Ok so we all know there have been many, many technological 'advancements' in boot design in the last 20 years. Advocates of the modern boot such as the latest Nike or Adidas creations always claim new boots are better due to this, are they right?
I am not gonna list technologies here but as far as I am concerned the only advancement of any benefit, and it is a small one, is the moulded blade sole plate. These spread the weight of the foot better on hard ground, easing pressure on the individual parts of the foot which feel it the most thus preventing blisters and discomfort, allow for better grip and turning on the field and are overall, superior to ordinary moulded sole plates. Other than that what is there?
New materials? All crap, Kangaroo Leather still by far the best for any upper.
Gimmicks galore? Rubber fins anyone? Assymetric lace systems? The list is endless. I have heard the external heel counter (as in the Predators) is a useful thing, but I do not understand quite why, I hope someone will explain its benefits to me.
What I am trying to get at is all you Nike/Predator lovers, what real reasons do you have for thinking the boots are better than older models? The argument of increased comfort or better fit is most definately false, also the boots last nowhere near as long. So what else is there? Just this technological stuff, boots have gone backwards in areas that count, and despite new technologies have failed to implement them in any way thats of real benefit. Or am I wrong? I would like to hear reasoned, logical arguments here, Nike fanboys and anyone under 15 are not permitted to reply here please. My opinion is that the modern boot market is a fashion show and 90% of footballers are sucked in by it. All intelligent comments very welcome here.
Full Version: Boot Technology
i completly understand what ur saying but because a boot is uncomfortable to you and u may think its a garbage boot because quiltiy and such dosnt mean its gna be like that for someone else....my friend wear vapours....he said they honestly are comfortable andhe loves them....never had one blister or anything...but on the other hand ther are ppl that complain non stop...it just depends on how ur foot is and what ur definition of comfort is....but i kno what ur sayin....many ppl buy boots for style...yes you pick up a book cause it looks good but if u try them on and they hurt and feel uncomfortable dont buy them because they are vapours...
I can see where you're coming from
but it's just all personal preferences.
just like I prefer eating hamburgers while you prefer eating chicken burgers
but it's just all personal preferences.
just like I prefer eating hamburgers while you prefer eating chicken burgers
excactly
Conaldinho i list some technology that i think benefits and dosent
The Adidas Backhell
This actually protects ur achillites or something like that, but my far reason some ppl think its a gimmick for backhelling but its not.
It also helps to mould the back layer of the boots together
The Puma Drier Tech
This is supposedly making the boot drier by the material absorbing the material and not the inside getting wet, it kinda works actually
The NikeSkin
Just plasctic that makes the boot look flash
The nike side lacing
This one supposedly works, but it was helped by the laces that have better grip, if u were to buy some cheaper one they will come out easily
Now here are soem stuff i belive is soo pure crap
The Nike Skin, lightness is everything, if its so, how come ronaldo used to be soo much faster when he wore his older r9s which are heavier to the ones now????
The Predator rubber curl pads
Pure crap, i curl better with my mitre which had no techs on them but they look like shit
Shudoh Texture Material is super crap, it seds it gives u an extra feel of the ball and shit but its not!!! is like wrapping ur feet with some wool and cotten!! the design is wicked but its soo freaking dirty!!!!!
Nike 12 Stud shit, why they intro dat in now, cheap boots at 20 pounds or less already have that utility, its pure crap being able to play in da snow with it!! its not like it has gold spikes or tractions like james bonds car, it seds it supposedly to relieve da pain but it dosent, i hate the t90 3 futsals too its pain at the front it has no mesh pannnels like the azt 90 2 thats why i want to buy the azt 90 2 even if it was more expensive
The Adidas Backhell
This actually protects ur achillites or something like that, but my far reason some ppl think its a gimmick for backhelling but its not.
It also helps to mould the back layer of the boots together
The Puma Drier Tech
This is supposedly making the boot drier by the material absorbing the material and not the inside getting wet, it kinda works actually
The NikeSkin
Just plasctic that makes the boot look flash
The nike side lacing
This one supposedly works, but it was helped by the laces that have better grip, if u were to buy some cheaper one they will come out easily
Now here are soem stuff i belive is soo pure crap
The Nike Skin, lightness is everything, if its so, how come ronaldo used to be soo much faster when he wore his older r9s which are heavier to the ones now????
