Early on in his track career, Ron Hill ran some races sans shoes.
Surprised nobody has mentioned the entire Salazar crew, the Standford 2003 XC team, and other current elites.
That is a fascinating...er, story! And man his form is perfect in that photo- like a stockier Seb Coe.
can of whoopass wrote:
Dale Story, 1961 NCAA XC Champ and Oregon State Alum:
http://thevig.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=7858http://alumni.oregonstate.edu/eclips/carry/images/030504_dale_story.jpgZola Budd, 2-World XC Champ, 14:48 5K barefoot on the track:
http://www2.iaaf.org/wxc97/images/zola_budd86.jpg
Alf Shrubb wrote:
I can’t recall Ron Hill running barefoot on the road, although he most certainly did on occasions on the cinder track and cross-country.
He must have had very strong feet - I bought a pair of his road-racing shoes back then and they were little different to a pair of spikes without the spikes.
Crippled my feet on a mere 6 mile road race and I gave them away after that one run.
I saw the spikes Koman set his 3000 record in and they were so minimalist, he was close to running barefoot.
I ran in the 7oz Ron Hill shoes including my third fastest marathon (almost a PR at the time) and they were fine, light and fast, much better than the current crop of crazy built up shoes. I was quite used to running barefoot though. If you run barefoot or with minimalist shoes like you would in clunkers then sure that would destroy your feet.
Ron Clarke often ran barefoot in training as did many of the guys training at Caulfield racecourse in the 60s (Trevor Vincent, John Coyle, Tony Cook etc)
Ron Hill won the English National xc barefoot and was 6th in OG 10,000m
Ah already up
iamnotconvinced wrote:
The pros who run barefoot do it because that is what is comfortable for them. They grew up running that way. It doesn't make them faster. That's just who they are. Same with the guys who wear shoes.
Barefoot is much faster than shoes.
As 7oz shoes are faster than 12oz clunkers, so is barefoot faster than racing shoes.
Had to post this in response to the above post about Geb. From certain angles, and especially at slow-mo, his stride is pretty ugly, have a look...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAW87NsiGuI
But he is still the fastest of all time!
J.R. wrote:
Barefoot is much faster than shoes.
As 7oz shoes are faster than 12oz clunkers, so is barefoot faster than racing shoes.
Maybe Chris Solinsky can run 12:4X if he takes his shoes off in the next race. If barefoot running was "much faster", then pros would do it regardless of sponsorships. Olympic gold or a world record is worth more to some people than a Nike sponsorship.
I'm not saying there isn't some benefit to barefoot training, but most barefoot runners are naturally talented. Get the average 200lb 4 hour marathoner in barefeet and he will get hurt more quickly than with his Air Pegasus.
Shopping Around wrote:
Oldtimefan wrote:How is that even possible? I mean with all the barefoot folks saying that shoes are a gimic.
What is your point man? Are you being constructive to the conversation? Go jerk off into your Nikes some more.
It is called sarcasm jackass. Nearly every person who tells me they are either a barefoot or minimalist runner swears that shoes are an evil gimic. That the shoe companies are all conspiring against runners to make them slaves to shoes. PLEASE!!!!!!!!! They sound as nutty as the majority of conspiracy theorists.
I believe there is a place for barefoot running as a part of an overall training program. Everything in moderation.
And as for my choice of running shoes you mr overly sensitive prick, it would NEVER be Nikes
Rainy Day wrote:
most barefoot runners are naturally talented. Get the average 200lb 4 hour marathoner in barefeet and he will get hurt more quickly than with his Air Pegasus.
It won't make much of any difference to 200 pound 4 hour marathoners who are used to wearing shoes.
The faster the runner, who is used to running barefoot, the more difference this makes.
In a 10k race between a 125 pound Kenya vs a grunt, each of them carrying 75 pounds on their backs, a reasonably fast and strong grunt might "win" the race, especially if the Kenyan is not able to carry the load. At the least, the grunt will run much faster compared running running without the excess weight. Similarly running barefoot will make a bigger difference to a 125 pound Kenyan than a 165 pound American.
It is the same thing with barefoot vs shoes. If you're 200 pounds, strong as an ox and not used to running barefoot, then going from 7oz shoes to barefoot is not going to make any difference. But for a lightweight runner who is used to running barefoot and fast, this can make a significant difference.
Rainy Day wrote:
If barefoot running was "much faster", then pros would do it regardless of sponsorships. Olympic gold or a world record is worth more to some people than a Nike sponsorship.
Maybe you should tell that to the Africans.
However I seriously doubt they would listen to you.
J.R. you are an idiot!! It's people like you who give the whole BF/minimalist movement a bad name. It's the complete disregard of any sensible discourse that alienates many to your cause.
There is a place for barefoot running for many people, but not everyone. But since much of the racing for average people (not in HS) is on roads (marathons, etc.), barefoot is NOT the way to go for most. Are there elite athletes (Africans and others) who have grown up not wearing shoes? of course. I ran around my local park (~2km) barefoot in my youth, in part because I was was young and could do it, I didn't have fancy shoes anyway and didn't run very far, and it was a soft surface. There is little reason why some with this background couldn't continue now - even with the shoe companies sponsorship - but that doesn't mean it's for everybody.
As to it being "faster" than shoes/spikes - really? I say prove it!! Not anecdotally, but with a proper "unbiased" study. Good luck finding one. This must also account for ALL surfaces on which athletes race.
my neigbor runs barefoot and wins all our local races all the time. his pr is 19:30 or something. really fast runer.
canadeh wrote:
As to it being "faster" than shoes/spikes - really? I say prove it!!
I've already done that. Whoops! Who's the idiot now.
Anyway it doesn't take a genius to see that it 14 ounces is heavier than 0 ounces, or maybe it does, besides all the material of the shoe getting in the way of the feet.
Is it coincidence that all records are set with shoes? Even sprint shoes have reinforced spike plates that add weight. Why doesn't Geb or Hall use the lightest shoes made by Adi or Asics? If minimal or weight were central to speed why don't they take advantage of lighter shoes made by sponsor? Surely they have every interest in running as fast as possible so why not use the lightest shoe at their disposal.
LOONEYBIN : You are incorrect. There are NOT plenty of runners in the lead pack barefoot. The runners in the lead pack are wearing shoes.
I wish I was able to smoke the same acid-dust you do. OOOOHHHHH!!! How I wish!!!!!! OOOHHHH....ahh.. .. .
I ran in the 7oz Ron Hill shoes including my third fastest marathon (almost a PR at the time) and they were fine, light and fast, much better than the current crop of crazy built up shoes. I was quite used to running barefoot though. If you run barefoot or with minimalist shoes like you would in clunkers then sure that would destroy your feet. (quote)
I also saw Dave Bedford wear them when he smashed the record on the long leg of the Southern Road Relay a week after winning the International Cross-Country Championships.
He sat down after, took them off and threw them away.
They were picked up by a colleague in my club, but I never noticed him wearing them afterwards.
