa broke the record by 2 minutes 11 seconds (2:14:04-->2:11:53) are we saying that the shoes are worth at least 2 minutes 10 seconds? she still would've shattered the record had she been wearing vaporflys or the old adios pros
Maybe. Could argue even more since she broke her previous PB by almost 4 minutes from a year prior on the same course. That's a lot. She's still very new to the marathon so it's impossible to know how much is from the shoes versus how much is just her improving rapidly. Personally I think it's a bit of both. Her previous PB already ranked her as one of the fastest ever so there is doubting her talent.
@justdidntwantmyrealnameany1950 Yes, the shoes are worth at least 2 minutes and 11 seconds by conservative estimates. It is time to ban all shoes to get back to a level playing field. They don't allow fins in swimming do they?
Im so sick of people complaining about shoes being unfair, as technology advances so should the sport. As long as the shoes aren't returning more energy than they give, which will probably never happen anyways. Just let the shoe technology advance because at the end of the day the athlete is the one doing all of the training and work.
Yeah as long as it's available enough that it's accessible to all the top athletes then it's fine. If availability was too limited, then I could see why it's a problem.
I've noticed the runners who complain the loudest are V50+ who are past their peak fitness and didn't have access to the new tech when they were running their fastest times. In other words, it's sour grapes.
Cycling fans have been watching tech evolution in this sport for decades. These are shoes, and they matter, but it is a blip in performance compared to other sports.
as long as every pro athlete has access to the shoe, it's not cheating. not like adidas put rockets on the shoes. I'm not a runner and I'm pretty sure if I wore those shoes it wouldn't finish a marathon.
@maciwheat What do you mean "restricted?" Shouldn't it be labeled "restrictive?" "The combined effects of the LZR both compressing the body and trapping air for buoyancy led to many competitors who used the LZR wearing two or more suits for an increased effect. This led to some claiming that the LZR was in effect "technological doping". "Fina cracks down on hi-tech suits". BBC Sport. 14 March 2009LZR Racer
The single greatest performance improvement in an olympic racing sport was the widespread introduction of Klap Skates in 97/98. The mens 10000 WR went from 13:30 to 13:08 & now stands at 12:30.
Sorry but you need to get your facts at reasonably close to reality. Firstly, you are quoting 5,000m times, not 10,000m. Plus, 13.08 for 5,000m was achieved by Henry Rono in 1978, not in the late 1990's.
Can we also say a word about how incredibly polluting it would be if everyone would toss their shoes away after just one marathon? I just bought the NNormal Kjerag trail shoes and they feel like they will last at least 15 years on challenging terrain, because of a very durable design. And if the profile wears out, you can have just the Vibram sole replaced. Now that’s respecting your customer and minimising your impact.
These conversations about shoes are interesting and can inspire strong opinions, but the elephant in the room when comparing records from different eras is and will always be doping. At any point the balance in the cat and mouse game between PED technology/use and testing can shift and completely outweigh the effect of shoes. Add in training, nutrition, and track surfaces and there are just too many variables to make cross-generation comparisons an exact science. Just enjoy the competition and spectacle of it.
138 grams is a really light racing marathon running shoes with a high stack? Half the weight of the Nike Alphafly Next % 2. Lighter the running shoes, the more you can go without being tired. I see more records will be broken in the future of this shoe technology. Even a sub 2 hour marathon soon.
Other shoe companies have researchers and scientists on board to produce light foams that gives great energy return,cant fault adidas for devolping a better product with materials that available to all other running companies
@@Bigern2998imo ,it was ridiculous how heavy shoes were. Companies' researchers and developers are now finding out that reducing weight can give the athlete better efficiency. Nothing new is being added,its just finding a more efficient way of using whats already there. Take that same foam(which every shoe has) and make it lighter,instead of using a full carbon plate(which every running shoe brand use),use carbon rods in a more efficient way possible. Same materials that are in other shoes,just a better and more efficient use of it
@@nickatnite16 of course. I know. It is performance enhancement of a different kind though. If there are limitations on supplements, what about gear? It makes it hard to know if it is the individual or the gear? And certainly hard to compare different generations. Of course nutrition and science have changed as well. It just makes you wonder where it stops. Does the shoe become more of a machine than a shoe?
@@Bigern2998so if shoe companies are all using same materials (rubber,foam,carbon) for the midsole (which key component to a running shoe,the midsole),should there be a weight requirement(because these shoes are super light) ? Because if all companies are using the same components for a midsole, Adidas can't be at fault for combining these components in the lightest and most efficient weight possible. I dont see it as enhancement because they didn't add anything new to the shoe thats not being used by other shoe companies and thats not allowed by the governing bodies of the sport. Idk,some people are not going to like it,but i dont see anything wrong with this shoe and other racing shoes that falls within the legal parameters set by the governing bodies. Its obvious the governing bodies dont see anything wrong either because the shoe is allowed to be worn. Hats off to Adidas for making a great product,next step is seeing if they can make this shoe at the same weight that can last(for optimal performance)for more than one race(under 30 miles)
For those saying this shoe is ruining the sport, this channel included, ya not making any sense. Or just double standard-ing. When Nike brought out the first carbon shoe (was it 4%? can't remember) years ago and shattered the time of those athletes in traditional racing flats, no one seemed to be this bothered and just tagged along. This is simply technological innovation. I wonder if it weren't Adidas but Nike that brought out a shoe such as this, would the public opinion be like what it is right now? Food for thought. After all, these shoes are meant for top athletes at their pinnacles to obtain every last bit of competitive advantage and not designed for you (and me) average joes. However, us average joes should also be excited by these innovations as the tech eventually trickles down to our everyday products and make them better. If anyone really feels so strongly about this adidas shoe, honestly they should also passionately boycott other sports like NASCAR or F1 or Sail GP etc., otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
This is just another evolution in sport. It happens in all sports and always will, records will continue to be broken with the help of new technology, not just because of it, I think it’s unfair to consider the reason the female marathon record was broken was down to shoes, and not the athletes ability and hard work.
I'm not a fan of such high-tech shoes, in no small part because our sport is already getting way too expensive (a 10K nowadays costs as much as a marathon did at the turn of the century), but Pandora's box was already opened with the Vaporfly. As soon as that was permitted, it was only going to lead to an arms race (no pun intended).
@@caseysmith544 When you say out there I'm pretty sure the number was low, the majority are being hoarded by reseller's who managed to get complete full size runs as usual. Raffle my ass. I would love to know how many runners actual were successful in the raffle.
@@theandroids I said the proper numbers of the shoe being sold, I also never said anything about runners being able to get them, they never did it sounds like. I think this is a one single ever in history of run of a model just barely passing the current rules even coming close to breaking the rules, in gray area to be able to make a situation of a nearly exclusive shoe for the top runner Adidas sponsors who was best set to break a world record.
imagine you're a company that's raffling off the shoe and a reseller comes and saying, "Hey, i'll give you triple the price". Ofc you're going to take triple the profit.@@vernonfrance2974
I guess I kind of believe in the shoe argument, but not fully. Why doesn't these shoes work on American men. They have been so slow in the marathon. Are super shoes like kryptonite to American men and like a turbo engine for Africans? Salazar ran 2:08 in the 1980's and Ryan Hall ran 2:06, and close to cracking into 2:05 in the London Marathon in 2008 all with regular running shoes. I'll believe in the super shoes when they start working on others like they seem to be working on Africans.
