Nike Trainer 1.3 Mid / Max / Low

[wallyhopp]

Originally Posted by KingJay718

Excluding the special makeups because we all know the ypebeasta re gonna buy them up, but are these 1.3 kicks really that good? They've sold out at a few spots around my way. I'm ready to replace my Trainer 1.

$90 for heel only air on the normal mid version
$110- $115 for a FREE based version

$175 for a 360 running outsole.

With nothing else too unique, I would venture to say stick with the TR1s or TR1.2s, your free tr2s or air max 360 running shoe.... All for cheaper prices than above.

$30-$50 on any TR1 or TR1.2.
$40-$70 on any free trainer/lunar edge foam only shoe
Discounted prices on the past three years of air max running shoes, as low as $60.
-----
The only true positive I see out of all this is the free trainer 1.3 is a bit of a higher cut than other free trainers, so if you need a strength and conditioning shoe for that certain type of training and like mid cuts, go for it..... Everything else is highly overrated, or mediocre to the point that prior models can be had for half the cost and there be no true dropoff.

Who knows. Call me biased. The shoes I hate, common consumers love (the upper on these guys is hideous). But not hideous enough to throw people off.

Nike's consumer base has changed. What used to be $110 models with dual zoom that consumers deemed too expensive has translated 6 years later to a model that is the same price and all free.. Yet 6 years back, frees ran you only $70 tops.
-----
Now  compare spending $110 on all foam FREEs to $90 on the normal tr1.3 model with heel only air and foam forefoot. I guess it's all up to the consumer and their choice. I see spending $20 more, for less, as ridiculous, but many love the free outsole. It definitely has its advantages for a certain type of training.. For every day performance? I don't know. I don't even believe either the $175 max version nor the $90 regular version provide any true advantages given their price. You can't do court sports in the 360 runners because of the running outsole and pattern. The $90 dollar regular version with no forefoot zoom gives you little cushioning for impact protection.. So again, I would say go barebones with it all, get an older free tr2 or free tr1, and get the best out of free shoes... or spend $30 more than you should and get the current free trainers...

I would rather train in FREEs than a regular $90 dollar version. The max air heel is okay, but that forefoot foam will breakdown quicker than the heel. I would rather have the entire foam outsole break down in the same time frame, ie what you get with the frees or other lunarlon shoes.

but thats just me... If you liked the tr1s though, these regular tr1.3s have the same cushioning setup, so have at it.
-------------------
btw
Eastbay has a few smaller sizes of the free oregons and MSUs. They list the sizes as 4E- Extra Wide. I found that a bit interesting

 

[shindo03]

Eastbay Ray I hope that the east bay order is not for 4E- Extra Wide versions of the shoes. That would be a shame. And eastbay would be seeing a lot of returns if that is in fact true. I know for a fact the the trainers are not a 4E-Extra wide standard. Please elaborate on this because the regular non rivalry trainer for the 1.3 frees are are a regular D-Medium width.

Thanks in advance!

 

[shindo03]

Eastbay Ray I hope that the east bay order is not for 4E- Extra Wide versions of the shoes. That would be a shame. And eastbay would be seeing a lot of returns if that is in fact true. I know for a fact the the trainers are not a 4E-Extra wide standard. Please elaborate on this because the regular non rivalry trainer for the 1.3 frees are are a regular D-Medium width.

Thanks in advance!

 

[jordanfreak23]

I am having anxiety waiting for these LSU's to drop. Any tips? I just can't fathom the LSU ones being as popular as Oregon..Just wishful thinking?

 

[jordanfreak23]

I am having anxiety waiting for these LSU's to drop. Any tips? I just can't fathom the LSU ones being as popular as Oregon..Just wishful thinking?

 

[bwood056]

Originally Posted by jordanfreak23

I am having anxiety waiting for these LSU's to drop. Any tips? I just can't fathom the LSU ones being as popular as Oregon..Just wishful thinking?

those michigan st ones are rarer than the oregon ones i would think.

so im not too sure of that thinking lol

 

[bwood056]

Originally Posted by jordanfreak23

I am having anxiety waiting for these LSU's to drop. Any tips? I just can't fathom the LSU ones being as popular as Oregon..Just wishful thinking?

those michigan st ones are rarer than the oregon ones i would think.

so im not too sure of that thinking lol

 

[ssharks]

eastbay had to cancel my order for the fighting ducks 

guess i am +!@* out of luck.....

