No Heel Cushioning Unit in recent Nike shoes? KD's, Hyperfuse, Zoom Go Low? What's the deal...

[keonclark7]

So the KD's didn't have any heel cushioning units. Fine, Nike had a excuse for not having a heel cushioning unit in Kevin Durant's shoes. "He's always on his toes!" I'd still put something there to protect the athlete from odd time he does land on his heels. And what about the thousands of people buying his shoes? They can't all be forefoot strikers. Don't you want to protect them from injury as well? The excuse is weak but why no heel cushioning unit in the Hyerfuse or Zoom Go Low, too?

- No heel unit, no long term durability. They might be okay to start but it won't last, the open-celled foams will bottom out and it's cushioning ability will degrade. Especially as a shoe released during the summer for outdoor ball on unforgiving surfaces, their cushioning life will be even shorter and the importance of cushioning is even greater.

- Forefoot Zoom is great but heel cushioning is more important than forefoot cushioning. The heel experiences much more force than the forefoot (7-10x body weight in heel, 3-5x body weight in forefoot). Plus, the heel can only rely on a pad of fat to absorb shock, whereas the impact in the forefoot can be absorbed by the attenuation of the entire leg (ankles, knees, hips).

- Nike is being cheap! They've released many shoes in the past with the same (or lower) retail price with better cushioning setups. Example,

- Zoom Drive, Forefoot + Caged Heel Zoom, $90.

- Zoom Ambassador, Forefoot + Heel Zoom, $85.

 

[keonclark7]

So the KD's didn't have any heel cushioning units. Fine, Nike had a excuse for not having a heel cushioning unit in Kevin Durant's shoes. "He's always on his toes!" I'd still put something there to protect the athlete from odd time he does land on his heels. And what about the thousands of people buying his shoes? They can't all be forefoot strikers. Don't you want to protect them from injury as well? The excuse is weak but why no heel cushioning unit in the Hyerfuse or Zoom Go Low, too?

- No heel unit, no long term durability. They might be okay to start but it won't last, the open-celled foams will bottom out and it's cushioning ability will degrade. Especially as a shoe released during the summer for outdoor ball on unforgiving surfaces, their cushioning life will be even shorter and the importance of cushioning is even greater.

- Forefoot Zoom is great but heel cushioning is more important than forefoot cushioning. The heel experiences much more force than the forefoot (7-10x body weight in heel, 3-5x body weight in forefoot). Plus, the heel can only rely on a pad of fat to absorb shock, whereas the impact in the forefoot can be absorbed by the attenuation of the entire leg (ankles, knees, hips).

- Nike is being cheap! They've released many shoes in the past with the same (or lower) retail price with better cushioning setups. Example,

- Zoom Drive, Forefoot + Caged Heel Zoom, $90.

- Zoom Ambassador, Forefoot + Heel Zoom, $85.

 

[montemex3]

It's ******ed how NIKE advertises "Zoom Air" on the Hyperfuse model when it's not even there lol,

 

[montemex3]

It's ******ed how NIKE advertises "Zoom Air" on the Hyperfuse model when it's not even there lol,

 

[scshift]

Many of the thousands of people who bought these forefoot only shoes aren't really into sneakers. They got them because KD endorsed them and they thought they looked cool. Of course there are people who do care about what they wear and check out cushioning, but for the most part, people don't know the details and Nike knows things will sell.

Me personally, I'd rather have forefoot than heel cushioning. I usually don't heel strike unless I'm walking and especially when I play ball I'm on my toes alot. It is true however that the heel takes in more force than the forefoot.

Nike is being cheap, but one side of the argument is that if they add heel cushioning the cost will rise. Obviously the manufacturing costs are only a couple of cents but Nike would add $10+ to the price and that would make it unattractive to buyers.

Wasn't the Zoom Ambassador released in Asia? And it was only $85? I could've swore it was around $100-110 when I saw the 2nd one there.

 

[scshift]

Many of the thousands of people who bought these forefoot only shoes aren't really into sneakers. They got them because KD endorsed them and they thought they looked cool. Of course there are people who do care about what they wear and check out cushioning, but for the most part, people don't know the details and Nike knows things will sell.

Me personally, I'd rather have forefoot than heel cushioning. I usually don't heel strike unless I'm walking and especially when I play ball I'm on my toes alot. It is true however that the heel takes in more force than the forefoot.

Nike is being cheap, but one side of the argument is that if they add heel cushioning the cost will rise. Obviously the manufacturing costs are only a couple of cents but Nike would add $10+ to the price and that would make it unattractive to buyers.

Wasn't the Zoom Ambassador released in Asia? And it was only $85? I could've swore it was around $100-110 when I saw the 2nd one there.

 

[mt3130]

Me personally, I'd rather have forefoot than heel cushioning. I usually don't heel strike unless I'm walking and especially when I play ball I'm on my toes alot. It is true however that the heel takes in more force than the forefoot.


QFT...shoes without heel cushion don't really bother me, but my forefoot area is super sore when i play in shoes without forefoot cushion.

 

[mt3130]

Me personally, I'd rather have forefoot than heel cushioning. I usually don't heel strike unless I'm walking and especially when I play ball I'm on my toes alot. It is true however that the heel takes in more force than the forefoot.


QFT...shoes without heel cushion don't really bother me, but my forefoot area is super sore when i play in shoes without forefoot cushion.

 

[dr damon]

nike is just flat out being cheap and increasing profit margins, which is why i am pretty much done with buying nike basketball and will only stick to shoes with full length zoom to play in, which are becoming more and more scarce. Nike in the last 5 years or so during the recent sneakerhead boom have continued to increase the foam content, and decrease the air content which will decrease durability in the long run, therefore making it much more necessary to purchase another pair of shoes sooner. One example, the zoom flight club was 110 bucks with a large heel only zoom and nothing in the forefoot, and kobes with heel zoom and a forefoot dot under the 1st metatarsal, but the bb2s were 100 bucks for full length zoom. the zoom tennis trainers from not too long ago had heel and forefoot zoom for 85 bucks, what the heck is going on at nike? there have been previous nike basketball shoes with heel and forefoot zoom or normal air units at the 85 to 90 dollar price point air stimulus flight, team huarache, etc. back in the late 80s, and early to mid 90s, if it was a nike shoe and cost 85 bucks, it would have heel and forefoot air, any higher price, might include visible air, air max, or be a jordan or other signature shoe. now more than ever with nike basketball, it seems that they are really really increasing the profit margins.

 

[dr damon]

nike is just flat out being cheap and increasing profit margins, which is why i am pretty much done with buying nike basketball and will only stick to shoes with full length zoom to play in, which are becoming more and more scarce. Nike in the last 5 years or so during the recent sneakerhead boom have continued to increase the foam content, and decrease the air content which will decrease durability in the long run, therefore making it much more necessary to purchase another pair of shoes sooner. One example, the zoom flight club was 110 bucks with a large heel only zoom and nothing in the forefoot, and kobes with heel zoom and a forefoot dot under the 1st metatarsal, but the bb2s were 100 bucks for full length zoom. the zoom tennis trainers from not too long ago had heel and forefoot zoom for 85 bucks, what the heck is going on at nike? there have been previous nike basketball shoes with heel and forefoot zoom or normal air units at the 85 to 90 dollar price point air stimulus flight, team huarache, etc. back in the late 80s, and early to mid 90s, if it was a nike shoe and cost 85 bucks, it would have heel and forefoot air, any higher price, might include visible air, air max, or be a jordan or other signature shoe. now more than ever with nike basketball, it seems that they are really really increasing the profit margins.

 

[mugen ep]

Originally Posted by DR DAMON

nike is just flat out being cheap and increasing profit margins, which is why i am pretty much done with buying nike basketball and will only stick to shoes with full length zoom to play in, which are becoming more and more scarce. Nike in the last 5 years or so during the recent sneakerhead boom have continued to increase the foam content, and decrease the air content which will decrease durability in the long run, therefore making it much more necessary to purchase another pair of shoes sooner. One example, the zoom flight club was 110 bucks with a large heel only zoom and nothing in the forefoot, and kobes with heel zoom and a forefoot dot under the 1st metatarsal, but the bb2s were 100 bucks for full length zoom. the zoom tennis trainers from not too long ago had heel and forefoot zoom for 85 bucks, what the heck is going on at nike? there have been previous nike basketball shoes with heel and forefoot zoom or normal air units at the 85 to 90 dollar price point air stimulus flight, team huarache, etc. back in the late 80s, and early to mid 90s, if it was a nike shoe and cost 85 bucks, it would have heel and forefoot air, any higher price, might include visible air, air max, or be a jordan or other signature shoe. now more than ever with nike basketball, it seems that they are really really increasing the profit margins.

I know some people dont realize this but there is inflation.

$95.00 in 1980 was equivalent to $251.00 today. So if you want to compare prices from back in the day lets look at a reverse situation. If we are paying $105 today its the equivalent of buying a $40 pair back in 1980.


http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

 

[mugen ep]

Originally Posted by DR DAMON

nike is just flat out being cheap and increasing profit margins, which is why i am pretty much done with buying nike basketball and will only stick to shoes with full length zoom to play in, which are becoming more and more scarce. Nike in the last 5 years or so during the recent sneakerhead boom have continued to increase the foam content, and decrease the air content which will decrease durability in the long run, therefore making it much more necessary to purchase another pair of shoes sooner. One example, the zoom flight club was 110 bucks with a large heel only zoom and nothing in the forefoot, and kobes with heel zoom and a forefoot dot under the 1st metatarsal, but the bb2s were 100 bucks for full length zoom. the zoom tennis trainers from not too long ago had heel and forefoot zoom for 85 bucks, what the heck is going on at nike? there have been previous nike basketball shoes with heel and forefoot zoom or normal air units at the 85 to 90 dollar price point air stimulus flight, team huarache, etc. back in the late 80s, and early to mid 90s, if it was a nike shoe and cost 85 bucks, it would have heel and forefoot air, any higher price, might include visible air, air max, or be a jordan or other signature shoe. now more than ever with nike basketball, it seems that they are really really increasing the profit margins.

I know some people dont realize this but there is inflation.

$95.00 in 1980 was equivalent to $251.00 today. So if you want to compare prices from back in the day lets look at a reverse situation. If we are paying $105 today its the equivalent of buying a $40 pair back in 1980.


http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

 

[andfattoo]

youre right Dr Damon, but alot of people are ok with less tech when it comes to cushioning which is allowing Nike to get away with it.

 

[andfattoo]

youre right Dr Damon, but alot of people are ok with less tech when it comes to cushioning which is allowing Nike to get away with it.

 

[nat turner]

Instead of being "cheap", perhaps Nike is simply being smart...

[h1]Ankle injuries in basketball: injury rate and risk factors[/h1]

1. G D McKay1,
2. P A Goldie1,
3. W R Payne2,
4. B W Oakes3

+ Author Affiliations

1. http://[sup]1[/sup]School of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
2. http://[sup]2[/sup]School of Human Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
3. http://[sup]3[/sup]Department of Anatomy, Monash University, Victoria, Australia

1. Correspondence to: Ms McKay, 339 Heidelberg Rd, Northcote, Victoria 3070, Australia [email protected]

• Accepted 27 November 2000

[h2]Abstract[/h2]
Objectives—To determine the rate of ankle injury and examine risk factors of ankle injuries in mainly recreational basketball players.

Methods—Injury observers sat courtside to determine the occurrence of ankle injuries in basketball. Ankle injured players and a group of non-injured basketball players completed a questionnaire.

Results—A total of 10 393 basketball participations were observed and 40 ankle injuries documented. A group of non-injured players formed the control group (n = 360). The rate of ankle injury was 3.85 per 1000 participations, with almost half (45.9%) missing one week or more of competition and the most common mechanism being landing (45%). Over half (56.8%) of the ankle injured basketball players did not seek professional treatment. Three risk factors for ankle injury were identified: (1) players with a history of ankle injury were almost five times more likely to sustain an ankle injury (odds ratio (OR) 4.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95 to); 12.48 (2) players wearing shoes with air cells in the heel were 4.3 times more likely to injure an ankle than those wearing shoes without air cells (OR 4.34, 95% CI 1.51 to 12.40); (3) players who did not stretch before the game were 2.6 times more likely to injure an ankle than players who did (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.34). There was also a trend toward ankle tape decreasing the risk of ankle injury in players with a history of ankle injury (p = 0.06).

Conclusions—Ankle injuries occurred at a rate of 3.85 per 1000 participations. The three identified risk factors, and landing, should all be considered when preventive strategies for ankle injuries in basketball are being formulated.

 

[nat turner]

Instead of being "cheap", perhaps Nike is simply being smart...

[h1]Ankle injuries in basketball: injury rate and risk factors[/h1]

1. G D McKay1,
2. P A Goldie1,
3. W R Payne2,
4. B W Oakes3

+ Author Affiliations

1. http://[sup]1[/sup]School of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
2. http://[sup]2[/sup]School of Human Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
3. http://[sup]3[/sup]Department of Anatomy, Monash University, Victoria, Australia

1. Correspondence to: Ms McKay, 339 Heidelberg Rd, Northcote, Victoria 3070, Australia [email protected]

• Accepted 27 November 2000

[h2]Abstract[/h2]
Objectives—To determine the rate of ankle injury and examine risk factors of ankle injuries in mainly recreational basketball players.

Methods—Injury observers sat courtside to determine the occurrence of ankle injuries in basketball. Ankle injured players and a group of non-injured basketball players completed a questionnaire.

Results—A total of 10 393 basketball participations were observed and 40 ankle injuries documented. A group of non-injured players formed the control group (n = 360). The rate of ankle injury was 3.85 per 1000 participations, with almost half (45.9%) missing one week or more of competition and the most common mechanism being landing (45%). Over half (56.8%) of the ankle injured basketball players did not seek professional treatment. Three risk factors for ankle injury were identified: (1) players with a history of ankle injury were almost five times more likely to sustain an ankle injury (odds ratio (OR) 4.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95 to); 12.48 (2) players wearing shoes with air cells in the heel were 4.3 times more likely to injure an ankle than those wearing shoes without air cells (OR 4.34, 95% CI 1.51 to 12.40); (3) players who did not stretch before the game were 2.6 times more likely to injure an ankle than players who did (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.34). There was also a trend toward ankle tape decreasing the risk of ankle injury in players with a history of ankle injury (p = 0.06).

Conclusions—Ankle injuries occurred at a rate of 3.85 per 1000 participations. The three identified risk factors, and landing, should all be considered when preventive strategies for ankle injuries in basketball are being formulated.

 

[ultrapromoman]

Nike could at least put standard encapsulated Air units in them. They could still keep Kevin Durant's shoes cheap since standard Air's is probably the lowest on the totem pole tech wise by today's standards.

 

[ultrapromoman]

Nike could at least put standard encapsulated Air units in them. They could still keep Kevin Durant's shoes cheap since standard Air's is probably the lowest on the totem pole tech wise by today's standards.

 

[keonclark7]

^ I agree. Encapsulated Air like in the Air Zoom Generation would be sufficient. After looking through the Nike Basketball Chronology in my Sole Provider book, some sort of heel element has always been standard affair unless it was a super low budget model.

scshift: You're right, most people don't know the details and will buy them either way and as andfattoo said, Nike gets away with it. But, that doesn't mean they should be doing it. Although buyers don't know the details, I'm sure they'd want a setup that will last a season of practice and games without the cushioning degrading. People play and run differently and I could see how some would prefer forefoot cushioning over heel cushioning, or vice versa. But, why are we choosing in the first place? We shouldn't have to choose as if we can only have one or the other. In the past, signature/marquee models would never be skimpy on the cushioning.

Nat Turner: So you think the reason these shoes don't have heel Air is cause Nike AGREES that "players wearing shoes with air cells in the heel were 4.3 times more likely to injure an ankle than those wearing shoes without air cells"?! Yeah... I don't need to explain why I doubt this is just Nike simply being smart. It's off topic, but is an interesting study.

At least this makes choosing what shoes to buy a lot easier. It's also easier on the wallet.

 

[keonclark7]

^ I agree. Encapsulated Air like in the Air Zoom Generation would be sufficient. After looking through the Nike Basketball Chronology in my Sole Provider book, some sort of heel element has always been standard affair unless it was a super low budget model.

scshift: You're right, most people don't know the details and will buy them either way and as andfattoo said, Nike gets away with it. But, that doesn't mean they should be doing it. Although buyers don't know the details, I'm sure they'd want a setup that will last a season of practice and games without the cushioning degrading. People play and run differently and I could see how some would prefer forefoot cushioning over heel cushioning, or vice versa. But, why are we choosing in the first place? We shouldn't have to choose as if we can only have one or the other. In the past, signature/marquee models would never be skimpy on the cushioning.

Nat Turner: So you think the reason these shoes don't have heel Air is cause Nike AGREES that "players wearing shoes with air cells in the heel were 4.3 times more likely to injure an ankle than those wearing shoes without air cells"?! Yeah... I don't need to explain why I doubt this is just Nike simply being smart. It's off topic, but is an interesting study.

At least this makes choosing what shoes to buy a lot easier. It's also easier on the wallet.

 

[wallyhopp]

Great topic. I've been following the dieing trend for awhile.

I think you can count on just one hand out of hundreds of models, the # of nike shoes with dual/full length zoom/air. I'll get into that later.


NatTurner, do you believe that the bounce back or feedback that the air gives a player is what creates a sprained ankle? Like a negative effect in regards to the impact cushioning? Or is it because of the height of the shoe, as you mentioned in another thread. Where the foot is just too far off the ground and has a roll over effect?

I'm not buying the foot too high off the ground excuse because non air shoes are just as thick in the midsole as shoes with air.

 

[wallyhopp]

Great topic. I've been following the dieing trend for awhile.

I think you can count on just one hand out of hundreds of models, the # of nike shoes with dual/full length zoom/air. I'll get into that later.


NatTurner, do you believe that the bounce back or feedback that the air gives a player is what creates a sprained ankle? Like a negative effect in regards to the impact cushioning? Or is it because of the height of the shoe, as you mentioned in another thread. Where the foot is just too far off the ground and has a roll over effect?

I'm not buying the foot too high off the ground excuse because non air shoes are just as thick in the midsole as shoes with air.

 

[xsalvioutlawx]

Because of the cost? That's why the retail for Hyperfuses is only $100? It would be too much of a good thing if they included it for that price.

I'm assuming that's why

 

[xsalvioutlawx]

Because of the cost? That's why the retail for Hyperfuses is only $100? It would be too much of a good thing if they included it for that price.

I'm assuming that's why

 

[detox2k2]

it's obvious Nike is being cheap. I remember them saying in a press conference that they want to increase profitability in the billions by 2015. So they're trimming any way they know how and as long as consumers purchase their product they will continue to do so.