For many decades, the most successful frame tubing at Le Tour de France was Reynolds 531 tubing, not because it was significantly faster than its competitors but because it was the most popular. Today, however, every rider has carbon fibre almost everything, along with 24 gears, electronic shifters and a host of other innovations. The only thing that is banned appears to be anything outside the basic, established design and a few riding positions. Cycling has always embraced innovation, despite the teams and riders getting the latest gear before their rivals, yet in running we lose our minds when innovation advances the only gear that matters, the shoes. Those Adidas shoes will not ruin our sport, they will drive brands like Nike and Asics to produce their own innovations. I do object to the price tag and limited availability, but mostly the significant durability concerns, especially because Adidas has marketed itself as a sustainable brand, which the Evolution 1 shoe clearly challenges, but it's likely the Evo 2 will improve on. So long as the basic design parameters, as proposed by WA, are followed, I can't see that there is anything to dispute. I'm sure there will be a response from Nike very soon.
@@ridelotsperhaps, but how would they regulate that. The great Abebe Bikila won his first Olympic marathon without shoes. Would that mean that everyone has to have shoes, as clearly shoes are optional, whereas the bike is not in cycling, is it? I'm not suggesting that there be no regulation, that would be ridiculous, but what I am saying is more regulation is not necessarily the answer.
This just seems the parallel of the complaints when the Vaporfly first came out- but with even less real arguments. When the vaporfly came out, that was the only shoe you could wear to even be considered for the top ten in an event like a marathon, but now there are so many brands like ASICS, Hoka, New Balance etc that all make shoes well good enough to be competitive- Kipchoge still won in a Pair of Nikes and Second place in ASICS- so really it is more than ever in the last decade, the athlete's performance that makes the difference not the shoe.
I appreciate that people running in these shoes have an advantage, but the only way you can stop that kind of thing is for everyone to be forced to wear exactly the same shoes and, even then, the people that the shoe suits best will still have an advantage. People have to accept that technology plays a part in running and all other sports and for the most part they do accept it. I don't hear anyone saying we should go back to cinder tracks. The thing with technology is that most of the time you will get minor gains, but occasionally there will be a big leap forward. If you ban this trainer, what are you banning exactly, the design of the carbon fibre part, the softness or responsiveness of the foam, because unless they are specific, another very similar trainer will come along that does much the same thing. I don't really see why it is a problem, the results in Motor Racing are the combination of the work of the driver and the team behind the car, it's no different here, it's the combination of the athlete and the products that their sponsor can equip them with. I think the biggest problems with banning shoes would be that it would discourage innovation, make it more difficult for brands to attract athletes and potentially reduce sponsorships. You could argue that Adidas can offer athletes less money now, because the athletes want to run in their shoe, but the other side of that is that with no shoes having much of a competitive edge the athletes performances are doing less to promote their brand.
This means as much as some father who wants his child to be a Formula I driver buying his child one of those cars for his 5th birthday. That will not happen. It is not a question of how much the car costs. The question is can the 5 year old drive? Some of us, I being one of them could not beat a 2:30 Marathon runner if we were to have the Wings of Mercury a foot. Here is the rub. What stopped the entire field of elite class runners from having a pair of those shoes? Nothing except that some runners are under contract to use certain shoes. If you are not under contract buy the shoe you want to run your race. In cyclisme it is common to see people riding down the streets on 20, 000 Dollar bikes. 20, 000 Dollar bikes do make everyone that rides them faster but they do not make everyone who rides them world class. For the foreseeable future we are still stuck with the run times this human shell can produce. Once more what we are looking for are advances in training technology and sports medicine. Those advanced mean longer health spans for us all. Remember that when we fall after a certain age that there is only a 50 percent chance that complications resulting from the fall will not kill us. If better shoes prevent falls In am for them.
Shoe technology has been a part of sports for years. I love watching these breakthroughs in shoe technology. I remember the early days of the Reebok ERS, Reebox Hexalite, and Adidas Torsion, and believing the shoe made a difference to running performance 😅😅...if we have reached the stage where shoe technology is genuinely making difference then im all for it
So then why wasn't this such a big deal for the 1:59 project? At the end of the day, you can't say that an athlete made that big of an improvement solely because of shoes. And the quote about Irish athletes is stupid.
It actually was. The new shoes that Kipchoge wore were the reason they introduced stricter running shoe regulations in official races (they limited stack height, number of carbon plates etc.). I agree that the improvements are not entirely due to shoes though. I think on the women's side, higher participation/widening of the talent pool is the main reason we're seeing such rapid improvements in the world records.
I think one thing to consider with who can get them is the impact on the enviroment, if these shoes are supposed to be 1 marathon use (some people will likely use them a bit more than once) it will be very wasteful. I would want the company to make sure these shoes get recycled and that you can't just throw them away
One marathon use for optimal performance. Its not like after 1 marathon they're ready for the trash. Youre just not going to have the same effectiveness of the shoe after those 26 miles. But youre free to keep running in them,wear em at the gym,or wear them casually
As a cyclist I can say, that we have had this technological arms race for almost 2 decades. After the pioneering of a few teams, everybody is using state of the art technology. Even the weekend warriors on their Sunday ride.
OK Adidas has been Nikes only real competitor since they released the Adios Pro a few years ago. Adidas didn’t just catch up, it’s been neck and neck for a while.
Also,Nike and Adidas has the best athletes(by virtue of having the most money). Put Kipchoge,Kiptum,Asefa,Kosgei in some asics metasky or saucony endorphin pro,theyre still winning the races they won with similar times
this really reminds me of when all those swimming records were falling due to a new material suit that speedo made. it was swiftly banned and considered an advantage. I wonder if running will follow that same path?
@mathews0618 If it comes to species I think there are many which could set records far faster than homo erectus AKA "sapiens" a misnomer if there ever was one.
Well, i spent a year testing the sprint version of "pogo" shoes. I have not competed for 9 years and am 42. I wanted to test them whilst i still had the ability to run fast. Basically over 25 years i had spikes every year and even though they got lighter and stiffer, i never truly noticed a difference. With the nike sprint shoes i am just as fast with less effort than i was at my peak. At 42! The benefit is enormous. Like ridiculously so. And i believe they benefit heavier athletes with longer contact time more. They are so stupidly better that yes it does beg the question...
Imagine watching F1 and complaining about I hate red bull because they got faster car. Duhh. Technology always improve and helps to break the boundary of human limit. If you want to be realistic just run barefoot ffs
@@vernonfrance2974 LOL you're on the internet.. why don't u go back to smoke signals then. New materials and advances are a good thing, this is why the world keeps improving.
