To ban or not to ban is the question

Ceepo

So guys/gals, so what is your opinion.
Should IAAF be looking to ban the Nike next%, Vapor fly?.
Just look at the past weekend alone we have seen to two remarkable achievements in marathon running, both wearing a version of the Nike runner..
Do they give an unfair advantage?

If you do ban them is it just for competition or should to be for training as well.

Thoughts???

https://hypebeast.com/2019/10/nike-zoomx-vaporfly-iaaf-investigation-unfair-advantage-sub-two-minute-record-marathon?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=facebook_post&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1571243302

average_runner

Ceepo wrote: »

So guys/gals, so what is your opinion.
Should IAAF be looking to ban the Nike next%, Vapor fly?.
Just look at the past weekend alone we have seen to two remarkable achievements in marathon running, both wearing a version of the Nike runner..
Do they give an unfair advantage?

If you do ban them is it just for competition or should to be for training as well.

Thoughts???

https://hypebeast.com/2019/10/nike-zoomx-vaporfly-iaaf-investigation-unfair-advantage-sub-two-minute-record-marathon?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=facebook_post&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1571243302

Its a tough question, did Paula or any other athletes have any advantages in what she/he used on the day over the person who had the previous record ?

Note: not talking about a illegal advantage!

walshb

No way

Let people decide if they want to wear them..

Where do you draw the line here....

Make everyone wear the exact same footwear?

There is already differences in footwear......athletes are always looking to get the best footwear to help....

They are not that expensive either. Any elite should easily be able to get them...

ultrapercy

I think shoes are a long way down the list of reasons for improved performances.
For many reasons Nike would love us to believe shoes are the only reason for improved performances.

Ceepo

average_runner wrote: »

Its a tough question, did Paula or any other athletes have any advantages in what she/he used on the day over the person who had the previous record ?

Note: not talking about a illegal advantage!

I think theres seems to be a bigger gulf in the difference of footwear brand now then there was then.
This could well be skewed by the people being sponsored by nike.
If the next% vapor fly are so much better, does this disadvantage people who aren't sponsored by nike.
Is it a case that we wait for the others to "catch up" with there shoe technology.
I dont seem to remember any discussion around banning Adidas boost at the time they claiming a 2% more efficiency.

As for affordable, for the nike sponsored athletes I'm sure it won't be a concern.
Elites or sub elites who dont have sponsorship very well might struggle to if they have to pay for them. Of course this depends if they're using them for racing or training as well.

average_runner

Ceepo wrote: »

I think theres seems to be a bigger gulf in the difference of footwear brand now then there was then.
This could well be skewed by the people being sponsored by nike.
If the next% vapor fly are so much better, does this disadvantage people who aren't sponsored by nike.
Is it a case that we wait for the others to "catch up" with there shoe technology.
I dont seem to remember any discussion around banning Adidas boost at the time they claiming a 2% more efficiency.

As for affordable, for the nike sponsored athletes I'm sure it won't be a concern.
Elites or sub elites who dont have sponsorship very well might struggle to if they have to pay for them. Of course this depends if they're using them for racing or training as well.

I was listening to a podcast last week, and over 1500m the best runner is new balance 52's(i think). Apparently they give a distinct advantage to runners.
Don't see anyone complaining about them, is it because no records were broken?

adrian522

ultrapercy wrote: »

I think shoes are a long way down the list of reasons for improved performances.
For many reasons Nike would love us to believe shoes are the only reason for improved performances.

So how do you explain the 3-4 minute difference in the last few years in regards to Kipchoge /Bekele etc if not the shoes. There is only one other possible explanation.

The five fastest record-eligible marathons in history have all been run in the last 13 months—and they’ve all been run in versions of Nike’s Vaporfly.

The IAAF rule is:

"Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.”

in my opinion whatever Kipchoge was wearing in Vienna should be banned. Any Nike elite athlete will always have access to prototypes and versions not available commercially so there is an obvious competitive advantage there.

The womens WR was also broken in a version of these shoes and again no one is clear as to what exact version were used.

The whole situation is a mess at the moment and IAAF need to do something to clean it up because at the moment we are seeing times tumbling due to technological advances not available to all athletes.

