Buy Brooks, Saucony, New Balance, Hoka, Sketchers, Altra or other American brands. Stuff from foreign manufacturers is also OK if the only alternative is Nike.
Don't buy Nike. Just don't.
Buy Brooks, Saucony, New Balance, Hoka, Sketchers, Altra or other American brands. Stuff from foreign manufacturers is also OK if the only alternative is Nike.
Don't buy Nike. Just don't.
But there spikes are so good.
Adidas good. Always wanted thier old school "Trail" shoe from years ago.
i will continue to buy their trainers/spikes simply because they fit my foot shape the best and I have been buying them for over 10 years.
this will not change if they start injecting athletes with vials of blood from poached endangered elephants off the plains of africa that alberto himself is shooting with a hunting rifle.
i will continue to buy their t wrote:
i will continue to buy their trainers/spikes simply because they fit my foot shape the best and I have been buying them for over 10 years.
this will not change if they start injecting athletes with vials of blood from poached endangered elephants off the plains of africa that alberto himself is shooting with a hunting rifle.
More or less this for me too.
^^^ those
American guy wrote:
Buy Brooks, Saucony, New Balance, Hoka, Sketchers, Altra or other American brands. Stuff from foreign manufacturers is also OK if the only alternative is Nike.
Don't buy Nike. Just don't.
Brooks is literally the Appleby's of running shoes. Low quality brand that aims for the middle and hits a bulls-eye.
Nike does some bad yes but I think they do more good. Sponsor more athletes and meets and generally put more money into the sport than almost all the other companies combined. They have great products that work extremely well for some people. Just because they made a contract with usatf to get the most out of their brand doesn't mean they are bad or evil. It would be usatf's fault for signing it. Pretty much any company would do the same. Who wouldn't? They are paying usatf millions of dollars. It's just business. I agree nick should be able to wear brooks around Beijing and then USA nike gear when going to the track but contracts have already been made and signed with nike and usatf. Until those are revised the contract between nick and usatf cannot be. Not something to be worked out weeks before Beijing. Maybe the years before.
American guy wrote:
Buy Brooks, Saucony, New Balance, Hoka, Sketchers, Altra or other American brands. Stuff from foreign manufacturers is also OK if the only alternative is Nike.
Don't buy Nike. Just don't.
If every visitor to these boards stopped buying Nike, it's likely that nothing would happen at all.
The vast majority of Nike's running shoe sales come from "hobby joggers", who put almost no thought into it at all beyond deciding to take a trip to their local Sports Authority or Dick's. As far as all other shoes go, basketball guys, football guys, soccer guys, etc. couldn't care less about any of this nonsense that's going on.
themanontherun wrote:
American guy wrote:Buy Brooks, Saucony, New Balance, Hoka, Sketchers, Altra or other American brands. Stuff from foreign manufacturers is also OK if the only alternative is Nike.
Don't buy Nike. Just don't.
Brooks is literally the Appleby's of running shoes. Low quality brand that aims for the middle and hits a bulls-eye.
You are just showing how easily swayed you are by advertising. Any real runner who has tried Brooks knows that they make very good shoes.
Neutral Observertard wrote:
You are just showing how easily swayed you are by advertising. Any real runner who has tried Brooks knows that they make very good shoes.
I worked in run specialty for almost 10 years. I'm not saying that Brooks makes bad shoes, I'm saying that they make shoes that are designed to appeal to first time runners and/or people who think that softer is automatically better. I would add that a softer shoe often causes as many problems as it solves despite the cushioning. I also have a problem with the relationship Brooks has with Superset orthotics, which is a total scam product for 90% of runners. It's a company that's endemic of the Penguin-ism that exists in our sport. As I said, they are the Appleby's of running shoes; they aim for the easy sell to the masses and they hit a bull's eye.
Skout wrote:
But there spikes are so good.
Yeah. I buy spikes from Nike but don't really have any reason to buy any other gear from them. Nothing else they make is that great. Their spikes are, though.
Neutral Observertard wrote:
Brooks is literally the Appleby's of running shoes. Low quality brand that aims for the middle and hits a bulls-eye.
You are just showing how easily swayed you are by advertising. Any real runner who has tried Brooks knows that they make very good shoes.[/quote]
I really like Brooks, the company and I have a bit of allegiance to them because I used to get the occasional freebie from them. I would love to buy their stuff but personally find it total crap. It might work for someone who likes loads of cushion, etc. But for me almost everything they make is too heavy, stiff, rigid, cushioned, etc. I think the Mach 1 was the last shoe they made that I could use.
themanontherun wrote:
American guy wrote:Buy Brooks, Saucony, New Balance, Hoka, Sketchers, Altra or other American brands. Stuff from foreign manufacturers is also OK if the only alternative is Nike.
Don't buy Nike. Just don't.
Brooks is literally the Appleby's of running shoes. Low quality brand that aims for the middle and hits a bulls-eye.
You mean the "Foo Fighters" of running shoes.
I don't buy Nike. I don't support PEDs or slavery, so I choose to buy from companies with better track records.
I will be listening to some Foo's on my I-pod tomorrow morning while wearing Brooks on a 17 miler. What's your point ?
Whatever man. I buy whatever shoes feel the best to my feet/running style. I don't care what brand they are. Over the years that has meant Nike, Saucony, Brooks, Hoka, and Altra. If you make your purchasing decisions based of a corporation's percieved image you are disrupting the maximally efficient machine of capitalism and doing a diservice to your own feet. Besides, Nike's revenue from the high end running shoes that you proudly boycott is probably miniscule in comparison to what they make off fashionable all-purpose athletic gear that joe schmoe and sally sue buy every winter in order to gain motivation for the obligatory but often short lived new years resolution of better fitness and health. I would even go so far as to propose that in this way Nike produces more for America's health than our health care system.
Nike, as with many of the others, have made great shoes and crappy ones.
For my feet and my running, they have been at the top of the heap for my 40 years of doing this running thing.
I start with Nike first. As long as they have something that I like, it is the top shoe in my rotation (Waffle Trainer, LDV, Terra Trainer, Pegasus, Vomero). I try to keep second/third brands in the rotation, but can't always. Tiger/ASICS is the only other brand that I return to predictably (but now there is the Hoka Clifton in that slot). I've tried most of the other "7 dwarves" on/off, and end up disappointed most of the time (Brooks, Saucony, adidas, New Balance), despite my wish that I could walk away from Nike the company.
[quote]Do it. In fact, just do it. wrote:
If you make your purchasing decisions based of a corporation's percieved image you are disrupting the maximally efficient machine of capitalism/quote]
You failed Econ 101, didn't you?
webby wrote:
I don't buy Nike. I don't support PEDs or slavery, so I choose to buy from companies with better track records.
Update yourself. Niker recently won a major good corporate award for labor practices and sustainability.
And don't forget these first attacks on Nike, like this, were funded by Reebock. Who was nominally paying their worker ten cents an hour more.