|
Reviews 1 - 2 (2 Reviews Total)
| |
Review Date
October 5, 2003 Overall Rating
 4 of 5
Value Rating
 4 of 5
Visitors rate this review
5.00 of 5,
1.00 votes
|
|  |
Reviewed by: RB(Unregistered User)
,
Day Hiker Summary:
Having worn a variety of Brooks shoes in the past, I got these on clearance for a great price. Overall, I am very pleased with the cushion, fit, and construction. I just ran a 30k in them and felt great.
|
|
 |
Review Date
March 28, 2001 Overall Rating
 1 of 5
Value Rating
 1 of 5
|
| |
Reviewed by: Ray(Unregistered User)
,
Car Camper
, from Rancho Cordova Summary:
Brooks has changed its Radius, and the change is bad. I've run in five "generations" of the Brooks Radius, going back several years. I've preferred it to similar cushioned trainers because of its fit (relatively rounded and roomy forefoot) and ride (well-cushioned; only the Air Max was better). In fact, the very first time I ran in the Radius was my first marathon, and it was like running on pillows for 26 miles: no blisters, nothing. On the other hand, the 257 has a different fit: more restrictive and narrower in the fortefoot/instep. And the ride is poorer than previous Radius models; it's now no better cushioned than the average Etonic or Asics, which (Are you listening, Mr. Brooks?) is an insult. I wore (or tried to wear) the 257 for a week. I took them back and exchanged them for the Adidas Boston, a shoe that reminds me of the Radius of old. Unless Brooks reverts to the old Radius, I've switched away permanently. Similar Products Used:
Nike Air Max (great cushioning, but too pointy-toed); Adidas SL96 (very good cushioning, but not made any longer).
|
|
|
