adidas Crazyquick – The Gym Rat Review

June 8, 2014October 23, 2014 jtsittler Featured, Performance Reviews

Performance Review Head to Head: The Crazyquicks

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.

Fit
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.

Heel-Toe Transition
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.

Cushioning
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.

Traction
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.

Materials/Durability
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.

December 31, 2013May 18, 2014 jtsittler Performance Reviews

Performance Shoe of the Year

Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)

I reviewed nine different models this year and my Shoe of the Year pick basically came down to two choices: the adidas Crazyquick and the Under Armour Micro G Anatomix Spawn. After much deliberation, my shoe of the year is the Crazyquick. It was really a brutal decision for me, not only because I loved both shoes, but because I understand that the Crazyquick isn’t for everybody. I’ll do my best to convey why I loved the Crazyquick so much and also why there were a couple other shoes I felt like could be considered top choices for many people.

Like I said, the Crazyquick suited my needs perfectly. Not everyone loved it and not everyone could wear it because of how narrow it was and the lack of plush cushioning. But the shoe needed to be flexible, low to the ground and responsive – and the cushioning setup allowed it to be just that. Techfit was a dream to play in and the upper fit as snug and as comfortably as any shoe I’ve ever played in. I’ve been through it before, but the shoe just performs exactly like it was intended to and I have yet to find a better overall guard shoe.

I ultimately came to the decision in this way (and I think it’s a good thought process when deciding what to hoop in when you have multiple options): if you were playing in a championship game, and you had to choose the shoe that allowed you to be most confident and play your best, which shoe would you choose? For me, it was the adidas Crazyquick.

I loved the Anatomix Spawn almost equally as much, even though it wasn’t quite as guard-specific. Where it wasn’t as light and flexible as the Crazyquick, the midfoot support and cushioning were just awesome. The TPU frame underneath was an awesome innovation and provided tons of support while allowing the shoe to still be light and flexible. When I’m not reviewing a new shoe, I switch back and forth hooping in both the Crazyquick and Anatomix Spawn.

I also definitely enjoyed playing in the Jordan XX8 SE and CP3.VII. The XX8 SE had an incredible cushioning setup – the Zoom Air units were utilized perfectly and provided a ton of responsiveness. Unfortunately, those bags blew out within in two weeks so there was a definite caveat in that shoe. The CP3.VII was extremely well-cushioned, and felt great underfoot. It didn’t fit my foot that well personally, but I’ve heard tons of good feedback about the shoe and I would not hesitate to recommend it.

We’ve had over 66,000 hits on the site this year and are carrying a lot of momentum into 2014. Thanks to all who’ve checked out the site, commented and spread the word about our small operation. We’re looking to get more consistent with our reviews this year, as Finch and I both have finally settled into solid jobs, and it’s my personal goal to double the amount of reviews in 2014.

Keep an eye out for a Jordan Super.Fly 2 review in the near future, as well as ones on the Nike Zoom HyperRev, Zoom Crusader, and adidas D Howard 4. Happy New Year from TGRR.

December 28, 2013May 18, 2014 jtsittler Performance Reviews

TGRR Year in Performance Reviews

Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)

With the end of 2013 quickly approaching, I thought we’d take a quick look back at every shoe we’ve reviewed here at TGRR. With Finch and I both wrapping up our college days and entering the real world, this site has been a great creative outlet and a way to keep both of us in the shoe game. It helped me get my first real job and kept me writing and editing.

Finch and I both also still play a lot of competitive ball (our latest league championship was won just two weeks ago) and we’re always looking for the best performance products. Focusing on how a shoe really performs – not just the colorways or hype that it gets – is something that gets lost in the sneaker community at times. At TGRR, we try to keep on-court performance at the forefront.

Hyperdunk 2012 Low

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Fit and lockdown; plays smooth and low to the ground; lightweight
Cons: Traction could be better; midsole/cushioning breaks down too quickly; not enough impact protection
Verdict: A nice alternative to the midcut Hyperdunk, the Hyperdunk Low gives you great fit and court feel. But the cushioning wore out much too quickly for my taste and I felt the lack of impact protection in my knees and hips after just a couple months of wearings.

