Nike Tailwind vs. Mizuno Wave Rider vs. Brooks Burn

Looking for a cushion shoe for longer runs, weight 185 lbs, ht. 6'3', longer runs often on groomed trails.

DO NOT BELIEVE THE MANUFACTURER LITERATURE!

Or, the retail salesmen whom they 'train'.

Mfr.: Nike Tailwind box lists its cushioning as 'Firm' Mfr.: Mizuno (RRS) lists the Wave Rider as the #1 Cushion Shoe RRS: RRS phone rep insists the Wave Rider is competitively soft All: Brooks Burn has too little support, too little shoe and too little cushioning to compete

What I find from running in all three models:

Nike Tailwind is so much more cushy than the other two, both to the touch, on the floor, on the treadmill, on a firmer treadmill. The heel compresses more easily and further than the heels of the other two, for example.

In my size 11, the Rider and Burn have the same weight. The Tailwind in size 11 or 11.5 is about 16 oz. vs. 13 oz. for the other two. That is, the Rider has the same weight as the Burn!

Both the Rider and Burn feel lighter on the feet, they both have a better fit, and they both feel like much less shoe. The Burn has a softer 'ride' than than Rider. Rider seems to be more supportive than the Burn. Burn has a little more toe room than the Rider.

Compared to other Nike models and other brand models except Adidas, the Tailwind runs small. I need size 11.5D instead of 11D.

WHY?

Maybe, Mfr. sales are trying to compensate. Mizuno trying to hype 'cushioning' for its overly firm shoes, Nike trying to hype firm for its overly soft shoe. Just like politics. Pick your spin.

Probably a reference to some kind of cusioning metric (like durometer).

Well, it is the most succesful cushion shoe in the Mizuno line. But it's close to lightweight. It does feel a little like a lightweight trainer.

Subjective, but it is, IMO.

They're probably saying this because Burn is marketed as a lightweight trainer.

It doesn't compete toe-to-toe with the other two because it's marketted against shoes like the Wave Precision and the Nike Spiridon/Skylon.

Maybe choice of technology is part of it too. For example, an airbag is an airbag whether you put it in a 'stability' last or not. Same is true for Asics, who consistently use Gel padding.

Or maybe it's actually hard to explain it clearly, and you just have to experience the shoes for yourself, to learn what a 'lightweight trainer' feels like, etc. Part of the problem is that different people will have different experiences of the same shoe (for example, stiff rubber will feel softer to a heavier runner than it does to a light runner.)

My impression based on what I'd heard about flats, and my actual experience of them were two completely different things. BTW, I find the Rider adequately cushioned.

FWIW, in this category of shoe, I'm personally happy with the Asics Verdict. Compared to the Wave Rider, it's a more flexible shoe. Runs a little small, as I mentioned in the review I posted.

Notwithstanding, your preference for the Rider, have you run in the '04 Tailwind? I was the same weight when I stood, walked and ran on both side by side. Even compressing the material in your hands it is obvious. Nothing subjective about it. I can understand why someone might want the Rider, and could even understand why one runner might run with less impact in a firmer shoe, but the shoes are unequally soft. trainer.

Yes, because they base their advice on the literature, on the mfr. spin, rather than giving the shoe an honest trial.

Have to try the Skylon, I guess.

If the pneumatic approach did not have an advantage, we would have seen uninflatable tires long ago.

I did too. Though, after an hour or so, I tried the Rider again and the difference was enormous.

The TailWind is heavier, so it's going to be 'cushier'. The only way you can make a lighter shoe 'soft' is to have low durometer rubber (reduces durability, and will feel inadequate for heavy runners). The Rider is a light high milage trainer which means carbon rubber outsoles. It's as light as possible without compromising durability. It's flexible, but it not really all that soft.

The category names are IMO confusing: 'cushioning' is actually a misnomer for that category. The point of the 'cushioning' category is that the shoe is supposed to be more flexible as opposed to stability shoes which have medial posts etc.

'Cushioning' shoes are not always soft in their feel.

One needs to read a review (and not sales pitches) in order to get info about honest trials. Even then, reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, I simply don't agree with the common criticisms of the Asics Verdict's design.

I wouldn't trust a salesperson to accurately describe a shoe from first hand experience. Even if the salesperson runs, they probably don't run in your shoe.

I think at the end of the day, you're stuck just gambling your money on the shoe, and hopefully buying from a place with a good return policy. footlocker.com is good for this btw (you can return to their retail outlets). I suppose the first time one discovers this, it comes as a rude shock.

My recommendation would be to look for chances to pick up shoes that interest you at heavy discounts, or from places with a good return policy, so that you minimise the risk. For example, I recently picked up three different pairs of shoes from Footlocker.com (Tiger Paw, DS Racer, Verdict). I wasn't sure how they'd fit, especially since I took a gamble by going up half a size on the verdict. But they were so cheap that I was prepared to risk it (besides, the return policy is pretty good).

Mizuno Wave is as much structure as material, with the wave bearing subtle resemblance to a spring. Nike Air cuts out material, but has to take a back seat to mfrs of road bicycle tires, e.g. Someone will leave both companies in the dust. Nike Air has not improved much in three or more years. Though one has to give them credit for trying the Shox approach.

Yes, cushioning vs. support or control. They could use the word 'neutral' and make a separate 'cushioning' category. Will try and make this distinction when discussing shoes.

Also, will assume each salesman is a brand bigot and qualify them carefully.

Well, it can't hurt to keep trying to find an informed member of the industry. Call it optimism.