28064212

Ceepo wrote: »

Elites or sub elites who dont have sponsorship very well might struggle to if they have to pay for them. Of course this depends if they're using them for racing or training as well.

I very much doubt the cost would be a problem for non-sponsored athletes. They need racing shoes regardless, so you're likely talking about a twice-yearly increase in cost of ~€100-€200.

A much bigger issue (assuming you agree that Nike's shoes are in fact technically far ahead of the competition) is athletes that are sponsored by someone else, and don't have the option of competing on a level playing field

spc78

Main reason to ban them now is that not all athletes have access to them - i.e those elites sponsored by other shoe manufacturers can't wear them or they risk their sponsorship contract - but the other manufacturers are all going to bring out their versions now, in time for Tokyo so won't be an issue. the Ironman winner in Kona at the weekend was wearing an Asics prototype version with carbon plate - he set a course record.

28064212

adrian522 wrote: »

in my opinion whatever Kipchoge was wearing in Vienna should be banned.

They aren't eligible for IAAF races

adrian522 wrote: »

The womens WR was also broken in a version of these shoes and again no one is clear as to what exact version were used.

Is there any debate about this? By all accounts, the version Kosgei were wearing were the Next% which are available for purchase by anybody

ultrapercy

In my opinion any advantage the shoes give, is at most, negliible. They are a marketing myth.
Do we ban all technology advancement in sport? Equipment development has changed sports like tennis and golf more than anything that happened in athletics. In soccer I remember Shilton and Clemence playing in goal for England barehanded. Should the laytex grip gloves have been banned?
The advancement in marathon running in the last few years is attributal to many factors but Nike want us to believe its the shoes.

SeeMoreBut

Why shouldn't we see improvements in footwear with technology as we seen in most sports?

Pro athletes should complain to their shoe sponsor instead of social media or press.

If it was the other way around they wouldn't be vocal.

Nike be making a fortune out of them as a result of it but all companies will have them soon.

Slow_Runner

Great TED talk here on the subject by David Epstein: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger

He talks about the advances in sports wear, for example he compares Jesse Owens 10.2s against Bolt's 9.77 in 2013, Owens ran on a cinder track (they reckon a 1.5% deficit) with no blocks and heavier shoes while Bolt had a tartan track, blocks, spikes, etc.

Should we have banned spikes when they first came out? Starting blocks? The same needs to be applied here. These Nike's are probably a game changer in distance running but they will very soon filter down to other brands and soon become the norm.

IMO this is just an evolutionary change in shoe technology (albeit a bigger leap than normal)

adrian522

28064212 wrote: »

They aren't eligible for IAAF racesIs there any debate about this? By all accounts, the version Kosgei were wearing were the Next% which are available for purchase by anybody

Says who? The winner of the Chicago marathon at the weekend:

: “I was just 50-50 to use the pink one,” LetsRun quoted her as saying. “But something come in my mind, say that yesterday, Kipchoge run and use the same shoes and the other pacemakers [did too]. Why not me?”

so who knows what anyone is wearing at this point and what benefits they are getting. These shoes are not commercially available but obviously they are available to some athletes.

adrian522

ultrapercy wrote: »

In my opinion any advantage the shoes give, is at most, negliible. They are a marketing myth.
Do we ban all technology advancement in sport? Equipment development has changed sports like tennis and golf more than anything that happened in athletics. In soccer I remember Shilton and Clemence playing in goal for England barehanded. Should the laytex grip gloves have been banned?
The advancement in marathon running in the last few years is attributal to many factors but Nike want us to believe its the shoes.

So how are you explaining the 3-4 min improvement. The only other potential explanation is doping. The improvements in running economy have been demonstrated in 3 different studies.

adrian522

Slow_Runner wrote: »

Great TED talk here on the subject by David Epstein: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger

He talks about the advances in sports wear, for example he compares Jesse Owens 10.2s against Bolt's 9.77 in 2013, Owens ran on a cinder track (they reckon a 1.5% deficit) with no blocks and heavier shoes while Bolt had a tartan track, blocks, spikes, etc.

Should we have banned spikes when they first came out? Starting blocks? The same needs to be applied here. These Nike's are probably a game changer in distance running but they will very soon filter down to other brands and soon become the norm.

