Comments: I would not call it the most comfortable shoes to run in -- IMHO, that is reserved for Kayano and NB 1260 v3. GT 2000's inner lining is not as velvety as Kayano, the ride (cushioning) is a bit harsher although I completed my usual routine without feeling discomfort. Decent shoes for its price point but if you can afford it and needs the extra cushioning, go with the other two. I plan to use it for office wear only. 160 lbs, 5'7". Routine: 4 miles/under 32 minutes/tread mill only.
From: Anonymous, April 12th 2014
Comments: I've gone through two pairs of the GT-2000s and am planning on ordering a third. They offer pronation support and strong arch support for someone with flat feet. I've gotten 600-800 miles out of each of them and they're still in reasonable shape.
From: Aaron, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada
Comments: My son who was based in NC USA bought for me a pair of GT2000 (black/white)from RW and my comments after trying them out are:- 1) This new model is a substantive improvement over the predecessor GT2170 in terms of fit, comfort and road-grip. 2) I liked that the heel is lower, and that the shoe is lighter, firm yet flexible and easy on the feet. He will be sending me another pair of GT2000 for X'mas.
From: Arsene, Singapore
Comments: These are the only shoes so far, that I can wear. I have an issue with bone spurs on the ball of my left foot and I have tried at least 10 different shoes and this is the only model that provides adequate forefoot cushioning for me. It's important to see where the gel is - I think the writing on the outsole points the gel pad location, so when you have a specific need for more cushioning you need to check this. I'm not sure if that's true, but I'm almost certain. It also has great stability features, without being too stiff and heavy. The upper is a bit weak and will tear up in about a year of everyday use, but I'm fine with that. I'm now on my second pair.
Comments: Still the most comfortable shoes I've ever had for long walks and easy runs. They are a little too heavy though. One more problem is that the upper has tore up at my pinky toe after less than a year and I use 2-3 other pairs of trainers.
Comments: I've come to the GT2000 from Mizuno Inspire, after ongoing ball of foot pain in both the Inspire 8 and 9 (I'm a slow learner!) I love the GT2000 - good stability, good heel and adequate forefoot cushion, and the fit is great on my foot - the ball of my foot actually sits on the midsole, not hanging off the medial side as in the Inspires). I've read many comments from 2170 users about lack of forefoot cushion in the GT2000, but I found that aspect quite good - very similar to Inspire 8, but a tad firmer than Inspire 9. The best aspect of the GT2000, IMO, is the road feel which encourages good form. This is a very natural, intuitive feeling shoe. But not a harsh one - a great blend of cushion and feel, IMO.
From: Steven, Hobart, Aus
Comments: Great looking shoe. Felt great on the few runs I took them on, prior to the marathon (including an 18+ miler). After 2 weeks of running, I wore them in a marathon. After the race my left foot was KILLING me. It was the onset of my first case of P.F. I'm a heavier runner (260-ish) with a mid-foot strike. I have always worn the 2100 series. These don't ride near the same. I love the shoe, but won't wear them for another mary.
From: E.J., Fayetteville, AR, USA
Comments: These are my first Asics shoes, so I can't compare. The forefoot cushioning is far better than the Mizuno Nexus 5 which I had to return. I like the lower drop of these shoes and the soft upper materials. My pinky toe tends to punch through any running shoe and this one is no exception, but I don't think it's narrow - it's significantly wider than many running shoes. The PHF system is great and I don't feel any heel slip at all. What I don't like is their traction on wet pavement - they tend to slip. Kudos for the online Gait analysis - they said I should get those, I did and now I'm happy.
Comments: Although a bit lighter than the prior 2170 model there is a much firmer feel to the forefoot that I did not personally like and therefore I did not keep these shoes. I think the new midsole material is not as soft which is the reason for the change? Nice upper and the heel cushioning felt excellent, but I now prefer a softer (not mushy) toe off and this one did not work for me...
From: David, Tempe, AZ
Comments: Got a chance to try these early which was nice. A more snug and less stiff shoe than the last several versions. The ride is more responsive than it's been since the 2080 and earlier. The slightly lower platform feels more runnable. High volume feet may feel a pinch constricted.
From: Chester, Fort St. James, Canada