AIr jordan XXXV first info.

854
526
Joined Feb 7, 2016
Too much 5 going on in all the renderings. Keep it new with just a couple nods like the 34 were. 34 is a top 15 AJ all time IMO.

so far it's one of the best. if only the regulars got the SE treatment, it would have been atleast Top 3.
 
4,140
6,657
Joined Aug 12, 2016
Too much 5 going on in all the renderings. Keep it new with just a couple nods like the 34 were. 34 is a top 15 AJ all time IMO.
All those renderings are dumb. We all know they aren't going to remake the Vs, they've gone away from that other than extremely subtle nods on the 33s and 34s.

I knew back in 2007 that people will one day see these as a classic. That day is here.

These were hideous. I hated them. They never grew on me either. And the box they came in was something outta taco bell.

When the shoes yellowed they were grotesque. I used to say they look like some Reebok Above the Rims.

The all black version was passable.

JB redeemed themselves with the xx3 a year later.

To each his own.
I never said they were a classic. I said I regret not buying them and that in retrospect they were a clean shoe. I would've been happy rocking those with shorts or sweats, and playing in them, too. It's a pretty simple shoe. I couldn't care less what ****ing box they came in LOL. Calling them hideous seems a bit extreme; compared to a lot of the other trash designs, visually, they put out for more than a decade, they are far from egregious. But as you say, to each his own.
Did anyone actually buy these, let alone honestly LIKE them other than the fact they were called an Air Jordan:
AIRJORDAN2012.jpg

:lol:
 
20
16
Joined Oct 15, 2017
All those renderings are dumb. We all know they aren't going to remake the Vs, they've gone away from that other than extremely subtle nods on the 33s and 34s.


I never said they were a classic. I said I regret not buying them and that in retrospect they were a clean shoe. I would've been happy rocking those with shorts or sweats, and playing in them, too. It's a pretty simple shoe. I couldn't care less what ****ing box they came in LOL. Calling them hideous seems a bit extreme; compared to a lot of the other trash designs, visually, they put out for more than a decade, they are far from egregious. But as you say, to each his own.
Did anyone actually buy these, let alone honestly LIKE them other than the fact they were called an Air Jordan:
AIRJORDAN2012.jpg

:lol:
I did. And I actually love them, they're very comfortable
 
854
526
Joined Feb 7, 2016
All those renderings are dumb. We all know they aren't going to remake the Vs, they've gone away from that other than extremely subtle nods on the 33s and 34s.


I never said they were a classic. I said I regret not buying them and that in retrospect they were a clean shoe. I would've been happy rocking those with shorts or sweats, and playing in them, too. It's a pretty simple shoe. I couldn't care less what ****ing box they came in LOL. Calling them hideous seems a bit extreme; compared to a lot of the other trash designs, visually, they put out for more than a decade, they are far from egregious. But as you say, to each his own.
Did anyone actually buy these, let alone honestly LIKE them other than the fact they were called an Air Jordan:
AIRJORDAN2012.jpg

:lol:
I remember these. I actually got close to buying these because they looked so cool but have to reconsider. it was the time I was contemplating whether to return to playing basketball or not. lots of sick shoes during that era. Kobes, Wades, Rose, Garnett and the Adidas Commander line.
 
3,387
2,350
Joined May 12, 2003
All those renderings are dumb. We all know they aren't going to remake the Vs, they've gone away from that other than extremely subtle nods on the 33s and 34s.


I never said they were a classic. I said I regret not buying them and that in retrospect they were a clean shoe. I would've been happy rocking those with shorts or sweats, and playing in them, too. It's a pretty simple shoe. I couldn't care less what ****ing box they came in LOL. Calling them hideous seems a bit extreme; compared to a lot of the other trash designs, visually, they put out for more than a decade, they are far from egregious. But as you say, to each his own.
Did anyone actually buy these, let alone honestly LIKE them other than the fact they were called an Air Jordan:
AIRJORDAN2012.jpg

:lol:
If I had to choose the worse looking air jordan In the whole sig line it would be the 2012. I have the grey/neon tho the colorway helps it a lot.
 
8,190
13,932
Joined Oct 6, 2016
If I had to choose the worse looking air jordan In the whole sig line it would be the 2012. I have the grey/neon tho the colorway helps it a lot.
The 2012 was a good shoe to play in. Had the white blacks, still have the black reds. I will say they come off as a team J. But no way are those worse than those 25s or 2010s. The holes on the sides of those were a joke. D Wade was supposed to carry that shoe and wow, the 2011 was better than those. And all those were was a mash up of an 11 and 12 with scribbles on them.
 
4,140
6,657
Joined Aug 12, 2016
:lol:
See, it’s so hugely subjective. Starts out with airdhazzal airdhazzal saying I’m nuts for liking the 22s, and now you guys are trying to tell me those 2012s aren’t one of the most hideous hoops shoes ever. When those dropped, I was going, these guys are beyond spent when it comes to new designs LOL
 
4,140
6,657
Joined Aug 12, 2016
The 2012 was a good shoe to play in. Had the white blacks, still have the black reds. I will say they come off as a team J. But no way are those worse than those 25s or 2010s. The holes on the sides of those were a joke. D Wade was supposed to carry that shoe and wow, the 2011 was better than those. And all those were was a mash up of an 11 and 12 with scribbles on them.
The only thing wrong with those holes is that the shoe came out years before there were Off White Jordans. They’d sell for $900 a pop if there had been a video of Virgil circumcising them to achieve the holes.
 
