📹 How do Chinese Handmade Shoes Hold Up After 6 Months?
Yearn Shoemaker is our second featured Chinese shoemaker offering handmade shoes. I received a pair of suede double Monk …
Are zero drop shoes healthy?
Zero-drop shoes can improve posture, alignment, stability, balance, and foot function, according to experts. They also improve ankle mobility, squat form, depth, and reduce calf strain. Many people who have experienced knee, back, ankle, lower-back, shin, and hip pain may notice that pain disappears entirely after switching to zero-drop shoes. These shoes can be worn for any exercise or activity, including running, lifting, obstacle course races, CrossFit, rock climbing, walking, HIIT, and running. Experts suggest that zero-drop shoes can be suitable for any exercise or activity, including weightlifting, obstacle course races, CrossFit, rock climbing, walking, HIIT, and running.
Can you walk all day in barefoot shoes?
Barefoot shoes are a great option for long-term foot health and mobility, especially for athletes, walkers, and desk workers. However, they may not be suitable for everyday use due to their association with athletes with peak performance and physical health. Most people want to know if barefoot shoes are good for everyday use, as they can provide protection for the feet and promote flexibility and comfort. It’s important to consider the specific needs and activities of each individual before deciding to try barefoot shoes.
Should you walk in minimalist shoes?
Minimalist footwear provides protection against a variety of environmental and physiological factors, including high temperatures, sharp objects, fungal infections, and areas where footwear is required. Walking barefoot is an enjoyable activity that can facilitate the discovery of novel natural foot massagers on initially unpleasant surfaces. It is an excellent method for appreciating the natural environment.
Are minimalist shoes slower?
A study by Jaén-Carillo and colleagues in 2022 found that transitioning to barefoot running from traditional shoes can improve running power, efficiency, and economy. The study involved 194 children aged 10-12 from two different schools in Japan, who participated in a daily activity of running on a hard dirt track for 10 minutes. The only difference between the two schools was that 101 children were barefoot while running, while 93 children wore shoes.
The children were then asked to perform sprints, counter movement jumps, and 5-Rebound Jump tests, with their hands on their hips for all jumps. The study suggests that barefoot shoes can not only make us slower but also save energy and make us faster while lowering our injury risk.
Who should not wear barefoot shoes?
Minimalist footwear is a major contributor to foot injuries, especially in overweight, detrained, or underlying structural or functional limitations. Conditions like metatarsal stress fractures, plantar fasciitis, arch strain, posterior tibial tendonitis, Achilles tendinopathy, and calf muscle strain may not respond to minimalist footwear, especially if overused. The increasing popularity of minimalist footwear among the general population is increasing the presentation of these injuries, particularly heel pain.
However, there is a case for minimalist footwear for specific patient groups. They encourage a different gait pattern, allowing the foot to land on the forefoot rather than the heel, which increases stress through the ankle joint, Achilles tendon, and forefoot. This counters the effects of increasing forces through the knee joint. Several randomized controlled trials and Cochrane reviews have identified the benefits of non-heeled, minimalist footwear in elderly women with knee osteoarthritis.
After six months of use, knee pain and overload reduced in elderly women using these types of shoes, and overall functional capacity was improved. Therefore, it is crucial to select shoes that are appropriate for the specific needs of the person.
Why are podiatrists against barefoot shoes?
Minimalist shoes require strong foot, ankle, lower leg, and core muscle groups, proprioception, balance, appropriate running style, and foot type. Wearing these shoes without these factors can lead to increased lower limb injuries, foot pain, and dysfunction. For those with a history of foot pain or poor foot biomechanics, minimalist shoes may not be recommended. Before purchasing, have your feet assessed by a podiatrist to minimize injury risk.
Are barefoot shoes healthy for you?