Nike Zoom Hyperdisruptor

Reviewer: Finch
Pros: Heel lockdown; lightweight; traction; plush Zoom cushioning
Cons: Midsole is too flexible, creating various issues; outsole separated from shoe after a couple of weeks
Verdict: A lightweight shoe that’s nice to play in initially, but the flimsy midsole hurts performance in a variety of ways. The Zoom bags aren’t as responsive as they should be, there’s not enough structure or rigidity through the heel-toe transition, and there’s simply a lack of support due to the soft midsole and no shank. Plenty of durability concerns. Also probably overpriced at $130.

Jordan CP3.VI

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Podulon cushioning has been refined and improved; traction is top-notch; smooth transition and low to the ground feel
Cons: Upper a little stiff, leading to fit being not quite snug; Achilles pad is comfortable but tough to get full heel lockdown
Verdict: The CP3.VI is an elite guard shoe. It featured some of the best traction and cushioning of any shoe I’ve tested and the whole shoe just played well. I wasn’t a fan of the fit – I couldn’t get a glove-like, snug fit with the Fuse upper being kind of stiff – but I do have a narrow foot and that may be more a reflection of my own needs than the shoe itself. If the shoe fit me better through the midfoot and heel, I really would have loved it. It’s an extremely comfortable shoe as far as cushioning goes, and it was immediately added to the off-court rotation.

Nike Flyknit Lunar1+
Reviewer: Kim

Nike Air Way Up

Reviewer: Finch
Pros: Ankle, tongue and heel padding; supportive midsole
Cons: Poor transition; traction doesn’t meet modern standards; bulkier shoe than most of today’s models
Verdict: It’s probably better served as an off-court shoe, but it was still fun to see how a 90s retro compares today. The leather build and interior padding were great from a quality standpoint, but the shoe just doesn’t play like the current options out there.

adidas Crazyquick

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Flexible and low to the ground; excellent traction and lateral stability; fit is the best of any shoe I’ve ever had
Cons: Midsole doesn’t have a ton of support (it’s not built for that); runs very narrow – good for me, bad for a lot of folks
Verdict: The Crazyquick is shoe 1b for me this year. I absolutely loved it. I’ve never worn a shoe that played so low to the ground and allowed for such quick changes of direction. The shoe actually gave me confidence, in the sense that I knew I could play and move exactly like I needed to with it on my feet. The fit, with a Techfit upper and extended Sprintframe, was like a glove.

Nike KD V Elite

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Snug fit from heel to toe; quality materials used throughout
Cons: Stiff and rigid midsole; cushioning neither soft nor responsive; traction not as good as most I tested
Verdict: The KD V Elite was the one Elite model I was most excited to try out this year (because it differed so much from the base shoe) and I was wholly disappointed. While I loved the lockdown and support from the premium upper materials (including plenty of carbon fiber), the transition was poor thanks to a very stiff chassis. The cushioning was overly firm – from the outsole to the midsole, it just wasn’t an enjoyable setup underfoot.

Nike Hyperdunk 2013

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Excellent fit, flexible with great lockdown; overall comfort
Cons: Midsole support leaves some to be desired; Lunarlon cushioning
Verdict: The Hyperdunk 2013 will probably the shoe you see on court more than any other this year, and for good reason. It’s a great all-around performer that will fit a variety of player types. It’s good – but not great – in a lot of areas, with the most glaring being a lack of support in the midsole. A more substantial shank would have been a huge bonus. But the fit and lockdown are great, and it’s a shoe I’d recommend.

Nike Zoom Hyperquickness

Reviewer: Finch
Pros: Zoom cushioning setup; traction is excellent; overall value at $105
Cons: Fuse upper is a little stiff, doesn’t hug the foot; Fuse isn’t quite as high quality as other models
Verdict: At $105, the Hyperquickness is a good value for budget-conscious hoopers. You’re not going to get an overly refined shoe from a fit standpoint, but the cushioning and traction are solid and the Hyperfuse upper is plenty durable.