 

[ssharks]

eastbay had to cancel my order for the fighting ducks 

guess i am +!@* out of luck.....

 

[eastbayrep]

Originally Posted by shindo03

Eastbay Ray I hope that the east bay order is not for 4E- Extra Wide versions of the shoes. That would be a shame. And eastbay would be seeing a lot of returns if that is in fact true. I know for a fact the the trainers are not a 4E-Extra wide standard. Please elaborate on this because the regular non rivalry trainer for the 1.3 frees are are a regular D-Medium width.

Thanks in advance!

We expect future shipments of Nike Rivalry Free Trainer 1.3's to be in Medium (D) width. Our current selection of Nike Rivalry Free Trainer 1.3's are listed as Extra Wide (4E) on our website while the rest of our Trainer 1.3's (Trainer 1.3, Air Max Trainer 1.3, Free Trainer 1.3, Rivalry Air Max Trainer 1.3) are listed as Medium (D) width. I understand the confusion and have forwarded your question on to the proper contacts to be looked into further. I will post an update in this thread confirming the widths of both our current and near future Nike Rivalry Free Trainer 1.3's when I receive a response.  Thank you.

EastbayRep - Dustin

 

[eastbayrep]

Originally Posted by shindo03

Eastbay Ray I hope that the east bay order is not for 4E- Extra Wide versions of the shoes. That would be a shame. And eastbay would be seeing a lot of returns if that is in fact true. I know for a fact the the trainers are not a 4E-Extra wide standard. Please elaborate on this because the regular non rivalry trainer for the 1.3 frees are are a regular D-Medium width.

Thanks in advance!

We expect future shipments of Nike Rivalry Free Trainer 1.3's to be in Medium (D) width. Our current selection of Nike Rivalry Free Trainer 1.3's are listed as Extra Wide (4E) on our website while the rest of our Trainer 1.3's (Trainer 1.3, Air Max Trainer 1.3, Free Trainer 1.3, Rivalry Air Max Trainer 1.3) are listed as Medium (D) width. I understand the confusion and have forwarded your question on to the proper contacts to be looked into further. I will post an update in this thread confirming the widths of both our current and near future Nike Rivalry Free Trainer 1.3's when I receive a response.  Thank you.

EastbayRep - Dustin

 

[johngotty]

I'm with Wally

Seriously, a lot of what he's saying is correct. They're killing w/the price on these for no particular reason at all. Even as a Trainer fan, I can't get too excited about these b/c it feels like they're pulling a fast one.

 

[johngotty]

I'm with Wally

Seriously, a lot of what he's saying is correct. They're killing w/the price on these for no particular reason at all. Even as a Trainer fan, I can't get too excited about these b/c it feels like they're pulling a fast one.

 

[wallyhopp]

Even the zoom huarache tr, as a $115 mid, or $99.99 low had heel only zoom and your typical foam up front.
For $10- $15 less right now, the free zilla trainer has the same offerings as the free trainer 1.3.

Maybe my voice isn't heard loud enough or other older shoe fans have moved on, but today's heel only air shoes would be considered 2nd tier products, sitting some $20-40 odd dollars below signature models.

I ask this simple question, where are the signature products? We have signature prices, but no true products? A running outsole/midsole on the upper of a trainer doesn't count. One could only merely run in those.

Is it me that is in a love fest with air based products? Your $49.99 Air Monarchs have full length encapsulated air. One of the premium features of signature products dating back to 1982 (and beyond I'm sure).

I also realize that many retro products have price points of $110 and feature heel only air, the same common counterpart that they share with the $90 regular version tr1.3s. So are we getting a bargain @ $90, or doubly ripped off @ $110 for paying not only $20 above the $90, but even as a $90 dollar product, is $10-20 too high. Products used to be easily distiniguishable based on the price of the item.. Now it all seems to be based on what Nike can get by on consumers.. Just be careful guys.. I would wager to say those $50 Monarchs, whom the older crowd seems to love has a cushioning set up better than anything Nike currently has up to $115 bucks.

Nike's running line is just as random.. Pegasus with heel only zoom and some sort of foam forefoot is $109.99. The zoom structure with dual zoom sits in at $99.99, and the Vomero @ $129.99.

Whether a shoe has air or not shouldn't be the only basis for how good it is, seeing as how many other branded running shoes are foam only (brooks or asics). But I've had just other worldly experiences with zoom and for me to see it on just a few products is puzzling.

