I can’t get over how ugly my new running shoes are (click for larger versions):
So comfortable inside, why so ugly outside? Unfortunately, few of the other choices were much better. Apparently sneakers must be FUTURISTIC and have 593 different elements in order to prove they were DESIGNED.
So I went ahead and bought them anyway. Function over form + I didn’t want to spend all day shopping for shoes that I’m just going to use when I run. Too bad. I’d prefer the minimalist look of a pair of Stan Smiths over this overproduced crap any day.
Hmm…I do want to run away from them every time I look down. So maybe it’s a motivational technique.
Christopher J
on 22 Jul 08I do want to run away from them every time I look down
That got a good laugh…
Joe
on 22 Jul 08Not made for running, but I love TOMS Shoes.
Simple, cost-effective, good for your health (close to barefoot), comfortable, stylish, and for a good cause!
The company donates a pair to a child in Argentina whenever you buy a pair.
David Andersen
on 22 Jul 08It’s a good point. Running shoes are also over-engineered these days. I think the shoes put out by Nike, etc. back in the 70’s and 80’s were much cooler looking and some of them just as functional as anything today. Despite all the so-called technology advances in running shoes, you still can’t run much more than 500 miles in a pair before they degrade.
You probably want to buy some shoes here.
Jim
on 22 Jul 08its for the same reason that cell phones have all kinds of extra crap… because more people buy them when they are like that.
Jamie
on 22 Jul 08Matt, This isn’t a running shoe, but it is an interesting look into how these bad boys are designed: Onitsuka Tiger Electric Shoe video.
Ben
on 22 Jul 08Ah yes… fashion. I have the same pair of shoes, and my girlfriend calls me the “moonrunner” due their futuristic look. I assume some company will go the opposite direction soon, in an effort to stand out from the crowd. Perhaps Asics should hire an industrial designer who thinks more like Picasso (see previous post..:-).
Chris
on 22 Jul 08Vivo Barefoot
Cleaner styles, better for your feet.
Rob H
on 22 Jul 08It’s all about style, or lack there of. Those are some Fugly looking running shoes. Matt, at least you don’t have to worry about getting jumped for those shoes.
I do enjoy the minimalist look of Stan Smiths or Rod Laver’s.
R
Evan DiBiase
on 22 Jul 08Some New Balance models actually don’t look too bad, especially when compared to, say, the one that you posted.
In particular, if I were going to choose a running shoe, based on looks, I think I’d go for the M992 Cool Grey, which actually looks a lot like the 1009 I’m wearing right now.
Buck Wilson
on 22 Jul 08I love the style of Nike’s Zoom Moire shoe (discontinued), but their arch is just too high for me.
Actually, it’s kind of funny really; all the kibble on running shoes actually hurt my right foot on the inside arch. I have to buy running shoes with the least amount of plastic junk on the sides.
Splashman
on 22 Jul 08I couldn’t agree more. Every time I buy shoes, I have to skip over 98%+ of the inventory, and pick between the two styles that don’t appear to have been designed by a blind, hyperactive video game addict.
I guess that means I’m getting old?
GeeIWonder
on 22 Jul 08My Saucony’s are usually simple enough I can wear them as comfy/walking shoes once I’ve run my 800 clicks.
I agree though, shoes are generally overly fancy. I understand the need for torsion elements etc (though I never buy motion control shoes or othotics myself, and recommend people run as naturally as possible), but those can easily all be white (as with my Saucs) or grey or whatever. Also, I don’t want yellow stripes on my shoes. Ever. Yellow is for cycling.
I’d say the old school Nikes are more guilty of this than Asics, though they’ve caught up.
Or, spend a little longer finding a pair you like, try em out for a month, and then buy 10 pairs.
David Andersen
on 22 Jul 08Also, go to nike.com and do a search on ‘vintage’. They have reproduced some of their old 70’s shoes.
GeeIWonder
on 22 Jul 08YEah, New Balance makes good gear too. But usually you’re stuck with one or two brands depending on your foot size/shape.
Splashman
on 22 Jul 08Forgot to mention: I wore Stan Smiths when I was young. Favorite shoes ever. When brand-new, they could blind an innocent bystander at fifty yards.
Doug
on 22 Jul 08Hip Hop killed the shoe industry, just saying…
MikeInAZ
on 22 Jul 08You want to see ugly? Check out these bad boys:
http://www.newtonrunning.com/the-shoes
Great for running but ugly as hell (kinda expensive too).
