He designed the last couple Lebrons.
as far as reviews etc...are concerned a lot of their products have been rated up to par or even better then their nike counterparts.their designs have low key always been on point
I can't comment on their footwear, but their workout gear is top quality. They hold up extremely well after multiple washes for a couple of years for me. I'd say quality is on par with Nike, which is something I can't say for other brands.
I was recently looking at a runners magazine and some other magazine and in particular I think it was runners world...and most of the top rated shoes were ua, brooks, asics, and new balance.... matter fact the only highly rated/regarded shoes nike had were the flyknit lunar + and the lunarglide 5..... the rest were rated either ok (the frees and the airmax series) or subpar....
This is why running specific stores don't usually carry Nike shoes. I've been using Brooks, Asics, and NBs for years now. They are ugly as sin, but work well. I have heard so many good things about the Nike Free so I bought a pair and was really disappointed in them. I recently bought the Fly Knit Lunar 1, and those are nice. Shoes feel stable at fast speeds, 10 + MPH, but retail at $160 is quite higher than the other brands.
exactly even if you disregard the retro lines...nike in most part sell/produce subpar/mediocre products...Its brand, popularity, namesakes, and overally social acceptance and approval is what keeps it afloat and is the driving force.
Yes. When it comes to Nike, it's all about marketing. This is why all of their Nike locations have a run night of some sort weekly now. They try to get the community involved and most likely buy their running shoes and clothes.
It'll be something like gray/red/black and all of a sudden royal blue comes out of nowhere.
To be honest I don't rock either for a night on the town... I mean I get why one you would...the wow factor...the look at me I have the latest, oldest shoes. But even still many things made solely fashion purposes are made of quality. I could see if the retros etc...where actually that... And they were of poor quality due to their actual age. But to make a 10-15-20 year old shoe...With the quality of its been sitting being worn for 10-15-20 years is inexcusable. Buying some remakes of 10 y/o shoes, whose quality out the gate is of a shoe that has been around/worn 10 years isn't justifiable simply because it has a retro moniker attached to it.you just compared running shoes to retro lines people wear for fashion purposes
no one is rocking Brooks out for a night on the town
