I only run once a week or so, but when I hike it's often for several days. I'm trying to find a comfortable shoe I can do non-technical hikes in that will still provide enough support to pound pavement about 10 miles a week.
Because the Brooks pure project shoes have deep recesses, they do okay in mud, and the tough rubber outsoles are grippy enough to handle wet rocks, etc. I knew this coming from the Pure Connects. However, that molded tongue on the PureDrift just didn't work for me. maybe my feet have high tops? I couldn't say, but I was definitely not a fan of the fit. I might try my luck with one other Pure Project 2 shoe just to confirm if it's not going to work for me at all. I was surprised by how poorly the PureDrifts fit, but more so, in the perceived durability. I would be very interested to see how one holds up after extended use; it really did look that flimsy to me. For $60, I might find out for myself. For $100, I want to see the quality, and I find that in almost every other shoe in the line.
Two things I'm learning here:
#1. I am personally always looking for more information on things, even if that information is imperfect. So, I try to "give back" by reviewing a lot of my stuff, especially when it stands out in the gamut of things I try as particularly bad or good. If I can do someone else a favor, I try to.
#2. A shoe that can do both of these things likely does not exist. I will need to compromise on one end of the spectrum between trail traction and road cushioning.
I will say this:
This is the first time I've ever written a review where people actually got upset with me for writing it... A review is personal, by nature. You can't really tell me I'm wrong, since it's personal, and the idea that theres some standard of quality in reviews is a little dubious to me... I've seen a lot worse and I find it easy to disregard what is not useful to me. I suggest you guys adopt a similar filter before you go harassing people who willfully offer their help.