Performance Review: Jordan XII CDP 12

We recently (sadly) witnessed the end of what is arguably the world's most successful, popular, and iconic sneaker series - the numbered Jordan line. Michael Jordan's induction into the Hall of Fame appropriately followed, reaffirming all that he has brought to the game of basketball and the culture that comes with it. To celebrate his success, I gave court time to one of the favorites and all-time classics of the numbered Jordans: the Jordan XII.



The Collezione 11/12 pack caused quite a stir during the holiday season of 2008, as sneaker shops saw lines snake around the block days before the release. I was lucky enough to score a pack via Finishline.com, and I've been curious to see how a shoe that originally released in the mid 90's would compare to those of today's technology. It should be noted that the XII was the first Jordan to utilize Zoom Air midsole cusioning.



From my experience, a lot of Jordans have a very sculpted fit that would favor players with narrower feet and higher arches (like the XI or XX3). With the XII on my feet, I was surprised to find the shoes to be quite roomy and very plush. People with average-width to wide feet should feel comfortable wearing these, as would those with flat feet (the arch isn't completely flat, but does offer a good amount of support without killing my flat arch). The super-thin round laces felt flimsy and unreliable during lacing (they almost reminded me of the horrid Windmill laces), but in the spirit of testing the product as it's presented out of the box, I remained hopeful.



As always, I tried lacing the shoes all the way to the top eyelet, only to run into 2 problems. 1) The laces are too short, and 2) the shoes are so high cut that in order to have enough lace to tie them at the top, I had to pull the laces so tight that the ankle collar and tongue dug into my leg. I un-laced the top eyelets and found that they were much more comfortable, but the ankle support had taken a considerable step down.



During warmups, the shoes felt quite good out of the box, but I noticed the shoes felt looser than when I laced them up. I re-tightened and re-laced and continued warming up, but after a few minutes again felt that the shoes had lost some lockdown. It seemed as though the laces kept loosening up due to the movement, so I re-tightened and re-laced yet again. I also noted that no outrigger existed to improve lateral stability, so I performed the same "ankle roll" test as I did with the Huarache 09's and found the lateral stability to be just average (or subpar depending on how spoiled you are by other shoes' lateral stability).



During play, the excellent Zoom Air midsole cushioning along with the plush upper cushioning provided a very comfortable ride. The shoe broke in very quickly after which it flexed effortlessly with every movement. Traction was good on our well-maintained hardwood court. I did feel the shoes to be on the heavy side, and the extra weight rendered the shoes a little clunkier than I'm used to. I wasn't tripping over my own feet or anything, but the extra weight combined with the so-so lateral stability had me a millisecond slower than usual. Although, I'll mention that a friend of mine noticed that I may have been jumping higher than normal. A downside to the roomy, plush interior is that the shoe doesn't lock down as well as it could. I actually had to re-tighten and re-lace a third time in between games; I'm guessing this is caused by the thin laces. I'd be curious to replace them with a standard flat lace or oval lace and see if lockdown improves. I was also craving a little more ankle support since I couldn't lace them all the way to the top.



The Bottom Line: The Jordan XII certainly performs well, but faces very tough competition with the high standards set by recent balling sneakers. They're very comfortable shoes, but the heavy weight, less-than-stellar lockdown and bad lacing system put these classics in the middle of the pack.

Performance Review: Nike Huarache 09

Nike's Huarache line has earned a reputation for beautiful aesthetics, great comfort, and consistently high performance. So, it's only natural to anticipate the same level of performance (if not better) in the latest model, the Huarache 09.



This will probably be one of the most schizophrenic reviews I ever write, because this shoe's great strengths are so tragically marred by its critical shortcomings. I'll start by saying that these are among the most comfortable shoes I've ever put on - not just basketball shoes... all shoes - period. Right out of the box, the comfort is overwhelming. The thinner, softer, and more flexible upper combined with the familiar Huarache forefoot/heel Zoom midsole simulates the feel of pillows strapped to your feet. When laced up, the 09's mold to your feet for terrific fit and lockdown. The ankle collar conforms to your ankle without feeling intrusive, so one shouldn't hesitate to lace these all the way up to the top. Yes, the shoes feel that good.

During play, the shoes performed as the typical Huarache performs - effortless heel-to-toe transition, amazing cushioning, great comfort, good traction, and light weight.



Then I noticed something odd. As I mentioned, the cushioning is amazing... probably rivaling the squishiest of squishy midsoles... to a fault. The midsole simply absorbs way too much impact and movement, causing me to lose a step in quickness. I noticed that on hard lateral cuts, it felt as though the midsole was still compressing and absorbing when it should've already been pushing back and helping me go in the direction I wanted to go.

I thought that it was maybe all in my head, so after I got home, I kept the 09 on one foot and tried on about 6 other shoes on the other foot for comparison (2k4, 2k5, LeBron Soldier III, Huarache 08, Hyperize, Zoom BB1). Sure enough, the cushioning of the 09 outshined most others, as the midsole felt much thicker and squishier overall. Then I ran a quick zig zag pattern with each shoe, and realized the 09's critical downfall: the lateral stability is almost nonexistent.

On each zig and zag, I experimented with pushing outwards in an effort to purposely roll my ankle. All six of my comparison shoes beat out the 09 in this test, as the 09 threatened ankle blowouts every single time. Here's why.

1) The midsole is just too thick and too soft - a bad combination for lateral movement. On lateral cuts, the midsole squishes outwards on the lateral side, allowing your ankle to roll outwards more than usual. A thinner midsole (like on the Zoom BB) would allow the Zoom Air to cushion the impact while also providing better court feel and more responsive and accurate movements. Think of this in terms of a car's cornering ability with thin, low profile tires versus with normal, thicker tires; the low profile tires will corner more accurately because there's not as much side wall on the tire to give way to the outward force. If you have strong ankles and/or don't make a ton of drastic cutting movements, this won't be a huge problem; but for more active players, this could be a huge problem.



2) The ankle collar is way too thin and flexible - it does nothing for ankle support. Think of it as low-top performance with the illusion of mid/high top feel. The ankle collar feels great; it conforms to your ankle, doesn't cut into your achilles, and flexes with every movement you make. But if you happen to roll your ankle, it's not going to do anything for you.



(For those of you who are curious as to how the shoes ranked in my lateral stability test, here's the order, starting from the best: 2k5, Zoom BB1, LeBron Soldier III, 2k4, Hyperize, Huarache 08)

The Bottom Line: The Huarache 09 is an incredibly comfortable shoe with a great fit, ridiculous cushioning, and superb out-of-the-box playability. However, poor lateral stability and nonexistent ankle support make the 09 a shoe that many players will want to avoid. I highly recommend this shoe for those of you who like wearing basketball shoes casually and/or to train at the gym or run on the treadmill. But as far as on-court performance, these shoes should come with ankle insurance.

Upcoming Review: Jordan XII CDP 12

I have to take a timeout from my normal review lineup to celebrate Michael Jordan's induction into the Hall of Fame. This week's sneaker of choice is the Jordan XII from the 11/12 Countdown Pack; let's see what this baby can do.

Performance Review Comparison: Hyperize vs Hyperdunk

As most of you know, I'm a regular on the NikeTalk and Sole Collector message boards. The more time I spend on the boards, the more I notice that while people appreciate straight up performance reviews, they always want to know how the shoe compares to another shoe. So I thought I'd try something different this time. What I'm going to try to do more frequently is to not only review a shoe, but also compare it to a shoe that's very similar. I'm hoping this will provide even more insight into how the shoe performs, and it'll also be sort of a buy-one-get-one-free review. Anyway, moving on to this week's [delayed] review - the Nike Hyperize. Since the Hyperize is supposed to be the updated Hyperdunk, they'll be going toe to toe in Sneaker Livestock's first performance battle.



