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

[adamcz]

Lebron has incentives tied to sales and marketshare too though.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Um Brons and Starburs shoes are probally made in the same damn place with the same material.

Probably not. PM me when you wear a pair of those cheap plastic bricks known as Starburys, and feel the difference wearing a pair of LeBrons. There is a dramatic difference, not to mention major style points.

[Se]

LeBron is a chump. Dominique Wilkens would eat him

[SCREWstonRockets]

Probably not. PM me when you wear a pair of those cheap plastic bricks known as Starburys, and feel the difference wearing a pair of LeBrons. There is a dramatic difference, not to mention major style points.

I wear Jordans for casual and wear the Starburys to hoop. The Starburys feel just as comfortable as the Jordans(4). They may not look as nice, but my Starburys didn't rip up after one game and fall apart when I attempted a crossover dribble. If there is a difference, I don't notice it. Except that I saved much more spending $15 on shoes to play basketball. And more than likely, the Starburys and LeBrons are cut from the same material.

[DatZNasty]

Sweet lord, primetime assumes, bets and thinks waaaaaay too much.

So is everybody on the opposite side of the argument. The LeBron 4's don't even have leather on them, they are nubuck and foamposite.

[PMshooter]

Lebron has incentives tied to sales and marketshare too though.

Extra cash for Bron. But it doesn't change Marbury's point that he's not locked up as X company's boy. I don't think it's such a bad thing personally.

[saKf]

[QUOTE=Se

[PMshooter]

I wear Jordans for casual and wear the Starburys to hoop. The Starburys feel just as comfortable as the Jordans(4). They may not look as nice, but my Starburys didn't rip up after one game and fall apart when I attempted a crossover dribble. If there is a difference, I don't notice it. Except that I saved much more spending $15 on shoes to play basketball. And more than likely, the Starburys and LeBrons are cut from the same material.

It makes sense. You're going to put a hell of a lot more wear on tear on shoes that you ball in. If they're even 11% as durable as a pair of LeBron's, it's worth it. If they're half as durable, you're saving a ton of money.

One of the guys I play with had a pair of Carmellos. They fit great and he loved them, until the one of the cloth eyeholes for the laces ripped. Price doesn't guarantee quality

[-primetime-]

come on guys...I am not going to reply to all of those.

all I was getting at is that Starbury claims to be just as good as any other shoe when that is clearly not the case...

yes I know Nikes cost 5 cents to make and are overpriced...

but that means starburys cost 1 cent to make...

Lebron got $100 million dollars from Nike...think about that...$100 million...that is 1/10th of a BILLION...that means that if Nike sold 1MILLION pairs of Lebrons at $100 a pop they would just break even with Lebron...think about that...Nike also spends millions of dollars designing the shoes...then advertising....after what is close to $200 million is spent then they send it off to china and slave labor them out for $1 a piece or what ever....

why do you guys think that shoes are different than any other product out there?...do you think the $300 television that claims to be just as good as the $3000 television really is just as good?

and why does saying this make me a rich prick?...I have said numerous times that I applaud what Marbury is trying to...it would seem as though he is not worried so much about a profit but more helping out...that is a great thing and he is a good man for doing it....but that does not make Starburys as high of quality as Nikes....sorry

[PMshooter]

The difference is this:

1.) Textiles are known to be made in the same places, from the same materials. The companies sub-contract their designs to manufacturers that put the materials together:

http://www.unc.edu/~andrewsr/ints092/vandu.html

They utilize an outsourcing strategy, using only subcontractors throughout the globe. Their majority of their output today is produced in factories in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, but they also have factories in Italy, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea.

So what you're paying for is Nike design, not Nike quality. There's no such thing. It's the quality of the 3rd world factory that is making (mostly) Nike's and whatever else in the same factory.

EDIT: Let me add that I like Nike design over Reebok, not just in terms of style, but also in terms of how it fits my foot and supports my heel. But that's not a product of the materials, it's a matter of personal preference and fit. It's quite possible whoever designed Marbury's sneaks is just as good.

2.) It's completely plausible to get a cheaper electronic product that is of a higher quality. Just got to http://www.newegg.com and sort a product by reader reviews. You'll be surprised how often the cheaper product is the better reviewed product.