Chris
on 22 Jul 08Amen, brother. And you think running shoes are ugly, take a look at basketball shoes these days. I can usually find only one or two models on an entire display wall that I would be caught dead wearing.
Are we just getting old, or is shoe design just getting bad?
Andrew Sherman
on 22 Jul 08The funny thing about Asics is that they seem to refresh their range every 12-18 months. And that means new horrible designs. I still need that foot support though so I keep buying them
Mariondo Cachondo
on 22 Jul 08MUNICH® is a sneaker brand from Barcelona Spain with a “Getting Real” touch: Most of the National Futsal (Indoor Soccer) League players from Spain and Italy use still nowadays the 70’s designed models called Gresca or Goal. Very simple models with less features than the big brands but the bestsellers year after year. http://www.munichsports.com
Dylan Hafertepen
on 22 Jul 08Sounds like someone needs to check out Puma.
Steven Fisher
on 22 Jul 08At first, I thought you’d picked the ugliest pair of shoes in the world.
But then I followed your link and saw the blue version. :)
Taylor Hughes
on 22 Jul 08I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it has to do with discouraging would-be knock-offs. The more intricate the shoe design is, the harder it would be to copy at low cost.
You know what’s harder to find? Good looking cross-trainers. Apparently the only people who play tennis are 65 years old.
jy
on 22 Jul 08beauty is in the eyes of urban youth.
the shoes you bought weren’t designed for you, or the type who would read this blog.
it’s about $, they know who their targetted audiences are.
Squasher
on 22 Jul 08Current basketball shoes are even worse. They look like they are designed by blindfolded men.
Ben
on 22 Jul 08Don’t forget ZOOT… http://www.zootsports.com/index.php?cPath=4 Bold and minimalist at the same time. I think runners might also enjoy the “quick laces” used by triathletes (you can put them on any shoes). I find they feel much more comfortable than normal laces…
Paul Souders
on 22 Jul 08So why don’t you run in the Stan Smiths? The Nike Oregon Waffle was good enough for Pre, and launched the running fad.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that ever-more ergonomic [office chairs | bicycle saddles | running shoes | backpacks | yoga mats] are actually counterproductive in that they encourage poor form and habits.
Instead of making your tools softer, why not make your body harder?
Zanzibar
on 22 Jul 08Adi Dassler was a member of the Nazi party. Enjoy those Stan Smiths!
Pedro Melo
on 22 Jul 08I still use Stan Smiths, started more than 20 years ago, at the age of 15.
When I find a store that has my number in stock, I buy one or two pairs because they usually run out of stock quickly.
Truly my favorite after all this years.
GeeIWonder
on 22 Jul 08There’s a couple of really good reason for running shoes (not just sneakers) to be bright and shiny and have such complicated construction with different materials.
One is function. The now-ubiqutuous mesh, the support elements of different materials. The other is a visual function, so nighttime runners don’t get clocked by cars. Almost every piece of running apparel (shirts, hats, shorts, shoes, even socks) has ‘shiny’ bits to them now.
There may also be marketing reasons (probably geared to make you think they’d help you go faster, or be more recognizable on the other runners around you) but personally I didn’t know may kids wearing running shoes as opposed to sneakers or cross trainers in e.g. high school.
Anyways, just because they’re made from 20 or 200 different materials doesn’t mean they can’t all be white or grey.
Jens Alfke
on 22 Jul 08It’s been this way for at least 20 years, ever since Nike figured out they could get ghetto kids to knife each other over pairs of $100 butt-ugly sneakers. Or did you think the hideous overdesigned shoes of the ‘90s weren’t as bad looking? I don’t see a difference.
I do notice that classic Converse Chuck Taylors are really popular at my kids’ school, though. I definitely see more of those than Nikefied moon-boots. So maybe those are going out of style.
Chris Jones
on 22 Jul 08nothing but plain old adidas superstars for me!
jim
on 22 Jul 08Funny about the Stan Smiths, I seem to stick to indoor soccer shoes any more for sneakers as most everything else is hideous. I love my Samba Milleniums from Adidas.
gist
on 22 Jul 08I’d like to believe that there is a good amount of functional purpose in most of the weird meshy goodness going on in the shoe. I have no idea what that snake-skin crap is about. I just found that in my Asics the other day while stretching. It kinda scared and offended me.
