" Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

[SQUACKEE]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

....My question is couldnt the standard amount of spikes have just the right balance of grip and grab if they were the perfect lenght and thickness. In other words, what was it about the brush spikes that achieved the better balance between grip and grab......

Nobody knows if the brush spikes were any better. They were declared illegal because they had too many spikes for the rules, not because they were producing unbelievable results.

Thanx gh, that clears it up.

[gh]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

....My question is couldnt the standard amount of spikes have just the right balance of grip and grab if they were the perfect lenght and thickness. In other words, what was it about the brush spikes that achieved the better balance between grip and grab......

Nobody knows if the brush spikes were any better. They were declared illegal because they had too many spikes for the rules, not because they were producing unbelievable results.

[tandfman]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

Please forgive all these questions, i havent wore any spikes since 1973.

You might not recognize the bottom of a racing shoe today. It's nothing like what you wore in 1973.

[SQUACKEE]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

I never understood how they could be helpful. With the traditional 4 spiked -spikes you had 100% traction, right? You cant have more than 100% :?

Actually, you can have more than 100% traction. (not speaking in pure scientific terms)

If your spikes penetrate deep into the substrate and it requires extra effort on your part to pull them back out, you're wasting energy.

This simple-to-understand-but-difficult-to-overcome equation is one reason tracks are so much faster today than they used to be. The manufacturers of both tracks and shoes have honed their compositions so that there is minimal energy dissipation on each foot strike.

As Spock would say, Fascinating Captain. I understand how too much "grip" could slow the sprinter, imagine sprinting barefoot on fly paper. My question is couldnt the standard amount of spikes have just the right balance of grip and grab if they were the perfect lenght and thickness. In other words, what was it about the brush spikes that achieved the better balance between grip and grab. Is it the fact of many little spikes are always gonna be better than fewer? How many spikes are legal these days? And what could Bolt run in brush spikes? 9.49?

Please forgive all these questions, i havent wore any spikes since 1973.

[gh]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

I never understood how they could be helpful. With the traditional 4 spiked -spikes you had 100% traction, right? You cant have more than 100% :?

Actually, you can have more than 100% traction. (not speaking in pure scientific terms)

If your spikes penetrate deep into the substrate and it requires extra effort on your part to pull them back out, you're wasting energy.

This simple-to-understand-but-difficult-to-overcome equation is one reason tracks are so much faster today than they used to be. The manufacturers of both tracks and shoes have honed their compositions so that there is minimal energy dissipation on each foot strike.

[NMTraxter]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

The shoes commonly worn today would have been illegal in l968. The little pointed "nubbins" and the outside edges of the shoes which have long, thin "nubbins" I'm sure would increase traction and prevent side to side movement of one's foot.

I'm looking at a pair of "swoosh brand" sprinters shoes, about 5 years old. There are 10 spikes. There are 86 little pointed "nubbins" and 16 long slim "nubbins"around the outside edge of the shoe. The heel has a net like covering with probably 250 very small "nubbins" (gh, I love that word) completly enclircling the heel area. This is ONE shoe.

So do the new shoes increase traction and reduce side to side rollover?
I would answer, "Without a doubt"!

You were allowed 4-6 spikes in 1968 shoes, and a very slightly "wrinkled" rubber sole. Did they give l00% traction?
No, I don't believe so, and I think the shoes today are superior to those worn in the "good old days"!

Technology improves in every sport, golf and Track & Field are no exceptions.

[Conor Dary]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

The shoes weren't especially hard on the Tartan track as it had a self sealing/repair characteristic due to its chemical makeup. The resin would flow back together after a short time.
Originally the Tartan was developed so an executive (CEO?) at 3M corporation could run his race horses on it and prevent them being injured while training. It worked too, but it cost over a million dollars to install at a 1 mile horse track. (This is l968 dollars) So 3M started marketing it as a human track covering.

At the time the going rate in national championship races paid by Adidas and Puma was $500 and up into the thousands depending upon how well known you were in the track community. Adidas and Puma were in a real "war" to get well known athletes to wear their shoes and they paid athletes under the table.

In those days, Avery Brundage and others wanted their athletes to be amateurs, competing for the sheer joy of it, untainted by being paid money. How an athlete was to put food on the table and pay the rent was not addressed by the USOC. That's why athletes tended to have short careers back then.

It was known soon after the races that they would not be recognized as world records due to the extra spikes.

Interesting about the self repair of tartan tracks. As to the shoe wars, and the IOC's lunacy, I remember that well. At the time they even were proposing having the athletes run in all white shoes without any brand markings. I had a couple of pairs of all white Tiger Marathons that Asics had made in anticipation of a ban, but it never happened.

[SQUACKEE]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

I never understood how they could be helpful. With the traditional 4 spiked -spikes you had 100% traction, right? You cant have more than 100% :?

[gh]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

The Phil Mickelson situation made me think of the " Brush" shoes controversy at the FOT's in 1968, when Evans' WR was disallowed, as was Carlos' WR, due to their wearing of " brush" shoes, in conflict with the rules that stated a maximum # of "spikes" were allowed, and the large # of brush thingies exceeded this allowed #.

All well and good, but my question is, Why did they wear them if they were illegal ? Did they not know ? Or did they know and do so anyway ?
And did anyone in Officialdom know ahead of time that they were wearing them ?

As I recall, Puma took the stance that their protrusions weren't "spikes" so they weren't illegal. They lost.

Of course, some of today's shoes have all kinds of nubbins on them that have been allowed to work their way around the spike-restriction rule.

[lonewolf]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

NMTraxter was a national/world class sprinter in the brief brush shoe era. I believe he knows whereof he speaks.

[Marlow]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

They had to think them legal, or Puma would not have even made them! Kinda hard to sell shoes that no one will wear.

[NMTraxter]

Re: " Brush" Shoes at 1968 Finals Trials

The shoes weren't especially hard on the Tartan track as it had a self sealing/repair characteristic due to its chemical makeup. The resin would flow back together after a short time.
Originally the Tartan was developed so an executive (CEO?) at 3M corporation could run his race horses on it and prevent them being injured while training. It worked too, but it cost over a million dollars to install at a 1 mile horse track. (This is l968 dollars) So 3M started marketing it as a human track covering.

At the time the going rate in national championship races paid by Adidas and Puma was $500 and up into the thousands depending upon how well known you were in the track community. Adidas and Puma were in a real "war" to get well known athletes to wear their shoes and they paid athletes under the table.

In those days, Avery Brundage and others wanted their athletes to be amateurs, competing for the sheer joy of it, untainted by being paid money. How an athlete was to put food on the table and pay the rent was not addressed by the USOC. That's why athletes tended to have short careers back then.

It was known soon after the races that they would not be recognized as world records due to the extra spikes.

[Conor Dary]

I don't think they were illegal at the time. After all, I don't think it occurred to anyone that some one would want to race in shoes that had dozens of spikes. Then the shoes came, and if I remember right, they were pretty hard on track surfaces, ergo....out they went.

[kuha]

Just a guess...but, this was right at the height of the "shoe wars" and so perhaps Puma paid them enough money up front that they didn't care about the records...

[dukehjsteve]

The Phil Mickelson situation made me think of the " Brush" shoes controversy at the FOT's in 1968, when Evans' WR was disallowed, as was Carlos' WR, due to their wearing of " brush" shoes, in conflict with the rules that stated a maximum # of "spikes" were allowed, and the large # of brush thingies exceeded this allowed #.

All well and good, but my question is, Why did they wear them if they were illegal ? Did they not know ? Or did they know and do so anyway ?
And did anyone in Officialdom know ahead of time that they were wearing them ?