Are Chuck Taylors /fa/?
>>18185923sort of.they've been the best selling shoe for the majority of the history of shoes since mass production. nike sharted the quality of converse and converse has been significantly worse post 2012 than the 90's and formerly very popular silhouettes like jack purcells have become un wearable trash bin shoes.but they are still very popular in asia because they get different converse that are better than ours. the japanese government never let nike buy converse in japan and allowed the old company keep operating independent and own the trademark. so now there are 2 companies called converse with NO relation to each other.the shoes from the japan converse are way higher quality. converse japan's all about making their shoes to the same standards and same look as the 90's converse used to be, except they've updated the midsole tech on them so they all feel like chuck ii's on foot.international converse / nike responded to people being upset with the shit quality of converse ever since the buyout and put out the chuck 70's. the chuck 70 is just a good shoe all around. and a good value. the only thing worth copping from converse international but a very good cop. get these on sale at stores like end and ssence for cheap. all their other shoes are trash. japan ones are the way to go. converse all stars are still good as cheap beater shoes that have zero midsole cushioning for lifting weights in but that's about it.
https://converse.co.jp/https://converse.co.jp/collections/addict/mensget good converse here. mij chucks are also widely available on ebay for about 120 its not much mark up.this is why converse is very popular in asia and kinda meh in the west. they get different shoes than us. nike doesn't own converse japan the brands are unrelated just the same name & based on the same designs.
>MIJ chucks vs Chuck 70Think of the MiJ Chucks as a Chuck 90. Same quality as the 70's but they look like a 1990's era All Star and they don't have the built in sole yellowing. >vs Converse AddictAddicts smash them they're more in line with the quality level of the Rick chucks but without the avant garde design elements.
>vs Shoes like Pottery / Moon StarThey make the MiJ models for Converse Japan. The Converse models get a much harder rubber on the outsole and last longer, but aren't quite as comfy or grippy. Otherwise quality is the same. I prefer MiJ chucks for the lifespan. >vs VisvimVisvims were a big disappointment and not worth the price. Skip them.
one more thing with Converse Japan:only way to get good Jack Purcells. they go for about 75 after all the shipping and fees.Nike fucked them up very badly after the Converse buyout and the new pairs are trash so no one wears them anymore. Sad thing to happen to such a timeless classic. Suckers who don't know any better pay $300-600 for dead stock pairs with yellow dry rotting soles. You can still get brand new GOOD pairs for $45 in japan.
>>18185923formerly /fa/
>>18185923More like Cuck Failersthey are the most npc genx boomer shit that 20 somethings think is ironic
>>18185923Look at Nothing New. Ignoring the sustainability marketing bullshit, they’re just more durable converse made with stitch construction that are more comfortable and don’t fade as fast
>>18185946What's the best way to order a pair of these? Can I use Zenmarket or Buyee to get them from the Japan store, or is there a better way?
>>18187869any of the japan proxies, just look at the weeb figurine subreddits they have the most up to date breakdowns of the rates and terms with the various services you can use.
Chuckbros, we won
>>18185923I liked them in middle school and early high school. Eventually, you learn that they're a massive pain in the ass to get on and off.
>>18189101forces a good habit. slipping your shoes on and off fucks them up prematurely and imagine walking around with shoes on so loose they'll fall off if you run or even more hilarious fly off your feet if you get in a fight.
I just got these "CANVAS ALL STAR J HI" ordered through Japan Rabbit. Thoughts? I really like converses, but the soles always need regluing after about a year. Hopefully these prove different. >inb4 thing japan meme>>18189210Got into an altercation when I was a teen with my shoes half on and the entire time I was thinking holy fuck I wish I did my laces properly. Never again. Unironically the extra 30 seconds could save your life.
>>18189277kek right i'm trained and i've been in situations i had to defend myself. the idea of getting caught out and being unable to flee or do anything other than box and sacrificing all that grip and stability if i have to grapple seems so retarded. >just don't live around niggersi had to defend my life in the "3rd safest city in america" you can get day drinking road ragers anywhere.
>>18185923Threw mine away years ago, never looked back.
>>18189210>forces a good habit.Wearing shitty shoes with narrow toe boxes that fuck your toes and foot up, isn't a good habit. Chucks are degenerate. Nobody with any sense should wear shoes like those.
They were.
I only wear slides Fuck shoes
>>18189304meanwhile, the guy who started the barefoot shoe trend. >Wearing shitty shoes with narrow toe boxes that fuck your toes and foot upnotice the barefoot shoe fags always dodge the fact that all their shoes are zero drop and horrible for your feet and nothing they believe has any scientific basis its strictly the creation of a journalist. there's only like 1 company in mexico making wearable barefoot shoes with more than a 2cm heel toe drop.
>>18185935If you wear those people will think they are knock off Sketchers. I'd just go with Chuck 70s.
>>18189824>people will thinkfag detected
>>18189824only people who were children or not born yet when nike fucked up the jack purcell.it used to be very popular & common the only reason people stopped wearing it is build quality and comfort went to shit.
they were an iconic shoe from 1935-2012, the second converse does a "jack purcell 90" you will be the same smooth-brained tiktok trend chasing retard spamming that everyone needs to have a pair.
>>18189210I don't even have shoes that I slip on. I probably could if I wanted to but it messes them up. I do take the time to get them on and off properly. Chuck Taylors are just annoying to get on and off though. You straight up have to unlace it to get it in there and then the middle part sometimes goes off to the sides.
>>18185923Hello canadian here. I haven't been on pol since 2016. Tell me, does she have a chance? Who is america voting for?
PF Flyers > Converse
>>18190379flyers do kinda drip
>>18189742I'm not peddling barefoot shoe faggotry. Regular shoes can be made with wider toe boxes, you know? >and nothing they believe has any scientific basisWhat do you think your toes and foot joints are for? Your feet aren't donkey hoofs. They evolved to articulate and spread out so that they can support your body's weight and absorb shock. Regular shoes with degenerate narrow toe boxes mangle your feet into crooked abominations that can no longer function without the external support of shoes. Shoe wearers can't walk barefoot very long without their foot joints and muscles aching, because they've gotten too weak from being cushioned and contorted in shoes.
>>18190387>Regular shoes can be made with wider toe boxes, you know? that's OK but as i said there's only 1 company i know of actually making that and their shoes are fugly.and crocs i guess? but who wants to wear crocs every day?every shoe you're talking about is a sub 5cm heel drop barefoot bullshit. barefoot shoes are even worse for your feet than normal shoes because they collapse your arches and have no cushioning.
Fat lesbian sneakers
>>18190388>>18189742with barefoot shoes, very thin shoes... you need to use many muscles in your feet that contribute to the active support of your body and the maintenance of the archesin simpler terms, barefoot = more defined archesthis also has nothing to do with drop, rather with the shape of the insole, which, in most cases, is higher under your arch to allow your foot to rest over it without your muscles having to work for itin the off chance that you care about the details, here's a review http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.05.019
>>18185923>Are Chuck Taylors /fa/?I guess they are /fa since they have been popular for many decades, however they are not /fa to me, it's because of the gum toe-box and how quick they tear.
>>18185946I don't like the front part of the jack purcells, to me it looks less like a smiling sneaker and more like the foreskin pulled back and the glans split slightly.
>>18190858thats the best part. i love toecap shoes.
