Lebron just lost major points in my book (and got owned).

Not a great comment by Lebron at all, Starbury is right and is doing the right thing, making show affordable for Kids who cant afford Lebrons dumb shoes, yes I see his point and all but come on no need to diss what Starbury is trying to do. He has a good reason and its very classy and respectful for him to do what he is doing. IMO for Lebron to say "We set our standards high". Thats like saying F poor people we just want to please the wealthy and we dont care if the poor cant buy it. But take for what its worth.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbury[/url]

[I]On March 23, 2007, Starbury was featured in a segment on the ABC show 20/20 (edition entitled "Enough!"), hosted by John Stossel. The segment dealt with the high price of sneakers and the role of Starbury and Marbury as an alternative. During the show, Marbury stated "If you take my shoe and you take a $150 shoe, cut it down in half, and it do the same exact thing.". The host Stossel puts Marbury's statement to the test and a pair of Starbury One's are brought to[B] Professor Howard Davis, Shoe Design department professor at Parsons The New School for Design.[/B] Davis proceeds to cut apart the Starbury One's and a pair of "$100 plus Air Jordan's" and states [B]"They're constructed the same way".[/B] Stossel then mentions[B] "others in the business" came to the same conclusion.[/B][/I]

Bad comment on Bron's part. But that doesnt make me a fan of Starbury tho. I'm not anti-Starbury, just neutral and this affected that status none. But you gotta applaud Starbury for what he has tried to do. Be nice if others joined in and made a statement.

so what does "constructed in the same way mean?" That's a really vague, and probably intentionally so, statement.

[QUOTE=SomeBunghole]I wasn't suggesting Nike would try and get out of their contract, I was saying that when his contract expired, they'd kick him like a stray dog. Loyalty implies relationship beyond business, that's what I'm getting at. Lebron shouldn't care the slightest about Nike. His money is guaranteed, who cares if the shoes are selling or not?

I don't know, it just bothers me that he speaks so highly of a company that is hell-bent on exploiting him in every way possible. I guess a 100 million can buy you a lot of dignity.[/QUOTE]
It's not like Nike is making James stand naked in chains on the slave block. His "dignity" isn't being majorly infringed upon in any way. And you're wondering why he cares whether or not the shoes sell? Nothing personal, but that's downright stupid. If his shoes don't sell then Nike won't be handing him the 150 million or whatever contract he asks for when his deal is next up for renewal. You don't take a hundred mil and then turn around and show apathy towards a company if you want them or anyone else watching to continue to give you contracts. Now if I was James I might have said something like, "he's entitled to try and start his business, but I'm sure that Nike makes the best sneakers in the world" instead of attacking Marbury's shoe, but he sent a message to Nike and other potential sponsors that when you sign LeBron James you get someone 100% committed to your company, and fir James, that's smart business.

I can't wait til the next time they play the Kings, and him and Brad Miller get into fisticuffs over what's the best riding lawnmower.

[QUOTE=loot]No question? Yes, one: proof it to me. Whe are they higher in quality?[/QUOTE]

come on dude...are you seriously going to tell me that a $15 starbury is better quality than a decent Nike?

when you buy the Lebron's they probably come with so many air pockets you can make a trampoline with them...

seriously though...I am sure they have much better ankle support, weight, grip, feel , ect...

[QUOTE=DatZNasty]so what does "constructed in the same way mean?" That's a really vague, and probably intentionally so, statement.[/QUOTE]

yeah...

hey guess what a ferrarri and an accord are constructed the same way...

does that mean they are the same quality?

a Lexus and a mazda are made from the same materials and by the same people...does that make them the same car?

[QUOTE=-primetime-]come on dude...are you seriously going to tell me that a $15 starbury is better quality than a decent Nike?

when you buy the Lebron's they probably come with so many air pockets you can make a trampoline with them...

seriously though...I am sure they have much better ankle support, weight, grip, feel , ect...[/QUOTE]

Well you said 'no question'. I'd like to hear how that's a no question. Like it's no question Audi is >> Volkswagen and Volkswagen >>> Skoda, all while they're the same cars, some with some extras? It's not quality.