The Predator rubber curl pads
Pure crap, i curl better with my mitre which had no techs on them but they look like shit
Shudoh Texture Material is super crap, it seds it gives u an extra feel of the ball and shit but its not!!! is like wrapping ur feet with some wool and cotten!! the design is wicked but its soo freaking dirty!!!!!
Nike 12 Stud shit, why they intro dat in now, cheap boots at 20 pounds or less already have that utility, its pure crap being able to play in da snow with it!! its not like it has gold spikes or tractions like james bonds car, it seds it supposedly to relieve da pain but it dosent, i hate the t90 3 futsals too its pain at the front it has no mesh pannnels like the azt 90 2 thats why i want to buy the azt 90 2 even if it was more expensive
I agree with what your saying here. One of the only "technological" differences i have noticed is the difference between blades and regular round studs. I had a pair of Supernova's FG before and i had no problems with traction. I now have a pair of Copa's and i seem to be sliding a bit more. Not alot, but more than i used to with my Supernova's. I'm not saying this is directly because of the blades because i have also noticed the studs on the Copa's aren't as long so it could just be a length thing.
yessss comerony i kno excactly what ur saying...thats the ONLY thing i would change on the copas...is to those blade studs...ther so much better!!
QUOTE(colinquahhanming @ Jul 24 2004, 12:14 AM)
Now here are soem stuff i belive is soo pure crap
The Nike Skin, lightness is everything, if its so, how come ronaldo used to be soo much faster when he wore his older r9s which are heavier to the ones now????
Look at ronaldo he has gotten bigger or fatter duh. The point of the lightness of the vapors is to help u accelerate quicker it doesn't make u faster.
I think there is a place for both traditional and modern technology boots.
As far as sythetic versus kangaroo skin goes, generally speaking, out of the box the kangaroo is probably more comfortable for most people. But you can't deny that they pick up moisture and stretch as they are worn. A synthetic skin boot will keep its "size" more consistently and will repel external moisture better than calf or kangaroo skin.
So, if a player fits the synthetic boot model, it is a good fit. The problem surfaces when players choose boots because of color only or professional player endorements instead of fit and comfort.
As far as durability of the skin, synthetics will last much longer than kangaroo. I think many of the manufactureres of newer boots are still trying to perfect their manufacturing techniques. Things like glueing is more complicated with synthetics than leathers. Anybody remember the Fila boot from about 5 years ago that was made from Kevlar and woven rubber coated thread? Combined the features of Nikeskin and Preditor rubber inserts. Trouble is they pulled apart at the soles after only a few weeks of use.
I've said several times on this site that my twins wear Vapors and Air Zoom Total 90 III's. They both wore Vapors from the beginning and never had any problems with them. Then, when Nike switched to the Vapor II, one of the two has had nothing but problems. Since then, he has switched to AZT 90 III's. He loves them. I don't know whether his feet changed as he grew or what. But, he has had no problems since switching. Funny thing is, he still keeps his Vapor soft grounds (older version) to play on nice surfaces and has not had any problem with them.
So once again, buy the ones that fit you the best. Then pick your color if that makes you feel more confident. But, there are plenty of choices out there, so pick the ones that are best for YOU.
As far as sythetic versus kangaroo skin goes, generally speaking, out of the box the kangaroo is probably more comfortable for most people. But you can't deny that they pick up moisture and stretch as they are worn. A synthetic skin boot will keep its "size" more consistently and will repel external moisture better than calf or kangaroo skin.
So, if a player fits the synthetic boot model, it is a good fit. The problem surfaces when players choose boots because of color only or professional player endorements instead of fit and comfort.
As far as durability of the skin, synthetics will last much longer than kangaroo. I think many of the manufactureres of newer boots are still trying to perfect their manufacturing techniques. Things like glueing is more complicated with synthetics than leathers. Anybody remember the Fila boot from about 5 years ago that was made from Kevlar and woven rubber coated thread? Combined the features of Nikeskin and Preditor rubber inserts. Trouble is they pulled apart at the soles after only a few weeks of use.
I've said several times on this site that my twins wear Vapors and Air Zoom Total 90 III's. They both wore Vapors from the beginning and never had any problems with them. Then, when Nike switched to the Vapor II, one of the two has had nothing but problems. Since then, he has switched to AZT 90 III's. He loves them. I don't know whether his feet changed as he grew or what. But, he has had no problems since switching. Funny thing is, he still keeps his Vapor soft grounds (older version) to play on nice surfaces and has not had any problem with them.
