8,108
edits
Changes
m
|- valign="top"
bottom]]
comment: batch update
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Asics GT 2000 2 Review}}
The GT 2000 is my benchmark "normal running shoe", and I think of it as a great implementation of a number of bad ideas. The GT 2000 is nicely engineered, but its features go against [[The Science of Running Shoes]]. I'm always surprised and impressed that so many people can run as well as they do in traditional running shoes. I only run in the GT 2000s when I'm comparing them against something else, and all too often the GT 2000 feels like a wooden clog rather than a running shoe. I've rated it as "Not Recommended." {{H:WhatToLookForInShoes}}
{| class="wikitable"
|- valign="top"
|[[File:Asics-GT2000-inside.jpg|none|thumb|250px|Asics GT2000 inside]]
|[[File:Asics-GT2000-outside.jpg|none|thumb|250px|Asics GT2000 outside]]
|}
=Characteristics=
* {{H:drop}}. The GT 2000 does not have as much of a drop as many traditional shoes. I find that its 6mm drop is more than I'd like, but it only causes slight changes to my biomechanics. Many traditional shoes have 10mm drop, which means my heels tend to scrape on the forward swing and I become more of a heel striker.
* {{H:structure}}. The GT 2000 has quite a bit of over engineering, with multiple densities of foam and some gel to interfere with your biomechanics. It also has a hard plastic arch section that I dislike.
* {{H:flexibility}}. The GT 2000 has little flexibility, and I find it feels overly rigid. While the flexibility is similar to a [[MinimaxMaximalist]] shoe, in practice those shoes have massively cushioned midsoles that allow the foot to flex within the shoe as the midsole compresses. I find the GT 2000 feels far more like a clog than even the biggest Hoka shoes.
* {{H:outsole}}. There's a good layer of harder rubber outsole over all the contact areas on the GT 2000, which should help with its longevity.
* {{H:shape}}. Like most shoes, the Asics GT 2000 seems to have been designed by someone who has never see an human foot. Cutting open the toe box helps quite a bit. {{H:TryCuttingShoes}}
* {{H:upper}}. The upper is unpadded in the forefoot, where there are also a number of overlays and seams. The rear of the shoe has good soft padding, especially around the ankle opening which is deeply padded.
* {{H:tongue}}. The GT 2000 has a traditional tongue that is has a tab to attach it to the laces, and the tongue has lots of thick, soft padding.
=Comparisons=
Here are some direct comparisons with its potential competition.
==Asics GT 2000 2000 and Asics Gel Hyper Speed==
The GT 2000 has an advantage over the Hyper Speed with better padding in the upper, especially in the tongue and ankle opening. However, in every other area the Hyper Speed is vastly better. The Hyper Speed is just over half the weight of the GT 2000, but provides better cushioning and is a lot more flexible. Running in the GT 2000 after the Hyper Speed feels like you've put on a wooden clog. The weight difference impacts your [[Running Economy]], and the calculations suggest that an average runner in the Hyper Speed is around 8 seconds/mile faster than in the GT 2000. (In practice, I feel like it's a bigger difference than that.)
{| class="wikitable"
|[[File:Asics-Gel-Hyper-Speed-6-outside.jpg|none|thumb|150px|Asics Gel Hyper Speed 6 outside]]
|}
==Asics GT 2000 2000 and Hoka Clifton==The [[Hoka Clifton]] is the best [[MinimaxMaximalist]] shoe by far, combining massive cushioning with light weight. By comparison, the GT 2000 is nearly 50% heavier, but provides far less cushioning. The GT 2000 has a little more padding in the rear of the upper, and a much nicer tongue, but that's about it's only advantage.
{| class="wikitable"
|- valign="top"
|[[File:New-Balance-MRC-5000-inside.jpg|none|thumb|150px|New Balance MRC 5000 inside]]
|[[File:New-Balance-MRC-5000-outside.jpg|none|thumb|150px|New Balance MRC 5000 outside]]
|- valign="top"
|[[File:Asics-GT2000-top.jpg|none|thumb|150px|Asics GT2000 top]]