Micro G – The Gym Rat Review

April 8, 2016October 7, 2020 jtsittler Performance Reviews

Performance Review: Under Armour Fireshot

Prose: Jake Sittler (@thegymratreview)

When I headed to the mall to pick up the UA Fireshot, I did so for a couple of reasons. First, I’m a fan of Micro G and hey, that’s what these are built on so I figured I’d be guaranteed a good ride. Second, the CompFit sleeve gave it a unique silhouette and bore a slight resemblance to one of my favorite UA silos – the original Micro G Juke, which was the first shoe to ever use CompFit. I have a pair I break out from time to time and I’ve always loved its sleek, clean lines.

What I found after putting in the hours with the Fireshot on-court is a shoe that’s lacking in a lot of areas. The word that kept coming to mind throughout my wearings was unnatural. More on that to come.

Fit
I will do my best to remind myself that this shoe ultimately wasn’t really built for a foot type like mine, so I’ll try to separate personal preference from overall performance at the end of this section. I went with a size 11, a half-size down from my true size of 11.5. Honestly, I think I could have gone to a 10.5 – there was that much room in the toebox for me. There was really too much volume all over for me in this shoe. My narrow foot was not built for this upper at all.

The major portion of the upper is a Fuse-like synthetic mesh with overlays strategically fused along the interior of the upper (you can see the pattern they create in some of these pictures). In this aspect, the reinforcement was a great idea as it strengthened the upper without coating the whole thing in another layer of material.

However, the synthetic mesh itself flexed extremely weird and unnaturally for me. The toebox creased funny because of how far down the tongue was stitched to the top of the toebox – it really needed to be a full inner sleeve. The odd flexing created hot spots (for me) at a couple of points along both medial sides of the shoes.

Now I could see how many players could like the Fireshot – if you have a wider foot, it’ll probably fill up the interior nicely. For me, I had to lace tighter in order to get good lockdown and it created all kinds of bad flexing. There was a little bit of room all over, from heel to toe, and I didn’t really care for its ability to lock my foot in. It didn’t make me nervous or anything, but I the extra room was consistently noticeable.

The CompFit sleeve is basically a neoprene bootie stitched to the vamp. It works with the tongue to form a plush collar when laced to the top, and it’s very comfortable. There’s some Achilles padding, though a nicer memory foam compound would have been better.

The biggest thing I can stress with these is to try them on before you buy, if you at all possible. I could see this being a great upper for someone with a wider foot but it just didn’t work for me.

Heel-Toe Transition
Transition was definitely not the smoothest. It’s a full Micro G midsole (despite what the UA website says) but something about the shape of it makes it less than completely smooth. It’s not terrible, and bigger forwards may not mind it. I just happen to put a premium on natural movement in my shoes.

For what it’s worth, I think the shape of the last itself is a little clunky – the outrigger feels too far forward and I don’t care for the sculpting of the midsole.

Cushioning
Again, the UA site has it wrong. It’s a Micro G midsole underneath a rather unfortunate Ortholite insole. The Ortholite insole is cheap and soft, and makes it feel like you’re sinking into the midsole rather than giving you the familiar responsiveness of a Micro G insole + outsole. I swapped insoles a couple different times to see if it would fare better, and it certainly did. The Micro G insole from my barely-used Jukes fit well and improved the feel slightly.

Support is average, but I found my arches getting more and more tired as games went on thanks to the lack of a midfoot shank. Court feel was a little muted thanks to the Ortholite, and thus responsiveness was less than enjoyable. There was nothing glaringly bad about it, but it didn’t feel like traditional Micro G. I’m a huge Micro G fan, but I didn’t like the application of it in the Fireshot. Stability was not a problem in any direction, as the wider base and outrigger took care of any lateral stability issues.

I slipped on my old Jukes and the difference is remarkable. The Micro G in that setup is firmer and noticeably more bouncy than the Fireshot.

This shoe is actually real comfortable to just slip on and wear around – the softness of the insole/midsole is great for that use – but on court it’s lacking in responsiveness and overall cushioning performance. I hate to say it, but the Fireshot felt cheap and unrefined on court.

Traction
I wish I had some better things to say, but I really didn’t care for the traction setup either. It’s an injection molded outsole with a geometric pattern for most of the surface of the shoe. There’s a little bit of herringbone, but of course it was put on the lateral side of the shoe (instead of the medial) where it really does no good at all.

The midfoot, ball of the foot and toe area are all this shattered glass-ish pattern and it really fails to grip the floor well unless you play on a very clean surface. The YMCA courts I play on are generally in average to good condition, but if there was any dust at all I wound up sliding all over. Not a good feeling.

It’s not difficult to do traction the right way and UA has some incredible traction setups with the Curry 2 and Curry 1 already. The full herringbone of the first Curry sig would have been perfect.

Materials
As you may have gathered, I didn’t care for the materials used. Micro G insole instead of the Ortholite slab, better Micro G midsole setup, and an upper that flexed more naturally would have changed things (I mean that’s basically the entire shoe). The CompFit sleeve is comfy, it’s just stuck in a shoe that doesn’t mirror its natural feel. It doesn’t integrate well into an upper that doesn’t allow for natural movement.

