Are Nike trainers still widely seen as being “bad”?

NoNike? wrote: Doesn’t make sense to me because most pros wear Nike.

Pros wear Nike because they are paid to do so. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that one.

Now, I have been running since 1979, and my first pair of running shoes was a Nike waffle trainer...I think they were called the Daybreak but I don't recall for sure. It wasn't long before I switched to Asics (which was Tiger at the time.) Since then I have been a moderately successful college runner and road racer, worked for several years in a running shop that sold Nike gear, etc. What I learned about Nike running shoes in that time is this:

They stink on ice. Period.

Nike running shoes are all about fashion and absolutely nothing about function. That is all you need to know. (Although I will give a nod to their spikes and racing flats.) If you're wearing Nike, then you might as well be training in a a pair of 80s era Kangaroos.

Sure bud, that is why every major shoe company os trying to knock them off amd form their own version of Zoom X and Carbon Fiber plates.

When it comes to running Nike and Adidas are the top dogs. Maybe you're jaded cause you have not tried their racing line but what is sold at the mall.

This is a circular argument that the naysayers lose. More people wear Nikes and more college teams were Nikes and more pros wear Nikes. The naysayers claim that the pros wear them for the money I guess because Nike has more than the other companies due to higher sales. So that means they have more money for R&D making their shoes better in an effort to increase sales.

Predictor wrote:

This is a circular argument that the naysayers lose. More people wear Nikes and more college teams were Nikes and more pros wear Nikes. The naysayers claim that the pros wear them for the money I guess because Nike has more than the other companies due to higher sales. So that means they have more money for R&D making their shoes better in an effort to increase sales.

Don't mistake that colleges etc. Wearing them make the shoes better either. Since those schools get more money from their endorsement contracts from Nike, UA, etc.

Same reason NFL has nike but players wear other branded stuff during games.

What I see is othet companies are trying to emulate Nike and Adidas when it comes to running shoes. That alone tells me Nike/Adidas are doing something right.

Coffee Monster wrote:

Let's ask Rupp, Centro, Jager, Flanagan, Quigley, Frerichs, etc. if Nike products are good enough for them.

Or Farah, Kipchoge or Dibaba.

Nike trainers are perceived as being bad for a couple of reasons.

Nike does poorly in specialty running stores. Many running specialty stores simply don't carry Nike, period. Others don't push it very hard (Nike has been a notoriously bad partner for specialty stores). People who are into running (Runners World readers, not Letsrun readers) put a lot of stock in what they hear at specialty running stores. They see Brooks as the king of the big brands. They're also increasingly interested in boutique brands like On or Hoka. (Specialty running stores like the boutique brands as well because they don't get undercut by big box stores; On, in particular, is the least marked-down brand in the U.S. at the moment.)

Also, historically, Nike did not make very good "stability shoes" with medial posts. These types of shoes are popular with the average joe runner who is middle aged, carrying a few extra pounds, and has knee pain. It was probably intentional on Nike's part that it never courted this market segment. Nike would rather be perceived as a brand for the young and the fast, so it focused more on racing shoes and performance trainers.

Nike has not maintained a consistent and comprehensive lineup of training shoes. Shoes get frequently introduced and discontinued. While there are a couple of shoes that ostensibly are always in production, they frequently get totally reinvented. Moreover, this core line of shoes is pretty small compared to other companies' lines. This means that there's a good chance that in a given year, Nike won't make anything that you like, or if they do, you won't know what it is.

One thing that has helped Nike is that even though we're past the peak of the minimalism movement, one result of minimalism is that medially posted stability shoes are now a much smaller market segment. Lighter and lower drop shoes are more prevalent, and more running store associates are defaulting towards putting people in less shoe. A lot more people are looking at shoes like the Pegasus, which used to be seen as a shoe that was just for fast guys with efficient strides.

Refused to use them as I thought they were just for baller basketball types and wanna be runner. Went through all the boutique brands like altra, brooks, hoka, and have recently try the zoom flys...which I love. Feel like their recent shoes are taking running seriously and are good.