If you wish to read the story which is considered a 'long read' in today's world, anything longer than 3 minutes is a 'long read', you can find it at How Nike Broke Running written by Matt Burgess at wired.co.uk.
I cannot say I entirely agree with Mr. Burgess' beliefs, but the article is well worth reading and may help you form your own opinion about technology and sport.
Burgess starts off with recounting how the swimming world was affected by the development of swim gear in the form of lycra suits that reduced drag in the water and increased bouyancy of the swimmers, resulting in a crushing of almost every world record in swimming and that have not been surpassed once the international swimming federation decided that those suits would no longer be legal and swimmers would have to go back to shaving their bodies to reduce any bio-drag.
It is fairly well accepted that the Vapor Fly with its superior construction using carbon fiber inserts and a very high energy return midsole and heel and heel thickness has increased a runner's prospects by 4%. No one seems to be arguing this specific. One other consideration is that 'slow' runners may actually get even better than 4% improvement, but they are not going to be setting world records.
Swimming has allowed the suit-assisted records to stand, and they may well be broken eventually, but not much has happened in WR setting since the suits went out of competition.
Now what shall be done about new shoe technology? World Athletics have stated that any more new design technology will be disallowed in the immediate future (until after the Olympics) , or maybe until Nike's competitors catch up. And they, the other shoe companies, are trying to do this. It is reported that some runners on contract with other brands as sponsors are training in Vapor Fly's and disguising them by painting them another color. But they surely will not be able to race in the Vapor Fly for money without breaking their contracts with Brooks, New Balance et al.
If you follow auto racing, you will recall that after many races the cars must undergo a tech inspection after a race to determine if any rules were broken. This may be the next stage in road racing. The runners who finish at the top may have their shoes impounded to see if there is any illegal technology in the shoe. If there is they will be DQ'd or at least not get their money. Then the next runners moving up the ladder in the results may have to have their shoes inspected. That is a job I would not like to do, inspecting sweaty post marathon shoes. Especially in this day of the Corona Virus.
Then how does a guy who is not sponsored and does not have a lot of money to pay $400 for a pair of high tech shoes go up against a guy with the 'diamonds on the soles of his heels' as Paul Simon once wrote. At my age and speed (ever) I don't think I would have dropped that kind of money for 4%. I would just have compared myself to others by adding 4% to their times. The more difficult challenge would be to run side by side with someone you're pretty sure you can beat, but he has the Vapor Flys on his feet and you don't. There has to be a psychological burden on the runner with the 'ordinary shoes'.
You may recall that fifty-one years ago a similar advantage came with the advent of the all weather tracks. Puma developed the Brush Spike on which several WR's were made and they, the shoes, were quickly disallowed. The following article appeared in Puma Catch Up Puma's employee magazine Sept. 22, 2014
How 68 Spikes Scared Off the Competition
It was at the time that Tartan Tracks came on the scene. Synthetic track surfacing produced a huge advantage. It let athletes compete in bad weather without worsening their performances.The only bad thing was that regular spikes made for cinder tracks got stuck in the new surface. Puma did not wait for long and invented the Brush Spike- shoes that came with 68 needle-like spikes in the front of the sole that provided excellent grip on Tartan tracks.
Some athletes happily started to wear them and suddenly one world record after the other came in. With 19.92 seconds US athlete John Carlos was the fastest man over 200 metres at the US Olympic trials in the summer of 1968. His compatriot Vince Matthews clocked in 44,4 seconds over 400 metres two weeks prior to the US Olympic trials.
This was too much for Adidas. They heavily intervened and the IAAF banned the Brush Spikes before the Summer Olympics 1968 in Mexico City. The excuse was a lame one: The spikes would damage the tracks.
Rumour, however, has it that Adidas was frantically trying to copy those innovative PUMA spikes that propelled athletes to world best times. But they were not successful and in order to gain some time, Adidas wanted to have the shoes banned. Adi Dassler sent a representative to visit the IAAF in the Netherlands. The man is said to have paid a total of 75,000 DM to IAAF officials in order have the rules changed.
