Nike vs New Balance

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Jtic » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:47:39


Any opinions on these two shoes.  I ran Nikes for years but recently switched
to NB.  With the Nikes the cushioning seemed to give out but with the NB I've
already logged 25% more miles and they still seem fine.  They are also much
more comfortable.  Just wondered what experience others have had with these two
shoes.
 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Jeff » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:10:57

Are you serious?

First you can't generalize on all of either brand by the one or two styles
you have tried, and second shoe preference is an individual thing.  Neither
brand is better than the other but one may work better for you than the
other.

-jeff


Quote:
> Any opinions on these two shoes.  I ran Nikes for years but recently
switched
> to NB.  With the Nikes the cushioning seemed to give out but with the NB
I've
> already logged 25% more miles and they still seem fine.  They are also
much
> more comfortable.  Just wondered what experience others have had with
these two
> shoes.


 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Laur » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:21:18

well i would say it depends on the model... for example i had some good adidas
shoes for ages and then tried another model and it was awful! i find the asics
ds trainer (don't know if they still make it, would have thought so) excellent,
but the gel lyte not so good, so it all depends i think on the individual shoe!
nike has more street cred LOL

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Runner » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:45:50

When I first started running, I had no problems with my feet, ankles, or
legs.(Maybe because I was fresh) But, after sometime, I wasn't able to find
the shoes I started out with, the 2nd or 3rd generation Nike Air Max Triax.
Nike instead chose to make $150 dollar running shoes which were heavy! Until
recently, I struggled to find the right shoe, I went from Original Air Max
Triax, Adidas Galaxy, Reebok Hexalites, New Balance 712, New Balance 803,
Adidas Response, Asics DS Trainers, Adidas Bostons, to finally the Nike Air
Pegasus. The Pegasus match my running style/stride and don't make my feet
ache like Stability shoes. I found the New Balances good for low mileage and
trail running(803). I started running 22 months ago, recently focused on
running for as long as I have the ability, and found the right shoe! I wish
the best of luck to everyone. keep on running.
 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by AMH » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:24:47

I've experienced just the opposite. My first New Balances wore out rather quickly.
I switched to Nike Air Pegasus and they lasted me for a year.

Ignore the brand and use the shoe that works best for you.

Andy

Quote:

> Any opinions on these two shoes.  I ran Nikes for years but recently switched
> to NB.  With the Nikes the cushioning seemed to give out but with the NB I've
> already logged 25% more miles and they still seem fine.  They are also much
> more comfortable.  Just wondered what experience others have had with these two
> shoes.

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Jtic » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:05:46

Well, I must be missing something.  When I started running (1988) I used the
nike air pegasus and had good luck with them.  Then they quit making them and I
switched to the Windrunner.  Last time I tried to get Windrunners I was told
they discontinued them.  I got tired of continually having to experiment with
new models which was what prompted me to switch to New Balance in the first
place.  Are you telling me the Air Pegasus is available again?  If so I might
try them.  
 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by jerry, sharrie, ashley, t » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:32:56


Quote:
> Well, I must be missing something.  When I started running (1988) I used
the
> nike air pegasus and had good luck with them.  Then they quit making them
and I
> switched to the Windrunner.  Last time I tried to get Windrunners I was
told
> they discontinued them.  I got tired of continually having to experiment
with
> new models which was what prompted me to switch to New Balance in the
first
> place.  Are you telling me the Air Pegasus is available again?  If so I
might
> try them.

Pegasus have been back out for a couple of years now (at least 2), as I was
selling them at a previous job. I personally do not like them as much as the
original Pegasus, but then, thats just me!

JerryB

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by LexLaw0 » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:34:07

Quote:
>Ignore the brand and use the shoe that works best for you.

I agree.  I like the Adidas Wolfpack best.
They fit my and are the most comfortable
running shoes I've ever had.  