Wearing barefoot shoes is beneficial for maintaining a straight and upright posture, as they allow the feet to stand flat on the floor from heel to toe, promoting straight alignment. This natural form of movement benefits joints, knees, hips, and back, reducing long-term back and joint pain. Groundies offers a wide range of barefoot shoes for both men and women, with a wide toe box that allows for ample movement and space for the big toe, which can cause deformities like hallux valgus and hammer toe.
Barefoot shoes spread evenly in all directions, ensuring a healthy foot position, stability, and balance in everyday life. This is particularly important for those with typical foot deformities caused by tight shoes. Overall, barefoot shoes are a healthy and effective way to maintain a healthy foot position.
Who should not wear minimalist shoes?
Barefoot shoes may not be suitable for individuals with severe hypermobility, rigid musculoskeletal deformities, pre-existing chronic foot conditions, or peripheral neuropathy. It is advised to consult a professional or medical professional before trying barefoot shoes. While most healthy individuals can adapt to minimalist shoes, those with these conditions should consider professional help. Minimalist shoes can be beneficial for some individuals, but they may need assistance with the transition or careful planning.
Why don’t podiatrists recommend barefoot shoes?
Barefoot running emerged as a new training method among elite athletes, designed to stimulate the feet and increase athletic performance. The Nike Free running shoe was initially designed for this purpose, but it may not be suitable for those with a body frame similar to leading athletes in City to Surf. Overweight or untrained individuals are at a higher risk of injury due to the lack of heel cushioning in minimalist shoes.
If there is no history of metatarsal stress fracture, plantar heel pain, or Achilles issues, barefoot running can vary the stresses on the feet and lower extremities. However, starting with minimal footwear should be done no more than 10% of total training. As form and function change, and joints and muscles are worked, injury patterns may change.
In podiatrist practice, understanding the motivation for a person to move towards barefoot or minimalist footwear is crucial. Consideration should be given to their biomechanics and lower extremity structure. Minimalist footwear is a major contributor to the onset of many foot injuries, and conditions such as metatarsal stress fractures, plantar fasciitis, arch strain, posterior tibial tendonitis, Achilles tendinopathy, and calf muscle strain may not respond to minimalist footwear, especially if overused.
📹 Why Nike is boring – Pegasus 41
Get a Rose Anvil Travel Wallet here, great for taking everything you need in one place here – https://bit.ly/4eDkpol Buy here to help …
Yearn maybe the best value for cost of the chinese shoemakers. Their shoes have beautiful finish work and the ability to do MTO on a RTW model for only a $50 upcharge is fantastic. I own 5 pair and my favorite last is the 07. I love the look (soft square) and the fit. I’ve ordered direct from factory and from Arterton. Arterton can give master classes in customer service. I hope they can take on other brands because Jamie is the best and I love supporting businesses that value their customers.
I got about 4 of their shoes. theyre fantastic. I do best with their y07 last, it could do with the toe cap being slightly higher. the aesthetic is amazing. they could do with more monkstrap designs. i really really like them too much. Oxfords I just dont care about. Lazyman is what draw me in so much with their black and brown patina.
The Pegasus made it’s reputation for being Nike’s most boring but reliable daily trainer, because it’s so versatile any runner from beginner to expert level can benefit from it. While I agree with everything said about Nike in this article, you picked THE model that’s appreciated for not being innovative and instead being a tried and true classic.
I think this was the wrong shoe to look to for really special innovation. Pegasus has always been the kind of “classic” running shoe. Pretty ordinary colorways and standard cushioning. They’re trusty, able to go for a long time, get beat up and dirty, then get tossed at 300-400 miles. Nobody in the running community that I’m aware of really looks to the Peg to be anything mind blowing.
I go to a free running club at a local brewery every week. From time to time running shoe companies will come by with shoes that we can try out on our weekly 5k run. I’ve been able to run rest so many different shoes from all the manufacturers, except Nike. Nike never visits to demo their products. Nike’s competitors are getting out meeting and engaging the local running communities, while Nike is sitting back and relying on their past glory to sell their shoes.
