19 replies to this topic

[Flat Foot]

I was having a look at the Nike Shox range. I thought the heal on these was a bit of a gimmick, however it seems that some people I know who wear them for pedestrian use say they're quite supportive and reduce soreness in the knees and back. I want to know from runners out there whether they are any good as a running shoe. Who's tried them? Help!!! :unsure:

______________________

(Response to first feed back - contained below)

Wow.

That's some feedback. Thanks a lot everyone. If anyone else has something more to add that would be great as I am going to spend some cash this weekend and buy a pair of running shoes htis weekend. For those of you who said no, did anyone actually try the shoes on? I want to make my decision based on previous experience (and thanks to those who gave me feed back from their own experiences). So if you're saying no because you have an aversion to Nike (I've been an addidas boy from way back because of the quality boots the've always made for soccer players), then please let me know what makes your shoe so great. The reason I'm asking so many questions is that I have come back from two knee recos from playing soccer but I still want to run. I need something that gives me great cushioning support. I'm still heart broken over the fact that the medics had to cut my Addidas preditors off my right foot when I did my knee the last time (long story). So the more info, the better.

Thanks again to everyone who has responded so far.
FF

[Stu Mac]

I wouldn't if you paid me!

[thebigbonito]

Hi there Flat Foot ..

from a company that basically established themselves throught the running boom of the 70's & 80's, Nike have not only dropped the ball but totally lost it in recent years. Very few 'serious' runners wear their shoes and they seem far more intent on making fashion statements these days. Don't get me wrong - I cut my running teeth on their waffle trainers and loved their racing shoes (Elite racers & spikes) of the past. Sad fact is they just seem to make accessories for gangsters these days.
My tip is to get some suitable New Balance/Asics/SauconyAdidas/Mizuno Trainers on special somewhere for $90 to $160 and go with that.
Good Luck and Good Running :-)

[42.195]

Nike=no!!

[Action]

No.


Now, what part of that answer is not understood? :rolleyes:

[shark]

No

s

[MPHinLondon]

No for me too.

Had a pair of them a number of years ago when I knew no better and only lasted a few months or so before I was limping with pain in my knees!! True story.

Binned the runners and so with them went the pains, but you live and learn eh?

[PodRunner]

No.

But I haven't run in them. They are heavy due to the amount of plastic needed to cover the "shox", and seem too elevated in the heel which can increase chances of a medial or lateral strain. They also seemed quite inflexible in the forefoot.
The pair the rep showed me were an early model so they may have improved.

Like the big bonito I was also a big fan of Nike in the 80's (was amazed to see a pair of LDV's walk past the other day). Their original Terra Trainers, Odyssey, Pegasus, Epic etc were cutting edge in their day, although the Terra TC probably stuffed my knees- full length phylon midsoles- no support- but Seb Coe used them so I had to have a pair!

Tried some Air Structure Triax 6 a couple of years ago(freebies) and not terrible but not great, too soft for me but that may just be personal preference.

Have recently continued my affair with 3rd pair of Brooks Trance. Awesome shoes.

Cheers, Andy

[hillclimb]

I've been running with the Nike Shox TL stealth black model since January this year are these are my impressions:

Good:
* Easily stand out from the crowd, I notice people kept looking at my shoes walking around shopping malls.
* The Nike Shox systems work to a point. It definitely felt some rebound on foot strike different to my Asics Kayano IX, Mizuno Wave Creation and New Balance 1022.
* Very comfortable for my because of the wrap around design of the uppers.

Bad:
* The Nike Shox TL is a lot heavier than my Kayano and 1022.
* Little latteral support, this shoe is strictly for the neutral runner only.
* The shoe seems to sit higher than standard shoes due to the shox system.
* Poor quality foam insert.

I ended up using this shoe for my treadmill running sessions for its firm cushioning and shox system which seems to be suited to my treadmill running. Due to the lack of lateral support I kept thinking I could roll my ankle at anytime running on the uneven footpaths in these shoes. So in summary I would not recommend this shoe for serious running.

[runninlate]

I run in Nikes - Pegasus & Zoom Elite - and I've mostly been happy with them.

I've never tried any from the Shox series though, heel is too high & looks like you'd seriously get injured if these break. Try those from the Bowerman series instead - these are Nike's "real" running shoes ;) ).

[Crazy Diamond]

Seems the majority view is pretty clear (ie a pretty resounding "No"), but thought I'd relay an interesting incident after I recently visited a friend. She knew I did the odd bit of running, and was curious why she'd been getting soreness in her knees after recently taking up casual running again (after never experiencing such soreness in years gone by)

She was confused even more as she'd gone out and "spent hundreds of dollars on these high tech looking shoes" (her words). So I asked to see her shoes - lo and behold, Nike Shox...

They may work for some, but I'd rather be injury and worry free than to be out there making an individual/fashion statement.

