SportsCenter Coming to Carnesecca Arena on Thursday

Beasts of the East said:
Generational. At point in the 60s, Cons were the only shoe a serious player wore. They were about $12 a pair. Then adidas came out with the Superstars, white leather with 3 black stripes for about $30. No one wore them outside, too expensive. Keds release a serious canvas competitor to Cons called Pro Keds, and later a leather version. For bball you'd wear high top cons to protect your ankles. Puma Clydes were sharp but a total piece of crap to wear indoors. The soles were hard and slippery and Frazier once famously lost both trying to guard the Rockets Mike Newlin in the waning moments of a close game. You could wear out a pair of Cons on asphalt in less than 2 weeks and queens kids tried all kinds of masking and electrical tape remedies to hold them together till you scraped up enough for a new pair.
Click to expand...
Growing up I had Pro Keds, Cons, Pumas and Adidas. Nike was just coming on the scene moving from strictly a runners shoe.

Not all players wore Nike while I was at St. John’s. Some like Bill Wennington wore Converse which is what Team Canada wore.
 
MainMan said:
Puma still makes Clyde's. And they're as cool as the man himself.

cf2b9c0c-deca100d1a1b26dd409f2f008933251f.png
Click to expand...
They came in red, green, and a few other colors. They totally looked cool but the dye on the suede ran onto your white socks and ruined them. Nice looking but low tops suck for bball in general and they were slippery as hell on wood floor and pretty inflexible. Cost about what adidas did.
 
Beasts of the East said:
Generational. At point in the 60s, Cons were the only shoe a serious player wore. They were about $12 a pair. Then adidas came out with the Superstars, white leather with 3 black stripes for about $30. No one wore them outside, too expensive. Keds release a serious canvas competitor to Cons called Pro Keds, and later a leather version. For bball you'd wear high top cons to protect your ankles. Puma Clydes were sharp but a total piece of crap to wear indoors. The soles were hard and slippery and Frazier once famously lost both trying to guard the Rockets Mike Newlin in the waning moments of a close game. You could wear out a pair of Cons on asphalt in less than 2 weeks and queens kids tried all kinds of masking and electrical tape remedies to hold them together till you scraped up enough for a new pair.
Click to expand...
Love your mentioning the high and low Cons. The highs were considered better for ankles but the lows were the cool gear. Wonder how much Chuck Taylor made from them. Remember the Celtics being proponents of the low cuts and Bird being their lead wearer. However the all time leader in the sneaker world has been Michael Jordan who has become a billionaire primarily through his deals with Nike. in 2022, MJ got over $250,000,000 from Nike--definitely the GOAT when it comes to sneakers.
 
BrooklynRed said:
Love your mentioning the high and low Cons. The highs were considered better for ankles but the lows were the cool gear. Wonder how much Chuck Taylor made from them. Remember the Celtics being proponents of the low cuts and Bird being their lead wearer. However the all time leader in the sneaker world has been Michael Jordan who has become a billionaire primarily through his deals with Nike. in 2022, MJ got over $250,000,000 from Nike--definitely the GOAT when it comes to sneakers.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it Stephon Marbury who felt it was obscene for Jordan to profit so much from Nike Jordans a shoe so priced above $200 a pair, way above the reach of poorer kids? I think his shoes were sold for $25 a pair. Both cost very littls to produce.
 
Beasts of the East said:
Wasn't it Stephon Marbury who felt it was obscene for Jordan to profit so much from Nike Jordans a shoe so priced above $200 a pair, way above the reach of poorer kids? I think his shoes were sold for $25 a pair. Both cost very littls to produce.
Click to expand...
Starburys. They were actually $15. Friend of mine picked up a pair for me when they first came out, and while I can't remember how long they lasted before falling apart, I can honestly tell you they were the most comfortable sneaker I've ever worn.
 
L J S A said:
Starburys. They were actually $15. Friend of mine picked up a pair for me when they first came out, and while I can't remember how long they lasted before falling apart, I can honestly tell you they were the most comfortable sneaker I've ever worn.
Click to expand...

He sold it through a rather short-lived local retailer (Something like Steve and Barry?). I remember they had a place near MSG in the Manhattan Mall.

I was trying to be cynical and pick apart Marbury's plan as nothing more than a PR-Marketing stunt here but in the end I think he was genuine with the reasoning behind the shoe.
 
MainMan said:
He sold it through a rather short-lived local retailer (Something like Steve and Barry?). I remember they had a place near MSG in the Manhattan Mall.

I was trying to be cynical and pick apart Marbury's plan as nothing more than a PR-Marketing stunt here but in the end I think he was genuine with the reasoning behind the shoe.
Click to expand...
It was Steve and Barry’s. Their merchandise was actually well made and quality stuff. They sold things at a low price points and the Hicksville store was always busy. I still have a St. John’s jacket and I think my wife and I might still have a hoodie from there. IMHO they expanded too quickly, brought in some other celebrites and gave them their own product lines and with the cost of manufacturing and their low price point for merchandise, they were doomed. They should have stayed in their original lane of quality college and some pro gear out of 1 - 3 stores a d they would have had a longer run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top