Who make the WORST running shoes out there now?

A little background to let you know that I am a little biased. I have some very good friends who work for Nike and have had several opportunities to be on the Nike campus in Oregon. I also know folks who work for Brooks, adidas and Asics. I have worked in the running specialty business and I have been coaching at a high level for 10+ years. I have run in Nikes off and on going on 26 years.

Nike spends, hands-down, more money on research and development of running shoes than all of the other companies COMBINED! Many of the running shoe development people at the other companies started at Nike. Nike makes some very good running shoes. Does Nike make and heavily market "gimmick" shoes? Yes. Nike is a corporation. Their number-one goal is to make money and keep their shareholders happy. Because Nike started off as a running/track brand that area holds a special place within the company.

Running specialty owners and, especially, employess remind me a lot of guys who work at hip, locally owned music stores. They want to look cool and hip and it is cool and hip to rip on things that are popular or big corporate labels. It's much cooler to be the guy who knows about the latest underground band that's on an indie label. They love niche brands like Asics and Brooks because those companies are all about running and will go out of their way to kiss the running specialty guys asses. Nike is the evil corporation. This continues to be passed down through the little running specailty geek world. It's their version of reverse marketing. Nike simply can't be any good because they make football and basketball shoes and Shox and Max 360, etc...

So, it's cool to rip on Nike. But just remember that the guy developing your Brooks shoes probabaly was developing your Nikes a couple years ago!

If you get put in the proper shoe for you you would have just as much luck, if not more, with Nike as any other brand. I have run thousands of miles in variations of the Pegasus, Structure, Span, etc... without problems. I was training in Asics and Brooks and had stress fractures with each. Did I say Asics and Brooks shoes suck? No. Part of it was my own over ambition and part of it was guys put me in the wrong shoe.

Lots of people ask me, "Which brand of shoes is the best?" I tell them that there isn't a best brand. Every brand with a good line probably makes a shoe that will work for you. If you have a GOOD running specialty store near you go in and try out some and let them help you pick out the right one. Of course, I already know that the local geek will probably be pushing them towards Asics or Brooks.

Finally, another funny running specialty BS story. One of the Puma spikes (can't remember which one right now?) is a combo of the old Nike Jasari upper with the old Nike Eldoret spike plate. Why? Because when Puma signed away a bunch of the Kenyan distance runners from Nike that's what they told them they wanted to race in. So, I am in a running specialty shop a year-or-so back and I hear one of the guys working there pushing this Puma spike. He is telling a kid about how Puma spent so much money and time and effort on developing this shoe and it is just a work of art, blah, blah, blah... I guess he was kind of right. They spent a lot of money signing the Kenyans and then they asked them waht they wanted to run in and then they made the shoes! Research and development!

#1. Of course Nike spends more money on R&D. That's because they have a ton more money than anyone else. Doesn't mean they care more about R&D, or about specialty in general.

#2. Asics is hardly a "niche" brand. When three out of every ten shoes sold at a Dick's Sporting Goods is an Asics running shoe, I'd say they are pretty well known by the masses.

You are referring to Puma's only real spike, the Harambee. Komen set WRs in the 3k and the 2 mile with Nikes, the aforementioned eldoret plate with the jasari upper. When he moved to Puma, they pretty much made an exact copy of the shoe (upper is a tad different, but the plates are like mirror images) and stamped their name (and their logo) on it. And they're great spikes! But not exactly developed by Puma.

009.9 wrote:

This is such a dumb thread.

No one shoe make is better or worse, generally speaking.

Who really cares what shoe works for someone else? I cannot wear Nike, does that make Nike the worst company ever?

I can wear NB and Asics, good for me.

Go run in whatever works, and shut the hell up.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

End of thread.

Good points. I run in the structures, peagasus, and zoom elites. OVer the years I've tried others but Nikes fit my feet the best and have the best forefoot cushioning which is key for my crappy made-for-tv-watching feet.

It is very cool to bash nikes but its a fact that most of the top guys wear nikes and I've never seen a single nike sponsored athlete train in anything but nikes.

I've had trouble with asics a while ago but I think it was because they were a bit wide for my foot. Many of my friends swear by asics.

I too know quite a few people at Nike, Adidas etc.

Most of the $$ Nike puts into running shoe R&D has to do with consumer perception, air bags, shox, personalized color schemes, fashion industry color trends, shape trends, consumer buying habits, etc.

Making the best possible running shoe is not rocket science, amassing market share where none existed before very nearly is.

Runners dont dislike Nike because of the millions they make from selling homies air Jordan crap, or because of Lance Armstrong, or football/baseball/basketball/soccer. Some runners (the ones that can actually wear the stuff) even like Nike running shoes.

I think the reason Nike has somewhat of a disfavorable image among runners is that they care more about selling running oriented products to non-runners, this is obvious from all the $$$ Nike spends to push such retarded crap as shox, free, airbags, etc. If Nike spent a (measurable) fraction on runners salaries of what they put into usless (yet strangley compelling) gadgetry, pro runners would be millionaires.

NB 825, and Asics Speedtar II rule.

I started running in high school in 1973 in leather Adidas trainers (Adidas Viennas - Retail Price $18.00). After a couple pairs of Adidas shoes in the mid 1970s I ordered a pair of shoes from a new running shoe company in New England. They advertised in the back of Renner's World that if you sent them a tracing of your foot they would custom fir your shoe. The company was called New Balance and I received an ugly pair of green suede leather trainers that had a letter "N" on the side of the shoe.

