|
talking about where the J line went wrong and pointing to the 17, 18, 22, etc.
my opinion is this
1- Classic silhouette, worthless as a performance shoe, cool in OG colors ONLY.
2- Softer casual shoe, not much to look at and generally dull AF. OG colors and Melos vaguely acceptable.
3- Bonafide beauty, great in some new colors, all OG colors except the fire red (WTF is that on the toe? Brown?)
4- Nice silhouette but widely overrated IMHO, also kind of heavy and clunky
5- Easily the best of the pre-tech Jordans, legitimately good shoe for basketball for almost any player/position, looked great, too. These were the all-time best seller before the retro whoring out happened, and with good reason. Also loved the quality of the Laney and white/silver + colors.
6- Less visually appealing extension of the 5, also could be balled in, looked cool in a wide array of colors including some non-OG ones (Motorsports are a nouveau classic).
7- This kicked off an era where visually Jordans went backwards but started to define themselves with premium materials and the absence of a swoosh. Sort of a transition model. Shared my thoughts on it above
8- Looked cool though in context they had too much overlap with the Air Raid for me. The tongue logo was a beauty. Comfort wise they were very hit and miss to me, I actually thought the Retro 8 (much like the Retro 12) improved considerably upon the comfort of the original. That's not the case with others, like the 11s and 15s today are way shittier than the OGs or early retros. Not very durable, unlike a lot of other tank-ass Jordans (7, 12, etc).
9- They got cushier and the aesthetics started to get well-defined. It's a shame this was a retirement Jordan, it didn't get its due. I loved the Flint/French blue retro and low key the del sol ones among others. Underrated if anything even though it wouldn't quite crack my top 5.
10- I really did not like these as OGs but when they came back out I kind of dug them. Part of it was colorways like the ice blue and linen. The early colorways looked alike essentially, not much going on. Nice leather, nice cushioning, overall a middle of the road Jordan to me.
11- Obviously a gorgeous silhouette, the OG Air unit felt great. It had some construction issues and the way it narrowed around the lateral side of the foot was annoying. I hate any and all Retro models of it that came after 2008's black/red CDP. Not only have they been ugly (with the exception of the dark red girls' version), they have cheaped out on the cushioning and materials. Obviously a classic, to me personally it's top 5.
12- Love this shoe and the second generation of it was great, kept the materials, improved the feel and may have reduced the weight slightly even. This is the most visually appealing Jordan to me and the most durable. Not great for basketball but not bad either. They look classy and they stay looking that way for a long time. The playoffs colorway is my single favorite AJ model.
13- Another one I love but Nike has raped it of late with cheap ass materials and ugly colorways. OG colorways and some newer ones (altitudes, I will even do the squadron blue, wheat and team red ones) look good or flat out great. The feel was pretty good and they used great materials without weighing a lot. To see the Doernbecher ones, DMP II ones, forthcoming Love & Respect model, etc, it just pains my heart. They look and feel like piping hot garbage.
14- This is where I think the line turned for the worse a bit though I still appreciate the shoe. These were lighter but also felt decidedly cheaper than the three previous models, which I consider the pinnacle of the Jordan line. The midsole creased instanteously upon wear. They were real low to the ground, kind of fast and nice use of Zoom Air but it added to the cheap feel. Technically these are not a post-retirement Jordan, I guess, but they sort of established what would continue in ...
15- Maybe the worst Jordan of all-time. The distinct silhouette and the materials were ambitious, but the result was wretched. The crappy leather around most of the shoe wore poorly, the sole was wack AF and the woven leather really didn't integrate well to a basketball shoe. They were shooting for something like the OG 13, they wound up with someone like the contemporary 13. The retros are worse, cheaper material sourcing and no forefoot zoom.
16- They almost turned it around here, reaching back for a touch of the 11s as those were retroing. The Zoom unit was nice, but beyond some leather overlays, the patent toe and the fucking useless shrouds, this was basically a mesh shoe that was poorly constructed and didn't have great traction. The shroud looked cool but fit and felt weird. It was too integral to the design of the shoe. To me the 16.5 was actually a better shoe as it didn't have the shroud and had a more durable, stable and better cushioned outsole borrowed from ...
17- They officially ditched the whole lateral curvature here and went to a wide base, they also made a big shift toward performance emphasis. Much like the 7, this was a transition model that was kind of plain and unappealing visually but shifted the line. Performance wise it was nice, but the price tag was too high and the leather was on the cheap side, adding insult to injury.