But I was thinking about the weird textures and stuff… and I wonder if its a matter of just finding new materials that are relatively durable but cheap as hell. The less actual surface area, the less material? Yet the price stays the same. The more strange, small plastic pieces the less human labor of making fabric or the easier human labor of constructing a shoe. The shoe is so convoluted and complex… if all the pieces looked the same, someone is bound to screw up while putting it together.
Maybe.
But also, at that level of shoe, who really cares what it looks like? Isn’t that the mindset we’re supposed to have. Sure it’d be nice if my $120+ running shoes looked all sick and awesome… but it’s all about getting me healthier and blah blah blah. Plus, it’s all blurry and in motion when most people see it anyway (on our feets that is.)
plume
on 22 Jul 08Vibram FiveFingers
They obviously aren’t any good for long slow distance running , but they’re pretty awesome for running short intervals. And (more importantly ?) their design is definitely interesting !
Malte Goesche
on 22 Jul 08i have 3 pairs of asics nimbus running shoes (from 3 different years). they are the best. extremely ugly though. a store clerk once said to me “finally a pair of running shoes that look nice!” oh, well…
Mark
on 22 Jul 08Run barefoot on the sand. It’s cheaper, you don’t have to run as far, and it exfoliates.
Tom
on 22 Jul 08I completely disagree with this post. If you’re a runner you would understand the various “honey comb” and “snake skin” mesh like material is made for ventilation, and strength/support. The ridges and “graffiti/chicken scratch” will most likely be worn off within a month of use leaving you with a very plain shoe.
The “extra holes” are again for ventilation, and the “gel-ified” logo means that the sole of the shoe is filled with a compression gel to relieve (cushion) the stress that running plays on your legs.
I am completely ignoring your comments on colors, as those are a personal choice, and shoe companies provide a lot of options.
As for the metallic colors, can not tell from the picture, however most running shoes have reflective material on the front and rear as a safety feature. I know I run at night a lot especially in the summer and a driver might not be able to see you in the road without it.
I’d prefer the minimalist look of a pair of Stan Smiths over this overproduced crap any day.This comment is incorrect, youtube videos on how shoes are made and you’ll see that running shoes are hand made, therefore they’re probably no more overproduced than your “Stan Smiths”.
Minus the do-dads I think that you guys would actually be very impressed by the fact that every part of running shoe is actually designed with a specific purpose in mind. I realize this post is designed to promote the entire simplistic is better theory, however in this case, I think you’ve got it wrong.
ayn
on 22 Jul 08Nimbus are great shoes, I think my blue Nimbus 10’s look damn good: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ayn/2624226800/
I don’t really care how they look like, if they don’t look crazy ridiculous, and if they’re good for my feet, then I’m good. I only wear them when I run, which is about an hour a day only.
Craig
on 22 Jul 08Ah, functionality they don’t have.
These days, running shoes are designed to compensate for biomechanical error, resulting in over engineered cyberfeet like your newly purchased running delights.
I learned all of this during a recent adventure to the US to do some CrossFit certifications, all the way from Scotland. One of the certs was Running & Endurance Training and it was pretty much proved that the more a shoe had going on, the more it would inhibit one’s running style. The running style I’m talking about is POSE running, invented by Dr. Romanov.
Transpires that we almost all run badly and further than we need to, but I digress.
It’s for that reason that while in the US I picked up several pairs of New Balance MR 790’s – about the basicist running shoes I could find. They weigh nothing, look nondescript (in black) and are probably the best shoes I have ever owned, as their unforgiving nature forces one to run well, rather than hide in the comfort of squashy space sneakers.
I also have a pair of the Five Finger KSO’s that plume is talking about. They work wonders for running technique too. Masses of design in those, but in the right places for once.
Keith
on 22 Jul 08It has everything to do with consumer psychology…
Those addidas look great. They do not, however, look like they are designed for serious sport regardless of how great they are.
They also look like something that might be issued at a prison.
While I agree the aesthetics of modern shoe design absolutely suck, my guess is that for mass consumption that kind of obnoxious texture vomit is here to stay for a while.
Justin D-Z
on 22 Jul 08I wear a pair of Adidas Gazelles that I bought in 2002 or so. They are starting to fall apart, particularly on the tongue. I still wear them because I have been unable to find a simple, minimalist, comfortable casual shoe that doesn’t look like a lunar landing module.
And I’ve been looking. These days you get mission to Mars, hipster or chucks and I’m not in to any of them. Anyone know where I can get a new pair of old Gazelles?
