I don't understand why more sports don't just have regulation equipment that all athletes must wear and use.
You aren't allowed to bring your own soccer ball, basketball, football, etc. Why do we allow some items that have a huge impact, to be up to the player/team?
Have it both ways, like motorsport. There are championships like Formula 1, where the 'equipment' is a huge factor, and the teams are competing on their tech. This has lead to many breakthroughs in car safety that have become standard in consumer vehicles.
On the other hand, there are many championships where all drivers must drive the exact same car, or the cars are heavily regulated in terms of power output. Here it's all about the raw skill of the driver.
I can't imagine having an ISO standard running shoe. There are regulations on running shoes (like the thickness of the sole), but making them all identical would really hurt a lot of athletes. It would select for those who fit the standard shoe.
Until recently, swimming advances didn't matter all that much. It's only in the last decade or so that the fabrics became better than the swimmer's skin, and they started covering up more of the body. That gave substantial advantages to swimmers with a ton of money.
(Substantial being relative, of course. We're talking 1% improvements, so you're not taking on Michael Phelps in one of these, even if he were wearing a ball gown. But it's the difference between gold and not qualifying for the final heat.)
For shoes, I would think there’s just too much variation in foot sizes, foot shapes, and runner’s weights to even consider that.
Cycling similarly allows picking the bicycle frame to match the rider’s body. It does have a minimum weight for bicycles, though (6.8kg, which is high for current tech. Given deep enough pockets, 2.7kg was possible in 2010. See https://www.tririg.com/articles.php?id=1035_Worlds_Lightest_...), and regulations that effectively forbid recumbent bikes.
In some cases, flexibility also is there for historical reasons. In soccer, not even field size is fixed (with exceptions for top levels) for that reason (fields inside athletics tracks tend to be longer and less wide than fields inside stadiums specifically built for soccer)
I think "provide their own footballs" can be a little misleading. It isn't like they can go out and purchase whatever brand and model they want. Teams have custody of the league approved balls and can prepare them how they see fit within the league specification. So while there is room for a little customization, it fits well within jonshariat's overall point of standardized equipment.
But shoes? Gloves? Glare reducing eye makeup? Socks? Hydration drinks?
The list can basically go on forever. With no real "a priori" idea on where you have to stop to no longer find a benefit in equipment. Could even go back to "access to gym" or "access to trainer" and expect a level of influence.
This has been proposed in Nordic skiing to reduce the arms race around waxing. Standardize waxing, competitors receive skies immediately before race, etc.
I agree, although I also think once you start considering all the different factors that go into an athlete's performance and how there is an inequity between competitors for each factor, it can be hard to determine where to draw the line.
For example, athletes from wealthy countries are exposed to better training techniques and apparatus. Is that fair?
How exactly do you do that for running? You obviously cant have just 1 specific shoe that everyone has to wear, so how many do you allow, and how do you stop it from getting back to the current form?
Which is sort of the point of not standardizing things. In cycling for example, if everyone rides the same bike, then bike companies have nothing to advertise, so no money for cycling teams. So the whole thing is really an advertisement. The one exception I can think of in cycling is Japanese Keirin track racing, which has heavy regulation on the equipment used, but supports and is supported not by advertising, but by sports betting.
The name sponsors for a lot of the top cycling teams actually aren't bike companies. A quick glance at the list of 2021 teams in the Tour de France shows only one that I recognize as a bike company (Trek). Bike companies do sponsor the teams, but they are not the largest sponsors by a long shot
Yes, that's true. But title sponsorship is an increasingly hard sell for "real" companies. I think it's becoming more like yacht racing, where the sponsorships are kind of vanity projects for billionaires. For example you have UAE sponsoring a team, Israel/Ron Baron, Ineos, which is privately owned...
That said, the equipment sponsorships are a major part of the equation, very expensive, and very competitive. I think it forms a larger part of the budget for less successful teams, where title sponsorship is less lucrative. And in any case, it's its own form of "title" sponsorship.. I'm not sure how much benefit Pinarello would get from being on the jerseys - everyone knows Ineos rides Pinarello.
But anyway, I think my point that this lucrative competition prevents standardization is valid.
Comments
I don't understand why more sports don't just have regulation equipment that all athletes must wear and use.
You aren't allowed to bring your own soccer ball, basketball, football, etc. Why do we allow some items that have a huge impact, to be up to the player/team?