So yeah, please proofe to me how it's 'no question'...

[QUOTE=loot]Well you said 'no question'. I'd like to hear how that's a no question. Like it's no question Audi is >> Volkswagen and Volkswagen >>> Skoda, all while they're the same cars, some with some extras? It's not quality.

So yeah, please proofe to me how it's 'no question'...[/QUOTE]

"prove"....that is twice you have asked me to proofe it to you...

what do you want a shoe customer review or something?

besides all the air pockets and money that went into designing them what more do you want?

[QUOTE=-primetime-]yeah...

hey guess what a ferrarri and an accord are constructed the same way...

does that mean they are the same quality?

a Lexus and a mazda are made from the same materials and by the same people...does that make them the same car?[/QUOTE]

no but a toyota or volvo could be considered better quality than a mercedes c or s class, which are both considered unreliable. and they're both way more expensive than most toyotas and volvos

[QUOTE=-primetime-]"prove"....that is twice you have asked me to proofe it to you...

what do you want a shoe customer review or something?

besides all the air pockets and money that went into designing them what more do you want?[/QUOTE]


all thse air pocketts and kareem and some others played 18 years on the highest level without shox and special air units in the upper right toe area. i dont think the amount of air units really makes a shoe 'better quality', besids, air doesnt cost a thing.

plus, you assume. assume leaves quite some room for questions and doubt.

[QUOTE=loot]no but a toyota or volvo could be considered better quality than a mercedes c or s class, which are both considered unreliable. and they're both way more expensive than most toyotas and volvos[/QUOTE]

huh?...

I own a mercedes S430...it is higher quality and has "proven" better preformance and a smoother ride than any toyota...

[QUOTE=loot]all thse air pocketts and kareem and some others played 18 years on the highest level without shox and special air units in the upper right toe area. i dont think the amount of air units really makes a shoe 'better quality', [B][SIZE="4"]besids, air doesnt cost a thing.[/SIZE][/B]

plus, you assume. assume leaves quite some room for questions and doubt.[/QUOTE]

air pocket placement and design cost them millions to create

[QUOTE=-primetime-]this is kinda dumb...

If Marbury could trade his $15 sneakers for his own $100 million dollar Nike contract he would do it in a heartbeat...

If Nike owns Lebron then we are all owned...

I guess the real question is if Lebron said that with a straight face or a smile...and either way I still don't like the guy[/QUOTE]

1st I don't think the would trade his sneakers for a contract from Nike
sure money is great, but he doesn't mark his sneaker price up for a good reason

2nd Lebron just made a horrible comment, the shoes that are produced by Nike are not higher quality at all, I have friend who's parents owns factories in Asia, they are all the same material and labor just before putting on the logo

3rd I can live with Lebron having to protect Nike, but still he doesn't need to try to bring to "quality" and "price" into the subject, because they are irrelevant.

And yes, the way he said either if it was kidding or serious would matter,
but still, some guy who is trying to call out others for having a less expensive shoes.
All the starbury kid is gonna be made fun of tomorrow in school
Bad Example

-primetime-, you are retarded. All these shoes are made overseas for the minimalist of wages. Thet are made exactly the same, but with different design. I'm sure it cost somewhere around $10 to make Starbury's or Lebron's. I'd like to see you're sources to prove that the Nike's are higher quality in some way.

[QUOTE=-primetime-]"prove"....that is twice you have asked me to proofe it to you...

what do you want a shoe customer review or something?

besides all the air pockets and money that went into designing them what more do you want?[/QUOTE]

You do know that for years, Nike has been HIGHLY suspected of being involved in the free trade system in which they spend less than $5 to buy and manufacture each shoe. The price of the shoe doesn't represent the quality.