If you're out there looking for shoes, price alone is no longer a great gauge of supremacy in construction and cushioning ability.

I personally see a grim future for Nike cross trainers if we are dropping $115 on frees.

 

[wallyhopp]

Even the zoom huarache tr, as a $115 mid, or $99.99 low had heel only zoom and your typical foam up front.
For $10- $15 less right now, the free zilla trainer has the same offerings as the free trainer 1.3.

Maybe my voice isn't heard loud enough or other older shoe fans have moved on, but today's heel only air shoes would be considered 2nd tier products, sitting some $20-40 odd dollars below signature models.

I ask this simple question, where are the signature products? We have signature prices, but no true products? A running outsole/midsole on the upper of a trainer doesn't count. One could only merely run in those.

Is it me that is in a love fest with air based products? Your $49.99 Air Monarchs have full length encapsulated air. One of the premium features of signature products dating back to 1982 (and beyond I'm sure).

I also realize that many retro products have price points of $110 and feature heel only air, the same common counterpart that they share with the $90 regular version tr1.3s. So are we getting a bargain @ $90, or doubly ripped off @ $110 for paying not only $20 above the $90, but even as a $90 dollar product, is $10-20 too high. Products used to be easily distiniguishable based on the price of the item.. Now it all seems to be based on what Nike can get by on consumers.. Just be careful guys.. I would wager to say those $50 Monarchs, whom the older crowd seems to love has a cushioning set up better than anything Nike currently has up to $115 bucks.

Nike's running line is just as random.. Pegasus with heel only zoom and some sort of foam forefoot is $109.99. The zoom structure with dual zoom sits in at $99.99, and the Vomero @ $129.99.

Whether a shoe has air or not shouldn't be the only basis for how good it is, seeing as how many other branded running shoes are foam only (brooks or asics). But I've had just other worldly experiences with zoom and for me to see it on just a few products is puzzling.

If you're out there looking for shoes, price alone is no longer a great gauge of supremacy in construction and cushioning ability.

I personally see a grim future for Nike cross trainers if we are dropping $115 on frees.

 

[nikeshoehead]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Whether a shoe has air or not shouldn't be the only basis for how good it is

But that's the only point you seem to be ranting about...

 

[nikeshoehead]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Whether a shoe has air or not shouldn't be the only basis for how good it is

But that's the only point you seem to be ranting about...

 

[ssharks]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Even the zoom huarache tr, as a $115 mid, or $99.99 low had heel only zoom and your typical foam up front.
For $10- $15 less right now, the free zilla trainer has the same offerings as the free trainer 1.3.

Maybe my voice isn't heard loud enough or other older shoe fans have moved on, but today's heel only air shoes would be considered 2nd tier products, sitting some $20-40 odd dollars below signature models.

I ask this simple question, where are the signature products? We have signature prices, but no true products? A running outsole/midsole on the upper of a trainer doesn't count. One could only merely run in those.

Is it me that is in a love fest with air based products? Your $49.99 Air Monarchs have full length encapsulated air. One of the premium features of signature products dating back to 1982 (and beyond I'm sure).

I also realize that many retro products have price points of $110 and feature heel only air, the same common counterpart that they share with the $90 regular version tr1.3s. So are we getting a bargain @ $90, or doubly ripped off @ $110 for paying not only $20 above the $90, but even as a $90 dollar product, is $10-20 too high. Products used to be easily distiniguishable based on the price of the item.. Now it all seems to be based on what Nike can get by on consumers.. Just be careful guys.. I would wager to say those $50 Monarchs, whom the older crowd seems to love has a cushioning set up better than anything Nike currently has up to $115 bucks.

Nike's running line is just as random.. Pegasus with heel only zoom and some sort of foam forefoot is $109.99. The zoom structure with dual zoom sits in at $99.99, and the Vomero @ $129.99.

Whether a shoe has air or not shouldn't be the only basis for how good it is, seeing as how many other branded running shoes are foam only (brooks or asics). But I've had just other worldly experiences with zoom and for me to see it on just a few products is puzzling.

If you're out there looking for shoes, price alone is no longer a great gauge of supremacy in construction and cushioning ability.

I personally see a grim future for Nike cross trainers if we are dropping $115 on frees.

too long man don't write a book

jk....kinda.

 

[ssharks]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Even the zoom huarache tr, as a $115 mid, or $99.99 low had heel only zoom and your typical foam up front.
For $10- $15 less right now, the free zilla trainer has the same offerings as the free trainer 1.3.

Maybe my voice isn't heard loud enough or other older shoe fans have moved on, but today's heel only air shoes would be considered 2nd tier products, sitting some $20-40 odd dollars below signature models.

I ask this simple question, where are the signature products? We have signature prices, but no true products? A running outsole/midsole on the upper of a trainer doesn't count. One could only merely run in those.

Is it me that is in a love fest with air based products? Your $49.99 Air Monarchs have full length encapsulated air. One of the premium features of signature products dating back to 1982 (and beyond I'm sure).

I also realize that many retro products have price points of $110 and feature heel only air, the same common counterpart that they share with the $90 regular version tr1.3s. So are we getting a bargain @ $90, or doubly ripped off @ $110 for paying not only $20 above the $90, but even as a $90 dollar product, is $10-20 too high. Products used to be easily distiniguishable based on the price of the item.. Now it all seems to be based on what Nike can get by on consumers.. Just be careful guys.. I would wager to say those $50 Monarchs, whom the older crowd seems to love has a cushioning set up better than anything Nike currently has up to $115 bucks.

Nike's running line is just as random.. Pegasus with heel only zoom and some sort of foam forefoot is $109.99. The zoom structure with dual zoom sits in at $99.99, and the Vomero @ $129.99.

Whether a shoe has air or not shouldn't be the only basis for how good it is, seeing as how many other branded running shoes are foam only (brooks or asics). But I've had just other worldly experiences with zoom and for me to see it on just a few products is puzzling.

If you're out there looking for shoes, price alone is no longer a great gauge of supremacy in construction and cushioning ability.

I personally see a grim future for Nike cross trainers if we are dropping $115 on frees.

too long man don't write a book

jk....kinda.

 

[shindo03]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Even the zoom huarache tr, as a $115 mid, or $99.99 low had heel only zoom and your typical foam up front.
For $10- $15 less right now, the free zilla trainer has the same offerings as the free trainer 1.3.

Maybe my voice isn't heard loud enough or other older shoe fans have moved on, but today's heel only air shoes would be considered 2nd tier products, sitting some $20-40 odd dollars below signature models.

I ask this simple question, where are the signature products? We have signature prices, but no true products? A running outsole/midsole on the upper of a trainer doesn't count. One could only merely run in those.

Is it me that is in a love fest with air based products? Your $49.99 Air Monarchs have full length encapsulated air. One of the premium features of signature products dating back to 1982 (and beyond I'm sure).

I also realize that many retro products have price points of $110 and feature heel only air, the same common counterpart that they share with the $90 regular version tr1.3s. So are we getting a bargain @ $90, or doubly ripped off @ $110 for paying not only $20 above the $90, but even as a $90 dollar product, is $10-20 too high. Products used to be easily distiniguishable based on the price of the item.. Now it all seems to be based on what Nike can get by on consumers.. Just be careful guys.. I would wager to say those $50 Monarchs, whom the older crowd seems to love has a cushioning set up better than anything Nike currently has up to $115 bucks.

Nike's running line is just as random.. Pegasus with heel only zoom and some sort of foam forefoot is $109.99. The zoom structure with dual zoom sits in at $99.99, and the Vomero @ $129.99.

Whether a shoe has air or not shouldn't be the only basis for how good it is, seeing as how many other branded running shoes are foam only (brooks or asics). But I've had just other worldly experiences with zoom and for me to see it on just a few products is puzzling.

If you're out there looking for shoes, price alone is no longer a great gauge of supremacy in construction and cushioning ability.

I personally see a grim future for Nike cross trainers if we are dropping $115 on frees.

Send it to Nike. Inflation is my only guess for the inefficient and steep prices. I can really understand that you feel that Nike is being inadequate pricing guidelines for there signature and 2nd tier products. I can see your concern but it's not just the issue with trainers but it's Nike as a whole. And it's not going to change anytime soon. Which is the sad part. We are in a time where only 50% or less of the consumers really care for performance. I mean of course we want the shoes to be comfortable but what's the real reason people shovel out the big dough. Nostalgic Design and Colorway. All Aesthetics. Like you said it's all about what Nike can get by on consumers. The prettier it looks the less likely people will pay attention to the technical part of the shoes. And the other 50% that do care don't even know what there buying and think they are getting a top-tier signature sneaker.

