21 replies to this topic

[Hamba]

For what its worth, here are my views on the various running shoe brands based on 23 years of on-the-road testing.

My "top tier" consists of Asics, New Balance and Adidas.  Asics because of their consistent high quality and avoidance of gimmicks (and also because my first running shoes way back in 1980 were Tigers). New Balance for the same reasons, although I've had one or two duds.  Adidas because they have really lifted their game recently.  In fact, they are my current favourite, despite having totally lost the plot a few years ago.

The second tier is Nike, and perhaps Brooks and Saucony.  Nike make some very good shoes, but they also make a lot of gimmicky dross, so I just don't bother tryin to sort the wheat from the chaff any more.  I haven't had much experience with Brooks and Saucony, but some runners seem to like them.

Then there's the rest - Puma, Fila. etc.  I've never worn them, so I can't really comment, but I'd guess they have a big hill to climb to establish credibility with serious runners.

I'm sure others will see things differently, but perhaps this will help if you don't know where to start.

[supersam]

Thanks for that Hamba.  Maybe more info. on why the shoes on your top tier are so good.

But I can't understand how you put Brooks and Saucony on your second tier if you haven't had experience with them and the others you haven't worn at all??

Isn't it a matter of what each runner prefers?  I seriously believe each person has their own best fit/fell shoe.  I personally can't wear anything but Brooks or I get bad shin splits

[davie]

What about Mizuno? I'd rate them with Asics as gimmick free, specified to either pronation/supination/flat-footed, and generally a little cheaper than Asics. Although they arent so popular in the US, many European and Asian athletes use them. As for Puma, the majority of Kenyan athletes run for Puma so they cant be all that bad...

[k_run]

I think the important thing is to judge each shoe on its merits not on who makes the shoe. I used to be a brand snob but in recent years have come to the conclusion that almost every brand makes some good shoes.
Once you have a good knowledge of what makes a good shoe you can select the best shoes for your self. I used to run only in Asics, I now wear a shoe from almost every brand and they all have different advantages. Davi i think the kenyans run in puma because they get paid to not because they are good shoes

Just some food for thought

[AJS]

Have been using Asics for about the last 5 years (yep also had a pair of Tigers back in the 70's - any colour you liked as long as they were blue and paper thin soles as I recall).  Just bought my first pair of Brooks, Adrenaline GTS 4's and ran 21 km first up in them with no problems. Very impressed with the ride and cushioning.  Had a pair of Mizuno Mavericks for some fast training last year but were a bit hard on the soles only use them to run on sand tracks now.  Haven't had Addidas or Nike for 15 years now and don't plan on any in the future not while Asics and now Brooks work for me. See you at the Gold Coast Marathon, looking for a sub 3 hour at 55 years of age (in my Asics!)

[NoSeven]

Must admit I am a fan of Mizuno at the moment, the fit is right for me and they feel good - each to his own. The only problem I have with Mizuno's though is when a rock of just the right size gets wedged into the wave under the heel. You end up clink, clink, clinking down the road until you can successfully flip it out with your finger.

[Winston]

I have to go with the majority of the group in this case saying that each shoe to their own! Certainly shoe companies fade in and out of making good shoes and despite what many think in here asics are cutting corners with some of their shoes too. This isnt an asics shoe bagging session or any shoe bagging session, I wouldnt wanna loose a star, but in saying one shoe is better than the next there needs to be some reasoning for backing it up either research or opinion. Opinion/experience is personal and research can often test a shoe in ways which it will never be used in running. My "opinion" would be if your onto something that works, stick to it and forget about the rest until that shoe stops working for you!

Happy Running!

[pepster]

Ahh what i would give for a pair of Adidas Rome.

[PEEKIE]

BROOKS Vapours! Pair after pair, alternating two pairs at the time right now, once you've found something that works for you stick with it is my motto when it comes to shoes.

[groovnden]

Good call Winston, run in what feel's best. I am shure that if people were blind folded and asked to try a number of shoes (not that you can run blind folded but I think you can see what I am getting at) they may even suprise themselves on the shoe they choose. Well I think their is enough free advertising for some of these shoe companies in this thread so I am not going to even mention a brand name.