[QUOTE=KINGofTHEcourt]-primetime-, you are retarded. All these shoes are made overseas for the minimalist of wages. Thet are made exactly the same, but with different design. I'm sure it cost somewhere around $10 to make Starbury's or Lebron's. I'd like to see you're sources to prove that the Nike's are higher quality in some way.[/QUOTE]

He is only making assumptions so far. Either way what Lebron said was wrong, no need to put it that way. I am sure Lebron's shoes are better, barely, but no where near 135$ better. More like 10$.

[QUOTE=-primetime-]air pocket placement and design cost them millions to create[/QUOTE]

and they are made back easily. Most of the shoe technologies dont get any better. Shoes arent noticably better than they were 10 years ago. Most of the technologies are basically the same.

I get my Nike's for free but I know they are usually crappy in terms of quality. Every1 on my team goes through at least 2 pairs every bball season of 130-150 dollar shoes. Sorry but thats not quality.

The funny thing about Bron is that i believe that he is prob ignorant to why people wouldnt like Nike as a company. He just doesnt seem very inteligent or in touch with major issues. For someone who wants so much he does little to better himself in order to achieve it.

[QUOTE=Free]You do know that for years, Nike has been HIGHLY suspected of being involved in the free trade system in which they spend less than $5 to buy and manufacture each shoe. The price of the shoe doesn't represent the quality.[/QUOTE]

Which is why someone brought up the fact that some shoes were cut open to see the difference.

[QUOTE=-primetime-]huh?...

I own a mercedes S430...it is higher quality and has "proven" better preformance and a smoother ride than any toyota...[/QUOTE]

The Most Unreliable Cars
Sedans most likely to send you back to the dealer. Worst performer first.

1.) Mercedes-Benz - S-Class - $100,000
2.) Jaguar - S-Type - $51,000
3.) BMW - 7 Series - $94,000
4.) Jaguar - X-Type - $33,000
5.) Mercedes-Benz - E-Class - $64,000
6.) Mercedes-Benz - C-Class (V6) - $40,000
7.) Volvo - S60 (AWD) - $32,000
8.) Saab - 9-3 - $35,000
9.) Pontiac - Grand Prix - $25,000
10.) Volkswagen - Passat (AWD) - $28,000
11.) BMW - 5 Series - $58,000



I'm talking about reliabilty here. I consider that as a big part of the quality of a car. Toyota and Volvo have been at the top of those lists year after year after year. If a czr is unreliable I can't consider it as high quality, sorry.

"Straight-Six, Automotive Journalism without the Restrictor PlatesIn the face of the 2000-2005 S-Class sedan garnering a reputation as one of the most unreliable Mercedes to own."

I could go on. You get the point. Prices don't indicate quality. Look at food. The budgetbrands are produced in the same factory as your regular Heinz etc products. The difference is the label and the price. It's the same with the shoes.


And still you havent given me any proof why Lebrons are 'no question' of higher quality. What you're doing is assuming. Guessing.

[QUOTE=Younggrease]and they are made back easily. Most of the shoe technologies dont get any better. Shoes arent noticably better than they were 10 years ago. Most of the technologies are basically the same.

I get my Nike's for free but I know they are usually crappy in terms of quality. Every1 on my team goes through at least 2 pairs every bball season of 130-150 dollar shoes. Sorry but thats not quality.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I need at least 2 pairs of shoes for a full basketball season. Nike shocks are very low quality in terms of durability, the shox tear apart after one solid month of basketball. The insides of the shoes also tend to tear quickly. The $135 on the box is just the retail price Nike suggests, it has nothing to do with the actual value of the shoe.

[QUOTE=-primetime-]air pocket placement and design cost them millions to create[/QUOTE] yes that's correct and marketing those air pockets cost another wad of cash...that's why Nike's cost more than other shoes, not because they are that much better but because they spent that much more bringing them to market

the first Starbury review that poped up on google...

