stomper
Guest
Hey guys,
In another thread (click here) TJ expressed her desire for creating a meaningful standard for minimal running shoes, and I said, why the heck wait?
Now on one hand I don't really care. I am getting a lot of of running barefoot (really) right now. No corporation can ever take that from me. But on the other hand it is driving me crazy that there are all these shoes out there that say they are "barefoot shoes." I want some clarity out there, and we the grassroots practitioners of this art, have the credibility and the direct knowledge to set a good standard before Ugg boots are being described as "barefoot trainers".
So here is my draft. I have relied heavily on Last Place Jason's "open letter to shoe manufacturers" and thrown in some of my own opinions. Please comment and change this accordingly. In fact I would love it if someone else wanted to take over this and become the editor of this thing.
---
PROPOSED BRS STANDARD FOR MINIMAL RUNNING SHOES VERSION 0.1
by Stomper, thieving a lot from Last Place Jason
1. PURPOSE.
1a. The purpose of a minimal running shoe is to protect the foot from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold, and no more.
1b. The shoe should not impede the movement or flexibility of the foot in any way. The shoe should allow the foot to use all its musculature and strength, including the grasping and splaying actions of the toes.
1c. The shoe should not provide any structural support or restraint for the movement of the foot.
2. DESIGN DETAILS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS PURPOSE.
2a. The sole must be thin, completely flat, and flexible. The sole should not curve.
2b. The heel must not be raised.
2c. There should be no cushioning.
2d. The toe box must be wide enough to allow the toes room to wiggle and grasp.
2e. The upper must be very flexible.
3. CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKETING.
3a. Product names, description, and marketing should not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical to going barefoot. For example using the word "barefoot" in the product name is unacceptable, while saying "barefoot-like" in a product description would be acceptable.
copyright BRS 2010! not for sale or appropriation by corporate interests!
---
So there you have it. Chew away!
In another thread (click here) TJ expressed her desire for creating a meaningful standard for minimal running shoes, and I said, why the heck wait?
Now on one hand I don't really care. I am getting a lot of of running barefoot (really) right now. No corporation can ever take that from me. But on the other hand it is driving me crazy that there are all these shoes out there that say they are "barefoot shoes." I want some clarity out there, and we the grassroots practitioners of this art, have the credibility and the direct knowledge to set a good standard before Ugg boots are being described as "barefoot trainers".
So here is my draft. I have relied heavily on Last Place Jason's "open letter to shoe manufacturers" and thrown in some of my own opinions. Please comment and change this accordingly. In fact I would love it if someone else wanted to take over this and become the editor of this thing.
---
PROPOSED BRS STANDARD FOR MINIMAL RUNNING SHOES VERSION 0.1
by Stomper, thieving a lot from Last Place Jason
1. PURPOSE.
1a. The purpose of a minimal running shoe is to protect the foot from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold, and no more.
1b. The shoe should not impede the movement or flexibility of the foot in any way. The shoe should allow the foot to use all its musculature and strength, including the grasping and splaying actions of the toes.
1c. The shoe should not provide any structural support or restraint for the movement of the foot.
2. DESIGN DETAILS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS PURPOSE.
2a. The sole must be thin, completely flat, and flexible. The sole should not curve.
2b. The heel must not be raised.
2c. There should be no cushioning.
2d. The toe box must be wide enough to allow the toes room to wiggle and grasp.
2e. The upper must be very flexible.
3. CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKETING.
3a. Product names, description, and marketing should not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical to going barefoot. For example using the word "barefoot" in the product name is unacceptable, while saying "barefoot-like" in a product description would be acceptable.
copyright BRS 2010! not for sale or appropriation by corporate interests!
---
So there you have it. Chew away!