IMO this is just an evolutionary change in shoe technology (albeit a bigger leap than normal)

No, because everybody runs on the same track. Not everybody has access to this latest technology which is the issue.

Secondly it makes a mockery of trying to compare times now to times even 3 years ago.

how much better is Kipchogue's WR than Kimetto's. There's a debate to say they are almost on par with each other from a physiological point of view.

ultrapercy

adrian522 wrote: »

So how are you explaining the 3-4 min improvement. The only other potential explanation is doping. The improvements in running economy have been demonstrated in 3 different studies.

Who performs those studies and how? Im forever hearing about studies that prove something then later studies that disprove the originl thesis. Those studies are marketing gimmicks.
Improvements in marathon have largely been down to that where the money being at. Top runners are focusing entirely on marathon rather than graduating from track like used to be the case. Also the best marathon runner of all time and the best runner full stop being involved at the one time is a help. Bekelee has learned from Kipchoge. Everyone has learned from him realy.
Of course the shoes may have some effect but in my opinion its minimal.

Slow_Runner

adrian522 wrote: »

No, because everybody runs on the same track. Not everybody has access to this latest technology which is the issue.

Secondly it makes a mockery of trying to compare times now to times even 3 years ago.

how much better is Kipchogue's WR than Kimetto's. There's a debate to say they are almost on par with each other from a physiological point of view.

The point is comparing Kimetto's WR to Kipchoge's is the same as comparing Owen's WR to Bolt's. Technology moves
I agree that at the moment there is an advantage to athletes with the Nike shoes however the majority of elite marathon runners are sponsored by Nike at the moment - look at the lead group in Chicago at the half way point - all you see is a sea of pink Nike runners so a lot of the field had the same advantage - Cherono was the best out of them so he won it.
My point is this technology will be reversed engineered or improved on by the other shoe companies and the field will even out again, this is the unfortunate side affect of business and sport in bed together, the advances we are seeing are starting to grow exponentially instead of gradually. Is this moral or sportsman like? I don't know, but I do believe that IAAF need to start legislating more for what is and isn't allowed but for now we may start to see these improvements in our own race times as these shoes come to market en masse.
Which asks another question, is your PB with shoe A real as this is a better shoe than shoe B that you used to wear??

ultrapercy

adrian522 wrote: »

No, because everybody runs on the same track. Not everybody has access to this latest technology which is the issue.

Secondly it makes a mockery of trying to compare times now to times even 3 years ago.

how much better is Kipchogue's WR than Kimetto's. There's a debate to say they are almost on par with each other from a physiological point of view.

Do you believe current mile times make a mockery of what Bannister achieved because they are run on rubber tracks as opposed to cinders?

28064212

adrian522 wrote: »

Says who? The winner of the Chicago marathon at the weekend:

“I was just 50-50 to use the pink one,” LetsRun quoted her as saying. “But something come in my mind, say that yesterday, Kipchoge run and use the same shoes and the other pacemakers [did too]. Why not me?”

so who knows what anyone is wearing at this point and what benefits they are getting. These shoes are not commercially available but obviously they are available to some athletes.

You're not including the full quote:

“My agent told me [I’m] supposed to use the pink one (the Next%), and I refuse,” Kosgei said. “I was just 50-50 to use the pink one. But something come in my mind, say that yesterday, Kipchoge run and use the same shoes and the other pacemakers [did too]. Why not me?”

She was told to use the Next% (the commercially available legal version) and initially refused, but changed her mind after Kipchoge's run

adrian522

ultrapercy wrote: »

Who performs those studies and how? Im forever hearing about studies that prove something then later studies that disprove the originl thesis. Those studies are marketing gimmicks.
Improvements in marathon have largely been down to that where the money being at. Top runners are focusing entirely on marathon rather than graduating from track like used to be the case. Also the best marathon runner of all time and the best runner full stop being involved at the one time is a help. Bekelee has learned from Kipchoge. Everyone has learned from him realy.
Of course the shoes may have some effect but in my opinion its minimal.

So the 3-4 mins improvement since the shoes came about is purely coincidental? Normally it would take 25 years for that sort of time to come off the world record.

