- Jun 23, 2001
- 481
- 525
AJ XXX (30)
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by airtwo3jrdn,
- Start date
- Jan 25, 2015
- 10,631
- 12,886
"The 30 is a representation of michael at 30 years of age. It was at that point where he had won 3 championships and he felt he had done everything performance wise so he decided to take a break. We did the same with this model."
T0INE
formerly toine2983
- Dec 21, 2005
- 67,321
- 73,827
"The 30 is a representation of michael at 30 years of age. It was at that point where he had won 3 championships and he felt he had done everything performance wise so he decided to take a break. We did the same with this model."
- Nov 1, 2014
- 2
- 10
Probably another solid performance shoe! 29 is my favorite shoe to hoop in
SlamShut
formerly cement greyman
- Jul 10, 2005
- 5,198
- 7,042
It will be the biggest letdown in the history of this brand if this is the XXX. I can't imagine them letting the 30th Air Jordan go out like this. The XX, XX3, and even the XX8 were dynamic...even if you don't like the design you could see the work that went in and at least appriciate that they TRIED to bring you something special. You don't phone in the 30th Air Jordan.
- Feb 7, 2013
- 33
- 20
Also i think one of the real travesties is charging over 200 and omitting heel zoom and we as consumers are supposed to just accept it as the norm these days...smh.
- Apr 23, 2015
- 8,799
- 10,386
If these are it then its definitely phoned in. The Kobe XI looks way more forward thinking than these do. Side by side these are going to look archaic with that huge white 90's midsole. FFS this is such a poor design considering what the designers had for inspiration. The Air Jordan XXX. As a graphic designer myself, the concepts and possibilities are endless. This would be a dream project. So to see this half assed concept actually getting the green light is killing me a little inside.
Im still refusing to believe they're using the same damned sole. The sole is what makes a shoe. Its literally the very foundation of a new model. Its going to be real hard to accept these as a new model with that sole. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Atleast relocate the f'ing jumpman. What a s***show.
Im still refusing to believe they're using the same damned sole. The sole is what makes a shoe. Its literally the very foundation of a new model. Its going to be real hard to accept these as a new model with that sole. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Atleast relocate the f'ing jumpman. What a s***show.
- Sep 29, 2012
- 364
- 283
Agree with most of what you said but the Kobe 11 is so unimaginative, it's a joke. It's literally a low cut basic seem less 1 piece shoe with a big swoosh on the side(the same with his last 6 shoes). They look like $30-40 outlet sneakers. Nike basketball sig lines are basic at best these days.
- Apr 23, 2015
- 8,799
- 10,386
The Kobe makes a ton of sense when you consider what their intentions are with the model. I see it like the iPhone design. More of a refinement than an overhaul every year. Slimmer, sleeker, more efficient. Now they have the flyknit visible right through the outsole with no midsole. Way more than meets the eye with that one. Plus they're extremely wearable off court. They're perfect as far as Im concerned, especially in a high top if that ever happens. If they had Nike Air on the heel and a Jumpman on the tongue instead of the Kobe Shield people would be chomping at the bit. It'd be the perfect evolution of the Air Jordan line with respects to both of the first Air Jordans (the original and Tinkers first take), the 1 and the 3, with the swoosh on the side and the NA on the heel with the Jumpman on the tongue. Instead we get Africa on the tongue, a basketball net on the heel, a reused sole and a dated white midsole.
If Kobe can get a performance beast combined with a great looking casual shoe then Jordan needs to look real hard at who his designers are and why he should keep them around. The shoe in these pics posted are garbage and WILL sit. That's got to be awkward as a business knowing your new flagship model on its 30th anniversary is *** and will more than likely end up in outlets. Not a good look at all.
If Kobe can get a performance beast combined with a great looking casual shoe then Jordan needs to look real hard at who his designers are and why he should keep them around. The shoe in these pics posted are garbage and WILL sit. That's got to be awkward as a business knowing your new flagship model on its 30th anniversary is *** and will more than likely end up in outlets. Not a good look at all.
- Jan 25, 2015
- 10,631
- 12,886
I would love to know how the conference calls go at Jordan Brand HQ a month after these release.
I thought the Kobe X's were bad...
I thought the Kobe X's were bad...
- May 12, 2015
- 1,804
- 500
Why not past Jordan models has numbers even roman numerals.The 6 its self is a giant 23.
- Apr 23, 2015
- 8,799
- 10,386
23 makes sense though. The only time I can't think of them putting the number of the shoe on it is the XIV and that was on the inside of the tongue. And the 23 itself I guess. The 16 had it hidden in the 'jordan' logo. The 15 had it within the small numbers on the heel. The 17 was in the n on 'jordan'. XIX I think was on the sole? XX was within the laser? All subtle.
Last edited:
- Jul 18, 2012
- 479
- 173
Do you play basketball? If so have you played in the XX9 without zoom in the heel? To me it doesn't need zoom in the heel because the way it was designed it takes the pressure away from when you land on your heel. Guards play on their toes anyways so there isn't a need for zoom in the heel anyways. So I think your post is pointless without justification.
