Bad Wigins wrote:
Have you considered maybe when they find a shoe they like, they buy about 50 pairs, or their sponsor gives them 50 pairs, which they can use for several years
This makes sense.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Have you considered maybe when they find a shoe they like, they buy about 50 pairs, or their sponsor gives them 50 pairs, which they can use for several years
This makes sense.
I've been training in the DS Trainer for years but the last version I liked was the 17 (they're on #20 now). They changed the upper on the 18 and all the versions after it and it doesn't feel right to me anymore. Since I like the 17 and haven't had any issues with it, I ordered every pair of the 17 I could find. I just opened the last box so after these are done I'll have to find something new.
I would imagine this is true of many elites: they have a specific version they like that they were able to get a bunch of because they're pros. Why change something that works?
Once they find a model they like its perferable to stick with it than risk problems with the next model. If after a few months you have no issues with your current shoe I suggest taking a wheelbarrow into the shoe store and buying as many as you can. My Waverider 16s were brilliant and I ran them into the ground, moved on to 18 and the upper pressed so hard on my left foot I thought I had a stress fracture. I didnt but it was such a pity because otherwise they are brilliant. So bought the last two pairs 16s on Amazon and I am still hunting for more.
wejo wrote:
The whole scenario above is why we're trying to create a better way for people to find running shoes. If you could find which shoes shoe switchers liked best it would be a huge help.
The current setup listing names of shoes makes no sense to me, because I don't use shoes based on their names, but on the features they have, and usually I don't get any particular name brand running shoes for that reason.
I feel a more useful survey would focus on shoe features, like the following.
toe box width
heel box flexibility
room around midfoot
shoe weight for size 9
midsole, solid or full of air, firm or soft eva
thickness and durability of outsole
firmness vs compressibility of sole under heels
flexibility of sole under forefeet
breathability, nylon upper vs plastics or leather
absence of useless gimmicks vs excess
durability, how many miles are the shoes likely to be good for
cost vs value, ie. how many miles based on cost,
how many miles can you get from the shoes per twenty bucks of cost
how close are the shoes to running barefoot
what is the height of the heel lift, if any
is the insole flat? yes / no ~ if not, why not
Anne Audain told me that she was with Nike when they started putting air into their shoes and she found them too soft. So she just told them to keep making the model she'd been using, I think it was the Columbia but it's been a while since that conversation. Because she was Anne Audain they kept making them for her.
As Wejo indicated, I think loads of us would like to be able to do the same thing Anne did and that current elites can do, i.e., tell a shoe company we're not wild about the new model so please keep making the shoe we've been using happily. And that's why so many elites wear older models of shoes.
Define pro or elite..?
how high is the heel tab from the insole
does the heel tab go straight up from the insole, or curve inward
is the heel tab flexible, or is it hard and rigid
What..? Getting paid and/or sponsored obviously.
But yes, it seems like that may be the case - they are simply able to order shoes that they used to like. I'm not sure if the case is that they simply do not like the new shoes that are being produced or that the new shoes are simply inadequate but its clear they are able to buy basically any shoe they want, while we only get what's currently being made.
not a faddist wrote: You are either a victim of marketing hype, or you are involved in it.
Off topic, but the above statement is true. For what other reason do people still think Michael Jordan was the best basketball player of all time? Clearly there were better players before him (Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, etc.) and after him (LeBron, Kobe, etc.)...yet the masses of basketball-following sheep still want to suck MJ's d**k.
Why? Because he was an exciting - albeit one dimensional - offensive player on six winning teams who was marketed like no other player before or since. No other reason. Objectively judged, MJ doesn't even crack the Top 10 GOAT list.
MJ Stunk wrote:
not a faddist wrote: You are either a victim of marketing hype, or you are involved in it.Off topic, but the above statement is true. For what other reason do people still think Michael Jordan was the best basketball player of all time? Clearly there were better players before him (Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, etc.) and after him (LeBron, Kobe, etc.)...yet the masses of basketball-following sheep still want to suck MJ's d**k.
Why? Because he was an exciting - albeit one dimensional - offensive player on six winning teams who was marketed like no other player before or since. No other reason. Objectively judged, MJ doesn't even crack the Top 10 GOAT list.
3/10
MJ Stunk wrote:
not a faddist wrote: You are either a victim of marketing hype, or you are involved in it.Off topic, but the above statement is true. For what other reason do people still think Michael Jordan was the best basketball player of all time? Clearly there were better players before him (Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, etc.) and after him (LeBron, Kobe, etc.)...yet the masses of basketball-following sheep still want to suck MJ's d**k.
Why? Because he was an exciting - albeit one dimensional - offensive player on six winning teams who was marketed like no other player before or since. No other reason. Objectively judged, MJ doesn't even crack the Top 10 GOAT list.
This post is a joke.
pnw_runner wrote:
I've been training in the DS Trainer for years but the last version I liked was the 17 (they're on #20 now). They changed the upper on the 18 and all the versions after it and it doesn't feel right to me anymore. Since I like the 17 and haven't had any issues with it, I ordered every pair of the 17 I could find. I just opened the last box so after these are done I'll have to find something new.
I would imagine this is true of many elites: they have a specific version they like that they were able to get a bunch of because they're pros. Why change something that works?
Hahahaha. Funny, the last time I got injured was in 17s. I've been using 18s and 19s for the last 3 years with no issues. We're opposites I guess.
RunWild wrote:
[A lot of how the shoes are engineered is that they take the existing design and try to find some mild improvements in not only the way that the outsole/upper and even midsole pattern can be, but even how they try to re-structure the very same material that was used. Just because the exact same quantity of materials were used doesn't mean the shoe will be a similar shoe and perform similarly.
ALSO, "shoe store" referenced New Balance. Before they actually were making good shoes, they were some of the most motion-resisting on the market. If there is any one company I will disagree with you about "marketing hype" in which "their shoes today are no better than they were 10 years ago", it is New Balance.
I do agree that there are some shoes out there in which there is definitely a marketing hype around it and they are only considered good because its been a common shoe for the last 20-30 years (e.g., some models of the Pegasus have been AWFUL whereas others have actually been good). Something I have noticed is that today's shoes in general have been falling apart much faster than they did 10-20 years ago.
Or they just have 10 year-old Bangladeshis dye them a different color and charge an extra $50 for them.