Nike Thread [17] - All Nike, pictures, info, questions here!

I think it is very telling that Nike could care less about a Stoke player, yet a bigger name is looking at a fine per game that is more than most supporters will make in salary over five years.

Yeah, he eventually endorsed their brand but, post 2002 World Cup whine Umbro didn't renew his deal he chose to wear adidas without a contract. I want to say the Predator Pulse was when he officially signed up. Why was adidas paying Helsingborg? Was it an image rights issue, like Sheva and Mizuno when he went to Chelsea?

Yeah, he was cycling through a few boots with a blackout Mizuno being among them. The rumor was that Mizuno was the front runner to sign him up because Rivaldo was his idol and he was a legend in Mizuno boots. Falcao also sported the SuperSonic in a blackout for his gangbusters season at Porto with AVB. Given how modified Falcao's EvoSpeed boots from the standard design into what is a super basic boot with graphic print I am shocked he didn't opt for some Akuna Cinquestelle Colibri or Pantofola Lazzarini boots when he was rocking the blackout.

 

In terms of mass produced, yes they are -at least when made in Japan. Only the Copa comes close on mass production models and the old Lotto Stadio and Diadora Basil (both made in Italy) were equal to the Morelia Japan. I can't comment on the non Japan models too much, I have only had the WI 2 and it ended up being too small. It seemed well built though.

I am still waiting on my knee to heal before I can test out boots but, the Akuna and Pantofola's I mentioned are going to be my first two items for use when I return. I am still tying to get to the bottom of the story between the two companies, they both seem to lay claim to the same story except they diverge in the mid 90's. It seems to me like Akuna and Pantofola were the same company until the original business shut down. Somehow both came back to life and there was a split; Pantofola in its current incarnation is the more commercial brand (despite still being handmade), while Akuna seems happy to stay very small. Italian top flight players seem to look more to Akuna for boots than Pantofola though when going for the unbranded look. Totti, Baggio, and Di Canio have all more recently rocked Akuna models vs. Pantofola (in its current form anyway). I suspect one of the two factories or the makers of the Ryal boots are behind the Cruyff line as well, given that companies history with the Lazzarini family -the Cruyff boots of the 80's were made by Lazzarini's shop, hence their claim that Van Basten wore their boots.

I find it very validating when see boots like Falcao's EvoSpeed. It proves all you need is a simple outsole, nice leather and your footballing talent to do the job -which has been my stance for nearly a decade, even though I have been open to trials with more "advanced" products. It sort of puts pad to the BS product shilling and boot redesigns every nine months. Even the external heel counter on Falcao's Puma is just ther for visual effect, you can clearly see the true internal heel counter on the body of the shoe. Granted, the external counter when done correctly is one of the few "innovations" that I think can be seen as a positive but, the EvoSpeed's model on the retail boot isn't that effective.

Other than the King SL outsole being an updated item for shaving a bit of weight off, Falcao's boot might as well be a handmade leather Puma from the 1970's or early 80's or the Akuna or Pantofola's I previously mentioned. If you eBay vintage football boots you can see up close what I mean. It sort of reminds me of when everyone was raving about the retail F-50+ (which I admittedly did for a bit too, until the boot showed it's true colors of suck), and nearly every pro in the shoe had a full on leather model of the boot (some might still be on eBay). That obviously went against the marketing of the mesh being there for needed weight reduction in the fast modern game, among other things. The full leather F-50+ was essentially a Nova Mundial with a lace cover and split outsole. Paraenthetically the split outsole was one of the stupidest gimmicks ever, as all the boots with it -bar the original F-50- still had a lasting board thus nullifying that flexibility that adidas touted. All that split outsole did was give the outsole two more points where it could fail and separate, while saving probably $ 0.50 in material and labor costs on boots that cost $10.00 (or less) to make and gave adidas 900% profit (or more) per pair sold to a retailer....and people wonder why I go bananas on big brands that constantly lie to the consumer and rip you off.

 

That is because he is an overrated, one trick pony....Denílson 2.0. I honestly think Neymar will suffer the same fate, but I am skeptical and pragmatic by nature until proven wrong. Oddly all of these players are/were Vapor guys. I don't see Nike marketing this line "the Vapors make your pedalada blazing but, the rest of your game will be as suspect as your accompanying haircut, and knees after the stud lay out causes a ligament rupture".

