A few years ago, more than half of the elites were running Nike Alphaflys, whether officially or even re-badged.
This year, there were 3/20 runners in Nikes across the top 10 finishers in both the Men's and Women's races combined, none in the top 5 of either race (Hassan was the best at #6 in the Women's race).
Is this evidence that there's finally an even playing field?
The 2025 New York City Marathon delivered one of the most thrilling finishes in race history, and one of the most revealing glimpses yet into the ongoing
Adidas has done a much better job than Nike at cranking out high-performance shoes and track/training shoes with high-end foams in such a manner that the best bits quickly filter down even to their low-priced trainers. Their top flight racing shoes and gear are top of the heap. They also produce enough inventory and filter it out to so many outlets that deals are ALWAYS available for excellent Adidas shoes and running clothing.
Nike came out with their high-performance elf shoes many years ago now and they've not changed them up that much, while also continuing to charge BIG $$$ for every pair ever since. It seems they sink huge amounts of their revenue into stunts like the sub-2:00 festival, along with Oregon football, along with crazy expensive advertising, but their focus on running tech seems fleeting.
Now, both Nike and Adidas ebb and flow when it comes to focus on running. There have been long periods in the last forty years when either, or both, had few/no great running shoes and were focused on other sports or fashion (see: Michael Jordan BBall and Tiger Woods Golf).
Still, at this point, it appears that Adidas continues to innovate and to push their best tech into shoes everybody can afford. Adidas was also first out of the gate with ETPU/Boost, years before the rest of the pack. At this point Nike offers a small line of elf shoes with PEBA-based foam and sometimes added zoom air pods, but they are incredibly expensive and have become stale IMO.
Adidas has done a much better job than Nike at cranking out high-performance shoes and track/training shoes with high-end foams in such a manner that the best bits quickly filter down even to their low-priced trainers. Their top flight racing shoes and gear are top of the heap. They also produce enough inventory and filter it out to so many outlets that deals are ALWAYS available for excellent Adidas shoes and running clothing.
Nike came out with their high-performance elf shoes many years ago now and they've not changed them up that much, while also continuing to charge BIG $ for every pair ever since. It seems they sink huge amounts of their revenue into stunts like the sub-2:00 festival, along with Oregon football, along with crazy expensive advertising, but their focus on running tech seems fleeting.
Now, both Nike and Adidas ebb and flow when it comes to focus on running. There have been long periods in the last forty years when either, or both, had few/no great running shoes and were focused on other sports or fashion (see: Michael Jordan BBall and Tiger Woods Golf).
Still, at this point, it appears that Adidas continues to innovate and to push their best tech into shoes everybody can afford. Adidas was also first out of the gate with ETPU/Boost, years before the rest of the pack. At this point Nike offers a small line of elf shoes with PEBA-based foam and sometimes added zoom air pods, but they are incredibly expensive and have become stale IMO.
Adidas FTW.
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
How many Nike athletes were even in the race? There were only six international women who finished the race, not many Nike American women in the marathon. Same for men, only Mantz at the front and he wasn’t there
How many Nike athletes were even in the race? There were only six international women who finished the race, not many Nike American women in the marathon. Same for men, only Mantz at the front and he wasn’t there
I agree with this. Chicago is a Nike race and therefore Nike athletes were more heavily represented there. Only leaves a few competing for top spots for NY.
Adidas has done a much better job than Nike at cranking out high-performance shoes and track/training shoes with high-end foams in such a manner that the best bits quickly filter down even to their low-priced trainers. Their top flight racing shoes and gear are top of the heap. They also produce enough inventory and filter it out to so many outlets that deals are ALWAYS available for excellent Adidas shoes and running clothing.
Nike came out with their high-performance elf shoes many years ago now and they've not changed them up that much, while also continuing to charge BIG $ for every pair ever since. It seems they sink huge amounts of their revenue into stunts like the sub-2:00 festival, along with Oregon football, along with crazy expensive advertising, but their focus on running tech seems fleeting.
Now, both Nike and Adidas ebb and flow when it comes to focus on running. There have been long periods in the last forty years when either, or both, had few/no great running shoes and were focused on other sports or fashion (see: Michael Jordan BBall and Tiger Woods Golf).
Still, at this point, it appears that Adidas continues to innovate and to push their best tech into shoes everybody can afford. Adidas was also first out of the gate with ETPU/Boost, years before the rest of the pack. At this point Nike offers a small line of elf shoes with PEBA-based foam and sometimes added zoom air pods, but they are incredibly expensive and have become stale IMO.
Adidas FTW.
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
I was mostly speaking to road shoes, not as much about track spikes, so I'll accept your points re track spikes. Regarding Boost, my point was that Adidas was the maker that introduced advanced midsole foams to the market, not that Boost is comparable to the newest PEBA and Nylon-based foams. BASF Boost is old news now and has long been superceded by (primarily) Lightstrike Pro in different Adidas formulations. Different strokes but I prefer LSPro to the Nike foams. Still, Nike was pushing EVA and zoom air pods for years after Adidas innovated with Boost.
