1970s running shoes

thecatspjs

Just browsing for some new trainers and I came across these

http://www.lifestylesports.com/en/restofworld/all-brands/mens-elite/invt/11834110

The description says that they are inspired by a 1970s style of running shoe. I did a quick google and had a look at the types of runners worn by athletes back then. They are quite different to today's models.

So my question is - Would I be just as well using a pair of the Nikes in the link when I go for a run? Or are the modern style running shoes just better in every way?

I assume some (most?) of it comes down to personal preference but I would like to hear any opinions on the matter anyway.

Krusty_Clown

I think you're missing part of the blurb:

Pair these trainers with jeans and a zip up track top to form part of your new season sportswear look.

thecatspjs

Ah yes, I know that they are fashion items first and foremost but what would the difference between these and the running shoes of the 70's be? Different material on the soles? Support?

Forgetting about the link:
Would the shoes of the past be seen as relics that have no place in running these days for any reason? They seem so far removed from what people run in today that I'm wondering if there was found to be some disadvantage to using them or something.

Krusty_Clown

These shoes are replicas of those shoes from the seventies, so regardless of the suitability of shoes from the seventies, I wouldn't imagine that these are suitable for exercise.

Yes shoes have changed dramatically in the ensuing forty years (and many would argue that they have developed in a counterproductive manner, but these days, shoes are as light as they were back then, however, with far more cushioning and support. Is the cushioning and support really necessary? Future generations will surely set us straight. If you want to make a move to minimalist running shoes, it's probably best to consult an authority on the subject, like a specialist running shop.

Sacksian

Having similar questions to the OP, I actually bought a pair of retro runners when I started running:

http://ie.schuh.co.uk/onitsuka-tiger/mens-grey-onitsuka-tiger-ultimate-81/3405917560/

I had initially been recommended a pair of big chunky asics in Arnott's when I said was getting into running but had to give them away after a few runs, due to getting pains in my achilles, and bought the Tigers.

The Tigers worked out fine - did all my training for (and ran) a half-marathon in them - they were cheaper, felt more comfortable and I still have them for casual wear but transitioned to lighter runners.

Really not sure what the difference is between them and the original 70s running shoes?

Caveat: not general advice for everyone - I don't think there is any universally applicable advice for what shoes work best for any individual.

Questioning received wisdom isn't necessarily dangerous or irresponsible. However, that doesn't mean that taking advice from a single internet source (like my opinion) is a great idea either.

christeb

Have a look here to see what Dick Hooper ran in when he won Dublin in 1980. Very similar to the OP.

Personally, I've worn my battered Waffles for the odd runmute home when I don't have trainers handy. They're light, cushioned and not as bad as you're think for 6 odd miles!

Krusty_Clown

christeb wrote: »

Have a look here to see what Dick Hooper ran in when he won Dublin in 1980. Very similar to the OP.

He also ran in a pair of boxer shorts. Would you recommend those too?

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wearing these retro runners, just pointing out that the companies that have made them, designed them as a fashion item rather than a performance shoe. They are likely glued together, rather than stitched (as they would have been in the 70s), and may not last as long in running/weather conditions. Your mileage may vary!

ecoli

Sacksian wrote: »

Having similar questions to the OP, I actually bought a pair of retro runners when I started running:

http://ie.schuh.co.uk/onitsuka-tiger/mens-grey-onitsuka-tiger-ultimate-81/3405917560/

I had initially been recommended a pair of big chunky asics in Arnott's when I said was getting into running but had to give them away after a few runs, due to getting pains in my achilles, and bought the Tigers.

The Tigers worked out fine - did all my training for (and ran) a half-marathon in them - they were cheaper, felt more comfortable and I still have them for casual wear but transitioned to lighter runners.

Really not sure what the difference is between them and the original 70s running shoes?

Caveat: not general advice for everyone - I don't think there is any universally applicable advice for what shoes work best for any individual.

Questioning received wisdom isn't necessarily dangerous or irresponsible. However, that doesn't mean that taking advice from a single internet source (like my opinion) is a great idea either.

Irony of this is they are the same company.

Sacksian

ecoli wrote: »

Irony of this is they are the same company.

True! To be fair to Asics, I have since bought Piranhas 3 & 4 and they're incredible, unbelievably light!