my coach told me that the rule of thumb is that all nike shoes suck.??

Nike has come out with some OK trainers in recent years, so his logic might be a little dated. About 5 or 6 years ago, I would have almost completely agreed with him. I don't run in them, so hopefully others can chime in with more specifics.

Nike does make fantastic flats and spikes. I've run in the Lunar Spiders and the Steak XCs, and I love them both. I also have been a Nike spike fan since starting in the sport. I've run in everything from the Jasari and the Kennedy through the Victories. They've always been the most innovative in terms of weight and construction materials. Other brands seem to borrow ideas from Nike and lag about a year behind them, but have released comparable spikes recently.

Your coach, is, well, an idiot.

Aside from Nike having an impressive, if not unreal, contingent of elite/professional runners, and many serious runners live by Nike as well.

The LunarGlide +3s get somewhere (depending on you as a runner) anywhere from 400-600 miles, comfortably. It's a superb trainer. In terms of a racing flat or spike, the Nike Victory XCs are unreal.

Does your coach run? Shoes are completely individual, so maybe they just don't work for him. But to say they "suck" is egregious, man.

Egregious!

I just went 680 miles in a pair of Lunarglides and they felt pretty good still. Nike makes decent trainers. I have worn New Balance, Asics, and Brooks shoes, and I can say there really hasn't been a difference at all. No shoe has been magical and no shoe has really sucked.

your coach couldn't get Nike to cut the school a deal, therefore "Nike shoes suck" - coach will be selling you on the idea of minimalism in the fall, he will point you in the direction of WalMart shoe dept and your shoe allowance will be a $50 WalMart gift card, which will buy you 7 pair, assuming that you pick up the tax.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Men-s-Water-Shoes/16607251

This is a yes and no answer. Nike does in fact make some very good shoes, especially their racing shoes. However, Nike also makes some AWFUL and HORRENDOUS shoes as well. Often, they produce a shoe that looks good, but lacks functionality because they know if the swoosh is on it, people will buy it. That being said, they have made improvements in recent years that are bringing their trainers up-to-date with the more superior brands (Brooks and Asics). With Nike being the largest athletic apparel company in the world, they will continue to improve their shoes in the years to come.

They won't overtake Brooks though. While Nike is a large and wealthy company, they produce goods for all sports. Brooks, however, only sells running goods and therefore ALL of their research and development goes into running. All other major brands (Asics, Nike, Adidas, Saucony, Mizuno, etc...) have other, non-running divisions that take capital and manpower away from developing running shoes.

Your coach is an idiot. I have a friend who has a personal, unfounded bias against Nike. He thinks all their shoes suck. I've worn Nike for years and love them.

Nike spikes shit all over every other brand for a few years but it seems like other companies are getting with it now. As far as trainers go, I think they're too soft and I hate that if I did run in them I would be forced to deal with that stupid iPod thing. It makes a statement that the shoes are gimmicky and targeted toward people jogging on treadmills. Other than the spikes and trainers, Nike makes some great racing flats. I had a pair of Mayflys last over 300 miles.

About New Balance, they've really gotten their shit together in the past few years. They used to be the boxy overbuilt motion control brand but they've been putting more money into elite runners, which I think is a good indicator of how much a company cares about their shoes. They also do very extensive testing with the general public. I was a tester for them for a couple years just from applying on their website and I was getting new shoes every couple months.

Everyone has their favorite brands but there really is no solid leader. All companies have their gimmicks and cheap stuff they sell just to make money from the fitness crowd. Most companies also have a core group of really good shoes that hold up for serious miles. You really just have to try out as much as you can over the years. At any time this week I could be running in New Balance, Asics, Saucony, Newton, Nike, Inov8, or Mizuno. I didn't buy all of those at once. Actually a few of them are over 3 years old. They're just the shoes that over the years I have found to be very durable and fit well with my body.

Your coach is an idiot. Some shoes work better for some people than others. Find the brand and style that work best for you. I personally have run in NIkes my whole running life. I have tried all the others and just like nike the best because they fit me the best and seem to last me the longest.

If you have a neutral gait, Nike trainers are good/great.

If you have a narrow foot, Nike trainers are good/great.

If you are lighter than average, Nike trainers are good/great.

Nike running shoes, when being used for lots of running, are about the same as other running focused brands, or a little weaker. Their trainers especially are weaker. Individual experience may differ, as should be expected.