To be fair, the pegasus has never been a shoe where nike tries to push any new tech or be super advanced with. It’s supposed to be a reliable daily runner and it has a pretty big following for being so consistent. The price hike to $140 is what bothers me more, getting to the point where its not really an affordable option
People are doing what people do: They see something new and they trend it. There’s no difference technology or innovation gap. These foams are all similar, uppers are made of similar material. They’re all using plastic or carbon plates on ridiculous stack heights. Not to mention, the price stuff is cap. All of these brands are similar in price per the category of shoes. Ventilation is similar, weight is similar. Not sure what is so dead about their foam compared to others. Trust, I go through a lot of running shoes, and outside of NB Fuel Cell, there’s a lot of Cap going on. Not to mention Nike is still beating all of these brands in sales. The talk is the loss of market share. I agree they are stretched to thin as a brand, but a lot of this talk is bologna. How many shoe reviews do I see complaining that Nike doesn’t have something. When they do have it(or already had it), its dead or doesn’t work in that case. Trendiness strikes again. These shoes are all the damn same.
My next pair of running shoes will likely be Brooks or NB. Not because I think they’re more stylish, but because Nike stopped making shoes in B width. You’d think that with the plethora of models shoe companies make available in wide widths, they’d keep even one still available for those of us with narrow feet. Nope.
In all fairness, the Nike Pegasus has been around for about 41 years. It’s a basic workhorse running shoe. They have their customer / fan base already setup. I think they want to make small incremental changes to the shoe in order to maintain their fan base. It’s kind of like “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The tech is fine… awesome actually. The problem with Nike is their designs are simply boring and uninspiring. Look at the lacing system and lacing loop overlays. How many times are they going to use that same boxy design? Same with the actual shoe overlays. They’re just kind of there and functional but they’re not “fun”. Whereas something like the Asics Novablast 4 overlays are wavy and have actual physical texture and patterns that make the shoe look exciting and stylish while still serving as strong structural support. Nike is just stale. Get new and fun designs and stick to the foams and zoom and Nike will rebound.
Im a huge nike fan and avid consumer. From my perspective they don’t take into account the communities, they have been extremely money hungry and always shooting for profit. And they don’t want to innovate when they don’t have to. They know they can keep selling the same shoes from 40 years ago and it keeps the company stable. I think if they took more risks and innovated something radically new they could capture the essence of what the company was in its peak. A performance footwear company. I hope with this change of leadership the company moves forward and strives for excellency.
I have a pair of pegasus 41, I use them at the gym: they are amazing for running, I come from a pair of nike pegasus shield 38, in the past I always had a lot of nike running shoes, I loved, the now dead “downshifter” line, but today there are so many options, I also have asics and adidas sneakers for perfomance and running in general … and I think this is good for us. They are forced to keep on pushing on new tech., a good challenge is good for everybody !
Bit of a correction, but Nike didn’t start their innovations for the supershoes, they just took them the farthest and to the largest market. The first carbon plated running shoe was the Brooks Fusion in 1991, which they called their propulsion system. Then the high response foams was the biggest push by Adidas/Puma (really the petroleum company they contracted) in 2013. The Nike Vaporfly was introduced in 2016. No company pushed shoe technology as far as Nike did to the point that they influence running shoe regulations for competition, but they didn’t start these technologies. Even at the start, Blue Ribbon Sports was re-selling Onitsuka Tiger shoes as cheap running shoes compared to New Balance’s offerings. The Cortez wasn’t much different from the Mexico. Then Nike got its two big innovations in the 1970s: Air and the waffle sole. Why is Nike losing share? For apparel, they have pretty middle quality but some of the highest price. When lululemon is more expensive, it’s just better apparel. Adidas really invested to be stylish, for shoes and clothing really doing those artist collabs. Then Nike doesn’t even put themselves in your local running store. You go there, and you see Brooks, Hoka, and Altra mostly. Then On, Saucony, Solomon, and Icebug if they have space. Nike has put themselves into large chain sports stores like Dick’s (there isn’t even a Dick’s in every state), which limits their visibility to runners. People also want to try on shoes before buying them, usually.
