Stability shoes reviews

You are looking at: Home : Reviews : Shoes : Stability shoes

New Balance 766

17 user reviews of New Balance 766 See all

Overall reader score

BlackRobe1

Tried 6 x pairs on from various mfr's. Tried them all on treadmill.
Found the 766 from New Balance to be the comfiest and least intrusive while still offering full support where required. Had knee pain befor Continue reading...

Old Spice

Decent trainer for everyday use. Continue reading...

barrie edwards

great Continue reading...

nrkintheuk

765s might have been a touch better (though maybe heavier) but suit me fine Continue reading...

Big Dave Barnet

Probably a good pair of trainers reading the reviews , but just not for me! Continue reading...

See all reader reviews...

musketeer

As I have been running in NB 764's and 765's for the last 18 months I will be looking at the 766's soon. Any one tried them yet?

Posted: 21/04/2005 at 17:37

Rob234

The 766's are great!! I think there better than the 764 765. I got mine for £40 from the factory shop in Keswick Id im well pleased. Get a pair you will not regret it.

Nb Factory shop 017687 74631

Posted: 22/04/2005 at 09:58

tallbird

Oh no, not more shoes.
I have had about 10 pairs of 764's and still have one pair left to use up - but I am very tempted by some 766's.

NOoooooooooooooooooo

Posted: 22/04/2005 at 11:51

ergo-phobic

Yep, they're great - at least as good as 764 and better than 765.

Posted: 22/04/2005 at 18:56

Trinity_

How though... what is the difference? What's been changed/improved?

Posted: 22/04/2005 at 19:10

ergo-phobic

dunno trinity - the man in the shop assured me they were the same last, and no substantial difference to the upper (in terms of cushioning). more than anything, they feel like they are a bit smaller/shallower round the front, which i prefer having very narrow, shallow feet.

mind you, of the last 2 pairs of 765s i've had, one i found very comfortable, the other i hated. which is even harder to explain?!

Posted: 23/04/2005 at 07:48

Trinity_

I was told that the only difference between the 764's and the 765's was that the 765's had a slightly bigger toe box. By what you're saying, it sounds like they've made the toe box smaller again, so the 766's are more comparible to the 764's.

Posted: 23/04/2005 at 10:34

tallbird

That is interesting.

I really like the 764's (no kidding, I really did have about 10 pairs - bought 4 pairs when Sweatshop were flogging them for £25 each, then recently found Northern Runner still selling them for £40 a go) - but I do find that the toe box is a little spacious - especially because I have to wear a whole size bigger than normal shoes to prevent terminal black toe nails.

So if the 766 is a little less spacious - that would be perfect.

I did try a pair of 765's on and didn't like them at all.

I am going to hide my credit card now though - just in case :)

Posted: 23/04/2005 at 16:50

Trinity_

tallbird...it's generally accepted that you should get running shoes a size bigger than normal shoes anyway.

But it was the 765's that had the bigger toebox, not 764's. It sounds like the 766's are just 764's under a different number.

Posted: 23/04/2005 at 19:37

Meep-Meep

Previously tried the 764 (attracted by heavily discounted price) but didn't like them as felt a bit too firm in correcting overpronation - a sort of jolting action as moved from heel to toe. Tried on a pair of 766 which feel a lot smoother as roll from heel to toe - didn't buy them though as felt the shoe a bit too heavy for me and even with a D width slightly wide for my narrow feet.

Posted: 26/04/2005 at 15:53

Y not

Loved the 763 & 764 but 765 and 766 haven't been perfect for me. Both shoes have given me blisters on the arch of my foot and took far too long to wear in. I tried to give the 766's 2 months to wear in before a marathon but in the end had to stick with the old 765's.

Posted: 21/10/2005 at 09:41

Dee Cee

I bought a pair of 766s a couple of months ago in the hope that they might help me out of the running doldrums. It didn’t work but that’s not because the 766 is not an OK shoe.
My immediate impression was how much firmer in the forefoot they are compared with the 765. They feel like a much ‘faster’ shoe.
If you like a cushioned feel to your running I think that you may find the 766 a bit too firm though.

Posted: 30/11/2005 at 14:23

mercury

I used to run in 764's got my 766 from Shap when I realised 764's had not been produced for a while

Its basically the same shoe with an "image" change

Posted: 01/12/2005 at 12:51

Y not

still giving me blisters!!!

Posted: 24/01/2006 at 10:42

Judith Deakin

Onto my second pair of 766. They're great, plenty of room in the toe box for my wide feet,fantastic curly laces that never come undone and they don't smell of cat pee when wet ( unlike my previous shoes!)

Posted: 26/05/2006 at 11:39

teeniebash

I am struggling to choose shoes - my last 6 pairs having been NB 854's - but i was thinking of trying these. Anyone switched from 854's to these and how have they found them? I tried them on today and they felt preety good but couldnt run in them as achilles a bit dodgy at the mo.
Thanks TB

Posted: 29/05/2006 at 20:08

musketeer

Jury has been out for several months now on 766's. Have been alternating with my last pair of 765's and a pair of 1050's. Did Plymouth half on Sunday in 1050's (like all my long runs recently) with no problems. have got a pain in right ankle, calf and groin today after an easy 4 miles last night in the 766's which I seem to get only after wearing these. Will confine 766's to leisure use only now

Posted: 01/06/2006 at 10:20

See all reader discussions...