I believe the same way the vaporfly and Alphafly was allowed, this shoe is no different. Just because it's lighter and possibly better shouldn't mean it should be illegal. That's technology my dudes once you start it ......well ...
The folks who is not available to are not in contention to break any records,win major marathons, or even be competitive with the best in the world. All athletes who are elite/professionals who has a contract with Adidas,these shoes are available for them
This comes back to the question that I asked during the 2023 world championship. Who made sure that the athletes shoes were properly tested? Can we imagine if every brand was to compete using advanced technology?
Ugh, that's so stupid.. Imagine just choosing to wear a shoe and it 'fakes' or 'cheats' you past others. That's sad af. The worst part being,you didn't really break your PR, or anyone's PR, you just posed, and cheating to pose is the worst kind.
The "nagging doubt" you speak of right at the end could easily be assuaged or at least quantified since athletics coaches spend their lives monitoring performance and would know exactly to the second, how much the shoe contributes
Footwear evolution is part of human evolution. Improvements in science, nutrition, training, supplements, etc will continue to progress. A fair measurement of personal talent and capability in sports would be to have everyone in the same diet, training, supplements and equipment. For the marathon and the shoe haters, they should organize a marathon and have the participants have the same training, eat the same food, run naked and barefoot.
The Adidas remind me of the original Hoka running show. They had lightweight responsive oversized foam. We called them “Moon Shoes”. Reminiscent of film of astronauts bouncing around on the Moon in the reduced gravity compared to Earth. You could actually feel the bounce in the foam. They felt good and less fatiguing, but not built for speed like the new Adidas.
I'm seeing a lot of comments that if they return less energy than put it they're OK. Any crazy sprung shoes would do that but it would be ridiculous. I think a max %energy recovery should be set (if not already), like they do with prosthetics. This record is clearly an excessive jump forward and things need to be kept in check or it discredits the sport. The same thing happened in swimming, cycling etc etc A set of rules needs to be set so we can compare performances.
You can buy high performance carbon fiber ( energy saving) inserts for running shoes too, also its important to look at the purpose of the shoes, to me it just enhances the performance thats already there in a star athlete its not designed to give anyone an advantage that's unreasonable in my opinion
From what I know at the current time, I don't like what the shoes mean for the sport. It's the fact that each pair only lasts one race. I accept that certain shoes can improve performance and I think there is no way around that, but being forced to choose between getting a new pair every marathon or accept a disadvantage seems like an unreasonable barrier to entry to reach the top level. Other than that, I think improving technology is just part of the sport.
Seems like this issue pops up every once in a while and then is forgotten. As long as all the athletes have access to the same technology and the shoes still look like and function as shoes and they meet whatever standards the sport has set , I think they should be alright. Thoughts of fairness to records set by previous generations that lacked the same technology are nice but impractical. That ship has sailed off long ago. The good thing about shoe technology improvements (especially ones that reduce injuries) is that they trickle down to the public.
For the haters , they can ride horses instead of cars since technology is such an inconvenience for them. The Nike VF is the same shoe and i dont see them hating on it these days.
Should we make it all even go back to barefoot running? Of course not! This is similar to what happened with the pole vault with the introduction of the fiberglass pole. Nobody complains about that anymore.
You are correct. I splurged on some carbon plate shoes, and they are awesome! I'll never race in anything else. My other shoes feel like I'm wearing bricks or the boxes they came in, lol.
In the world of performance cars, there are established standards of what one should do in order to maximize performance. Despite all these known methods, there’s a HUGE variance in performance car offerings. However; all manufacturers have the same tires available to them. Currently there are 2-4 tires that offer the best combination of features sought by people who drive these types of cars. Yet every time a car that uses some other tire performs poorly, the first critique centers around the tires despite the off the shelf availability of a superior offering. I say all that to say… if athletes know a shoe tech exists for the sole purpose of making them more competitive and they decide not to use it; the community shouldn’t be upset at the shoe manufacturers for offering superior technology or the sanctioning body for allowing it. And yes, if one is not a Nike or Adidas athlete then they are at a disadvantage. BUT that sounds like either a sponsor choice or sponsor innovation issue.
Only about 2% faster than her previous times so not sure the shoe is really that big of a deal. She ran in a different shoe than the one sold anyway. Outsole was definitely different! PS seems like they should go after chemical enhancements better vs worrying about shoes.
When eliud first wore the vaporfly years ago, the same question was raised. Fast forward to today, now everyone's wearing the same tech but can't achieve what he have done.
Well stated, thank you 🙏🏽
EXACTLY. People just f**king jealous and sour. They acting like the shoe has rockets strapped to them 😂
That race was 99% the runners and 1% the shoe.
@@theandroids1% of 120 minutes is a lot.
@@naposthecavalierkingcharles I've been waiting for you, oh sour one. 😂
"At the 2023 Boston Marathon, Eliud Kipchoge aimed to win his fifth of the six major marathons. However, after missing his water bottle and due to a left leg problem, At the 2023 Boston Marathon, Kipchoge aimed to win his fifth of the six major marathons. However, after missing his water bottle and due to a left leg problem, the 38-year-old was unable to stay with the lead group on a hilly section after the 30 km mark. He suffered the third defeat of his marathon career, finishing sixth with a time of 2:09:23 the 38-year-old was unable to stay with the lead group on a hilly section after the 30 km mark."
Now that Fall has taken some of the Spring out of his step let's all chip in and buy him a decent pair of running shoes. Cacciola, Scott (18 April 2023). "Eliud Kipchoge Was Supposed to Win the Boston Marathon. What Went Wrong?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
i get the thing about performances not being created equal since the shoes, but the shoes also improve recovery and almost certainly lengthen careers. to me that's reason enough to allow them
I find it amusing that the only individuals expressing dissatisfaction are those who likely wouldn't have had a chance to win the event in world record times, without any disrespect intended. The current record holders predominantly hail from East African backgrounds.
Maybe, if athletes from regions not traditionally associated with such prowess suddenly started competing on par with East Africans, it might suggest a technological advantage over innate abilities. As long as these shoes are accessible to all, there shouldn't be a ban on them.
imagine the recovery time after a barefoot marathon
@@MrObear MAYBE WORLD RECORDS ONLY COUNT RUNNING BAREFOOT
EXACTLY! I saw a video about shoe technology a couple years ago. They said 25 years ago athletes would run a marathon & then limp around for a month! But with todays technology most world class athletes are fine physically within a couple days. That's amazing recovery. Why would anyone want to take that away from these young athletes? So they can destroy their bodies like athletes did year's ago? I think it's more about older & retired athletes who are worried about their own records being broken.
And do we want to extend careers by cheating, and do we want the federations that can pay 2000$ shoes to have another unfair advantage. Even in Formula One, we have regulations.