It is funny that you haven’t mention Adidas in the article which is the biggest competitor of Nike for running division that still do innovation. I think the main reason the sales down is Nike recently has too many options with terrible value. For most people Nike products are not the first choice when you are looking for a premium super shoe anymore. As a person who owns lots of running shoes (also several Nikes), I find myself mostly looking for a different brand for lower price that usually exists whenever I’m shopping.
nike still produce product with new tech, but only in their top tier super shoe line, and Pegasus 41is more like entry level everyday running shoe. I believe they are losing market share its due to their pricing strategy, they are charging so much more for the same tier running shoes. And for actual runner, tits common that good performance shoes which only last around 600km, so they basically have to purchase a new pair every season, and those expenses add-up.
For me a big thing is that Nike’s running shoes don’t last very long. I think that they use a softer foam than some of their competitors and it compresses and wears out so quickly that I would only get a couple of months of running from their shoes, and the shoes are expensive to replace. I get 2x the distance out of Asics than I do out of Nike with the same amount of comfort and for less money. Maybe the Asics aren’t as performance oriented, but as a consumer who runs for health reasons rather than for racing the actual race performance of my shoes matters a lot less than comfort, price, and durability.
The materials used are top notch. The leather feels soft and luxurious, exactly like the real thing. The stitching is impeccable, with no loose or uneven lines. The hardware (including the iconic CC twist lock clasp) is durable, well made, and adds to the overall elegance of the bag :yt: luxrul :yt: . I thought everyone who owned an LV monogram bag knew that it was obviously coated canvas? When people spend a fortune on an expensive bag, they might as well buy a replica
It’s just the wrong Nike shoe to cut apart and test for innovation as it’s known to be the least. Go the Alphaflys or the Vaporflys and then look at performance of these shoes compared to peers….thats more accurate. Having said that thank u for cutting apart running shoes as I think it’s a topic more people are getting interested in. Love the articles…🥰🙏 Colin really knows his stuff as well and he is valid with what he says.
As a runner who has been wearing Pegasus since 2012 (Peg 28), I wholeheartedly agree with Colin. Nike is certainly an innovator, but the problem is other brands have caught uo and improved on the tech that Nike pioneered. In the meantime, newer, less known brands have been working harder to connect with communities and provide septic products while Nike has been churning out shoes in a business as usual way. Finally, generally a lot of people tend to start out with Nike as it is a well known brand and over time gravitate to a a different brand that better suits their needs (example, Altras have wide toe boxes, Hokas have more cushioning,Brooks have more structure etc etc).
My uncle’s generation still grew up with Nike runners and the first Basketball shoes, and I grew up up with the larger than life MJ, Shaq and the other legends of basketball making Nike the brand to be one of cool kids. I’m personally more into Adidas and I really enjoy the NMD line so far as a lifestyle shoe. I think brands like Adidas and Nike are reaching too far and lost sight for their core markets.
Forefoot & heel or full length zoom air units are still imo the best cushioning technology sensation under foot regardless of the sport. Weightlifting excluded, as there you want as much stability and ground feel as possible, cushioning is actually detrimental. In terms of performance, you want the best available and something you can rely upon, so sticking to zoom air or a good foam setup with a herringbone outsole tread, where you know it works is something that is actually a plus for sports. The biggest issue with Nike, I and many people I talk to have, is that they change nothing or even make their products worse than the previous generation by removing tech & quality materials, while charging way more money. At the same time we see Puma, Adidas, Li-ning, Anta, … offer the best they have to offer with new visual designs at lower prices. I play basketball & badminton on the regular and for both categories I can buy a shoe loaded with tech at the same price point of 110-160€/$ at those competitors, while Nike gives me the most basic of basic stuff they can make with a re-cycled design, put a 150€/$ price tag on it and call it a day. Book 1’s being a prime example of this. Same for Jordan signature athletes. Jordan line used to offer the best of the best available. Still does for the main line but at 200€/$. But for their signature shoe lines like Luka, Zion, Tatum, Westbrook, they skimp out and the product can’t compete at the price point against all other brands.
