This is going to end up sounding like an ad for a particular brand of running shoes, but I promise that I'm just going to tell the story of my running shoes: what I've worn, how much I've loved them. I suppose it is a testimonial, but I can't help that for most of my running career, my needs have been best served by that particular brand. I did not always run in Sauconys. When I started running on the junior high track team in 1989, I did not have a pair of real running shoes. I ran in whatever shoes I currently owned at the time -- I specifically recall a pair of Reebok three-quarters high tops in white, fuchsia, and purple -- not exactly made for running. I was wearing those Reeboks in my 800m debut and when I ran the race well, our assistant coach suggested I might get shoes that were knee-high and see if I ran even faster. Running shoes have always been relatively expensive, so it wasn't until the following season that I could convince my parents that I really meant to stick with track, because I was pretty good at it, so please could I get a real pair of running shoes?
Impossible to forget that first pair: Nike Air Pegasus, gray and silver with teal. I am not in possession of family photographs from that era, so I can't look through them to find a picture of me wearing them, but that is how I remember them. The difference between actual running shoes and my street shoes, which were probably at the time a pair of stylin' BKs was amazing. Even after the track season, I continued wearing them during my last summer of rec-league softball, and my teammates called me "Wheels" because I was so fast in them. (Not really because of the shoes, though I sure felt faster because of them.)
It was no longer difficult to convince my parents of my need for real running shoes, but I did not yet know that there are different shoes for different types of runners. I wore the Air Structure strictly because I thought they were super-cool. John's Sporting Goods in Iowa City only carried a men's version; I would not consider any other shoes, so they special ordered a pair small enough to fit my feet. Looking back, I can see that the salesman seemed uncertain while I tried them on; now, I imagine he was dying to tell me that there was no way I should be wearing those, but I was so clearly not going to leave that store with anything else, he probably just decided to keep his mouth shut. I was (always have been) a lightweight, 5'6", probably 110 pounds; no doubt the Air Structure were in no way appropriate, but I wore them through the cross-country season and survived. I ran workouts in them and I raced in them, because I didn't even have a pair of spikes for races until toward the end of the season, when the coach provided me with a used red and yellow pair of Nikes to get me through the important late-season meets. I got the message, and my own pair of spikes: a very flashy set of Reebok Harriers, black/white/neon green/neon pink.
(Photo from the Reebok Shoe Archive Facebook page.)
These served me well through the rest of my high school career.
For the 1991 track season, I had a pair of Air Span or Air Span II (I can't remember offhand) that were probably more appropriate for my frame, but my style of running while racing or doing track work had me up on my toes, and I was plagued with blisters, particularly beneath my little toe; Coach suggested my shoes might be to blame, they might be too narrow. I also have the distinctly unpleasant memory of their smell toward the end of the season; something about the fabric of the upper was not conducive to staying fresh after a few months of hard use in all sorts of conditions. The Air Span were my last pair of Nikes, ever: for the track season in 1992, I wore my first pair of Saucony, and, with the exception of two pairs of trail shoes,1 I have never worn anything else since.
I wised up to Saucony through our assistant coach, who wore them. They had a wider toe box, which would give my forefoot more room and cut down on how badly my feet would blister (they were not a panacea, but they helped; the only thing that stopped the blistering entirely was me no longer running up on my toes while training and racing). Those first Sauconys were awesome: they had a clear plastic window in the heel that allowed observation of the "G.R.I.D." system and they were obnoxiously colored -- red/black/white/yellow. I wore these even after my toe rubbed a hole in the upper. I found a photo of me wearing them while on a school trip to Germany in the summer of 1992:
Following these special G.R.I.D. shoes were numerous other pairs: a burgundy/cheddar/silver pair whose model name I cannot recall, but whose laces I adorned with plastic torn from finish line flags; and I wore numerous pairs of teal/purple/silver Jazz, a model which would be my go-to shoe for many seasons and years.