- Aug 15, 2012
- 2,089
- 2,497
I think to say his view is "pointless" is a little harsh. Though it is your opinion, not all guards play on their toes and during "explosion" Russell digs deep from his heels in transition to propulsion so I can see his point as to wanting heel zoom for the extra "bounce". But the 29 got great reviews on cushioning without the zoom in the heel. I think his point which I agree with is if less is more then reduce the price. Nike/Jordan has been taking advantage of justifiable price points with technology for the life of the line. If you are removing some of the tech, remove some of the price. The upper wasn't that significant that it commands the price tag it receives IMHO.
- Apr 23, 2015
- 8,799
- 10,386
Zoom air doesn't cost any more than the other options for them. It still takes R and D to achieve what they did with the cushioning. Though the expense isn't justified, Zoom Air nothing to do with it. The reason for the price is marketing. If other basketball shoes were more expensive then the Air Jordan would lose its premium status. That's all there is to it. You want cheaper Jordans? Demand lower prices across the board. Jordan isn't just throwing prices out there, they adhere to a certain percentage above the rest.
Last edited:
- Apr 22, 2002
- 3,563
- 509
Exactly....been saying this for a while with Nike.
- Aug 15, 2012
- 2,089
- 2,497
Though I do agree that it takes Research and Development to achieve product satisfaction along with marketing to demand certain price points. I simply do not agree with the point you are trying to make. They already had a zoom toe unit not heel setup in their extensive catalog of footwear that old have accounted for the R&D you speak of. Not to mention that idea isn't exactly new considering we know what injected foam does for performance since that was the only option prior to added cushioning being put in the midsoles. Furthermore, the marketing they did for the 29 was minimal in comparison to early releases of Jordans in the line. Additionally, Jordan Brand does little advertisement for the retro releases they continue to skyrocket in price annually. A new box and some cheap plastic presentation does not lure me more to wanting a Jordan XI more than what the XI represents to me from seeing them back in 1995-96. I'd buy the shoe anyway with the orginal box because I'm wearing the shoes not the box it comes in.. Now tho recent release of Jordan XI(72-10) had great materials that remind me of when Jordans first came to the market and Nike strive to dominate with quality and craftsmanship. But putting a higher price tag for materials you should already offer? Definitely doesn't have to do with R&D on what leather and suede will do for that shoe! LOL And where was the marketing to make up for that price? Please take these views as my opinion and no malice toward you my friend. Respect for your comment and valued opinion to the community.
- Feb 1, 2012
- 1,451
- 1,384
R&D is research and development. If they're already using existing technology....there is nothing to research or develop.
The technology from the XIs may have been ground breaking at the time, but in today's sneakers it's well past mature. The only thing Nike can do is change materials, packaging, etc. if they did more it wouldn't be an XI.
If we want cheaper prices we need, in mass, to not buy them.
- Aug 15, 2012
- 2,089
- 2,497
I think you're missing my point.. But I do agree that a demonstration of reduced sales could result in reduced prices. Unfortunately people just gotta have thier J's! LOL
- Jan 9, 2016
- 4
- 12
I think we all need an excercise in patience. 72 or so more hours and we will see. JB is great at innovation that benefits the athlete. Let's see the shoe, on foot, and a performance review. Once a few youngins see Russell Westbrook posterizing folks on the XXX the retail floodgates will open. The XX9 is awesome on court. And I think that Nike and JB are just starting to get comfortable with desidns on that 1 piece upper. Remember the YOTG XX9s and the Photo Reels. Who knows what we will see on the 30. I bet they'll play on the triple x design. I'm excited to see the shoe. But I will wait to see every aspect of the shoe before I dog it.
- Feb 1, 2012
- 1,451
- 1,384
What was your point?
- Oct 26, 2004
- 8,091
- 1,125
it should be LIGHTweight 
- Feb 1, 2012
- 1,451
- 1,384
it should be LIGHTweight
That's the point??? Lightweight compared to what?
- Aug 15, 2012
- 2,089
- 2,497
You stated in your post that the cost of the product had to do with getting back the R&D spent developing the product along with advertising cost. I'm saying that most of the technology they are "introducing" already exist in one fashion or another. So there isn't that much research being done. Couple that with the fact that more YouTube and blog reviews advertise for them more than they do themselves, advertisement doesn't cost them but some some shoes and maybe a few pieces of gear that they could write off..? You even stated that the XI isn't getting new technology so no R&D is needed and they barely advertise yet the price continues to increase. Because they don't have the orginal mold from 95'? Okay even if that's they case they weren't that expensive in 2000-2001 when they retro ed the first time with that same excuse. I'm just saying they can do a better job with how they're handling business from a consumer stand point. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer between us just opinions my friend. And with that I'll stop clogging the thread with off topic conversation..
- Feb 1, 2012
- 1,451
- 1,384
You have me confused with another poster. So much of what you have above I won't comment on.
You're also confusing a number of issues that may not even be related.
What was your original point?
How could they do a better job from a consumer point of view?
Last edited:
Similar threads