[I]Overall Rating: 5 or 15 Shots
The final rating of these shoes really depends on what you're using them for. If you want something that looks cool to walk around in, then the Starbury Ones are a damn good shoe for $15. You could probably even use some gel inserts to make them more comfortable. BUT...if you expect to play basketball in them, you're going to be tragically disappointed. Not only will you end up with chronically sore feet to go along with your aching knees and ankles, the shoes aren't constructed well enough to last long under the pressure of serious balling. This isn't in the tagline, but Marbury might have created the first fully disposable basketball shoe.[/I]

[url]http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2006/08/official-starbury-one-shoe-review.html[/url]

all of you calling me dumb for saying the Nike's are higher quality need to just face the truth and get real...I don't care if they are made by the same asian slaves and with the same materials...MORE THOUGHT AND MONEY WENT INTO DESIGNING THEM...PERIOD

if you guys want to go give that thin leather a try on the court go for it...

and I still think that the real question here is [B][SIZE="3"]"WAS LEBRON SAYING THAT IN A JOKING MANNER OR WAS HE STRAIGHT FACED"...[/SIZE][/B]

funny thing is, i still can play on my reebok atr swaggers from a few years ago. no fancy stuff, just a very plain shoe and they fit really nice.


[url]http://www.tarmac.de/shop/media/Reebok_ATR_SWAGGER_110k.gif[/url]

just like these nike 2k3's

[url]http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/e2/05/Nike_Zoom_2K3_Basketball_Shoe-resized200.jpg[/url]

simple shoes, nothing too fancy. just like the ones marbury sells.

[QUOTE=Younggrease]and they are made back easily. Most of the shoe technologies dont get any better. Shoes arent noticably better than they were 10 years ago. Most of the technologies are basically the same.

I get my Nike's for free but I know they are usually crappy in terms of quality. Every1 on my team goes through at least 2 pairs every bball season of 130-150 dollar shoes. Sorry but thats not quality.

The funny thing about Bron is that i believe that he is prob ignorant to why people wouldnt like Nike as a company. He just doesnt seem very inteligent or in touch with major issues. For someone who wants so much he does little to better himself in order to achieve it.[/QUOTE]
Someone buy some Starbury's and disect them and I'll do the same with any of my old Nike's. I don't see what dissection would prove per say since there's an element of performance and durability also at question but you'll see the styrofoam I'm talking about in the Starbury. Or you could just take the insoles out, or just take the paper out that's stuffed in them and the insole will accidentally rip some of the way out.

[QUOTE=gts]yes that's correct and marketing those air pockets cost another wad of cash...that's why Nike's cost more than other shoes, not because they are that much better but because they spent that much more bringing them to market[/QUOTE]

Nope they cost that much becuase they simply trying to maximize profits. The same reason they "exploit" 3rd world worker(there is some debate to be had there, depends on p.o.v.).

[QUOTE=gts]yes that's correct and marketing those air pockets cost another wad of cash...that's why Nike's cost more than other shoes, not because they are that much better but because they spent that much more bringing them to market[/QUOTE]
Do you think that Starbury does not advertise? Advertising is an expense to any company. The money used to develop the air pockets was easily made back.

[QUOTE]if you guys want to go give that thin leather a try on the court go for it...[/QUOTE]

marbury plays on them. ben wallace will wear them


sheed has been playing on air force ones. shoes i really dont like to play on. but they are practically the same as they were, what...15 years ago? so much for all the time and money nike has been investing. how many games did ben wallace, sheed and marbury miss due to ankle, knee and other leg related injuries? not many.

the thing i noticed is the older shoes pre air pockets feel better for longer, the air pocket shoes start to feel odd after a period of time, like the air pockets collapsed or something

[QUOTE=loot]marbury plays on them. ben wallace will wear them


sheed has been playing on air force ones. shoes i really dont like to play on. but they are practically the same as they were, what...15 years ago? so much for all the time and money nike has been investing. how many games did ben wallace, sheed and marbury miss due to ankle, knee and other leg related injuries? not many.[/QUOTE]

because they get paid to wear them...

Marbury is owned by Sarbury just as much as Lebron is owned by Nike...