Nike Free Flyknit
Reviewer: Kim

Under Armour Micro G Anatomix Spawn

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Midfoot support system is excellent; Micro G cushioning is responsive as ever; lockdown is perfect
Cons: Traction pattern is not deep enough and is poor on even slightly dirty courts
Verdict: Along with the Crazyquick, this is shoe 1a for me. The fit and lockdown are as good as any shoe on the market. Micro G cushioning doesn’t get enough respect, and it proves to be both responsive and stable in the Anatomix Spawn. The midfoot TPU frame is one of the coolest support systems I’ve seen and it actually works too. A great overall shoe that will probably be ignored by too many people.

adidas Adizero Crazy Light 3

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Extremely light; plays low to the ground
Cons: Cushioning is firm and a little slappy; lacing system and fit are sloppy; midsole is barely there
Verdict: The Crazy Light 3 is, in fact, light. But that’s just about all the benefit I could glean from the shoe. The cushioning is fairly responsive considering how thin it is, but it just doesn’t offer much impact protection or general comfort/support. I could never really get true lockdown thanks to a poorly designed lacing system (needs more eyelets) and the upper itself felt too thin and cheap.

Jordan CP3.VII

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Excellent use of materials; cushioning provides both impact protection and responsiveness; traction is very good
Cons: Couldn’t get perfect lockdown; shape of the footbed didn’t personally suit me
Verdict: The CP3.VII is undeniably a great on court option – but it didn’t fit me all that well. Each aspect of the shoe was very good, even excellent, except for the fit and that is too crucial for me to ignore. Make sure you try them on first before ordering, but you’ll get great cushioning, traction and quality from the CP3.VII.

Jordan XX8 SE

Reviewer: Sittler
Pros: Midfoot support with Flight Plate chassis; heel fit and overall fit; Proplate Zoom setup is awesome
Cons: Lack of customization with 5 eyelets in the lacing system; Zoom bag blew out within 10 wearings
Verdict: I loved everything about the shoe until the Zoom bag blew out. Normally, it could be chalked up to a freak occurrence but I’ve seen a pair of regular XX8s – with same cushioning/midsole setup – have the same issue. Both shoes had a huge bulge develop along the vertical line in the forefoot Zoom bags. Other than that, the shoe was awesome. The Zoom setup was super responsive, carbon fiber was used strategically and effectively; it was simply a great performer on-court.

Moving forward, we have a couple of reviews on deck. Finch will be supplying us with a Jordan Super.Fly2 review in the near future, and is excited to cop the Nike Zoom Crusader for his next review. I’ll be copping Kyrie Irving’s Zoom HyperRev (as soon as my voucher comes back from Nike for my XX8 SEs that blew out) and reviewing them next. The HyperRev is certainly a unique silhouette, but I’m interested to see how much support will come from a Phylite midsole (with a full-length Zoom bag). We’re looking forward to a new year and a plethora of new shoes to review here at TGRR.

June 30, 2013September 21, 2013 jtsittler Performance Reviews

Performance Review: Long-term Updates

Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)

We’ve got performance reviews for seven different models already in our archives, with yours truly responsible for four of them. The Nike Hyperdunk Low 2012, Jordan CP3.VI, adidas Crazyquick and Nike KD V Elite are the four models I’ve had the pleasure of hooping in. While you can hit any of the links and read the full review, I wanted to give you guys a quick update on how each of the shoes progressed in terms of performance over time.

Nike Hyperdunk Low 2012
Review posted: 1/29/13

The Hyperdunk Low really impressed me in terms of fit and lockdown, with the Dynamic Flywire doing a better than expected job in both departments. Fit is an important aspect of the performance of any pair of shoes, but is especially crucial in a low-top basketball shoe because so little material is used for lockdown. The Hyperdunk Low did not disappoint and I continued to feel secure and strapped in when it came to the fit, no matter how many games I put it through.