Next, I'll point out that I'm one who is always on the look out for deals, and (1) Adidas has done a great job of trickling their good tech down their line and (2) there are almost always great deals available in the US on even the top drawer Adidas shoes and gear. One can easily find the Pro at significant discount all throughout the year. That's not the case that I ever see for Nike top-end stuff, which seems to always ask a large premium.
Last, when was the last time you noticed Adidas staging stunt races? Dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on a college football team? Running endless wildly expensive national and international ad campaigns? Dropping their running line almost entirely for years so that they could dump hundreds of millions into golf?
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
I was mostly speaking to road shoes, not as much about track spikes, so I'll accept your points re track spikes. Regarding Boost, my point was that Adidas was the maker that introduced advanced midsole foams to the market, not that Boost is comparable to the newest PEBA and Nylon-based foams. BASF Boost is old news now and has long been superceded by (primarily) Lightstrike Pro in different Adidas formulations. Different strokes but I prefer LSPro to the Nike foams. Still, Nike was pushing EVA and zoom air pods for years after Adidas innovated with Boost.
Next, I'll point out that I'm one who is always on the look out for deals, and (1) Adidas has done a great job of trickling their good tech down their line and (2) there are almost always great deals available in the US on even the top drawer Adidas shoes and gear. One can easily find the Pro at significant discount all throughout the year. That's not the case that I ever see for Nike top-end stuff, which seems to always ask a large premium.
Last, when was the last time you noticed Adidas staging stunt races? Dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on a college football team? Running endless wildly expensive national and international ad campaigns? Dropping their running line almost entirely for years so that they could dump hundreds of millions into golf?
Have never run in adidas. Which would you recommend for Halfs? Thx.
Adios Pro (3 or 4) or Takumi Sen could both work well for the half. The Takumi Sen is lower stack height and some would use it for 10K or shorter road races, but compared to racing shoes of even a few years ago the Takumi Sen has a lot of stack. Both employ Lightstrike Pro foam and carbon fiber energy rods. Both use very thin but very durable and tough Continental rubber strips on the outsole.
While that may be true of the elite athletes, Nike f*cking crushed it with guerrilla marketing.
From walking into the ferry terminal and seeing it covered in Nike ads, a freaking ferry with wrapped with the swoosh right in front of the Statue of Liberty to billboards all over the course - it definitely felt more like a Nike race than NB
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
I was mostly speaking to road shoes, not as much about track spikes, so I'll accept your points re track spikes. Regarding Boost, my point was that Adidas was the maker that introduced advanced midsole foams to the market, not that Boost is comparable to the newest PEBA and Nylon-based foams. BASF Boost is old news now and has long been superceded by (primarily) Lightstrike Pro in different Adidas formulations. Different strokes but I prefer LSPro to the Nike foams. Still, Nike was pushing EVA and zoom air pods for years after Adidas innovated with Boost.
Next, I'll point out that I'm one who is always on the look out for deals, and (1) Adidas has done a great job of trickling their good tech down their line and (2) there are almost always great deals available in the US on even the top drawer Adidas shoes and gear. One can easily find the Pro at significant discount all throughout the year. That's not the case that I ever see for Nike top-end stuff, which seems to always ask a large premium.
Last, when was the last time you noticed Adidas staging stunt races? Dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on a college football team? Running endless wildly expensive national and international ad campaigns? Dropping their running line almost entirely for years so that they could dump hundreds of millions into golf?
I appreciate the conversation, and thank you for clarifying what you meant regarding the outsole. Though, along the same lines, wouldn't you equally give points to Nike for bringing in zoom X as new tech while adidas kept with Boost incessantly for so many years? Also, regarding affordability, I can see a pop up ad here for the VF on the letsrun site for $161.99usd. That's a fairly substantial discount in my book. That's not something that you'll see with the EVO1 or EVO2, as both still sell for $500usd- or as much as 600 euros, as they're near impossible to find in Europe.
The last stunt race from adidas I noticed was only a few weeks ago with the WR attempt on the 100km in South Africa. There was quite a bit of interesting tech that they used regarding outsoles being heated/cooled, etc. Even the pants and jackets were all specially designed for the athletes in the attempt. Before that, the stunt was the day of 10k races they use at their HQ in Herzogenaurach each year. You'll also remember that the very first breaking 2 project was actually with Adidas and their sub 2 hour shoe that they developed. Unfortunately, their main proponent was pinched for nefarious activities, so that quickly faded away.
In the end, I think that both companies (and racers) have their positives and negatives.
