Nick Arciniaga, sponsored by Under Armour, takes 7th at Boston. should Under Armour shoes be taken seriously?

Which versions was he using? Is there more than one?

A search for men's running shoes on their website returns 13 results.

I've been skeptical too.

Company images/perception to me:

Sketchers: seems like a knock off brand for moms who want tone booties to be more like Kim kardashian

The change : with MEB kicking butt with them, might be good

UnderArmour: seems like it's for meatheads and crossfit types

The change: with nick Arcinaga kicking butt with them, might be good.

Reebok: used to make running shoes but now more crossfit

Fila: used to make running shoes in the late 90s/early 2000s but now sells mostly knock off crap at Marshall's and tjMaxx

If that's the shoe he was wearing, it's kind of silly looking, but not over the top. At 6.0oz, it's light enough to race in and has some decent cushioning. Can't see myself in UA shoes for the foreseeable future.

At 120 dollars, i'll stick to brands that have proven themselves and are half the price.

I think the minimalist trend really lowers barriers to entry for new shoe companies. Sketchers has messed around with some "tech," but their shoes have been better received since they moved away from it. It's gotta be relatively easier to develop a 7 oz shoe that's basically a thin sheet of EVA with a rubber outsole than to design something to compete with the Kayano.

I used to run for a club in Baltimore that did wear testing for UA. Few people liked the shoes.

Fritz Taylor, ex-Brooks and Nike, most recently at Mizuno, now heads up UA running. Will take time, but if anyone can bring them legitimacy, he can.

For a guy like Arciniaga to switch from adidas to Under Armour (looking at his Twitter, he's been wearing the UA shoes for a couple of months) shows that he likes what he's wearing.

Bright future, big resources.

I would peg them for more long-term success over Skechers.

I work for Under Armour, i'm forced to actually wear their stuff. I would NOT EVER advise wearing their shoes, they are made in a factory and payless quality. Avoid at all costs. I'm honestly very surprised if he ran a marathon in them, they don't even offer a Marathon shoe.

Skeptical of knock off brands wrote:

Reebok: used to make running shoes but now more crossfit

Yep. Now they make some money. Crossfit. TFM.

Whydoihaveastiffy wrote:

I work for Under Armour, i'm forced to actually wear their stuff. I would NOT EVER advise wearing their shoes, they are made in a factory and payless quality. Avoid at all costs. I'm honestly very surprised if he ran a marathon in them, they don't even offer a Marathon shoe.

Ive got a feeling you work for either adidas, Nike or asics.

#ocl wrote:

I would peg them for more long-term success over Skechers.

I disagree. Under Armour is a clothing company trying to get into the shoe business. Skechers is a shoe company with a small collection of clothing- they hired away a guy from Nike (who helped create Nike Frees) and another guy from Fila. I'd much rather be backed by the shoe company (Skechers), who's investing wayyyy more into research and design of their shoes, which is far more critical than the clothing.

The truth is that you can wear a really shitty pair of shoes for 1 race (a marathon) and as long as they're not bricks and pretty lightweight it probably won't make any damn bit of a difference.

[quote]Yoga Fire, Yoga Flame

You do realize that Under Armour is a footwear company, right? They make the best baseball, football, lacrosse cleats in the business, just take a look at MLB and the NFL (and any kids rec league, my kids wear their soccer shoes).

They probably have more revenues than Skechers in footwear, especially after Skechers's lawsuit for its toning shoes and since their business is so niche (toning).

I love that they sponsored Meb, though!!

My school is sponsored by under armour and I can tell you that their shoes are crap. Every kid on the soccer team tries to get a doctor's note so they can wear either Nike or adidas cleats instead of the UA ones because UA cleats are terrible. Our basketball team goes through shoes on a weekly basis because they are so terrible that they blow out frequently. Our cross country and track team were told by UA that they are exempt from the footwear requirement because UA themselves know how bad their shoes are. Pros wear the cleats because they have a contract, not by choice. Kids where them because UA is a "cool" brand. I can't tell you one athlete at my school that would actually choose to wear UA shoes.

Look around the NCAA at all of the UA sponsored schools and show me one where the cross country and track team actually wears their shoes. Even Notre Dame with their new, big UA contract will be wearing shoes from another company.

Yoga Fire, Yoga Flame 16min 5k wrote:

The truth is that you can wear a really shitty pair of shoes for 1 race (a marathon) and as long as they're not bricks and pretty lightweight it probably won't make any damn bit of a difference.

Forgot that using the "less than" sign cuts off the rest of the message.

This statement above is not true. I once got a new pair of shoes (an updated version of a pair I wore), wore them for 3 days, and ran a marathon in them. I was slipping so badly on the wet concrete it jacked up my hips and back. I ended up returning them to Running Warehouse and got a full refund, even with less than 50 miles on them. Shoe design matters. Go with the company that's putting more emphasis on R&D of their shoes. Skechers is definitely making a solid product.

Well Captain America ran 13 miles in like 30 minutes in them. So they must be good.