Have a great day everyone

[Hamba]

Nike still make a few good shoes, but most of their output is gimmicky, fashion-driven stuff. I've paid good money for some good-looking lemons over the past few years. It's become too hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff, so I simply avoid Nike these days. New Balance and Adidas work well for me.

I guess Nike are pursuing the most lucrative market segments (teenagers padding around in shopping malls, fashionistas, aspirant gangsters, once-a-week runners, etc), but in the process they seem to have alienated a large proportion of the serious runners who move through 10 or more pairs of shoes every year.

[Flat Foot]

Wow.

That's some feedback. Thanks a lot everyone. If anyone else has something more to add that would be great as I am going to spend some cash this weekend and buy a pair of running shoes htis weekend. For those of you who said no, did anyone actually try the shoes on? I want to make my decision based on previous experience (and thanks to those who gave me feed back from their own experiences). So if you're saying no because you have an aversion to Nike (I've been an addidas boy from way back because of the quality boots the've always made for soccer players), then please let me know what makes your shoe so great. The reason I'm asking so many questions is that I have come back from two knee recos from playing soccer but I still want to run. I need something that gives me great cushioning support. I'm still heart broken over the fact that the medics had to cut my Addidas preditors off my right foot when I did my knee the last time (long story). So the more info, the better.

Thanks again to everyone who has responded so far.
FF

[tim]

my last 5 pairs of expensive shoes have been nike. I ran from the Sydney to Gosford in a pair of Pegasus. I haven't had any problems with them. I would not write them off just because it is popular to do so.

[rabbit]

Yo Flat Foot - Whatthuuuuup!
Wouldn't let shox near me - and it's not because I've got nike phobia. I'll wear any brand if it's a good shoe.

I've been running in Asics mostly for the last decade and prefer a lighter shoe like the ds trainer but at the moment I'm in Nike Zoom Elite's. They are right up there with the earlier models of ds trainers and in my opinion, are far better than the recent models.

However, if you're a plodder (no offence) as your handle implies I'd recommend slipping into Kayano's.

Best Wishes,
Rabbit - The friendly running gangster.

[Dom]

Flat Foot,

I've run in a pair of Nike Pegasuss from the Bowerman series. They felt really comfortable early on but the cuhsioning seemed to die pretty quickly. Not sure if this is just me or not as it was in the days beofre a training log, so not sure how many kms i actually racked up in them.

At the end of the day i would say - go to a reputable running store; take their advice and see what feels good to you.

[Cl@rkey]

Having been at the pointy end of running footwear - retail - for several years off and on, but currently off. It is very clear that there is no one style/brand/type of shoe that will suit all runners.
Runners need to find the shoe that is exactly right for them. And if you are offered the chance to truly try before you buy - rare but don't knock it back if offered.
My advice is to only buy from someone you feel is giving you quality information about the shoes on offer. If the information is tailored to what you need and not just the latest model/special/must have....great. If not - walk away.
There have been many posts about quality retailers - check out the ones recommended.

To Nike Shox - I've seen the models evolve, since they were launched in 2000/01. And from the information Nike provides - Shox are not for all runners. But it is worth noting that RW rated the Shox Total highly for heavy runners due to superior cushioning.
From the models being released it seems shox is a technology to stay - but again will never be 'the one' for all runners. (as with any style/brand/model). Try and assess for yourself.

My experience. I've owned and run in both the Shox R4 and Shox Turbo. Both were good for me at one time, but found as I got fitter and faster I needed a different type of shoe - so I changed. But would still use them for an easy shortish run without a problem. But thats just me.

As with all things relating to your footwear. Ask for and listen to advice, but make your decision for you, based on what you believe will be best for you and your running.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I'd probably also say NO, and I'm currently running in Nike's (and NB's, Mizuno's, Adidas etc). My reason for going against them is simply due to the whole spring design: I bought a pair of Adidas A3 (Adi-shox, ha!) with a springy heel system and they suck...but they look impressive. Needless to say I've probably run a max of 100km in them and now my brother wears em to the gym, lucky they were on sale! I dont think having any kind of innovative heel system is really natural, plus its gotta add a decent amount of weight to the shoe. Once you have an idea of what type of shoe you need (neutral/motion control/cushioning) then look around and dont get sucked into buying $220 Asics/Adidas because the 'expert' at Athletes Foot recommends them.

[Cl@rkey]

Hi Ralph Wiggum,

Couldn't agree more about the Adi-shocker!!
But what can you expect from a blatant attempt at a copy.
Consider this - The Adi version came out only months after Nike Shox, but Nike had spent over 14 years (on and off) developing the technology.

It's unfortunate you found out the hard way.

Totally agree with your comment about how to go about finding the right one for you. Whatever the brand.

JMFC

[wombatface]

Action said: "No.

Now, what part of that answer is not understood?"

The lack of an exclamation mark!