By Kyle Merber
April 22, 2026
With historic road racing times becoming a near-weekly occurrence, TLC contributors Kyle Merber and Scott Fauble decided it was time to check in and unpack just how shoe technology is changing the sport of marathoning—for better or worse.
KM: Your tweet about super shoes ruining elite marathons ignited quite the conversation in my group chats. Are you just being a curmudgeon because everyone ran fast in Boston and in a slightly different universe you’d be a 2:04 guy?
SF: That is very possible. I don’t think I ever had a 2:04 in the tank, except maybe with that tailwind. Although, in a way, this year’s Boston would have been my nightmare—I feasted on carnage. So there is probably some personal bias and some ‘old guy is mad at change’ in there as well.
On the other hand, I might just start slotting myself into seventh place every year and adjust my mental PR accordingly.
KM: If that helps old guys sleep at night then I see no issue! So what about this year’s race reignited the “super shoes = bad” take? I thought we had exhausted this conversation by now. As a fan, how did you enjoy this year’s race vs. previous ones?
SF: As a fan, I liked it less than in previous years. And maybe this year wasn’t the best time to pop off about the lack of blow-ups because of the tailwind. The tailwind is going to help generally, maybe for the sake of my point I should have waited until 10 guys broke 2:08 on a 65-degree day with more normal wind.
I think my general thesis is that road racing is already a relatively “flat” sport compared to ball sports. There’s only so much differentiation we can have between races or racers given the nature of the running. The ongoing optimization of fueling and equipment and bicarb and wave light and lactate testing and data reduces the impact of a lot of the stuff that makes sports fun, which makes me sad.
I think what ignited the take was just watching the second half and knowing that no one was gonna break. Korir surged ahead and that’s awesome. But I didn’t feel like the group as a whole was riding any sort of line where they might be in real trouble and the parachute might really get pulled if they couldn’t hang.
KM: I get that. It’s fun to watch people blow up because it gives you appreciation for those who didn’t. We are still in the middle of redefining what is considered fast in the modern era of marathoning.
On Monday, 28 guys broke 2:10—that was a really competitive time ten years ago. And readers might think this is insulting, but those guys know that’s not good enough to be in the mix for a top international finish anymore. The clock might say it’s a PB, but you’re not contending for a podium or top American honors. All the more reason to focus more on place than time.
SF: Absolutely no disagreement there. I have no problem with people running fast. My issue is that people can now try to run fast with lower risk. I remember how I felt after marathons pre-super shoes (could barely walk) vs. wearing Alphaflys (could’ve run the next day). I want to see more of the internal battle of people having to calculate and deal with the possibility that going out too hard or covering an early move could lead to their legs giving out or bonking.
Right now is the easiest time in history to get a “B” or a “C” grade in the marathon. “A”s are still hard, but there’s a much lower chance of getting an “F.” That’s what I’m longing for: races where athletes know that putting themselves in a spot to get an “A” might cause them to end up with an “F.”
Look at the guys in the 10th to 15th range. For them, Monday was a day with a lot of small, manageable positive splits. Now there’s less downside for everyone, which means it requires less bravery individually. That used to be something I really respected: when someone went out over their head and faded, but survived the send. Now I don’t really feel anything about those performances.
KM: It is definitely easier to hang on now, but maybe they just need to go out even harder? I think in future years we’ll eventually view a 62-minute first half in Boston as conservative.
I don’t believe this is a universal experience though, because the Japanese athletes have continued to take huge risks early in races. There might just be a misalignment of incentives at the moment where the performance bar has raised, but the standards and the contract bonuses are lagging slightly behind.
Have we circled all the way back around to needing rabbits to entice folks to dream a little too big?
SF: The Japanese style of racing is the one thing keeping me optimistic that my hunch here is wrong.
But I guess I’m less optimistic that going out faster will change that much. Shoe tech has essentially changed the calculus in decision-making. You probably aren’t gonna suffer that much in the second half, and you probably aren’t going to catch people who miscalculated because they aren’t gonna blow up. So why do anything other than the boring, predictable race plan?
Maybe contracts being realigned would change things, but I think we’ve kinda crossed the rubicon. Short of totally changing the way we incentivize racing, we’re just going to see more and more “B” races and less variation.
As far as rabbits at Boston, you can just shoot me into the sun if that happens. My whole argument is against optimization. I want weirdness.
KM: Okay, pacing lights it is then.
Kyle Merber
After hanging up his spikes – but never his running shoes – Kyle pivoted to the media side of things, where he shares his enthusiasm, insights, and experiences with subscribers of The Lap Count newsletter, as well as viewers of CITIUS MAG live shows.