Jesper
on 22 Jul 08I prefer the look of these, full of useless gimmicks as they might be, above many of the old sneakers, even ones hailed as “classic”. Let’s get to the bottom of the issue here: it’s a case of good-looking sneakers and ugly sneakers, not of “modern” vs “vintage”. The “extra holes for???” are plainly visible - in greater numbers! - on the Stan Smiths.
Maybe trends have to do with it, but it should not come as a raging shock to anyone that every few years, something hideous comes into style, precisely because what’s deemed hideous varies from person to person. From personal experience, in every sports equipment store with a sizable shoe wall, there are at least good-looking alternatives, even for the ugly shoes.
Mike
on 22 Jul 08Hey. Instead of checking out how ugly your shoes are, why not add the ability to add line breaks or returns to the to do list items! God forbid I nicely format my to-do items.
Stan
on 22 Jul 08Stan Smiths were the BEST.
Eric
on 22 Jul 08I just KNEW they were going to be Asics. I love mine, as you say, they are incredibly comfortable. But what the hell is with that gold?!
BJ Nemeth
on 22 Jul 08I found what I believe to be the perfect pair of running shoes (for me specifically) about five years ago. I didn’t realize that they would stop making them (or similar shoes) so quickly, or I would have stocked up on several pairs. I miss them dearly.
They were Nike, and they came in non-traditional sizes like S, M, and L, and didn’t have laces … you just slipped them on. Still, they fit me better than any running shoes I’ve owned before or since. And they were a solid color (blue) with a white sole. I thought they were beautiful.
The only knock against them is that they weren’t Nike+iPod shoes, so nowadays I’d have to use a shoe pouch to carry the iPod transmitter I use. But that would be a small price to pay.
As I’ve shopped for shoes the last two years, I’ve noticed the same problem with running shoes being over-designed. They are hideously ugly. I find the least-offensive pair I can find in the Nike+iPod line, and try not to look at them.
Ryan cannon
on 22 Jul 08The same reason most restaurants serve plates 3x the size of a healthy meal: the more they give you, the more they can charge you.
ken
on 22 Jul 08Note that your shoes are Japanese. ASICS does make a great shoe, but compare Japanese phones. It’s about features, features, and features.
And who wants to look low-tech compared to the Japanese? Takahashi won the gold in Sydney, and broke the Olympic record, wearing ASICS—they do know running shoes.
Still, there are some companies who aren’t in this particular rat race. Today’s New Balance shoes look like Nikes of 25 years ago.
James H
on 22 Jul 08I joke with my girlfriend that shoes like you have shown here are “space shoes”. I’m totally in love with my Clydes by Puma right now. I highly recommend them.
David K
on 23 Jul 08You should replace your running shoes every 300-500 miles, so depending on how much you run, you should only have to put up with one particular gut-wrenching design for a few months or so before you move on to the next.
michael
on 23 Jul 08I wear vans, but have a pair of Nikes for running—I was able to locate (after visiting 4 stores!) a plain gray pair. The still have all sorts of layered material, but it’s all the same color, thus limiting the ugly factor.
I also tried to buy my girlfriend a portable stereo (once known as a boom box) recently, and they all looked like futuristic jet engines. All I wanted was a plain black box with speakers, and all I found were chrome and fluorescent orange—yet they still come with cassette players, inexplicably. Finally found a decent-looking one at Sears.
Onur
on 23 Jul 08I know exactly what you mean. Even these shoes designed by John Maeda are disappointing from a complexity/ugliness point of view: http://www.rbkcustom.com/content.html?direct=ltd&isTracked=true
f5
on 23 Jul 08Amen.
I work in the athletic footwear industry, within design (but not as a footwear designer), and I’ve always had the same reaction to most contemporary performance product. I think part of this has been a cyclical, self-fulfilling prophecy that customers have come to expect. But aside from that opinion, ‘perceived value’ is a marketing buzzword that has way too much life in the footwear process…and you’re seeing the fruits of it.
N
on 23 Jul 08@Mr G I Wonder: you don’t need motion control shoes if you don’t need them. I don’t really run much, but of all the pairs of running shoes I’ve owned, the only pair that was truly comfortably was a pair recommended for me after a session on the treadmill in the store – Asics motion control circa 1998/1999. And they lasted excellently, and wore (as in sole wear) evenly to boot. (excuse the pun).
...
on 23 Jul 08These ones aren’t too bad for looks: Adidas Fortitude 2
Matt
on 23 Jul 08I’m with Tom. You are wrong and Asics is right. (But not gold, blech). Get the 2130 anyway, at your age.