The world records of John Carlos and Vince Matthews were negated. And up to this date, running shoes must not have more than six spikes.
As I'm writing the piece above, the following article appears on The Guardian for Feb. 6, 2020.
World Athletics Denies Tipping Off Nike Over New Shoe Regs.
US Company Produced 39.5mm Heel Days After Limit Set at 40
'We Could Look at Our Regs Again' Says World Athletics Spokesman
Wor
A World Athletics spokesperson told the Guardian: “We spoke to several shoe companies, including Nike, a few days before we released our new shoe regulations to let them know what we were planning. But that was the extent of it.”
The spokesperson added that its regulations may yet change if a large scientific project – which is due to report back by the end of the year – finds that any one shoe has too much of an advantage.
“The working group created the rules based on what is already readily available,” the spokesperson said. “We are now conducting detailed scientific research that will be finished this year on all the new shoes on the market to determine the extent to which they can improve performance.
“If in the process of that research we found that a certain shoe gave too much energy return compared to others on the market, say, we would look at our regulations again.”
Nike’s Vaporfly shoe has revolutionised marathon running since it was introduced in 2016, with both Eliud Kipchoge and Brigid Kosgei setting world records wearing them. However the Alphafly is rumoured to be another great leap forward, with some suggesting it could improve running economy by 7‑8% compared to the 4‑5% offered by the Vaporfly.
George
I just think that Nike is being punished for being innovative.
I believe that as Nike’s competitors are allowed to use the same materials and similar design features the shoes should be allowed. My major objection is that the cost of vapor fly shoes and their life span are a real hindrance to the average none sponsored athlete makes buying vapor fly shoes prohibitive!
Nike is employing materials technology that has been used in graphite fishing rods for over forty years. And in vaulting poles for 30-40 years.
John Bork
The questions is always what crosses the line? Did the brush spike cross the line or was it that Carlos and Matthews were the wearers of those shoes? Did fiberglass poles cross the line or was that just an invention whose day has come? Same question for swimming suits, anabolic steroids, pools with better gutters, tracks with better surfaces, shoes with better return of energy even if they yield more than they produce?
Maybe the answer is nothing crosses the line because that is the direction we are headed. If you look at professional halls of fame, MLB requires character and competitive fairness whereas the NFL has no restrictions whatsoever other than performance. Those two camps define those two halls of fame and I suspect they address these track and swimming issues as well. Bill Schier
1 comment:
I confess I am left a bit cold by all of this controversy and did not even read the full content of your blog George. It did however remind me of a couple of controversies in Track and other sports that may have been long forgotten.
Many years ago there was a very good Hungarian Discus thrower named Ferenc Klics who was reputed to have designed and used a discus that had a break away piece that dropped off during flight and was supposed to improve performance. It is likely apocryphal. Anyone else heard of it. There was a javelin throw involving whirling the athletes body as in shot put but I am not sure what became of that.
A favourite sport of mine in my younger years was table tennis ( ping pong to the uninitiated) When I started players had bats ( racquets) of plywood with a pimpled rubber surface to produce spin. In the early 50s someone tried to introduce a bat that had a layer of sponge rubber under the pimpled rubber that changed the whole aspect of the game. It took a few years before it was accepted and before long there was a version that had the surfaces reversed so that the sponge was on top of the pimply stuff. It changed the game so thoroughly that the previously dominant European players have taken a distant back seat in the main to those from Asian countries.
Throw in the early problems when tennis rackets were made of wood and cat gut and the new compound ones were introduced and rugby players who were suddenly allowed to pick each other up in lineouts in order gain height. I bet there are many others in sports history but I have bored you all too much already. Sport keeps evolving and what is unacceptable today is routine tomorrow, Really it is all a bit too much for me.
Post a Comment