PDA

View Full Version : Are hikers just as bad as yuppies in spandex?



Stuart
02-19-2005, 03:06
Over the years I've read a disparaging comment or two from hikers about the spandex-wearing-chrome-and-ferns-fitness-club-jogging crowd, to which I have belonged from time to time. Although I have done the distance runner jogging thing in all the skin tight, reflective garb I also see the side that thinks those people kind of look foolish.... I kind of think that is true.

But then I wonder if hikers aren't just the same but with different yuppy stuff. Think of all the stuff right now that we think we cannot enter the woods without which 50 years ago didn't exist. We depend on our synthetics as much as cellphones and satellites. Gortex boots, knee high gaiters, breathable rain suits, convertible pants, wiking shirts.... on and on and on to the hiking poles and GPS. What I really want is a holographic 3D map device.

Nothing wrong with it. You can outfit yourself however you want and sure there is wisdom in taking advantage of today's technology... but in it all I can't help but wonder what John Muir would say as a yupped-out backpacker with all the latest, top of the line stuff walked by looking like a model for Backpacker magazine or would he be that backpacker if he were alive today?

No what I mean? Are we as seperated from the sports that some disdain as yuppyish, fancy-lad sport or does a tricked out backpacker look about as funny as those bicycle-racer-wanna-be's in their racing replica jersies (I've been one of them too, but wouldn't wear the jersey).

I'm joking and serious at the same time. Just talkin... know what I mean. I guess maybe I'm saying there certainly seems to be a rendy side to backpacking apparel and gear that runs as strong as anywhere else. I think I like it and hate it at the same time.

Stuart
02-19-2005, 03:09
Oh.. can't edit the above --- please read "rendy" as "trendy" in next to last line.

Lone Wolf
02-19-2005, 09:59
Ain't nothing stupider looking than them high gaiters. :p

orangebug
02-19-2005, 10:00
Oh, I thought you meant "randy."

We are part of the culture. We make our fashion statements in UL, Gortex, silnylon, Tyvek and the like. The culture takes fashion hints from us, such as mugging folks in DC for their TNF logo wear.

I think you are concerned with the "posers" as my kids called them - folks who dressed the part but clearly were not in their element. Like a certain young lady standing on 5th Avenue tricked out in shorts, boots, tight (oh so tight) green t-shirt, day pack but smoking a cigarette - providing a trail fantasy to those of us in NYC receptive to the image. Damn, but she had nice boooots.

HYOH, and enjoy the scenery, even the human variety.

The Old Fhart
02-19-2005, 10:09
orangebug-"Oh, I thought you meant "randy."Actually I hiked with a young lady in 1998 who wore spandex and really defined the word "randy." :)

NICKTHEGREEK
02-19-2005, 11:55
Spandex- the two faced Greek God of visual pleasure and repulsion. Personally I believe you should have to get a permit to wear it.

Lone Wolf
02-19-2005, 11:57
Anybody here met Beorn? Picture a 300 lb. shirtless man in a-size-too-small Spandex shorts. :eek:

NICKTHEGREEK
02-19-2005, 12:03
Nothing wrong with it. You can outfit yourself however you want and sure there is wisdom in taking advantage of today's technology... but in it all I can't help but wonder what John Muir would say as a yupped-out backpacker with all the latest, top of the line stuff walked by looking like a model for Backpacker magazine or would he be that backpacker if he were alive today?.
Well trends change and wasn't it Muir who started the fad of walking around with a sierra cup hanging from a loop around your neck (or somethin' like that)? Heck, he'd most likely forgo the crank on his flivver for one of those sissified e-lectric starter contraptions.

Mags
02-19-2005, 12:28
Over the years I've read a disparaging comment or two from hikers about the spandex-wearing-chrome-and-ferns-fitness-club-jogging crowd, to which I have belonged from time to time. Although I have done the distance runner jogging thing in all the skin tight, reflective garb I also see the side that thinks those people kind of look foolish.... I kind of think that is true.


All depends on what you are doing...

Spandex ain't just fashion.

Never mind being a thru-hiker. If my family and friends saw me in spandex that would bust my chops to no end. I have the perfect background for people who are not (stereotypically) supposed to work spandex: Northeastern Italo-American of blue-collar background. Try wearing spandex in front of some of the people I knew growing up and the reaction would be interesting. :)

So, the first time I wore spandex for a long run felt odd to me. Like I was doing something that just did not feel right. I felt like the yupsters you talk about, felt like the kind of people that my friends and I goofed on growing up. In short, felt like I was somehow being hypocrirical to myself and to my roots. (Seriously!)

