Allowing a bicycle would be like if swimming competitions allowed fins. A more accurate mapping to the swimming strokes would be race walking, which is widely ridiculed.
Agreed. Wasn't track barefoot back in the day? I mean even shoes are an advantage. Swimming sped up after goggles and swimcaps were accepted. I think it's all just where do you decide to draw the line? I've thought badminton is an odd sport, the shuttlecock is so slow anyone can (normally) play it - it's very inefficient. And don't get me started on equestrian if grandpa can win it then shouldn't the horse get the medal?
For sprints, shoes give additional traction for faster starts, but don't increase running efficiency. For distance events, shoes were just extra weight, and barefoot runners have won Olympic competitions.[1] Recently, springy "super shoe" designs have shown up.[2] They've been banned from most competitions, but it looks like less effective versions of the design are still allowed under current rules.
I would prefer that shoes be restricted to designs that don't allow for higher efficiency than barefoot running, but sport rules tend to lag technology advances.
The economic survival of running as an elite or professional sport depends on sponsorship from shoe companies. So super shoes aren't going to be banned. It's too late to go back.
World Athletics defines the rules for shoes in most running events. They're limited to a stack height of 20mm or 40mm depending on the event (along with certain other limits).
Finswimming is actually a separate sport, just not an olympic sport. Although it has some exciting characteristics like very fast 50 meter races, which I enjoy as a "regular" (non-fins) swimmer.
No, if efficiency can be used to evaluate if a sport is legit, only cycling should be allowed. No running or swimming. The point is that efficiency is an asinine ground to judge a sport on.
Allowing a bicycle would be like if swimming competitions allowed fins. A more accurate mapping to the swimming strokes would be race walking, which is widely ridiculed.
Agreed. Wasn't track barefoot back in the day? I mean even shoes are an advantage. Swimming sped up after goggles and swimcaps were accepted. I think it's all just where do you decide to draw the line? I've thought badminton is an odd sport, the shuttlecock is so slow anyone can (normally) play it - it's very inefficient. And don't get me started on equestrian if grandpa can win it then shouldn't the horse get the medal?
For sprints, shoes give additional traction for faster starts, but don't increase running efficiency. For distance events, shoes were just extra weight, and barefoot runners have won Olympic competitions.[1] Recently, springy "super shoe" designs have shown up.[2] They've been banned from most competitions, but it looks like less effective versions of the design are still allowed under current rules.
I would prefer that shoes be restricted to designs that don't allow for higher efficiency than barefoot running, but sport rules tend to lag technology advances.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Vaporfly_and_Tokyo_2020_O...
The economic survival of running as an elite or professional sport depends on sponsorship from shoe companies. So super shoes aren't going to be banned. It's too late to go back.
World Athletics defines the rules for shoes in most running events. They're limited to a stack height of 20mm or 40mm depending on the event (along with certain other limits).
https://worldathletics.org/about-iaaf/documents/book-of-rule...
Finswimming is actually a separate sport, just not an olympic sport. Although it has some exciting characteristics like very fast 50 meter races, which I enjoy as a "regular" (non-fins) swimmer.
No, if efficiency can be used to evaluate if a sport is legit, only cycling should be allowed. No running or swimming. The point is that efficiency is an asinine ground to judge a sport on.