However, after 5-6 weeks of playing in them, I really noticed the Lunarlon cushioning go flat. I felt that the foam used simply compacted and lost a lot of responsiveness. I know plenty in the sneaker community are fans of Lunar foam, and I’ll admit that the cushioning setup does form to your foot – thus improving the fit even more. I simply don’t think it holds up as long as it should, especially given the price of the shoe. It got bad enough on my knees that I eventually switched over to the CP3.VI full-time, as its Podulon cushioning setup was one of my favorites so far.

Jordan CP3.VI
Review posted: 3/15/13

The CP3.VI was really close to being an elite performance shoe – and it was still really, really good. The Podulon cushioning, as mentioned before, was awesome. The targeted zones were well-placed and allowed for excellent responsiveness and transition through the footstrike. Traction was top-notch too, with a deep herringbone pattern featuring flex grooves at precisely the right points. The traction remains some of the best I’ve had on a performance hoops shoe.

The only complaint I had with the shoe had to do with the fit, especially near the heel. The achilles pad, so often used in the CP3 line, really hindered the lockdown at the heel. It was just impossible to get total lockdown with the pad in the way. It’s great for comfort; not so great for lockdown. I also felt that the Fuse upper – while proving to be extremely durable – didn’t give me a perfect either simply because the material was too thick or stiff to fully conform to my foot.

adidas adipure Crazyquick
Review posted: 5/13/13

The Crazyquick is easily my favorite shoe of the bunch and one of my all-time favorites in terms of performance (alongside the Kobe VI, Zoom BB2 and Zoom Drive). I’m currently playing in it for all competitive games and have been switching it out with the KD V Elite for workouts. The fit is simply fantastic. It’s snug and locks you into the midsole from heel to toe thanks to the Techfit upper and Sprintframe chassis. There’s been a lengthy debate concerning the cushioning and whether it’s plush enough, but to me it allows the shoe to function perfectly. The Crazyquick plays low to the ground with excellent court feel – thus giving up some impact protection – but the shoe’s responsiveness and lateral stability are unrivaled.

Nike KD V Elite
Review posted: 6/11/13

While it’s not as “long-term” of an update, here’s a few final thoughts on the most recently tested model, the KD V Elite. The KD V Elite was a shoe that I was eager to test out, but simply didn’t meet the expectations set up by the Elite title, high-end materials and price point. The technology isn’t in question – it’s riddled with high-performance parts. Caged Zoom Air, carbon fiber shank and heel counter, and a Flywire-based upper are more than enough when it comes to tech. It’s just those pieces don’t function as well as they should.

The Zoom cushioning is hampered by poor, slappy transition that saps its responsiveness. The chassis was simply too stiff to allow for smooth heel-toe transition for those of us that are heel-strikers. The fit was extremely snug and lockdown was tight, but there wasn’t a comfort level that I was used to in the CP3.VI or Crazyquick. I loved the low cut and the fit, but the shoe simply felt too stripped down for its high-performance elements.

June 14, 2013June 14, 2013 jtsittler TGRR Blog

TGRR Blog: The Crazyquick Debate

Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)

(TGRR Performance Review: adidas Crazyquick)

When Sole Collector dropped a few of their most recent reviews online today, it seemed as if many commenters were upset at the relatively low score (84/100, a “B” on the SC scale) given to the adidas adipure Crazyquick by SC mastermind Nick DePaula. DePaula’s main complaint was a lack of forefoot cushioning, which tanked the shoe’s score in his opinion. NDP himself made note of the fact that no two reviewers will see a shoe the exact same way as a disclaimer before he went into his review, but Crazyquick lovers still got fairly upset and the lack of respect given to their shoe. The question became, then, what defines cushioning? What makes a shoe well-cushioned or poorly cushioned? It’s a worthy debate, especially those of us that ball all the time.

A couple of awesome commenters (shouts to garbageman and Nike Air Kwame, whoever you are) mentioned TGRR as an authority in terms of reviews so I thought I’d humbly chip in a few extra thoughts on the Crazyquick, and performance reviews in general.

If you’ve followed the blog at all, you’ll know that I personally loved the Crazyquick. The fit, heel-toe transition, court feel and lateral stability rank as some of the best I’ve ever tested or worn in my opinion – and NDP agreed in his review. However, where he ripped apart the shoe’s “lack” of cushioning, I was a big fan.