Studies have shown 2.6% performance improvement using the original 4% shoes, the next% and whatever the new versions are going to be called would have more impact again.

One of the first studies that looked at the Vaporfly 4% was done in 2017 and published by the journal Sports Medicine. In the study, every one of the 18 runners tested at the University of Colorado Boulder’s “Locomotion Lab” had better running economy in the Vaporflys than when they ran in two other racing shoe models (Nike Zoom Streak 6 and Adidas Adios Boost 2). Some runners’ running economy—or the energy needed to run at a given pace—improved by as little as 1.59 percent, while others improved by as much as 6.26 percent. That means, you guessed it, the average improvement was around 4 percent.

adrian522

Slow_Runner wrote: »

The point is comparing Kimetto's WR to Kipchoge's is the same as comparing Owen's WR to Bolt's. Technology moves
I agree that at the moment there is an advantage to athletes with the Nike shoes however the majority of elite marathon runners are sponsored by Nike at the moment - look at the lead group in Chicago at the half way point - all you see is a sea of pink Nike runners so a lot of the field had the same advantage - Cherono was the best out of them so he won it.
My point is this technology will be reversed engineered or improved on by the other shoe companies and the field will even out again, this is the unfortunate side affect of business and sport in bed together, the advances we are seeing are starting to grow exponentially instead of gradually. Is this moral or sportsman like? I don't know, but I do believe that IAAF need to start legislating more for what is and isn't allowed but for now we may start to see these improvements in our own race times as these shoes come to market en masse.
Which asks another question, is your PB with shoe A real as this is a better shoe than shoe B that you used to wear??

So Owens to Bolt - 70 years. Kimmetto to Kipchogue - 3 years.

You would normally expect these sort of improvements over decades not overnight due to engineering developments at a shoe company.

Also the newest version of these shoes are not available to anyone outside of Nike and probably not available to all Nike sponsored athletes. This hugely distorts the sport at the elite level.

The whole thing is a mess at the moment due to these technological advances. We are going more towards F1 where the winner is decided by which team hass the best engineers not by who is the best driver.

adrian522

ultrapercy wrote: »

Do you believe current mile times make a mockery of what Bannister achieved because they are run on rubber tracks as opposed to cinders?

No because everyone runs on the same track and these improvements have been gradual and have not provided an unfair advantage to one group of athletes over another.

Certainly doesn't take away from Bannister's achievements.

adrian522

28064212 wrote: »

You're not including the full quote:She was told to use the Next% (the commercially available legal version) and initially refused, but changed her mind after Kipchoge's run

It's far from clear from that quote what shoes she was wearing The point is nobody seems to know what she was wearing and how much advantage she had over other athletes in the race.

skyblue46

An interesting piece here....

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/50041037

Sacksian

I think the closest comparison is the LZR Racer in swimming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer

sideswipe

28064212 wrote: »

They aren't eligible for IAAF racesIs there any debate about this? By all accounts, the version Kosgei were wearing were the Next% which are available for purchase by anybody

His version were an as yet unavailable shoe called AlphaFLY which contain extra air pockets in the sole.

Ceepo

Sacksian wrote: »

I think the closest comparison is the LZR Racer in swimming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer

I'm not sure that's a good comparison really.
The LZR worked by creating less friction and better hydrodynamic position,
my understanding of how the Vaporfly works is that they return more of the energy from the compression force placed on it as opposed to other shoes,
a published study that found 66% energy return for EVA, 76% for Boost (a 15% improvement!), and 87% for the Vaporfly (a 14.5% improvement over Boost).

ultrapercy

The same thing is happening to running now that happened to cycling years ago, its becoming a middle class sport. Nike realise that with the correct marketing they can charge 500 dollars for shoes. In the same way 2 stone overweight tri athletes will pay 5000 euro for a bike thats 25 gramms lighter than a 1000 euro bike now average runners will splash out wads of cash as a substitute for training. These shoes do **** all apart from make Nike even richer and divert attention away from the real issues troubling the sport. These organisations are as political as any nation and the timing of these world records to coincide with the disbanding of the NOP is a political stroke. Maybe Ill be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat but its preferable to a pair of pink fairyshoes.

average_runner

adrian522 wrote: »

So the 3-4 mins improvement since the shoes came about is purely coincidental? Normally it would take 25 years for that sort of time to come off the world record.

