Itâ€™s 2006 and muthafuckers still donâ€™t know when theyâ€™re playinâ€™ themselves, so letâ€™s set the record straight. (Note: this is for true sneakerheads only â€“ everyone else shouldnâ€™t get they feelings hurt [that means if you have less than 20 pairs of kicks, donâ€™t take it personal]) Read it, learn it, memorize it, meditate on it â€“ but whatever you do, donâ€™t be rocking any of the joints on the following list:
SHIT THAT IS OFFICIALLY PLAYED OUT IN 2006/2007
I donâ€™t care if Phil Knight embossed his asshole on the lower right corner, the madness has got to stop. Specialty and limited edition Dunks are ruining what is truly a magical shoe. And Nike has the nerve to continually release colorways that defy the very reason why it was so cool in the first place: two-tone colorings. When you eliminate the two-tone element, itâ€™s just another AF1 (and donâ€™t worry, weâ€™ll get to those joints). What makes a limited edition so damn hot-to-death anyway? You know whatâ€™s truly limited edition? Copping a joint, putting it on ice for a few years while everyone is killing it, then rocking â€˜em once the hoopla has died down.
Air Force 1s
Despite whut some might say, the AF1 is dead to me. This goes triple-doubly so for white-on-whiteâ€™s and black-on-blackâ€™s. I have never understood the allure of colorless shoes. Shit, even the Stan Smith had a smattering of green! I mean, what are you, a referee? Even a white-with-black-swoosh is borderline-acceptableâ€¦. As per limited editions/special releases, all that shit is played the fuck out. Who cares? The only â€œlimitâ€ in â€œlimited editionsâ€ is in yer goddamn mindâ€¦ The only AF1 that gets a pass is the High-top â€“ stop playinâ€™ yerself with Midâ€™sâ€¦.
Any Air Jordan Retro released this year
As dope as the recent retroâ€™s may be (and make no mistake â€“ they dope!), sometimes you gotta show a liâ€™l restraint. Of course youâ€™ve got every Jordan since _____, but that doesnâ€™t mean you have to tell everyone. And if youâ€™ve got so many Jâ€™s, why not go into the back catalogue to show a liâ€™l bit of class? Sometimes taste is in whut you choose NOT to rock, hard though this may be to believeâ€¦.
The And 1â€™s should be self-explanatory, but if it ainâ€™t, Iâ€™ll explainâ€¦
Itâ€™s called the â€œNew York ruleâ€: as in, if no one in New York City is wearing it, forgetaboutit. Cuz in NYC even the bums are rockinâ€™ â€™95 air maxâ€¦. (seriously, Iâ€™m not making that up â€“ â€˜least for one bum I saw), and FYI, NObody rocks And 1â€™s in NYCâ€¦..
As for Pumaâ€™s, only girls and men who wear Seven-jeans rock Puma. I mean, they ruined the Puma State by making a slip-on version!?! If youâ€™re a girl, you get a pass â€“ everyone else, take them shits off!
good lord this shoe is played out. The shelltoe should strickly see indoor-use, if you wanna wear itâ€¦. Sure, itâ€™s a classic/staple, but somehow it hasnâ€™t marinated to Chuck-Taylor status quite just yet. Check back in fifty years, then weâ€™ll give it a pass.
All Shox (except the R4, the BB4, the NZ, and VCs 1 thru 3)
letâ€™s face it, with a few exceptions, Shox are ugly. The technology wuz cool, the commercials funny, but after the first wave, Shox started eating ass. That Total-Shox joint could only be big in NYC (note: the corollary to the â€œNew York ruleâ€ is that NYC will cop ANY expensive Nike, no matter how ugly), and all the variations theyâ€™ve tried have failed since the OG R4 (save the NZ)â€¦. But you canâ€™t blame Nike for trying, only the cats that get suckered into buyingâ€¦.