Have it both ways, like motorsport. There are championships like Formula 1, where the 'equipment' is a huge factor, and the teams are competing on their tech. This has lead to many breakthroughs in car safety that have become standard in consumer vehicles.
On the other hand, there are many championships where all drivers must drive the exact same car, or the cars are heavily regulated in terms of power output. Here it's all about the raw skill of the driver.
There is room for both of these in running.
I can't imagine having an ISO standard running shoe. There are regulations on running shoes (like the thickness of the sole), but making them all identical would really hurt a lot of athletes. It would select for those who fit the standard shoe.
Until recently, swimming advances didn't matter all that much. It's only in the last decade or so that the fabrics became better than the swimmer's skin, and they started covering up more of the body. That gave substantial advantages to swimmers with a ton of money.
(Substantial being relative, of course. We're talking 1% improvements, so you're not taking on Michael Phelps in one of these, even if he were wearing a ball gown. But it's the difference between gold and not qualifying for the final heat.)
For shoes, I would think there’s just too much variation in foot sizes, foot shapes, and runner’s weights to even consider that.
Cycling similarly allows picking the bicycle frame to match the rider’s body. It does have a minimum weight for bicycles, though (6.8kg, which is high for current tech. Given deep enough pockets, 2.7kg was possible in 2010. See https://www.tririg.com/articles.php?id=1035_Worlds_Lightest_...), and regulations that effectively forbid recumbent bikes.
In some cases, flexibility also is there for historical reasons. In soccer, not even field size is fixed (with exceptions for top levels) for that reason (fields inside athletics tracks tend to be longer and less wide than fields inside stadiums specifically built for soccer)
A soccer field must be rectangular, but can be anywhere from 45 to 90 meters wide and anywhere from 90 to 120 meters long (https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/spielregeln-2019-20....)
So, minimum size is 90m × 45m, maximum size is 120m × 90m. Area-wise, that’s a factor of 2⅔.
NFL teams provide their own footballs.
Source: https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/pre-game/nfl-game-ball-pr...
I think "provide their own footballs" can be a little misleading. It isn't like they can go out and purchase whatever brand and model they want. Teams have custody of the league approved balls and can prepare them how they see fit within the league specification. So while there is room for a little customization, it fits well within jonshariat's overall point of standardized equipment.
But shoes? Gloves? Glare reducing eye makeup? Socks? Hydration drinks?
The list can basically go on forever. With no real "a priori" idea on where you have to stop to no longer find a benefit in equipment. Could even go back to "access to gym" or "access to trainer" and expect a level of influence.
This has been proposed in Nordic skiing to reduce the arms race around waxing. Standardize waxing, competitors receive skies immediately before race, etc.
I agree, although I also think once you start considering all the different factors that go into an athlete's performance and how there is an inequity between competitors for each factor, it can be hard to determine where to draw the line.
For example, athletes from wealthy countries are exposed to better training techniques and apparatus. Is that fair?
How exactly do you do that for running? You obviously cant have just 1 specific shoe that everyone has to wear, so how many do you allow, and how do you stop it from getting back to the current form?
Let's not forget Deflategate. Wherever the balls come from, sometimes they're tamperable.
the equipment is sometimes part of the fun too, you crush whole industries if you spec it
Which is sort of the point of not standardizing things. In cycling for example, if everyone rides the same bike, then bike companies have nothing to advertise, so no money for cycling teams. So the whole thing is really an advertisement. The one exception I can think of in cycling is Japanese Keirin track racing, which has heavy regulation on the equipment used, but supports and is supported not by advertising, but by sports betting.
The name sponsors for a lot of the top cycling teams actually aren't bike companies. A quick glance at the list of 2021 teams in the Tour de France shows only one that I recognize as a bike company (Trek). Bike companies do sponsor the teams, but they are not the largest sponsors by a long shot
Yes, that's true. But title sponsorship is an increasingly hard sell for "real" companies. I think it's becoming more like yacht racing, where the sponsorships are kind of vanity projects for billionaires. For example you have UAE sponsoring a team, Israel/Ron Baron, Ineos, which is privately owned...
That said, the equipment sponsorships are a major part of the equation, very expensive, and very competitive. I think it forms a larger part of the budget for less successful teams, where title sponsorship is less lucrative. And in any case, it's its own form of "title" sponsorship.. I'm not sure how much benefit Pinarello would get from being on the jerseys - everyone knows Ineos rides Pinarello.
But anyway, I think my point that this lucrative competition prevents standardization is valid.
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/05/200-bikes-and-a-lot-of-cash-...