I mean look at all the Nike lines. Jordan is based off Nostalgic Design. Nike Sportswear again Nostalgic Design. Nike Basketball Colorway just look at the Southbeaches and Grinches and tell it's not true. Nike Training, I mean if this particular shoe did not have the college colorways then it would just be sitting (kind of like the ones sitting on eastbay right now). Nike SB Colorway. Nike Running is neither but is one of the biggest gimmicks out there non of the BS is actual even good for your feet.... if you read any Runner's Blogs or Magazines Nike is never in the top 5 running shoes. That's why professional Orthopedic Physicians for Running Athletes don't even suggest Nike.... They suggest Asics, New Balance, Saucony, etc. Like I said earlier they brainwash the other 50% into thinking there getting this New Hi Tech Material. Like Lunarlon LMFAO. And then Air Max in sneakers is soooo bad for running, the BS Lunar material is better for running and that stuff is BS too. It's okay but it's not all space age and hi tech. Just Genius Nike Marketing at it's best.  Nike Soccer will eventually be sucked into all this too.

But at the end of the day Nike is what I'm drawn to and I'm not purchasing the shoe for technical purposes. I am purchasing it cause it looks GREATTTTTTT. hahaha. Sorry for the essay peace. What a contradicting write up hahaha.

 

[shindo03]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Even the zoom huarache tr, as a $115 mid, or $99.99 low had heel only zoom and your typical foam up front.
For $10- $15 less right now, the free zilla trainer has the same offerings as the free trainer 1.3.

Maybe my voice isn't heard loud enough or other older shoe fans have moved on, but today's heel only air shoes would be considered 2nd tier products, sitting some $20-40 odd dollars below signature models.

I ask this simple question, where are the signature products? We have signature prices, but no true products? A running outsole/midsole on the upper of a trainer doesn't count. One could only merely run in those.

Is it me that is in a love fest with air based products? Your $49.99 Air Monarchs have full length encapsulated air. One of the premium features of signature products dating back to 1982 (and beyond I'm sure).

I also realize that many retro products have price points of $110 and feature heel only air, the same common counterpart that they share with the $90 regular version tr1.3s. So are we getting a bargain @ $90, or doubly ripped off @ $110 for paying not only $20 above the $90, but even as a $90 dollar product, is $10-20 too high. Products used to be easily distiniguishable based on the price of the item.. Now it all seems to be based on what Nike can get by on consumers.. Just be careful guys.. I would wager to say those $50 Monarchs, whom the older crowd seems to love has a cushioning set up better than anything Nike currently has up to $115 bucks.

Nike's running line is just as random.. Pegasus with heel only zoom and some sort of foam forefoot is $109.99. The zoom structure with dual zoom sits in at $99.99, and the Vomero @ $129.99.

Whether a shoe has air or not shouldn't be the only basis for how good it is, seeing as how many other branded running shoes are foam only (brooks or asics). But I've had just other worldly experiences with zoom and for me to see it on just a few products is puzzling.

If you're out there looking for shoes, price alone is no longer a great gauge of supremacy in construction and cushioning ability.

I personally see a grim future for Nike cross trainers if we are dropping $115 on frees.

Send it to Nike. Inflation is my only guess for the inefficient and steep prices. I can really understand that you feel that Nike is being inadequate pricing guidelines for there signature and 2nd tier products. I can see your concern but it's not just the issue with trainers but it's Nike as a whole. And it's not going to change anytime soon. Which is the sad part. We are in a time where only 50% or less of the consumers really care for performance. I mean of course we want the shoes to be comfortable but what's the real reason people shovel out the big dough. Nostalgic Design and Colorway. All Aesthetics. Like you said it's all about what Nike can get by on consumers. The prettier it looks the less likely people will pay attention to the technical part of the shoes. And the other 50% that do care don't even know what there buying and think they are getting a top-tier signature sneaker.

I mean look at all the Nike lines. Jordan is based off Nostalgic Design. Nike Sportswear again Nostalgic Design. Nike Basketball Colorway just look at the Southbeaches and Grinches and tell it's not true. Nike Training, I mean if this particular shoe did not have the college colorways then it would just be sitting (kind of like the ones sitting on eastbay right now). Nike SB Colorway. Nike Running is neither but is one of the biggest gimmicks out there non of the BS is actual even good for your feet.... if you read any Runner's Blogs or Magazines Nike is never in the top 5 running shoes. That's why professional Orthopedic Physicians for Running Athletes don't even suggest Nike.... They suggest Asics, New Balance, Saucony, etc. Like I said earlier they brainwash the other 50% into thinking there getting this New Hi Tech Material. Like Lunarlon LMFAO. And then Air Max in sneakers is soooo bad for running, the BS Lunar material is better for running and that stuff is BS too. It's okay but it's not all space age and hi tech. Just Genius Nike Marketing at it's best.  Nike Soccer will eventually be sucked into all this too.

