Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Recommended Posts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/54135292

Call me an old fart, but I've never understood this obsession with Sneakers, Trainers, Pumps, Plimsolls. 

It definitely seems to resonate more with people of a different culture, ethnicity than me, which may explain why I don't get it, but it seems retarded. 

Suppose they might feel the same way about a Grandfather clock from 1867 though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Marketing works.   Actually I think it’s a way for low wealth people to broadcast value. Halo effect to certain extent.  Someone with money isn’t going buy them, because they don’t represent valu

You missed a Some at the start. I find it very tedious.  I go running a bit.  It used to be that you could buy a cheapish pair from a known brand (any) and it would be okay.  Nowadays, they're al

Posted Images

Boiled down they are just sweaty gym shoes which are all made cheaply in China.

An ex-colleague used to buy lots of particular makes and that's the only person I've every encountered that was into such things; he was white and reasonably normal but had spent a portion of his life as a street homeless alcoholic so maybe after that experience he wanted a wide selection of nice clean trainers.

Brands have been ever creeping up on the youth; I complemented my niece on her nice new pair of baseball boots and she looked slightly confused until her mother explained that they were known as "Converse" after their brand rather than by the style.

Similar treatment is meted out to expensive watches which IMHO are all very similar even if they're not made for 50p each in a Wuhan factory.  People don't say "I have a gold watch" they say "I have a gold Rolex" or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Brands have been ever creeping up on the youth; I complemented my niece on her nice new pair of baseball boots and she looked slightly confused until her mother explained that they were known as "Converse" after their brand rather than by the style.

I'm sure they were called plimsolls when I was a kid  o.O

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Libspero said:

I'm sure they were called plimsolls when I was a kid  o.O

This was specifically baseball boots; which were casual footwear rather than sports.

mLM14BpdKD5BmuKKr7HJ_Ww.jpg

 

As distinct from trainers, overall heavier and thicker construction, or the standard issue stretchy canvas rubber soled sports shoe I used to know as "daps".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, feed said:

Marketing works.  

Actually I think it’s a way for low wealth people to broadcast value. Halo effect to certain extent.  Someone with money isn’t going buy them, because they don’t represent value.  Someone without money, will as they represent value to their peer group.  
 

That's a very good way of putting it.

I noted at work how once people got onto the first rung of management they generally went for the expensive and car and from then on the more senior they became the more everyday and old became their replacement cars.

The only vaguely flashy car amongst the most senior was an Audi TT but even that was something like ten years old; the new and nearly new "premium" brands were middle managers only.

And as you say I would have zero interest in wearing a branded trainer because I regard them as common whatever price tag they may attract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MrPin said:

No name sport shoes are just as good.

You missed a Some at the start.

I find it very tedious.  I go running a bit.  It used to be that you could buy a cheapish pair from a known brand (any) and it would be okay.  Nowadays, they're all crap to a degree, because the big name brands are fashion, not sport.  I eventually found a decent pair at 'cheap enough' (Nike, £40ish), only to find that they'd only last a few months before disintegrating.  Then I found another pair (Adidas, £30ish), only to find after 3 years that they'd discontinued them and replaced them in their range by some bouncy monstrosity.

Then there are the no-name -- again, mainly about fashion, but this time without the brand -- so, actually, only sold to old people, who generally don't discern their sporting capability (just their ability to take you to the shops without having a sore knee or causing you to slip over).  Every now and then you find something that is actually well made (=supportive in the right places, doesn't fall apart), but after a single pair the design changes / factory does something else, and you're back to square one.

I just wore Nike Pegasus Plus for 20 years and was happy enough with them.   Those days are gone.  I don't think Nike sell usable running shoes at <£100 any more (their cheaper ones fall apart.  I'm sure the expensive ones do as well, but I've not bought any to find out).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, feed said:

Marketing works.  

Actually I think it’s a way for low wealth people to broadcast value. Halo effect to certain extent.  Someone with money isn’t going buy them, because they don’t represent value.  Someone without money, will as they represent value to their peer group.  

Converse certainly aren’t an expensive brand. Popular though.

I have quite a few pairs of trainers at the moment. Some dedicated for running, a white pair for tennis and a couple of pairs of “fashion” trainers for general use.

 

D652BB0E-E383-49F9-9550-4FC6D9C4F5BF.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

This was specifically baseball boots; which were casual footwear rather than sports.

mLM14BpdKD5BmuKKr7HJ_Ww.jpg

 

As distinct from trainers, overall heavier and thicker construction, or the standard issue stretchy canvas rubber soled sports shoe I used to know as "daps".

 

Not really seeing the difference..   except the higher ankle support.

