Adidas has done a much better job than Nike at cranking out high-performance shoes and track/training shoes with high-end foams in such a manner that the best bits quickly filter down even to their low-priced trainers. Their top flight racing shoes and gear are top of the heap. They also produce enough inventory and filter it out to so many outlets that deals are ALWAYS available for excellent Adidas shoes and running clothing.
Nike came out with their high-performance elf shoes many years ago now and they've not changed them up that much, while also continuing to charge BIG $ for every pair ever since. It seems they sink huge amounts of their revenue into stunts like the sub-2:00 festival, along with Oregon football, along with crazy expensive advertising, but their focus on running tech seems fleeting.
Now, both Nike and Adidas ebb and flow when it comes to focus on running. There have been long periods in the last forty years when either, or both, had few/no great running shoes and were focused on other sports or fashion (see: Michael Jordan BBall and Tiger Woods Golf).
Still, at this point, it appears that Adidas continues to innovate and to push their best tech into shoes everybody can afford. Adidas was also first out of the gate with ETPU/Boost, years before the rest of the pack. At this point Nike offers a small line of elf shoes with PEBA-based foam and sometimes added zoom air pods, but they are incredibly expensive and have become stale IMO.
Adidas FTW.
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
Hmm... someone above here mentioned Nike focus on stunts like the sub 2... I wouldn't be surprised if Nike is working "under cover" with Peter Thiel and The Enhanced Games to release something completely new, like a sub 9:50 shoe for 100 meter runners, or a sub 25 minutes shoe for 10000 meter runners. I also wouldn't be upset, totally okey with such shoes if they make them available for regular runners the week after.
The effect of such a thing on the market would be ground breaking. Everyone expect The Enhanced Games to be about doping - what if they surprise us and make it about super-super-duper-shoes instead?
Adidas has done a much better job than Nike at cranking out high-performance shoes and track/training shoes with high-end foams in such a manner that the best bits quickly filter down even to their low-priced trainers. Their top flight racing shoes and gear are top of the heap. They also produce enough inventory and filter it out to so many outlets that deals are ALWAYS available for excellent Adidas shoes and running clothing.
Nike came out with their high-performance elf shoes many years ago now and they've not changed them up that much, while also continuing to charge BIG $ for every pair ever since. It seems they sink huge amounts of their revenue into stunts like the sub-2:00 festival, along with Oregon football, along with crazy expensive advertising, but their focus on running tech seems fleeting.
Now, both Nike and Adidas ebb and flow when it comes to focus on running. There have been long periods in the last forty years when either, or both, had few/no great running shoes and were focused on other sports or fashion (see: Michael Jordan BBall and Tiger Woods Golf).
Still, at this point, it appears that Adidas continues to innovate and to push their best tech into shoes everybody can afford. Adidas was also first out of the gate with ETPU/Boost, years before the rest of the pack. At this point Nike offers a small line of elf shoes with PEBA-based foam and sometimes added zoom air pods, but they are incredibly expensive and have become stale IMO.
Adidas FTW.
IMO, if we're talking top to bottom (racers to trainers), Asics has got the best overall lineup out of every brand, and soon next year this'll probably only be even more true once we get the Magic Speed 5 with FFLeap.
Puma is also legit with the VN4 + Fast R 3.
Saucony still decent, we'll see if the Azura is relevant in 2026.
How many Nike athletes were even in the race? There were only six international women who finished the race, not many Nike American women in the marathon. Same for men, only Mantz at the front and he wasn’t there
I agree with this. Chicago is a Nike race and therefore Nike athletes were more heavily represented there. Only leaves a few competing for top spots for NY.
I feel this point gets lost sometimes when talking about shoes like this. That these shoes aren't necessarily the athletes preference, they're just the ones they're being paid to wear.
It would be really interesting to see a deep race where all the pros do actually wear whatever shoe they like best, regardless of sponsorship. Would probably see a lot more wildcards.
The Evo Pro 1 and 2 are not "nearly impossible" to find in Europe. Both can be found in all sizes on the Adidas EU website.
I think Nike made a big mistake with the Vaporfly 4. A lot of fast marathon runners (some elites included) preferred the Vaporfly over the Alphafly. But the Vaporfly 4 is no longer a marathon shoe.
Personally I have switched to the Evo Pro 1 and 2 after having run in every Vaporfly iteration. They don't feel better than the Vaporflies but they are super light and lighter is faster.
As of 4 weeks ago, the .de site was completely sold out. Though they do translate to $575usd, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I’ve ordered a pair.
I would also agree that the new VF is now closer to the Streakfly than it is to the Alphafly- as you said, no longer a marathon shoe. What are your thoughts on the Alphafly and its progression? I’m personally not a fan of anything after the originals.
