- Jul 22, 2003
- 4,064
- 2,338
I don't usually like monochrome colorways but this looks good.I like that WNBA orange colorway.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't usually like monochrome colorways but this looks good.I like that WNBA orange colorway.
Jb shouldn’t have ****’ed it up with jimmy man.
Quite literally, thee PERRRRRRRRFECT guy to carry the brand.
heat jerseys match the wht/blk/red colorways too.
Major case of, what coulda been.
Dude BALLIN OUT…
Jimmy Butler doesn't sell kicks
Trolling so hard …Controversial viewpoint: I actually prefer the 37 over these. It’s not because they’re bad; in fact, they look quite nice. However, from a design perspective, they appear rather plain and conventional. Not Surprisingly, many people seem to appreciate them, which is a rarity. Personally, I believe a new Jordan should evoke a sense of unease when worn, even if it means being deemed “ugly” by others. I’ve always appreciated that aspect, and I’m not particularly fond of how safe these are.
With Nike's marketing machine he does.Jimmy Butler doesn't sell kicks
Lmaooo if they just make women sizes I feel for you my dude.Zooming in you can see there are either lighter orange or pink stars on the toebox and upper. Great detail. I'm all in to ball in these. I have UF gear so these will definitely work for me.
Controversial viewpoint: I actually prefer the 37 over these. It’s not because they’re bad; in fact, they look quite nice. However, from a design perspective, they appear rather plain and conventional. Not Surprisingly, many people seem to appreciate them, which is a rarity. Personally, I believe a new Jordan should evoke a sense of unease when worn, even if it means being deemed “ugly” by others. I’ve always appreciated that aspect, and I’m not particularly fond of how safe these are.
37s? Just more burlap-sack disjointed gutter trash.
With Nike's marketing machine he does.
well, this season he does
He was with JB before and sold....
Where? In China?
Did he even have his own shoe back then when signed to Jordan? He was lent as big as a name then.
It’s not controversial. You clearly have little to no understanding of what makes good design from a aesthetically pleasing point of view. The fact that you state that the 38 is plain and the 37 is the daring/unease design just proves the point. Just look at the 38’s midsole. We’ve never seen a jordan sig that type of midsole design and then you compare that to the 37 midsole and think the 38 is plain? Really??? Looking at the uppers is the same difference. The 37 has a couple of zigzags and then a bunch of lenoweave. The 38 uppers are way more interesting by FAR. BY FAR! The 38 has the leanoweav/flightknit?, the all black ankle pieces each with a different design, the back of the shoe has a great shape, the toebox and eyestay appear to be leather with some new stitching technique, and then the outsole X that stretches up into the midsole.Controversial viewpoint: I actually prefer the 37 over these. It’s not because they’re bad; in fact, they look quite nice. However, from a design perspective, they appear rather plain and conventional. Not Surprisingly, many people seem to appreciate them, which is a rarity. Personally, I believe a new Jordan should evoke a sense of unease when worn, even if it means being deemed “ugly” by others. I’ve always appreciated that aspect, and I’m not particularly fond of how safe these are.
My point was about the feelings a new Jordan model should evoke, which involves some degree of discomfort or unease. The 38 doesn't do that FOR ME. We all know Tinker, D'Wayne, and others would hold focus groups, and if consumers liked them too much, they would intentionally change them to push boundaries. This isn't necessarily about a shoe being obnoxiously daring in its design but more about challenging what's expected in a way that sparks a strong reaction. I am not saying they are horrible; I like them, as they are easy to like.It’s not controversial. You clearly have little to no understanding of what makes good design from a aesthetically pleasing point of view. The fact that you state that the 38 is plain and the 37 is the daring/unease design just proves the point. Just look at the 38’s midsole. We’ve never seen a jordan sig that type of midsole design and then you compare that to the 37 midsole and think the 38 is plain? Really??? Looking at the uppers is the same difference. The 37 has a couple of zigzags and then a bunch of lenoweave. The 38 uppers are way more interesting by FAR. BY FAR! The 38 has the leanoweav/flightknit?, the all black ankle pieces each with a different design, the back of the shoe has a great shape, the toebox and eyestay appear to be leather with some new stitching technique, and then the outsole X that stretches up into the midsole.
Your comment is, by leaps and bounds, one of the most ridiculous misinformed posts on design I might have ever seen in these forums. If you like the 37 more, cool. But don't come in here and state the 38 is plain. A third grader would know thats not true LMAO…
We all know Tinker, D'Wayne, and others would hold focus groups, and if consumers liked them too much, they would intentionally change them to push boundaries.
I’m also curious as I’ve NEVER heard they’d change the designs based on a focus groups reaction.Where is this documented? I've been into this stuff since 1989 and have read just about everything you can read on the subject, and I don't recall ever hearing this until now. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm genuinely interested to know where this statement comes from. It's possible I forgot it, if I did ever hear it.
Jimmy Butler doesn't sell kicks
For sure, no worries.Where is this documented? I've been into this stuff since 1989 and have read just about everything you can read on the subject, and I don't recall ever hearing this until now. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm genuinely interested to know where this statement comes from. It's possible I forgot it, if I did ever hear it.
NO. This isn’t about what’s subjective. If you like the 37 more than the 38, good for you. It’s about the adjectives you used. Specifically “plain” , “safe” and “unease( controversial)”. You CLEARLY cannot grasp the ideas that come with the words YOU used. LOOK at that x plate that goes from the outsole to the midsole? HOW is that plain and safe? We’ve never seen that in a Jordan before. LOOK at the midsole of the 37. It’s a regular midsole. Speak specifically to the outsole /midsole of the 38. It cannot possibly be plain and safe compared to the 37.My point was about the feelings a new Jordan model should evoke, which involves some degree of discomfort or unease. The 38 doesn't do that FOR ME. We all know Tinker, D'Wayne, and others would hold focus groups, and if consumers liked them too much, they would intentionally change them to push boundaries. This isn't necessarily about a shoe being obnoxiously daring in its design but more about challenging what's expected in a way that sparks a strong reaction. I am not saying they are horrible; I like them, as they are easy to like.
The appeal of design or beauty is inherently subjective. A third-grader likely understands that as well. For example:
"Hopefully the terrible response that the 37 got helped guide the direction of the 38 away from the see-through panels. I liked the return of the carbon fiber shank plate on the 37, just didn't like much else."
- 2396bullz 03/16/2023 post#5 Jordan 38
"These are nice! These were what Tatum was wearing. Curious about the tech. Also, since its supposed to be huarache, these should be super comfortable!"
- 2396bullz - 06/07/2022 Post #390 AIR JORDAN XXXVII (37) first look