So once again, buy the ones that fit you the best. Then pick your color if that makes you feel more confident. But, there are plenty of choices out there, so pick the ones that are best for YOU.
Hey, I think everyone likes looking cool. I do too. But I don't do it at the expense of comfort or durability.
The asymmetrical lacing is a brilliant idea IMO. It's the one feature where I can actually tell the difference. The bladed studs also.
But the Nikeskin, that is bollocks. Run with a full stomach, or with an empty stomach. That should be about the weight that is lost by buying those shoes(maybe not, but you get the idea). Tell me how much faster you run 50 meters.
The asymmetrical lacing is a brilliant idea IMO. It's the one feature where I can actually tell the difference. The bladed studs also.
But the Nikeskin, that is bollocks. Run with a full stomach, or with an empty stomach. That should be about the weight that is lost by buying those shoes(maybe not, but you get the idea). Tell me how much faster you run 50 meters.
okocha thats what im trying to say, it dosent affect ur speed!!!
Some good replies, soccerrick about the kangaroo leather stretching. This is true, it does stretch and you can either say that's a bad thing or a good thing. In my opinion its a very good thing, I buy my boots quite neat fitting, the kangaroo leather then stretches a little bit and so moulds to fit my feet. Its like having your own personally designed boots perfect for your feet. Also the water repelling qualities of the likes of the Puma King far exceed any synthetic boot I have yet worn. Durability, I can't agree with you there at all, you have said synthetic material lasts longer, well that SHOULD be the case, but quite plainly isn't. I had a pair of Puma King boots for 3 years and I wore them about 3 times a week. Any full leather boot, well designed will last longer than the modern efforts. Predators are woeful, they last a few months at most before they burts open and the rubber fins all wear down. I had the Nike AZT 90 2's and the sole came off after 9 months, I didn't even wear them as much as my other boots. The Umbro Speciali's have the softest most supple upper I have ever come across and they have no signs of wear as yet whereas a synthetic boot would have a lot of wear and tear by now.
The assymetrical lacing is bullshit, you kick a ball with the outside and the inside of your foot so why would you want laces right on the outside? Also the difference in the strike you get using the top of your foot where the laces normally are with an ordinary boot and one with the special laces is minimal. This coupled with the fact that the laces don't tighten properly, especially the Nike's makes the assymetrical lacing a disadvantage. You can't lace them up good and tight like ordinary laces. Maybe there is a slight benefit in the odd strike, for example a volley with the top of the foot, but it is so very slight as to be almost insignificant.
As for its just preference, yes obviously but the fact is in 90% of cases the classic boot will fit better and be the better choice for you, but because of marketing and hype most people will ignore this, buy the new boot and convince themselves its better for them and they like it more. They never gave both types a try. The shape of the vapors will suit almost no one except those with very high arches and narrow feet yet I bet loads with flat, wide feet pretend to love the vapors because they think they look cool.
Most young players who buy the likes of the Predator or Vapor have never in their lives wore a Puma King or Copa Mundial so they don't know what's out there. They just grow up with an affinity for a company due to style alone. All this despite the fact the classics are still better in almost every way in my opinion. They were designed for performance not look.
The assymetrical lacing is bullshit, you kick a ball with the outside and the inside of your foot so why would you want laces right on the outside? Also the difference in the strike you get using the top of your foot where the laces normally are with an ordinary boot and one with the special laces is minimal. This coupled with the fact that the laces don't tighten properly, especially the Nike's makes the assymetrical lacing a disadvantage. You can't lace them up good and tight like ordinary laces. Maybe there is a slight benefit in the odd strike, for example a volley with the top of the foot, but it is so very slight as to be almost insignificant.
As for its just preference, yes obviously but the fact is in 90% of cases the classic boot will fit better and be the better choice for you, but because of marketing and hype most people will ignore this, buy the new boot and convince themselves its better for them and they like it more. They never gave both types a try. The shape of the vapors will suit almost no one except those with very high arches and narrow feet yet I bet loads with flat, wide feet pretend to love the vapors because they think they look cool.
