First look at a 2005 Nike Shox

if you buy the nike shox for running you are retarded. have you seen how stiff they are or how much they will rip your achilles. have fun with plantar fascitis. take that 150 and buy 2 pairs of good shoes. and buy wal-mart flip flops for 1.50. that is an investment.

I believe that this thread should be deleted. It is supposed to be a runninng site with running related topics. Nike Shox have nothing to do with running.

owned

That and the Shox Bella which is coming out next month actually look like they could be useful.

It'll be interesting to see how they work.

I agree to a point that a lot of the Shox ARE crap--but it appears that Nike is working to make them more legit and acceptable to "real" runners, and the new crop looks like a step in that direction. Some people on here don't realize that all runners AREN'T 17-22 year old, 130 pound elite high/school college types, and that the bulky shoes that they knock on here DO in fact work for some people.

THE SHOX WORK FOR NO ONE.

I have the nike shox turbo and I like them, I only have about 300 miles on them but they seem to be holding up just like any other shoe and they feel fine.

skylon wrote:

Some people on here don't realize that all runners AREN'T 17-22 year old, 130 pound elite high/school college types, and that the bulky shoes that they knock on here DO in fact work for some people.

I'm between 17 and 22 years old, yes, but I'm neither near 130 pounds nor elite, even at the highschool level. This does not change the effects of training on my body. Second and third tier runners are hindered by bad shoes just as world record holders are.

I don't get the point of shox? They definitely aren't better than any normal shoes so why is Nike investing so much money in them to try and make them running shoes because its not like they are stepping up quality of running shoes with these pieces of crap.....They are way more expensive than nikes good running shoes (pegasus, elites, skylon, all bowerman series) If its for fashion purposes thats stupid too because they look ugly as hell. I'm scared in 3 years Nike is going to have no non shox running shoes and I'll have to switch brands.

of course not every running shoe is for everyone, but my wife has tested numerous Shox shoes--and she has loved them all. The most recent being a 2005 spring model with a seamless upper, and 5 pillars in the back--thought they had a great ride, were durable (she runs 80 - 100+ a week) and fit very well. Also new...a new Women's Air Jana trainer to soon come out...much simpler, light, and has a nice ride. Seems a tad old school.

Another crap shoe from Nike meant for the stylin and profilin yupps.

in runners world paula de rueck (sp?) was wearing the shox on a treamill. I hoped she just wore them for the phote run becuase wearing shox is bad of real running. Nike, i think makes shox for people who run like twice a week and think they are "real hardcore runners that need a lot of cushioning cuaes they run so hard" and people whoj ust think they look cool. now nike is finally going in the right direciton twoards more flat like training shoes like the free

lharpnad wrote:

paula de rueck (sp?)

Who??? You must mean Colleen Radcliffe.