Shoes in the 1970s-1990s

Stack height and drop wasn't a thing until just a few years ago. I'll offer that Nike's Eagle in 1980 weighed 5.1 ounces, and was crazy light. And there wasn't a running shoe ever with a 20 front stack height until just a few years ago.

Thanks.

Yes, consistent with my search. I've found shoe mass for a number of models but very little on midsole geometry.

This is the best i've found but it is for children's shoes:

https://www.thedeffest.com/vintage-ads/tag/Stride+Rite+Super-Z

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

Stack height and drop wasn't a thing until just a few years ago. I'll offer that Nike's Eagle in 1980 weighed 5.1 ounces, and was crazy light. And there wasn't a running shoe ever with a 20 front stack height until just a few years ago.

I had a pair of those Eagles. Somehow in the process of going back and forth to college they got lost and I was better off for it.

Unfortunately, the guy your looking for died 2 years ago. Jerry Turner.

Runners World did an annual shoe review from at least the late 70's.

I actually have 1979 and 1980 complications of runners world - obviously their October shoe issues included. Suffice it say that yesteryear's trainers were usually less than today's racers - and as mentioned, shoes like the Eagle and American Eagle, Tiger Ohbori, and Adidas Marathon 80 were must-haves. My Tiger Explorers were my daily trainers, and their stack height was way less than the recent Adios. Just look up pics of the original waffle trainer and your interest will be piqued.

(One brand I wish I had delved into more, was the Brooks line. Their Vantage and Vantage Supreme was cutting edge, along w/ several of their other models.)

With the 80s, you started to see more stack height along with CMEVA and polyurethane midsoles. With the advent of Air, Gel, Hydro-flow, the Grid, etc., stack heights increased, but nothing like today's. (Also interesting, injuries kind of changed accordingly - from foot-type complaints to knees, hips, back, ITBS, etc.)

I still have my Explorers. Great shoe.

It's interesting that by the early 1980s companies had figured out how to make racing shoes very light (5-6 oz), and training shoes pretty light. I'm pretty sure that the NB 620, Nike Terra T/C, and perhaps a few other trainers were well under 10 oz. And, of course, since then many, many training shoes have been well under 10 oz.

Fast forward to today, and we see the following from, most notably, to me, Nike:

- Peg - 9.6 oz

- Infinity - 9.9

- React "MILER" (funny) - ELEVEN POINT ZERO oz.

And this from a company that has a massively cushioned racing shoe (VaporFly) weighing just 6.6. But their lightest trainer is 9.6? Makes little sense. And at the same time that a company like Saucony can have the long-standing Kinvara, at 7.5 oz.

In 2021, it should be embarrassing for any running shoe company to not have most or all of it's well-cushioned trainers well below 10 oz. Again, they figured that out 40 years ago.

I've been running daily since 1975. Through high school I wore a pair of Tiger/ASICS Nairobi that had maybe 15mm of stack height in the heel and 10mm midfoot. Later I wore a pair of New Balance 320s which were the first running shoe with a decent amount of cushioning 22mm heel maybe 15 mm midfoot. I also ran in a pair of the original Nike Waffle trainers which was probably something like 18mm heel and 12mm midfoot. As we got into the early 1980s I remember wearing a pair of Brooks Chariots that resemble modern shoes. I think the short answer to your question is that in the 1970s running shoes had almost no cushioning and hard rubber soles that wore forever but provided very little shock absorption. During the 1980s running shoes began to have far more cushioning and heel lift, not like what we see today but a big leap from earlier models.

Looking back on it, I have no idea how my legs were able to handle 60 miles/week on the shoes we used back then. Our legs must have really toughened up

I still have my 2004 version of Pegasus. I checked their weight and it was around 340 grams. My 1987 Reebok GL6000 were heavy as fck. Lighteight shoes of yesteryear had very little cushioning and fell apart after a few races. You´re just being nostalgic. Old training shoes sucked and were uncomfortable.

You're making a weak argument. And my argument clearly wasn't that shoes haven't, on average, improved. It was, mainly, that all running shoe companies should easily be able to make well-cushioned shoes weighing well under 10 oz. And yet many still aren't - including freakin' Nike.

And it's also untrue that lightweight trainers (and some racers) in the 80s weren't well-cushioned. The 620 was well-cushioned, and light. Perhaps the first "lightweight trainer." About 40 years ago. And it wore pretty well, based on the abuse I saw my much larger father give it. The Terra T/C was similar, but probably didn't wear as well. The Mariah was a very well-cushioned racing shoe.

The Kinvara is a modern-day 620. So many other models fall so short in terms of weight and/or non-clunkiness.

My lifetime shoe progression:

Keds

Tiger Cortez

Adidas Gazelle

Adidas SL-72(I think that was the name)

Nike Daybreak

Nike Pegasus

Old person running shoes

I have no idea what the thickness of these shoes were but I can't imagine they did much to help with pounding on the legs.... from keds thru the pegasus weekly mileage went from 20 (keds) to 110+ (pegasus) no idea how I was able to do all that mileage on those shoes without injury.

Racing flats:

High School - Tiger 'something' (had about 1/4" rubber sole)

College & later - Nike racing flats & spikes

The reason why daily trainers weigh more than a pair of Vaporfly is all about durability. Outsole rubber and a sturdy upper all add considerable weight to a shoe.

If you could be transported back to the 1980s and try a pair of the racer from that time you would probably find that their cushioning was severly lacking compared to a pair of, say Zoom Streak 7.

In people´s memory the weather was always better when the were kids.

I am, indeed, envious. Funny story: I had several pairs of these “sheet EVA” wonders, and ran 70+ mile weeks occasionally. But when ASICS Tiger came out w/ the Excalibur GT, I had to have it. I was immediately hobbled by a strange injury we know now as ITBS - I mean seriously hobbled. The only relief I got was to dig out the old blue/gray explorers. Immediate relief and back into the miles. (The stack height of the GT was significant- as was the orthotic insole)

The 620 had quite a bit of cushioning and an incredible mesh upper. How about the NB 420? You're correct though; by the 80s manufacturers were addressing cushioning as the next great thing - just search the old ads. The V- series by Nike, the original odyssey, the Contrail (my favorite), all using air bags/bladders. The terra tc was the first phylon shoe by Nike, I believe (incredibly unstable, as were also most of the air-shoes.)

I ran only in the Nike Mariah in 1982. I'd race in it, too, and it troubled me tremendously that it was heavier than the Eagle I also had.

I noticed that I could run in the Mariah, recover faster, feel better, and run more. Weird, that.

The Nike Eagle was advertised to be: 'lighter than the box it comes in.'

The NB620 was advertised to be: 'lighter than air.' Nike had just come out with their 'air shoes.'

Converse made a shoe called the "Equinox" which may have been the best shoe I ever owned. Light, cushioned and flexible.

@Weightmatter - I agree...I looked at the Peg over the years and it fluctuates around 10 oz. Why hasn't it got lighter?

@ Steffen - agreed, durability a factor and marketing too...e.g., trail shoes have notoriously heavy-duty upper.

The Terra T/C was marketed primarily as a racing flat and I recall pictures of Carlos Lopes running in them. [There was a Terra Trainer at some point that I never ran in.] According to the ad linked below it weighed 6.7 ounces in Size 9. It was super cushy for a "racing shoe" but I don't remember the Phylon midsole being that durable although it remains one of my favorite shoes. I wish Nike would come out with a new version using Zoom X.