If this record is in doubt then every record ever is out. Shoe tech has advanced with the record book. This is more a product of opportunity for performance trainers to grow and disruptions in marathon running . Men will be next. The fact that a 40 year old far beyond his physical prime is world number one says a lot. As incentives to run the marathon continue to shift, and more athletes dedicate their entire career to it, the men will have absolutely zero problem going under 2. What you’ll likely see is custom shoes coming along with sponsor agreements. Something that happens in sports already - and a bit of that in sprinting already.
Custom Colors, Custom shoes specific to the racer is ban due to needing for a world record or podium to stand have the shoes available to the public. This came about as runners in Rio who were Nike sponsored most who chose to use the new shoes in both Track and in Marathon/Race Walking model or the 5k/10k model were the only ones with the latest tech that conformed to the then rules. Nobody else was able to get the shoes. Some runners who were not used to the new shoes wore older models but then becuse of this older model even if other Nike runners/other shoe sponsored runners allowed to be using Nike tech were better trained over the other runners that just leaned into the new shoes a bit more then training, they often lost podium by just enough to need World Track and Field to make this ruling for world record attempts/podium finishes as well as people competing in Olympics/World Track and Field Championships.
If other younger dudes are wearing similar shoes or the same ones why arent they beating him?
@@threatened2024 Was thinking the same thing. He'd be past his prime as far as VO2max goes which is why he doesn't run 5 or 10k's on the track anymore, but the marathon is much more influenced by running economy and endurance which he is definitely not past his prime for.
@@pete5691 they probably cant afford them, the difference in performance is reflected in the stupidly high pricetag and not everyone can afford them especially if its a one off race deal
@@judsdragon Really? The top guys in the world can’t afford shoes?
Lots of athletes from 100 years ago never had the chance to use the better clothing, shoes, training and nutrition we have now. Innovation has always been a part of all sports. Like NASCAR and Formula One the technology they have trickles down to all drivers eventually.
Formula 1 have banned MANY technologies for unfair advantage. Or too much efficiency
Yeah I think we need to see it that way and not say it’s all about the shoes but it’s a combination of brand and athlete and era. Maybe there should be strict rules like F1 and NASCAR that are reviewed each year then we remember the winners and not say that he had a faster car in 2023 vs 1968.
Barefoot marathons?
@RalphieMaysGhost But they didn't have to put up with as much fossil fuel exhaust pollution back then.
I guess all the fuzz is because this time was not Nike who made the shoe…
Of course shoe and track technology is contributing to better performances, but the athletes themselves still make the difference. These technologies are open to all elite runners.
Not really. Athletes need sponsors to survive. So unless you are sponsored by Adidas or Nike, you have no business in the road marathon, no matter how good you are.
@@feezee82well an ASICS sponsored athlete got second at the Berlin marathon, the a cloud athlete placed very welll too
Actually no. Only roughly 500 pairs of this shoe were manufactured hence they are not openly avaliable which is against the rules.
@@feezee82 To be sponsored you don't need to be top athlete? So how Nike/Adidas looking for people they want to become sponsors?
*BINGO!*
Berlin has always been the fastest marathon though. Most records are set there. Kind of an important note
i like his videos but he frequently leaves out important notes, like the video about how the Norwegian guy lost to the British guy in the 1600 meter, he totally missed the fact that the Norwegian guy had really bad positioning and is know to have a not very good sprint and the British guy clearly tactically out positioned and out sprinted him. Idk how his video missed that
@@MrObear I like how they are just british guy and norwegian guy lol; just fyi Ingebrigtsen ran slow because had some viral illness that day, not really because of what you mentioned. Just look at his more recent 2k, 1 mile, and 3k where he was at full strength, soooo much more power
Yes but no. Kiptum ran his times in Valencia and I forgot the other race, but both incredible times and not at Berlin. I still agree with you though, Berlin has historically been the fastest race. Can't wait to see what Kelvin Kiptum can do!
@WorldwideDarts
Different Marathon courses are totally comparable, of course.
Don't take my word for it, I'm just repeating what the "experts" say about all the courses and it's pretty much universally agreed upon that Berlin is the fastest course. Let Google be your friend. @@vernonfrance2974
R.I.P to Kelvin Kiptum You will be missed, and so young too :(
Godspeed on your next marathon in the world beyond ✊🏃
Nice video. But is Assefa's mind boggling performance really all about her shoes? She and Adidas might want you to think so.
Are you suggesting she's cheating?
@@leonhardeuler675 I would like to think he's saying she's just that GOOD.
But you might be right.
@@leonhardeuler675 Of course she is? Do you really think she or any of the top people are clean? I figured everyone knows and its just accepted. Like bodybuilding was in the 70s and 80s. Everyone uses and the best runners are still winning.
@@kelseynakanelua3051 How do all of them get past anti-doping tests?
@@leonhardeuler675 the test for EPO is difficult to do designer PEDs and overall the test are not very good the test only for a specific substance or ratios that are easy to beat there are so many ways. It's almost common knowledge
As long as the shoe is not adding energy it should be legal, because the runner would still be doing everything by themselves.
Edit: I know bicycles and wheels also don't add energy, so let's say that they have to be shoes and they can't have wheels.
Well said.
Got to agree, shoe can only do so much. Ultimately it comes down to your fitness
Not if it’s only available for a select few.
I think the regulations need to be a bit stricter than that. If you could increase energy return by putting giant springs on the bottom of shoes, your shoes wouldn't actually be adding any energy, but it would seem to go against the spirit of running. I think the current regulations are fine. It does maybe make it difficult to compare current runners to runners from previous decades, but eventually the technological progress will level off and this will become less of an issue.
all of the top runners have access to these new breed of shoes @@alaefarmestatesllc
Weren’t people saying the same thing about vaporflys at first?
I think that the biggest problem is that this technology is not available to those not sponsored by company x. Runners can afford to switch their sponsor every time a new technology is added. The technology isn't the problem if all runners had access.
This is a fair point to make while not taking away from the hard work and talent of the athlete.
It's not cheating if everyone is doing it. Gotcha
@@LaitoChenthis but unironically
Shoes should be allowed as long as they are accessible to every runner... a super shoe with only 500 pairs being given to exclusive people should not be allowed
😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@emanuelsantos5585what is funny?
existing rules say that shoe must be widely available and they must be available 4 months prior. 500 pairs isn't widely available so i'm pretty sure they violated the rules.
@@sadiporter2966 does it states "widely available to the buying public" ? Its made available to public (at 500 pairs) and to all adidas pro athletes who are competing.
I agree with this statement, Olympics and World Track and Field Championships would not allow said shoe as it needs to be widely available to the market (think 2016 and Rio with the new model that was only on specific Nike athletes) and I thought that World Athletics would not allow a shoe like this either becuse of the rules in top two competitions and World Athletics having a similar stance, but I am wrong on that statement.
Imagine if these Evo1’s were given to Eliud Kipchoge… and he breaks 2 hours. Nike would be really mad.👀🤬
Give them to Kiptum so he can annihilate Kipchoge's WR. 😍
I would LOVE to see that!