18- Could have been a contender and in fact I'd argue the suede version was pretty awesome. The leather ones creased and cracked too much. I had the black/royal for years, kept buying new pairs. Black/red CDP was also nice. If all the colorways were suede or a grainier leather, I'd fuck with this model hard. It also needed to breath better. But the Zoom Unit was fucking awesome, the carbon fiber was the best plate until the XX8 and the look, while not a classic Jordan, was simple but not boring. I would argue these are another underrated model, though not for AJ purists.
19- These felt great on the bottom but the uppers were clunky and hot. The shoe looked like crap to me, it had too much going on. Materials were pretty nice overall. It was too soon for more patent leather. These are forgotten because they are forgettable. The lows were kind of clean in some colors, same could be said of the 13 and 16 lows though generally I think of Js as 3/4 cut, period.
20- Pod construction was nice for a lot of spinoff models. They looked decent though the ankle strap was pointless from a performance standpoint and detracted from the rest of the shoe. I'd have preferred to see them without it and have the material at the ankle come up higher. These haven't aged well, as seen in the rock-bottom prices on the retros
21- Like the 18, all the colors should have been suede probably but the leather ones did use a very nice leather. Comfortable shoe with some visual appeal but it was just too wide and funky, didn't have an alluring shape to it at all.
22- Very comfortable when new and springy but didn't wear very well and looked like shit. Calling these a Jumpman model would be generous. The basketball ones and omega colorways were passable, generally though these were in the Jumpman Masterpiece category more than an actual numbered Jordan.
23- Ambitious, intriguing but ultimately a bust. Weird outsole. They felt stiff. They fit weird. Not sure who these were made for but it wasn't made. They did look cool in a couple different colorways. The retro makeups have been hideous.
2009- What the fuck is this? Is that a pair of Steve Francis Reeboks? Oh, that's the Air Jordan for this year. KILL IT WITH FIRE.
2010- These looked horrible and felt weird. How can you be boring and too futuristic at the same time? Seemed like a shoe Nike would have designed for Tim Duncan had he still been with the brand. The Team 2010 had the same tooling essentially but looked better and played a lot better IMHO. That was an overlooked model. These were kind of comfy but a little unwieldy (huge outrigger, leather uppers that weren't present on the team version) and the visual appeal wasn't there.
2011- Again these seemed like a Jumpman type model to me. Interchangeable insole concept was nice, performance was pretty good but visually they just had nothing going for them. Completely forgettable and, now, completely forgotten.
2012- I will go to the mat for these. They weren't great to look at and had an early Jumpman model look to them, but they felt and played great. They were durable, they had a great carbon fiber plate, the ankle was well supported and the interchangeable bootie and insole concept was money. For $223 or even the lower amounts that non-"system" models were sold at, they were a rip, but by that point the Jordan models were regulars at the outlets for 50% off. I will single this out as possibly the best AJ between the 14 and XX8. Visually inoffensive, durable and great performers.
XX8- In my opinion one of the best basketball shoes ever made, despite its odd and seemingly worthless shroud concept (I still liked the standard XX8 more than the shroudless SE). The traction is the best I have ever felt. The big Zoom units were not quite the cushiest (think KD6, Hyperflight Max, LeBron X) but close and in terms of responsiveness and stability they were number one. The carbon fiber plate was awesome. This was a great performance shoe and some of the colorways were solid, while others were weird. They didn't take full advantage of the large canvass that the shroud provided and more colorways should have a solid color inside the shroud like the black/black/green ones did. But other than color choices, the design was solid aesthetically and fucking incredible performance-wise. The big Zoom units are here to stay, though the subsequent models have not improved upon them.
XX9- The woven upper is introduced. No Zoom in the heel despite a price increase, that was a disappointment. I like the way they sort of kept you on the balls of your feet and your toes, but they needed something in the heel. Too much slippage in the uppers. The Melo M11 had the same tooling was a much better performer with its heel support and firmer materials. Appearance wise I liked the big Jumpman logo models, the BHM and they used the canvass well on the college PEs, they looked awesome.
XXX- A huge disappointment, more an XX9 SE than a new model. Same tooling with worse traction and while it didn't slip it added new problems at the achilles and toe were it was just too stiff. I wanted to love these but ended up sort of hating them. For some people they were probably great, your foot would have to be a certain shape and you'd play only indoors, I guess. They also looked like shit, very boring.
XXX1- Also a disappointment but they looked a lot better than the XXX to me. The battle grey model felt great. Stability was a major issue and traction was not good. I liked the idea of a full-length Zoom bag that size, but with no transition really in the midfoot it didn't come off very well. Most of the woven upper versions (almost every colorway) didn't work well with the tooling either. These could have felt and performed way better than they did.
XXX2- Haven't tried it but carbon fiber in the midfoot and the upper construction look promising. They look more like a Melo model than a signature Jordan. Performance is going to have to carry them but it just might. And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
