You know what $170 was a huge amount of money than its a pretty big number now, of course back in the day that number looked a lot bigger, but when you think about it all the top tier models and signature models were around $120-$130, so realistically, it was not so different than today. For me it definitely was back than, being in my early teen year, I was stuck wearing worst than Payless shoes and even to dream about having any quality stuff on my feet seemed out of reach.
When it comes to ERS, it was definitely far less responsive and useful than Hexalite, Reebok killed it with the Hexalite back in the day, Hexalite was for Reebok what Zoom was later for Nike, it was an amazing success and such a cool technology, that's why I think Reebok made a tremendous mistake when in 97 they tried to put all of their eggs in one basket with the DMX, quick fact the DMX was a tech that was in place years before and Reebok only used it in models that were only made for walking and it was called DynaMiX or Dynamic Cushioning System, and this is where the name DMX comes from. ERS seemed great on paper, but none of the models I had or any of my friends, felt responsive, but the dense EVA is to blame too, in late 80's and early 90's the Polyurethane midsoles were very hard, that's why most of them crumble and crack over time.
trentbg
with these retailing for $170 in 1989, how did the general consumers react to such a high price point back then? I'm very curious on this because $170 for a basketball shoe in 1989 seems extremely high. It's crazy how we are "content' on paying $170 for shoes now a days with no problem. Also, how does ERS technology feel under foot compared to hexilite? I never tried ERS on any reeboks that I've owned from what i remember.
My apologies, as I started reading your post I was like "duh, he said he didn't like the HIGH tops when we discussed the Air Command Force"...I got blinded by the exceptional price!