Brad
on 23 Jul 08Two words.
Trail Runners.
Maybe one, Trail-runners. They don’t quite know how to market them yet, so they end up looking somewhere between a hiking boot and a Cross-Trainer. REI storeclerks will fume that they badly serve two contradictory purposes.
The result? No more than two (2) textures and minimalist palettes of brown or gray with one (1) accent color of red or yellow. Don’t know how badly they mess up my POSE, but I do know that if I decide to break off of the asphalt in mid-run I won’t slip on the hills. I’ve owned Adidas and Nike.
Brad
on 23 Jul 08Almost forgot- the LACES! The Trail Runner laces!
The laces rock.
Tommi F.
on 23 Jul 08Damn! Which one of y’all is lurking outside my window? I just bought a pair of Asics Gel Kayano’s ( http://www.telarun.com/asics/graphics/atn7000191.jpg ) a week or so ago and ever since I’ve been bumming most everybody around me with a “who the hell designs these things?!” -rant.
Should someone try to tip the running shoe industry that they should probably get at least one graphically talented person on board? The only company that I know makes aesthetically pleasing footwear that is also ergonomically sound is out local Finnish pride Karhu ( http://www.karhusports.com/ ). Their sneakers sport a really cool retro-look that’ll make you want to slow down so other people can see how cool yer rollin’!
Thibaut Sailly
on 23 Jul 08@f5 : yeah, I was about to say “marketing” too. Maybe the Gilette product manager responsible for this vibrating 4 blades razor had a career move to Asics.
@Tom : Minus the do-dads I think that you guys would actually be very impressed by the fact that every part of running shoe is actually designed with a specific purpose in mind. I realize this post is designed to promote the entire simplistic is better theory, however in this case, I think you’ve got it wrong.
Grey honeycomb mesh isn’t the only way to allow ventilation, but it sure does match the established codes of performance, sports, etc… These shoes look like the ads you see during a sports game, and this is the specific purpose their design is based on (beside the comfort and performance). The same functionality could be achieved with plenty other looks. It’s called product identity. You say this post is wrong, I’d say you’re naive to think so.
Related : the best shopping experience I had with getting runners was in a shop where they asked you to run bare feet in the shop for ten meters and were videotaping your feets in the process. They could show you how your feet were meeting the ground and rolling : inwards, outwards, angled,... and then they could select a few pair of shoes that met the requirements of your natural running movement, compensating the defaults you could have. The right product for a given context. You stayed longer in line but this is way worth the wait.
alan
on 23 Jul 08i gave up on Nike about 6 or 7 years ago, never even glanced at Asics. there are a couple of nice New Balance shoes around; I’ve also found Salomon a good fit.
Håvard Pedersen
on 23 Jul 08You need to chech out 100 Styles, they’ve got sneakers with Design. :)
Craig
on 23 Jul 08I ran into the same thing when I went to pick up some ‘real’ long-distance running shoes last fall too. Horrible, garish design. Sadly you just have to hold your breath and take the plunge if you want anything as solid / protective as the Nimbus. That said, New Balance, as has been mentioned above, does indeed produce shoes much less visually offensive.
If you’re like me, you’ll find the Nimbus to be overkill for anything under 10km. I grabbed a pair of lightweight NBs with a much more understated design and find myself reaching for the NB over the Numbus time and time again—not least because they look so much better!
chad
on 23 Jul 08My friend runs this online store and retail store based in Ithaca, NY. all his shoe reviews are like the one above. you should buy your next pair from him for that fact alone.
GeeIWonder
on 23 Jul 08Grey honeycomb mesh isn’t the only way to allow ventilation
The mesh is elastic and takes a memory very well in addition to cooling and handling water. This is why almost all running shoes use it these days.
I love sneakers, I love low-tech, I love retro, I hate orthotics. But running shoes ain’t sneakers (some people are appaently stumbling on that one), and they ain’t just about looks.
I’d rather run barefoot than wear some of what was suggested—especially the one that looks like each toe needs to be fitted lest you get 10 blisters. And heck, many people in many parts of the world do.
H&M
on 23 Jul 08Your Eames may not be my Bauhaus. You compared apple with orange. Stan Smith is not for running. So you should compare a pair of running shores to running shoes. I actually find Stan Smith ugly.
Matt
on 23 Jul 08I prefer to design my own on Nike ID. You can make them as crazy or conservative as you like and there’s something great about having final say over what your shoes will look like.
