I have a special relationship with Brooks Ghost shoes: they were among the first shoes I ever used for running, what feels like an eon ago. The version—for context—was the 4. Before I slide into a pit of despair about the passage of time, I prefer to focus on how much they’ve evolved over the years, and in particular, how much we runners have gained from the improvements made to the tools we use to run. Those Ghost 4s were much more complex in their construction; they had counterforts and stiffening inserts and an EVA midsole, because at the time (again, an eon ago) there was no alternative: only EVA existed.
Today, the Ghost is on its 17th version and doesn’t have much in common with its distant ancestors. What’s most interesting, however, is measuring the passage of time and the differences to understand what these shoes are today and, more generally, how Brooks’s offerings have changed.
What We’ve Lost
Losing something isn’t always a negative experience. In the case of the Ghost, what’s been lost is a lot of weight, in the form of simplified upper construction and the use of lighter, more reactive materials for the midsole. The weight, for example, has gone from 358 to 286 grams, which is a significant difference.
I should really dig up those Ghost 4s and run in them, but unfortunately, I’m afraid I don’t have them anymore. So, I can imagine, remembering them, what the experience would be like: as I said, more weight, more stiffness, and less cushioning. Today, the Ghost is much lighter but equally supportive, and above all, much more responsive.
By losing something, we’ve gained a lot: the lightness achieved without sacrificing protection translates into less leg fatigue and, therefore, longer runs with less effort.
Evolution of the Species
It’s important to consider these points because the true differences and advantages for runners are less noticeable from one year to the next; however, if more than 10 years pass, you definitely feel it. If you then add that, inevitably, my legs are not as strong as they once were, the performance increase is even greater. If I could take a time machine back to those months and run with both versions, I would certainly find even more substantial differences.
The Constants
However, the Ghost is also one of Brooks’s most reliable models. Those who use them seek continuity in their experience; they want an updated model but also want to recreate the same, familiar, running conditions.
And they certainly get it: the 17th version, thanks in part to the use of nitrogen-infused DNA LOFT v3, is soft and progressive in its delivery; it’s always present and reliable. One detail—for me, as a forefoot runner—is very welcome: compared to version 16, the stack height has been increased, now 1 mm higher in the heel and a good 3 mm higher in the front. Runners who shift their weight forward can’t help but pleasantly notice the increased thickness, which translates into greater comfort on uneven surfaces and, in general, throughout the entire run.
After all, this is what the Ghosts have always been: shoes that, unlike their name, are anything but elusive and invisible. You feel them; they’re there, accompanying you calmly through mileage training, races where you don’t plan on setting any crazy times, and even walks.
More Space and Where to Find Them
One final observation concerns the toe box and toe space: compared to previous versions (the 16 in particular), there’s more room for your toes. This is a very welcome detail, especially for those who run “naturally” (as it was called years ago) and, consequently, use their toes much more for transmitting power during the push-off phase.
The Brooks Ghost 17 is available at leading sports stores and on the Brooks website, priced at €150.
