Classic Kicks
Frequent Racquetmaster vistitors (I guess there are maybe one or two) know that I like to post reviews from time to time. While I'm digesting the Roland Garros men's final, I thought I'd go ahead and roll out a review with a twist: An assessment of the realm of classic tennis footwear. (All images found at classicsportshoes.com, which has all these kicks for sale.)
First up...
The Legendary, Irrepressible Adidas Stan Smith
Introduced in the early '70s, "Stans," as they are known, have achieved perhaps the greatest following of any sports shoe outside Nike Air Jordans and Converse Chuck Taylors, both of which were--and are--of course basketball shoes, and therefore disqualified from this analysis. Apart from being a high-quality shoe to this day, with a simple design realized in basic materials (leather, rubber), Stans carry a certain snob appeal that I believe derives from their origins as a shoe symbolic of an upper-crusty, country-club sport, rather than an urban street game (hoops). A classic-tennis fetishist, complete with Old Skool shorts and a wooden racquet, could still manage gracefully in these kicks. They are still available, in three colors--green, all-white, and blue--as well as a "vintage" edition, but the basic green still sets the standard. Off the court, the ideal uniform for wearing with: no socks, faded Levi's 501s, Lacoste polo or Brooks Brothers oxford-cloth button down shirt. Persoanally, I would take a pass on the Stan Smith moustache.
Verdict: Utterly timeless, simplicity defined, will still be in style when players can levitate and trade ground strokes using lasers.
Next...
The Idiosyncratic, Innovative Adidas Rob Laver
Really, this one is a tie, in terms over overall, absolute classic-ness. Both Stans and "Lavers" are from Adidas, a company that can truly lay claim to having developed the templates against which all future tennis footwear will be judged. However, it's probably true that you are either a "Stans" person or a "Lavers" person. My impression, anecdotally developed, is that Stans have slightly more snob appeal than Lavers. Stan Smith was, of course, an American, while Laver was an Australian, so the patrician patriot nod goes to the Stans. There's also something about the use of more natural materials, notably leather, in the Stans that places them close to "real" shoes, and thereby allows them to pass in more formal settings, like next to the bar at some preppy hangout on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Lavers are constructed of mesh, rubber, and suede, and like the Stans have nice, thick laces. Again, available in a blue variation, like the Stans, but the classic green really says "tennis." Overall, I find Lavers to be a better functional shoe than the Stans: I can still play tennis, using other modern eeuipment and clothes, while wearing Lavers, but not while wearing Stans. The mesh construction makes sense in summertime. To me, these qualities ironically limit the classic appeal of Lavers, as I could never imagine taking to the courts nowadays with Stans. Plus, the sole of the Lavers seems to deliver more traction and provide more support than the sole of the Stans, and the shoe ultimately feels better for activities such as...oh, I don't know, walking. Evidently--according to Wikipedia, anyway--the contemporary sporting usefulness of the shoe has been confirmed by hackysackers. I don't know why. Maybe because the mesh weave "grabs" the sack? A good shoe to wear sockless with khaki shorts and a vintage t-shirt--and overall, a bit more "punk" than Stans.
Verdict: Very nearly almost just as utterly classic as Stans, but not quite, although it must be noted that a shoe introduced in 1970 that one can still play tennis in today is one hell of a shoe. If Stans are the "style" classic, then Lavers are the engineering miracle. Bravo, Adidas.
Now...
The Clubby, Comfy Tretorn Gullwing Nylite
Working our way through the hierarchy of materials--and the hierarchy of snob appeal--we arrive at the Treton Gullwing Nylite, a canvas plimsole lined with terry cloth that is utterly useless as a sporting shoe but eminently qualified to bolster your East Coast, wannabe Ivy League cred. These shoes have never gained a nickname, as they were not designed for use by a pro tennis player, and as a result they are generally know only as "Tretorns" (I've never even heard anyone call them "Gulls"). Wildly popular among the prepsters when I was in college in the '80s. Sorority girls often had several pairs, some with plaid "wings." Their main advantage in the battle of the classic tennis kicks is in their astounding barefoot comfort: because they are lined with terry cloth, they effectively come with their own sock. The absolute classic would be the all-white version, but I've always been partial to the ones with blue wings, even though they break--perhaps willfully--from the tradition of tennis sneakers with green detailing. Perfect with: Chinos, no socks, a white Lacoste, a madras jacket, ribbon belt, Ray-Ban Aviators, a gin & tonic, a house in Southampton, and an entitled sneer.
