New Balance

I switched from Nike when they dropped the pegasus several years back. I ran
in the NB 1023 and the only complaint I ever had was the ugly colors they pick
for the men's shoes. I'm like 6' and weigh like 180 and have a lot of foot
problems. I thought the cushioning was excellent, they are very durable, I do
20 miles a week and could get a year out of a pair if I replaced the insoles
after months four and eight, no negative comments except the color. Why is it
that NB makes nice colors for womens shoes and ugly colors for mens. They
think men have poor taste or what?

Quoted message said:

I'm like 6' and weigh like 180 and have a lot of foot problems. I do 20

miles a week and could get a year out of a pair if I replaced the insoles after
months four and eight
____

"a lot of foot problems"...& running in shoes with 800, 900, and 1,000 miles on
them?

having no interesting in stirring up any debate on this ng, or saying something
controversial, or causing david in ontario to pee his pants and seek an
opportunity to focus and jab at me personally (yet again), i will say no more
and leave this observation standing.

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden]

"a lot of foot problems"...& running in shoes with 800, 900, and 1,000 miles on
them?

So what do you suggest, I'm open to advice.

Quoted message said:

Hi, I'm considering getting one or more of the following New Balance

shoes:

Quoted message said:

1023,750, and 753. From your experience, could you comment your likes

and

Quoted message said:

dislikes of each. Thank You.

This may not be very helpful, but here goes. I normally run in NB 880s.
Early this year I found some 1022s on sale (precursor to the 1023) and
bought a couple of pairs. I prefer the 880s, which are lighter and more
flexible and have a wider toebox; next to them the 1022s feel like
bricks. But I got a lot of good miles out of them with no complaints.

I haven't tried the 750s or 753s. Aren't those stability shoes and the
1023 a cushioned shoe? Or am I confused?

Brian B

Quoted message said:

So what do you suggest, I'm open to advice.

___

ok, i'll answer you. imo the majority of your running takes place in the
"diminishing returns" zone w/your shoes post 300-400 miles...for starters. i
would not run in a shoe that's hit its peak in the the bell shaped curve, the
lifetime arc of the useful period of a shoe. especially if i had, "foot
problems".

how many years have you been putting 1,000 miles on a pair of shoes? imo there
might well be accrued damage that you may not realize for years going forward.
(that is if 50% of your running over the years has been with a shoe that was
not doing it's job on the way down, as it was on the way up).

OK, before all the people that have put 1000+ miles on your shoes start
posting...I don't doubt you. Very talented toe/ball strikers can do this w/no
penalty in a stability shoe. Especially if you weigh 140 .lbs. You're the
exception. As a rule....most folks should get out their shoe at 500 miles
tops. Context is critical when people tell their stories....about shoe
milage. Terrain, Their Height/weight, foot striking style, etc. Absent from
all who usually chime in are these critical factors....

I once called NB and asked them about their $200 shoe, the 2000 series (lately
known as the riviera)...the lifetime/span of that shoe? They told me they
advise runners to do no more than 500 miles in even that shoe (top of the food
chain of overly built comfort rides). I don't think there's a shoe conspiracy
to turn over shoes. I don't think the podiatrist are in bed w/the running
shoes companies to concur w/this 400-500 mile opinion.

IMO it's an issue of preserving your lifetime of running. Donovan's got a guy
on his race team that's 92 or 93 years old or soemthing like that. I gotta a
better shot of being that guy in 51 years by only seeing the sweet days of my
shoes today.

I advise you start dumping your shoes once they've peaked.

Lanceandrew said:

Quoted message said:

I'm like 6' and weigh like 180 and have a lot of foot problems. I do 20

miles a week and could get a year out of a pair if I replaced the insoles after
months four and eight
____

"a lot of foot problems"...& running in shoes with 800, 900, and 1,000 miles on
them?

having no interesting in stirring up any debate on this ng, or saying something
controversial, or causing david in ontario to pee his pants and seek an
opportunity to focus and jab at me personally (yet again), i will say no more
and leave this observation standing.

I typically get good of mileage out of my NB. I'm at 700
in my motion shoes. Course they are pretty hefty and well
cushioned. Thinking about a new pair but I'm not having
any issues. My otho's make be making the diff..

NB did say I'd get several 100's out of them.

Jtiche said:

I switched from Nike when they dropped the pegasus several years back. I ran
in the NB 1023 and the only complaint I ever had was the ugly colors they pick
for the men's shoes. I'm like 6' and weigh like 180 and have a lot of foot
problems. I thought the cushioning was excellent, they are very durable, I do
20 miles a week and could get a year out of a pair if I replaced the insoles
after months four and eight, no negative comments except the color. Why is it
that NB makes nice colors for womens shoes and ugly colors for mens. They
think men have poor taste or what?

A little mud, a few grass stains, and they'll look
just like everyone else's.

I agree about the cushioning in NB.