JLP36_SQ1_0000000019_BLACK-WHITE_SLf1?$5

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, feed said:

Marketing works.  

Actually I think it’s a way for low wealth people to broadcast value. Halo effect to certain extent.  Someone with money isn’t going buy them, because they don’t represent value.  Someone without money, will as they represent value to their peer group.  
 

On the contrary, they represent enormous value if you're a social media influencer with a major following, you can get paid big bucks to wear them.  And no, I don't understand, but that's the way people are, even my own 11yo daughter.

Should I rejoice that she's "normal" or worry that her brain is being twisted? I really don't know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Libspero said:

 

Not really seeing the difference..   except the higher ankle support.

JLP36_SQ1_0000000019_BLACK-WHITE_SLf1?$5

 

You must be younger than me.  Whilst I have owned similar shoes to those I don't remember their being around when I was a kid and wouldn't know what they're called given that they aren't baseball boots, daps or trainers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've learned from years of five a side is that the kid in dayglo Adidas boots and replica kit "warming up" by doing bewildering tricks and drinking an exotic sports drink is likely to be a terrible match player. It's the shaggy fifty year old in the faded white tee and dilapidated Dunlop trainers, a scabby supermarket own brand squash bottle refilled with water, in a carrier bag, and three thousand games behind him that you've got to watch out for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dgul said:

You missed a Some at the start.

I find it very tedious.  I go running a bit.  It used to be that you could buy a cheapish pair from a known brand (any) and it would be okay.  Nowadays, they're all crap to a degree, because the big name brands are fashion, not sport.  I eventually found a decent pair at 'cheap enough' (Nike, £40ish), only to find that they'd only last a few months before disintegrating.  Then I found another pair (Adidas, £30ish), only to find after 3 years that they'd discontinued them and replaced them in their range by some bouncy monstrosity.

Then there are the no-name -- again, mainly about fashion, but this time without the brand -- so, actually, only sold to old people, who generally don't discern their sporting capability (just their ability to take you to the shops without having a sore knee or causing you to slip over).  Every now and then you find something that is actually well made (=supportive in the right places, doesn't fall apart), but after a single pair the design changes / factory does something else, and you're back to square one.

I just wore Nike Pegasus Plus for 20 years and was happy enough with them.   Those days are gone.  I don't think Nike sell usable running shoes at <£100 any more (their cheaper ones fall apart.  I'm sure the expensive ones do as well, but I've not bought any to find out).

 

 

You now need the ascics jell running shoes for approx 150 quid to get the same comfort as a 50 quid pair of nikes 20-30 years ago

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

On the contrary, they represent enormous value if you're a social media influencer with a major following, you can get paid big bucks to wear them.  And no, I don't understand, but that's the way people are, even my own 11yo daughter.

Should I rejoice that she's "normal" or worry that her brain is being twisted? I really don't know. 

Well sure but she’s the marketing not the consumer. 

As a teen I very much wanted brand trainers as social status  was very much related to cost of nikes you had. But I couldn’t get them.  Now I have the money to buy any ones I like, I have no use for them.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dgul said:

You missed a Some at the start.

I find it very tedious.  I go running a bit.  It used to be that you could buy a cheapish pair from a known brand (any) and it would be okay.  Nowadays, they're all crap to a degree, because the big name brands are fashion, not sport.  I eventually found a decent pair at 'cheap enough' (Nike, £40ish), only to find that they'd only last a few months before disintegrating.  Then I found another pair (Adidas, £30ish), only to find after 3 years that they'd discontinued them and replaced them in their range by some bouncy monstrosity.

Then there are the no-name -- again, mainly about fashion, but this time without the brand -- so, actually, only sold to old people, who generally don't discern their sporting capability (just their ability to take you to the shops without having a sore knee or causing you to slip over).  Every now and then you find something that is actually well made (=supportive in the right places, doesn't fall apart), but after a single pair the design changes / factory does something else, and you're back to square one.

I just wore Nike Pegasus Plus for 20 years and was happy enough with them.   Those days are gone.  I don't think Nike sell usable running shoes at <£100 any more (their cheaper ones fall apart.  I'm sure the expensive ones do as well, but I've not bought any to find out).

 

 

Tell the sportswear shop that you want them for sports, and what warranty they have on their sports shoes. If it is too short, walk out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, King of Fools said:

I had a pair of Hi-Tec Silver Shadows in the early 80s. 

I ruled the world.

Same here..   several pairs in fact.  Great trainers at a fraction of the price of the fashion ones.

I never understood the obsession other kids had with "Nike Air".

 

Quote

 

Whats so good about them?

You can pump them up ?

How does that help ?

It makes you run faster.