Nike sponsored athletes don't wear Adidas shoes.
Plenty of non-Nike sponsored runners wore whatever new Nike shoe came out for the 2020 Olympic trials though. It can happen!
@@XDF745or chebet
The only true record of human performance is now the bare foot marathon. Anything else is all tech.
Personally, I think arguing that the time wasn't valid because of the shoe is like saying a race run on the Berlin course shouldn't matter because its easier than others. There are ideal situations for running, and ideal shoes, if you have both of these things, you'll run faster, but its still a completely fair record.
it's stupid to call it an unfair advantage if everyone has access to it
Great video, one thing. The rod tech isn’t new to the evo 1. It’s already in the pro 3 which has been out for years, a version of these rods are also in the Boston 12s though they arnt made of the same material, the form tech is the same.
They’ve been used since boston 10s
@@28mouse85 true the point was that the rods are also in the pro 3s which arnt a new shoe and have sorta been the adidas way of incorporating a “plate” for a while
@@thebullfighter6733 yeah I know mate. This video is full of incorrect information
I hereby announce the barefoot marathon games starting in 2024.
FiveFinger marathon
Kipchoge was wearing a "Nike Prototype" that isn't available at all and nobody said anything 😒
Edit: if you are talking about the alpha 3 prototype, kipchoge ran slower than his previous Berlin attempt. I don't think anyone is going to be worried about the exclusivity of a shoe that is seemingly not any better than its previous iteration. Similarly, no one would care if I ran a marathon in some home made wooden clogs.
Are you joking? It was a massive deal. Kipchoge's shoes are the reason why they introduced stricter shoe regulations in the first place.
@@alexanderwhyte5316 i think he/she is referring to the current alpha 3 protos that Kipchoge wore last week,they aren't available to all ,but they are available to all nike pro athletes,just as the adidas evo 1 was.
@@nickatnite16 ok fair enough, i've seen a lot of people commenting on the prototypes for the 1:59 event, so assumed this was the same talking point. In any case, there's a pretty obvious reason why no one would be commenting on the alpha 3 prototype - because kipchoge ran slower than his previous Berlin attempt. I don't think anyone is going to be worried about the exclusivity of a shoe that is seemingly not any better than its previous iteration.
@@alexanderwhyte5316 just because he didn't run his fastest marathon in them(this new prototype, Alphafly 3) doesnt mean its an inferior product to the Alphafly 1 (when he ran sub 2 in an unofficial marathon) or Alphafly 2(which he set a new WR in last yr at Berlin). A lot of factors go into a marathoner's time on particular day(weather,how they felt that day,little injuries). Funny thing is,Kipchoge set the marathon WR last yr in Berlin in the Alphafly 2,but many people preferred the Alphafly 1 or Vaporfly 2 over the WR shoe that os the Alphafly 2
@@nickatnite16 yes of course, the new alpha fly could be even better than this new adidas shoe, but this race did not provide any evidence of that. What reason would anyone have to believe that Nike have made some massive breakthrough with the alpha 3 based on the result of the Berlin marathon?
It could be the greatest shoe of all time for all we know, but we'd need to see some evidence of that before we start claiming that.
This is the reason why no one is complaining about the alpha fly 3 (you guys probably know this too). Also, I said "seemingly not any better", not "inferior".
What would Ben Hogan do with today’s golf clubs and balls? What would Usain Bolt’s time be on a cinder track with 1924 spikes? Technology marches on, but it does make for a fun debate.
I am still so surprised that advanced spike$ have not assisted TJ, LJ and HJ world records! 😏
Cinder tracks absorb around 1% more of the runners energy compared to modern track.
Track surface technology benefits all athletes, equally. Golf clubs have many restrictions such as: weight, length, striking surface area, and the grooves on the club face.
Full body neoprene suits are banned from swimming competitions.
Tennis rackets must conform to certain specifications.
Trans athletes are completely banned from competing against women in rowing.
Technology advances but when those adaptations lead to significant performance enhancing results they should be questioned and, if necessary, banned by the respective governing body.
@laurencemorris7461 Both Ben and Usain are too old to take advantage of new technology. Time marches on.
@@vernonfrance2974 Well done, sir. Ben’s sadly passed on, and yes Usain’s older but I think they could still both beat me.
the runners have the same amount of talent no matter the shoes. since assefa broke the record by 2 minutes 11 seconds (2:14:04-->2:11:53) are we saying that the shoes are worth at least 2 minutes 10 seconds? she still would've shattered the record had she been wearing vaporflys or the old adios pros
Maybe. Could argue even more since she broke her previous PB by almost 4 minutes from a year prior on the same course. That's a lot. She's still very new to the marathon so it's impossible to know how much is from the shoes versus how much is just her improving rapidly. Personally I think it's a bit of both. Her previous PB already ranked her as one of the fastest ever so there is doubting her talent.
2 minutes is less than a 2% improvement in a marathon, so yes.
@justdidntwantmyrealnameany1950 Yes, the shoes are worth at least 2 minutes and 11 seconds by conservative estimates. It is time to ban all shoes to get back to a level playing field. They don't allow fins in swimming do they?
@@coasteringkid It might also have something to do with the extra zip she gets from that extra sip.
Im so sick of people complaining about shoes being unfair, as technology advances so should the sport. As long as the shoes aren't returning more energy than they give, which will probably never happen anyways. Just let the shoe technology advance because at the end of the day the athlete is the one doing all of the training and work.
Yeah, in the end fitness is still more important
Yeah as long as it's available enough that it's accessible to all the top athletes then it's fine. If availability was too limited, then I could see why it's a problem.
@@panner11 It's not possible to limit it. Too many shoe companies.
I've noticed the runners who complain the loudest are V50+ who are past their peak fitness and didn't have access to the new tech when they were running their fastest times. In other words, it's sour grapes.
Bicycles don't return more energy.
Cycling fans have been watching tech evolution in this sport for decades. These are shoes, and they matter, but it is a blip in performance compared to other sports.
as long as every pro athlete has access to the shoe, it's not cheating. not like adidas put rockets on the shoes. I'm not a runner and I'm pretty sure if I wore those shoes it wouldn't finish a marathon.
This reminds me a lot the situation that happened in swimming with the Speedo LZR which were eventually restricted
@maciwheat
What do you mean "restricted?" Shouldn't it be labeled "restrictive?" "The combined effects of the LZR both compressing the body and trapping air for buoyancy led to many competitors who used the LZR wearing two or more suits for an increased effect. This led to some claiming that the LZR was in effect "technological doping".
"Fina cracks down on hi-tech suits". BBC Sport. 14 March 2009LZR Racer
@@vernonfrance2974 I should have written "banned", they are not allowed anymore by FINA
My favorite thing about all races is that the winners would still win running barefoot.
The single greatest performance improvement in an olympic racing sport was the widespread introduction of Klap Skates in 97/98. The mens 10000 WR went from 13:30 to 13:08 & now stands at 12:30.
