Who make the WORST running shoes out there now?

I agree that the Nike Air Mariah were great shoes. Perhaps my all-time favorite. We named our youngest daughter Mariah. When ask at a young age who she was named after she replied "I was named after a shoe" :)------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Greenburg wrote:

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 guess they are, certainly seems that way considering how little people talk about them in this thread. Ive tried, NB, Nike, Adidas, Mizuno and Asics. All pretty regular at specialist running stores in Europe, altough NB doesn't have that many pairs. Puma is getting there as of lately.

Adidas Energy Boost is brilliant, seriously. I haven't tried Nike Flyknit, perhaps they are equal? Who knows. But that what I know is that shoe feels so fvcking great. Yeah I sounds like someone working from Adidas, blabla. Its lightweight, have good cushioning and its firm. I feel that Asics shoes are just comfortable, soft but not made for anything other than easy runs. No spring.

NB gets a lot of attention here, but they are not very popular among good runners in Europe for example.

I'd have to say the worst make of running shoes has to be Gravity Defyer. I ordered a pair from the SkyMall after reading about how great they were during a cross-country flight. Horrible to run in.

This thread is so dumb, are there any people that have ever worked in a store here? This list could change in order ever 3-5 years as that's how often each company completely overhauls their lines. There's only like half a dozen shoes on any specialty running shoe store wall that are in double digit generations. Some of the ones right off the top of my head are the Pegasus (probably the longest standing shoe ever), the Structure (which shouldn't count because 15 to 16 was an entirely new shoe), The Adrenaline (best selling specialty running shoe) and the Nimbus/Cumulus.

No "running" shoe company makes "bad" shoes. There are right and wrong shoes for people. A lot of times people end up choosing the wrong shoes or they are fit incorrectly at a specialty running shop (which ultimately makes the companies look bad).

Running for X amount of years in this conversation means squat because the shoes aren't even close to the same as what we had in 2000.

With that being said... what I like that is out there now:

Nike's Pegasus/Vomero/Structure are probably their best trainers. Also for all of you idiots who don't think that Nike colleges run in their shoes, try going to a big XC or track meet and see what the top tier schools have on their feet. Pegasus out the butt at these things.

Brooks line is pretty much flawless although I have narrow feet and they don't fit my foot

Asics is practically the same freakin thing as Brooks, I wear the cumulus because it fits my foot

Saucony is solid, the only thing I heard "Under Armoire" complaining about was over durability. If youre a heavy dude or you just run heavy, the shoes are not for you.

Mizunos for me die just as quickly as the saucony's, but I see people come in to the store all the time and say they have put 800 miles on a pair. blows my mind.

Having Power Grid inside of them is way better than their pro grid, but still they will break down.

New Balance is trending up. They have drastically changed their line in the last 5 or so years and are a real contender in the store right now.

Adidas Glide/Boost are probably their best trainers, their faster shoes are also pretty solid.

Hoka is catching on fast and boy are they soft. They are light and comfy and you don't even know how big they are after about 5 minutes.

Altras are awesome, Newtons Ehhh

Bottom line is you have to be open every time you go in to get a new pair of shoes. Something WILL be different. It's almost as impossible as the Tech industry

Adidas is definitely the best. The majority of posters here are talking about models that are at least a two years old. Although, I thought Adidas was the best before they came out with the boost midsole they are now capturing a larger audience (middle of the pack runners) with their new boost shoes.

Just because Adidas only captures ~3% of the US mkt, doesn't mean their shoes are shitty. One could make the comparison to watching good movies/tv shows. If you're watching what the majority of the US is watching, chances are the show is probably some pathetic reality tv series. Meanwhile, the quality tv shows get cancelled. i.e. arrested development.

BTW - the nike flyknit is not equal to the energy boost. don't waste your money.

Asics, Brooks, Saucony, Nike, NB, Adidas, Mizuno all make a handful of really quality RUNNING shoes. Some may work you, some may not, but they're all quality. The fringe brands like Altra, Spira, Sketchers, etc are the worst running shoes out there. They look shitty, perform shitty, and sell shitty. The quality of these fringe brands are well below what the more common brands have to offer in their running line.

I tested Skechers Go Run and was impressed by them. Cheaper and IMO better than Kinvara and Mirage. Although i like the general saucony shoe setup and ideas their midsoles are slightly too stiff and 'bricky' out of the box. Gets better after breaking them in but somehow feels dead.

your post is so dumb - companies definitely make bad shoes, id burn through a 150 dollar pair of fly nits in two weeks, maybe three. My 30 dollar faas 250s easily go 2 months.

durability is a key factor for most serious runners, even though we all make 150k a year who wants to spend money on shoes?

no way wrote:

Consumer Banshee wrote:

I offer a tie: Etonic and New Balance.