Andrea

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Rob Slate » Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:01:44

The Nike Pegasus 2000 has been only been available since last
September. The store I work at had a party to mark its introduction
which almost was a big flop because the shoes came in late and Nike
didn't have enough shoes to ship us. We got about 20 pairs overnighted
to us so we'd at least have some to display. We gave away a free pair
to the customer who brought in the most pairs of old Pegasus. The
winner brought in something like 26 pairs.

The Arma (for men) and the Imara (for women) replaced the last Pegasus
in, if I remember correctly, 1997.

The new Pegasus isn't really like the old Pegasus or the Arma/Imara.
The new Pegasus has an EVA midsole and a full-length air unit. The old
Pegasus/Arma/Imara had a PU heel and EVA forefoot with an air unit in
the heel.

BTW, the barbs that I see some of the less-well-informed posters toss
at Nike would be better aimed at New Balance now. These folks are about
5 years behind the times. Nike keeps all its technical running shoes
(except Int'l/Converge Max) in the line for 18 months or more, and
makes the majority in multiple widths. New Balance shoes are much more
fashionable than Nikes. Most of our 991, 587, and 804 sales are to pure
fashion customers. The only people wearing Nikes these days are real
runners.

Rob



Quote:


> > Well, I must be missing something.  When I started running (1988) I used
> the
> > nike air pegasus and had good luck with them.  Then they quit making them
> and I
> > switched to the Windrunner.  Last time I tried to get Windrunners I was
> told
> > they discontinued them.  I got tired of continually having to experiment
> with
> > new models which was what prompted me to switch to New Balance in the
> first
> > place.  Are you telling me the Air Pegasus is available again?  If so I
> might
> > try them.

> Pegasus have been back out for a couple of years now (at least 2), as I was
> selling them at a previous job. I personally do not like them as much as the
> original Pegasus, but then, thats just me!

> JerryB

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by jerry, sharrie, ashley, t » Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:44:52


Quote:

> The Nike Pegasus 2000 has been only been available since last
> September. The store I work at had a party to mark its introduction
> which almost was a big flop because the shoes came in late and Nike
> didn't have enough shoes to ship us. We got about 20 pairs overnighted
> to us so we'd at least have some to display. We gave away a free pair
> to the customer who brought in the most pairs of old Pegasus. The
> winner brought in something like 26 pairs.

> The Arma (for men) and the Imara (for women) replaced the last Pegasus
> in, if I remember correctly, 1997.

I knew that we sold them beyond 1997, so I did a little digging... the
Pegasus was done sometime during 1998, and we had them in stock up to at
least early 1999 (thats when I left the sports store).  I did not know that
they discontiued them in the meantime... learn something new every day!

JerryB

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Jtic » Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:39:43

Well Rob you're a good salesman, I'll check into the Pegasus.  Unfortunately
there aren't any store around here that cater to serious runners so I hope I
can find them.  Thanks for the info.   "Pete"
 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Rob Slate » Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:52:37


Quote:



> > BTW, the barbs that I see some of the less-well-informed posters toss
> > at Nike would be better aimed at New Balance now. These folks are about
> > 5 years behind the times. Nike keeps all its technical running shoes
> > (except Int'l/Converge Max) in the line for 18 months or more, and
> > makes the majority in multiple widths. New Balance shoes are much more
> > fashionable than Nikes. Most of our 991, 587, and 804 sales are to pure
> > fashion customers. The only people wearing Nikes these days are real
> > runners.

> Rob, you are right that NB is much more fashion conscious these days... Look
> at all their ads on TV and the magazines... And I think 804's are standard
> issue on most college campuses these days... They gotta be selling them to
> somebody because they are WORTHLESS for running in.  And NB is turning over
> their product lines way too fast... They get one shoe to market and
> instantly start working on the replacement.

> But, I don't think "real runners" are gravitating to Nike either...
> personally, I am an odd ball Brooks guy myself, but seems like most of my
> compatriots are in Asics with Nike a distant second or third.

3rd is about right in my store - but that's still a pretty decent
number of runners wearing Nikes.

And I didn't say that all real runners are wearing Nikes, but that if
you're wearing the really good Bowerman series Nikes, you're a real
runner.