Most young players who buy the likes of the Predator or Vapor have never in their lives wore a Puma King or Copa Mundial so they don't know what's out there. They just grow up with an affinity for a company due to style alone. All this despite the fact the classics are still better in almost every way in my opinion. They were designed for performance not look.
yup i kno wha ur sayin CoNaLDinhO...as young players get older they'll start to learn what a good shoe is...i notices as players get older they start thinking smarter...they'd rather choose puma kings over vapours...but then again like i said some ppl like vapours so i dun blame them....but never go through pain with a boot becuz its it looks nice...
personally ive never played in vapours but from the outside ther sweet...but i dun kno how ther gna feel on the field...same wit azt lll
QUOTE(CoNaLDinhO @ Jul 25 2004, 12:17 PM)
The assymetrical lacing is bullshit, you kick a ball with the outside and the inside of your foot so why would you want laces right on the outside? Also the difference in the strike you get using the top of your foot where the laces normally are with an ordinary boot and one with the special laces is minimal. This coupled with the fact that the laces don't tighten properly, especially the Nike's makes the assymetrical lacing a disadvantage. You can't lace them up good and tight like ordinary laces. Maybe there is a slight benefit in the odd strike, for example a volley with the top of the foot, but it is so very slight as to be almost insignificant.
I agree with some of what you're saying but I actually prefer assymetrical lacing. In my opinion the boot fits closer and tighter to the foot. I've worn almost every boot worth wearing and I find that boots with these types of lacing systems fit better.
QUOTE(CoNaLDinhO @ Jul 25 2004, 12:17 PM)
Some good replies, soccerrick about the kangaroo leather stretching. This is true, it does stretch and you can either say that's a bad thing or a good thing. In my opinion its a very good thing, I buy my boots quite neat fitting, the kangaroo leather then stretches a little bit and so moulds to fit my feet. Its like having your own personally designed boots perfect for your feet. Also the water repelling qualities of the likes of the Puma King far exceed any synthetic boot I have yet worn. Durability, I can't agree with you there at all, you have said synthetic material lasts longer, well that SHOULD be the case, but quite plainly isn't. I had a pair of Puma King boots for 3 years and I wore them about 3 times a week. Any full leather boot, well designed will last longer than the modern efforts. Predators are woeful, they last a few months at most before they burts open and the rubber fins all wear down. I had the Nike AZT 90 2's and the sole came off after 9 months, I didn't even wear them as much as my other boots. The Umbro Speciali's have the softest most supple upper I have ever come across and they have no signs of wear as yet whereas a synthetic boot would have a lot of wear and tear by now.
The assymetrical lacing is bullshit, you kick a ball with the outside and the inside of your foot so why would you want laces right on the outside? Also the difference in the strike you get using the top of your foot where the laces normally are with an ordinary boot and one with the special laces is minimal. This coupled with the fact that the laces don't tighten properly, especially the Nike's makes the assymetrical lacing a disadvantage. You can't lace them up good and tight like ordinary laces. Maybe there is a slight benefit in the odd strike, for example a volley with the top of the foot, but it is so very slight as to be almost insignificant.
As for its just preference, yes obviously but the fact is in 90% of cases the classic boot will fit better and be the better choice for you, but because of marketing and hype most people will ignore this, buy the new boot and convince themselves its better for them and they like it more. They never gave both types a try. The shape of the vapors will suit almost no one except those with very high arches and narrow feet yet I bet loads with flat, wide feet pretend to love the vapors because they think they look cool.
Most young players who buy the likes of the Predator or Vapor have never in their lives wore a Puma King or Copa Mundial so they don't know what's out there. They just grow up with an affinity for a company due to style alone. All this despite the fact the classics are still better in almost every way in my opinion. They were designed for performance not look.
The assymetrical lacing is bullshit, you kick a ball with the outside and the inside of your foot so why would you want laces right on the outside? Also the difference in the strike you get using the top of your foot where the laces normally are with an ordinary boot and one with the special laces is minimal. This coupled with the fact that the laces don't tighten properly, especially the Nike's makes the assymetrical lacing a disadvantage. You can't lace them up good and tight like ordinary laces. Maybe there is a slight benefit in the odd strike, for example a volley with the top of the foot, but it is so very slight as to be almost insignificant.
As for its just preference, yes obviously but the fact is in 90% of cases the classic boot will fit better and be the better choice for you, but because of marketing and hype most people will ignore this, buy the new boot and convince themselves its better for them and they like it more. They never gave both types a try. The shape of the vapors will suit almost no one except those with very high arches and narrow feet yet I bet loads with flat, wide feet pretend to love the vapors because they think they look cool.