I wore several other forgotten models (Shadow?) too, during those Jazz years, up to the early 2000s. I believe it was in 2002 that Saucony introduced the Trigon, sold as three different models: Light, Responsive, and Durable, which had different midsole densities and outsole materials targeted toward runners of different weights. I mostly liked the Responsive, though by weight I was supposedly slotted into the Light category; I did wear them one season and found the outsole was a bit plasticky which could be a little slippery. While running a 5-miler in Media, PA I discovered they lacked a firm grip on wet pavement, particularly when rounding a corner. The lightness was nice, but after that slightly harrowing experiment, I stuck with the middle version. They were great -- cushioned, but responsive as the name indicated. I wore several pairs as these made their way up from the original to the Trigon 2 and on; eventually Saucony dropped the Light version and the Trigon went on as two, the Ride and the Guide.
I continued to wear the Ride until undertraining for the Philadelphia Marathon in 2008 led me to develop a stress injury in my foot (that pair were white/silver with red); after that, I bumped myself up to the Triumph, which had more forefoot cushioning.
I had experimented with the Triumph some years before, when they first emerged. After wearing the Trigon (those got me through my first marathon in 2004), I liked the idea of a very plush shoe when I read about the Triumph so tried them on and indeed, they were very cushy. They were certainly not lightweight, however, and I considered them to be sort of an off-season trainer. The Triumph were expensive, though -- when I first bought them they were the $100 shoe, which was a lot to a post-doc living in an expensive part of the country, so I did not stick with them and went back to the Trigon (not $100).
Though happy with the Trigon, while browsing running shoe catalogs in 2003 I saw that Saucony had a lightweight "performance trainer" called the Azura i. I had recently started to bump my mileage and was interested in trying something lighter to see if it might make me faster (though back then, I was still pretty informal about training relative to what I have done more recently).
(on my feet while having a walk by the Coralville Reservoir)
I could not find the Azura i at any store in Iowa City (!) but found them at Fitness Sports in Des Moines. They immediately found a spot in the Favorite Shoe Hall of Fame. I was living in Pennsylvania when it came time to replace them, and again I was unable to find them at a nearby local store, so I called up Fitness Sports and had them send me another pair. In 2004 I ran some of my best times wearing the Azura i (which might be part of the reason they hold such a vaunted place in my running shoe history), including at the Bix 7
but later in the year I started training for my first marathon and thought it might be better to do my long mileage in a more substantial shoe, so went back to the Trigon. The Azura became scarce, anyway, their last model being the Azura LC (which my friend Robert called the Vitamin C shoes because they were so brightly accented with orange and yellow)
which felt different from the Azura i and I did not like nearly so much though I did wear them through a couple races in the fall of 2004. In 2007 I found some Azura LC at a discount dealer at a race expo and bought them, hoping that I would like them more, but I did not, and one pair still sits, pristine, in their box in my closet. (Taking them out to snap that photo -- whoa, the smell of 2000s-era Sauconys is still fresh and takes me back!)
These light-weight shoes were only a diversion, for they came and went. For several years after that stress injury in late 2008, I wore the Triumph, which has stuck around. These were no longer the $100 shoe, which I thought was steep in 2004, but now more around the $120 shoe and as I was buying 3-4 pairs of new running shoes a year, that started to feel a little steep too. So I was doing the cost-saving measures where you buy last season's model and or buy two pairs when they were on sale and so forth. I could usually get them below $100, which is sort of a maximum price in my mind given how often I have to replace running shoes. I always liked the Triumph, from that first white/orange/silver pair in 2004 up until I quit wearing them in 2014. I have always liked the plush ride, and a few years ago they lowered the heel drop which at first felt odd but then completely fine. The toebox was always roomy and comfortable, and with the cushioning over the whole foot I never had another issue with stress injury. They always seemed a heavy shoe to me, though, and one summer I bought a pair of Kinvara 2 as a lightweight trainer for speedwork, thinking I might wear them if I were to run some 5Ks or 10Ks -- something shortish.
