[Closed] Brooks versus New Balance (runners question)

I've got the nb 1080s.
There is a seam the runs up your arch. Hard to notice when you try them on but after a few miles starts to cause blisters. So would not recommend. Google it to see what I mean.
I tried the ghost in the shop too. Were a bit narrow in the toe box but otherwise seemed fine.

Brooks fan here. Currently on Vapors.

My LRSS had me up and down the road in various shoes until I settled on them.

Another Brooks fan here. Started with Ravenna on the running shop recommendation. Next, and current pair, are Transcends. Awesome shoes. Bought a pair of Vapours as backup as they were vastly reduced in a sale.

Get whichever fits best!

NB have a very specific fit ime - they are perfect for me, but generally seem better for thinner feet, and I find some other brands too wide, especially as I tend to go up a size for longer distance shoes. E.g. I run in 10.5 or 11 NB but work shoes are 9's!

Everyone I know who has Brooks seems to like them...

But best to go with what feels right

Every time I've done one of those sessions in which you try on several pairs and run in them, whether outside or inside, New Balance have been the winners. So I bought them. Unfortunately on both pairs - different styles bought on different occasions - there is something about the toe box that means it eventually catches under my big toe nail. Which is very painful.

Brooks come out second every time for me, so I've switched to Brooks Ghost. And they are great.

Caveat: your feet aren't my feet.

Thanks.
I really like the feel of both in the shop, but I have a feeling any discomfort with either will only become apparent after a good few runs. An expensive mistake I made before with Asics Kayanos. Bought them and found them way too stiff for me after a few runs.

I've read the Brooks are better if you're a heavy heal striker, but the NB possibly have more cushioning if you include the full fore and aft of the shoe.

Interesting about the stitching issue, not something I'd noticed trying on, but did see a review mentioning that.

I have quite narrow feet too.

Lost count of how many pairs of Brooks shoes I have had over the years. Did have a brief flirtation with NB 10?0 series. First pair (of the NB) were great and I did my first marathon in them, replaced with the 'new and improved' version and got blisters on the inside of my arch on any run over 10 miles.
Returned to Brooks ( Mostly Adrenaline road & off road variants & some Pure Flow ) and not deviated from the brand since. I do prefer a firmer feeling shoe, especially in the push off part of the gait.
Only Brooks I never really got on with were the Cascadia trail. Not enough flex heal to toe for me and always felt like my feet were 'slapping' down.

I would say NBs are for wide feet. Certainly the 1080s are wider than my Pegasus.

Nike tend to be quite narrow but one of the best and most consistent of the main brands over the years. Most manufacturers got through a good/bad cycle. Surprised Brooks are still going strong, I remember running in Brooks Chariots in the early 80's but they lost their way a few years later, particularity when high quality brands such as Saucony came on the scene.
Message is that if you like a brand now there is no guarantee you will like them in 2 yrs when they change the Last etc or start manufacturing somewhere else. As I say only Nike seem to have remained consistent the Pegasus has been great in pretty much every incarnation.

I'd also include Asics, surfer. Been wearing GT2000 series for 15-20 years!

Related to this, does anyone else get very protective once they find a shoe that fits? I currently have 2 pairs of box fresh Asics Cumulus 18's sat in my cupboard waiting for the moment one of the current 2 pairs starts to wear. Tried the 19's, didn't like them, 18's are slipper like from day 1 so i felt I had to stock up.