[QUOTE]That's exactly it. You bring up his stats. His stats are what made me think that he's the best.

But when I watch him play I just don't get the same impresion. I'm not impressed. I don't wow at him. I don't find him entertaining and spectacular. I don't find him that skilled.

Don't like to admit this but Wade actually looks much better to me when I watch him play.

That's just it....he's the best when you just concentrate on stats whereas other players make you wow.
Magic had that.
MJ had that.
Even Duncan has that.

I just don't see that in LeBron.[/QUOTE]

While I get what you are saying(on a basic level) I dont agree with it. Bron isnt Magic and Jordan. Or even Gervin/VC/Mcgrady/Drexler when it comes to just beautiful moves. He and Wade are more like Nique, Grant Hill, and players like that. But ive always enjoyed both ends. Wade seems more robitic than Bron does to me. Bron has some smooth elements.

Only thing that he does that annoys me is the fake look away pass where he throws it...then looks off. Its strictly for show and doesnt even look good as that. Just.....odd.

Aside from that his game is pretty entertaining. As far as who is best to watch at the top of their games id put him next to Nash, Wade, Duncan, and Mcgrady as my favorites. Kobe used to be. 03 and before. But Kobe doesnt really entertain me now. Impresses me. But not really entertain.

[QUOTE=DatZNasty]Someone buy some Starbury's and disect them and I'll do the same with any of my old Nike's. I don't see what dissection would prove per say since there's an element of performance and durability also at question but you'll see the styrofoam I'm talking about in the Starbury. Or you could just take the insoles out, or just take the paper out that's stuffed in them and the insole will accidentally rip some of the way out.[/QUOTE]

this guy did...

[I]Wearability: 5 Shots
This is where the Starbury Ones fail. They just aren't comfortable. They ride high and really grip the ankle. This means that the shoes are hard to get on, rub the hell out of your ankle while you're wearing them, and then they're hard to take off. They're also rather big and clunky for basketball shoes, reminiscent of basketball shoes from the mid-90s. Fortunately (or unfortunately), the leather is thin and so the shoes are actually pretty light.

Speaking of the leather...it has all the flexibility of a cardboard box. Maybe there's a breaking-in period or something, but instead of comforming to the movement of your feet, the leather actually "caves in" while you walk. This caving-in process can produce sharp little indentations that poke your feet. This doesn't just happen while you're hooping it up, either; it also happens when you're just walking around. It's both annoying and a little painful.

The shoes don't have any arch support either, and there's very little padding, so it can feel like you're running up and down the court with a couple wooden planks strapped to your feet. Due to the weak sole and complete lack of arch support, it's difficult to jump and accelerate when running out on a fast break (not to mention the "clomp, clomp, clomp" sound you'll make while running). This will be a deterrent to almost anyone who plays competitive basketball, but especially to someone like me who has flat feet. By the end of the night, both of my feet were sore and my left knee was aching. I don't know how Stephon is going to get through next season playing in these things.[/I]

[url]http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2006/08/official-starbury-one-shoe-review.html[/url]

[QUOTE=-primetime-]because they get paid to wear them...

Marbury is owned by Sarbury just as much as Lebron is owned by Nike...[/QUOTE]


they get paid to not get injured? companies pay them to wear bad shoes?

put it the other way around kiddo: bron wears the shoes because he gets paid. and you wear them because you want him to get paid i guess.

[QUOTE=KINGofTHEcourt]Do you think that Starbury does not advertise? Advertising is an expense to any company. The money used to develop the air pockets was easily made back.[/QUOTE] yes i realize starbury advertises... lol but how many players is starbury paying to endorse thier shoes? in all the various sports? if starbury's advertising budget was 1/100th of nikes then i'd be surprised...

[QUOTE]Marbury is owned by Sarbury just as much as Lebron is owned by Nike...[/QUOTE]


You serious?

[QUOTE=loot]You serious?[/QUOTE]

well I don't know thier contracts but maybe owned even more than Lebron...he has to wear those crappy Starburys all year long...and I bet he isn't getting nearly one tenth of the money Lebron is from Nike...