The difference between the two was astonishing. While not pillowy like the Triumph, I thought the Kinvara was pretty soft as well, but felt like I had nothing on my feet. Thus, I worried that they may not be enough for my feet to withstand through a marathon, so I only wore them while doing speedwork, and did all my high mileage training and racing in the Triumph.
I ran my first, horrible Boston in these. I haven't gotten rid of them yet, because I guess I haven't quite let it go.
Ran my second-fastest marathon in these, in Atlantic City.
I wore them at Vermont City and after that, I was done, because when I went to buy new shoes after that race that summer, the Triumph were no longer the $120 shoe, but the $140 shoe.
Saucony, I love you -- I have loved you almost exclusively for more than 20 years -- but no flaming way, pal. And you didn't even stop there. I'll admit I'm interested in your newest Triumph incarnation, those ISO 2, partly because they look so soft and chiefly because now they are less than 9 oz. (weight being something I always felt was the Triumph's big negative, but it seemed like if you wanted cushion, you suffered for it), but $150? $150. I can't, Saucony. I simply cannot.
So I've turned to a different shoe. I always liked how light and fast those Kinvara 2s made me feel, so I thought I'd give them another try, and bought a pair of Kinvara 4. They were purple (seemed to be quite popular for a couple years there) and I liked how they felt on my feet. I wanted to love these shoes. The first time I wore them, I loved that they were soft enough, how light they were on my feet. However, they gave me a terrible blister on my Achilles within the first couple miles. I don't normally have to "break in" a pair of Sauconys, but I loved how they otherwise felt and thought "Well, they are different from my other shoes" so I wanted to give them another couple tries. Not only did that hotspot on my Achilles never ease, other hotspots developed too. I tried physically cutting away the top of the heel counter, because it did feel like it angled in too hard and certainly rubbed the tendon more forcefully than any of my other running shoes. That didn't really help because I couldn't cut it down far enough and leave any integrity in the shoe back there at all. Reluctantly, I gave them up. They just weren't going to work. I wore a pair of Cortanas in the meantime (I was lukewarm about those -- they were OK, not lightweight, also expensive), while also experimenting with the zero-drop Virrata.
It did not take me long to adjust to the zero-drop, but I did try to sort of ease into them. I couldn't believe how light they were -- at least as light as the Kinvara, definitely lighter than those Cortanas -- but they were nowhere near as soft as I liked and I don't think I ever wore them on a run longer than 12 or 13 miles, which was plenty long enough to realize that I wasn't enamored with the firmness. If I was going to use these, they would have to be a short-mileage shoe for shorter races. But I didn't really have any of those on tap and so they fell by the wayside. Last fall I thought I'd try them again, because I found a pair of Virrata 2 very on sale, and again, found them to be just too firm for my taste. Perhaps it's for the best, as it appears that Saucony is not going to sell them anymore.
They still look like new, but they have more than a hundred miles on them. Bye bye, Virratas.
I couldn't take my eyes off the Kinvara through all of it. I didn't want to spend the money to go back to the Triumph, but I was worried about always struggling with blisters if I wore Kinvaras. So I skipped over the 4 and went for a pair of 5s (full price!) and there was improvement ... to a point. The heel counter was lined with a slipperier fabric and it didn't seem to angle inward nearly so much, so I did not get blisters, but there were still hotspots that made me incredulous. I had never, ever had difficulty with any Saucony shoes, so it was hard for me to accept that there was just something about these that didn't fit my feet right. An area near the ankle would bump up underneath the anklebone every step, essentially bruising it, and the plastic stabilizer across the instep rubbed badly. If I force-shifted it so that it did not rub my foot itself, it pressed on the edge of the tongue so that it rubbed badly. Other than those problems, the shoes were soooo wonderful! And I didn't want to shell out another $100 when I had just paid for these, so I got out the heavy-duty scissors again and did some pruning, trimming the area under the ankle enough so that it no longer rammed against the bone, and clipping the edge of the tongue so that it no longer chafed. I ran the miles out of those shoes with those modifications, and enjoyed every one of them (as much as you enjoy every mile you run) but it bugged me that in order to have such satisfaction, I had to essentially mutilate the upper.