Verdict: Slipper-comfortable and untainted by any proletarian affection, but perhaps too demographically charged for most.
And finally...
The Magnificent, No-Nonsense, Indestructible Converse Jack Purcell
"Jacks" are completely unpretentious, more-or-less useless for contemporary tennis (they lack anything that even vaguely resembles lateral support), and of course were originally designed for a badminton player. They have been around since the 1930s. Based on rumors promulgated by the reviewers on Zappos.com, they were redesigned by Nike, after Nike purchased Converse several years back. They are currently going through their second wave of wild popularity; the first occurred in the '80s, when some genius doing print ads for Converse found an old shot of James Dean wearing a pair. Whamo! Instant classic. Jacks are a nice, solid classic canvas show with a nice, solid rubber sole (Heavy!) and a signature "smile" across the toe. They seem to appeal equally to women and men, and are available in many different colors and styles but look best in basic white. They have better class credentials than Chuck Taylors, and are generally associated in my mind with a tweedy, Woody Allen kind of NYU intellectual vibe. I believe they are the sort of canvas sneaker an elderly fellow with panache should wear. In the classic Converse shoe-verse, they hold up the best, in the sense that they can continue to look absolutely wonderful even after they have been essentially destroyed. Destroyed Chucks take on a seedy, heroin-addict, street-urchin, Basketball Diaries appearance when worn out; Jack's just look as if they belong to a frugal-professor type who wants to seem more threadbare than polished. One nice thing about them is that you could conceivably have no other tennis gear, save racquet and ball, on hand, but if you're wearing Jacks and you stumble across a court, you could enjoy a leisurely game (emphasis on leisurely). So they encourage spontaneous tennis. I find they feel best with socks--argyle socks--as they have far less "cushiness" than other classic tennis shoes.
Verdict: For earnest types who value a high-caliber Midwestern education and aren't too crazy about crowds, New York City, or associating with the highest tax bracket, even if they're in it.
First up...
The Legendary, Irrepressible Adidas Stan Smith
Introduced in the early '70s, "Stans," as they are known, have achieved perhaps the greatest following of any sports shoe outside Nike Air Jordans and Converse Chuck Taylors, both of which were--and are--of course basketball shoes, and therefore disqualified from this analysis. Apart from being a high-quality shoe to this day, with a simple design realized in basic materials (leather, rubber), Stans carry a certain snob appeal that I believe derives from their origins as a shoe symbolic of an upper-crusty, country-club sport, rather than an urban street game (hoops). A classic-tennis fetishist, complete with Old Skool shorts and a wooden racquet, could still manage gracefully in these kicks. They are still available, in three colors--green, all-white, and blue--as well as a "vintage" edition, but the basic green still sets the standard. Off the court, the ideal uniform for wearing with: no socks, faded Levi's 501s, Lacoste polo or Brooks Brothers oxford-cloth button down shirt. Persoanally, I would take a pass on the Stan Smith moustache.
Verdict: Utterly timeless, simplicity defined, will still be in style when players can levitate and trade ground strokes using lasers.
Next...