I have been wearing Nike Training shoes since the late 1970s. From the wafflet trainer to the Pegasus, to the Air Max. and now to the Moto. I did try Adidas during the span but I felt like my feet were slapping the pavement. I was also sponsored by Avia during the late 1980s but to be honest their shoes were very stiff. I have always found Nike to be a good fit for because I have a narrow foot. Nike has made a lot of shoes over the years and I have always been able to find an excellent trainer at a resaonble price. I think a lot of people trash Nike because of the sweatshop issue and they consider Nike to be the evil giant. Many times a shoe company will drop your favorite shoe from their product line. The Bowerman series is a good example of a company looking to take care of their loyal customers in that they say that these shoes will not be dropped off of their product line.

Bottom is line is what is good for you and your running. You want a shoe that will be comfortable, hold up after many miles of training, and help prevent injuries regardless of the brand. Ny experience is that once you fins something, stick with it. Often times the cause of running injuries is changing shoes styles from what you are used to.

Puma shoes are awesome!

With regards to New Balance, I work running specialty and I think they make fine midsoles/outsoles, but can anyone explain why their uppers feel so stiff? Really, when I put Asics/Mizuno/Brooks/Saucony on someone's feet they seem to go on like a glove, while New Balance feels very stiff around a person's foot and doesn't seem to shape to the foot at all. There are exceptions, like the 825, but I'm talking about the 767, 1061, 857, which are the three main ones we sell.

dumb upper wrote:

However, I do have one problem with almost all brands. They don't leave the same shoe. They are constantly changing the models and I really don't appreciate it. For example some people loved the 02 Pegasus'. Then they changed them until now the 07 model is said to suck (I've never worn any pegasus). My complaint with shoe companies is just that. They change the model and a lot of times discontinue the old model that people loved!

How else are the designers going to make their money?

Hmm, I'm not sure I really care enough what shoe to claim a bad brand. I generally buy whatever is on sale (most recently Nike kids shoes, only $20!) and just run in them. Mizuno is my fav, but haven't bought a pair in a whiel We get Nike at school, so I typically wear them.

But all in all, I think everyone's definitely over anzaylzing shoes here.

Best technical product: Brooks

Worst: adidas

Best technical product: Brooks

Worst: adidas

Of the serious running shoe companies (sorry Ebonics):

1. Asics, New Balance, Mizuno

2. Brooks, adidas, Saucony

3. Reebok, Nike, any others I forgot

I only wear light trainers and flats, so I have little experience with motion control, major cushioning shoes, etc. NB 755 is the first non-lightweight trainer I've had in three years and they're actually very nice other than the obvious weight difference. The new line of NB flats are also very nice, but I'd still give Asics and Brooks a slight edge in that category.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

I'd say Nike too. Some of the spikes are good and I like their clothes, but their running shoes are no good. When I was visiting colleges, I decided against one solely because one of the girls was running intervals in pink Nike Shox. I knew they weren't serious.

So you based your general opinion of a school based on what one girl wears? Thats too bad, you might have missed out. Who are you to say what one wears is good or bad? Maybe, just maybe, that girl likes Shox and they fit her so she uses them because she like them. Its a personal decision. I don't mean to call you out txRunnergirl, because I find you have some very valid points, but this is not one of them.

Before 2000, I used to be a huge Nike fan. Back then, there was the triax series, which I loved. However, Nike shoes now seem to fall into two extremes: big and bulky (the shox) and no support (the free). I can never seem to find a middle of the road shoe that appears to be high in quality. The materials that Nike is using to make their current shoes just appear cheaper and lower in quality than in the past. I have become an Asics convert by necessity. I used to buy multiple pairs of the air max triax in the good old days. Now, I find myself doing the same thing with the Asics Gel 2100. Do any of yall know of any roadracing flats that are under 50 dollars? I refuse to spend 70 dollars and up on a pair of no substance shoes that I only plan to race in. I made a huge mistake by running my first marathon in track flats (because I'm cheap) and got blisters that covered approximately 1/3 of each foot. I still ran respectable, but my last 10 miles were murder to my feet. I'll pay up to 90 dollars for my training shoes, but racing shoes--I don't think so.

lol do yall really think that nike wants to sell nike shox or frees to runners???? idiots. the pegasus, haywards mayflies those are all good shoes. the worst shoes have to be reebok

The new balance uppers feel stiff because they are stiff compared the asics biomorphic uppers and soft mesh found in the structure, adrenline, equalon, etc. NB uppers can be stiffer because they are more readily available in wide widths.Soft uppers strech to accomidate wide feet. Other companies are producing widths but only starting to promote them. But aside from that you have too make sure the shoe is the right shape for the persons foot. And you don't think the 1061 is soft enough? i sure as hell do. and even with the firm nb uppers i still get complaints from customers that they feel loose, even if they are bulging over the side. Go figure.

rankler wrote:

With regards to New Balance, I work running specialty and I think they make fine midsoles/outsoles, but can anyone explain why their uppers feel so stiff? Really, when I put Asics/Mizuno/Brooks/Saucony on someone's feet they seem to go on like a glove, while New Balance feels very stiff around a person's foot and doesn't seem to shape to the foot at all. There are exceptions, like the 825, but I'm talking about the 767, 1061, 857, which are the three main ones we sell.

gopre5k wrote:

and even with the firm nb uppers i still get complaints from customers that they feel loose, even if they are bulging over the side. Go figure.

Go figure indeed. based on my admittedly limited experience in that field, custmers will complain about just about anything. Things you never even thought couldbe a problem (the shoelaces are too thick, they hurt the top of my foot when I tie my shoes... what??) pop up. Sometimes I just don't know how so many people manage to make it through the day.