Sorry but you need to get your facts at reasonably close to reality. Firstly, you are quoting 5,000m times, not 10,000m. Plus, 13.08 for 5,000m was achieved by Henry Rono in 1978, not in the late 1990's.
It’s about ice skating, not running.
@@johnwilson5743 he's talking about speedskating on ice
@@leandror8168 Thank you for telling me. That was my error entirely. Cheers.
@@woutpeters45 TY. Cheers.
Can we also say a word about how incredibly polluting it would be if everyone would toss their shoes away after just one marathon?
I just bought the NNormal Kjerag trail shoes and they feel like they will last at least 15 years on challenging terrain, because of a very durable design. And if the profile wears out, you can have just the Vibram sole replaced.
Now that’s respecting your customer and minimising your impact.
These conversations about shoes are interesting and can inspire strong opinions, but the elephant in the room when comparing records from different eras is and will always be doping. At any point the balance in the cat and mouse game between PED technology/use and testing can shift and completely outweigh the effect of shoes. Add in training, nutrition, and track surfaces and there are just too many variables to make cross-generation comparisons an exact science. Just enjoy the competition and spectacle of it.
Indeed. Kipchoge is clearly a great athlete, but also very clearly using PEDs, and it is likely that the same applies to all top athletes
138 grams is a really light racing marathon running shoes with a high stack? Half the weight of the Nike Alphafly Next % 2. Lighter the running shoes, the more you can go without being tired. I see more records will be broken in the future of this shoe technology. Even a sub 2 hour marathon soon.
As long as everybody potentially has access such shoes (not limited quantities), then I don‘t have any issues with it.
Outstanding journalism; Really appreciate your channel!
Technology being the deciding factor in athletic events makes a mockery of everything the sport is about
Literally like running with small trampolines stuck to the feet. They are just springing along.
Other shoe companies have researchers and scientists on board to produce light foams that gives great energy return,cant fault adidas for devolping a better product with materials that available to all other running companies
@@nickatnite16 totally agree. It is fair. Fair is just getting ridiculous.
@@Bigern2998imo ,it was ridiculous how heavy shoes were. Companies' researchers and developers are now finding out that reducing weight can give the athlete better efficiency. Nothing new is being added,its just finding a more efficient way of using whats already there. Take that same foam(which every shoe has) and make it lighter,instead of using a full carbon plate(which every running shoe brand use),use carbon rods in a more efficient way possible. Same materials that are in other shoes,just a better and more efficient use of it
@@nickatnite16 of course. I know. It is performance enhancement of a different kind though. If there are limitations on supplements, what about gear? It makes it hard to know if it is the individual or the gear? And certainly hard to compare different generations. Of course nutrition and science have changed as well. It just makes you wonder where it stops. Does the shoe become more of a machine than a shoe?
@@Bigern2998so if shoe companies are all using same materials (rubber,foam,carbon) for the midsole (which key component to a running shoe,the midsole),should there be a weight requirement(because these shoes are super light) ? Because if all companies are using the same components for a midsole, Adidas can't be at fault for combining these components in the lightest and most efficient weight possible. I dont see it as enhancement because they didn't add anything new to the shoe thats not being used by other shoe companies and thats not allowed by the governing bodies of the sport. Idk,some people are not going to like it,but i dont see anything wrong with this shoe and other racing shoes that falls within the legal parameters set by the governing bodies. Its obvious the governing bodies dont see anything wrong either because the shoe is allowed to be worn. Hats off to Adidas for making a great product,next step is seeing if they can make this shoe at the same weight that can last(for optimal performance)for more than one race(under 30 miles)
Nike should just release the INEOS 1:59 version of the AlphaFly, and market it as "BANNED" like the OG Air Jordans
For those saying this shoe is ruining the sport, this channel included, ya not making any sense. Or just double standard-ing. When Nike brought out the first carbon shoe (was it 4%? can't remember) years ago and shattered the time of those athletes in traditional racing flats, no one seemed to be this bothered and just tagged along. This is simply technological innovation. I wonder if it weren't Adidas but Nike that brought out a shoe such as this, would the public opinion be like what it is right now? Food for thought. After all, these shoes are meant for top athletes at their pinnacles to obtain every last bit of competitive advantage and not designed for you (and me) average joes. However, us average joes should also be excited by these innovations as the tech eventually trickles down to our everyday products and make them better.
If anyone really feels so strongly about this adidas shoe, honestly they should also passionately boycott other sports like NASCAR or F1 or Sail GP etc., otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
This is just another evolution in sport. It happens in all sports and always will, records will continue to be broken with the help of new technology, not just because of it, I think it’s unfair to consider the reason the female marathon record was broken was down to shoes, and not the athletes ability and hard work.
I'm not a fan of such high-tech shoes, in no small part because our sport is already getting way too expensive (a 10K nowadays costs as much as a marathon did at the turn of the century), but Pandora's box was already opened with the Vaporfly. As soon as that was permitted, it was only going to lead to an arms race (no pun intended).
Style wise, they are pretty sick looking. The intial run if 500 marked, will be a collector forever.
520 out there.
@@caseysmith544 When you say out there I'm pretty sure the number was low, the majority are being hoarded by reseller's who managed to get complete full size runs as usual. Raffle my ass.
I would love to know how many runners actual were successful in the raffle.
@@theandroids I said the proper numbers of the shoe being sold, I also never said anything about runners being able to get them, they never did it sounds like.
I think this is a one single ever in history of run of a model just barely passing the current rules even coming close to breaking the rules, in gray area to be able to make a situation of a nearly exclusive shoe for the top runner Adidas sponsors who was best set to break a world record.
@@theandroids Are you suggesting they waffle on the raffle?
imagine you're a company that's raffling off the shoe and a reseller comes and saying, "Hey, i'll give you triple the price". Ofc you're going to take triple the profit.@@vernonfrance2974
Marathon is the sport of millionaires. To do a major, with the cost of jet fuel, hotels, etc….expensive shoes don’t even register.
even when talking about Assefa TRP can't resist putting Kipchoge in the thumbnail...
I guess I kind of believe in the shoe argument, but not fully. Why doesn't these shoes work on American men. They have been so slow in the marathon. Are super shoes like kryptonite to American men and like a turbo engine for Africans? Salazar ran 2:08 in the 1980's and Ryan Hall ran 2:06, and close to cracking into 2:05 in the London Marathon in 2008 all with regular running shoes. I'll believe in the super shoes when they start working on others like they seem to be working on Africans.
Kinda feel like we are covering old ground. Didn't we say this with Nike? She smashed it, the Vapour fly has been dethroned.
As long as the shoes are sold to the general public fine. Over the years tracks have gone from dirt to what we have now. I see no problem.