 

I don't ever recall people saying the Lazzarini was poorly made, I do recall chivamex10 complaining about the leather scuffing -which is extra noticeable on fire engine red boots- but, scuffs don't equate to poor construction even on first use; I know you know this but others reading don't get it. Despite constant posting here, some people never grow their education. I think people forget that boots, especially leather boots, a not bullet proof vests; they will acquire some scrapes and chips. The stress people put their boots under is mind-boggling when you really think about it. Running and jumping can increase impact loads up to 10x of your natural body weight, and kicking/contacting an object over and over with various degrees of force also adds immense stress. Then there is the x-factor of surfaces played on and how well you care for something that requires care. I also recall a few people saying they were not overly impressed with the Pantofola product in terms of performance because it was the same to them as a Copa. When I deconstruct that I see this: someone is letdown because the boot performed like a perfectly crafted boot, and they had unrealisticlly elevated expectations because the boots have a slight mystical ethos for being well constructed, especially with people like us. I don't know how anyone can claim they are cheaply made, unless they are referring to the use of materials like rubber and PU on the outsole as oppose to carbon fiber. Personally I will take the rubber and PU, it has been working correctly for 50 years while carbon fiber and other "advancements" are a joke when it comes to durability. Most reviews I have seen laud the build quality of the Pantofola line. VuJosh loved the construction of his, a random review from the older days of Footy-Boots was similar, and Bryan at SC101 said they were well made and noted the outsole as a feature that outperformed modern "innovations" in the same catagory.

I think all the modern "heritage"/"touch" boot lines -or whatever the marketing dipshits have labeled real boots this year- owe it to the Copa for even being around. The Copa wasn't ever broken but, adidas -in their infinite or infantile wisdom (depending on how you see it)- have tried and failed to fix it over and over with boots like the 7406 and the vastly overrated adiPure line. Everyone else pretty much copied the Copa in the 1980's or 1990's and some even equalled or improved the concept but, this was done with attention to detail and construction with quality materials in the cases of the old Brasil, Stadio, and Morelia.

In saying the Copa was the father of modern "classic" style boot, the Lazzarini model is supposed to be a pretty direct replica of the boots made in the 1960's for some legendary players. So by deduction I would say the Copa and its adidas precursors like the boot that was rereleased as the World Cup 1966 (with the awesome blue outsole) in 06-ish owes a bit to Lazzarini if the history presented by companies claiming links to Lazzarini are to be believed. Lazzarini -the man- was making lower cut, softer leather boots, with flexibility in the outsoles when adidas and Puma (or Ruda at the time) were essentially nailing traction bars to outsoles or implanting studs into to mid weight work boots that were ankle high. If anything I think the most similar boot to the Copa from Pantofola is the Dream based on style but even that boot and the Akuna Classica, the Ryal La Storia (also tops on my to test list), and the Cruyff Kick share a similar leather lateral forefoot support overlay that adidas didn't adopt with most any of their 1960's-1990's boots that I have seen. I suspect the forefoot stitching of the Copa - and the sorely missed Profi- are in theory doing the same job as the overlay. I would have to ask Adi Dassler about that to be sure though, and sadly, he is dead. I doubt any of the current morons at adidas would even know what I am talking about with forefoot stitching as support, outside of maybe an older cobbler in the Copa factory.

If you look at the Akuna Colibri http://www.akuna.it/calcio.php?articolo=C6100 and the Pantofola Lazzarini you can see they are not too far apart in style. The interesting think about the Colibri though is that it is really a boot designed to compete with more modern lightweight boots while still having the finest craftsmanship and old school style; the shoe comes in at 250 grams which is 8.8 ounces or right around the Puma King SL (see this http://translate.google.com/transla...t/scarpe-calcio/446-colbri-scarpa-calcio.html). Usually anything lighter than that to me is a MVP -minimum viable product- that a big brand puts out with high prices and crappy construction. Sadly the MVP threshold for quality acceptance gets lower with every boot redesign and new generation of players made into morons by lack critical thinking skill development that is perpetuated via mass distraction from reality and pure laziness.

Finally to make this somewhat Nike related, they are as guilty as adidas for making shoddy boots. Their newest products are awful in terms of durability. The college team I coach has had four pairs of CTR III's split at the outsole in an FG mode in under five uses, and I lost track of how many SuperFlys and Vapors VIII and VIIIs have broken studs or split, even the Legend IV's don't hold up between the outsole and upper.

The new Kangalite is soft but, unlike real leather it has no tensile strength and rips easily when you scuff the ground or get stepped on, which I have seen first hand several times now. Oddly, the issues with glue adhesion outsole separation don't exist on the AG models of the Legend or the CTR (I had a player get a pair from PDS; his upper did split though). Before anyone says "they are made for turf" I can assure the AG models don't protect the joint line of upper/outsole bonding more than FG models of the same boot. My suspicion is Nike is making the FG less usable on turf and with less durable glue because the are about to push out retail AG models of all their top boots (top tier AG models are coming per Nike catalogs) and they are looking to force people/retailers into buying/carrying both models. Don't be shocked if the next step if to void return coverage for an FG boot that shows signs of use on turf.

 

In the USA Nike takes back FG boots used on AG surfaces both directly from consumers and via retailers using Return Authorizations or RAs as they are known in the industry. For the sake of traction and joint health, I promote using AG friendly outsoles on AG surfaces, but most traditional conical studs are AG friendly for turning and such. They might wear down a tad faster due to the heat retaining in the turf causing a melting effect on the studs. As for the separations, better riveting and/or outsole stitching could solve the issue but, that would mean longer boot life this invalidating the ADD-ish type life cycle of current boots.