[I]"The shoes don't have any arch support either, and there's very little padding, so it can feel like you're running up and down the court with a couple wooden planks strapped to your feet. Due to the weak sole and complete lack of arch support, it's difficult to jump and accelerate when running out on a fast break (not to mention the "clomp, clomp, clomp" sound you'll make while running). This will be a deterrent to almost anyone who plays competitive basketball, but especially to someone like me who has flat feet. By the end of the night, both of my feet were sore and my left knee was aching.[B][SIZE="3"] I don't know how Stephon is going to get through next season playing in these things.[/SIZE][/B]
"[/I]

[QUOTE=-primetime-]this guy did...

[I]Wearability: 5 Shots
This is where the Starbury Ones fail. They just aren't comfortable. They ride high and really grip the ankle. This means that the shoes are hard to get on, rub the hell out of your ankle while you're wearing them, and then they're hard to take off. They're also rather big and clunky for basketball shoes, reminiscent of basketball shoes from the mid-90s. Fortunately (or unfortunately), the leather is thin and so the shoes are actually pretty light.

Speaking of the leather...it has all the flexibility of a cardboard box. Maybe there's a breaking-in period or something, but instead of comforming to the movement of your feet, the leather actually "caves in" while you walk. This caving-in process can produce sharp little indentations that poke your feet. This doesn't just happen while you're hooping it up, either; it also happens when you're just walking around. It's both annoying and a little painful.

The shoes don't have any arch support either, and there's very little padding, so it can feel like you're running up and down the court with a couple wooden planks strapped to your feet. Due to the weak sole and complete lack of arch support, it's difficult to jump and accelerate when running out on a fast break (not to mention the "clomp, clomp, clomp" sound you'll make while running). This will be a deterrent to almost anyone who plays competitive basketball, but especially to someone like me who has flat feet. By the end of the night, both of my feet were sore and my left knee was aching. I don't know how Stephon is going to get through next season playing in these things.[/I]

[url]http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2006/08/official-starbury-one-shoe-review.html[/url][/QUOTE]

the thing i have noticed about most shoe people is they fell there HAS TO BE a difference in quality in shoes as price goes up. Because if there wasnt they would look stupid buying shoes for 200 bucks a pop. So the idea that MArbury was selling slightly worse shoes for a hundred dollars less wouldnt fly. The conflict of interest makes somebody that rates shoes on a website questionable to me.

Nowe if someone scientifically broke down the shoe that would be different. But if the Starbarys where the same quality as his beloved Jordans his whole world would crash. Im sure his mind wouldnt accept that, and for that reason his opinion is not very credible on these shoes

[QUOTE=gts]yes i realize starbury advertises... lol but how many players is starbury paying to endorse thier shoes? in all the various sports? if starbury's advertising budget was 1/100th of nikes then i'd be surprised...[/QUOTE]
More athletes = more publicity = more shoe sales.

If you're idea in here is correct, then why do Jordans cost so much, even though MJ only has about 20 players signed to the label?

And I don't think Nike shelled out the big bucks, so they could sign players like Channing Frye. Nike has a lot of athletes, but only a few have enormous contracts.

You're reasoning doesn't ad up, i'd like an answer to why Jordan's cost so much when they have about 20 athletes. Its all about the logo on the shoe, its got nothing to do with quality, and that is clear.

Those 2K3's are great Loot, I had the black ones. But they are hardly "nothing fancy." You're talking a shoe that MSRP'd well over 100$ and features carbon fiber, zoom air sockliner, and was in commercials with Parker, Kidd, Nash, and some other Nike guys.

But anyways, do you think if someone replaced your 2K3's with some other shoes before you went out for your hoop session, [I]whether they be Starbury's, Magic32's, or even more expensive "better" shoes like the LeBron 4's or Jordan 22's and you weren't allowed to look at your feet (made you wear some dribbling googles maybe)[/I], that you could tell?