Worst running shoes that you've owned?

Nike Lunar Glide!

Brooks Beast.

zzzz wrote:

my pinky toes which have been deformed/turned sideways due to never having enough room in my shoes).

That's not a deformity. That's what it's supposed to look like.

help wanted wrote:

I hate all the Nike Free models. They make my ankles really sore from the lack of support. However, I still like to run in relatively minimalist shoes but the Frees just allow my ankles to roll way too much.

So you need support and you bought a shoe that doesn't have support. Whose fu\cking fault is that?

I was going to say the same thing. At the time, they were expensive too. The sole wore out so quickly that I was stunned, maybe 2 weeks at best and I could see the white midsole. I liked the shoes, but ... only after they improved the outer sole. Also, I was stupid and wanted to get the original Nike Air Max to be cool. At 6'2" 145lbs the Air Max didn't work out so well. ;-)Also, I bought some Montrail trail running shoes, cant remember the model. The ones that looked like a boot worked great on rough and rocky trails. I went with a sleeker waterproof pair with black upper, and red inner liner. The water proofing was great, but if water got into them, it never got out. The red inner liner stained every pair of socks that I owned ... I still have pink socks, years later. Finally, I twisted my ankles more in those shoes than I ever have in all my days of running.

aloha warrior wrote:

http://www.defynewyork.com/2011/11/24/asics-gel-lyte-running-shoe-1987/

The 1987 asics Gel Lyte. The upper was so thin that I wore holes in it after about 30 miles. The outer sole was a super-soft blown rubber (micro bubbles injected into the rubber for cushioning and flexibility) that wore down to the midsole by 75 miles. The Gel Lyte II was not much better. 1980s Reebok running shoes were also garbage. They don't look too much better today.

aloha warrior wrote:...The 1987 asics Gel Lyte. The upper was so thin that I wore holes in it after about 30 miles. The outer sole was a super-soft blown rubber (micro bubbles injected into the rubber for cushioning and flexibility) that wore down to the midsole by 75 miles...

This is a great example of why companies build different shoes instead of just one model. I had 2 pairs of the original Asics Gel Lyte as shown in the ad you posted, the white, orange and black model, liked them a lot. I got roughly 600-700 miles out of each, less than I currently get out of shoes but about average with what I used to get back then. Mostly ran no socks back then, had no problem with the uppers wearing through. I did carve a chunk out of the back rear of the sole due to the way I pronate, but that was probably 400+ miles into use.

I've never been a big Asics guy but these were good shoes for me.

Idontevenknow wrote:

aloha warrior wrote:http://www.defynewyork.com/2011/11/24/asics-gel-lyte-running-shoe-1987/

The 1987 asics Gel Lyte. The upper was so thin that I wore holes in it after about 30 miles. The outer sole was a super-soft blown rubber (micro bubbles injected into the rubber for cushioning and flexibility) that wore down to the midsole by 75 miles. The Gel Lyte II was not much better. 1980s Reebok running shoes were also garbage. They don't look too much better today.

So after all that shit you went through with the first ones you decided to buy the second version, too? How does that work?

I was working in a running store and got the shoes from the asics rep for free. I certainly wouldn't buy the second pair.

Idontevenknow wrote:

zzzz wrote:

my pinky toes which have been deformed/turned sideways due to never having enough room in my shoes).

That's not a deformity. That's what it's supposed to look like.

I don't think so. I just did a google images search for "pinky toe" and most people have pinky toe nails that face up. Mine face halfway between up and out (about 45 degrees). My three larger toes on each foot are straight, but the two smaller ones look like they have been crammed/pushed inward/deformed into shoes without enough toe room(to fit exactly into shoe insole outline), which they have for most of the shoes that I have worn in my life. It would be obvious if I posted a picture of my feet.

Saucony Kinvaras. They were terrible. like tying a thin piece of tall rubber on my foot and then tying plastic to the sides. Terrible horrible shoes.

My Asics Hyperspeeds have about 300 on them. I don't mind em. They still feel pretty good.

The worst recent new shoe I've tried is the asics Gel Nimbus 14. I'm 130 lbs and a forefoot striker. The Nimbus 13s offered great cushioning, but the midsoles of the 14 are as hard as a rock. I exchanged them for a pair of adidas Supernova Glide and are quite an improvement.

TRX was a beast. I remember getting mudd stuck in those shoes and each shoe was easy 5 pounds more...and the muds would come out. Sole would not wear out too....anyone ever run in Kangaroos? Terrible shoes.

slartibartfast wrote:

Mizuno Wave Riders. Felt great in the store, but they were so firm it was like running on bricks. They gave me ITBS. Even after I got healthy again, if I ran just 2 miles in those shoes, my IT bands started hurting again.

Another vote for these. I really liked the uppers, but the outsole was thin, combined with a dense midsole was a poor choice. It was close to being a good shoe.

Asics Cumulus, spring 2003 model. I got suckered in to buying that pair. Heavy, uncomfortable and just a bad shoe in general. I followed that up with a pair of kayano's and I hated those just as much. Had a few injuries in both of 'em, switched to minimalism (marathon racers, Nike frees, puma h-streets, etc) and have never had a running injury since. (altho, I also train smarter too).

Nike Epic.

vibram and nb minimuses.

Hoka's !

Anything minimal , fad is over !

Anything by New Balance. The last doesn't work for me and I find them high priced, compared to the competition.

Worst pair by far I have ever owned would have to be Adidas Boston's. Wore out quickly, weren't even very good to start...would put them well below any nike, asics or mizuno I have ever worn.

embarrassed to say it wrote:

Nike Shox. End of thread.

No doubt. Wore them 3 times. Killed my knees.

Worst:

Nike Vomero 3. The only shoe (and softest) I've ever owned that gave me hip and knee problems within a week of use.

Best:

So far, the Asics DS Trainer 16. Even with the terrible heel clutch collar, I managed to run injury free for over 2000miles.

OLD&wayslow wrote:

TRX was a beast. I remember getting mudd stuck in those shoes and each shoe was easy 5 pounds more...and the muds would come out. Sole would not wear out too....anyone ever run in Kangaroos? Terrible shoes.

The adidas TRX was a dog. The polyurethane midsole was hard, stiff and heavy. The outer sole would not wear out. The shoe was adidas answer the Nike's Waffle Trainer. It failed. I bought a pair of TRX Racers, which had a thinner midsole, but were still hard and stiff-returned them. Kangaroos only claim to fame was the little zippered pocket on the side of the shoe to carry your key and band aids for the blisters the shoes would cause from chafing. Kangaroo even sponsored a running team and had their name on the score/timing board at Hayward Field in the 80s.