Studies have shown 2.6% performance improvement using the original 4% shoes, the next% and whatever the new versions are going to be called would have more impact again.

But there was 3-4 mins improvement in the record in the 80' s and 90's also

echancrure

The problem is to devise a reliable test for shoes to eliminate unfair advantage.

Personally I would prefer if we did not invest time developing shoes for faster times.

BeepBeep67

28064212 wrote: »

A much bigger issue (assuming you agree that Nike's shoes are in fact technically far ahead of the competition) is athletes that are sponsored by someone else, and don't have the option of competing on a level playing field

I'm sure they'll think of something

Slow_Runner

adrian522 wrote: »

So Owens to Bolt - 70 years. Kimmetto to Kipchogue - 3 years.

You would normally expect these sort of improvements over decades not overnight due to engineering developments at a shoe company.

Also the newest version of these shoes are not available to anyone outside of Nike and probably not available to all Nike sponsored athletes. This hugely distorts the sport at the elite level.

The whole thing is a mess at the moment due to these technological advances. We are going more towards F1 where the winner is decided by which team hass the best engineers not by who is the best driver.

I think there are 2 issues here:
1. Should WR times count as improvement in track/shoes/clothing mean previous times are incomparable - you are not comparing like for like. I don't think Owens 10.2 is any less impressive than Bolts 9.56 or Bannister's sub 4 mile is less impressive than El G's 3:43, what make a WR really impressive is the length of time it takes to break it (Paula's record only falling after 20+ years & El G's from 1999). Same thing happened in swimming with the introduction of special swim suits back in 2008, times dropped across all events.

2. Are the shoes giving an unfair advantage to some athletes? This I agree with you on, there is an unfair advantage and there should be a level playing field, I don't think the shoes should be banned but there should be regulation to limit the advantage they give - how you do that I don't know.

28064212

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I'm sure they'll think of something

I'm sure they will have competing shoes out soon™, probably close to or at the same level of Nike's. The issue is that the current situation* is not a level playing field**

* Realistically, it's been the situation since the 4% runners had their debut. It's only headlines now because of the double-whammy of Kipchoge's and Kosgei's achievements
** Again, assuming you accept at face value that Nike's shoes are technologically leaps and bounds ahead of the other options

BeepBeep67

28064212 wrote: »

I'm sure they will have competing shoes out soon™, probably close to or at the same level of Nike's. The issue is that the current situation* is not a level playing field**

* Realistically, it's been the situation since the 4% runners had their debut. It's only headlines now because of the double-whammy of Kipchoge's and Kosgei's achievements
** Again, assuming you accept at face value that Nike's shoes are technologically leaps and bounds ahead of the other options

Part of the concern from other athletes is not neccesarily the off the shelf variants of the 4% and Next%, but more the bespoke versions (not Kipchogie's AlphaFlys) that their pro athletes have access to which go against the availability rule 143.

- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.

Having said that there have been several 'protype' shoes appearing from other brands which would also go against this rule.

TFBubendorfer

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Part of the concern from other athletes is not neccesarily the off the shelf variants of the 4% and Next%, but more the bespoke versions (not Kipchogie's AlphaFlys) that their pro athletes have access to which go against the availability rule 143.

That rule seems to be very flexible. I remember reading an article before an Olympic marathon quite a few years ago where the designers at Asics proudly talked about how they created specific shoes for their athletes just for that race.

I'm fairly sure that's standard practice amongst all shoe manufacturers. Nobody seemed concerned where the line was where a minor change for an individual athlete started to contradict the "general availability" rule.

28064212

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Part of the concern from other athletes is not neccesarily the off the shelf variants of the 4% and Next%, but more the bespoke versions (not Kipchogie's AlphaFlys) that their pro athletes have access to which go against the availability rule 143.

