asics craftsmanship?

I am starting to get that feeling too. I am sure that I've put in well over 500 miles in every pair of Kayanos I've worn. Never had a promblem with the craftsmanship.I wore an older model this morning and they felt great, I am not sure if I like the current Kayano model as much.

HHH wrote:

You should buy a pair of Saucony or Mizuno or even Brooks, Asics are overhyped and not living up to their inflated reputation.

i've got Speedstar I's and II's

great shoe. good cushion. nice wide toe box. porous upper.

I's are very very slightly more firm and narrow - when i hold up the soles - the I's appear just a millimeter or 2 wider. II's are a tiny bit lighter. duo-sole pattern is different on the II's and i like the white upper more than the bright yellow I's

i've done 5 marathons in them - doing Boston in the II's

all the DS shoes have some stability. the Speedstars and the Flash (if you can still find them) are more neutral

Speedstars gave me terrible achilles tendon problems, Asics use a firm plastic in the heel cup which does not adapt to the shape of the heel, the Speedstar 1's also had very little forefoot flex which puts a lot of strain on the achilles tendona nd can casue plantar. Asics shoes have a history of casuing plantar in loads of athletes I know, even those sponsored by teh company, this is due to the arch placement. Asics are a poor product outide of Japan, where they actually make god product.

yeah sorry im such an idiot...you try paying for new shoes every 2.5 months, while paying for college and a car and everything else...oh thats right you still live with mommy and daddy who pays for everything

They need to bring back the old G-9 racer. This was made back during the days of Blue Ribbon Sports.

Ahhhhh....nostalgia.

As others have said, the craftmanship issue you're seeing is unusual. I've been running in Asics for about 12 years; GEL-1xx, 1xxx, had some knee trouble, went to GEL-2xxx and been pretty happy with all of them. (Well, the laces on the 126s were TERRIBLE, but other than that...) Recently I tried on the Cumulus and decided it fit my foot better than any shoe I have previously tried. On my fourth pair now. As a note, I have basically neutral foot-strike, with a slight over-pronation tendency

In that limited sample, I found the pair that I used mostly on the roads only went about 350 miles before I started feeling beat up after runs. With the current pair I've been sticking to trails and grass about 85% of the time and I'm at about 430 and feeling fine.

To Suprise!: I've got a pair of Speedstars I've been wearing for track workouts and road races. I like them a lot, possibly becuase they feel like a light version of the Cumulus.

To Asics Expert: I too have seen people get injured when they switch into Asics, especially people coming from Nikes. I speculate (somewhat wildly I admit) that it is becuase they tend to be built with a lower heel than Nikes are, putting unaccustomed stress on the achilles.

Are you one of those flaming engineers? Chrissakes, its running not chemistry.

Asics expert wrote:

the Speedstar 1's also had very little forefoot flex

Asics shoes have a history of casuing plantar in loads of athletes

little forefoot flex? i think you've never worn the shoe. the entire forefoot is flexible...

name one athlete, that anyone would recognize, with plantar problems from Asics

My training pack have run in asics for over 4 years and they have been perfect for high mileage training over all terrains and fast road/xc races.We swear by them and would never wear anything else.The serious runners choice. And i dont work for them either!

I emailed ASICS about the G-9 flat. They were nice about it, but the guy who answered did not what the G-9 was.

Guess it's time to take me out behind the barn and put me down.

Geeez.

Bo Schembechler wrote:

Are you one of those flaming engineers? Chrissakes, its running not chemistry.

No, I'm a staight engineer. Not that I would like myself any less if I was flaming.