I am trying to decide between the the Nike Hayward's and the 2006 Pegasus. I was a big fan of the 2002 Pegasus', never ran in the 2004 and did even bother with the 2005 because of their bad reviews. Right now I am running in the Nike Skylons(3) which i like a lot and are a lot lighter then the 2002 pegasus.
I have not heard too much about these new shoes, so I was wondering if anyone else has tried them out?
I loved the Skylons and now run in both the Hayward and the Pegasus 2006. If you like the soft, cushiony feel of the Skylons, then get the Haywards. If you like a firm midsole and a wider shoe, then get the Pegasus 2006.
anyone else?
I have been running in the Air Structure Triax 9. They are great. These shoes have forefoot zoom air and you hardly notice the weight.
I would definately suggest picking up a pair.
zoom hayward resemble the skylons much more closely than the pegasus... 10 oz vs 11/11.5 oz correct? different air units I beleive, Zoom Air (hayward) vs. regular Nike Air (skylon) so zoom will be more responsive... both use duralon and phylite materials. pegasus has the sticky waffle design with a lot of BRS 1000 carbon rubber and uses phylon material for the midsole. haywards are also the most comfortable shoes I've ever worn - know anywhere to find Skylon's anymore? even ebay doesnt have em. Ever tried the Zoom Elites?? A bit more durable than the hayward/skylons and the stability (medial post) isn't that noticable.
How accurate/reliable do you think the Runner's World Shoe Reviews are? They are out in the September issue.
Well, considering the Hayward was designed to replace the Skylon, it should feel very similar (and it does in my opinion). The only real difference between Haywards and Skylons is that the Hayward is slightly more flexible without compromising the weight. The Pegasus are stiffer and, unlike the normal "Nike fit", they're pretty wide in the toe box. Both are good shoes, but if you like the Skylons, then I would choose the Haywards.
If you look at Nike's non USA sites the Hayward is the Skylon. It is a great shoe and I have some runners who are on their 2nd pair and love them dearly
what about the Air Coos? any thoughts?
They are horse shit. Two things that I read made me instantly put it down and hate RW even more:
1) They said the Avia Euphoric II was a 'stability' shoe, which I instantly called BS on because even though it is beefier, it woudl completely destroy some one who needed a stability shoe. And 2) they said that the 767 was for a "runner with low to Normal arches looking for an every day trainer." Why is that garbage? Well maily because if you put some one with normal arches in that shoe they will instantly start to supenate (sp), then they will eff up their IT band, then their ACL, etc. The only person who could get away with it is some one who runs less than 10 miles per week....
i have the coos bay and they are a good shoe. They are tight in the toebox so try them on before you buy. If you have a wide foot stay away from them but if you have a narrow foot they are great. Normal foot you may need to go up 1/2 a size. I have over 100 miles on them and they run great.