Nike only cares about milking money from retro sales now and no longer making anything fresh or cool. Their marketing strategy is also not relevant anymore. Endless limited releases on SNKRS app only feel into the resell market and doesn’t actually give true fans the ability to get what they want. Take Kobes for example…REAL Kobe fans just want stuff released so they can go buy them in the stores but instead it’s all hype SNKRS releases which will end up on StockX for 500% markup. What does Nike get from that? Nothing. They still only get the MSRP on the limited amount they released and at this point the real fans are just fed up with this tactic and moved on.
All that being said, these are my favorite shoes out there. Incredibly breathable, daily foot pain gone. Ready to go on a sprint at any moment and the color choices are phenomenal. However, I’m talking about the Pegasus 39,40s. Not much difference it looks like between 40 and 41. Price wise they go on sale for like 70 a couple of times of year. U can’t beat that for such a workhorse running shoe.
the biggest problem imho is that Nike became much more of a lifestyle brand than a sports performance brand. Runners increasingly look elsewhere for build quality, innovation, and performance. it also does not help that Nike’s build quality has gotten quite shoddy……..while still charging a premium for their product.
As someone else said, this is their pegasus, the least inovated running shoe by nike, because people like the basic style, its lightweight, relatively responsive and its universally known. If your looking for other nike trainers look at the vomero, invincible and pegasus plus. Their racing shoes are also very impressive and intresting.
Nike has such an incredible history as an American shoe company. But they waded far too deep into the low-cost-high-price deep end. Quality dropped while prices went higher. Not a winning combination and puts a lot of pressure on brand loyalty & image. They need to take a few serious executive pay cuts to improve material quality or lower price. Alas it might not happen until the economy bounces back. I am rooting for them—they push other emerging brands to be more creative in the free market of ideas.
It would be cool to do a comparison of the “super shoes” since a lot of them are interesting in their construction and ability to be reused if that is even possible. Most of the super shoes are only meant to last for the length of a marathon and this is because the plate material in nearly all of them is built to be as light as possible but able to withstand withiut failure the 26.2 mile race (and warm up before it)
As a normie that buys sneakers once the old ones wear out and wants at least a couple years out of a pair… I just want a normal looking shoe with no weird heel in normal colors to match my lifestyle of walking but sometimes needing to run and standing a lot. Got some pair of Nikes back in 2013 and felt like I aged 50 years with intense knee pain. Got something more traditional 90s looking nike sneaker and it went away immediately.
I don’t see that many Nike shoes in sporting stores anymore so I don’t try them on and don’t build interest in them. Nike lost the ball when they thought selling shoes to people over the internet instead of aggressively filing shelf space was a good idea. It isn’t, trying them on is a crucial part of the shoe buying process for the vast majority of people.
Hell yes! I’ve been waiting for running shoe comparisons, the type of foam and studying it really matters and the last 3-5 years there have been significant advancements. Wide options matter. Total weight, too. Also comparing the types of shoes. Such as a Clifton 9 can be a direct comparison to a Brooks Ghost16. There are both max stacks and cushions, and of course the speed shoes. Then you can kind of compare what you get for the money. An example right now is a lot of folks love the Puma Velocity Nitro 3 and the Asics Noveblast 4 as daily trainers since they all hover around $140 and are balanced and can eat up a lot of miles. Can also do one for walking too. (runner shoe companies shoes that people use for walking, IE Brooks Ghost Max 2). Brands: Saucony, Asics, Hoka, Brooks, Adidas, New balance is a good start
You picked the perfect shoe to explain their downfall as king. The Pegasus is Nike’s daily trainer, now compare it to daily trainers from New Balance, ASICS, Saucony, Hoka and others. Nike is boring, not as comfortable and not as innovative in the daily trainer market which should be a running shoe company’s best seller.