Well, after having a chafe free 3-4 hr training run, all those silly doubts went by the way side. So, go ahead, goof on me. My legs aren't rubbed raw. :)

Think of how people who don't hike long distances look upon us: we have banged up cook pots, wild beards, not showreing for days of weeks at a time, and having gear all duct taped up.

All a matter of perspective.

Yeah, I can't stand some of the yupsters still. Think they are superficial. But, if I see a person on a run, all sweaty , "in the zone" and wearing spandex, heck,..I know they are just having a good time and do not deserve ridicule.

Just my .05 worth.

(Boo! Hiss! Working a Saturday. Off in a few hours. But I'll probably being do a run in spandex.;-) )

Footslogger
02-19-2005, 12:56
Ain't nothing stupider looking than them high gaiters. :p=====================================
I RESEMBLE THAT COMMENT !!

'Slogger

Mouse
02-19-2005, 13:48
I remember how I felt about bicycling garb when I first tried the 210 mile Tour of the Scioto River Valley. So I wore cut-offs, T-shirt, and used my old canteen instead of a water bottle. But over the next few years I evolved more and more to bike shorts, tights etc.

All those clothes look odd but they are designed to be functional. Just like the hiking clothes we spend so much on.

But I agree, the people who really look silly are the ones who wear it just for the "look", the ones wearing mountain hiking clothing in Manhattan or performance jogging or cycling clothing to go around the block. The ones who would never dream of doing what those clothes were really designed for!

SGT Rock
02-19-2005, 14:00
I reckon Muir and other old timers used whatever was best at the time for them, I'm sure they had it easier in some ways with woven fabrics instead of skinned animals for shirts and pants.

As for fashion, sure, my throw away lemonade jar, Gatorade bottle and home sewn jacket are sure trend setters :p

kentucky
02-19-2005, 14:31
well I thought the s pandex fad ended in the 80's:D and as far as hkers go there are many different types:bse kentucky

The Weasel
02-19-2005, 15:35
I've backpacked through about 4 generations of "special" gear, from the "canvas packs and metal canteens" days of 50's Scouting, through the "external frame and down" 70s, to the "internal frame and lucite bottle" days of the 90s. Now we're in a 'microfiber and digital' era. All of them were functional, and once you get past the gearhead stage of your life, you realize they had one purpose: To make access to trails and the wild easier. They've done that.

But through all of that, backpacking was never considered to be a 'cool' thing. "Cool" was surfiing or skiing, in the 60s; it was basketball or lacross in the 80's; soccer and x-sports in the 90s. Fine. I enjoyed backpacking, and I didn't demand 'public respect.'

Now, though, backpacking is 'cool', and outdoor clothing worn by wannabees is common. And I kind of like that: It says that there are people who admire those of us who go for long walks and up and down mountains and canyons. Just as some may wear Kobe or Tiger or Raiders logowear, others wear the things we wear, or knockoffs of it. That's a compliment, as in 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.'

So the imitators don't bother me.

And as for being 'yuppies in spandex,' well, backpackers have really been far more close to the thrashers and surfer dudes and other extreme sports types: We don't mind getting dirty. We make (and have had to!) our own gear, and wear other things that some think outlandish. We're clannish, and a little suspicious of others (and each other!). We know what our 'sport' means, and it means more than 9 innings and a six pack to our lives.

So hikers in spandex don't both me, either.

The Weasel

Stuart
02-19-2005, 16:42
I remember how I felt about bicycling garb when I first tried the 210 mile Tour of the Scioto River Valley. So I wore cut-offs, T-shirt, and used my old canteen instead of a water bottle. But over the next few years I evolved more and more to bike shorts, tights etc.

All those clothes look odd but they are designed to be functional. Just like the hiking clothes we spend so much on.

But I agree, the people who really look silly are the ones who wear it just for the "look", the ones wearing mountain hiking clothing in Manhattan or performance jogging or cycling clothing to go around the block. The ones who would never dream of doing what those clothes were really designed for!

Functinality, true, but did you get the yellow Tour leader jersey or the blue and white U.S. Postal jersey..... that stuff makes me smile. I've got the carbon fiber bike but in my own color and I will not dress up like Lance Armstrong, my kids pretend to be someone they are no October 31 and at other times too, but you won't cath me in replica gear...... You know what I'm talking bout, right. You can buy Armstrongs helmet for bout $200 and the yellow Tour jeresey and the U.S. Postal uniform, plus the bike in team colors and many adults do this. Kind of funny if you ask me.

And I'll second functionality, when your out there running 20+ and your chaffed so bad your nipples are dripping blood then you're all about functionality. If I ever am able to distance run again, I'll be wearing spandex shorts.... have to.