500 units, so not generally sold
For many decades, the most successful frame tubing at Le Tour de France was Reynolds 531 tubing, not because it was significantly faster than its competitors but because it was the most popular. Today, however, every rider has carbon fibre almost everything, along with 24 gears, electronic shifters and a host of other innovations. The only thing that is banned appears to be anything outside the basic, established design and a few riding positions. Cycling has always embraced innovation, despite the teams and riders getting the latest gear before their rivals, yet in running we lose our minds when innovation advances the only gear that matters, the shoes. Those Adidas shoes will not ruin our sport, they will drive brands like Nike and Asics to produce their own innovations. I do object to the price tag and limited availability, but mostly the significant durability concerns, especially because Adidas has marketed itself as a sustainable brand, which the Evolution 1 shoe clearly challenges, but it's likely the Evo 2 will improve on. So long as the basic design parameters, as proposed by WA, are followed, I can't see that there is anything to dispute. I'm sure there will be a response from Nike very soon.
Pro cycling does have a minimum weight for the bike. Should shoes have a minimum weight?
@@ridelotsperhaps, but how would they regulate that. The great Abebe Bikila won his first Olympic marathon without shoes. Would that mean that everyone has to have shoes, as clearly shoes are optional, whereas the bike is not in cycling, is it? I'm not suggesting that there be no regulation, that would be ridiculous, but what I am saying is more regulation is not necessarily the answer.
This just seems the parallel of the complaints when the Vaporfly first came out- but with even less real arguments. When the vaporfly came out, that was the only shoe you could wear to even be considered for the top ten in an event like a marathon, but now there are so many brands like ASICS, Hoka, New Balance etc that all make shoes well good enough to be competitive- Kipchoge still won in a Pair of Nikes and Second place in ASICS- so really it is more than ever in the last decade, the athlete's performance that makes the difference not the shoe.
I appreciate that people running in these shoes have an advantage, but the only way you can stop that kind of thing is for everyone to be forced to wear exactly the same shoes and, even then, the people that the shoe suits best will still have an advantage. People have to accept that technology plays a part in running and all other sports and for the most part they do accept it. I don't hear anyone saying we should go back to cinder tracks. The thing with technology is that most of the time you will get minor gains, but occasionally there will be a big leap forward. If you ban this trainer, what are you banning exactly, the design of the carbon fibre part, the softness or responsiveness of the foam, because unless they are specific, another very similar trainer will come along that does much the same thing.
I don't really see why it is a problem, the results in Motor Racing are the combination of the work of the driver and the team behind the car, it's no different here, it's the combination of the athlete and the products that their sponsor can equip them with. I think the biggest problems with banning shoes would be that it would discourage innovation, make it more difficult for brands to attract athletes and potentially reduce sponsorships. You could argue that Adidas can offer athletes less money now, because the athletes want to run in their shoe, but the other side of that is that with no shoes having much of a competitive edge the athletes performances are doing less to promote their brand.
Did he run, or did his shoes run for him? Very simple yes or no question.
There is no controversy and people are stupid.
Barefoot or it doesn't count.
This means as much as some father who wants his child to be a Formula I driver buying his child one of those cars for his 5th birthday.
That will not happen. It is not a question of how much the car costs. The question is can the 5 year old drive?
Some of us, I being one of them could not beat a 2:30 Marathon runner if we were to have the Wings of Mercury a foot.
Here is the rub. What stopped the entire field of elite class runners from having a pair of those shoes?
Nothing except that some runners are under contract to use certain shoes.
If you are not under contract buy the shoe you want to run your race.
In cyclisme it is common to see people riding down the streets on 20, 000 Dollar bikes.
20, 000 Dollar bikes do make everyone that rides them faster but they do not make everyone who rides them world class.
For the foreseeable future we are still stuck with the run times this human shell can produce.
Once more what we are looking for are advances in training technology and sports medicine. Those advanced mean longer health spans for us all.
Remember that when we fall after a certain age that there is only a 50 percent chance that complications resulting from the fall will not kill us.
If better shoes prevent falls In am for them.
Shoe technology has been a part of sports for years. I love watching these breakthroughs in shoe technology. I remember the early days of the Reebok ERS, Reebox Hexalite, and Adidas Torsion, and believing the shoe made a difference to running performance 😅😅...if we have reached the stage where shoe technology is genuinely making difference then im all for it
Shoes to me are like tyres on race cars. They should be used for faster times but the whole field must have access to them to use if they want
So true, great comment
So true, great comment
So true, great comment
So true, great comment
So true, great comment
So then why wasn't this such a big deal for the 1:59 project? At the end of the day, you can't say that an athlete made that big of an improvement solely because of shoes. And the quote about Irish athletes is stupid.
Exactly. Give the top men's and women's marathoners in Ireland a pair, and I doubt they'd crack the top 10 in a large marathon.
its just nike fans salty lmao
It actually was. The new shoes that Kipchoge wore were the reason they introduced stricter running shoe regulations in official races (they limited stack height, number of carbon plates etc.). I agree that the improvements are not entirely due to shoes though. I think on the women's side, higher participation/widening of the talent pool is the main reason we're seeing such rapid improvements in the world records.
I think one thing to consider with who can get them is the impact on the enviroment, if these shoes are supposed to be 1 marathon use (some people will likely use them a bit more than once) it will be very wasteful. I would want the company to make sure these shoes get recycled and that you can't just throw them away
That can be said about everything we use in our daily life even toothbrushes 😂😂
One marathon use for optimal performance. Its not like after 1 marathon they're ready for the trash. Youre just not going to have the same effectiveness of the shoe after those 26 miles. But youre free to keep running in them,wear em at the gym,or wear them casually
As a cyclist I can say, that we have had this technological arms race for almost 2 decades. After the pioneering of a few teams, everybody is using state of the art technology. Even the weekend warriors on their Sunday ride.
What was said "optimised for 1 marathon". What people hear "will disintegrate after 1 marathon"
OK Adidas has been Nikes only real competitor since they released the Adios Pro a few years ago. Adidas didn’t just catch up, it’s been neck and neck for a while.
Also,Nike and Adidas has the best athletes(by virtue of having the most money). Put Kipchoge,Kiptum,Asefa,Kosgei in some asics metasky or saucony endorphin pro,theyre still winning the races they won with similar times
this really reminds me of when all those swimming records were falling due to a new material suit that speedo made. it was swiftly banned and considered an advantage. I wonder if running will follow that same path?
There is certainly a limit to what can be acceptable, but I feel this is about the level of using spikes and stiff soles for sprinting.
I hope it helps them. I hope they all do great. I hope we continue to improve as a species
@mathews0618 If it comes to species I think there are many which could set records far faster than homo erectus AKA "sapiens" a misnomer if there ever was one.
@@vernonfrance2974 improve as a species, not be the fastest species
So when nike released the vaporfly it was nice and beautiful, but when adidas released this shoe, it is a questionable record?
Marathons should be barefoot now
Well, i spent a year testing the sprint version of "pogo" shoes. I have not competed for 9 years and am 42. I wanted to test them whilst i still had the ability to run fast. Basically over 25 years i had spikes every year and even though they got lighter and stiffer, i never truly noticed a difference. With the nike sprint shoes i am just as fast with less effort than i was at my peak. At 42! The benefit is enormous. Like ridiculously so. And i believe they benefit heavier athletes with longer contact time more. They are so stupidly better that yes it does beg the question...
