Run, Hide, DO NOT LOOK!!!

Well, shoe review season is soon approaching. Oh boy!!!

In the good ol' days there was one review a year by Runners' World and Running Times. We use to dread when that April issue arrived because the calls would start and people would show up, magazine in tow. What is interesting is now that they do 4 or 5 a year the effect has decreased. It is rare to get a call about a shoe in the review or have customers bring the rags in.

The problem with the reviews is they are not always very accurate. Sometimes they do not even put the shoe in the right catagory! Runners World is the worse because now they use a machine to test the cushioning and stability. I have seen the results of that machine over the years (the company kept trying to get us to buy one) and it is insanely inaccurate. This is why a moderate stability shoe from New Balance (766) was named best motion control shoe by RW. Even when New Balance and many others contacted them the reply was "the machine said it was an MC shoe, so it is" ok that isn't an exact quote but it is accurate :) They are trying to quantify humans. It doesn't work in Economics and it doesn't work with running shoes.

The other problem is they give the shoes to "everyday" people and give us thier opinions (usually the nicest ones). The problem is you need to try on a lot of shoes to be able to compare the different aspects of similar shoes (and even then it can be tough). I cannot tell you how many times someone has said this shoe feels stable when it is not. I can go on but hopefully you get the point.

Now the rankings! Of the many shoe reviews out there (I think Cat magazine does running shoe reviews now :) , let me rank the majors from worst to best.

1) (worst) Outside Magazine - they aren't even sure what kind of shoe they have. As long as it is expensive and flashy they call it the best.

2) Consumer Reports - everyone thinks they get their results on clay tablets from the mountain top. One year they had a pure cushion shoe as #1 and a motion control shoe as #2. So I had to spend a lot of my time with people who wanted to try #1 or #2 and explain that they are made for the opposite type of feet. "But it says in Consumer Reports...". AAAARRRGGG! (where's me parrot!)

3) Runners World - they just ought to know better!!! You what? The more I think of it, the more I think they are the worst because they ought to know better!

4) Trail Runner - they do not give a lot of info. But I do like that they include most of the companies that do trail running shoes (even the obscure companies)

5) Running Times - most of the time in the ballpark. The quick comparison chart and definitions are good.

6) The guy (his name escapes me) who does the shoe reviews for the US Track and Field mags. The main reason I like his is the definitions page. It tells you what all of the companies proprietary technologies are. He usually does a good job on the shoes.

Well that's it. I am suspicious of any reviews I read about anything now! After knowing how silly the running reviews are I can't believe they are alone.

Oh yeah. If you want to know what it is like to be in "the biz", read JD Denton's column (ShoeGuy) in Running Times. Ever since he stopped being in charge of the reviews, he has really been able to open up (in public) and let's you know what us shoe gurus (someone called me that last night at REI and I kind of like it) lives are like. He owns the Fleet Feet in Davis CA, and has been around in the industry longer than he probably would like to admit! He gives a great insider view of our world.

Well enough is enough! The morning lows are warming up to around 12 degrees (2 days ago it was 3!) so I am going to hit the cross country machine in the garage. Yes, I am going to keep complaining about the cold!

Ciao