In locales without running specialty stores, Nikes are less likely to
be the shoes of choice because they are not carried by mall stores or
big boxes. And they're only available through very limited catalog
sources. Runners literally have not seen the Span/Althea Triax,
Structure Triax, Durham, etc.

Actually the development times are such that the manufacturers have to
start working on the replacements _before_ a new model hits the market.
NB is trying to get its development cycle down to 11 months so they can
see how a product does at retail for a month before they start working
on the update (for a 1-year shoe). Also, New Balance will be stretching
out product life cycles to 2 years on several of the technical running
shoes introduced in 2001 and 2002.

See - they're listening!!!

Rob

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Sam » Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:40:09

I have run in both although for a long time NB did not make a shoe (at least
one that I could find) that I like.  Now because of a business deal, I am
running in NB and really like them (I had bought a pair before the business
connection).

All of the major shoe companies make some excellent shoes.  A particular
style might be better for me than you but it is still a good shoe.  Go with
what works best for you (and remember to buy at least one more pair before
they discontinue the shoe you love--that is my biggest complaint against
Nike).

Quote:
> Any opinions on these two shoes.  I ran Nikes for years but recently
switched
> to NB.  With the Nikes the cushioning seemed to give out but with the NB
I've
> already logged 25% more miles and they still seem fine.  They are also
much
> more comfortable.  Just wondered what experience others have had with
these two
> shoes.

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Sue » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:22:44

Rob,

would you say the Imara is a neutral shoe or rather for people with pronation
problems? I bought it just because it felt very comfortable but I am not sure if
it is really what I need.

Sue

Quote:

> The Nike Pegasus 2000 has been only been available since last
> September. The store I work at had a party to mark its introduction
> which almost was a big flop because the shoes came in late and Nike
> didn't have enough shoes to ship us. We got about 20 pairs overnighted
> to us so we'd at least have some to display. We gave away a free pair
> to the customer who brought in the most pairs of old Pegasus. The
> winner brought in something like 26 pairs.

> The Arma (for men) and the Imara (for women) replaced the last Pegasus
> in, if I remember correctly, 1997.

> The new Pegasus isn't really like the old Pegasus or the Arma/Imara.
> The new Pegasus has an EVA midsole and a full-length air unit. The old
> Pegasus/Arma/Imara had a PU heel and EVA forefoot with an air unit in
> the heel.

> BTW, the barbs that I see some of the less-well-informed posters toss
> at Nike would be better aimed at New Balance now. These folks are about
> 5 years behind the times. Nike keeps all its technical running shoes
> (except Int'l/Converge Max) in the line for 18 months or more, and
> makes the majority in multiple widths. New Balance shoes are much more
> fashionable than Nikes. Most of our 991, 587, and 804 sales are to pure
> fashion customers. The only people wearing Nikes these days are real
> runners.

> Rob





> > > Well, I must be missing something.  When I started running (1988) I used
> > the
> > > nike air pegasus and had good luck with them.  Then they quit making them
> > and I
> > > switched to the Windrunner.  Last time I tried to get Windrunners I was
> > told
> > > they discontinued them.  I got tired of continually having to experiment
> > with
> > > new models which was what prompted me to switch to New Balance in the
> > first
> > > place.  Are you telling me the Air Pegasus is available again?  If so I
> > might
> > > try them.

> > Pegasus have been back out for a couple of years now (at least 2), as I was
> > selling them at a previous job. I personally do not like them as much as the
> > original Pegasus, but then, thats just me!

> > JerryB

 
 
 

Nike vs New Balance

Post by Rob Slate » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:08:01

Quote:

> Rob,

> would you say the Imara is a neutral shoe or rather for people with pronation
> problems? I bought it just because it felt very comfortable but I am not sure
> if
> it is really what I need.

> Sue

The Imara is neutral. It is polyurethane in the rearfoot which makes
the heel a little more durable, but doesn't add any significant amount
of stability.

If it's comfortable, that's good. But if you have problems caused by
overpronation, you will probably need a more stable shoe if you
increase your mileage and the amount of stress on your body.

Rob