I bought a pair of the OG Alphafly and they felt clunky. The shoes were so big I touched my opposite ankle with the shoe. I sold them and never looked at the Alphafly again.
I wasn't a big fan of Adidas until recently, always been more of a Nike guy.
But it appears like Adidas has hit a home run with their Marathon racer and I have yet to find a negative review of their do-it-all Adidas Adizero EVO SL.
As of 4 weeks ago, the .de site was completely sold out. Though they do translate to $575usd, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I’ve ordered a pair.
I would also agree that the new VF is now closer to the Streakfly than it is to the Alphafly- as you said, no longer a marathon shoe. What are your thoughts on the Alphafly and its progression? I’m personally not a fan of anything after the originals.
I bought a pair of the OG Alphafly and they felt clunky. The shoes were so big I touched my opposite ankle with the shoe. I sold them and never looked at the Alphafly again.
Interesting. I love the originals, not the 2 or 3.
Adios Pro (3 or 4) or Takumi Sen could both work well for the half. The Takumi Sen is lower stack height and some would use it for 10K or shorter road races, but compared to racing shoes of even a few years ago the Takumi Sen has a lot of stack. Both employ Lightstrike Pro foam and carbon fiber energy rods. Both use very thin but very durable and tough Continental rubber strips on the outsole.
I would not recommend takumi sen for the half. Just too low. It’s a nice mile repeat workout shoe but not high volume
I appreciate the conversation, and thank you for clarifying what you meant regarding the outsole. Though, along the same lines, wouldn't you equally give points to Nike for bringing in zoom X as new tech while adidas kept with Boost incessantly for so many years? Also, regarding affordability, I can see a pop up ad here for the VF on the letsrun site for $161.99usd. That's a fairly substantial discount in my book. That's not something that you'll see with the EVO1 or EVO2, as both still sell for $500usd- or as much as 600 euros, as they're near impossible to find in Europe.
The last stunt race from adidas I noticed was only a few weeks ago with the WR attempt on the 100km in South Africa. There was quite a bit of interesting tech that they used regarding outsoles being heated/cooled, etc. Even the pants and jackets were all specially designed for the athletes in the attempt. Before that, the stunt was the day of 10k races they use at their HQ in Herzogenaurach each year. You'll also remember that the very first breaking 2 project was actually with Adidas and their sub 2 hour shoe that they developed. Unfortunately, their main proponent was pinched for nefarious activities, so that quickly faded away.
In the end, I think that both companies (and racers) have their positives and negatives.
What adidas 2 hour thing? And what happened to the proponent? Never heard of this
I appreciate the conversation, and thank you for clarifying what you meant regarding the outsole. Though, along the same lines, wouldn't you equally give points to Nike for bringing in zoom X as new tech while adidas kept with Boost incessantly for so many years? Also, regarding affordability, I can see a pop up ad here for the VF on the letsrun site for $161.99usd. That's a fairly substantial discount in my book. That's not something that you'll see with the EVO1 or EVO2, as both still sell for $500usd- or as much as 600 euros, as they're near impossible to find in Europe.
The last stunt race from adidas I noticed was only a few weeks ago with the WR attempt on the 100km in South Africa. There was quite a bit of interesting tech that they used regarding outsoles being heated/cooled, etc. Even the pants and jackets were all specially designed for the athletes in the attempt. Before that, the stunt was the day of 10k races they use at their HQ in Herzogenaurach each year. You'll also remember that the very first breaking 2 project was actually with Adidas and their sub 2 hour shoe that they developed. Unfortunately, their main proponent was pinched for nefarious activities, so that quickly faded away.
In the end, I think that both companies (and racers) have their positives and negatives.
What adidas 2 hour thing? And what happened to the proponent? Never heard of this
Kipsang got in trouble for whereabouts and tampering with evidence. A succinct answer to your adidas sub 2 hour project query:
The "adidas 2 hour marathon project," also known as the Sub2 project, was Adidas's initiative to break the two-hour marathon barrier through advanced footwear and athletic training. While the project aimed to achieve this goal, it was a competitive effort with a similar project from Nike called Breaking2.
Key aspects of the project Adizero Sub2 shoe: A revolutionary marathon shoe developed by Adidas, featuring a lightweight design and innovative materials to improve energy return and performance.
Athletes: The project involved elite athletes, with Wilson Kipsang (a former marathon world record holder) being a key figure in the initiative.
Goals and outcomes: While the project's ultimate goal of a sub-two-hour marathon in an official race wasn't achieved by Adidas, it spurred significant advancements in running shoe technology that have since been incorporated into commercial products.