I’m also an ultra runner. Usually one of the only people wearing Nike at 100k/100 milers. Running have (generally) an attitude of being on the edges. People call us crazy. So I don’t know if wearing a shoe brand that is monocultural resonates with that crowd. Why wear a “dad shoe” (not the cool dad shoes) when you can wear something that’s slightly off the mainstream?
FYI my Extra Wide Pegasus 41 has the same toe box as my Lems Primal Zens of the same size. This is boring innovation keeps me a loyal customer. I kept checking all the other brands when the extra wide 40s disappeared but getting a flagship running shoe in extra wide is limited to Nike for the moment (at least in my area).
Ever since Nike came out with Flyknit I feel like they’ve just piggybacked off simply implementing the same designs with these fabrics. I used to always find a Nike shoe in even retail stores where I would be like I gotta have that pair it’s so clean. Now the designs haven’t changed in like 10 years, the colorways are trash, and on top of it the shoes are either too crazy or too boring on even their premium lines/SNKRS
From the throne of my ignorance: Nike does have some interesting running shoes, but when it comes to overall impression, the brand feels very boring, the shoes does not bring some interesting designs. It is true that the you only get some good tech above a certain price, specially in countries that the products are imported or the national industry arent developed enough to compete. But besides that, the lower price running shoes of nike just cant compete with the wave of innovation from other brands. The recent pegasus editions just feels like a very basic shoes compared to what the other brands have to offer with the same price or slightly above. And daaamn how new balance dusts nike in this. The 1080 and the rebel are just better. But as said: thats from my very pure tought that has a lot of ignorance. Even perusal A LOT of reviews almost everyday. Thats the impression that the brand leaves, a second tier performance for a brand that has this whole history and reputation, while the only category winners they get are the vaporflys, the alphas and the invincibles, and they arent even winning that much, we can argue that they are the best in the category but not for a large margin. The Adidas Evo 1 came out to prove that. And the another thing I want to say is that, for a brand like Nike, due to its size, the small issue noticeable are already enough to be seen as a big thing, you get me? Like, the expectation is to nike to have the better shoes in every price range. I’m 21 now and thats the vision I had growing up, like, its Nike, its just better, its just cooler.
When I was a sales rep from nike, I’ve stumbled upon a pegasus 34 that was girl sized and it didn’t had the front zoom unit. Nike seperate the girl’s and women’s shoes with different product numbers, and I’ve always thought that the main difference was the color’s and sizes, but at least at the time there was some major structural differences that were not advirtised. Also important to note that the girl’s sizes were cheaper, even of the same size was available for woman.
Hey guys, it would be insanely good uf you could ad altra to your list. I am really playing with thr thoughts of getting an altra shoe … since it promises all the good stuff from a runners performance shoe – with the anatomic claims of barefoot. But i just dont have the option of try and buy for such an essential piece “since i am running often”
Important note on why they’re losing market share is that during/post-covid Nike’s strategy was to move away from in store presence in favor of online sales. Though it worked at first, leaving store shelves open to their competitors has seeped away market share from Nike. And now the Nike CEO is reversing their decision and trying to get their shoes back in stores
What I think nikes problem is now that they’ve gotten this big they’re playing it safe. I definitely agree that other brands while in a lot of ways are copying nike, are doing things that feel fresh and new. A lot of nikes especially on the basketball side are very similar in tech and in design. They stopped doing what made them big. Taking risks and innovation.
Of course it doesn’t help when only 10% of the shoe designers and peripheral product teams actually run at all let alone ever competed. There is actually a wooded running course open on the street not fenced but owned by Nike that has signs everywhere that only nike products are allowed on the course, so technically it’s not closed to the public but you have to wear nike to be on it???