Cheers,

[wazza]

Picking up on the post by Peekie - why is that manufacturers keep tweeking - I would love to find a style/brand of shoe that I could just keep going back to but just when I think I have found the perfect shoe (and perhaps that's the problem, there may be no perfect shoe!!) the next model/update introduces a slight change that means that it doesn't just feel as good as the previous one.  It's then back searching for the new "perfect" shoe - very frustrating

[Mal O]

wazza !  yes I totally agree.  The best pair of racing flats I ever had were the Asics DS Racer of about 1996 vintage.  They had the white upper (no fancy fluoro colours), great hard wearing sole with a good grip (even for cross country running) & lasted me ages (& I tend to trash shoes quickly).

When these had to go to the great locker in the sky, whatta you know.  The next model of DS racer had been changed totally to include:  soft, useless very quick wearing soles, mesh uppers that tore apart inside 6 months of use & nowhere near the same comfort & feel of the previous model.

I have not been impressed with the DS racer ever since.  & not only that, they're charging ridiculous prices for racers now.

Which brings me to my gripe for the day.  Racing flats used to be (& I'm only talking 7-8 years ago) the most basic lightweight shoe you could get.  It pretty much was only something to keep your bare feet from hitting road while racing (Which is all I want) & they were usually less than $100.

Now shoe companies are charging as much or more for racers than they are for Trainers.  I was desperately looking around recently for a new pair & the best I could come up with was over $180 for the DS racer. & that is if you can find a sports store that actually even stocks a racing shoe.

I'm looking like I'll have to hold together my old Adidas RATS Racers with tape for a few more weeks yet !

Cheers

[Colin]

Winston,
I'm concerned that you worry about star ratings when you make your point. Don't worry mate, you make perfect sense to me about opinion/self experience v research. I never give direct advice on what people should do based on my long, fairly successful running history, but I may say what has worked for me. However if posters are too lazy to research, give untested advice or make opinions that don't pass muster I will gather some research to fire back at them- and hopefully a sensible debate will sort it out. I did so recently in the foot strike debate.
For the record I find a particular model of a particular brand works the best for me. I bought three pairs recently at less than 50% when they 'tweeked' it up (different colours mainly). My wife runs in Nike Max Air, which is one of the few shoes that work for her difficult feet--no gimmicks there.
  :)

[Urban Boy]

I remember back in the good old 70's the hot shot shoe was the Dunlop KT26. I ran the first Sun Run over the Westgate Bridge in them and so far as I remember, they were fine.

I had a big time off running - about 25 years and have recently taken it up again.  I now run in Nimbus and find them pretty good. I wonder, can you honestly say that shoes now are much better, or is it all just sales hype ?

Are we as runners getting fewer injuries ?
Do the shoes do what they claim to do in improving comfort and promoting injury free running ?

I'd be keen to see if some of you seasoned runners out there have really noticed improvements over the years.

[Hamba]

Despite having started this thread with a shamelessly biased personal view of how the brands stack up, I absolutely agree that once you find a shoe that works for you, stick with it, even it's made by Dunlop or Doc Marten.  
Yes, stick with it ... until the manufacturer discontinues it!  And this is where my gripe lies.  If I think back on the hundreds of shoes I've owned, I'd say my top five would include a Nike (Elite), a New Balance (700), an Asics (forget the model name, but ran many marathons in them in the early 90s), a Nike again (the old Pegasus GX) and an Adidas (my current favourite - a white and orange pair I bought in the US last year, but I can't find a model name on the shoe).
So I'm happy to use whatever works for me, and I'm not a brand slave.  Unfortunately I can't buy any of these shoes because the manaufacturers have discontinued them.  What works great for me only ever seems to work for a year or two for Nike et al - then they feel that they need to change everything.  New gizmos that go boing.  New anti-pronation hyepertorsion moisture atomizing forefoot control devices that clean you toenails as you run and adjust the air-conditioning back home.  Why can't they keep a stable core of models that simply do the job? You know, like Wheat-bix, Corn Flakes and Rice Crispies. Surely runners' needs don't change all that much?  Or maybe we runners are not the core market - maybe running shoes are actually fashion items?
OK, I'll stop there before I start frothing at the mouth and hissing at the cat.
As an aside, anyone who remembers the old models I mentioned will have figured out that I like uncomplicated, fairly flat-soled shoes that don't hinder one's natural running style.
Oh, and the reason I nominated the white and orange Adidas model was that I bought a pair at the Boston marathon expo last year and insanely decided to run the race with them the next morning.  I did 2.51 and felt totally comfortable throughout the race.  Since then I have run them remorselessly into the ground, and have not had a single blister, knee niggle or arch-ache.  I wish I could find out how to get another ten pairs!