Have you ever even worn New Balance? There's no way they're even in the running, nevermind tied for the worst shoes made. Some aren't the best, but they make a few that are pretty darned solid. Nike is a little more sellout with some gimmick type stuff but even they aren't in the running for the worst made.

You're talking a whole other level of quality when you get to Etonic, Starter, and so on.

When talking trainers, no one has great shoes across the board but as running brands they fall into tiers:

1) Asics, Brooks, Mizuno, Saucony, New Balance

2) Nike, Reebok, Adidas, Puma

3) Loco, Spira, Vitruvian, and all the other startups, Etonic probably falls in here

4) Starter, Champion, Sketchers, all the JC Penney knockoff brands

I would have to agree with this assessment. Nike has had some better trainers in recent years though

What category does UnderArmour fall in?

And now that Sketchers Makes a few shoes for Meb, are those better than the shape ups and KIM Kardashian booty shaping line?

Yet you let nikeman mount you.

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.

What are the serious Nike running shoes?

I don't understand why lightness has to come at the gist of durability. I've put over 600 miles in the adizero tempo, it is a seriously hard wearing shoe made of good quality but not flashy materials. In the kinvara on the other hand a shoe I do like I get about 200 miles. Anyone looking at this shoe can see that a few carefully placed pieces of rubber would extend the life of the shoe. My belief is that it is deliberately made to fall apart. I've just bought some asics super j so will see how they go.

I'll fit you wrote:

Saucony is solid, the only thing I heard "Under Armoire" complaining about was over durability. If youre a heavy dude or you just run heavy, the shoes are not for you.

The soles of my ProGrid Mirages peeled off at 20 miles. Yes, 20 miles. I assumed it was an off-pair til it happened with a pair of my son's shoes. And then it happened with a 3rd pair. I've put 650 miles on DS Trainers before.

Tempo tempo wrote:

I don't understand why lightness has to come at the gist of durability. I've put over 600 miles in the adizero tempo, it is a seriously hard wearing shoe made of good quality but not flashy materials. In the kinvara on the other hand a shoe I do like I get about 200 miles. Anyone looking at this shoe can see that a few carefully placed pieces of rubber would extend the life of the shoe. My belief is that it is deliberately made to fall apart. I've just bought some asics super j so will see how they go.

Asics tend to be very soft shoes, fits the hobbyjoggers and slow runners.

Saucony shoes are a bit cheaper but also last a shorter amount of time. Adidas shoes tend to have great durability.

Nike. Everything they make is pure dogcrap

Nike trainers are pure sh*t. Their flats are mediocre, their spikes are fantastic.

I love Adidas trainers and flats, they make the worst spikes on the market by far.

Worst trainer wrote:

I have always run in nike's but over the last 2 years or so the shoes that nike are making are complete crap. I think they should just get back to basics with good cushioning and uppers instead of the crappy midsoles and uppers that they use at the moment.

My own personal fave at the moment is the Moire+. I know it is supposed to be used with the ipod but it is great for general running. Lightweight and comfortable, just needs a little more cushioning in the forefoot.

I gave always run in nike's what?

Don't knock Skechers until you have tried them.

I was skeptical, but needed to find a shoe to run asphalt half marathons.

I run 95% of my mileage on dirt (roads & trails) and have been running in the Free & Kinvara for the last 4 years. Mainly the Free (15 pairof the 5. or 3. and one pair of Kinvaras) They are both great on dirt, but when I run an asphalt half marathon (11 the last 4 years) my ankles, calves and feet start cramping around 11 miles.

I recently bought two pair of Skechers, the Ultras and Ride 3. Yesterday I ran a hilly 14 miles (elevation gain of 1400 ft) in the Ultras and felt great this morning. Normally my quads would be tight. I'm 68.

I ran 9 miles this morning including 8 sets of strides and felt better than I have for years.

The Ultras are a 'little' heavier and bulkier than the Ride 3, but they are still extremely flexible and responsive.

As soft as they are I was worried about the effort it might take running the steep uphills but I had no problem.

Again....don't knock Skechers if you haven't even tried them.

Over the last 39 years I've run in adidas, Nike, New Balance, Saucony, Asics (Tigers), Etonic, Mizuno, Converse, Hoka and now Skechers.

The only thing that remains to be seen is: how long will the unbelievable cushioning last and will I get my usual 400 miles out of them.

nikeshoxman wrote:

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.

What are the serious Nike running shoes?

First, this post was from 7 years ago and my opinion on Nike running shoes has changed. I actually wear primarily Nike now. That said, they still have their fashion running shoes and their specialty running shoes. This is what I meant by "serious."

Fashion Running Examples: Shox, Air Max, most of the newer Frees, make-ups for retailers like Kohl's, etc.

Specialty (aka "serious") Running Examples: Their entire racing line, Pegasus, Vomero, LunarGlide, Flyknit Lunar, some of the older Frees, etc.