Cant wait until Americans start realizing that small toe boxes are fashion and media based. Lots of European footwear companies make wider toebox shoes bc thats how humans natural feet are. And they arent those bad minimalist barefoot shoes, but actually good shoes but with the natural foot shape in mind like how all shoes should be.
in running for different types of runs you need different types of shoe, for example the pegasus is not a raceday shoe, its a trainer, so it does not need to have a carbon plate bc you could not build feet strength if you would run in carbon shoes everyday, so they have a trainer the pegasus, and raceday shoes like vapor and alphafly where they show the tech bc a raceday shoe needs to be as fast as possible with little energy used, but you need to have a more protective shoe which pushes you to put more energy into your train runs like the pegasus
The community aspect is something that caught my attention too. You buy Nikes? Cool. Oh but here’s this on event you can go and run to, and asics just finished an instagram livestream and they had a fun event and so on, never see anything like that for Nike. They have a lot of stores, so they could do something I’m sure. And regarding the Pegasus it makes sense what was commented that it’s their conservative bread and butter line. I bought the 39s and loved them, ran one pair into the ground and bought another pair “with premium ” materials but on sale when the 40s where out. Bought some 40s similarly when the 41s came out…but they feel so different. It’s something similar I read about the 39 when they came out, and now I see what they mean. While I use those as day to day shoes and trainers, I mostly focus on playing tennis and it’s the same story with their tennis shoe line. The same “name” model has different attributes, and they might reissue those models but you have to wait for a drop. I couldn’t wait for those shenanigans when my former Nikes gave out and bought some asics. I loved them and the gel resolution line is popular for being mostly consistent, so I know whenever these give up, I can just buy some new ones and be done with it. I’ll probably switch to them once my current pegs give up.
I think Nike is still better, people just like to hop on trendy stuff, people complain about the price, Nikes are almost always on sale at lower price than those new brands that have funky looking shoes. At the end of the day is not a night or day difference between them, so why go to the store looking like a clown wearing on clouds or hokas. When Nikes just look better and are as comfortable.
Ppl just following trends half of them shows ppl are hyping from new balance etc are old nothing new and innovative but y’all talking about Nike??? This some BS I’m 46 a lot of these runners Ive see when I was younger just it was a trend back then now you got young ppl wearing old silluettes but Nike isn’t making new innovative designs smh talk about nb and others copying midsoles etc from nike shoes smfh what are y’all looking at like really??? I believe some of you getting paid to run with a narrative or something 🤔🤔🤔
The website is cool, but I don’t think you guys are looking at Nike within the proper context, at least with this article. While yes, all these brands have super foams that are squishy and soft, Nike is still the only brand using air in an effective way. Their zoom units ensure that while foams will bottom out, the zoom air bags will still provide responsive cushioning past the foam’s life. Adidas has 3d printed midsoles, Asics has gel and On has sculpted out midsoles, but they aren’t anywhere near as effective or evident as zoom air. I don’t know if you expect them to reinvent the wheel every year, but that’s just not possible with the amount of shoes they put out. They add an innovation here or there sprinkled across various shoes and uses, but the Pegasus has always just been a workhorse daily runer, not the shoe to introduce innovative tech.
This reminds me of auto enthusiasts and they’re hatred of Toyota. “Toyota is bland, it’s boring, no innovation, more appliance than car.” Toyota is one of the last to adopt new technologies and will use old reliable tech for decades into their new models. Toyota makes cars for the consumer, not auto enthusiasts, theirs a difference. You remind me of a shoe enthusiast complaining about a shoe that’s gonna work for average people just fine.
