ASICSMens GT-2000 G-TX

I am a complete Asics fan, but these are not up to the usual Asics standard.Drawbacks:- too narrow. They feel quite a bit narrower than GT-2000 and Kayano series in the same size. Why would Asics mess with their usually excellent fit? People with narrow feet can always tighten a shoe to fit them well. People with wider feet can't adjust a shoe beyond its width. Especially in a shoe that is only available in D width, designers should not be going narrower. If anything they should be wider than avg. Best would be to make them available in widths.- hot. Perhaps it's due to the extra Gore-Tex layer, but these shoes feel very hot and under-ventilated. Other Gore-Tex shoes I've had don't do this.- noisy. I have had many Gore-Tex shoes before but none of them sounded crinkly, like I was walking in diapers! It got a bit distracting indoors and was plain weird.Positives:- Fantastic outsole. The grip and stability is great and the large lugged tread pattern doesn't keep mud in it when running on trains. A very big improvement on any prior design.- Looks: They really are a cool color and look great. If these weren't as narrow & hot, I'd keep them for casual everyday use.

I usually wear a size 13 in Asics. However, a 13 was too tight in this model. I ordered a 13.5 and the fit is just right! The Gore-Tex liner is awesome, my feet don't get wet in the rain, walking through wet grass, or stepping in puddles. The look of this shoe is great. There is a slight crinkling noise when I step - presumably from the Gore-Tex liner-, but having dry feet outweighs the noise.UPDATE: These shoes have done great at keeping my feet dry. However, I have worn these shoes almost daily for the past few weeks and now they smell terrible! I believe the GORE-TEX prevents the shoes from breathing, thus, not allowing sweat to evaporate. The GORE-TEX prevents water from getting it, so it makes sense it would prevent water from getting out, too. If I gave the shoes a day between wearing to air out, then maybe they would have sufficient time to dry and then they wouldn't stink so bad.

I have owned both the Asics GT 2170 and 2160 shoes and trained in them for half marathons. I can attest to some of the previous reviews about this shoe fitting tight and running hot. It's width runs a little smaller than its predecessors, the 2170/2160. I purchased the same size as I have in the past; the shoe length will run the same, but with the width will be slightly more narrow so the whole shoe feels tighter overall. Couple that with the Gortex lining causing the shoe to hold heat, I would most definitely say it would not be an ideal long distance concrete/road shoe; my feet were on fire from the heat on the Georgia roads by 3 miles into my run and my feet felt cramped. Lastly, the cushioning on the toe pad area of the shoe doesn't feel as soft and absorbent as the 2170/2160 series. Overall, the GT-2000 falls short of the expectations that the 2170/2160 series shoes set. It's redeeming factors would be that it is a good looking shoe and I have been happy with it as a trail running shoe for 3-4 miles.

My husband is an over pronator, flatfooted, stomping runner. Of course, that's in a "normal" runner's shoe. With Brooks and Asics, there is significantly more support in the ankle to keep his feet from rolling inwards (towards the midline) and greater arch support that he needs to reduce knee tension and shin splints that occur often in people with flat feet. We prefer the Asics simply because thy are cheaper than the Brooks and have equal results for my husband. We know this for sure because my husband has gone to a podiatrist to exam his run using a camera at his feet. It was amazing to see that with a high support/performance running shoe my husbands ankles went from nearly touching the ground to completely parallel to his hips. Subsequently, his run is much smoother and the lift at the top of he shoe forces him to run smoother and stomp less. :) all in all this is a great product for those who suffer the same issues.

This is my 3rd pair of Asics for the year. Bought them for outdoor running this winter. Broke them in with a 7 mile run and developed a blister over the lower margin of my right lateral malleolus (lateral ankle/distal fibula). This never happened with my first two pair of Asics this year. Now I'm back running in my Nimbus-14's while I wait for the blister to heal. I may need to use friction paste and tape my ankles to wear these high cut shoes. If the shoes weren't cut so high, I would give them 5 stars because I had no other problems with them.

Shoes were ok. I have had Asics in the past and these fit good but I wasn't a huge fan of the attached tongue. I prefer to have the ability to have more room in the shoe. My feet are small but wider and these were a little snug. Good Support for the long runs and very comfortable. Style is good because it doesn't show dirt very well.Pros:Good supportColors don't show dirt easilyQuality constructionCons:Attached tongue (personal preference)

This is my second pair. I got them for trail running/hiking. I then started road running and they are equally as good. I went right from a trail run to running home (total 5.75 miles) with zero feet or shoe issue.The only reason these are not a "5 star" shoe is because over time they slowly let in water if walking/running through wet grass. I spray them with fabric waterproofing sealer ok for gore material, and that helps a lot.

Both spouse & I have used Asics for a long time, most recently the 2170. The 2170 had an issue with the lining inside the entire heal area wearing away. We were about to switch brands but decided to try the new 2000 model. Surprisingly the fit feels notably better, a better fit to the foot and more stable than the 2170, so we are happy with that! The deciding factor will be how the lining holds up.