Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)
I recently posted my adidas Crazyquick 2 performance review, and given my lukewarm feelings toward the shoe I thought I’d make a comparison to the original Crazyquick that I hold near and dear to my heart. Hopefully, this will reveal the differences between the two and perhaps encourage you to try the second version even if you weren’t a fan of the first one.
This is the major difference I found between the two models. I loved the original Crazyquick because it fit like a glove. A one-piece, full Techfit compression upper combined with an extended Sprintframe provided complete lockdown and 1:1 fit. At the same time, I know a lot of folks felt like the Techfit construction didn’t provide enough lateral containment and that the Sprintframe was far too narrow. That simply comes down to the type of foot you have and how tight you like your shoes to be. For me, with a narrow foot and requiring a super snug fit so that I can change direction quickly, that shoe was perfect. It’s probably the best fitting shoe I’ve played in – 1A and 1B along with the Kobe VI.
The Crazyquick 2 went away from the pure Techfit build and used synthetic overlays in a similar pattern to what you’ll see on the Rose 4.5. There was more volume in the upper and the Sprintframe wasn’t as extended as the first model – both positive steps for those of you that felt the first was too narrow. The containment is there, but the fit was not 1:1 for me and the Crazyquick 2 played more like your average shoe than something completely different like the original Crazyquick.
Both shoes ran about a 1/2 size long so I would definitely go down from your normal size if you are planning to order them.
These shoes are built to be flexibile, smooth and responsive, making the heel-toe process effortless. Easily the smoothest shoes from heel strike to toe off out there. The outsole zones are setup perfectly as well, providing you the stable, natural feel you’ll love.
The original Crazyquick took heat for its perceived lack of cushioning, but if you’re buying these shoes to hoop in you’re not going to be looking for as much of a luxurious, plush feel. In order to be the flexible, stable, responsive and quick shoe that it is designed to be, you’re going to give up that soft cushioning. In return you get great court feel, stability and responsiveness in any direction. Because of how it played underfoot and how you were locked into the footbed, the original Crazyquick became an extension of your foot.
The Crazyquick 2 is largely the same setup, but perhaps slightly softer in the ball of the foot. I mentioned in the review that it feels like a slightly softer density foam was used in that area, and still didn’t affect the court feel at all. I don’t have any kind of heel-toe drop data, but it did feel like the original played slightly lower to the ground – though that’s all relative compared to other shoes on the market and the Crazyquick 2 will give you unrivaled court feel and stability. From the rear view, it does look like the original Crazyquick plays slightly lower at the heel.
I think as far as pure impact protection and softness goes, the Crazyquick 2 is slightly better – so those of you that didn’t like the firm feel of the original might want to give its successor a try.
Absolutely perfect on both. Deep, grooved herringbone takes over the entire outsole and the different zones provide stop-on-a-dime traction in any direction.
The nod goes to the Crazyquick 2 in this category, simply because the upper is a little more sturdy thanks to the overlays. The original model probably lent itself to some blowouts in the forefoot area, because the Techfit upper may not have given heavier or more explosive players enough containment on hard lateral cuts. I didn’t have any problems with it, and the way in which the three stripes were used to provide support on the original version was enough for me.
Both midsoles and outsoles used high quality foam and rubber, and I didn’t experience a breakdown in the compounds on the original Crazyquick until after very heavy use.
Bottom line, the original Crazyquick was built for quick slashers and guards desiring maximum flexibility and court feel. It featured a glove-like fit, a responsive midsole and excellent traction.
The Crazyquick 2 was built with the same player in mind, but should also work better for a wider range of players and foot sizes. The fit, for me, wasn’t quite as snug and that soured me on it (probably because I loved the first one so much). I relly like the Crazyquick 2, but it didn’t meet the standards set by the original Crazyquick or even the Rose 4.5. But even if you weren’t a fan of the first Crazyquick, I’d still try on the second and see if the changes adidas made are enough for you to give them a shot on court.
9 thoughts on “Performance Review Head to Head: The Crazyquicks”
I was hoping to try them on with a hope that they can fit my wide foot,alas..they don”t too bad because i like their design very much!
Just want to say thanks for the reviews and you guys do really good work and deserve more attention then you get. I really like the way you guys review. It is different and I like it better than anyone else including the bigger sites. The court feel and responsiveness sliders are a big help to me. Keep up the good work guys. ☺
Really love the way you guys review. The responsiveness, heel to toe transition, and court feel sliders in particular. No one else really talks much about those and because of that you guys have become my favorite performance reviewer. You deserve more attention and I hope you continue to get it and grow. Keep up the great work!
Glad you like em – we love hearing feedback, especially on the scales for the different pieces of the review. I hope the scales give it a more objective review and also take into account all of the different aspects of cushioning. Thanks for reading man – we’ll have a KD VI Elite review, a comparison review with the KD Elite and regular VI, Kobe IX Elite, Zoom I Get Buckets, and Super.Fly II PO on the way!
Sweet! I look forward to it.
Hi me again sorry can’t seem to decide but does the 2’s provide substantial midfoot support? You’ve told me before that it can fit my slightly wide foot but you didn’t state in the reviews if it can support the midfoot because the clutchfits hurt like hell to be honest and im trying to find a replacement so i just wanted to ask if these provide midfoot/arch support and if/can you suggest more shoes that can provide midfoot/arch support. Thanks in advance
*Hope you do more of these as far as i have read you’re the only one who has done this.
Eh not really, the cushioning is pretty firm so you’re gonna get a little inherent support from that (as opposed to a softer platform) but the flexibility through the midfoot is going to take away most of that. I thought the CQ1 had a much more sculpted midsole that hugged the foot much better, but that’s also probably why some players found it didn’t fit them quite right.
To get that support through the midfoot, you’re likely going to sacrifice some flexibility. But the Spawn 1 & 2, the Super Fly 2 & 3, the Melo M10/M11 all will give you a nice combo of cushioning and support without being too bulky. A good, durable upper will help lock the sides of the foot in and give support too
Thanks for the reply. I guess i will try the super fly 3 since i like the way the upper feels although many don’t like that type of fuse. Maybe the m11 would be good too. If i may ask what are the shoes you are currently reviewing or gonna review. Any chance you’ll review the crazyquick 2.5 low’s? Those are the updated crazyquick lows. Maybe you will like the crossover 2’s or the peak tp 9-2’s. Are you gonna continue with the real deal review? Thanks for the reply BTW as far as i know you are the only one who replies to this kinda stuff and that is one of the reasons people love this site.
I’m actually doing the crazy 8s for the next review, I’ve hooped in them twice pretty hard so far, so in another week or two I’ll get going on the review. I’d like to do the Crossover 2s at some point if I can get my hands on a pair