Thibaut Sailly
on 23 Jul 08@Geel WonderThe mesh is elastic and takes a memory very well in addition to cooling and handling water.
You’re right, this is what a mesh does. What I wanted to say is that it doesn’t need to be honeycomb and grey / silver to achieve this. Grey honeycomb feels technical, reliable, carbon fiber like. As if all running men were into mechanical sports.
But the issue here is more about over-designing being a rule of thumb in the running shoes industry, it’s about making decisions like a sheep. Which is the case of any large scale industry that I know of, saddly. Why are the sole sides worked this way ? Because everyone else is doing so. There are no functional reasons for this feature, it’s pure style, it’s not even symbolic, it’s just dynamic.
Ajit
on 23 Jul 08Shoes are badly designed in general but sneaker are just horrific.
I can’t seem to find a decent pair of tennis shoes that don’t look ridiculous.
Eamon
on 23 Jul 08Paging Ernest Kim!
JF
on 23 Jul 08Yeah, would love to have EK chime in here. I’ll drop him an email.
Dan
on 23 Jul 08I could not agree more. I just bought a pair of these yesterday. Got the extra gel inserts as well. These are the most comfortable shoes on the market but also the worst looking.
You should not have to sacrifice look for comfort! I guess all that “advanced styling” helps them justify the price.
Great post! I was thinking the same thing.
emdot
on 23 Jul 08I hear you! I love my Asics – very comfortable and great to run in—but they are UGLY. And, not even as ugly as yours (I’m so sorry). What is it with running shoes?
Personally, I love the way the Nikes look with the shock absorber type dealies, but they are not great to run in. Too bad. Nike, you let us down. :(
Noel Jackson
on 23 Jul 08Repeat after me: America loves ugly.
My sentiments exactly: http://jessgibson.com/blog/2008/07/22/draplin-vs-usa/
Jay
on 23 Jul 08Modern sneakers are not necessarily ugly. Modern running shoes, and sneakers actually made for physical activity, are pretty crappy. Sneakers, in the urban, limited edition, hard-to-find-in-London-must-go-to-Tokyo-to-get-them, Entourage sense are usually pretty interesting. More happens in the sneaker design scene than in many other areas. Plus with everyone from Footlocker to obscure sneaker shops in Paris selling them, it is design for the everyman/woman.
Anon
on 23 Jul 08The only goal is change for change’s sake. “Cool” shoes have to change every year, so that there will be something newer, cooler, and so that the old stuff will be obsolete. If your shoes don’t change every year, kids might wear LAST YEAR’S SHOES, and that would be ruinous on your profit margins. This means each new version has to be significantly different. You can’t be significantly different if your shoes are all-white. All the gewgaws have NOTHING to do with function, and everything to do with making sure the kids can’t get away with wearing last year’s shoes.
See also: fashion models going down runways with this year’s “HOT” fashions, baseball teams changing their uniforms and logos every year so that fans have to buy all new merchandise, etc.
rick
on 24 Jul 08my Vans are the most uncomfortable pair of shoes (w/o the orthodics).
yet they are awesome.
Pete Forde
on 24 Jul 08I highly suggest you check out Royal Elastics brand runners. I am a huge fan of their Icon series.
chris
on 26 Jul 08peter,
do you purchase running shoes online? I ask mainly because in dedicated running shops people who purchase shoes based on how they look are judged rather openly as “not serious runners” or even fashion victims. they are looked down upon. I’ll try to explain.
I’m a runner. a serious one. the kind that feels like crap if I don’t run 10k every day. the kind of shoe I wear makes a huge difference on how I feel the following morning. I severly overpronate and I need shoes that specifically cater towards my needs (aka. gave maximum stability while not being so rigid my heels would kill me on a 10k). in these stores they often have you try on a few pairs and take them outside for a quick run around the block, checking how you roll over your heels, how much you over- or underpronate and other such things. I have run in the same mizuno wave renegade 3 brand of shoes for close to five years, owning now close to 30 pairs. I wouldn’t change for another shoe no matter how good it looked and I know many serious runners who behave exactly like this when it comes to their shoes.
the bulk of the market, which I assume serious runners are, will not respond to design changes – they will not shift brands because another shoe looks better. once you’ve found your shoe it’s your baby. that is the core difference between regular sneakers, which we almost always buy solely based on design, and running shoes.
yes, better design would be a great thing in running shoes but it’s just not a priority.
This discussion is closed.