nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Next % to be banned?

justdoit

I know it's been controversial and that there has been a lot of chat about whether Nike's Next % offers an unfair advantage to wearers, but The Times reporting that it is to be banned:

'The Nike shoe used by Brigid Kosgei to obliterate Paula Radcliffe’s women’s marathon world record last year is likely to be banned when World Athletics introduces new rules on running shoes.

However, the governing body may declare a moratorium that protects the Kenyan’s mark of 2hr 14min 04sec, set in Chicago last October, which is 81 seconds faster than the previous record, set by Radcliffe in 2003.'

I don't wear the shoes, and I definitely don't often trouble the podium, but would a ban like that trickle down to an amateur being precluded from winning a race, like a local half marathon for example?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

and still ricky villa

Clown shoes ordered

Lots of reasons I've not gone for these beforehand but if anything this thread and the WA ruling made my mind up.

Curious that the thread was started by justdoit....

MY BAD

Believe in the runs take on it
https://www.believeintherun.com/2020/01/31/world-athletics-nike-alphafly-ban/?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-believeintherun&utm_content=later-5129452&utm_medium=social&utm_source=instagram

Murph_D

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

They would also have to remove the additional carbon plates

Only one plate (and 40mm stack) in latest Alphafly prototypes, according to above linked article.

Murph_D

I don’t subscribe to the argument that we have to move with the technology. It’s OK to attempt to protect the integrity of a sport by limiting the technology. Golf, Formula One, cycling all do this in one way or another. Someone above mentioned sticky gloves as an example - but it was well within the remit of the GAA to ban them. Maybe they should have. Maybe they still can, and players will have to eat their glove investment.

Having said that, the shoe rules have been changed (clarified?) and the rules is the rules. I’ll be buying a pair. If I can afford them, it would be be silly not to, if I want to compete in my category against people who have them. Yes, I can train harder/better too, but its not an either/or - why not both?

rovers_runner

I foresee a lot of injuries to people wearing these shoes that shouldn't be(overpronators).
For instance looking at pictures from the Trim 10 yesterday you can see how people wearing them are collapsing severely into their instep. This will cause endless injuries no doubt.

IvoryTower

They likely only wear them to race so maybe not

MY BAD

rovers_runner wrote: »

I foresee a lot of injuries to people wearing these shoes that shouldn't be(overpronators).
.

Its a racing shoe so it doesn't really matter...

rovers_runner

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

Its a racing shoe so it doesn't really matter...

Why bother having support shoes at all so?
You'd train maybe x amount miles in a spell coming into a race, at race pace/intervals/recovery.
And then switch to a completely different shoe on race day?

Ceepo

rovers_runner wrote: »

I foresee a lot of injuries to people wearing these shoes that shouldn't be(overpronators).
For instance looking at pictures from the Trim 10 yesterday you can see how people wearing them are collapsing severely into their instep. This will cause endless injuries no doubt.

Its probably no different that someone wearing a support shoe for training and wearing spikes for track or cross country.

Also there isn't a lot if evidence to say a " type" of shoe prevents injury.

Swashbuckler

rovers_runner wrote:

Why bother having support shoes at all so? You'd train maybe x amount miles in a spell coming into a race, at race pace/intervals/recovery. And then switch to a completely different shoe on race day?

In short, yes

MY BAD

rovers_runner wrote: »

Why bother having support shoes at all so?
You'd train maybe x amount miles in a spell coming into a race, at race pace/intervals/recovery.
And then switch to a completely different shoe on race day?

I think support shoes are completely unnecessary for the vast majority of people. Comfort and If you know what drop that suits you is more important. Support shoes certainly don't prevent injury.

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

I don’t subscribe to the argument that we have to move with the technology. It’s OK to attempt to protect the integrity of a sport by limiting the technology. Golf, Formula One, cycling all do this in one way or another. Someone above mentioned sticky gloves as an example - but it was well within the remit of the GAA to ban them. Maybe they should have. Maybe they still can, and players will have to eat their glove investment.

Having said that, the shoe rules have been changed (clarified?) and the rules is the rules. I’ll be buying a pair. If I can afford them, it would be be silly not to, if I want to compete in my category against people who have them. Yes, I can train harder/better too, but its not an either/or - why not both?

Can't see me buying then, mainly because I don't like what Nike stands for. But they are effective and people will get new pbs with them.

I know in my category even if I had them, I wouldn't be challenging, so pointless on that front for me also.

rovers_runner

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

I think support shoes are completely unnecessary for the vast majority of people. Comfort and If you know what drop that suits you is more important. Support shoes certainly don't prevent injury.

If you were actually an over or under pronator you'd know how stupid what you've just written is, so we will leave it at that.

MY BAD

rovers_runner wrote: »

If you were actually an over or under pronator you'd know how stupid what you've just written is, so we will leave it at that.

I am one but hey

Ceepo

rovers_runner wrote: »

If you were actually an over or under pronator you'd know how stupid what you've just written is, so we will leave it at that.

Serious question.
As pronation is a natural occurrence of gait, at what degree of pronation to you class someone as over pronation. ?

Damo 2k9

average_runner wrote: »

Can't see me buying then, mainly because I don't like what Nike stands for. But they are effective and people will get new pbs with them.

I know in my category even if I had them, I wouldn't be challenging, so pointless on that front for me also.

I'm not challenging for age category, far from it, but I'm racing against myself. Ive said my piece on it, but I dont really get this argument that if your not going for podium you shouldn't use everything at your disposal to be as fast as you can (within regulations

).