Running w/in Nike is a small small portion of revenue, so resources for running shoes used by runners who do a lot of running is probably less than at other running focused brands.

My $0.02

What? Heck No! wrote:

Your coach, is, well, an idiot.

Aside from Nike having an impressive, if not unreal, contingent of elite/professional runners, and many serious runners live by Nike as well.

The LunarGlide +3s get somewhere (depending on you as a runner) anywhere from 400-600 miles, comfortably. It's a superb trainer. In terms of a racing flat or spike, the Nike Victory XCs are unreal.

Does your coach run? Shoes are completely individual, so maybe they just don't work for him. But to say they "suck" is egregious, man.

Egregious!

I agree. I've been running in the lunarglides for 7 months without any problems, and the XCs have worked well for me in interval/threshold workouts and races.

Like with all shoes you have to be careful which ones you buy. If you overpronate, buy a pair of Nike Frees, and go out and run 70 miles a week, your going to run into a bit of trouble.

He's an idiot, at least on this subject. Nike makes some great trainers, and some awful ones, like the stuff you find and Payless or JC Penny's. All of the major brands make pretty decent shoes by and large, it's just a matter finding shoes that suit you.

Fuguchi-san say hip bone has right idea.You coach got screwed like Bangkok hooker, by Nike-san, now he no rikey nikey!

hipbone wrote:

your coach couldn't get Nike to cut the school a deal, therefore "Nike shoes suck" - coach will be selling you on the idea of minimalism in the fall, he will point you in the direction of WalMart shoe dept and your shoe allowance will be a $50 WalMart gift card, which will buy you 7 pair, assuming that you pick up the tax.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Men-s-Water-Shoes/16607251

This hits it right on. They have gotten better in recent years but only make a few shoes that are "runnable". As far as racing shoes and apparel? Difficult to beat.

quote]Just Another Runner wrote:

This is a yes and no answer. Nike does in fact make some very good shoes, especially their racing shoes. However, Nike also makes some AWFUL and HORRENDOUS shoes as well. Often, they produce a shoe that looks good, but lacks functionality because they know if the swoosh is on it, people will buy it. That being said, they have made improvements in recent years that are bringing their trainers up-to-date with the more superior brands (Brooks and Asics). With Nike being the largest athletic apparel company in the world, they will continue to improve their shoes in the years to come.

They won't overtake Brooks though. While Nike is a large and wealthy company, they produce goods for all sports. Brooks, however, only sells running goods and therefore ALL of their research and development goes into running. All other major brands (Asics, Nike, Adidas, Saucony, Mizuno, etc...) have other, non-running divisions that take capital and manpower away from developing running shoes.[/quote]

Yeah he's wrong. I train in Structures and I haven't had a problem with them ever. I do like Asics trainers as well but I don't think I'd stray from the two brands. If you overpronate I highly recommend Structures or LunarGlides, I've never heard anything bad about Pegs either for neutral runners.

Nike also has some good flats, I use Streaks for shorter tempos and longer track work and Lunaracers for tempos over six miles and I like both.

And obviously Victories, Matumbos, Mambas, along with some other of their spikes, are phenomenal.

So far I've gotten through 3 injury-free seasons and 2 summer months doing around 50 mpw average with 2 pairs of nike structure triax (one 14 and one 15). Its an extremely durable shoe. I've had great experiences with them so far. But matching the list of another poster above, i have narrow feet, and am 6' 137. I like 'em. Some people don't. Sh*t happens.

I thought it was pretty well understood that Nike trainers are sub-par. It's definitely a bad sign when about half the guys on my college team choose to buy their own non-Nike shoes instead of getting Nikes for free. This isn't to say they don't make great spikes, I'm talking about trainers here. Most of their trainers are just way too soft and overly cushioned. Flash over function.

I actually purchased a pair, similar to these water shoes, from walmart last year. They fell apart fairly quickly and you could feel the pressure from landing on the raised tread on your feet... They were only 5$ though

Spikesonly wrote:

I thought it was pretty well understood that Nike trainers are sub-par. It's definitely a bad sign when about half the guys on my college team choose to buy their own non-Nike shoes instead of getting Nikes for free. This isn't to say they don't make great spikes, I'm talking about trainers here. Most of their trainers are just way too soft and overly cushioned. Flash over function.

This is true on many teams, most of my team bought other shoes that they preferred over the issued Adidas. Not because the issued ones were awful but because they preferred other brands, styles, fits etc. Nikes are not considered to be sub-par in general. Some like them some don't.