Why does Nike make bad running shoes?

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

Quoted message said:

Isn't it more that they dont charge a lot for their shoes so people
think they cant be as good?
We have millions of people on prozac for depression. People are just
lemmings. nike has the best engineers in the world with an interest in
producing a reliable and superior product. I buy spalding because they
are even cheaper and have an established name that they are not going
to jeopardize by producing suspect shoes.

wow, you buy one pair of shoes and you're an expert. nice learning curve.

Quoted message said:

i bought Nikes for years, primarily the Air Pegasus as a training shoe
and was very happy with them. it was not until i started getting into
my 30s that they started to no longer fit that well. it's hell getting
old, but atleast i can still run.

Quoted message said:

Isn't it more that they dont charge a lot for their shoes so people
think they cant be as good?
We have millions of people on prozac for depression. People are just
lemmings. nike has the best engineers in the world with an interest in
producing a reliable and superior product. I buy spalding because they
are even cheaper and have an established name that they are not going
to jeopardize by producing suspect shoes.

Quoted message said:

Isn't it more that they dont charge a lot for their shoes so people
think they cant be as good?

the premise of the question posed in the subject is wrong.

maybe NIKE shoes are not good for you, but I've had success with them.
And so have many others. No shoe company makes the right running shoes
for every possible runner.

As my college chemistry prof used to say: If it works use it.
and the corolary is: if it doesn't work, throw it out.

so if brand X shoes work for you, great! But if not, throw them out
Repeat for each brand you are interested in.
Ed

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it more that they dont charge a lot for their shoes so people
think they cant be as good?

the premise of the question posed in the subject is wrong.

maybe NIKE shoes are not good for you, but I've had success with them.
And so have many others. No shoe company makes the right running shoes
for every possible runner.

As my college chemistry prof used to say: If it works use it.
and the corolary is: if it doesn't work, throw it out.

so if brand X shoes work for you, great! But if not, throw them out
Repeat for each brand you are interested in.

I agree but I'd like to make a more granular assertion - one may not
like a certain model within a brand yet find another model that is just
right. In other words, we can't badmouth an entire brand if a single
model does not work. OTOH it happens that I can't wear any Nike because
they are cut too narrow and don't offer wider a fit. This is a marketing
decision and not something that says the brand sucks.

-DF

Quoted message said:

we can't badmouth an entire brand

Reebok. Serious effort to cater to the Running community...afaik they
stink, the entire brand. anyone know or heard otherwise?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we can't badmouth an entire brand

Reebok. Serious effort to cater to the Running community...afaik they
stink, the entire brand. anyone know or heard otherwise?

i won't use any sneakers that are produced by Asian Sweatshops.

That's why i run barefoot.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we can't badmouth an entire brand

Reebok. Serious effort to cater to the Running community...afaik they
stink, the entire brand. anyone know or heard otherwise?

Some years back I found a model of Reeboks that I liked and wore 4 or 5
pairs as I always do. The model changed or was discontinued and I moved
to Asics and have been there ever ever since. I can't speak for the
shoes Reebok makes today and don't know any people that wear them but
not because they are inferior but they are hard to find locally. Maybe
others will offer some opinions.

-DF

I agree that you should judge each shoe on its merits. The only Nike shoe I
have ever got on with is the Pegasus Storm which I use in multi-terrain
racing. I find that it competes well with all the other off road shoes on
the market. Personal preference I know but go with what works for you!

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it more that they dont charge a lot for their shoes so people
think they cant be as good?

the premise of the question posed in the subject is wrong.

maybe NIKE shoes are not good for you, but I've had success with them.
And so have many others. No shoe company makes the right running shoes
for every possible runner.

As my college chemistry prof used to say: If it works use it.
and the corolary is: if it doesn't work, throw it out.

so if brand X shoes work for you, great! But if not, throw them out
Repeat for each brand you are interested in.
Ed

Doug Freese said:

I agree but I'd like to make a more granular assertion - one may not
like a certain model within a brand yet find another model that is just
right. In other words, we can't badmouth an entire brand if a single
model does not work. OTOH it happens that I can't wear any Nike because
they are cut too narrow and don't offer wider a fit.

Nike offer widths in their more down to earth models (eg pegasus and max moto)

I've also found width issues often just go away if I size up a bit -- which is
basically what one has to do with track spikes or flats where widths aren't
available and narrow models are common. I wear Nike flats and spikes, and
those have very narrow, curvy lasts.

Of course none of this alters the fact if I were in "your shoes", I'd stay in
them (-. After all, why mess with what's working ?

