Anyone else try actually running in "retro" shoes.

Millions of people have run in these retro shoes....remember they weren't always retro....at one point in time they were "high tech".

I ordered a pair of Tiger Mexico 66s and a pair of Ultimate 81s two weeks ago. The Mexico 66s are a bit minimalist even for my taste, but I love the Ultimate 81s. I ordered a second pair and may stock up on them. I've also got a pair of Tiger Explorers that date from about the same era and get along well with them. I also had a pair of Tiger Corsairs, originally the Cortez, but they had leather uppers and I'm not fond of leather uppers.

The one problem I have with all the old models is that they tend to rud the top of my second toes raw until they're broken in. That never happens with modern shoes.

Yes, I tried the Mexico '66 too and also found it fairly minimal (though I could use it on the treadmill a bit). But I agree, the Tiger '81 has been a terrific shoe, and I've twice worn it on 20-milers, to the distraction of my training partners. I also find I have to keep out of running stores with them because people will be convinced I've lost it. As to rubbing the second toe, I don't have a solution except to make a cut in the shoe at the appropriate spot. I seem to recall a lot of the older running shoes required micro-surgeries like that. For those who haven't found it; classicsportsshoes.com and shoebizsf.com are both good websites for these kind of shoes. I recently found the Puma Toprunner at a local store and will give it a spin this weekend. Happy trails. --EricG

EricG, thanks for those sites. How does the Tiger '81 fit in the heel? Any problems with rubbing on the achilles? Also, how do they fir size wise?

All this talk recently about training in racing flats and minimalistic retro shoes got me thinking. If people run in these shoes that have very little support and nearly everyone has said that it did increase possible injuries, then why is it recommended that people replace there shoes every 500 miles? (Or whatever mileage it is) Shouldn't the longer you wear a shoe the more it molds to your foot. The only reason I can think of is cushioning, but if people are training in those water slipper things and not having any problems I would think that maybe you could train in one pair of trainers for a very long time. I talked to my coach about the training flat idea and he said that he thought that the "problem" is that shoes are made too well today and you don't build up your foot muscles as much as you would in shoes with less support and cushioning. Makes sense to me, what do you guys think?

The first pair of shoes that I did my first frequent training in, back in 1986 in my Junior year of high school, was those Nike shoes which were predominently white, big red swoosh and blue trim.

Great pair of shoes. Never injured in those.

Jason

I bought a pair of the old Brooks Chariot through Road Runner Sports, these having been my favorite shoe in the early 80s. These used to be state of the art for us 170-pound runners. When I took them out of the box, I was stunned at the lack of everything in the shoe. I was a little afraid to run in them, having grown accustomed to the engineering of today\'s models. I\'ve tried them on recovery days with some over-the-counter inserts. No problems, except they\'re ugly as hell.

Thanks for the responses. I think the thing about some of the older shoes (and also some racing flats) is that being low to the ground is inherently more stable than being up high, so this lets one get away with not having extra stability items (big medial posts, plastic, etc.). Also, a flexible, low to the ground shoe may let the foot and its arch function more naturally -- but it will be an individual issue whether this is a good thing. I don't think any particular flavor of shoe carries no risk of injury. But I started doing this when I was getting older (I'm 39) and noticed that "Old John" Kelley ran Boston at age 80ish in minimalistic old Tigers, and Lydiard in his book argues for wearing a minimalistic shoe which is tight and lets the arch work naturally. It was just interesting to see these viewpoints which oppose the standard advice.

As to some individual points:

To GRDC -- I think the Tiger '81 is quite good in the heel, it has a good heel counter and never slips on me and never hits my Achilles. If it hits your Achilles, you could trim the top of shoe with a razor, but I never needed to.

To BearsXC -- I think some modern shoes wear out at 500 miles because the midsole loses its bounce. These older shoes don't have much midsole or bounce; that is probably the point of them, they are closer to running barefoot. I find it forces me to run lighter and more efficiently, as crashing down on my heel when I land hurts too much to be an option in older shoes. The older shoes mainly wear out when the sole wears out, or the upper breaks. Oddly, for me the shoes that best "form to the feet" are very simple leather shoes; I don't especially hate modern shoes (I've got a lot of 'em), but the new synthetics won't mold to much.

