JD is certainly not fat, and as for out of touch, I'd say he is more connected w/ all levels of runners (except elites, who never go to shoe stores) and manufacturers than 99 per cent of the people in the industry.
JD is certainly not fat, and as for out of touch, I'd say he is more connected w/ all levels of runners (except elites, who never go to shoe stores) and manufacturers than 99 per cent of the people in the industry.
any chance of JD seeing this thread Marc and or JimG?
maybe he could respond to some of the more valid questions / points made on this thread?
Since you two guys are from RT, what are your feelings about shoes and the minimalist idea?
JimG and Marc:
Unrelated question, but regarding that fiction section you do in the magazine, have you thought of the stories two guys on this site have written?
Both are original stories that got great feedback from the viewers of this site and were posted in installment.
One is here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=923406&thread=905298
The other, which is longer, is here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=878231&page=0
I for one, as a subscriber, would be very interested in seeing those 30 pages of race ads and all the other advertising be slightly downgraded for a monhtly installment of fiction, and above there are two guys who have provided the first story. That's a way for RT to attract more readers and catch RW, which is the biggest sellout joke of a "running" magazine out there.
Marc Chalufour wrote:
Whether you agree with J.D.'s thoughts or not, it should be noted that he devoted a column to this topic about a year ago:
http://www.runningtimes.com/issues/04oct/shoeguy.htmHRE - I'm not sure who you spoke with, but if you're interested in writing for any magazine, only an editor, and the editor-in-chief in particular, can tell you whether a story fits into their editorial plans.
Marc Chalufour
Managing Editor
Running Times
This column hardly addresses what is perhaps the main issue in this topic--why do almost all current running shoes have such a big difference between heel and forefoot? And is there something to be said for weaning one's self off of high-heeled shoes and running in "flatter" shoes so that one's calves, feet, lower legs become stronger? JD's "those lighter shoes are all fine and good for the efficient whippets" sidesteps the issue of whether many runners can, over time, train their bodies to run in as little shoe as possible, and it ignores the question of why the shoe companies think we all need these massive crash pads between us and the ground. I don't see how a lot of runners wearing less shoe is a threat to the shoe industry, given the price and low durability of most racing flats, which, unfortunately, are almost the only current models without a ridiculously high heel. Another way for JD to address the same issue is to talk about why so many of today's "racing shoes" are akin to standard training shoes of 20 years ago. He'll probably throw out some generalization about how serious and fast everyone was 20 years ago, but that's a copout.
I agree with Mr. Succint and would add that if Denton's profit motive requires him to deal in advertisements and shout outs to various shoe companies, none of the above would be compromised by giving due credit to the racing flats.
If Denton has to fawn over Nike's shoes, why not fawn over the Zoom Miler? It's still a Nike shoe, but he can advertise those brands and still acknowledge the benefits of racing flats.
Mr. Succint lived up to his name in noting that Denton's copout with regard to wearing flats (only the efficient people can wear them) sidesteps the real issue and incorrectly dismisses it as something for only a minority of runners.
ghost racers wrote:
any chance of JD seeing this thread Marc and or JimG?
maybe he could respond to some of the more valid questions / points made on this thread?
Since you two guys are from RT, what are your feelings about shoes and the minimalist idea?
I'll pass the link on to JD - what he does after that is up to him.
From my own perspective, I think shoes have greatly improved over the past quarter century (better, more durable and customizable materials) while at the same time have become over-engineered. I think the midsole "bridge" that seems to be in every model out there may be a culprit. When I first started running the most common malady runners had was shin splints - plantar fasciitis was so uncommon we couldn't even spell it, and the only guys w/ achilles problems were those who raced in spikes a lot.
Now it seems there's an epidemic of those two maladies, and a brief survey of this board would seem to back that up. Runners aren't doing more mileage than they were 25 yrs ago (in fact the average is probably less) so there has to be some other reason, and the only thing I can think of is the shoes.
Damn, I wish I still had a pair of Brooks Villanovas in my closet - I'd break 'em out tomorrow. Come to think of it, I might actually have a pair of adidas Runners stashed away - if the rubber midsole hasn't hardened to the consistency of concrete, I may give 'em a try.
Jim and Marc, sorry to be a pain, and perhaps I should start another thread, but if you have time, let us know about that RT fiction Q I noted above.
Thanks.
We love to publish running fiction, but good examples of it are hard to find. I'll check out those links.
I think the introduction of minimalist shoes is great. Anything that gives runners a broader choice of shoes/styles to choose from is a positive development (plus, it gives everyone here something to debate between Ritz/Webb showdowns).
Personally, I've always felt the need for a little bit of motion control, so I haven't run in any minimalist shoes, short of racing in spikes/road racers. I did pick up a pair of the Frees, though, and having walked around in them quite a bit can say that they're easily the most comfortable shoes I've ever owned. I'm sure I'll do a short runs in them at some point.