I think the hatred against Nike is completely taking over the argument as well, IMO. People are completely swayed to one side of the argument just because of the logo on the shoe, it should be about the shoe itself regardless of the brand.

IvoryTower

I've decided against buying them but i'm taking 4% off any times I run in races 5k and up

Murph_D

rovers_runner wrote: »

I foresee a lot of injuries to people wearing these shoes that shouldn't be(overpronators).
For instance looking at pictures from the Trim 10 yesterday you can see how people wearing them are collapsing severely into their instep. This will cause endless injuries no doubt.

There’s no good evidence that overpronators need different shoes. It’s a marketing ploy.

and still ricky villa

I'm of a similar opinion. No one gives a toss what my results are apart from me.
I'll happily count my new PB as my best effort. All but about 20 miles of training will be done in the Next%'s so the time is less down to the shoes and more to do with the months of hard graft I'm putting in.

As for overpronators. I was diagnosed as a mild overpronator by a well known running shop. I've been through a few brands with varying degrees of injury (adidas, Asics, NB) before being in Mizuno for the past few years with, thankfully, no issues.
3+ hours in Nike isn't going to put me in a wheelchair

average_runner

Damo 2k9 wrote: »

I'm not challenging for age category, far from it, but I'm racing against myself. Ive said my piece on it, but I dont really get this argument that if your not going for podium you shouldn't use everything at your disposal to be as fast as you can (within regulations ).

I think the hatred against Nike is completely taking over the argument as well, IMO. People are completely swayed to one side of the argument just because of the logo on the shoe, it should be about the shoe itself regardless of the brand.

I still want PB's but I want to know I got it because I am improving and not because of a runner. For example, my pb in 5k is 19:38, if I run 19:37 in vapor fly, have I really improved or gone backwards?

No problem with any one wearing them, hope ye have great racing in them.

Cona

Dungarvan 10 yesterday, I was shocked by the amount of people wearing these. It was literally a sea of pink, green and orange. I would say more were wearing them than not.

Damo 2k9

average_runner wrote: »

I still want PB's but I want to know I got it because I am improving and not because of a runner. For example, my pb in 5k is 19:38, if I run 19:37 in vapor fly, have I really improved or gone backwards?

No problem with any one wearing them, hope ye have great racing in them.

Could say that about having a pair of runners for racing and a pair for regular mileage?

You may run faster in a pair of Adidas Boston's compared to a pair of really cushioned Ultraboost, so is that down to the runner and not your training?

I know you havent and I hope it doesnt come across as me having a go at anyone, just having a conversation is all.

average_runner

Damo 2k9 wrote: »

Could say that about having a pair of runners for racing and a pair for regular mileage?

You may run faster in a pair of Adidas Boston's compared to a pair of really cushioned Ultraboost, so is that down to the runner and not your training?

I know you havent and I hope it doesnt come across as me having a go at anyone, just having a conversation is all.

Total conversation, I understand the attraction to them.

opus

Cona wrote: »

Dungarvan 10 yesterday, I was shocked by the amount of people wearing these. It was literally a sea of pink, green and orange. I would say more were wearing them than not.

Yup I noticed that as well, maybe cause those shoes are so easy to spot. Another article in the Guardian today about them.

The Great Shoe War has switched lanes to the track but Nike still leads the field

Cona

opus wrote: »

Yup I noticed that as well, maybe cause those shoes are so easy to spot. Another article in the Guardian today about them.

Spent far too much time this morning looking through photos on the Running in Cork FB page. Think I counted the first 18 men all wearing VFs. I guess if you want to compete at that level, you have to have them!

average_runner

Cona wrote: »

Spent far too much time this morning looking through photos on the Running in Cork FB page. Think I counted the first 18 men all wearing VFs. I guess if you want to compete at that level, you have to have them!

Trim 10 miler had a prize for first non vapor fly runner!!

skyblue46

Damo 2k9 wrote: »

I'm not challenging for age category, far from it, but I'm racing against myself. Ive said my piece on it, but I dont really get this argument that if your not going for podium you shouldn't use everything at your disposal to be as fast as you can (within regulations ).

I think the hatred against Nike is completely taking over the argument as well, IMO. People are completely swayed to one side of the argument just because of the logo on the shoe, it should be about the shoe itself regardless of the brand.

Hey Damo. One last comment on this before I'm over and out with the topic. I'm done with it. The 'hatred' of which you speak is aimed at the brand because it is the one which influences WA in a way no other brand can.

Last week's decision was made to allow Nike continue as normal. How else can the new 30mm limit on stack height for spikes be interpreted? Nike are the only company with a prototype of that height. It has enabled world class athletes like Muir knock seconds off even 800m times. Nobody looked for or wanted that limit except Nike. As previously happened with the VF these spikes break the unfair advantage guideline regarding the legality of shoes.

Changing the rules after the event to suit one manufacturer is a shocking state of affairs.

Anyway, I'm done with this..

Chivito550

Fair play Fionnuala.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/fionnuala-mccormack-feels-let-down-by-weak-nike-vaporfly-decision-1.4161727

mloc123

Chivito550 wrote: »

Fair play Fionnuala.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/fionnuala-mccormack-feels-let-down-by-weak-nike-vaporfly-decision-1.4161727

Non Nike sponsored athlete complains about Nike making fast shoes... shocker

KSU

mloc123 wrote: »

Non Nike sponsored athlete complains about Nike making fast shoes... shocker

She has also opted to not wear her own brands shoe which has seen success with Callum Hawkins as of late