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
I was mostly speaking to road shoes, not as much about track spikes, so I'll accept your points re track spikes. Regarding Boost, my point was that Adidas was the maker that introduced advanced midsole foams to the market, not that Boost is comparable to the newest PEBA and Nylon-based foams. BASF Boost is old news now and has long been superceded by (primarily) Lightstrike Pro in different Adidas formulations. Different strokes but I prefer LSPro to the Nike foams. Still, Nike was pushing EVA and zoom air pods for years after Adidas innovated with Boost.
Next, I'll point out that I'm one who is always on the look out for deals, and (1) Adidas has done a great job of trickling their good tech down their line and (2) there are almost always great deals available in the US on even the top drawer Adidas shoes and gear. One can easily find the Pro at significant discount all throughout the year. That's not the case that I ever see for Nike top-end stuff, which seems to always ask a large premium.
Last, when was the last time you noticed Adidas staging stunt races? Dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on a college football team? Running endless wildly expensive national and international ad campaigns? Dropping their running line almost entirely for years so that they could dump hundreds of millions into golf?
I see Nike shoes on sale pretty regularly and other than when VF first came out there is almost always stock somewhere in the US and their shoes are easily bought. But for some reason the Adios 9, one of the only adidas shoes I even care to buy is never in stock in the US. Right now there are some special colorways on their site for nearly $200 and thats it. I have to buy from overseas to obtain a pair. Ridiculous.
A few years ago, more than half of the elites were running Nike Alphaflys, whether officially or even re-badged.
This year, there were 3/20 runners in Nikes across the top 10 finishers in both the Men's and Women's races combined, none in the top 5 of either race (Hassan was the best at #6 in the Women's race).
Is this evidence that there's finally an even playing field?
You can't do the analysis that way any more. The major marathons are now somewhat siloed by brand, so a Nike race will have a lot of pro Nike runners. A major marathon not sponsored by Nike will have relatively few pro Nike runners. Consequently, you can't look at the podium or top ten finishers and make valid conclusions about the quality of the shoes.
Adidas has done a much better job than Nike at cranking out high-performance shoes and track/training shoes with high-end foams in such a manner that the best bits quickly filter down even to their low-priced trainers. Their top flight racing shoes and gear are top of the heap. They also produce enough inventory and filter it out to so many outlets that deals are ALWAYS available for excellent Adidas shoes and running clothing.
Nike came out with their high-performance elf shoes many years ago now and they've not changed them up that much, while also continuing to charge BIG $ for every pair ever since. It seems they sink huge amounts of their revenue into stunts like the sub-2:00 festival, along with Oregon football, along with crazy expensive advertising, but their focus on running tech seems fleeting.
Now, both Nike and Adidas ebb and flow when it comes to focus on running. There have been long periods in the last forty years when either, or both, had few/no great running shoes and were focused on other sports or fashion (see: Michael Jordan BBall and Tiger Woods Golf).
Still, at this point, it appears that Adidas continues to innovate and to push their best tech into shoes everybody can afford. Adidas was also first out of the gate with ETPU/Boost, years before the rest of the pack. At this point Nike offers a small line of elf shoes with PEBA-based foam and sometimes added zoom air pods, but they are incredibly expensive and have become stale IMO.
Adidas FTW.
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
boost is highly outdated and adidas now uses lightstrike pro in their shoes which i believe is some form of tpee.
The Evo Pro 1 and 2 are not "nearly impossible" to find in Europe. Both can be found in all sizes on the Adidas EU website.
I think Nike made a big mistake with the Vaporfly 4. A lot of fast marathon runners (some elites included) preferred the Vaporfly over the Alphafly. But the Vaporfly 4 is no longer a marathon shoe.
Personally I have switched to the Evo Pro 1 and 2 after having run in every Vaporfly iteration. They don't feel better than the Vaporflies but they are super light and lighter is faster.
A few years ago, more than half of the elites were running Nike Alphaflys, whether officially or even re-badged.
This year, there were 3/20 runners in Nikes across the top 10 finishers in both the Men's and Women's races combined, none in the top 5 of either race (Hassan was the best at #6 in the Women's race).
Is this evidence that there's finally an even playing field?
Yea but with the useless shirt that Kipchoge was wearing they might have gotten more airtime than any other company
The Evo Pro 1 and 2 are not "nearly impossible" to find in Europe. Both can be found in all sizes on the Adidas EU website.
I think Nike made a big mistake with the Vaporfly 4. A lot of fast marathon runners (some elites included) preferred the Vaporfly over the Alphafly. But the Vaporfly 4 is no longer a marathon shoe.
Personally I have switched to the Evo Pro 1 and 2 after having run in every Vaporfly iteration. They don't feel better than the Vaporflies but they are super light and lighter is faster.
As of 4 weeks ago, the .de site was completely sold out. Though they do translate to $575usd, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I’ve ordered a pair.
I would also agree that the new VF is now closer to the Streakfly than it is to the Alphafly- as you said, no longer a marathon shoe. What are your thoughts on the Alphafly and its progression? I’m personally not a fan of anything after the originals.
