If you buy basketball shoes to play basketball then this could be helpful. If you buy basketball shoes for casual wear then you probably will not care:
My performance test comparing the Kobe 8 against the Kobe 9 Low: Most people have said the 9 Low is better than the Kobe 8. I have repeated that I believe the Kobe 9 is a step backwards. I have balled in both, obviously in the 8 way more however I have played in the 9 Low EM for a total of 12 hours since I received them and that is enough time to break them in and get a good impression of the shoe. I tested them on a clean indoor court double socked because the 9 Lows still have a slight dead space in the toe box similar to the 9 Elite, though not as bad. I went with the same size for the sneakers (both size 9.5). In some of the pictures the length might look different but that's just the angle of the photo; I assure you, they are both the same size.
As far as COMFORT, many say the 9 Low is the most comfortable shoe and more so than the 8. They are some of the most comfortable basketball sneakers but they do not hold a candle to some of the Nike Running sneakers especially those with Fly Knit. In my opinion the Kobe 9 Low does not beat the 8 in this category. They are the same if anything. Nothing changed in the cushioning of the midsole. It is still a Lunarlon Midsole surrounded with an engineered mesh upper. The only thing that did change to the upper was the addition of flywire, which in theory would create pressure points across the foot wherever they traverse. So basically the Kobe 9 Low should be slightly more uncomfortable than the Kobe 8 based on that. That being said, I did NOT notice any pressure points, whether or not it was because of the double socks or something else. The extra padding in the tongue of the 9 Low was noticeable and more comfortable than the 8. The comfort was negatively affected by how Nike decided to shape the upper around the ankle. *FYI: Lunarlon will bottom out fairly quickly, resulting in horrible cushioning.
With the FIT I went TTS. Length wise the 8 and 9 are the same but there is way more dead space in the Kobe 9 toe box. Rather surprising was how Nike got rid of the flex points and collar on the Kobe 9 Low. In the pictures, you can see what I am referring to with the areas circled in neon green. I took a couple photos to show how it affects “bowing” of the engineered mesh between the lowest and 2[sup]nd[/sup] lowest lace eyelets. You can also see that the collar at the top of the shoe wraps around the lower ankle of the foot across the Talus bone much more on the Kobe 8 than the Kobe 9 Low. When looking at the 9 from a superior view (superior end) the upper is now a clean straight edge without any slits or lateral cuts around the tongue. It is clear to see that Nike did this from a manufacturing aspect to cut costs. As stated before, this did affect the comfort slightly. Also, containment was not as good in the Kobe 9 Low. The collar on the Kobe 8 produced somewhat of a down force to cumulatively help the heel clip provide a secure heel lockdown. The 9’s did have great lockdown but even laced extremely tight, they did not have as secure a feel as the Kobe 8. The upper on the 9 Low does not wrap around the arch of the foot as much as 8. I tried to show this in the first picture with two green horizontal lines. Because of this, containment was not the same and I found greater comfort in the 8 since it provided more of a 1 to 1 feeling.
SUPPORT was interesting. Nike decided to remove the glass carbon fiber shank in the Kobe 8 and did not replace it with anything in the Kobe 9 outsole. I did notice some torsional instability but not as much as I thought there would be. I noticed because I had some pain radiate from the arch of my foot after long games (even after breaking in of the Lunarlon midsole). I am curious why they did this. Most relevant, premium basketball sneakers on the market retain some sort of mid-foot stability technology. If you thought the addition of the Flywire to the Kobe 9 would help with support and/or lockdown, you were wrong. It does not feel one bit different than the Kobe 8. There was no advantage to having flywire in the newer model. You do not feel the flywire functioning and the EM would have been more than enough for lockdown and containment as it was in the Kobe 8. I would venture to guess that it is mostly for looks and to provide some sort of pseudo-justification for the price increase.
I grouped VENTILATION and TRACTION together because there is not much to say about it. Ventilation is crap in either shoe when double socked. Normally it is adequate but ventilation is not really important for me either way since my feet do not sweat abnormally. When comparing the ventilation of the 8 and 9 Low, I did not notice a difference even though the tongue on the 9 should help more with extracting heat from the shoe. Traction on the 9 Low was probably the only aspect of the sneaker that outperformed its predecessor. From Jordan’s to Adidas to other Nike shoes, I have not experienced better traction that the outsole of the Kobe 9. The outsole on the 9 is different both in pattern and the composition of the material and Nike has got it right this time (not that the 8 was not already great). Unfortunately, both models would be murdered on outdoor courts: the thin design of the outsole caters to indoor hooping.
Overall, it is easy to see why the 9 Low is a rip off. There is a $20 price increase when the shoe has been designed to cut costs for Nike and provide a greater profit margin. Proof of this exists in the removal of the mid-foot shank, changing the upper to a simpler design and altering the collar to be pretty much non-existent. The support, comfort, fit and cushioning are the same if not worse in the 9 Low but with the cost of a worse anatomically designed shoe. There is no way to justify the increased price when the shoe is the same, if not worse in my eyes. Obviously everything I said is my opinion and everything I am discussing is from a performance standpoint, so take it for what it’s worth. Just calling it as I see it. PICTURES:
View media item 901001View media item 901002