The Idiosyncratic, Innovative Adidas Rob Laver
Really, this one is a tie, in terms over overall, absolute classic-ness. Both Stans and "Lavers" are from Adidas, a company that can truly lay claim to having developed the templates against which all future tennis footwear will be judged. However, it's probably true that you are either a "Stans" person or a "Lavers" person. My impression, anecdotally developed, is that Stans have slightly more snob appeal than Lavers. Stan Smith was, of course, an American, while Laver was an Australian, so the patrician patriot nod goes to the Stans. There's also something about the use of more natural materials, notably leather, in the Stans that places them close to "real" shoes, and thereby allows them to pass in more formal settings, like next to the bar at some preppy hangout on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Lavers are constructed of mesh, rubber, and suede, and like the Stans have nice, thick laces. Again, available in a blue variation, like the Stans, but the classic green really says "tennis." Overall, I find Lavers to be a better functional shoe than the Stans: I can still play tennis, using other modern eeuipment and clothes, while wearing Lavers, but not while wearing Stans. The mesh construction makes sense in summertime. To me, these qualities ironically limit the classic appeal of Lavers, as I could never imagine taking to the courts nowadays with Stans. Plus, the sole of the Lavers seems to deliver more traction and provide more support than the sole of the Stans, and the shoe ultimately feels better for activities such as...oh, I don't know, walking. Evidently--according to Wikipedia, anyway--the contemporary sporting usefulness of the shoe has been confirmed by hackysackers. I don't know why. Maybe because the mesh weave "grabs" the sack? A good shoe to wear sockless with khaki shorts and a vintage t-shirt--and overall, a bit more "punk" than Stans.
Verdict: Very nearly almost just as utterly classic as Stans, but not quite, although it must be noted that a shoe introduced in 1970 that one can still play tennis in today is one hell of a shoe. If Stans are the "style" classic, then Lavers are the engineering miracle. Bravo, Adidas.
Now...
The Clubby, Comfy Tretorn Gullwing Nylite
Working our way through the hierarchy of materials--and the hierarchy of snob appeal--we arrive at the Treton Gullwing Nylite, a canvas plimsole lined with terry cloth that is utterly useless as a sporting shoe but eminently qualified to bolster your East Coast, wannabe Ivy League cred. These shoes have never gained a nickname, as they were not designed for use by a pro tennis player, and as a result they are generally know only as "Tretorns" (I've never even heard anyone call them "Gulls"). Wildly popular among the prepsters when I was in college in the '80s. Sorority girls often had several pairs, some with plaid "wings." Their main advantage in the battle of the classic tennis kicks is in their astounding barefoot comfort: because they are lined with terry cloth, they effectively come with their own sock. The absolute classic would be the all-white version, but I've always been partial to the ones with blue wings, even though they break--perhaps willfully--from the tradition of tennis sneakers with green detailing. Perfect with: Chinos, no socks, a white Lacoste, a madras jacket, ribbon belt, Ray-Ban Aviators, a gin & tonic, a house in Southampton, and an entitled sneer.
Verdict: Slipper-comfortable and untainted by any proletarian affection, but perhaps too demographically charged for most.
And finally...
The Magnificent, No-Nonsense, Indestructible Converse Jack Purcell
"Jacks" are completely unpretentious, more-or-less useless for contemporary tennis (they lack anything that even vaguely resembles lateral support), and of course were originally designed for a badminton player. They have been around since the 1930s. Based on rumors promulgated by the reviewers on Zappos.com, they were redesigned by Nike, after Nike purchased Converse several years back. They are currently going through their second wave of wild popularity; the first occurred in the '80s, when some genius doing print ads for Converse found an old shot of James Dean wearing a pair. Whamo! Instant classic. Jacks are a nice, solid classic canvas show with a nice, solid rubber sole (Heavy!) and a signature "smile" across the toe. They seem to appeal equally to women and men, and are available in many different colors and styles but look best in basic white. They have better class credentials than Chuck Taylors, and are generally associated in my mind with a tweedy, Woody Allen kind of NYU intellectual vibe. I believe they are the sort of canvas sneaker an elderly fellow with panache should wear. In the classic Converse shoe-verse, they hold up the best, in the sense that they can continue to look absolutely wonderful even after they have been essentially destroyed. Destroyed Chucks take on a seedy, heroin-addict, street-urchin, Basketball Diaries appearance when worn out; Jack's just look as if they belong to a frugal-professor type who wants to seem more threadbare than polished. One nice thing about them is that you could conceivably have no other tennis gear, save racquet and ball, on hand, but if you're wearing Jacks and you stumble across a court, you could enjoy a leisurely game (emphasis on leisurely). So they encourage spontaneous tennis. I find they feel best with socks--argyle socks--as they have far less "cushiness" than other classic tennis shoes.
Verdict: For earnest types who value a high-caliber Midwestern education and aren't too crazy about crowds, New York City, or associating with the highest tax bracket, even if they're in it.
posted by Matthew DeBord at 9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home