I bought a pair of adidas Countrys recently and I couldn't swear that they're the exact model that I had in the 70s, but they're awfully similar to what I remember -- nylon/leather upper, not much heel, thin midsole, gum rubber outsole, and very light.
Warming down wrote:
For the old timers, do you think you would've had faster PRs had you trained in today's shoes back when you were young? Would you have been injured less? Would you have had different kinds of injury? I ask because I find the times and mileages done during the late 60s incredible. Surely Clayton could've run faster than 2:08 wearing decent shoes. Or is there more to this than meets the eye? Thanks.
Yes, it would be nice to say that my PRs would be better with better shoes, and they probably would be. Most companies "back then" concentrated on making training shoes, and paid little attention to racing flats. Believe it or not, my training partner Ron Daws made our racing flats. They were very light, as he used a soft foam rubber material similar to beach flip-flops, as the mid-sole. They were extremely light, but were good for maybe ONE marathon, as they tended to compress easily. I saw the flats Frank Shorter wore before the 1976 Olympic Marathon Trials. Made by Tiger, they looked like spikes minus the plate and a thin layer of outer sole added for cushioning. Very light, but probably only guys like Frank or BR could wear these shoes....and survive. I think today's flats would have benefitted yesterday's elites, but just how much is tough to say.
Warming down wrote:
For the old timers, do you think you would've had faster PRs had you trained in today's shoes back when you were young? Would you have been injured less? Would you have had different kinds of injury? I ask because I find the times and mileages done during the late 60s incredible. Surely Clayton could've run faster than 2:08 wearing decent shoes. Or is there more to this than meets the eye? Thanks.
My question would be how many stress fractures did we have back then. The term was not invented yet, just "my leg hurts" A little Cramergesic and off you go. At least not at good old Central Missouri State College.
And our athletice trainers barely let us Xc guys in their training rooms. Those were reserved for the football team athletes.
Charlie
May 1972 I bought a new pair of Adidas Tokyo spikes for state mett, maybe around $40 but they were the top of the line.
Cramergesic. I can almost smell it now. I remember a high school that had a "Hot Nuts" club. You got in after someone smeared Cramergesic in your jock when you weren't looking. But I'll take the other side on this from you, Steve amd Orville. I liked the old shoes better mostly because the higher, cushioned, heels of modern shoes doesn't sit well with me.
Bingo! Remember those things well. Not much there at all. Okay for cross country where we were always on grass or dirt, but just killed my arches in track season when we never got off our rock hard crushed brick track.
Warming down wrote:
For the old timers, do you think you would've had faster PRs had you trained in today's shoes back when you were young? Would you have been injured less? Would you have had different kinds of injury? I ask because I find the times and mileages done during the late 60s incredible. Surely Clayton could've run faster than 2:08 wearing decent shoes. Or is there more to this than meets the eye? Thanks.
No. Thank god we didnt have the big clunkers we have to run in today. I ran in very light and cheap tennis shoes a lot and was never injured. I cant remember many guys complaining about being injured back then. Now, about 1/2 of all runners are injured every year. There is no evidence that modern running shoes prevent injury nor enable one to run faster. My first real running shoes cost $6 in 1960 and I wore them for several years with no problems. Here is an interesting article:
http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2006/08/athletic_footwe.htmlCaveman wrote:
No. Thank god we didnt have the big clunkers we have to run in today. I ran in very light and cheap tennis shoes a lot and was never injured. I cant remember many guys complaining about being injured back then. Now, about 1/2 of all runners are injured every year. There is no evidence that modern running shoes prevent injury nor enable one to run faster. My first real running shoes cost $6 in 1960 and I wore them for several years with no problems. Here is an interesting article:
http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2006/08/athletic_footwe.html
$6 for shoes 50 years ago (when there were no top-end expensive shoes) is probably about on par with $60-70 for shoes today. In other words, nice dress shoes now can be $150-200. Cheap dress shoes are about half that. Running shoes are about the same way, but back in 1960 there were expensive dress shoes, but NO expensive running shoes. So a $6 shoe is not that cheap. There were $1000 cars in 1960 as well.
But did they really last for 3 years or more? That seems like a stretch? I was able to use two or three pairs of training flats and make them last for a 3000 mile year, and use spikes for 35 races and 1-2 workouts during the season each week. But I weighed 120.
Ah. The old Sauconys that, as I look back, must have weighed at least 12 ounces or more. Thick rubber soles (and very rigid).
BTW, the Balboa Stadium track in San Diego (Lindgren et al) was a "rubberized" asphalt that was more the latter than the former.
On the track, I spent a few weeks pay to get myself a pair of Azteca Golds for the 220-880. Training shoes were either Chuck Taylors or some old NB shoes with a squegee like sole. First marathon was run in Adidas country could I have run faster in something else? anything else? No doubt!
For modern shoes that are most like the `70s models, I'd recommend the recent Nike Skylons. They have minimal heel lift and no gimmickry.
That forgotten sawtooth-soled brand was the prototype New Balance. I got a pair in the mail, but they felt very weird and I sent them back.
