1
« Last post by Davo on Today at 05:20:39 pm »
Hi Simon
I have read it again and I do agree that the figures seem very high and given the money doesn’t go to the actual athletes I am not sure where the money is going.
I still don’t want comp climbing split off completely from the BMC but I do want to understand better and more clearly where the money is going and what on. I think with good financial transparency and clarity would come better management.
Dave
2
« Last post by lukeyboy on Today at 04:50:58 pm »
What JB has described is UK 7a then E4, i.e. a boulder problem with a micro-route after. IMO this is not the same as E4 7a and does not convey the same information.
Thread split? It's a shame for this to be hijacking what is a phenomenal achievement by Shauna. So inspired and impressed to see what she's achieving whilst being a new mother.
3
« Last post by SA Chris on Today at 04:29:23 pm »
I probably wouldn't bother with carbon off-road shoes - particularly the Saucony ones as the first generation had a rep for falling apart.
I'll let you know how these last. If things play out, got some long runs planned this summer, and plan to wear them.
4
« Last post by chriss on Today at 04:10:41 pm »
I enjoyed the SCIENCE, I think it or something similar has been posted before on this topic.
I think you are also reflecting my point in that not all carbon shoes are created equally & most owner's are in the wrong shoe. I'd say most companies produce/ tune the shoes as per there top tier athletes, they know who's likely to place high, so that's all they worry about. They know this will help sell to the parkrun masses.
Disclosure I have/ had 2 carbon & 1 nylon plated pairs. All of my pb have been in them from 1mile to the half. These were done on my own during lockdown when I got super keen.
My only other questions are if they are cheating, who is being cheated & if running is no longer 'pure' what sport is?
5
« Last post by ferret on Today at 03:50:48 pm »
how hard is it overall, which is the only thing that actually hangs together. I'd agree, nothing that would get 8a as a bolted route makes any sense at E4. If you have 2 routes that have are both safe and would get the same French grade they should get the same E grade regardless if one has a short very hard crux and the other is a pump fest. It's the technical grade that should change not the E grade.
6
« Last post by SA Chris on Today at 03:40:08 pm »
You are struggling with you cycling comparisons Chris. No one rides skinny tyres in road races these days. 
Clearly! Anyway, point being if i want to improve my bike times it's easier to drop £10K on a bike to replace my 10 year old aluminium cyclocross bike than to buy into the equivalent of a Lattice training program.
7
« Last post by remus on Today at 03:28:38 pm »
For sure. But after that, if someone still wants to end their life, then I think they should be allowed to do so.
8
« Last post by Stabbsy on Today at 03:20:35 pm »
I'm with Duma on this one, but possibly for slightly different reasons. A lot of the studies into carbon shoes show that there are responders and non-responders to each shoe. One runner might get no benefit from shoe A vs. shoe B where another might get a 4% efficiency saving at a particular pace. That 4% saving might convert to 1% impact in marathon time (based on the studies from the original Nike Vaporfly). Marathons are won and lost by less than that, so we're saying that the winner of the marathon isn't the best runner, it's a combination of runner and the right shoe for them. Runners don't get to chose their shoe, they get the shoe from their sponsor which they may or may not respond to. That then means that the result of marathons could be determined by who is sponsored by which brand.
Full disclosure - I own and have raced in a pair of carbon road shoes. My 10k PB (2022) was in a pair of Saucony carbon shoes and it's a second quicker than my 10k PB without carbon shoes (from 2016). My HM PB (also from 2022) isn't in carbon shoes, but that might just be because I didn't own any at the time. Out of choice, I prefer the "feel" of running in the non-carbon shoes. I probably wouldn't bother with carbon off-road shoes - particularly the Saucony ones as the first generation had a rep for falling apart.
9
« Last post by stone on Today at 03:20:01 pm »
[ But equally forcing someone who has expressed a clear wish to die to live against their will, while they descend into madness, or suffer in great pain for months or years, is obscene.
I thought though he made a good point about how much our feelings get directed by people we interact with. The comment Will linked to offered solidarity and good humour to help counter even the most challenging circumstances. It's great to champion that approach IMO.
10
« Last post by webbo on Today at 03:14:17 pm »
Thanks for the patronising nonsense webbo. I understand carbon plated shoes just fine thanks.
For 20 years most of the pro peleton was doping. Assume you agree that doesn't make it ok.
"Only as good as the runner" what an unmitigated crock of shit.
I’m not sure what your point is Duma as I haven’t commented on carbon shoes. I was making a tongue in cheek comment to SAchris but there you go.
|
Recent Posts