Is anyone else not a fan?
Sadly I had to replace my GT-2170s as they were well past their sell-by date. The natural replacement were the GT-2000s, but has anyone else found them completely different?
I've been running for 5 years now and never experienced any knee pain whatsoever; since wearing these new shoes it takes about 500m for excrutating pain to kick in on my left knee. I also don't seem to be able to shake off shin splints. I've read a few reports online of people not being happy with the new version, so just wanted to confirm if anyone on here had experienced the same.
Just ordered some Brooks GTS-12 as they were on offer. Sorry Asics, I think you've lost a long-serving customer!
Oh no - I had to scour the internet to get a pair of 2170s just before a marathon earlier this year because my last pair fell apart with a couple of weeks to go! I had been told that the GT2000s were the replacement, but I haven't tried them yet myself (as I coudn't find my size anywhere).
When this pair of GT2170s give up the ghost I'll be off to Sweatshop to get fully assessed for new shoes - which, by the sounds of it, won't necessarily be the Gt2000s.
Did you get your gait assessed when you got the Gt2000s?
No, didn't get my gait reassessed. Figured the 2170 were spot on so the successor would be the natural answer. I had the option of getting another pair of 2170s earlier in the year, but went for some Kayano 18s instead. Hated those too, and am now kicking myself! Hope the Brooks turn out to be suitable.
Fingers crossed for you! And for me, when I need to replace my 2170s.
Brooks are one of the only (if not THE only) company not to pare-down their support shoes. Asics, New Balance and Saucony have all significantly reduced the depth of the midsole and the amount of medial posting in their "support" shoes. I have gone from NB 1226 and 1260 to Brooks Adrenaline, my wife has dropped Asics Kayano for some c2010 Saucony and her best friend has dropped Saucony for Brooks.
I expect that, like most fashions, they will come back round again, but until then, I am relying on Brooks not to 'go minimal'.
Mizuno inspires an alternative.
Agreed the GT2000 is a terrible evolution.
Have now got some Brooks GTS 11 and am pleased to say they are really excellent - just like the old GT-series used to be. So if you're looking for a replacement for the GT-21XX range, I'd highly recommend the Brooks.
Unfortunately, running in the GT-2000s appears to have irritated my ITB, so a period of rest and foam rolling awaits me. I went for a short run yesterday to try the new shoes out and although I could feel the ITB pain, not once did I think about the shoe fit/support.
I'm the opposite, I came to the shop saying I always hated Asics, but tried the GT 2000s and been happy with them! The guy did say that they had made a lot of changes to them for this model and that people who were used to the old pair may not like them.
The big change came when Asics introduced GT2170. A lot of people used to GT2120-2160 were not happy with the changes. The GT2000 *looks* like it is a return to the older style (I haven't tried them, so I don't really know).
I'm interested to know what people who are used to 2160 or earlier models think of the GT2000's? If they are still not the same, then I might well be tempted by the Brooks GTS12 because they are very similar to 2160's.
Yep, I don't like the new Asic GT 2000 either. I have always had Asics and never had any problem with them, until this new series. I am a size 9, but these seem to be wider at the toe end of the shoe. My right foot seems to move about like it never did before. I rechecked the size of both shoes , just in case I was given odd sizes. I am now having to go to my running shop to get my size rechecked, and then might have to come down a 1/2 size... £80 down the drain Why mess with something that was never broken.?...
What is the difference between the GT 2000's and the GT 1000's by the way ?
G0BBY wrote (see)
About a thousand, I think?!
I was told at the LRS last time I purchased a pair of Asics that the sizing can vary between factories producing the shoes. I thought I was always a UK10 and never bothered to try any other size until this time. Last pair I bought (Gel Fuji Trabuco 2GTX - jazzy name) were perfect in a UK9.5. Always worth trying a half size above or below your normal size.
GT2000 look very stripped down to me, I'm going to maybe have a look at Brooks after 12 years of many pairs of only Asics (injury here I come!).
Recently bought Brooks Adrenaline GT13 as a counterpoint to my normal Asics 2160s and find them really comfy. Equally happy in both.
Just to say after jumping from 2170s to kayano 19s and not really getting on with them I tried the gt2000s and am really happy with them. kayanos are ok on tarmac I struggled with them on most other surfaces after a few miles. Just started to develop a couple of little niggles, which now I'm on the gt2000s seem to have disappeared, could just have been a coincidence, but I'm certainly sticking with 2000s for training runs. As the kayanos feel lighter might stick with them for races.
I have had both the 2170's and the GT2000's I find them very similar but prefer the 2170's, they seem a better fit for me. I also have a pair of saucony and Kayano 18, the Kayanos are awful. If anyone lives in the North West, Cheshire oaks outlet have an Asics shop and sell off the old models for cheap, they will have some 2170's in soon for £30-40! Isnt there a new GT model out now?
I can second what DanL said about 2170 over 2000, only difference perhaps that i use 2W (wide) pair. I have used 2000 on the TM and did one 10Miler outside and come out OK, no problem/pain/aches noted. I am going to use them for my Rome Mara so need to use them cautiously to ensure they are primed comes March.
Have been running in the GT 2000's since July after previously owned 2140's & 2160's. As soon as you put them on you'll notice the difference. Whereas the 2100's were kinda rock solid these are like carpet slippers. They probably have less cushioning but are more responsive & flexible. I was initially concerned by this because it also suggests that they may offer less stability. Howerver, I have now run 300 miles in them & have already purchased another pair for when these expire.
I bought a pair of GT2170s goretex trail, in the same size I had previously bought all my Asics GT's (road). The trail show gave me so many problems, too tight over the arch. I managed to get into an Asics store and the assistant said that as the goretex was a bit stiffer, I should have gone up a half size. I am a ladies 9, gents sizes seem to be a bit wider for me (have long thin banana feet), so to go up to 9.5 (when my 'normal' shoe size is 8) never occurred to me. He also warned about the GT2000s that I should try before I buy. I live in the middle of nowhere so going into stores that stock my size is a mission for me. I am a bit annoyed at Asics 'tinkering' so have been looking at the Brooks Adrenaline ASR9, as years ago I picked Asics over Brooks when both fitted comfortable and was hoping Brooks had not fiddled around as much but am now so confused about sizing. The store prices are also quite a bit more than online. Not sure whether to take a chance with Brooks. I guess the answer is that I have to try on in a store
I must say, I go with the earlier comment. Thee minute I put my 2000,s on I felt like they were tailor made for me!!
Get them on ebay. I sold some cumulus 14 that I had done 50 odd miles in and got 70% of my outlay back.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2014 |