I look at the shox and wonder how anyone can run in those. They look like anything but "shox" absorbant and they also look like high hills.

The high heels look is an illusion. The forefoot is at the same level as the top of the shox.

The key is adequate cushion for the mid-sole. Too much cushion for heel means sometimes too little for front and vice versa.

Nike cares about everybody but runners, which is where they originally made their impact, so Nike's abandonment of the runner is a slap in the face.

Thanks for the input guys. I ended up getting the Brooks Trace. They are really comfortable. Out of the 3 shoes I tried on the Brooks, Asics and Nike's. The Nike's were the worst.

You won't be disappointed.

Did you feel that way when you were trying to mooch free shoes from them?

"Plus, during my application for a free shoe tester for life, they turned me down."

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11314

I should have put down, tic, for the humor impaired.

Runnercoug, at what price range do the Nikes become good shoes? Until a week ago, I've always run in Nikes but I've always been in the 50-70 dollar range. With this pair of Brooks I got they were $135 shoes but goose got me a nice discount. I'm guessing at that price range Nike makes a comparable shoe?

OK, sorry. I guess I've just never seen you write anything funny, so I didn't know you were being sarcastic. My bad.

FWIW, I don't really have any desire to defend Nike or their shoes. My gripe is with people who are asked for advice about running and the first thing out of their mouth is how "evil" Nike is. You are aware that Dan Browne ran a 2:11 Twin Cities Marathon wearing Nikes? That Dathan Ritzenhein will be running in the 08 Olympic Marathon wearing Nikes? That Meb Keflezighi runs every marathon he races wearing Nikes? I guess I'm failing to see how Nike has abandoned runners.

I've run in $90 Air Structure Triax for two years now.

But don't misunderstand my point. It's beyond stupid to argue about running shoes, for crying out loud. My point is just this: when someone who is new to running asks for advice from an experienced runner, and all they can say is "don't buy Nike", they've done a big disservice to the person asking for help.

I've run is Asics, and they blistered the holy hell out of my feet. I've got a scar on my right foot the size of a quarter that I got while wearing Asics.

I've run in Saucony's, and to me, they felt like I was running with bricks strapped to my feet.

I've run in Mizuno's, and they were great, except I lost four toenails in one race.

I've run in Brooks, and liked them alot. I just thought they were ugly.

I switched to Nike, after listening to all the "experienced" runners tell me how bad Nikes are for three years. No more blisters, no more black toenails, and they felt lighter to me. If I hadn't listened to people who were giving me nothing but their personal bias, I could have avoided problems in the first place.

I'm not trying to defend Nike. I would say this about any shoe. If you are asked by someone new to running what the best shoe is, the only response you should give is to send them to a running store and get them fitted for the best shoe for their foot. For some it's Asics, some it's Nike, etc, etc. But don't put into a newbie's mind that Nike shoes (or any respectable shoes) are bad, just because you don't like them. Advise them to go to a running store, explore ALL the brands, and find the best one for them. To do anything else is just hurting someone who came to you for advice.