In my opinion, NDP looked at the Crazyquick from a traditional plush cushioning standpoint and he’s sort of right to say there isn’t any of that. But the forefoot cushioning on the Crazyquick isn’t designed to make it a soft ride, it’s designed to allow you to play fast, low to the ground and to change directions on a dime. In that sense, the cushioning is perfect. It allows the shoe to become the Crazyquick, to provide guards with a glove-like fit that is responsive no matter what you put it through. It allows the midsole to be flexible in the right areas and makes the traction impeccable.

All of this comes back to how you view cushioning and what type of player/reviewer you are. If you look at cushioning simply from a softness/impact protection point of view, yeah the Crazyquick doesn’t provide much in terms of that. But if you look at a cushioning setup and see what it provides you and not only what it takes away, the Crazyquick is a much, much better shoe. I believe the forefoot cushioning used in the Crazyquick is part of what makes it an elite guard shoe. It plays low to the ground, responsive and light thanks to its entire package, including the midsole/outsole combination.

I’m a former small college basketball player and have had both hips surgically reconstructed by the age of 21, so I’m pretty in-tune with how a shoe makes my body feel. I can firmly say I’ve had no injury concerns or pain whatsoever wearing the Crazyquick and it’s supposed “lack” of forefoot cushioning. In fact I felt the wear and tear on my joints much worse in the Nike Hyperdunk Low, which I gave up wearing after a month because the Lunarlon setup bottomed out and gave me little impact protection for my knees.

Performance reviews are always going to be subjective – at The Gym Rat Review we simply do our best to honestly and thoroughly review a shoe and look at the shoe as a total package, including what the shoe is intending to provide to the wearer. We’re going to have dissenting opinions at times, and it’ll be up to you to decide which shoe is best for your game given this variety of information. NDP and Sole Collector are the folks that we looked up to, so I can’t really argue too much with what he said. In fact the only thing I really disagreed with in the review (besides how the aspect of cushioning is interpreted) was the fact that NDP said the Crazyquick was poor value at $140. Some of that stems from his perceived lack of cushioning, but the Crazyquick completely re-engineered a basketball outsole (giving it four specific zones to increase traction and responsiveness) and introduced Techfit to a basketball shoe for the first time to give it unparalleled fit from heel to toe. I think if you introduce two new technologies and make them work fantastically, the value is definitely there.

Meanwhile, I’ll stay balling in them.

May 13, 2013January 12, 2016 jtsittler Featured, Performance Reviews

Performance Review: adidas Crazyquick

Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)

After wearing the adidas Adipure Crazyquick for the first time, I struggled to find the right adjectives to describe the shoe.

Stealthy. Predatory. Aggressive.

I struggled with a description because the Crazyquick doesn’t feel like any shoe I’ve ever played in. I told Finch after the first hoop session that I forgot they were on my feet by the end of the run – and that is a very good thing. One thing is clear though: this is a finely-tuned, precision engineered piece of footwear and is a performance beast.

Fit
As I’ve noted in each of my previous reviews, I value fit more than anything else when it comes to performance sneakers. The Kobe VI is my standard in terms of fit, as it brought the upper to the foot, locked me onto the footbed and moved with me. Yeah, well, the Crazyquick is now the new standard.

When you’re talking fit with the Crazyquick and putting the shoe on for the first time, you’ll immediately notice two things: the Techfit upper enveloping your foot and the Sprintframe chassis locking the midfoot and heel in place. Techfit is not a new technology to the adidas brand – it’s been used in compression tops and bottoms, as well as a couple of running models, for a couple of years now – but this is the first version we’ve seen on a basketball shoe. The upper basically feels like a neoprene bootie base with strategic overlays – the three stripes enveloping the midfoot give the upper added lateral stability. The graphic pattern of the upper reminds me of the way that the Kobe VI used “scales” to give the shoe texture as well as added strength.

