- 1,079
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
Just got these Tuesday (black/blue) and played for three hours last night, full court, 5 on 5, in a clean court at the UT-Arlington Campus. I am 5-10",200 lb., defensive, pull up 3, drive and dish game. My current rotation is AJXXI, T-Mac VI, Crazy 8, LBIV, AZK I, and Duke Uptempos. After the second pair ofmy Zoom 95's bubble squeaking, I took them back and got the 96's. I had these back when they first came out ( I was 22) and still occasionally wearthem, so there will be some comparisons. My initial review as follows:
Comfort and Sizing: I wore a 10.5 in the 95, and in all the shoes above, but in these I went up to an 11. The toe-box is cut narrow just past the ball of thefoot, and although the length was good on the 10.5, the 11 felt tighter. The laces are extremely accomodating for most feet, and you are able to loosen them upall along the shoe, but the 11 just felt better. The first thing when putting them on you will notice is the ankle collar. The padding is THICK, but not dense,giving you the ability to lace them tight. The lack of density allows the ankle to form around your foot and fit a little better. There was no noticablemovement in the heel even when laced pre-game tight. The next thing is the inner. From the outside, it looks like it would have exposed seams from thelayering, but the only discomfort I felt was a little bit in the pinky toe, but after I adjusted the laces a little tighter, it went away. Just a little sideto side at the start was the cause, but tighter lacing did the trick. On a side note, I remember the OG causing numbness in my toes when I played, as I noticein a number of Zoom-based shoes, but no such problem in these.
Cushioning & Traction: On point. I love the feel of all of these retros lately, as they seem to fit my old foot better, but these may be the best. The Zoomis the pillowy type in the heel (like the AZK 3) and springy-responsive in the forefoot. They really felt better than the newer models I have bought lately,but again I am biased to the older shoes from a personal fit standpoint. Very responsive and low to the court in the forefoot, although not as low as the AZK Ior the Jet Flights, which I was wearing when I bought these for comparison. I played 7 games and never felt my feet get tired or experience any shock from hardlandings. Like I mentioned above, the OG had my toes numb, so I was a little hesitant in buying these, but the cushion just feels so much livelier in theretro. On the traction side, I read someone saying the OG's had terrible traction, and while I won't say terrible, they were a dropoff from the 95, andI remember the black on the circles ripping off the OG. These had perfect traction (remember, indoor clean court), and I never once slipped while driving orplaying D. Some have griped about the outsole blue being lighter than the OG, but I think this may be the cause of the improved grip. The old darker blue was aharder material and didn't flex as much as the retro, so a new material could have been used, making the blue lighter and gummier (like a gum-outsole). Noidea on the specs, I just know I never had a problem.
Support and Stability: Laced up tight, the ankle foam forms a tight barrier around the joint. Although the material feels light and flimsy, the woven fabricwrap on the heel gives it a more rigid feel. Coupled with the higher than normal heel counter and the plastic-in-foam heel wrap, my ankles and feet neverstrayed. I know when these first came out, everyone thought the black plastic wrap was the actual Zoom, but it is a counter, kind of an evolution of thebubbles from the 95. The base under the toes is wide, and even without an outrigger, these still felt stable on cuts and defense. One of the most naturalfeeling shoes out of the box I have worn in years.
As for durability, like any shoe, these crease. As you can see, I play in mine and expect them to get damaged, like I do in every shoe. These show some toe boxcreasing, but nothing major. The woven fabric around the heel is still perfect. I know there will be some comparison to the 95, but for straight comfort theseare better. No ankle rub, better fit, and heel cushion is better. The Zoom forefoot in the 95 felt more responsive, but these are a close second. Great shoe,and Finishline.com has them for 99.99 and then the $10 coupon.
Comfort and Sizing: I wore a 10.5 in the 95, and in all the shoes above, but in these I went up to an 11. The toe-box is cut narrow just past the ball of thefoot, and although the length was good on the 10.5, the 11 felt tighter. The laces are extremely accomodating for most feet, and you are able to loosen them upall along the shoe, but the 11 just felt better. The first thing when putting them on you will notice is the ankle collar. The padding is THICK, but not dense,giving you the ability to lace them tight. The lack of density allows the ankle to form around your foot and fit a little better. There was no noticablemovement in the heel even when laced pre-game tight. The next thing is the inner. From the outside, it looks like it would have exposed seams from thelayering, but the only discomfort I felt was a little bit in the pinky toe, but after I adjusted the laces a little tighter, it went away. Just a little sideto side at the start was the cause, but tighter lacing did the trick. On a side note, I remember the OG causing numbness in my toes when I played, as I noticein a number of Zoom-based shoes, but no such problem in these.
Cushioning & Traction: On point. I love the feel of all of these retros lately, as they seem to fit my old foot better, but these may be the best. The Zoomis the pillowy type in the heel (like the AZK 3) and springy-responsive in the forefoot. They really felt better than the newer models I have bought lately,but again I am biased to the older shoes from a personal fit standpoint. Very responsive and low to the court in the forefoot, although not as low as the AZK Ior the Jet Flights, which I was wearing when I bought these for comparison. I played 7 games and never felt my feet get tired or experience any shock from hardlandings. Like I mentioned above, the OG had my toes numb, so I was a little hesitant in buying these, but the cushion just feels so much livelier in theretro. On the traction side, I read someone saying the OG's had terrible traction, and while I won't say terrible, they were a dropoff from the 95, andI remember the black on the circles ripping off the OG. These had perfect traction (remember, indoor clean court), and I never once slipped while driving orplaying D. Some have griped about the outsole blue being lighter than the OG, but I think this may be the cause of the improved grip. The old darker blue was aharder material and didn't flex as much as the retro, so a new material could have been used, making the blue lighter and gummier (like a gum-outsole). Noidea on the specs, I just know I never had a problem.
Support and Stability: Laced up tight, the ankle foam forms a tight barrier around the joint. Although the material feels light and flimsy, the woven fabricwrap on the heel gives it a more rigid feel. Coupled with the higher than normal heel counter and the plastic-in-foam heel wrap, my ankles and feet neverstrayed. I know when these first came out, everyone thought the black plastic wrap was the actual Zoom, but it is a counter, kind of an evolution of thebubbles from the 95. The base under the toes is wide, and even without an outrigger, these still felt stable on cuts and defense. One of the most naturalfeeling shoes out of the box I have worn in years.
As for durability, like any shoe, these crease. As you can see, I play in mine and expect them to get damaged, like I do in every shoe. These show some toe boxcreasing, but nothing major. The woven fabric around the heel is still perfect. I know there will be some comparison to the 95, but for straight comfort theseare better. No ankle rub, better fit, and heel cushion is better. The Zoom forefoot in the 95 felt more responsive, but these are a close second. Great shoe,and Finishline.com has them for 99.99 and then the $10 coupon.