Stuart
02-19-2005, 16:57
I reckon Muir and other old timers used whatever was best at the time for them, I'm sure they had it easier in some ways with woven fabrics instead of skinned animals for shirts and pants.


I think you are right. Seems funny to think of them busting it up a trail with GPS clipped to their Arc'tryx/Marmot/Patagonia outfit with titanium polls in hand though.

Maybe my point is more along the lines of the old timers did fine without all this stuff we now think we have to have.... do we really need all this stuff or is it more industry driven? It is clear to me that the backpacking periodicals are nothing more than vehicles of the industry --- huge advertisements --- be in intentionally or not. (or maybe I'm not making a point,just talkin) So much of the stuff we have noe we would never go without, thinking it almost to be an impossiblity despite the fact that the products have existed for only a very short time.

Maybe Marmot could do a deer skin line!!! There's a novelty. When will retro hiking become the style? Anybody thruhiked with more primative gear, ala The King of the Wild Frontier..... hmmm. Deerskin clothing, hmmm guess those guys used natural shelter rather than silnylon. I'd like to hike like David Caradine (sp?) in Kung Fu. Did he wear shoes....

TDale
02-19-2005, 17:28
I guess I'm the antithesis of the Patagucci hiker. I haven't a piece of clothing that cost me over $25. My Tilley hat doesn't count, it was a christmas gift.

And I think running when you are neither chasing nor being chased is just wrong. :D

One Leg
02-19-2005, 17:55
well I thought the s pandex fad ended in the 80's:D and as far as hkers go there are many different types:bse kentucky


Let's not forget those Members Only jackets either.....My dad still wears one, LOL~!

SGT Rock
02-19-2005, 17:55
Maybe my point is more along the lines of the old timers did fine without all this stuff we now think we have to have.... do we really need all this stuff or is it more industry driven? It is clear to me that the backpacking periodicals are nothing more than vehicles of the industry --- huge advertisements --- be in intentionally or not. (or maybe I'm not making a point,just talkin) So much of the stuff we have noe we would never go without, thinking it almost to be an impossiblity despite the fact that the products have existed for only a very short time.

I may not want to skin a bear to make my jacket but I probably would do that if it was the gear I needed. :-?

Well it is more of a function of what is available, at least for me. I don't drool over catalogs looking for the cool gadget or clothing, rather they are a tool when I get an idea of what I may need to change about my kit. These days I'll find the fiber and fill that I want and make a jacket out of it. I decided I need a bowl and I'll look for the most convenient thing that exists instead of carving my own. I won't carve my spoon from a log, but I will make my own stove. I can say at least in my case, the industry rarely drives what I carry, I decided I need a piece of gear and if it doesn't already exist, then I figure out how to improvise or make it.

I do look at some of the gear that people carry and I often marvel at the over-design that some non-hiking people feel epitomizes hiking, while my gear would probably disappoint their notion of what gear ought to be. I consider it a compliment when someone stands agape looking at some piece of my gear and says: "That is all you carry?" :eek:

weary
02-19-2005, 18:04
I guess I'm the antithesis of the Patagucci hiker. I haven't a piece of clothing that cost me over $25. My Tilley hat doesn't count, it was a christmas gift.
And I think running when you are neither chasing nor being chased is just wrong. :D
Remember, "beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes." Henry Thoreau

Weary

Nightwalker
02-19-2005, 18:16
But then I wonder if hikers aren't just the same but with different yuppy stuff. Think of all the stuff right now that we think we cannot enter the woods without which 50 years ago didn't exist. We depend on our synthetics as much as cellphones and satellites. Gortex boots, knee high gaiters, breathable rain suits, convertible pants, wiking shirts.... on and on and on to the hiking poles and GPS. What I really want is a holographic 3D map device.
No boots, running shoes, though plain old tennis shoes work. No cellphone. No GPS. No gaiters. Plain old nylon wind/rainsuit with silicone spray on it. Good old low-tech nylon dress socks, two pair at a time for blisterfree hiking.

I do admit to trekking poles and a microfiber shirt, but I ain't no dang-blanged yuppie hiker!!!

The trekking poles are el-cheapos from Target, the shirt is the same from Wal-Mart...

:D

Mags
02-19-2005, 19:59
But through all of that, backpacking was never considered to be a 'cool' thing. "Cool" was surfiing or skiing, in the 60s; it was basketball or lacross in the 80's; soccer and x-sports in the 90s. Fine. I enjoyed backpacking, and I didn't demand 'public respect.'