But at the end of the day Nike is what I'm drawn to and I'm not purchasing the shoe for technical purposes. I am purchasing it cause it looks GREATTTTTTT. hahaha. Sorry for the essay peace. What a contradicting write up hahaha.

 

[t21d]

Originally Posted by shindo03

   Nike Soccer will eventually be sucked into all this too.

It's already there. AdiO's f50 are just as light and $200 cheaper.

 

[t21d]

Originally Posted by shindo03

   Nike Soccer will eventually be sucked into all this too.

It's already there. AdiO's f50 are just as light and $200 cheaper.

 

[flintgrey]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Is it me that is in a love fest with air based products? Your $49.99 Air Monarchs have full length encapsulated air. One of the premium features of signature products dating back to 1982 (and beyond I'm sure).

Excellent point on the $50 "Air" shoes...

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Nike's running line is just as random.. Pegasus with heel only zoom and some sort of foam forefoot is $109.99. The zoom structure with dual zoom sits in at $99.99, and the Vomero @ $129.99.

Actually, Pegasus' retail is $90.

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

If you're out there looking for shoes, price alone is no longer a great gauge of supremacy in construction and cushioning ability.

Wally, I feel your argument. Plus, I know you are a tried & true Nike Training fan for years, so when it comes to your opinion, I listen.

For me, last year's 1.2 and this year's 1.3 do it for me. I don't play all that much basketball, but I play indoor volleyball year round and despite owning dozens of DS basketball shoes, I use my rotation of 1.2s & 1.3s as my go-to kicks on the court. Excellent lateral support and just enough cushioning to not be a heavy shoe.  At the gym, if I'm not wearing a running shoe, I am in on one of my 1.2/1.3s.

I love the 1.3. I actually prefer it over the 1.3 Max Trainer, which has an upper thats one of the oddest shaped and most uncomfortable I've worn in years. 

But the plain jane 1.3 is one of my favorite releases this year.  Forget the hyped colorways/school colorways....I'll take some GR colorways and call it a day.

Originally Posted by KingJay718

Excluding the special makeups because we all know the ypebeasta re gonna buy them up, but are these 1.3 kicks really that good? They've sold out at a few spots around my way. I'm ready to replace my Trainer 1.

Make the switch!  1.3 FTW!

 

[flintgrey]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Is it me that is in a love fest with air based products? Your $49.99 Air Monarchs have full length encapsulated air. One of the premium features of signature products dating back to 1982 (and beyond I'm sure).

Excellent point on the $50 "Air" shoes...

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Nike's running line is just as random.. Pegasus with heel only zoom and some sort of foam forefoot is $109.99. The zoom structure with dual zoom sits in at $99.99, and the Vomero @ $129.99.

Actually, Pegasus' retail is $90.

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

If you're out there looking for shoes, price alone is no longer a great gauge of supremacy in construction and cushioning ability.

Wally, I feel your argument. Plus, I know you are a tried & true Nike Training fan for years, so when it comes to your opinion, I listen.

For me, last year's 1.2 and this year's 1.3 do it for me. I don't play all that much basketball, but I play indoor volleyball year round and despite owning dozens of DS basketball shoes, I use my rotation of 1.2s & 1.3s as my go-to kicks on the court. Excellent lateral support and just enough cushioning to not be a heavy shoe.  At the gym, if I'm not wearing a running shoe, I am in on one of my 1.2/1.3s.

I love the 1.3. I actually prefer it over the 1.3 Max Trainer, which has an upper thats one of the oddest shaped and most uncomfortable I've worn in years. 

But the plain jane 1.3 is one of my favorite releases this year.  Forget the hyped colorways/school colorways....I'll take some GR colorways and call it a day.

Originally Posted by KingJay718

Excluding the special makeups because we all know the ypebeasta re gonna buy them up, but are these 1.3 kicks really that good? They've sold out at a few spots around my way. I'm ready to replace my Trainer 1.

Make the switch!  1.3 FTW!