Nike has great running shoes even if it does look a bit boring with Zoom and X this and that. But I don’t think thats the problem. The problem is Nike’s over engagement with retros, so people thnk of Nike they only think of Jordans, shoes with balloons on heels, Dunks, hip shoes and so on. Guess which brands aren’t selling retros, because they are too young to do so — On and Hoka. The young guys on the block gathering market share. Not saying Nike is alone on overengagement with retros. This can potentially hurt other brands too in the long run, with Adidas with its Sambas, and New Balance with its Dad shoes. NB though has done a reverse turn by pushing its Fresh Foam X and Fuel Cell shoes but time will tell if this about turn is enough. Asics did the wise thing by throwing much of its legacy shoes into the Onitsuka Tiger brand, keeping its more modern and running brand separate. Another area where Nike missed was the trails department despite having excellent shoes in the Pegasus Trail and Vergama. The sudden upsurge of hiking, trail running and Gorcorp fashion trends pushed brands like Salomon to the spotlight. Your website has been cutting up hiking and trail running footwear left and right but how many of these were Nike’s?
I train and regularly run half marathons. Nike shoes are the most beautiful They are also comfortable and nice But they never last me more than 500 km. Brooks and Oncloud are just as good if not better and last significantly more than 500 km. The air unit itself and the carbon plate – are just marketing bullshit
I am not sure its innovation that is the issue. It may be the last few versions have not been well liked. Its not a tech issue if they were the same as ones 5 years ago people may like. Its that they made it a slower shoe. It was the same with New Balance v13 a slower shoe than V12 which is less well liked. They change them yearly but not always for the better. Some years changes may be tech drive but some may be market re positioning and also change for changes sake to support the activity of staff which can lose sales as most people would rather buy the last shoe they had if going for a new one. My issue with Nike is that they don’t fit me that well I used to wear thick socks but as New Balance fits me better I buy these when can get at a fair price. I will buy a new peg for winter as with a thick sock
This guy is talking out of his backside, trying to bottomfeed ad dollars off of Nike, Nike make plenty of sucky shoes but Pegs aren’t one of them. They are well respected and consistent shoes that feels amazing. Also Nike totally made the whole super shoe market and he calls them aren’t innovating? lol! Anything for adbux I guess!
I think your are quite negative. I think the peg 41 in black and red is extremely good looking. I want the shoe to be the same as before. If I want something different I go to the other lines. For cheap everyday walking I go with the winflo or quest, for running I will choose the pegs or the vomeros… Don’t be too hard on the basemodel. I think the quality is the continuity. Maybe the pricing is off… I loved the fly wires(?) for lacing in I think the peg39 and hope that it will return 😊
I think you guys are just a bunch of Nike haters. I only watch these articles because I like sneakers and I find you splitting them in half interesting. I can do without the sneaker history lesson because it’s repetitive. I would also appreciate you omitting the RoseAnvil marketing because again I’m here just for the sneakers. You know that you wouldn’t be getting any views if you only featured RoseAnvil products alone.
Nike definitely leaves out the tech details on purpose. They are just using the same recipe over and over. The new ja morant shoe has barely any info on their site. They just keep pushing old models with new colors. And when those models fade out in popularity, like how dunks and air Jordan 1 is currently, they don’t know what else to do.
Nailed it with the community aspect. The Nike app is awful (never win a draw) and I’ve left negative reviews on their website that have been removed, with positive reviews having no trouble being published. I still like Nike running shoes, but the brand in general has become stale. Constant retro releases and nothing exciting or new.
The Pegasus is a great shoe but boring it’s gets the job done though. The Vomero 17 is a great shoe more soft and a bit wider Nike structure 25 is also a great firmer cushioned structured shoe. Nike still makes great running shoes but people only try the Pegasus without trying other shoes witch gives people the wrong opinion of there shoes
Nike is too busy retro there old sneakers for all there market shares. Not really inovating any tech. There business model was always spend less and rely on brand name to attract consumerism but consumers are fatigue and spending there money on different brands that cost cheaper or same price with better tech and innovation. Who needs air zoom bags when you get the memory foam gel technology from asics.