Lanceandrew said:

Quoted message said:

So what do you suggest, I'm open to advice.

___

ok, i'll answer you. imo the majority of your running takes place in the
"diminishing returns" zone w/your shoes post 300-400 miles...for starters. i
would not run in a shoe that's hit its peak in the the bell shaped curve, the
lifetime arc of the useful period of a shoe. especially if i had, "foot
problems".

What bell curve? The moment you start to run in
a pair of shoes they begin to deteriorate. Period.
Shoes are at theior "peak" when they're new. They
don't age like fine wines....

I'd wager it makes a diff how long your runs are.
If you're only running 20 miles/week, you're not
going to notice the down side of wear effects as
much if you ran 70 miles/wk.

Quoted message said:

how many years have you been putting 1,000 miles on a pair of shoes? imo there
might well be accrued damage that you may not realize for years going forward.
(that is if 50% of your running over the years has been with a shoe that was
not doing it's job on the way down, as it was on the way up).

OK, before all the people that have put 1000+ miles on your shoes start
posting...I don't doubt you. Very talented toe/ball strikers can do this w/no
penalty in a stability shoe. Especially if you weigh 140 .lbs. You're the
exception. As a rule....most folks should get out their shoe at 500 miles
tops.

Context is critical when people tell their stories....about shoe
milage. Terrain, Their Height/weight, foot striking style, etc. Absent from
all who usually chime in are these critical factors....

I once called NB and asked them about their $200 shoe, the 2000 series (lately
known as the riviera)...the lifetime/span of that shoe? They told me they
advise runners to do no more than 500 miles in even that shoe (top of the food
chain of overly built comfort rides). I don't think there's a shoe conspiracy
to turn over shoes. I don't think the podiatrist are in bed w/the running
shoes companies to concur w/this 400-500 mile opinion.

IMO it's an issue of preserving your lifetime of running. Donovan's got a guy
on his race team that's 92 or 93 years old or soemthing like that. I gotta a
better shot of being that guy in 51 years by only seeing the sweet days of my
shoes today.

I advise you start dumping your shoes once they've peaked.

Jtiche said:

I switched from Nike when they dropped the pegasus several years
back.

You should try the new pegasus. They're better now than they ever were
before.

Quoted message said:

I ran in the NB 1023 and the only complaint I ever had was the
ugly colors they pick for the men's shoes. I'm like 6' and weigh
like 180 and have a lot of foot problems. I thought the cushioning
was excellent, they are very durable, I do 20 miles a week and could
get a year out of a pair if I replaced the insoles after months four
and eight, no negative comments except the color.

My word, that is entirely too many miles on a pair of shoes. No wonder you
have foot problems. At 20 miles a week, you should be thinking about buying
new shoes every 4 months.

Regards,
H.

Quoted message said:

You should try the new pegasus. They're better now than they ever were
before.

OR you could buy a comparable or superior shoe of another brand for $40 less
than you'll pay for nikes garbage.

Quoted message said:

My word, that is entirely too many miles on a pair of shoes. No wonder you
have foot problems. At 20 miles a week, you should be thinking about buying
new shoes every 4 months.

This is true when you wear nikes. With them you need several pairs a year. You
can buy a pair of Asics for less money, and they'll easily outlast the nikes by
two times.

You guys all bash on the Nikes, but I gotta say I really like my Pegasus.
And I've tried others, even the much-recommended Asics 2080 & 2090. I've
got feet that are a little wide, and, even in wide width, the Asics just
feel too darn tight across the top and in the toe box. That, and they
seem to change my running just enough to give me a little soreness in my
calves and out in my already-touchy left knee.

That said, I'd like to hear other good neutral cushioned alternatives to
the Pegasus, as I'm always open to experimenting to see if there's a ride
I like better.

[email hidden] (FabulustRunner) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You should try the new pegasus. They're better now than they ever
were before.

OR you could buy a comparable or superior shoe of another brand for
$40 less than you'll pay for nikes garbage.

Quoted message said:

My word, that is entirely too many miles on a pair of shoes. No
wonder you have foot problems. At 20 miles a week, you should be
thinking about buying new shoes every 4 months.

This is true when you wear nikes. With them you need several pairs a
year. You can buy a pair of Asics for less money, and they'll easily
outlast the nikes by two times.

Say a little prayer ~
....the moment I wake up,
Just take time...

[A little Aretha
Each day,
Makes the world go round!]

*
“I’ve put in so many enigmas
And puzzles that it will
Keep
The professors busy
For centuries.”
~ Mum

rightbackatcha ~

8gone8

..|***|................................~(@:> *

9run!0
_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Quoted message said:

You guys all bash on the Nikes

Well, mostly just me in different ID's <EG>
But I'm not saying there aren't people who can wear them without problems,
there are. But generally these seem to be lightweight runners, with no issues
like pronation etc. But for the other 90% of us, there are better shoes
available without the "advertising budget" built into the price. And I'm still
sure you can find a better quality shoe for far less money in another brand.