I also sent away for a pair of blue kangaroo-suede Arthur Lydiard racing flats in 1977 after seeing an ad in Runners' World. (They were sent from New Zealand and took about a month to arrive.) They were like slippers--hardly any cushioning at all, 5 ounces apiece for a U.S. men's size 10. They felt great, and I ran a marathon PR at Boston in them.
Ralph Serna, who won two NCAA DII XC titles (he tied intentionally with two UCI teammates, Steve Scott and Eric Hulst, the second time), always trained in racing flats. He was doing high mileage and ran 2:14 around then, and I don't remember him ever getting injured. He weighed about 115 pounds and had as perfect running form as I've ever seen, which may have let him get away with the racing flats, but I think you're on the right track to be looking at the "less is more" shoe idea, as explained well by Chris McDougall in "Born to Run."
We liked the Bata Bullets a lot. There probably is no modern day equivalent.
As I recall, there were only a couple of running shoe choices in the late 60s, and those were Puma, adidas and Onitsuka Tiger. My first running shoes were leather Pumas and they fell apart quickly. By the early 70s, there were more models to choose from but basically the same brands. They were all poorly cushioned and very hard on your feet and body. Bad blisters on my feet were commonplace. I am amazed at the current choices of shoes for runners. They all feel great to me!
newname wrote:
Caveman wrote:No. Thank god we didnt have the big clunkers we have to run in today. I ran in very light and cheap tennis shoes a lot and was never injured. I cant remember many guys complaining about being injured back then. Now, about 1/2 of all runners are injured every year. There is no evidence that modern running shoes prevent injury nor enable one to run faster. My first real running shoes cost $6 in 1960 and I wore them for several years with no problems. Here is an interesting article:
http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2006/08/athletic_footwe.html$6 for shoes 50 years ago (when there were no top-end expensive shoes) is probably about on par with $60-70 for shoes today. In other words, nice dress shoes now can be $150-200. Cheap dress shoes are about half that. Running shoes are about the same way, but back in 1960 there were expensive dress shoes, but NO expensive running shoes. So a $6 shoe is not that cheap. There were $1000 cars in 1960 as well.
But did they really last for 3 years or more? That seems like a stretch? I was able to use two or three pairs of training flats and make them last for a 3000 mile year, and use spikes for 35 races and 1-2 workouts during the season each week. But I weighed 120.
I know I wore those shoes for a long, long time probably 2 or 3 years, maybe more. I used to take them down to the local shoe maker to get them rehabed once in a while. He would put on some patches here and there for very little money. We never gave much thought to shoes in those days. Most shoes were more or less the same thing, just a thin piece of leather for a sole and some light material for the upper. I forgot that I won a pair of shoes at the Around the Bay 30K in 1963 so I actually had 2 pair at that point. Shoes were about the last thing we thought about, no big deal. Today, of course, its a religion involving lots of tall tales designed to separate you from your dough.
My first pair in 1979 were from Sears - the Winner. I think they had 4 stripes, but other than that, they look like these babies:
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=12247500
Flexibility and cushioning were not their strong suit. These were all about style.
They look a lot like the adidas SL 72. JC Penney also had a shoe that was pretty much an SL 72 knock off. Ron Daws was keen on them.
HRE wrote:
They look a lot like the adidas SL 72. JC Penney also had a shoe that was pretty much an SL 72 knock off. Ron Daws was keen on them.
Yes, Rich, Ron liked this shoe, which was like an Adidas SL72/76. Ron felt that many shoes were getting to be too gimmicky. I remember New Balance gave me several models to run in and give to Daws to critique. When the R & D guy came in to Minneapolis to get our opinions, Ron let him have it, saying there was way too much cushion, toe box was too narrow, too heavy, etc, etc. Gee, we never got shoes from them again!
I think today's recreational runner may need a little more cushion, but an efficient, lighter-weight runner would be better-served running in minimalist shoes. I have read studies that said the more expensive the shoe, the higher incidence of injuries. When I was still training (and owned a running store!), I always opted for the lightweights to train in, forgoing the $125 models that I thought were over-engineered and "clunky".
Nike around 1974 had something called the "orabi" or something similar that was totally minimalist.
gorney wrote:
Nike around 1974 had something called the "orabi" or something similar that was totally minimalist.
Yes, they sure did. I'm not sure of the spelling, but you're close...maybe obori (?). I believe that it was named after a famous park in Japan. We always thought of it as a very light training shoe, until Bill Rodgers wore them in his epic 1975 Boston win. He had to re-tie one shoe, which was kind of characteristic of that shoe; they had to be TRIPLE-knotted! After Bill's great race, the Nike Obori was considered a racing flat. For that era, it was a great shoe,combining flexibility and cushion and was reasonably light.
I think it was "Ohbori" and it was named after a Japanese park. Both Nike and Tiger made it. I don't know what Tiger called it after they had to change all of their shoe's names. I've seen photos of Rodgers in both the Nike and Tiger versions.