I agree with many points in the article, but the idea that it’s unfair if one person’s body responds better to the shoe than another seems silly. Distance running is already a competition of who has better gene adaptations. I have a mediocre VO2 max, so I’ll never be an Olympian. Is that unfair? My body requires a longer recovery time after hard efforts than Galen Rupp. Is that unfair? That’s just life.
They mention this specifically in two ways. 1) we expect a race to be about human elements. You won't be an Olympian because of physiology, not equipment. This ties back into integrity. 2) the response from the shoe is greater than the typical difference between athletes, meaning that at top tier levels your fitness is now defined by a running shoe.
Is that unfair? Hard to say. Does it undermine what people appreciate about running and the competition? I think the author made a pretty strong case for 'yes, absolutely'.
Agree, I was in denial for years trying to "correct" my flat feet with minimal shoes (plus focusing in my running technique), arc strengthening exercises, stretches, and so on. But I never was able to run past 3k without knees pain.
Then I bought cheap insoles with arc support and the next run I was able to run 6k without any issue.
I'll never will be an elite runner. But at least I can go outside and enjoy a good sweat in the park time to time.
I think it's trying to draw a difference between how good your body actually is at the activity of running itself, versus how well it responds to a particular technology. Sort of like if they legalized one particular performance enhancing drug. The records would be set by people who happened to respond well to that drug (let's say).
to carry that to its logical conclusion, all competition should be held barefoot. Surely some humans are better suited to barefoot running than others, hence their "response" to shoe wearing is being tested.
"And while on this subject of breakthroughs and records, please let’s not say stupid things like “We should just run barefoot”, or the common gaslighting method used by many that innovation has always been part of the sport, and the 2016 shoes were way better than Jim Peters and Roger Bannister’s shoes in the 1950s. Yes, but if you’re daft enough to actually entertain the debate about whether Kipchoge is a better runner than Jim Peters, great, but find someone equally daft who’ll have that one. I’d need ten beers for it to even seem worthwhile. Nobody cares. We get it, we expect innovation over many generations."
I generally agree with that conclusion, an ideal competition would be all barefoot. (And if we could hold marathons barefoot on golf course grass ... wow!) But I'm willing to compromise, just not very far.
Comments
I agree with many points in the article, but the idea that it’s unfair if one person’s body responds better to the shoe than another seems silly. Distance running is already a competition of who has better gene adaptations. I have a mediocre VO2 max, so I’ll never be an Olympian. Is that unfair? My body requires a longer recovery time after hard efforts than Galen Rupp. Is that unfair? That’s just life.
They mention this specifically in two ways. 1) we expect a race to be about human elements. You won't be an Olympian because of physiology, not equipment. This ties back into integrity. 2) the response from the shoe is greater than the typical difference between athletes, meaning that at top tier levels your fitness is now defined by a running shoe.
Is that unfair? Hard to say. Does it undermine what people appreciate about running and the competition? I think the author made a pretty strong case for 'yes, absolutely'.
Agree, I was in denial for years trying to "correct" my flat feet with minimal shoes (plus focusing in my running technique), arc strengthening exercises, stretches, and so on. But I never was able to run past 3k without knees pain.
Then I bought cheap insoles with arc support and the next run I was able to run 6k without any issue.
I'll never will be an elite runner. But at least I can go outside and enjoy a good sweat in the park time to time.
I think it's trying to draw a difference between how good your body actually is at the activity of running itself, versus how well it responds to a particular technology. Sort of like if they legalized one particular performance enhancing drug. The records would be set by people who happened to respond well to that drug (let's say).
to carry that to its logical conclusion, all competition should be held barefoot. Surely some humans are better suited to barefoot running than others, hence their "response" to shoe wearing is being tested.
From the article
"And while on this subject of breakthroughs and records, please let’s not say stupid things like “We should just run barefoot”, or the common gaslighting method used by many that innovation has always been part of the sport, and the 2016 shoes were way better than Jim Peters and Roger Bannister’s shoes in the 1950s. Yes, but if you’re daft enough to actually entertain the debate about whether Kipchoge is a better runner than Jim Peters, great, but find someone equally daft who’ll have that one. I’d need ten beers for it to even seem worthwhile. Nobody cares. We get it, we expect innovation over many generations."
I generally agree with that conclusion, an ideal competition would be all barefoot. (And if we could hold marathons barefoot on golf course grass ... wow!) But I'm willing to compromise, just not very far.