Shoe Wars: Reebok Nano vs. Nike Metcon

                                 

OK, if you know me than you know I love shoes, but mainly Nike Metcon's as well as Reebok Nano's.  

I've owned every model of Reebok Nano all the way back to the U-Form (which to this day is still my fave) and have both the Metcon 1 and 2.  So, I thought it only fitting to write a review of the pros and cons of both shoes when it comes to comfort, functionality, durability and overall style.  This is not meant to bash either shoe, but to hopefully give you the reader a better idea of each of them and maybe hope in your next shoe purchase.

We are going to break it down into a few categories and hit both shoe styles, so 3,2,1 Go!

Comfort:

Nano-I loved this shoe from the get go, due to the wide toe cap, tight heel, stability and stiffness of the sole but this was the Nano 1.  Over time I felt like it got a little less stable, the sole became too squishy (technical term) and it just wasn't the same shoe.  

Metcon-Not a fan at first due to the Narrowness of the shoe, the heel squeaked and the laces felt a little to rigid, but it grew on me and just needed to be worked in over a week or so.  After that, I loved working out in it, but mainly just a solid walking around shoe especially for a coach.

Functionality:

Nano-It was designed for CrossFit by CrossFitters and it held up to that.  Through out every pair I owned (I'd estimate around 27) each one was perfect for lifting, aerobic work (WOD's) as well as other stuff.  But, if you wanted to run anything over about a mile, think again.  Not the best due to the flat sole and lack of cushioning, this shoe would leave your shins and feet feeling like dog shit.

Metcon-Same as the Nano.  This shoe held up to lifting, conditioning, etc.  The heel has ridges which caught on any type of tethered wall, but that was fixed with the 2. But, running is not the forte of this bad boy.  I was never a fan of any Nike running shoe, just felt like there was not enough support for anything distance related, but 200-800m's you'll be good to go.  

Durability:

Nano-This shoe is durable.  I proceeded to beat the living shit out of every pair that touched my feet.  Rope Climbs, running, 2 a days....the nano took a licking and kept on ticking.  BUT, the only thing I found an issue with was EVERY pair a small center piece of the sole popped out and that just ended the life of the shoe.  Bad Reebok.....

Metcon-High Five Nike.  Durable and can handle the rigors of working out (crossfit, lifting, short-mid distance running).  I was surprised by the hold up to rope climbs how it barely affected the shoe.  BUT, the only thing I found was that the toe cap vinyl would start to separate from the upper, and the outside of toe cap would start to fray and look like crap.

Overall Style: 

Nano-Simply put, this is like the Long John Silver of shoes when it comes to style or looks.  Its always going to be lower budget or second rate.  Its like Eric Sermon, the generic version.   Part of the shoe whether you like to admit it or not is what it looks like, how it matches your current gym attire (sock game, etc) as well as the likes it gets on IG ,FB, Snapchat.  Don't lie to yourself, your shoes are an extension of you.  

Metcon-When this thing surfaced I think everyone shit their pants.  If it worked at Chotchkie's it would have like 7,000 pieces of flair.  The Nike Metcon has more style than Zac Effron has followers on Instagram.  They coined the phrase "color way" and made it a contest of who could find the newest color's first.  I could go on for days about how legit this shoe is, but I won't.  Hands down, this shoe is the TITS and is only getting better.  

Well, there you go.  I hope that this helped out a bit, or just gave you a good read.  I am not biased in any manner, I own both styles of shoes as well as rock them both dependent on the mood I'm in.  But bottom line, the shoe game is life and I want all you beautiful people to be on point.  Peace out homies. 

Rob