Who make the WORST running shoes out there now?

Guys, it's OBVIOUSLY altra

Do Altras actually suck? Don't think I've known anyone who has actually ran in them. Have considered buying them a couple times though.

Hoka

I guess Adidas is having a hard time getting the word out on these great shoes as their market share in the US is about 3%...maybe you're from Germany?

I run in Altras. They feel amazing. Everyone is different though and has to find the right shoe for them.

DuckfanO wrote:

Do Altras actually suck? Don't think I've known anyone who has actually ran in them. Have considered buying them a couple times though.

Ahem...Newtons want a word

Nike, they seem to be spitting out cheap shoes for profit rather than quality

Surprised Under Armour hasn't been mentioned. Although they just hired an industry veteran from Mizuno, by way of Brooks and Nike, to head up their running division.

colsterb wrote:

Nike, they seem to be spitting out cheap shoes for profit rather than quality

They've lost their way. Once considered the best brand for distance runners in North America.

Change @ Park wrote:

colsterb wrote:

Nike, they seem to be spitting out cheap shoes for profit rather than quality

They've lost their way. Once considered the best brand for distance runners in North America.

I find it hilarious that they aren't trying to make a better quality shoe. Nike started out as a running company, now all they do is make basketball shoes, baseball cleats, etc. It's also interesting to point out that they aren't really advertising that much for their running products. Nike has Galen Rupp and Mo Farah to use. If I saw a Nike ad with Galen Rupp, it would get me pumped to buy some Nike products (except the shoes of course)!

I would also vote Under Armour.

Reebok isn't even trying. the real flex only fits freakish 2A feet, while the ONE is a barely passable neutral trainer.

Saucony makes the shoes w/ WORST DURABILITY the Kinvara in particular lasts

... 100 miles before the upper tears. Ditto Cortana. Poor design.

n

Nicko wrote:

Ahem...Newtons want a word

Newtons are the running equivalent of the POWER basketball shoe that Jimmy had on Seinfeld.

Ha...Newton... yet another company being run by a former Brooks guy...by way of New Balance and Reebok. The running shoe industry retreads (pun intended) executives at the same rate that the NBA does coaches.

Under Armoire wrote:

I would also vote Under Armour.

Reebok isn't even trying. the real flex only fits freakish 2A feet, while the ONE is a barely passable neutral trainer.

Saucony makes the shoes w/ WORST DURABILITY the Kinvara in particular lasts

Kinvara is not supposed to be a high mileage shoe. It's only supposed to last 200-300 miles. Hence the term "light weight trainer".

Lol did you read my post? Every single Saucony I've purchased, including the "premium" Cortana, failed at 100 miles.

Also, unless you're invoking some kind if industry jargon, "lightweight trainer" describes the weight of the shoe, not its durability. Wtf would a "heavyweight trainer" be?

I have a different fit than others will. But of what I have tried,

1) Brooks

2) Saucony

3) Asics, New Balance

4) Mizuno

Never tried Adidas or any serious Nike shoes.

Mizuno did not really feel right.

Actually I tried Nike once and ended up injured in BOTH feet. This thread started in 2007.

New Balance and Brooks are way better IMO since then

Salt Lake City man wrote:

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.

happened to mine. But they seriously felt amazing until that point