Great comment..I agree I sometimes cringe when I see people say you have to spend $$$ to get a good shoe,every injury I have had came from high tech expensive shoes..its like they make my foot do things it does not want to do..I prefer the shoe adapt to my foot instead of the other way around. I loved the Adidas Adizero Sonic (#1 to 3 not 4) from Dicks but alas its gone and now I am hunting for my new go to shoe…One thing I do notice in the cheaper shoes is they do not last as long but hey nothing jabbing or prodding my feet or toes..I will take that trade! interesting this time around not much in the middle..seems to be lots of minimal and racers or super cushy and or mushy and support shoes..close as I have come is the Muzno Hitogami but I run mostly trails…

Not sure, but fit is a combo of last and the structure of the upper material so a given last may feel different from shoe to shoe if the upper has more or less stretch.

Should’ve clarified: was talking about the original PureFlow.

In any case…I’m glad I still have a two brand new MT110s v1 – just wish they had a tad more protection (about 25 miles is all I want to do in them).

Kinda wonder if the upcoming 101 is really going to be on a different last than the MT110 v2…time will tell.

Isn’t it just the same last as the 1400 that everyone raves about?

If it matches the PureFlow 3 that won’t work for me, the PF 3 seems much tighter than earlier models. Have heard enough negative from people who have tried the MT110v2 that I really have no interest at this point. Especially given my experience with the MT00v2 and Fresh Foam 980 lasts. Nate should have his MT110v2 review up next week I think.

I’m at Target often enough, will have to check out the C9 shoes!

The MT110 v2 has been “shoefitr’ed” already – and it looks like it mirrors the Brooks PureFlow to a T…hoping I can wear the v2 even though I also lament the change of the last (why a shoe like that needs a last suitable for insoles is beyond me).

Bernie

Happy researching!

What actually got me interested in these budget big box store shoes is something you wrote several weeks back about how Champion’s C9 brand running apparel don’t feel any differently than its more expensive specialty athletics counterparts. I feel the same way: I can’t tell the difference, performance-wise, between the super-cheap C9 Duo Dry fabric used for the C9 shorts and shirts and Nike’s Dri-Fit or Adidas’ ClimaCool. So it got me wondering if the same can be said for the C9 running shoes.

I actually have considered doing this. Actually just got a question on the forum about some New Balance shoe that looks like it was based off the original 1400. Might need to head to the mall for some “research.”

As an aside (and apropos of nothing), I was wondering if you’ve ever considered doing reviews of budget, big box store running shoes. The local discount shoe outlet has a bunch of cheap running shoes made by Champion (less than $20 a pair!) and it’s a shame that it’s so hard to find reviews of these offerings from a runner’s perspective (most reviews I find are from non-running parents on a budget buying shoes for their kids who are in track or alternatively, fashion-centric reviews). I think more than a few readers would appreciate even some basic info about fit and heel-to-toe offset. If nothing else, it’s more information for us to base our buying decisions on, and that’s never a bad thing.

I’m as guilty of the “must-have-newest-shoe-tech” syndrome as the next running sneakerhead, but more and more, it seems like I’m less inclined to pay for “new shoe technology” and wondering if we runners are, figuratively speaking, running on a consumerist treadmill in paying top dollar for heavily marketed, branded products when perhaps budget options can serve just as well in certain training contexts.