I've played in both shoes; they feel very similar - so similar that I wouldn't be able to find any differences between them by wearing them separately. In order to get the most accurate comparison, I put a Hyperize on my left foot and a Hyperdunk on my right foot and ran, jumped, cut, etc. and then switched feet. Doing this revealed the slightest of differences between the shoes, and I encourage everyone to try doing this with any 2 shoes.

Hook 'em Horns!!

My first impression when having both shoes on was that they felt strikingly similar. The midsole cushioning felt basically the same (as it should, since they have the same setup - heel Zoom / forefoot Lunar Foam). I did notice that the forefoot foam is slightly squishier in the Hyperdunk, but any extra points it would've earned are cancelled out by complaints of the foam quickly bottoming out. The heel-toe transition was exactly the same, and the fit and comfort were identical. I had different shoes on my feet for a while and at one point actually forgot that they weren't the same.

Here's where I noticed the differences. Lockdown is better in the Hyperdunk, thanks to a few factors:

1) The Hyperdunk has 2 lace eyelets tucked in the crease where the top of your ankle bends. This means that the laces actually cross over the top of the ankles, keeping the middle and back of the foot more locked down.

Note how the Hyperdunk's laces travel inward into the cutout just where the ankle collar starts

2) The Hyperdunk is cut higher in the back by the Achilles. The higher cut prevents the heel from slipping during toe off.

Note the Hyperdunk's slightly higher cut in Achilles area

3) The Hyperdunk's ankle collar has 3 levels of lace eyelets as opposed to the Hyperize's 2 levels. The extra level allows for a more snug fit around the ankle collar, improving lockdown and also increasing ankle support.

Note the extra lace loop sewn into the inside of the bottom part of the collar (Hyperdunk)

The other key difference is that the Hyperdunk seems to have a wider stance than the Hyperize. It's not actually wider; if you put the shoes sole to sole, they're the same width - but the shape of the outsole around the pinky-toe side juts out closer to the front of the shoe in the Hyperdunk, while the Hyperize has a curve that happens towards the midfoot. Confusing, yes... just think of the difference between the Huarache 2k4 and 2k5. The 2k5 has better lateral stability thanks to the exaggerated shape, but the more streamlined 2k4 is a more nimble shoe. That comparison can be applied here, where the Hyperize compares to the 2k4 while the Hyperdunk compares to the 2k5.



For now, this is purely an assumption (will need to be confirmed over time) but the Hyperize should be a much more durable shoe. While the Hyperize utilizes less Flywire than the Hyperdunk, in no way does it sacrifice flexibility, comfort, fit, or most importantly, weight (and it's even supposed to weigh a few ounces less than the Hyperdunk). The additional leather (or patent leather in this case) that frames the Flywire should provide a longer lasting shoe - and therefore, more bang for your buck.

The Bottom Line: The Hyperize and Hyperdunk are strikingly similar shoes in terms of comfort and feel. Nike addressed some key Hyperdunk problems in the Hyperize; general durability seems to have improved, and the forefoot Lunar Foam is claimed to last longer. People who complained about the Hyperdunk's poor traction will be happy to see herringbone applied to the Hyperize outsole (although I never had any traction complaints). However, the Hyperize does take a tiny step back in terms of lockdown and lateral stability. Of course, the performance differences are very small; in no way would I discourage anyone from trying out the Hyperize, especially if you like the Hyperdunk. It's a great shoe, and it definitely earns a spot in my top performers list.

Side-by-side comparison:

Upcoming Review: Nike Hyperize

The Nike Hyperdunk was easily the most popular shoe last season for NBA players, and they continue to be the sneaker of choice for streetballers around the world. Nike's new Hyperize brings a facelift to the Hyperdunk design - and with it, lots of anticipation. Does the Hyperize live up to the hype? Look for my thoughts in the full review to be posted early next week!