airthompson
Staff member
- 13,823
- 9,623
Yea, you should have owned originals, in order to complain about things not being reproduced 100% to the original. It would be like complaining that the New Porsche 911 doesn't drive as nice as the old 911, when you've never driven one, just read Car & Driver. You might be right, but it doesn't carry any weight, cuz you're just parroting what you've read.You guys sound like legit prisoners of the moment whose excitement has your mind all jacked. So now you have to own originals to appreciate how something should be? So it's justified for all of us to get shafted half the time by JB cuz we never owned the originals [emoji]128077[/emoji]
No 2000s arent fully true to the OG form but they had premium materials which is the reason why they're glorified, as are most Jordans of the past. Your logic sounds all the way ignorant. Try again.
And I never said once the shoes sucked I just stated the material is someone crappy. I'm calling a spade a spade. Don't get made at me, get mad at Nike. The Blk Cement 4s were decent, but they weren't perfect correct? Yeh, same applies here. If you thought they were perfect god bless your soul
By no means were the BC 4's perfect, the midsole paint is terrible, but the materials aren't bad.
Appearance and performance is apples and oranges. I'm not making an observation about the how the new 911 handling is inferior to the 911 in the past, for example. I'm showing distaste on how the reproduction shell kit is missing key cosmetic exteriors features. Therefore I'd never had to own nor driven the car to knw something isn't right before I bought it correct?
That's all I'm going to say about that. I'm not about to argue about a shoe back and forth. I got real ish in my life that needs handling.
Last edited: