THE OFFICIAL ADIDAS THREAD OF JAMES HARDEN - VOLUME 8 IN LOS ANGELES (CLIPPERS)

Should Vol. 2 have a new thread or keep it here?

  • Here

    Votes: 56 73.7%

  • New

    Votes: 20 26.3%
  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
Show All
Well if its 140 good luck with adidas trying to top nike in basketball. It rly should be 120 its like an NMD. And at that price point it can actually compete and get some attention. Speaking of attention they better get some good colorways out fast cause judging from comments on social media platforms, people are not liking these colorways.
 
tony75722 said:
Well if its 140 good luck with adidas trying to top nike in basketball. It rly should be 120 its like an NMD. And at that price point it can actually compete and get some attention. Speaking of attention they better get some good colorways out fast cause judging from comments on social media platforms, people are not liking these colorways.
Click to expand...

agreed.

video review from sneakerhighway its in chinese tho:

 
I need to see Harden wear these. So used to seeing him in the Vol 1 which is much more flat and long and narrow looking. Completely different shape with the Vol 2's.
 
patB1489 said:
Any idea about the padding around the ankle/tongue in the Vol. 2? I know that's a weird concern, but I loved the padding in the Vol. 1
Click to expand...
Doesnt seem to be any padding in the tongue or collar. Sure theres some padding inside the heal of the shoe but nowhere near to as much padding as the vol1s
 
I liked the tongue padding in the 1s. Hope the tongue on the 2s has enough padding. I hate shoes where I get unnecessary lace pressure. I wish adidas would release the 2s sooner than all star weekend since they don't want to release any more 1s in the US. Still frustrated we didn't get the navy, black, or pink toes that released overseas in Nov/Dec.
 
^ So true for Adidas bball lows.

I can't remember the last one I liked that I didn't have to tie down super tight to feel locked down. The Lillard 1 was awful in that area and the CLB 2016 and CE Low 2016 are only a little better. I can tighten a lot of other lows without the same pressure, like the CF Drive low or XX9 low.
 
tony75722 said:
Well if its 140 good luck with adidas trying to top nike in basketball. It rly should be 120 its like an NMD. And at that price point it can actually compete and get some attention. Speaking of attention they better get some good colorways out fast cause judging from comments on social media platforms, people are not liking these colorways.
Click to expand...
Could not disagree with this logic any more. No relevance to NMDs whatsoever, comparing a hoop show to casual wear NMDs , boost being a overpriced martkety lol...right because u csnt tell the difference between the boost in a rose or CE vs a rose or CLB shoe.
 
tony75722 said:
Well if its 140 good luck with adidas trying to top nike in basketball. It rly should be 120 its like an NMD. And at that price point it can actually compete and get some attention. Speaking of attention they better get some good colorways out fast cause judging from comments on social media platforms, people are not liking these colorways.
Click to expand...
Vol. 1 was $140 so what's your justification for reducing the price of the second model?
 
kaz109 said:
Could not disagree with this logic any more. No relevance to NMDs whatsoever, comparing a hoop show to casual wear NMDs , boost being a overpriced martkety lol...right because u csnt tell the difference between the boost in a rose or CE vs a rose or CLB shoe.
Click to expand...
Pay him no mind, just making wild *** claims with no facts.
 
The materials and build quality of the Harden 1 would be priced at least $170 if Nike was putting them out.
 
Gotcha! :nthat:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4826.JPG
    IMG_4826.JPG
    220.9 KB · Views: 31
No need to be rude guys it was my opinion. 140 is above average for a lot of people and that maybe is why hardens arent selling as much as PGs or kyries.. Itd be smart if adidas made the price lower simply cause hardens were nowhere near selling as much as nike athletes. Especially since nike still maintains to be the norm for majority of basketball sneakers. I compared the vol2s to NMDs because obviously NMDs are insanely popular for only 120 retail that have around the same amount of boost as vol2s and have way more attention than any adidas basketball sneaker. Adidas would have to think OUTSIDE the basketball community considering adidas is still below nike im basketball. I dont think the average person or even a basketball person would pay 140+ for the shoe that proclaims to be "ugly" by the internet.

Hope u guys can actually respect my opinion instead of being a bunch of jerks.

Ps I looked back and still stand my ground on this. Look how quick adidas went to start selling the vol 3s
 
Last edited:
tony75722 said:
No need to be rude guys it was my opinion. 140 is above average for a lot of people and that maybe is why hardens arent selling as much as PGs or kyries.. Itd be smart if adidas made the price lower simply cause hardens were nowhere near selling as much as nike athletes. Especially since nike still maintains to be the norm for majority of basketball sneakers. I compared the vol2s to NMDs because obviously NMDs are insanely popular for only 120 retail that have around the same amount of boost as vol2s and have way more attention than any adidas basketball sneaker. Adidas would have to think OUTSIDE the basketball community considering adidas is still below nike im basketball. I dont think the average person or even a basketball person would pay 140+ for the shoe that proclaims to be "ugly" by the internet. Hope u guys can actually respect my opinion plz
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion but Adidas can't price their flagship model shoe at $120, that price point devalues the shoe.
 
tony75722 said:
No need to be rude guys it was my opinion. 140 is above average for a lot of people and that maybe is why hardens arent selling as much as PGs or kyries.. Itd be smart if adidas made the price lower simply cause hardens were nowhere near selling as much as nike athletes. Especially since nike still maintains to be the norm for majority of basketball sneakers. I compared the vol2s to NMDs because obviously NMDs are insanely popular for only 120 retail that have around the same amount of boost as vol2s and have way more attention than any adidas basketball sneaker. Adidas would have to think OUTSIDE the basketball community considering adidas is still below nike im basketball. I dont think the average person or even a basketball person would pay 140+ for the shoe that proclaims to be "ugly" by the internet. Hope u guys can actually respect my opinion plz
Click to expand...

Let's be honest here.

If you're spending over $100 on a pair of basketball shoes and $20 is make or break for you, then you shouldn't be spending over $100 on basketball shoes in the first place.
 
Every penny counts.

But I think it's going to be priced at $160, looks like a thick slab of Boost on the midsole.
 
I don't really care what the retail price is since I won't be paying it regardless haha. I'm sure a lot of you are in the same boat. I have a few pairs I need to play through still.

They did do the non-PK 2016 CE Low for $120, but if the Harden 1 was $140, Harden 2 will probably be at or higher than that. That makes the $125 for Westbrook's signature all the more appealing with full Zoom. Something is still fishy about that. I want to see Fastpass open those up and show us what's up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tupac003
***Official Los Angeles Dodgers 2024 Thread!*** 14-11. Shohei murdered a baseball.
35 36 37
Replies
922
Views
82K
tupac003
tupac003

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom