Thought I'd start a separate thread for this, hopefully to get some feedback from Asics die-hards. This month's issue of Runner's World had their usual shoe guide, but after reading their test results for many years, I have to admit I was shocked to see them claim the GT-2160 as "the best shoe in the world."
Anyone wear these? Can you back up their claims, or does Asics just spend huge advertising dollars with Runner's World? I've been wearing Saucony ProGrid Rides forever but would be willing to try something new if it truly is the best shoe in the world
Opinions? Agreements? Disagreements?
Last time I wore Asics (7/3/2010) I ended up in the hospital having surgery on my right foot. I refuse to even walk within 10 feet of them at the local running store.
Isn't this a stability shoe though? If you are in Rides, a neutral shoe, you may not want to switch.
Somebody here runs in these and gets a gazillion miles out of them (Perch maybe??). I used to run in Saucony Rides and liked them. My one issue with the Rides was that I could never get past about 450 miles before I needed to replace them.
MTA, I used to run in the Nimbus - liked those a lot and got 1000 plus miles out of them. Now am running in Speedstars and like them too so I have nothing against Asics. I just tend to stay away from anything that has support.
Once a runner . . .
I like Asics. But the idea that there is a single "best" shoe just highlights the nonsense that too often characterizes Runner's World. I consider its' shoe "reviews" as thinly disguised ads, nothing more. One of the reasons I stopped reading it.
I recently posted to a thread in the main forums on how many miles you get from your shoes: " My Asics 1100-series shoes seem fine for about 1000-1200 miles or so. Interestingly, a couple pairs of the more expensive Asics 2100-series [specifically, the 2160s] fell apart around 500 miles. I stick with the cheaper shoe now, and milk all the mileage I can out of them. As a result, my shoe bill has plummeted over the years."
Maybe they like them because they fall apart easily?
To be fair, I know Perch likes them. But I think he bought his most recent pair in 2003.
Be safe. Be kind.
Marathon Maniac #3309
I tried Asics once before I went to a minimalists running shoe, and they plain hurt my feet....semed like they had low heels too. Took um back the next day, and they "reluctantly" gave my money back>
Like Tramps said - there is no way anyone can truly say one particular running shoe is better than the next...it's all preference.
Jlynne would look Hawt in some Nike Free Runs Well.....not that she don't already.
Nice save there Tim - yeah I know
Running has given me the courage to start, the determination to keep trying, and the childlike spirit to have fun along the way - Run often and run long, but never outrun your Joy of running!
But the idea that there is a single "best" shoe just highlights the nonsense that too often characterizes Runner's World. I consider its' shoe "reviews" as thinly disguised ads, nothing more. One of the reasons I stopped reading it.
+1
I'm with Timbo on the minimalist shoes. Once I started running in these, I could pretty much try any shoe and go for personal best fit. In my case, I can't wear Nike's since they have a narrow feel. Reeboks just plain are uncomfortable on my feet. I like my Asics Hyperspeeds as well as my Saucony's and AddidasMatter of fact, I just ran in my New Saucony Type A4 and they are heavenly. So if you like your current shoe and have no reason to change, why do it simply for an ad designed to separate you from your money.
Best shoe in the world. Baahahahahaha. Straight out of an episode of Mad Men.
"He conquers who endures" - Persius "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel
http://ncstake.blogspot.com/
My very first real "running" shoe was Asics 2110, was fairly happy with that, for a year or 2. 2120 was a huge disappointment. Have not looked at those shoes since. Run a lot in Speedstars now (got about 1100 miles out of the 3 and 500 so far on the 4s, not liking my brand new 5 - too narrow) and cumulus just because I have them. At least that disappointment with 2120 led me to try other shoes now and run in any lightweight shoe currently on sale.
MM #6177
Maybe they're mistaking "best shoe" with "best selling shoe"? For the five minutes six weeks that I worked at the local running store this summer, the two most popular shoes we sold were the ASICS 2160 and the Brooks Adrenaline. Yes, most people who came in for running shoes (whether they ran or not) would buy a stability shoe. Personally, I think that statistic is the more interesting one....
who says life doesn't have a soundtrack?
Carolyn
Like Happyfeet, my first "real" running shoes were Asics - I had 2120s. I liked them, so I went through maybe 10 pairs, up through the 2140s. Guess I didn't know any better, but they worked fine.
