Here is an interesting statistic.
The argument for cushioned running shoes is that they protect you and help you run faster.
How can it be then that the country that produces the most 'innovative' running shoes ie America has not produced a winner for the NYC marathon or Boston Marathon in nearly 30 years in both mens and womens categories.
In the NYC marathon the last American born runner to win was in 1982, since then there have been 15 African winners in the mens category.
The last woman winner was in 1977, well over 30 years ago, there have been 7 African women winners.
For the Boston Marathon, similar statistics.
Last American man winner was in 1983 and since then there have been 21 no less, African runners who have won.
Last American woman winner in 1983 and since then there have been 12 African runners who have won.
Why could this be? Could it, by any chance be due to the Africans having stronger feet and, more than likely not had access to the latest and greatest running shoes.
My argument is not original, the question has been asked before.
It's been argued that they win because they have to run as it is the only way they had to get to school when children, but that is just training, nothing special.
What about the altitude, can it be that they have better lung function. There must be high altitude places in America also so why can't runners train there.
A mystery eh?
Neil
The argument for cushioned running shoes is that they protect you and help you run faster.
How can it be then that the country that produces the most 'innovative' running shoes ie America has not produced a winner for the NYC marathon or Boston Marathon in nearly 30 years in both mens and womens categories.
In the NYC marathon the last American born runner to win was in 1982, since then there have been 15 African winners in the mens category.
The last woman winner was in 1977, well over 30 years ago, there have been 7 African women winners.
For the Boston Marathon, similar statistics.
Last American man winner was in 1983 and since then there have been 21 no less, African runners who have won.
Last American woman winner in 1983 and since then there have been 12 African runners who have won.
Why could this be? Could it, by any chance be due to the Africans having stronger feet and, more than likely not had access to the latest and greatest running shoes.
My argument is not original, the question has been asked before.
It's been argued that they win because they have to run as it is the only way they had to get to school when children, but that is just training, nothing special.
What about the altitude, can it be that they have better lung function. There must be high altitude places in America also so why can't runners train there.
A mystery eh?
Neil