Ok,   race you..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RJT1979 said:

You now need the ascics jell running shoes for approx 150 quid to get the same comfort as a 50 quid pair of nikes 20-30 years ago

I don't want comfort.

I want:

  • A sole that stops stones from hurting my foot, yet is flexible enough for my foot to flex properly with the stride
  • I think this is impossible to do without having a fair bit of foam stuff, but I want the minimum possible, really.
  • Broadly water-resistant so that I don't get wet socks the instant I set foot outside in winter
  • Not to fall apart before 500 miles (I'd prefer >1000 miles)

This hardly seems complicated.  It also hardly seems the sort of thing that'll cost over £100.

Yet they keep getting it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dgul said:

You missed a Some at the start.

I find it very tedious.  I go running a bit.  It used to be that you could buy a cheapish pair from a known brand (any) and it would be okay.  Nowadays, they're all crap to a degree, because the big name brands are fashion, not sport.  I eventually found a decent pair at 'cheap enough' (Nike, £40ish), only to find that they'd only last a few months before disintegrating.  Then I found another pair (Adidas, £30ish), only to find after 3 years that they'd discontinued them and replaced them in their range by some bouncy monstrosity.

Then there are the no-name -- again, mainly about fashion, but this time without the brand -- so, actually, only sold to old people, who generally don't discern their sporting capability (just their ability to take you to the shops without having a sore knee or causing you to slip over).  Every now and then you find something that is actually well made (=supportive in the right places, doesn't fall apart), but after a single pair the design changes / factory does something else, and you're back to square one.

I just wore Nike Pegasus Plus for 20 years and was happy enough with them.   Those days are gone.  I don't think Nike sell usable running shoes at <£100 any more (their cheaper ones fall apart.  I'm sure the expensive ones do as well, but I've not bought any to find out).

 

 

That's a different angle to the OP.

You want trainers for a specific athletic purpose and seek out the ones that best fulfil that purpose; rather than buying them because you wish to impress anybody.

Where however you are talking about trainers as in the casual shoe which you will wear for non-sporting activities than the £12 pair from Lidl are as functionally efficient as the $30,000 trainers in the article.

In which case peak value is at £12 and everything above that is simply paying for some colours and lettering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sucralose Ray Leonard said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/54135292

Call me an old fart, but I've never understood this obsession with Sneakers, Trainers, Pumps, Plimsolls. 

It definitely seems to resonate more with people of a different culture, ethnicity than me, which may explain why I don't get it, but it seems retarded. 

Suppose they might feel the same way about a Grandfather clock from 1867 though. 

I know a few people who collect trainers - I think it's more a North American thing than a black thing. I don't get it myself but it is any different to collecting tea pots or whatever?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By unregistered_guest
      Spare a thought for the poor satirists. Truly they are the real victims of the cruel hand fate has played us.
      Two examples of stories I've seen today, which if you came across them under normal circumstances, you would check the date of the article; expecting it to be 1 April.
      I don't recall seeing either of these in the main coronavirus thread; and they deserve a thread of their own alongside any other egregious examples spotted in the wild.
      1) The Iranian military have announced the invention of a device which can detect coronavirus at a range of up to 100 metres, with 80% accuracy. It looks like tho old golfball detector scam has had new life breathed into it https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/17/iran_coronavirus_detector/
      2) Richard Branson is going to put up Necker Island as collateral against a bailout loan from the government. This was actually an April Fool's story from Guido Fawkes until someone from Virgin's PR dept saw it and thought, "What a good idea!" https://order-order.com/2020/04/20/branson-pledges-necker-island-bailout-collateral/
    • By One percent
      There appears to be a correlation between unicorn type hair colours and bonkerness. I thought a thread to capture this would be helpful.
      ill start with farcebook data thingy and the whistleblower 
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/07/christopher-wylie-why-i-broke-the-facebook-data-story-and-what-should-happen-now
       

    • By One percent
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5274955/Homeless-ex-soldier-died-slept-Edinburgh-streets.html
      The death of a homeless former soldier has sparked outrage among veterans charities who say more must be done to look after ex-servicemen.
      Ex-squaddie Darren Greenfield, 47, who fell on hard times after leaving the Army, died on the streets of Edinburgh just a week before Christmas.
      He was a regular face in the Scottish capital as he often spent time sitting on the steps of Waverley train station.
      The Who Dares Cares charity said: 'It is a sign of the times that a soldier is left to die on our streets. It is an utter outrage.' 
      Mr Greenfield had served with the Royal Tank Regiment but fell on tough times after he left the Army. 
      The news of his death sparked outrage among campaigners who are calling for more to be done to help veterans adapt to civilian life.
      Military charities say at least 13,000 former soldiers are homeless – a record high.  


       
      I don't think I need to draw parallels to Grenfell
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...