8,190
13,932
Joined Oct 6, 2016
:lol:
See, it’s so hugely subjective. Starts out with airdhazzal airdhazzal saying I’m nuts for liking the 22s, and now you guys are trying to tell me those 2012s aren’t one of the most hideous hoops shoes ever. When those dropped, I was going, these guys are beyond spent when it comes to new designs LOL
True. But it really was a good shoe to play in. And wear. This XXXV thats coming out, needs to have more than just one bulls colorway. This paint brush **** they put out now is rediculous. I dont need every color of the rainbow on my feet.
 
8,190
13,932
Joined Oct 6, 2016
The only thing wrong with those holes is that the shoe came out years before there were Off White Jordans. They’d sell for $900 a pop if there had been a video of Virgil circumcising them to achieve the holes.
Your right. All I need is a few zip ties, a scalpel, a sharpie, and a used/ beat up sig J and I am a genius right? Why the hell didnt I think of that? lol.
 
854
526
Joined Feb 7, 2016
I wouldn't say the 2012 to be worse-looking whether from a design's perspective nor color-blocking on the shoe. for me, it's a toss-up between the 15 and 20. I'd say the tongue on the 15 and anklet/belt on the 20s need to go. without those, the 15 and 20 would have been atleast decent shoes. performance point of view, not a fan of either shoes.
 
4,140
6,657
Joined Aug 12, 2016
True. But it really was a good shoe to play in. And wear. This XXXV thats coming out, needs to have more than just one bulls colorway. This paint brush **** they put out now is rediculous. I dont need every color of the rainbow on my feet.
Honestly, J, I haven't worried for years whether they were good to hoop in LOL. I mean, they SHOULD be good to hoop in, they're modern Nikes usually with all of the latest tech. People swear by the 29s, and they might be the best-feeling shoe ever. But no way I was rocking shoes with either goofy print and/or a stupid gigantic jumpman plastered across them.
Your right. All I need is a few zip ties, a scalpel, a sharpie, and a used/ beat up sig J and I am a genius right? Why the hell didnt I think of that? lol.
LOL I've been saying this for awhile. It was so obvious, it never occurred to me to write naming labels for various parts on my beat up shoes and sell them as a limited, premium item.
I wouldn't say the 2012 to be worse-looking whether from a design's perspective nor color-blocking on the shoe. for me, it's a toss-up between the 15 and 20. I'd say the tongue on the 15 and anklet/belt on the 20s need to go. without those, the 15 and 20 would have been atleast decent shoes. performance point of view, not a fan of either shoes.
This is exactly the point. The 2012 wasn't better or worse to YOU. All I see when I look at them is an oddly shaped, saddle shoe/wing-tip sneaker that at best looks like some generic JB team shoe. But the 15s sucked big-time, too, and even though I bought the stealth XXs just because they were the 20th Air Jordan, the XXs sucked, too. Again, just talking aesthetics here for all of these. But anyway, it's all good, it really just is whatever floats any of our boats.
 
56
69
Joined Jul 14, 2020
Too much 5 going on in all the renderings. Keep it new with just a couple nods like the 34 were. 34 is a top 1 AJ all time IMO.
That's what I'm talking about.

GOAT Basketball shoe.

I sold a lot of my collection because of the 34s. I had no desire to wear the older models once I put the 34s on my feet.
 
854
526
Joined Feb 7, 2016
That's what I'm talking about.

GOAT Basketball shoe.

I sold a lot of my collection because of the 34s. I had no desire to wear the older models once I put the 34s on my feet.
I wouldn't sell my old collection, but it did impact my future purchases. I no longer consider the yearly Retros as a must-buy. I skipped on the recent XI lows and red XIVs despite how sick they were. for me, it has to have the recent best cushion tech, material, colorway and aesthetics to be even considered. the only 34s that made me flu sick like Jordan are the toddler colored 34s.
 
2,884
2,838
Joined Nov 17, 2000
2012s are great. I liked them too. And the tech was way ahead of its time with the deluxe version
Especially for me copped 2 pairs in 13' at Ross, for $29.99 weren't the best CWs
bhifjtfvxttbinow1kb5.jpg
Air-Jordan-2012-Lite-The-Flash.jpeg

but decent hooping shoe. Ended up selling them on goat for 45 a piece 7 years later so I even made a little money.😁

Would have rather had these,
air-jordan-2012-lite-anthracite-white-black-2.jpg
Air-Jordan-2012-WhiteBlack-1.png
524922-001_a.jpg


IMO this by far the worst silhouette signature jordan ever.
Air-Jordan-2011-Year-Of-The-Rabbit.jpeg
 
2,884
2,838
Joined Nov 17, 2000
They just remind me of a team Jordan/ take down version of the 11s all the way down to the sole.

Air-Jordan-11-Concord-Release-Date-Price-1.jpg
images (1).jpeg


Side note is Tate Kuebris designing the 35, anyone know. I've loved everyone of his shoes, IMO hes the best think to happen to JB since Tinker.
 
3,387
2,350
Joined May 12, 2003
They just remind me of a team Jordan/ take down version of the 11s all the way down to the sole.

Air-Jordan-11-Concord-Release-Date-Price-1.jpg
images (1).jpeg


Side note is Tate Kuebris designing the 35, anyone know. I've loved everyone of his shoes, IMO hes the best think to happen to JB since Tinker.
Tate is in charge of the 35 and 36 I believe. After that not sure. I know tinker said he wasn’t designing anything up to the 36. Tate posted a photo last year of him standing beside the glass case in the JORDAN building and it had spots for the 35 and 36 in it.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now