Question:Has anyone tried the Nike shox running shoe? What
has your experience been? I hear they are less
flexible? Do you think it is just a gimmick or
does the system work?
Answer:
Looks to me like all the innovation is in the heel where it would do an
efficient runner the least good and even be an impediment to maintaining
good form. Beginners or incorrigible heel strikers might like it. I
doubt that many experienced runners would even consider it.
Those of us who run on fields of green instead of sidewalks would
certainly have no use for such a heavily padded shoe and the open heel
would just be a collecting place for pebbles ,twigs, and grass
clippings. Before my run was over I'd be dragging around 5 pounds of
crud(picture a guy running with huge tufts of grass and weeds sticking
out of his heels).
Since this shoe is obviously not aimed at real runners I'd say it's just
a marketing driven gimmick.
I was watching one of the commercials with the "boing" noise...and
the actor's heels are not even touching the ground....so where is the "boing"
noise coming from? His privates? IMHO, very much a gimmick...
Neither.
It offers no advantage besides possibly lasting longer than traditional
shoes before being replaced if you are a heavy heel striker. Personally the
front of the shoe wears out first for me, so I don't think they'd do me much
good.
And I agree an open heel on a running shoe is plain stupid unless it's a
solely track/treadmill shoe.
Seems so to me too. Mizuno makes a shoe--Conviction) where a part of the
bottom of the sole is shaped in sort of a V-shape. One of my friends wears
those for running, and each time pebbles and Eucalyptus pods collect in that
part of the heel. I can imagine the disastrous results having an open heel
running shoe would do. Imagine running on trails and having a twig get stuck
in there, or a few rocks. That would certainly eliminate the "boing" effect.
They're great for walking in the mall.
Nike - the best way to demonstrate that you're not a serious runner.
I stopped by my local running store yesterday. They've had their first
return of a pair of Shox... The complaint was, despite what the commercials
imply, a very hard and stiff ride.
because you seem to consider yourself a serious runner (and I am not,
because I have been running in Nikes for a couple of decades):
Which manufacturer offers a better selection of slip-lasted, flexible,
single-density midsole shoes, including cushioned trainers, lightweight
trainers, and racing shoes?
Since the Supernova is really sucking these days*, if you
can find it, I have picked up some sale Gazelles. Lawd, is that a nice
nice shoe.
*My affection for Adidas aside, I am beginning to suspect that shoe mfrs
lure us into buying pricier models by introducing a comfy, well-fitting
shoe, making it available widely for a year or two, then changing the
quality for the worse so that we are misled into believing that we need a
cushier, more flexible, lighter, all-around more expensive shoe.
...that's not really a valid question in some ways, is it? After all, it
really depends on the person's feet. For some people Nike are fine, while
others find Asics better. Using myself as an example, I use Mizuno, Asics,
and am starting to use Adidas now. Yes, I use all three. But I think I know
what you're trying to get at though. You might be asking the issue about
"better selection" as meaning the number of choices. If that's the case,
Asics offers a wide range of options. But then again, those options may not
be suitable for you or others.
