I don't mean that the 1061 isn't soft. I mean that the 1061 upper isn't soft. And I was more wondering if anyone knew why NB constructs the shoes like this. Having tried on all these shoes, these three models just feel so different from anything else out there on the market in terms of not molding to the foot.
And NB can also get it right, as they've shown with the 825 upper. So why not get it right all the time? Or is there a market for stiff, uncomfortable uppers that I'm not aware of (as they obviously don't come into the store I'm at).
[quote]Paint me a Birmingham wrote:
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.[/quote)
fwiw , i love the nike haywards for a lightweight fast paced training shoe. It's in the Pre collection.
Either FILA, Champion, Starter, or Polo (yes, Polo does make running shoes that don't perform well at all)
Maybe not the "worst" shoes, but perhaps most dangerous if not used correctly or for the correct individual - Vibrams
Consumer Banshee wrote:
I offer a tie: Etonic and New Balance.
New Balance shoes are great. You just have to find the right models.
Every shoe company makes duds.
I'll say this. Asics is making many duds right now. They are super stubborn about keeping that 12mm drop on all their shoes. They wrecked the original Hyperspeeds by making them super narrow and crappy. They also discontinued my favorite 5km shoe the Piranha. They also recently put too much support in their "neutral" cushioned shoes (Nimbus and Cumulus).
Asics gets an honorable mention for replacing once good models with inferior versions. Sorry, I'm not buying them because they are flashier now! The original simple Hyperspeed4 was a masterpiece.
footmender wrote:
Maybe not the "worst" shoes, but perhaps most dangerous if not used correctly or for the correct individual - Vibrams
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
I wouldnt say new balance, even though they arnt exactly main stream id say they are pretty good shoes, atleast there flats are. And i cant really answer without a bias opinion since this is basically based on prefrence but id say addidas
nikeblows wrote:
aside from there spikes, nike running shoes blow ass, most of the real running stores in my area dont even carry the brand because competitive runners dont screw with nike shit... when bowerman passed away the company went downhill
or your running stores just dont make enough in sales for nike to even want to offer them product.
nikeblows wrote:
aside from there spikes, nike running shoes blow ass, most of the real running stores in my area dont even carry the brand because competitive runners dont screw with nike shit... when bowerman passed away the company went downhill
or your running stores just dont make enough in sales for nike to even want to offer them product.
Nike has a new plan to increase their market share at specialty running stores. They will follow the old 80 - 20 rule and will be offering a ton of incentives, special products and market programs to the top 20% of their specialty run accounts. We'll see if it works...without the right product it will be difficult.
I started running in 1976. I agree that all the shoe companies make both good and bad shoes.
I never preferred one brand over another.
Over the years I've had the best luck (chronologically) with:
Nike LDV (not the LD1000!)
New Balance 320
Nike Mariah
New Balance 620
Nike Terra
adidas Oregon
adidas Atlanta
New Balance NB200
Asics Epirus
Nike Skylon
Converse Equinox
Saucony Taya
Nike Free
Skechers Ultra
I probably forgot a few.
Brooks, Reebok and Puma never fit my foot.
In terms of shoes: running-wise the structure or pegasus are everything you need as a runner. Add the streak LT and regular 3's and you're done. If you like the nike fit this is it. Cheap, flexible, good cushion. Good shoes.
Everything else is pure lifestyle and rather sucks for competitive running. Flyknit stuff, free, lunar. Too expensive and gimmicky. Even though I have to admit that this stuff looks far better than everything else available on the market. Especially the apparel looks very good and fresh. Once you get this stuff you don't want to go back but after all you don't really need it.
Plain warm up suit, long sleeve, shirt, tight and shorts seal the deal. Cheap stuff or not doenst matter after all if you only care about times and not about the lifestyle factor.
Almost every major brand that attempts to make running shoes has made at least one excellent one and plenty of very lame ones. Although I'm not about to claim that Fila or Skechers are exactly my go-to brands, my favorite shoe ever was made by Fila (the Corsa Sette - a racing flat that was available around 2002-2005 or so), and the closest thing I can find t that these days is Skechers' GoRun Speed (i.e., Meb's shoe).
I haven't ehard this much, but my personal experience is that quality control in saucony is missing. three pairs -- 2 kids, one adult -- have had the soles peel off.
Adidas is obviously making the best shoes at the moment, their Energy Boost shoe is amazing for example. But even before that they were in the lead.
io wrote:
I'll say this. Asics is making many duds right now. They are super stubborn about keeping that 12mm drop on all their shoes.
Most Asics shoes have a 10mm drop. Some are 6mm.
*makes
It's always been new balance, probably always well.
This thread was started 7 years ago