When you pay extra for a brand name, you're paying for design, popularity, and stability. Sony is more likely to honor your warranty than some brand you've never heard of. But as far as I know, there's no warranty on sneakers.

[allball]

come on guys...I am not going to reply to all of those.

all I was getting at is that Starbury claims to be just as good as any other shoe when that is clearly not the case...

yes I know Nikes cost 5 cents to make and are overpriced...

but that means starburys cost 1 cent to make...

Lebron got $100 million dollars from Nike...think about that...$100 million...that is 1/10th of a BILLION...that means that if Nike sold 1MILLION pairs of Lebrons at $100 a pop they would just break even with Lebron...think about that...Nike also spends millions of dollars designing the shoes...then advertising....after what is close to $200 million is spent then they send it off to china and slave labor them out for $1 a piece or what ever....

why do you guys think that shoes are different than any other product out there?...do you think the $300 television that claims to be just as good as the $3000 television really is just as good?

and why does saying this make me a rich prick?...I have said numerous times that I applaud what Marbury is trying to...it would seem as though he is not worried so much about a profit but more helping out...that is a great thing and he is a good man for doing it....but that does not make Starburys as high of quality as Nikes....sorry

Man Magic and Shaq have been selling cheap shoes for years and there IS a difference in quality. My son has busted out of two pairs of $18 Shaqs. One of the kids on my son's AAU team had some Starburys and quite frankly they are nowhere near the quality of the Nikes my son wears.

Tried to avoid buying him the Nikes but they are better and last longer. I buy the not so popular ones though at Academy Sports. dont fool with the Jordans. Did buy him a pair of the first Brons in white a few years ago. believe it or not his footwork improved dramatically over when he was wearing the Shaqs.

[kenuffff]

trust me nike makes back its money and then some on lebron, same with jordan , jordan's estimated wealth is probably isn't a billion, do you realize how much nike made from jordan he built the company up, the 100 million dollars isn't some lump sum payment. they'll make billions off lebron before its said and done and he'll only have the 100 million. i don't really care what lebron's views are he has already established himself as ignorant. marbury hate the guy but he has a good heart lebron's heart is well i don't know, his heart is in building a palace and other worldly causes:rollingeyes:

[-primetime-]

The difference is this:

1.) Textiles are known to be made in the same places, from the same materials. The companies sub-contract their designs to manufacturers that put the materials together:

http://www.unc.edu/~andrewsr/ints092/vandu.html


So what you're paying for is Nike design, not Nike quality. There's no such thing. It's the quality of the 3rd world factory that is making (mostly) Nike's and whatever else in the same factory.

EDIT: Let me add that I like Nike design over Reebok, not just in terms of style, but also in terms of how it fits my foot and supports my heel. But that's not a product of the materials, it's a matter of personal preference and fit. It's quite possible whoever designed Marbury's sneaks is just as good.

2.) It's completely plausible to get a cheaper electronic product that is of a higher quality. Just got to http://www.newegg.com and sort a product by reader reviews. You'll be surprised how often the cheaper product is the better reviewed product.

When you pay extra for a brand name, you're paying for design, popularity, and stability. Sony is more likely to honor your warranty than some brand you've never heard of. But as far as I know, there's no warranty on sneakers.

they are not the same materials...

starbury reviews refer to the leather as "cardboard like" and not stretchable

starbury shoes also don't come equiped with "shock springs, air cusions, padding around the ankle, lightweight material crap, ect." that nikes do...

that is like me saying that both a pinto and a lexus are made from the same materials...that must mean I am just paying for the Lexus name?

[PMshooter]

that is like me saying that both a pinto and a lexus are made from the same materials...that must mean I am just paying for the Lexus name?

I'm saying clothes and shoes are manufactured in a very specific way that is much different than how electronics or cars are made. That's what I'm getting at. So it's not a good comparison.

Besides, as 14K corrolla will last you 20 years, whereas a 50K Mercedes won't. If you look at the latest consumer reports for autos, there's not a single Mercedes that they recommend. So when you pay more, you're not always paying for QUALITY.

But I don't own Marbury's so I'm not making an actual statement on the shoe. Just the stupidity of saying that paying more equals getting more. It doesn't.

All ball's argument is the most convincing since it's based on actual experience.

[dogfah]

bron = greed

money owns him. what a fool.