Sprintframe has been criticized in the past (notably on the Crazy Light models) for being too small, but the chassis on Crazyquick fully wraps the heel and extends through the midfoot. The heel and midfoot are completely locked in place. I experienced absolutely no slippage and the fit is glove-like from heel to toe. Dual ankle notches aid comfort around the ankle bone and range of motion, and the mid cut does a great job of giving you a supportive feel while not restricting movement whatsoever. I’m not sure what else to say regarding the fit, other than that the Crazyquick is the single best fitting shoe I’ve ever played in thanks to the TechFit/Sprintframe combination and bootie-like upper. This shoe becomes part of you and moves with you as an extension of your foot, and that’s exactly what I want.

One final note: the lacing setup is slightly asymmetrical, which allows the three stripes on the forefoot to wrap around to the top of the foot to provide extra lockdown and support. It’s the little things, folks.

Heel-Toe Transition
The Crazyquick was absolutely perfect in this aspect as well, providing the best court feel I’ve ever experienced. The 17-pod outsole moves naturally through the footstrike and moves with you through any type of cut, defensive slide or sprint. The Crazyquick is reportedly the most weartested shoe ever produced by adidas, and that level of testing and refinement shows up in the transition. Getting all the pods to work in harmony is something that must have been fine-tuned hundreds of time. Crazyquick designer Robbie Fuller said he wanted the transition to be like a centipede, with each pod gripping the floor precisely when it should. The shoe does just that. I’d liken the sensation to wearing a minimalist running shoe or a well-cushioned Nike Free from a flexibility standpoint (the shoe still provides support – I’ll get to that later). The transition is smooth and rolls through the footstrike with stability and unparalleled court feel.

Cushioning
There were a couple aspects of the cushioning setup I found interesting. Obviously, you’re going to give up a little bit of impact protection in order to get that great court feel so the Crazyquick is not necessarily plush and padded in the cushioning department. Impact protection is adequate though, and responsiveness is excellent – aided by the perfectly tuned outsole which allows you to push off and go whenever you demand it.

When Finch and I first discussed the shoe, he was initially (and rightly) skeptical of the lateral stability/rigidity of the shoe given its deep flex grooves and carved-away outsole. Again, the shoe’s engineering came through. If you remove the insole, you’ll notice a rigid plate (part of the Sprintframe chassis, I’d assume) running from the heel to the midfoot that gives it good, lightweight stability while allowing the outsole pods to do their job. Again, I can’t understate the level of engineering and testing that this takes. (If you don’t understand how midsole construction affects the cushioning unit, check Finch’s review of the flawed Hyperdisruptor.) In the center of the plate directly underneath the heel you’ll find a small foam circle, indicating the adiprene-cushioned midsole that makes up the cushioning platform. I enjoyed being able to physically see the construction and it helps you understand how they designed such a great setup.

Traction
It’s herringbone all around and in various angles, and the traction is superb. Deep grooves on each of the outsole pods allow the pods to grip the floor securely and provide reassuring stop and go ability no matter how sharp the cut. Four zones and 17 individual pods work in concert to provide elite level traction. Not much else to say, but I’m happy that they went with the tried and true pattern underfoot, and it certainly pays off from a performance standpoint.

Materials/DurabilityTime will tell for the upper of the Crazyquick when it comes to durability. The Techfit upper feels and fits amazing, but it is almost like a neoprene bootie with supports fused on strategically so it remains to be seen how long that lasts. I’m not doubting the durability, but since it’s a new materials setup we’re required to withhold judgement. I believe the outsole and midsole will hold up just fine, as thick, durable rubber was employed for the outsole and the midsole has remained firm.

In conclusion, the adidas adipure Crazyquick is one of my all-time favorite performance shoes at this point. A ton of engineering, fine-tuning and development was put into this shoe and it shows. In a performance market where it seems like corners are cut on plenty of models, it’s refreshing to play in a shoe that bills itself as a performance beast…and actually backs that up. adidas introduced a new thought process with the Crazyquick line, employed new technology and updated some existing tech, and came away with one of the best performance shoes on the market.

Ratings
Fit: 10
Heel-Toe Transition: 10
Cushioning: 9.5
Traction: 9.5
Materials/Durability: 8.5
Overall: 47.5/50 = 95/100