I love performance technologies
The new super shoes are BS
Imagine watching F1 and complaining about I hate red bull because they got faster car. Duhh. Technology always improve and helps to break the boundary of human limit. If you want to be realistic just run barefoot ffs
Kiptum wasn't wearing Adidas in Chicago. He was wearing the new Nike Dev 163 prototype shoes!
shoes and technological advances are a good thing! As long as we all get some benefit of these advances eventually in the general market
@KJM3SMG Why are they a good thing? The best thing would be to go back to basics - bare feet. 🦶🦶🦶🦶🦶
@@vernonfrance2974 LOL you're on the internet.. why don't u go back to smoke signals then. New materials and advances are a good thing, this is why the world keeps improving.
I believe the same way the vaporfly and Alphafly was allowed, this shoe is no different. Just because it's lighter and possibly better shouldn't mean it should be illegal. That's technology my dudes once you start it ......well
...
It’s the lack of availability that gets me
The folks who is not available to are not in contention to break any records,win major marathons, or even be competitive with the best in the world. All athletes who are elite/professionals who has a contract with Adidas,these shoes are available for them
@@nickatnite16 the person in 2nd place was in contention. Not every elite athlete had access.
@@nickatnite16 shouldn’t matter anyways and is not the point
Runner is still doing and putting in all the work.
Put wheels on marathon shoes and records will drop.
This comes back to the question that I asked during the 2023 world championship. Who made sure that the athletes shoes were properly tested? Can we imagine if every brand was to compete using advanced technology?
"According to professional racers, it is well worth the price."
Professional runners don't pay for shoes ;-)
Ugh, that's so stupid.. Imagine just choosing to wear a shoe and it 'fakes' or 'cheats' you past others. That's sad af.
The worst part being,you didn't really break your PR, or anyone's PR, you just posed, and cheating to pose is the worst kind.
a tube, seen in cross section, has two layers of carbon with space between. I thought stacked plates aren't allowed?
These are not considered full plates by the governing body World Athletics.
I don't know why TRP calls them tubes; Adidas calls them rods. I haven't heard anyone else say they're hollow.
Would love to know what time Paula Radcliffe would have clocked for her 2003 WR in these shoes. .
Once again we have Spike Lee asking
Michael Jordan, “was it the shoe?” Sorry, if this commercial was before your time. LOL
It seems that running has turned into cycling where it's all technology driving improvements.
The advantage of shoe tech is quite minimal compared to what parts on a formula car or bicycle wheel do.
Big if true
The "nagging doubt" you speak of right at the end could easily be assuaged or at least quantified since athletics coaches spend their lives monitoring performance and would know exactly to the second, how much the shoe contributes
I guess you got to get people to run barefoot in order to have a super fair situation
Footwear evolution is part of human evolution. Improvements in science, nutrition, training, supplements, etc will continue to progress. A fair measurement of personal talent and capability in sports would be to have everyone in the same diet, training, supplements and equipment. For the marathon and the shoe haters, they should organize a marathon and have the participants have the same training, eat the same food, run naked and barefoot.
The Adidas remind me of the original Hoka running show. They had lightweight responsive oversized foam. We called them “Moon Shoes”. Reminiscent of film of astronauts bouncing around on the Moon in the reduced gravity compared to Earth. You could actually feel the bounce in the foam. They felt good and less fatiguing, but not built for speed like the new Adidas.
Adidas did well with this.
can you make a video like this on the Nike super sprint spikes
Dumb title for such a good video
I'm seeing a lot of comments that if they return less energy than put it they're OK.
Any crazy sprung shoes would do that but it would be ridiculous. I think a max %energy recovery should be set (if not already), like they do with prosthetics.
This record is clearly an excessive jump forward and things need to be kept in check or it discredits the sport.
The same thing happened in swimming, cycling etc etc A set of rules needs to be set so we can compare performances.
You can buy high performance carbon fiber ( energy saving) inserts for running shoes too, also its important to look at the purpose of the shoes, to me it just enhances the performance thats already there in a star athlete its not designed to give anyone an advantage that's unreasonable in my opinion
From what I know at the current time, I don't like what the shoes mean for the sport. It's the fact that each pair only lasts one race. I accept that certain shoes can improve performance and I think there is no way around that, but being forced to choose between getting a new pair every marathon or accept a disadvantage seems like an unreasonable barrier to entry to reach the top level. Other than that, I think improving technology is just part of the sport.
All the sour grapes athletes and experts were paid for by Nike and ASICS.
Seems like this issue pops up every once in a while and then is forgotten. As long as all the athletes have access to the same technology and the shoes still look like and function as shoes and they meet whatever standards the sport has set , I think they should be alright. Thoughts of fairness to records set by previous generations that lacked the same technology are nice but impractical. That ship has sailed off long ago.
The good thing about shoe technology improvements (especially ones that reduce injuries) is that they trickle down to the public.
For the haters , they can ride horses instead of cars since technology is such an inconvenience for them. The Nike VF is the same shoe and i dont see them hating on it these days.
I actually like the shoes, but comments like this are so annoying. Do you think that formula 1 has no regulations?
Should we make it all even go back to barefoot running? Of course not! This is similar to what happened with the pole vault with the introduction of the fiberglass pole. Nobody complains about that anymore.
I've never ran in a carbon plated shoe and I never will. I have nothing against them, I just feel like it would ruin regular shoes for me lol
You are correct. I splurged on some carbon plate shoes, and they are awesome! I'll never race in anything else. My other shoes feel like I'm wearing bricks or the boxes they came in, lol.
In the world of performance cars, there are established standards of what one should do in order to maximize performance. Despite all these known methods, there’s a HUGE variance in performance car offerings. However; all manufacturers have the same tires available to them. Currently there are 2-4 tires that offer the best combination of features sought by people who drive these types of cars. Yet every time a car that uses some other tire performs poorly, the first critique centers around the tires despite the off the shelf availability of a superior offering. I say all that to say… if athletes know a shoe tech exists for the sole purpose of making them more competitive and they decide not to use it; the community shouldn’t be upset at the shoe manufacturers for offering superior technology or the sanctioning body for allowing it. And yes, if one is not a Nike or Adidas athlete then they are at a disadvantage. BUT that sounds like either a sponsor choice or sponsor innovation issue.
Only about 2% faster than her previous times so not sure the shoe is really that big of a deal. She ran in a different shoe than the one sold anyway. Outsole was definitely different! PS seems like they should go after chemical enhancements better vs worrying about shoes.
Not only technology should be prohibited but a tactic of covering an athlete by a group or another athlete in order to lover air resistance.
when VF/AF runners broke records, the same thing was said of them...
The next advances in the marathon will not come from shoes, but rather from total control and application of the mind...