"Newsdude" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You guys all bash on the Nikes, but I gotta say I really like my Pegasus.
And I've tried others, even the much-recommended Asics 2080 & 2090. I've
got feet that are a little wide, and, even in wide width, the Asics just
feel too darn tight across the top and in the toe box. That, and they
seem to change my running just enough to give me a little soreness in my
calves and out in my already-touchy left knee.

That said, I'd like to hear other good neutral cushioned alternatives to
the Pegasus, as I'm always open to experimenting to see if there's a ride
I like better.

Try the Asics Cumulus instead of the 2090/2100 since it's more similar to
the Nike Peg. Other good choices are the Saucony Trigon, New Balance 880 and
Brooks Radius. All these shoes are neutral shoes with roomy toe boxes.

Jim Johnson

OK. Thank you for the comments relating to the 1023's. Has anyone tried the
750 or 753?
"Vern Torino" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi, I'm considering getting one or more of the following New Balance

shoes:

Quoted message said:

1023,750, and 753. From your experience, could you comment your likes and
dislikes of each. Thank You.

"Jim Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:5Djxd.261496$HA.224003@attbi_s01:
Thanks, Jim...

I've run in the Cumulus, but had the same fit issues I had with the
2080/2090. I've looked at the Brooks Radius before and kind of liked the
fit and feel. I've not tried the others, but will definitely get myself
down to the local Hanson's shop and see if I can take them for a spin.

Quoted message said:

"Newsdude" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You guys all bash on the Nikes, but I gotta say I really like my
Pegasus. And I've tried others, even the much-recommended Asics 2080
& 2090. I've got feet that are a little wide, and, even in wide
width, the Asics just feel too darn tight across the top and in the
toe box. That, and they seem to change my running just enough to give
me a little soreness in my calves and out in my already-touchy left
knee.

That said, I'd like to hear other good neutral cushioned alternatives
to the Pegasus, as I'm always open to experimenting to see if there's
a ride I like better.

Try the Asics Cumulus instead of the 2090/2100 since it's more similar
to the Nike Peg. Other good choices are the Saucony Trigon, New
Balance 880 and Brooks Radius. All these shoes are neutral shoes with
roomy toe boxes.

Jim Johnson

Tom Phillips said:

I typically get good of mileage out of my NB. I'm at 700
in my motion shoes. Course they are pretty hefty and well
cushioned. Thinking about a new pair but I'm not having
any issues. My otho's make be making the diff..

There are a lot of variables, as Lance alludes to. Body weight is one,
durability of the shoe is another. The NB motion control shoes are
a durable shoe, built like tanks, I'd possibly get 1000+ out of them if I
could stand to wear them for that many miles. OTOH, my Asics cumulus
shoes were reduced to pul after 500.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

FabulustRunner said:

Quoted message said:

You should try the new pegasus. They're better now than they ever were
before.

OR you could buy a comparable or superior shoe of another brand for $40 less
than you'll pay for nikes garbage.

That would be rather difficult, since the pegasus *retails* at $80- and is
often available much cheaper than that on clearance (e.g. finishline have
the womens 2002 model for $30). The pegasus is one of their more succesful
shoes, a lot of people wear them.

Quoted message said:

This is true when you wear nikes. With them you need several pairs a year.
You can buy a pair of Asics for less money, and they'll easily outlast the
nikes by two times.

My Asics cumulus shoes were toast after 500 (but those 500 were great). The
best I've got out of a pair of shoes that I could stand to wear were mizunos
(I've dumped Asics trainers for mizuno, though I still have some Asics flats)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Newsdude said:

You guys all bash on the Nikes, but I gotta say I really like my Pegasus.

Nah, not all of us. Just fabby and the 10 other ids that he posts under.

Quoted message said:

And I've tried others, even the much-recommended Asics 2080 & 2090. I've
got feet that are a little wide, and, even in wide width, the Asics just
feel too darn tight across the top and in the toe box. That, and they

Buy a bigger one. I'm honestly surprised, because generally, people with
wide feet tend to wear Asics. Also, if you're wearing the pegasus, the
comparable Asics shoe would be the Cumulus or the Landreth (cushion shoes).
The 2080/90 are stability shoes.

Quoted message said:

seem to change my running just enough to give me a little soreness in my
calves and out in my already-touchy left knee.

Like I said, wrong shoe.

Quoted message said:

That said, I'd like to hear other good neutral cushioned alternatives to
the Pegasus, as I'm always open to experimenting to see if there's a ride
I like better.

Mizuno Wave Rider (about the same weight as the pegasus).
Mizuno Wave Precision (lightweight trainer. Runs small, go .5 size up)
Mizuno Spacer, Mizuno Aero, Asics Magic (good neutral racing flats for wide
feet.)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/