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

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

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

I agree but I'd like to make a more granular assertion - one may not
like a certain model within a brand yet find another model that is
just
right. In other words, we can't badmouth an entire brand if a single
model does not work. OTOH it happens that I can't wear any Nike
because
they are cut too narrow and don't offer wider a fit.

Nike offer widths in their more down to earth models (eg pegasus and
max moto)

I've also found width issues often just go away if I size up a bit --
which is
basically what one has to do with track spikes or flats where widths
aren't
available and narrow models are common. I wear Nike flats and spikes,
and
those have very narrow, curvy lasts.

Of course none of this alters the fact if I were in "your shoes", I'd
stay in
them (-. After all, why mess with what's working ?

Thanks for the width update. You are correct in that I'm not one to
randomly experiment with brands and models. I know some people are
excited when they find fire-sales of some different model and buy a
pair. Before I found the Asics 2NNN line I would join the struggle of
looking for new models and brands and often buying shoes that just never
worked out. Some would actually cause problems. So I'm at a point that
this model works for me and will stick with it. I still have two boxes
of 2100's on my shelf. I'm also lucky that I train and race in the same
shoe. I do have a many year old pair of Nike pegasus racers that I
break out maybe one a year when I want to run a 10-15k to see how much
I've slowed. I did manage a 21 and small change 5k Turkey day race. It
was probably short. 😉

When RR starts some post Xmas discounts I'll grab a few more pairs. Like
most retailers, they curb the bigger discounts for the Xmas(holiday)
season. I'm sure thre 20% off cupons will show up to get their inventory
numbers down in January-Feb.

-DougF

First, Spalding is a joke. That pretty much mutes your opinion on
anything else.
Nike are [censored] because of poor design, and poor QC. They are designer
shoes, not running shoes.

treat yourself to a pair of mayflys donnie. though i don't know when
i'll be running, let alone racing again....i bought a pair of mayflys
recently. in terms of sheer
design/engineering....un-freaking-believable. once in your hand you
toss them up in disbelief of how airy light they are.

the amusing thing is the come with their own "Carrier bag" and Nike
stresses with about 3 or 4 different warning tags that the shoe is not
not be used for more than 100K. They really play this side of the shoe
up...it's even printed inside the shoe in the heel cup...the warning
labels are numerous. they really sell the "aura" that in simply
wearing this shoe...you are pushing the envelop and on the edge. it's
kind of funny.

however i note in all the pro races i've seen w/the Nike
runners....i've never seen one Nike pro runner in a pair of
mayflys....ever. i've seen nike runners in different nike shoes in the
same race....but never one wearing mayflys. i think there's something
to that, what...i'm not sure.

Quoted message said:

treat yourself to a pair of mayflys donnie. though i don't know when
i'll be running, let alone racing again....i bought a pair of mayflys
recently. in terms of sheer
design/engineering....un-freaking-believable. once in your hand you
toss them up in disbelief of how airy light they are.

I get the same feeling from the Streak XC, though the Mayfly is another level
up again. They look promising but I'm not sure what I'd use them for -- 10k
would already be pushing it, and I have spikes for track now.

Quoted message said:

the amusing thing is the come with their own "Carrier bag" and Nike

They do this with their Streak XC flats and their spikes as well.

Quoted message said:

however i note in all the pro races i've seen w/the Nike
runners....i've never seen one Nike pro runner in a pair of
mayflys....ever.

Most of them seem to wear the Streak Vapor or the Streak XC. Both seem like
very good shoes, I use the Streak XC mostly because it's cheaper. I got about
350 miles or so out of my last pair. I had to ditch them because the uppers
are very thin and were beginning to fall apart.

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

Show me a study to back this up. My guess is that you heard this on the
internet and you keep repeating it as fact. Why would a major name
brand be dumb enough to have poor qc?They have the best engineers
working for them. You are a moron spreading ignorance.

A relative of mine worked for a major sporting goods retailer, in an
upper level position, in the late 80s early 90s and when Reebok first
came on to the scene, at least in the states. According to him, Reebok
was sold at some point in the early 90s (i think) Reebok decide that
needs to improve the bottom line and started cutting corners on their
shoes. One of the major changes he mentioned was fewer stitches per inch
resulting in a lower quality shoe with a high profit margin.

I can't really vouch for the accuracy of this, but this relative is a
trustworthy guy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we can't badmouth an entire brand

Reebok. Serious effort to cater to the Running community...afaik they
stink, the entire brand. anyone know or heard otherwise?