Tinker Hatfield comment

[swingshot]

Originally Posted by Zero 0123

Notice the trend in J's? If Tinker doesn't have a hand in it, it really isn't that great. XIX, XX1, XX2, 2009... JB tries to go with their newer designers, but they always go back to Tinker because he always has an amazing design.

The XIX is one of the best performing Jordans made yet.

Don't like the techflex? That's why they made the SE.


I can see another trend. Shoes get a pass becasue Tinker designed them, and if Tinker didn't design them, they get a little exta hate.

The last two Jordans that Tinker designed, that are up to scratch, are the XIV and the XX3.

The XV was an interesting design, but fell well short on performance.
The XVI was a triumph of aesthetics over performance,
and the ankle strap on the XX is borderline useless... The midfoot strap isn't up to much either.

If it wasn't for Tinker, this site may not even exist... but that doesn't mean everything he has done is gold.

 

[zero 0123]

Originally Posted by swingshot

Originally Posted by Zero 0123

Notice the trend in J's? If Tinker doesn't have a hand in it, it really isn't that great. XIX, XX1, XX2, 2009... JB tries to go with their newer designers, but they always go back to Tinker because he always has an amazing design.

The XIX is one of the best performing Jordans made yet.

Don't like the techflex? That's why they made the SE.


I can see another trend. Shoes get a pass becasue Tinker designed them, and if Tinker didn't design them, they get a little exta hate.

The last two Jordans that Tinker designed, that are up to scratch, are the XIV and the XX3.

The XV was an intersting design, but fell well short on performance.
The XVI was a triumph of aesthetics over perforance,
and the ankle strap on the XX is borderline useless... , and the midfoot strap isn't up to much either.

If it wasn't for Tinker, this site may not even exist... but that doesn't mean everything he has done is gold.

We weren't talking about performance here. The Jordan line keeps getting better and better in my opinion in terms of performance. The XIX was a great shoe on the court. Did you even read the whole thread? Even RaptorNation said in terms of performance the 2010 is great...

But seriously, after 2 wears, the XIX went from looking like a sleek black mamba to a black mamba that over-ate. I had three pairs of the OG XIX's and they bulged out like a mofo. In terms of aesthetics, yeah the XIX fell way short. And the SE looked like a messed up wannabe boot. No thanks.

Just because Tinker designs something doesn't mean it gets a free pass, or non-Tinker designed shoes get extra hate. One of my favorite J's is the XVIII, and that was not designed by Tinker. It's just a simple fact that Tinker comes up with innovative designs that I've come to love. The only Tinker shoe I hate is the XV, and yes. I hate that shoe with a passion. 15 for 16 sounds like a mighty damn good ratio of shoes that Tinker designed that I liked.

And btw, Tinker wasn't head design for the XVI. Wilson Smith was...

 

[jking0821]

I think his quote is stupid

Some will always dislike what you make. There will always be criticism especially in the world of shoes. No one will ever make a shoe that everyone in the world will like. So to say you know you are doing well when people are criticizing you just seems arrogant.

He would never admit to a shoe he designed to be a failure. And i agree with swingshot. Just because tinker designed it people look at it in a different light. No matter what the shoe looked like the mike was wearing when he hit the "last shot" would be an iconic shoe. I personally from a visual standpoint think the 14 is hideous. But its what Mike did in the shoe that makes them iconic.

I personally think the 2010 is tacky and hideous. The window serves no purpose (clear shoes were cool like 4 years ago "invisible womans") The toungue looks like the bat-er-ang. And the ankle cut ruins the look of the shoe because it makes it completely asymmetrical. Its a big FAIL for JB in my eyes

 

[sole investigator]

Zero 0123 wrote:

---

And btw, Tinker wasn't head design for the XVI. Wilson Smith was...




But he was the one to start the project, only to hand it off for Wilson to finish...

 

[nikeshoehead]

Originally Posted by RaptorNation

What's sad, is that he cares more for his Nike running and cross training ideas than he does for Jordan Brand.
Could it be a relationship problem with Mike himself......................?

care to expand...........?

  

 

[anomaly]

Originally Posted by AirUpHere23

Originally Posted by JaORiDArN

Good questions..... im sure deep down inside he knows JB is going down hill.

Personally, I think the shoes are ugly, but even Tinker himself mentioned in an interview that the 2010's were made more with the emphasis of basketball play rather than just on fashion.

That's technically always been the case while Tinker was designing Jordans (save for the last 3).  Remember, they were being designed to perform for the greatest basketball player of all time, so I would certainly hope they were on par for the court.  It was Mike that initially demanded a "clean" toe box on the VI & up, etc.  It had to look, as well as perform to Mike's satisfaction, so as much as we may like the designs, emphasis on aesthetics and functionality were usually dead even, if not leaning a bit more towards functionality.

Originally Posted by swingshot

The quality on the OG XIII was average at best, and the quality on the first colorway of the OG XVI was lousy.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I bought 3 colorways of the original XIII, and beat the ever living piss out of them on the court (mostly outdoors).  They took the beating quite well.  In fact, I STILL have my original pair of black/red, and the uppers look fantastic!  The tread is too far gone for basketball, but they still look great over all.  They were a very solid shoe.  As to the XVI, I presume maybe you meant the XIV?  Tinker had very little to do with the XVI.

Originally Posted by Tommy Gibbs

Ididn't like the 2010's until I saw them in person. I've collected J'ssince '92 (starting with the Bordeaux VII's) and I got to say with theexception of a few J's (VIII, XXI, XXII, XXIII) they all had to grow onme.  But that is the sign of a great design, when it's so out of thebox that you don't quite get it at first. 

I'd agree with that last statement to a certain extent.  It's notALWAYS true, but things that are groundbreaking usually aren't acceptedright away.  Look at music.  Many of the great bands that transcendtime with their music were thought to be bizarre and bad upon initialconception.  It's because they were way ahead of their time, and neededto be heard several times before people got it.  It is THAT music that,when you play it today, still sounds amazing.  It's because ittranscends time, and doesn't sound like "'70s/'80s/'90s music", etc. It is still relevant even today because it wasn't caught up in a stylespecific to an era.  Of course, this doesn't mean that some of the experimentation of such bands didn't bomb.  They weren't ALL gold.

Same applies for the original signature series Air Jordan line (at least the ones Tinker was mostly responsible for).  They looked very different compared to your conventional athletic shoe, and the designs transcended any style from a particular era.  They may have led to an onslaught of imitators, but nothing compared to the originals.  Loved them, or hated them, they got a reaction because they broke the norm.  However, this does not mean that Tinker is immune to occasional failed ideas and concepts.  Sometimes, a genius will try too hard in an effort to outdo his/herself, and end up bombing on an idea.

 

[hovkid]

If his comment is correct then JB is blowing the doors off because they crap coming out of there these days is pathetic.