- 14
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
Sizing
I wear 9 1/2 to 10 depending on brands. Both a tad bigger, ie 9 1/2 would feel like 9 2/3.
Fit
I am medium width. Both are narrow, but the 1 cannot be widened by lacing it looser on the forefoot. The 2 CAN have more toe room and is easier to lace looser or tighter.
Comfort
The 1 gets a D even for its $ range. The 2 gets an A that I even ran 3 miles on them and felt like my Mizuno Inspire 2 running shoes. The 2 is also light and felt like low top AI Questions.
Ankle Support
I am big on this and I wore both w/o my ASOs. The 1 gets A - and can compete with mid tops equipped w/ support straps. The 2 gets a D - and I totally feel that a runner, not a baller, designed this one.
Cushioning
The 1 is firm and will hurt on speeds faster than walking...I won't even go on how it felt landing from jumps! The 1 can handle mall security duties though--both fat ones and the elderly. The 2 gets an A for the heel and a B for the mid to forefoot; like what I said, a runner designed this one! The 2 gets an A also for landing type impact. Both are low to the ground with good feel.
Traction
The 1s get a B - and the 2s get a C.
Weight/Position
5'8" 155lbs, A.I. type small shooting guard but not as fast. I feel the 2 is much improved vs. the 1. I'm a Knick fan but the 1s are crap for balling and okay for weightlifting. The synthetic leather on both are the same to me as other synthetics from the usual brands. If they still to decide to better the upcoming models, I can't wait for Big Ben's! The 1s are what Napoleon D. would use while the 2s remind me of the very first Adidas updated Promodels from the early 90s but lighter and flexible like running shoes.
Hope this helped! If you're on a tight budget, just wait for the right sale and get your feet what it deserves! I've paid $20 for Questions in Footaction, $30 on TMacs,VCs, and even Nash's Nikes from '05-'06. I can add more, but you get the point, right?
I wear 9 1/2 to 10 depending on brands. Both a tad bigger, ie 9 1/2 would feel like 9 2/3.
Fit
I am medium width. Both are narrow, but the 1 cannot be widened by lacing it looser on the forefoot. The 2 CAN have more toe room and is easier to lace looser or tighter.
Comfort
The 1 gets a D even for its $ range. The 2 gets an A that I even ran 3 miles on them and felt like my Mizuno Inspire 2 running shoes. The 2 is also light and felt like low top AI Questions.
Ankle Support
I am big on this and I wore both w/o my ASOs. The 1 gets A - and can compete with mid tops equipped w/ support straps. The 2 gets a D - and I totally feel that a runner, not a baller, designed this one.
Cushioning
The 1 is firm and will hurt on speeds faster than walking...I won't even go on how it felt landing from jumps! The 1 can handle mall security duties though--both fat ones and the elderly. The 2 gets an A for the heel and a B for the mid to forefoot; like what I said, a runner designed this one! The 2 gets an A also for landing type impact. Both are low to the ground with good feel.
Traction
The 1s get a B - and the 2s get a C.
Weight/Position
5'8" 155lbs, A.I. type small shooting guard but not as fast. I feel the 2 is much improved vs. the 1. I'm a Knick fan but the 1s are crap for balling and okay for weightlifting. The synthetic leather on both are the same to me as other synthetics from the usual brands. If they still to decide to better the upcoming models, I can't wait for Big Ben's! The 1s are what Napoleon D. would use while the 2s remind me of the very first Adidas updated Promodels from the early 90s but lighter and flexible like running shoes.
Hope this helped! If you're on a tight budget, just wait for the right sale and get your feet what it deserves! I've paid $20 for Questions in Footaction, $30 on TMacs,VCs, and even Nash's Nikes from '05-'06. I can add more, but you get the point, right?