You can't see the full extent of the mutilation, but this gives a flavor for it.
I wore two pairs of Kinvara 5s, the above blue and a pair of lime green that will forever be considered among the very top of my Favorite Shoe list (right up there with the Azura i) for aesthetic reasons as well as for the race they got me through (Boston 2015). I go between orange and green as being my favorite colors -- I am not sure if I had to pin it down to one, my answer would always be the same -- and the shade of green of these was just right. And then, while at the expo at Boston, I saw the race's special edition Kinvara 6, and knew that I had to have them. I did not have to decide which was my favorite color; these displayed both (if perhaps a little too much yellow to round it out).
Since that special pair of Boston Kinvaras, I have worn many pairs of Kinvara 6s (with the very brief dalliance with the Virrata 2). Only one have I had to chop to relieve the hotspot under my ankle; all the rest have fit perfectly. They have all been "red/orange/mint" which I have found quite to my liking -- mostly red, not as good as all green, not as good as all orange, but bright and cheery and oh so light on my feet.
except a couple weeks ago, when I bought new shoes at the Delaware Running Company instead of buying them online. I like to support the local running store, but I mentioned somewhere above that when I have to start buying so many pairs of shoes a year, it starts getting quite expensive, and if I can buy my shoes for under $100, I'm going to want to do that. Still, I try to buy a couple pairs at the local shop (and also try to buy other gear there now and then) and when I was about to run out of the cherry red Kinvara 6s I got as a Christmas gift (my second pair of such), I decided this next pair would come from the store. Well, they did not have any other color but the blue/citron, which is OK but very second fiddle to the red. My feet cannot tell the difference -- well, they can tell that they are new and do not have 300+ miles on them, but they cannot tell what color they are. And I'm guessing no one else notices, either.
Saucony has just offered for sale the next iteration of the Kinvara, #7. Their website declares "YOU SHOULD GET YOUR FEET ON THIS STUFF" and describes the newest version: "Lightweight and well cushioned, the Kinvara changed the running shoe game by nailing the blend of those unlikely companions. The newest addition to the iconic Kinvara family hits the road with more resilience, thanks to EVERUN cushioning, while continuing on its fast and durable bloodline. Kinvara fans, rejoice." Kinvara 6 were $100 new; the 7 are $110, so I see Saucony is creeping the price up just like they did with my Triumphs. I am very interested in the new version, but you know what? I'm pretty happy with the 6s right now, and because the 7s are now on the market, the 6s are starting to fall into a price range I find very economical as someone who will probably buy another 4-5 pairs of shoes this year.2 I will enjoy all the miles and races I will cover in a few more pairs of 6s and perhaps this fall I'll go to the running store and try the new ones on. It's about 24 years now since I wore those first black/yellow/white/red Saucony G.R.I.D. shoes; their technology has gone through a lot of different transformations in that time, so I'm interested in seeing how this Everun stuff feels.
Saucony's shoe boxes used to say "Loyal to the sport". I always liked that, and 24 years since I found the shoes that made my feet feel good running, I don't see any reason to veer from the course.
-----------------
1In 2008 I did all of my long running on trails at Fair Hill in Maryland, so decided I wanted to get a pair of shoes dedicated to trail running. Saucony did not have that many offerings in that area at the time, and what they did have did not feel very cushioned or comfortable; so I broke with tradition for two seasons, when I wore an Asics shoe. (But only for trail running!) It was the first time in more than 15 years that I had worn something other than Saucony to run. It did feel like I had betrayed them; but Saucony stepped up and in the years since then I have worn the Xodus (nice!) and the Peregrine (light!) and even once the Kinvara TR, which I had hoped I would like as much as the road shoe, but did not. Alas -- back to the Peregine it was.
2I just bought two pairs of the red/orange/mint on sale (online) for $45 apiece. That, my friends, cannot be passed up.
No comments:
Post a Comment