A Brush With Greatness: The Puma Shoe That Upended the 1968 Olympics

[TWalsh]

https://www.si.com/track-and-field/2...-1968-olympics

[gm]

I enjoyed this piece. Very informative!

[gh]

Unfortunately, the very first line is sadly (way) off the mark:

<<For much of 1968, Tommie Smith and John Carlos were just two college sprinters...>>

Neither was a college sprinter. Smith had already graduated and Carlos was in a transfer year, running as a club athlete.

Smith, of course, was a multiple WR setter (in both 200 and 400) and Carlos had been No. 3 in the World Rankings in '67.

[Master403]

When I read this article from the headline page, it proved to be much more interesting and informative than I anticipated.

My huge disclaimers are that I was 20% slower than these guys and more a middle distance runner. During the transition to synthetic surfaces, I thought that other runners were making a mistake with their spikes.

On "dirt" tracks, spikes need to penetrate the surface for traction. It seemed to me that on a synthetic surface, the spike only needed to indent the surface to get traction. I concluded that any penetration past that would create unnecessary drag pulling the spikes back out of the track. My solution was to use indoor spikes outdoors, and I felt that gave me an advantage over runners who used the same spikes for both surfaces.

For the torque produced by Smith and Evans, the use of indoor spikes probably would not have produced enough traction. The brush spikes seem to have been the perfect solution to providing enough traction while reducing drag, thus taking full advantage of the new synthetic tracks. In addition, these shoes would have reduced wear on those tracks.

That's a sample size of one, and I'm interested in other thoughts.

It's no coincidence that this article surfaced during the discussion of VaporFly. I think brush spikes and VaporFly should both be legal. Neither gives an artificial assist. One reduces drag, the other reduces energy loss in cushioning.

[gh]

....
It's no coincidence that this article surfaced during the discussion of VaporFly. I think brush spikes and VaporFly should both be legal. Neither gives an artificial assist. One reduces drag, the other reduces energy loss in cushioning.

actually, I talked to the author of the piece months before the Vaporfly became a thing.

[Master403]

actually, I talked to the author of the piece months before the Vaporfly became a thing.

It depends what you mean by "became a thing." We had posts back to March 2017 on several aspects of legality of the Monza project, including legality of the shoes.

This article was published 11 months ago
https://runningmagazine.ca/sections/...ese-shoes-are/

Maybe I should have just said that an article about events 50 years ago was very timely.

[scottmitchell74]

Just read this. What a GREAT article. Very fascinating. And that is a very good looking shoe.

[wamego relays champ]

Kudos to the writer for chasing down so many people involved for their current recollection of those days, such as Art Simburg and the rarely-heard-from Dick Bank.

[gh]

Assuming this is the same guy, Mr. Simburg might not have been hard to track down.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/lo...ld-transaction

[wamego relays champ]

Assuming this is the same guy, Mr. Simburg might not have been hard to track down.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/lo...ld-transaction

Yes, same guy. Interesting.