Most young players who buy the likes of the Predator or Vapor have never in their lives wore a Puma King or Copa Mundial so they don't know what's out there. They just grow up with an affinity for a company due to style alone. All this despite the fact the classics are still better in almost every way in my opinion. They were designed for performance not look.
Very good reply and I don't think our opinions are that much different. My point about durability is that the synthetic materials like Nikeskin will last longer than natural skin. Maybe what I should have said was longer with less maintanence. Also, I agree that a Puma King (great boot by the way) will last longer than a Vapor. But that is because new manufacturing techniques have not caught up with material development. Things like glueing and stitching of synthetic materials don't lend themselves as easily as traditional materials. But, I have scrubbed the hell out of Vapors to get them clean and the skin looked like the day they came out of the box.
I also agree with you that the Vapor is a specialty boot that isn't made for everyone. But, I don't fault Nike for pushing the envelope in their development. I don't put as much blame on them as you. But, I do critcize the dealers (and general public) for not educating themselves more on things like fit and comfort.
Once again, I agree that for the general public, a "traditional" boot like a Puma King will fit a broader range of people than the Vapor. But, that doesn't make the Vapor "bad". Also, I don't necesarily carry that opinion over to the AZT 90III's. Everyone I know that wears them have wider feet and really like the comfort they offer. Not a single player has complained about blisters. This board is the first place I have heard of problems with the AZT90 III's.
As far as asymetric laces, I don't know if they help or not. I do know that there are players that like them because they relieve a pressure point off the top of the foot. Good for them. I happen to have wide feet, high arches and have broken the bone on the top of my foot playing hockey. I like Air Zooms for that reason - AZT 90 III's the best.
If you want to find fault in the marketing and development of Nike or Adidas, fault them for not making a traditional boot with the style or flash that the general public is asking for today. And for hyping their new technology in an effort to recoup their development costs. But, I still put the burden on the consumer to be better educated and make wiser choices FOR THEM.
I fault them for not implementing their technology in a way that is beneficial to the consumer, that's all. Sure the Vapor may be good for some (Even those it does suit I would argue against it due to the upper being a horrible surface for striking a ball), but thats a very select minority and yet because Henry or Ronaldo wears them, kids want to aswell.
What is needed is for one of these big companies to have the balls to drop all false technology from their products and concentrate on whats important. I think it should be reasonable to expect companies to provide for all different shapes of foot but they don't, its just coincidence that some boots are wide fitting and some aren't for example. There should be size length wise as well as width wise for top level boots. The comfort, funcionality and durablity put ahead of all other concerns. The new technology can be beneficial if it is incorporated into a boot which also considers the most basic attributes required, at the moment I don't think this is happening in the majority of cases. The look, style and hype of a boot becomes the primary focus, leaving the most basic, important things secondary. This makes for a lot of sub-standard boots.
Consumers are being ripped off a little I feel. Pro players get custom made boots, they are the best adverts in the world for products but the consumer is often misinformed and would be ill-advised to buy the boot of their favourite player, often what you buy isn't what they are wearing, and it doesn't suit the player. Everybody's different and thats why the classics are better. They concentrate on what's important, therefore suiting almost everybody and providing performance in areas were it matters the most.
What is needed is for one of these big companies to have the balls to drop all false technology from their products and concentrate on whats important. I think it should be reasonable to expect companies to provide for all different shapes of foot but they don't, its just coincidence that some boots are wide fitting and some aren't for example. There should be size length wise as well as width wise for top level boots. The comfort, funcionality and durablity put ahead of all other concerns. The new technology can be beneficial if it is incorporated into a boot which also considers the most basic attributes required, at the moment I don't think this is happening in the majority of cases. The look, style and hype of a boot becomes the primary focus, leaving the most basic, important things secondary. This makes for a lot of sub-standard boots.
Consumers are being ripped off a little I feel. Pro players get custom made boots, they are the best adverts in the world for products but the consumer is often misinformed and would be ill-advised to buy the boot of their favourite player, often what you buy isn't what they are wearing, and it doesn't suit the player. Everybody's different and thats why the classics are better. They concentrate on what's important, therefore suiting almost everybody and providing performance in areas were it matters the most.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.