[Colac]

If shoe manufacturers were proud of their shoes, they would have a money back guarantee if not satisfied.

Even in the 1960's, running shoes with spikes for the track were only guaranteed to last two 100 yard sprints.

I cannot get any shop to guarantee the shoes will last 1,000 kms (5 weeks training for me).  

I would love to try on some of the top shoes, but not without a reasonable guarantee.

[timmypaw]

What a great topic - I must confess I am a new balance fanatic,  whilst running they are comfortable, sturdy and cushioned and while ive been pregnant they have given me a stable walking shoe which is great for swollen sore ankles and feet.
Ive got a new pair coming for when I get back into my running but im going to keep my old pair simply for comfortable walking
take care everyone
Tracey  :)

[MattCarr]

Definitely ASICS for me.  I do a lot of running and they last.  The upper never breaks down and the sole takes a long time to wear out.  And they feel good and keep me injury free as well. I can't speak about any other brands though because I haven't worn anything else for a long time. It must say something though, when I saw it reported that a very large majority of Australian Triathlon Ironman competitors wear ASICS with the kinds of distances they would be doing.  Surely they can't all be 'fashion victims'.
Matt

[Jogger]

I think that over the years I have been running, I have a binge on one make (one or two or even more models) for a couple of years before moving on when the company changes models drastically. Therefore I have a pretty LOW opinion of running showe companies - that would be all of them - I can't see that any one is better than another.

The makes I have run in are Adidas, Nike, Brooks, New Balance, Asics, Saucony, New Balance, Brooks (in that order - over a period of 20+ years). In response to previous threads on Nike - I did run some VERY successful years (3 or 4) in Nike, so am not anti-Nike - but it seems that every time I see Nike shoes now, there are 50 models and it is hard to work out what's a fashion shoe, what's a cross training shoe and whats a serious shoe - so I just give up andmove on.

Other than Nike, I probably spent most time in Asics - went thru a whole serios of about 6 models, maybe 2 or 3 shoe sin each model, THEN the next time they changed it just didn't feel right so moved on.

I will change again, no doubt when Brooks screw with their line again (note to Brooks - the Addiction is a damn fine shoe - just leave it alone!) My feet have barely changed in 20 years, so all I can see is shoe companies trying to change with fashion, yet after a week of running all my shoes look the same - dirty & muddy & scuffed up.

[maccattack]

I'll weigh into this one with my own personal observations.  Nike are very cogniscent of their image among Australian runners, that is largely they are a Home boy brand selling fashion shoes and gimmicks.  They have done some marketing to health professionals in the last few years to expose their serious running shoes to opinion shaping and advice giving Physios for example by sponsoring conferences and giving each delegate a free pair of shoes.  I got a pair of their motion control shoes (appropriate for my plates of meat) and tried them, having been a Beast user and happy, I did a comparison after running in the Nikes for a month (and my mileage is absolutely miniscule compared to the vast majority of you Croolrunners).  They felt light (not a bad thing), but didn't offer the support I had been used to in the Beast.  On heel cup rigidity and torsional rigidity (squeeze the heel cup together, can the sides touch? and grab the toe and heel and rotate in opposite directions) the near new Nikes failed miserably in comparison to my ancient Beasts which had served two years as mowing, painting gardening shoes after the sole had completely worn through, exposing the midsole in places.

Conclusion: on tests of structural rigidity and solidness, Nikes best didn't cut it with Brooks' even with years of abuse on the clock. This means that this 90something kilo very flat footed part time non competitive mostly firetrail runner won't bother paying for Nikes (they're good for whippersnipperring though).

PS: FOR SALE In a not unrelated topic I have a pair of Nike Pegasus (I think, will check at work tomorrow) in Size 11.5 (I know because they are a full size too big for me) which I got at my last Nike sponsored conference, FOR SALE to the highest bidder, still in box, I haven't even tried them on. Best offer accepted, can pick up at Trailwalker start.

[maccattack]

AAAnnnndd, the big two which get recommendations from Sports Docs, Physios and Podiatrists from my shmoozing research are Brooks and Asics.  Asics have done a smart marketing move by getting the SMA endorsement across their entire range, you would have seen the swing tags (if you bother reading all seven of them that come on each pair!!)

[maccattack]

Just checked, the one's I have for sale are Nike Air Pegasus 2002 (wide) size 11. Going for whatever someone will pay for them.