Then I switched to more lightweight/minimalist shoes. I currently rotate between Newtons, Saucony Kinvaras, New Balance MT101s, and Mizuno Ronins.
I still use my old Asics for when I run in yaktrax, though. The lighter weight shoes bend too much with the yax, and the front band pinches my toes. So maybe the Runner's World claim should have a footnote that they're great with yaktrax.
OM - your note about working at the running store reminded me of this: when I went to the local store to pick up my free Mizunos that I won in a race, the sales guy asked me, "what kind of shoe do you wear now - do you know?" I asked how I could NOT know what kind of shoe I run in - he said lots of people don't! They must be the joggers...
I hammered down the trail, passing rocks and trees like they were standing still.
I started out with the GT-2110, then the 2120 and 2130. I loved these shoes and they fit my feet perfectly. I ran my first marathon in the 2130 (I think). I've stayed with Asics although I've moved to the Kayano series. I've had no issues with the 2100 series shoes at all. The fit......the fit is what I like the most about them.
But what works for my foot may not work for your foot.
Best? There is no single best as Tramps and othrs have pointed out.
Like Happyfeet and Evryday, I did the whole series from 2100 (awesome) until 2140 (pinched my forefoot - too narrow) and had to give them away. I have two pairs of 2150's which are OK, but I have since like others, switched to neutral (Speedstar) instead of stabilty and like the neutral feel much much better. I mean really, what is stability for anyway??? Don't you have muscles and tendons in your feet and ankles to do that job anyway?
They wouldn't be the world's best shoe even if they were free. Which clearly they are not.
"During a marathon, I run about two-thirds of the time. That's plenty." - Margaret Davis, 85 Ed Whitlock regarding his 2:54:48 marathon at age 73, "That was a good day. It was never a struggle."
Marathon Maniac #957
. I used to run in Saucony Rides and liked them. My one issue with the Rides was that I could never get past about 450 miles before I needed to replace them.
I've been running in Saucony Rides for the last 7 years (ever since I began running more than 20 miles/week) and have always found them very comfortable, but, like I told DH recently, next time the running store has a clearance sale, I want to try a different shoe. I am constantly losing or having mis-shapen toenails on my two middle toes, and I think it comes from the top front seam on the Rides. My Brooks Cascadia trail shoe don't hurt those toes at all, and I've only worn those for ultras, when you would think the townail damage would be more, not less.
I have a really cute pair of open-toed heels I never get to wear.
Life is a headlong rush into the unknown. We can hunker down and hope nothing hits us or we can stand tall, lean into the wind and say, "Bring it on, darlin', and don't be stingy with the jalapenos."
I love Asics. I tried many different brands but they just never seemed to work for my feet. I did get a lot of miles out of some old New Balance, but that was when I was just starting running and I used those for lots of things. I started in the Nimbus, but when the X came out I just couldn't wear it. Eventually ended up with the Landreth for general training, and the Speedstars for racing and long runs, and now most treadmill runs, too. I got over 1,100 miles on my last Speedstar3's and now have the 5's. Like them just fine so far.
Holly, I've always thought you needed different shoes. You just shouldn't be having the toenail problems you have if your shoes fit.
I want to try a different shoe. I am constantly losing or having mis-shapen toenails on my two middle toes, and I think it comes from the top front seam on the Rides. My Brooks Cascadia trail shoe don't hurt those toes at all, and I've only worn those for ultras, when you would think the townail damage would be more, not less. I have a really cute pair of open-toed heels I never get to wear.
I want to try a different shoe. I am constantly losing or having mis-shapen toenails on my two middle toes, and I think it comes from the top front seam on the Rides. My Brooks Cascadia trail shoe don't hurt those toes at all, and I've only worn those for ultras, when you would think the townail damage would be more, not less.
Holly - do you size up for your running shoes? I wear a 7 1/2 in street shoes but wear a size 8 1/2 for my running shoes. I used to have the same problem with the Rides, but once I started wearing a bigger shoe, the problem stopped.
Besides, black is a hot color for nail polish right now. Why not just paint all of them that color and you'll have a matching set
......jylnne//.....one of our IronMaidens Triathletes has done this,,,,,,,,,took me a couple of minutes to figure it out.
=======
...I had give up on Ascis in the 80's always sized too small,
currently
have ReDiscovered Nikes which have wider toeboxes
which
come in handy when you are Smashing what's left of your arches out.
..nothing takes the place of persistence.....