5 ms·

>until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. In Switzerland, every dec

• mahrain 20d ago
  Having gone through this process what surprised me was that they were advising along brand lines: “Brooks are sturdy, ASICS are narrow shoes, Hoka have thick soles and a lot of bounce”. They didn’t have differentiation within a same brand.
  • yolo3000 20d ago
    No mention of heel drop? I thought Hoka's were in the low heel drop category. Or maybe it's not a thing anymore
    • chantepierre 20d ago
      Low-ish (4 to 6mm) but not really advertised.
    • arlattimore 20d ago
      It's a thing for sure, maybe just not screamed about. If you run in a shoe that is 10mm+ and then go to a 0mm like an Altra - it is wild how different it feels.
      • yolo3000 20d ago
        Yup, Nike and Asics were like 10mm, while Hoka and other cool brands are lower. Back when I was running this was the main differentiator
  • monomania 20d ago
    I just want some regular running shoes that don't look like they have a 3" thick sole, with a 1" protrusion coming out the back. Most running shoes look goofy has hell these days, and for what purpose I don't have a clue.
    • loeg 20d ago
      There are tons of non-maxi shoes around still.
      • monomania 15d ago
        Late reply, but I went to Dick's after posting this to pick up some new running shoes, and literally every single pair had those marshmallow soles. Not all of them were 3", but they don't make them like they used to.
    • fransje26 20d ago
      > a 3" thick sole, with a 1" protrusion coming out the back. Most running shoes look goofy has hell I call them clown shoes. Unfortunately, they are everywhere.
      • ahartmetz 20d ago
        They are officially called ugly sneakers and the name is very appropriate.
    • petre 20d ago
      Try Mizunos. My Wave Riders have the amount of foam that a pair of ugly Sketchers would.
    • eitally 20d ago
      I recommend Doctors of Running (website & podcast). They're a group of running PTs and each of them has different needs & preference. One in particular likes less cushioned and more structured shoes. There are ample options out there.
  • mitxela 20d ago
    Could still be the same company though, if they were smart.
  • eitally 20d ago
    That's just a bad salesperson.
• globular-toast 20d ago
  Couple that with the fact almost everyone seems to run now, and that running shoes/trainers have become acceptable fashion in all but the haughtiest of occasions. In the 90s, running wasn't even really a thing. A few people went "jogging" for exercise. Otherwise it was a proper sport in which very few partook. Trainers were predominantly worn by children. Adults wore "real" shoes. Something changed in the past ten years or so. I feel like Nike kept the childish association whereas brands like Hoka became acceptable for adults to wear.
  • jahller 20d ago
    totally. some brands really made a huge step-up and became "fresh", which Nike declined and is now considered "stale". From my euro-centric perspective I see Autry, New Balance, Adidas and Asics all over the place. Even Reebok had a revival. Basketball and skateboarding shoes fell out of style and now everyone trends towards running or indoor soccer style shoes.
  • darkwater 20d ago
    What happened but not in the last 10 years (it happened before) is that 1990's children became adults and kept using trainers (personally I don't wear anything else). But this doesn't explain why Nike died this death. We will get some MBA story about in the future, I guess.
  • close04 20d ago
    Looking around me I was convinced that most of Nike's and Adidas' sales were coming from the "fashion" side of things. People buying everyday shoes from a famous brand. The "professional" shoe was for professional athletes, football players, etc. I'd hear that a player signed with Adidas, or a runner was wearing Nike for a race, but regular people didn't go in stores for the specs, they went for the brand. Like you say, until recently almost nobody had running shoes because running as a sport for regular people wasn't a thing. People would have some trainers that fit every sporty activity. Just because people buy more running shoes doesn't mean they buy less of the day too day shoes. Fashion and sports shoes don't replace each other. The sales of sport shoes just created a new market, they didn't cannibalize the rest of the sales. That must have been self-inflicted.
• arlattimore 20d ago
  The comments in the article about 'performance' are very real. When Nike was still in retail stores, 9/10 shoes were fashion sneakers and had nothing to do with athletics/running/performance. By comparison, Hoka is positioned as a runners shoe. They have a variety of models based on the type of running you need (daily, long run, race), provide road/trail variants (their Speedgoat is amazing trail shoe), have large toe boxes to give your forefoot/toes the space needed to spread out on impact, also room to grow from swelling. I'm sure Nike don't want to walk back from their fashionista offerings, but there are lessons in here for sure - maybe they need sub-branding like Nike Road, Nike Trail, Nike Casual or Nike Performance and Nike Casual.