Is that an actual concern of other athletes? Most of the news based on athletes' views on the shoes seems to be based off this Times' article (emphasis mine):

But Gianni Demadonna, the Italian former marathon champion who now manages some of the biggest names in distance running, told The Times that a group of about 20 of his athletes — the majority of whom are Ethiopian and use Adidas shoes — wrote “some months ago” to the IAAF and the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), calling for the shoes to be examined by experts.

“They think the shoes are maybe allowing elite athletes to run two minutes quicker in the marathon,” Demadonna said. “Understandably they are troubled by what is happening in their sport because the times being run are so fast. Even older runners are taking huge chunks off their best times.”

In the letter the athletes say that the shoe is “ruining” the sport and that they “don’t want to continue with unfair athletics”.

Some months ago => Obviously not referring to Kipchoge's Alphaflys
The shoe => suggests a model (presumably the 4% or Next%), rather than a specific instance of that model

adrian522

They are correct of course and things have only gotten worse since then. IAAF asleep at the wheel as usual, this has been going on since 2016.

MY BAD

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I'm sure they'll think of something

These guys on insta for anyone interested
https://instagram.com/govrn_?igshid=hp7fvu6ss2j8

adrian522

Steve Magness on the subject on his latest podcast...

https://play.acast.com/s/magnessmarcusoncoaching/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scienceofrunning.com%2F%3Fp%3D3716

walshb

Slow_Runner wrote: »

I think there are 2 issues here:
1. Should WR times count as improvement in track/shoes/clothing mean previous times are incomparable - you are not comparing like for like. I don't think Owens 10.2 is any less impressive than Bolts 9.56 or Bannister's sub 4 mile is less impressive than El G's 3:43, what make a WR really impressive is the length of time it takes to break it (Paula's record only falling after 20+ years & El G's from 1999). Same thing happened in swimming with the introduction of special swim suits back in 2008, times dropped across all events.

2. Are the shoes giving an unfair advantage to some athletes? This I agree with you on, there is an unfair advantage and there should be a level playing field, I don't think the shoes should be banned but there should be regulation to limit the advantage they give - how you do that I don't know.

Paula’s record is a few years shy of 20 + years..

Limpy

I think it's the foam that gives you the ability to run strong in the later miles. It keeps your legs so fresh. AFAIK Nike have the foam trademarked.

Ceepo

Limpy wrote: »

I think it's the foam that gives you the ability to run strong in the later miles. It keeps your legs so fresh. AFAIK Nike have the foam trademarked.

The foam used in the Nike runners is called "Pebex" and other companys use it as awell such as Mizuno.
https://www.pebaxpowered.com/en/find-product/running/.

My understanding is the difference is the stack height. To counteract the instability of the stack height Nike used the full carbon plate.

Murph_D

Some thoughts on today’s IAAF considerations here: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/oct/21/shoes-nike-world-records-technology?

rom

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I'm sure they'll think of something

Clearly a photoshop but .... it's exactly what is happening

https://www.asics.com/ie/en-ie/metaride%E2%84%A2/p/1011A142-400.html?width=Standard .

Limpy

Those shoes won't affect Nike stock until the athletes wearing them start beating the people running in vaporflys.

MY BAD

On Instagram some claiming Scullion had backed out next % not wearing his sponsors shoes!
https://www.instagram.com/p/B4H-5RVnTQb/?igshid=18itx48difu48

Slow_Runner

Judging by the amount of people wearing Nike fancy shoes today in Dublin, no fear of these being banned - that horse has bolted

Limpy

The vaporfly will be for the marathon like a GPS watch is, especially for anyone hoping to improve one's time. Nike have a golden goose. Its a bit awkward for athletes using sponsors hashtags ect in a post then running in the vaporfly.

MrMacPhisto

I was volunteering today in the finish area. I reckon about 90%or more of the ppl in the top 100 finishers were wearing some form of the nike vaporfly or vaporfly next. They certainly have won the marketing battle at the very least.

Limpy

MrMacPhisto wrote: »

I was volunteering today in the finish area. I reckon about 90%or more of the ppl in the top 100 finishers were wearing some form of the nike vaporfly or vaporfly next. They certainly have won the marketing battle at the very least.

The other 10% will wear them eventually, to see what they are like. You can be gaurenteed they won't go back to what they wore unless paid too. There's obviously good marketing involved, but the shoe is a game changer.