Thinking about getting these. Have heard trackhead say that he likes the 2003 because the 2004 is too soft. Any other opinions about the differences between the two versions? Thanks. I land laterally, just behind the ball of the fifth metatarsal, and roll in from there. My toes don\\\'t point totally straight, so I don\\\'t do well in a shoes that push my foot medially or are to pillowy.
In my opinion, the newer Tiger Paw rolls a bit to the outside edge of the toe box. I felt that as I landed the shoe allowed, or caused, me to roll forward and out away from my big toe. If you look at the front end of the shoe it appears that there is slightly less foam under the outer edge of the toe box than the inside edge. For me this was uncomfortable and I felt like it did not allow me to get the kind of push off that I would like.
On the other hand a friend of mine runs in these, feels no real difference, and likes them just as much as the older versions.
Thanks. The pushing laterally may be ok for me because I have a tendency to pronate and I use the Burn which has been accused of doing the same thing. So I'm still not sure what to do.
i have the 2003 or 2002 (not sure which they are), and i have one complaint on them, traction. i find that if the road is even a little bit wet, or if there is just bit of sand or something, then i'm sliding back an inch on every step. obviously it probably feels worse than it is, but its annoying. i wear them on the track a lot for workouts and again, if has rained and the track is still damp, i feel like i'm sliding.
I'm looking but does anyone have links to these shoes at a good price?
Eastbay has the 2003 version for cheap.
Any difference in terms of fit or arch support?
Tiger Paw 2003 by KO in round 2
Couldn't tell if you were serious or joking, so I'll ask: why do you like the 2003 better?