May 12, 2007 at 3:51 am #6292
Since 1997 I have been fond of a variety of shoes, and until 2005 had little concern for construction types. Once I started building milage for my first marathon shoes started to matter – especially construction type. For fun – here is my personal shoe history in chronological order:
NB851 1997-2005 (2005 Chicago Marathon)
Asics GT 2080 2005 (achilles tendonitis)
Saucony Grid Hurricane 7 2005 (poor durability-for the price)
Saucony Grid Hurricane 5 2005 (discontinued – but a great shoe)
Asics Gel Kayano 7 2006 (2006 kentucky Derby Festival Marathon – BQ)
Saw the light – I am 160# neutral runner not an overpronator so-
Asics gel Nimbus 7 2006 (a great shoe – discontinued)
Asics gel nimbus 8 2006-2007 (New York city Marathon, not as good as 7, expensive)
Mizuno Wave Rider 9 2007 (Ok shoe – Boston Marathon – discontinued)
With the WR9 gone, the GN8 on the chopping Block – I am again going to need to find a new shoe – hopefully one that stays in production for a while. Still hard to believe the NB851 is still rocking on roadrunnersports.com .
My next trial shoe is the Adidas, Supernova Cushion 6 –
I think a light weight neutral to neutral plus trainer is the right type to stick with – i hate model changeouts and would like to settle on two (for rotation purposes), durable, sub $100 shoe brands and am seeking your input – I am jealous of you Kayano Runners –
Let me know what you think –
May 12, 2007 at 11:49 am #23007
If you'd be willing to try another adidas shoe, you may want to consider the Boston Classic. It's about an ounce lighter than the Supernova Cushion and I believe a little more neutral, a fair bit less “soft”.
Until just recently, when I decided to experiment with the adidas Response Light (not available at RRS for some reason) which would be more of a lightweight trainer/heavyweight racer, I haven't worn anything else for training since 2002, when the shoe originally went off the market as the Boston before returning “due to popular demand” as the Boston Classic. For me, the Boston Classic is still in the rotation at least at this point.
May 15, 2007 at 12:21 pm #23008
Ryan – Thanks. I have been considering the Boston's for about a year but never pulled the trigger for fear they would be discontinued as soon as I ordered. A pair from RRS should arrive Friday – hopefully the toebox is not “too tight” and the arch not too high. Will let you know. How did the Response Lights work out?
May 15, 2007 at 12:33 pm #23009
Personally, I found the Boston Classics to be the perfect fit for my foot – but, of course, that's my foot, not yours. They are fairly narrow in the heel but, at least for me, have ample toe room. I hope you find that they work as well for you as they have for me for all those years I've been using nothing but them. Let us know how they treat you after you get some miles in on them.
The Response Light test for me has so far been going well. I can definitely feel just when lacing the shoes up that these were designed as racing shoes, They just have that racing shoe feel. For lack of better description, they slip on like a sock and move with your foot much better than overbuilt trainers. They don't have a whole lot of protection between the foot and the ground but they have enough for a lightweight, relatively smooth runner like me. 36 miles on them and I'm looking forward to continuing this experiment for the long term.
May 16, 2007 at 2:40 pm #23010
why not just move up to the wave rider 10??
I'm actually training in the 10s and like them better than the 9s —they are a whole .1 oz lighter!!!!!!! The best thing is that you can change out to the wave precisions which are almost a carbon copy of riders–except lighter (for racing). That said, however, last fall I decided “not” to go with precision and went with ASICS speedstars with much trepidation due to lightness and I was suffereing from PF.
I've run in Gel Nimbus and would not consider them for racing ever, nice cushion to deal with injuries, but they carry into the “too heavy”. But if you like the heaviness and cushion of nimbus, but the fit of mizuno….I'd suggest Brooks Glycerin. If you like the lightness and ride of the mizuno, but the fit isn't quite right maybe Asics speedstars (not alot of cushion, though)
May 17, 2007 at 12:37 pm #23011
Sue – Thanks. I considered the WR10 – in fact my wife runs in them – but there is just a bit too much impact during training runs. I should point out I guess that most of my training is in Northern Atlanta and on Ashphalt – the terrain is very hilly and i run down hill often – which over time has proven to cause a variety of issues. Wave Rider is a decent Light training shoe – but the cusioning is a bit light on the downhills – they just don't have enough appeal – but I could get by with them if needed. I agree with you on the Gel Nimbus being too heavy. I think my favorites were the Grid Hurricane 5 – huge toe box – plenty of cushion – but discontinued as a RRS Classic.
I took the Adidas SuperNova Cushion 6 out for a 4 mile spin last night (49.95 on ebay). Running downhill was almost pleasant due to the cushioned ride and snug heel. The toe box is quite narrow though and the shoes are noticeably heavy – but for a durable trainer – they may suffice. Will keep you posted.
May 21, 2007 at 7:02 pm #23012
Still thumbs up on the SuperNova Cushion 6 – downhill running is sweet, long runs they get a bit heavy. I might consider a wider size or size up 1 more half to increase toe box roominess.
Boston Classics: Good snug fit, lighter than SN with less cushion, need to put them through a long run or two and some track work to see how they fare but so far they are great. I think I prefer them over WR9, Grid Hurricane 7, Gel Kayano 7, NB851, and GT2080. Still up in the air wirh Gel Nimbus and Grid Hurricane 5.
May 24, 2007 at 1:35 am #23013
I am sold on the Boston Classics. Thanks Ryan.
May 26, 2007 at 11:48 pm #23014
Good to hear. Glad you like them. I hope they serve you as well and for as long as they have served me (so far…still counting on my part).
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.