To JasonInBangkok -- I think I might've had the same shoe in '79 (was that the Nike that looked just like the Tiger Corsair?).

To MNChris -- I have a pair of original Chariots too; I still wear them on slow or recovery days when I need a little less intimacy with the ground. But the Chariot was actually a fairly thick, plush, protective shoe when it came out and is pretty stiff relative to the minimalistic retro shoes listed above. It's only the more recent generation of shoes which make the Chariot seem minimalistic. But the Chariot is a great shoe in a lot of ways, beautiful even in its gray ugliness. For real minimalism, try the Tiger Mexico '66 or Puma Topwinner (I think I'm gonna like the Topwinner, just got a pair). It's always amazing that Ron Clark and Ryun and Keino and Bikila (when shod) must've done a lot of miles in these types of shoe.

Happy trails, EricG

EricG,

It was your tip on the \"racing flats\" thread that put me onto classicsports and the Ultimate 81. I\'ve had a pair for a couple of weeks and they\'re great. I\'ve done most of my runs in them and they involve my feet in my running a lot more than modern shoes do.

I think you\'re right about the cushioning and wear issue. Older models lasted longer because the foot and leg were primarily what cushioned the impact of running, though the shoes did some as well. But they were mainly built for durability and wore out when the tread was gone or the heel ground down. You could tell they were worn out because they looked worn out. New models are built to be the primary protection against impact and when that cushioning is gone, the shoe might be worn out. I\'ve found that I can get a lot of wear out of racers, even modern ones, and I assume it\'s because my feet and legs do more of the impact protection than the shoe does.

HRE -- You're quite welcome, happy to help. The '81 is a fun shoe, I find I run "differently" in it than conventional shoes; a little closer to the ground and less bouncy. I think I first ran into them at a local Urban Outfitters, then found the websites I mentioned. I suppose if I see someone else running in them, it's probably you. :>), Happy Trails -- EG

I went to the Boston Marathon Expo today and had a look at the shoe booths. It was pretty discouraging for a "basic shoe" guy. I may go totally retro from now on. I'm starting a search for retro racers.

If you look at pictures of Bill Rodgers between '76 and '82 or so you can see his Onitsuka Tiger racing shoes are nearly identical to the '81's. I'm sure Bill must have done most of his miles in his glory years in that style of shoe.

I wore the Air Mariah's once. The sole of the shoe fell off in the middle of the race. By the end of the race I felt like my feet were on fire, makes a great story though.

Good shoes - yes. Durable shoes - no.

-Sweet Meadow

Awesome thread guys. Bump.

To A_Goofy_Runner: In a sense, anything with "Air" in it isn't completely retro, but I agree that the quality control on some of these things is likely to be variable. For myself, I always liked some of the pre-air Nikes. I'm hoping they bring back the LDV or Waffle Racer.

To HRE: say hi to my kid brother and my training partner at Boston, they're both running -- but I live on the other coast now. Good luck. Also, for carbo loading, a trip to Quincy Market and a twenty dollar bill should do it (be careful of the Carol Ann Bakery -- it can be addictive).

Well, I'm somewhat amazed we've actually had 15+ hits on this thread. Happy trails. -- EG

Eric, How do you find the fit on the '81's? I wore a size 10.5 for years and now seem to require an 11 in the more modern shoes. Do you find that you wear the same size? Thanks

ive done some running in the waffle trainer recently. decent shoe, but running on pavement would kill my feet, but on grass it seems to be excellent. I can feel my tendons and ligaments in my ankle getting stronger as a result of running in them and i havent been doing too much mileage.

Kingster -- I think we're the same sizes; in most shoes I wear an 11, but in the Tiger '81 I'm a 10.5 (actually, in a lot of these old shoes I'm a 10.5, except, oddly enough, the waffle).

Wintermix -- I've had a similar experience with the original Waffle (in which I wear a size 11, see above). It is terrific on fairly civilized trails, like our local city parks. I can wear it on pavement, but the lack of stability seems more noticable there. I do seem to have fond memories of high-school x-country camp in the early 80's, and a lot of the good runners who served as faculty were still wearing the Waffle, even though by then it was a few years away from being current. I also seem to recall you could once order it in your school colors (Henry Rono wore a pair in maroon and silver while at Washington State). I suspect I'm not the only slogger out there jogging in them lately.

Happy trails. EG