  • prawn 20d ago
    I think they do have that - Nike SB for skate/street, Nike ACG for trail, etc. That said, I have twice gone to re-buy a trail-oriented shoe of theirs that I liked in the past, and found that it never stuck, and the new options in that space were garish or over-reliant on mesh which just lets in dirt and thorns.
    • walthamstow 20d ago
      What are you wearing for trail runners now?
      • sumo89 20d ago
        If you want a recommendation I really like Merrell Agility Peak's or for something less run-y, the Moab.
      • prawn 20d ago
        I wear this category for hiking rather than running (prefer sneakers over boots - less weight). Current shoes are something waterproof from Columbia that I've worn in snow and desert trails and quite like. Bought on special in the US just before heading into snow, so didn't research much. Previously had Nike Wild Trail. And many years back, I think it was Nike Trail that I bought in NZ, but never saw that moniker again. I was looking at Nike ACG stuff recently, but the colourways in AU are black (clodhopper!), neon blue, white with khaki, camo, or an odd light brown. And on the side it spells out "All Conditions Gear" like you're an idiot who can't remember what your shoes are for.
• probably_wrong 20d ago
  Semi-related: I did the gait analysis thing when I started seriously training for a half marathon. The guy showed me the video and reached the conclusion that, since I run with my knees flexed inwards (true) I needed a certain shoe that would "stabilize" my feet and push my knees outwards. It took me several years and several pieces of orthopedic equipment to recover from the damage those shoes did to me. Do not trust salesmen with medical advice.
  • wjnc 20d ago
    Can I ask how the shoes created actual orthopedic damage? (I totally understand how hard injury and recovery are, so not flaming. I destroyed my hip cartilage while a happy runner and triathlete, so I know about injuries, recovery and letting go of something I adored and that defined me.) Shoes * body * mileage = impact, where body gives signs of damage being done and is also the one to work on via technique and strength if something is not going well in your posture. I see the 'duck run' (knee buckling inside, feet moving outside to correct for the loss of height) all the time and would think that something that mostly is related to underdeveloped muscles around the knee.
    • probably_wrong 20d ago
      The explanation I got from my doctor was that one shouldn't fix posture problems by raising the inner part of the insoles a random amount because all that achieves is making you run "weird", putting pressure in the wrong part of the articulation and damaging the ligaments that keep the knee in place. The actual solution involved muscle development exercises, ripping out the insoles of those shoes to achieve a flat base and replacing them with custom-made ones, knee pads with metallic inserts, and a two-year training plan.
      • eitally 20d ago
        Conventional wisdom among running coaches and orthopedists these days is that the most important thing is to run comfortably, and that just because something looks "weird" doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or wrong. Yes, it may be inefficient, but it probably isn't hurting the runner, either.
• eitally 20d ago
  Shoes salespeople wield huge influence over buying decisions, especially if they come off as authoritative. My son works in a running shoe store that also does gait analysis and they default every new runner into something stable-neutral like a Brooks Ghost, Saucony Ride, or NB 880. They never default with Nike or Adidas because, although both brands make some excellent running shoe models, neither have anything that's in the same category (if Nike had a shoe that was a mix between the Structure & Pegasus, that would be id. If Adidas had something like the SL2 but with a little more structure, that would, too.). The problem with both Nike & Adidas is that they cater to a million different niche audiences, and while both have some amazing running shoe options at the top end (e.g. Vomero Plus for cushioned daily, Alphafly / Streakfly / Vaporfly for racing, etc) their shoes targeting casual runners doing 2-5mi slow runs a couple days a week are lacking. Yes, you could go with a Pegasus, and many do, but although that's a general purpose stable-neutral running shoe, there are way better options from other brands (including Hoka & On, but also Brooks, NB, Saucony, Asics, Topo, Altra, Mizuno, and more).
  • lr1970 19d ago
    +1 on Altra. I have Altra FWD and it is far the best running shoes I ever had.