Now, though, backpacking is 'cool', and outdoor clothing worn by wannabees is common.
As a side note, debatable how "cool" backpacking is today. Suspect it was more cool in the 60s and 70s. It is why Backpacker Magazine is changing its format to more of an "Outdoor Lifestyle Magazine". The overall amount of people who backpack is now down for a variety of reasons. I will agree that the amount of people into outdoor activities (or at least looking like it!) has gone up.

re: buckskins, wool sweaters, etc..etc.

Hey don't forget they were the Patagucci clothing of their day. According to an NPS website, the "coatees" that the civilians wore on the Lewis and Clark expedition were ~$16 ea, or $187 in 2003 dollars. (Googled an inflation calculator) About the price of a really high end fleece today! Of course, being a govt expedition, I am sure the prices were inflated a bit. :)

I don't have it handy, but I have somewhere in my book collection the prices of clothing at a general goods store c. 1880s. I suspect we'd find similar results.

Wonder if John Muir compared complained about poseurs wearing long wool coats? :)


re: hiking clothes
Sgt. Rock mentioned how the average hiker questions his choice of hiking gear/clothing. On the Colorado Trail this summer, I was asked repeatedly if I was a day hiker due to the size of my pack. One backpacker with really big, heavy boots and a really big heavy pack asked/declared "You don't backpack too much, do you?" when he noticed my sneakers. Just grinned and said "Oh, I do a little backpacking now and then". :)

re: using Lance Armstrong biking clothes
Egads! I see that way too often in my town. Prefer something more muted for all my outdoor clothing.
My running clothes are from Target. No replicas for me!

My hiking shirt is a long sleeve polyester shirt from the thrift store. Light, blocks the sun and has a great pocket for my camera. Being button down, can use it for town stops so I look all swanky. ;) Couple that with my nylon shorts ($12) and $10 ski poles, I look quite dapper.
But isn't that funny...we have a reverse code for "serious" hikers. But the more beatup looking the gear, the more "legit" looking you are. Interesting.

re: running
Hey, I used to think the same way. Then I tried it.
It is simple, enjoyable and if done on trails can give me a different way of seeing the outdoors. I will never be a fast runner (10 min/mile at best!), but like many of us have good endurance and can enjoy the longer runs. Only been doing it for two years now. Look me (and my knees up) when I'm 50!

Needles
02-20-2005, 00:55
If I keep my boots, treking poles, and backpack but other than that hike naked would that exempt me from this discussion? I know it wouldn't exempt me from getting arrested, but hey, them's the risks you take to avoid looking silly?

flyfisher
02-20-2005, 07:56
What Muir did and then wrote about and so wonderfully photographed was the outlandish idea of returning to the wilds for fun.

What he demonstrated was being able to "jump over the back fence" with very little gear and walk and enjoy the world he was surrounded by. That little area he lived near (Yosemite) probably helped him get a vision for the good of returning to the wilds.

I notice in the pictures of him that his clothing was that of an outdoorsman. He changed clothes to go out to the woods. He was wearing neither the wear of the California city dweller nor the rancher.

I think most of us change clothes to go to the woods too, just like bike riders. There are parts of clothing which are so useful in that pursuit that we would ot dream of parting with them. For some of us, we even continue to wear part of that outfit even when we are not in the woods. (camping shirts or boots around the house or at work)

Kerosene
02-20-2005, 09:39
Actually I hiked with a young lady in 1998 who wore spandex and really defined the word "randy." :)Now this is a topic I want to hear more about!

DMA, 2000
02-20-2005, 20:37
Stuart, your post about replicas reminds me of a comment I once read. A few years back (maybe 20 or so), it became more common in New Zealand to buy and wear the famous black jersey of that country's national rugby team, the All Blacks (as much a symbol of that nation as anything else). One older man spied a youth decked out in one and snorted, "In my day, you had to earn those." Fair comment to anyone in a yellow jersey.

I think that backpacking chic involves more than the best and trendiest gears and fabrics (though that's part of it). It usually requires a lot of dirt, abuse, duct tape, and something home-made or jury-rigged. You know, so you have stuff that looks like it's spent some time in the woods.

LIhikers
02-21-2005, 12:18
I'm pretty sure hiking and backpacking has it's share of yuppie minded folks as does every other sport and activity. Let's not paint with a wide brush and include everyone in the same catagorey though. Besides, it's OK with me if a yuppie wants to enjoy some down time in the woods. Just don't tell me that I'm foolish for hiking without a GPS hanging around my neck, or that there should be a Starbucks coffee shop at every road crossing. If they want to accept the outdoors they way they find it that's OK with me. When they suggest that every trail should be paved (and I've heard that, believe it or not) so that they don't get mud on their hiking gear, that's where I'll draw the line.