I’m not gonna dwell on it much longer – I just didn’t like playing in the Fireshot. Wide footers go ahead an give it a shot, especially if you’re looking for a plush cushioning feel. Other than that, leave it on the shelf or rock the Maryland colorway casually…

April 2, 2015January 12, 2016 jtsittler Featured, Performance Reviews

Performance Review: Under Armour Curry One

Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)

No disrespect to Brandon Jennings and the Bloodline Under Armour models of years past, but the Curry One was likely the most anticipated and most marketed UA hoops shoe since the company broke into the basketball shoe market. Curry is the hottest name and best player on the NBA’s best team, and populates Sportscenter almost daily with an array of pull up threes, slick ballhandling and Steve Nash-ian court vision. In other words, it was time for Under Armour to capitalize.

Behind a slick “Charged by Belief” marketing campaign, the Curry One was rolled out in mid-February. I was pretty stoked to my hands on a pair and I copped mine the weekend they released. I was expecting a solid, if unspectacular performer, cushioned with “Charged” full-length Micro G foam. The AnaFoam upper was also something new on a UA shoe, so with a pretty high degree of excitement I laced them up in all three of my leagues the first week.

Now a month later, I continue to be blown away.

Fit
I mentioned the AnaFoam upper already, and it’s been fantastic from a lockdown and comfort standpoint. AnaFoam is built of (obviously) a foam layer but also a stretchy textile that gives it some flexibility and malleability which separates the material from stiffer Fuse uppers that you’d compare it to. I found it to be a very adaptive fit that molds quickly around the foot. There are also perforations throughout the shoe, reducing weight and adding breathability (although I never notice breathability when I’m playing, some may feel differently).

Combined with seven lace loops, the fit is vise-like. I loved the way it laced up – no frills and serious lockdown. I had no movement or slippage anywhere inside the shoe, no matter how hard I changed direction or how quickly I’d stop and pop a jumper. The external heel counter is larger and more rigid than the Clutchfit – a definite improvement for me.

Fit is the most important aspect of a shoe to me and the Curry One was perfect for all intents and purposes. Supportive, yet flexible and super light (one of the biggest initial impressions of the shoe is how light it plays on-court), UA has something very good going with AnaFoam.

Heel-Toe Transition
Borrowing the outsole tooling from the Clutchfit Drive combined with a Charged Micro G midsole, the transition is buttery smooth. There’s a plastic TPU shank also, not beefy by any means, that adds some support but the shoe flows extremely well from heel to toe.

Cushioning
If you’ve read any other reviews on here, you can probably figure out that I love Micro G. It’s the best foam cushioning on the market, period. adidas hasn’t quite dialed Boost in all the way and Lunar foam, in a basketball shoe, is laughably inferior in my opinion. Firm, responsive, consistent and low to the ground, Micro G is everything a foam cushioning platform should be.

In the Curry One, the Micro G is “Charged,” which basically amounts to UA adding a layer of the Charged foam on top of the Micro G unit. Charged foam is supposed to feel softer under less force (i.e. standing around during a free throw) and then firm up and be super responsive under higher forces. I will say that it does perform as it’s intended to, and while it’s not a drastic difference from pure Micro G, it is better from a firm, responsive standpoint.

I already talked about the fantastic transition, but court feel and responsiveness also rate very highly for me. I think it’s better cushioned than the HyperRev 2015, Rose 5 and Clutchfit – and those shoes were all pretty darn good for me too.

Traction
Full herringbone and the same setup as the Clutchfit Drive. It’s a very good pattern, but the rubber is pretty soft and I’ve found it to be a little slick on less than perfect floors. As long as you keep swiping you won’t have any issues, and on clean floors it’s squeaky good. But most of us probably don’t play on the most pristine court surfaces so it is something to keep in mind. It’s nothing to deter you from buying the shoe, though.

Materials/Durability
Early on you could ding UA for some shoddy craftsmanship, but that’s no longer an issue in my opinion. The last 5 pairs of UAs I’ve had (Spawn 1, Charge Volt Low, Spawn 2, Clutchfit, and now the Curry One) have held up extremely well for me and for the buddies I’ve passed them on to when I’m through with the review. All pairs have taken a beating and responded well.

I’m seeing some scuffing and wear on the toecap of the Curry One, but that’s to be expected with any shoe. Other than that, the construction is pretty well done throughout and so far I’ve not had any issues whatsoever. UA did manage to throw in that shiny, plastic-y finish on parts of the midsole that I don’t like aesthetically but it’s nothing to criticize from a performance standpoint.

There are also a lot of cool details throughout the shoe and packaging that add to the story and experience with the shoe. You’ll see “4:13” stitched on the tongue in reference to Curry’s favorite Bible verse, Philippians 4:13, and “I can do all things…” shows up on the inside of the tongue. Personally, it’s great to see a brand embrace a player’s faith in that manner. Props to UA and Steph for that one.

Inside the box, you’ll find an extra set of laces (I swapped these in immediately) and a card thanking you for purchasing the shoes. The extra attention to detail is something I really enjoyed about the shoe.

I typically receive questions about the Curry One at least once a night in the various leagues I’ve played in, and my standard response is this: it is pound for pound the best shoe out there right now. It’s not fancy, not tech’d out, but it’s super light, the fit is incredibly good and cushioning is pretty perfect in all categories. Again, I’m a guard and this is a guard’s shoe, but I think most players would enjoy the shoe regardless of position. At $120 retail, it’s pretty affordable too.

October 23, 2014May 30, 2015 jtsittler Featured, Performance Reviews

Performance Review: Under Armour Micro G Anatomix Spawn 2

Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)

The original Anatomix Spawn was one of the surprise shoes of this past season and happened to be one of my favorites along with the Crazyquick 1. The fantastic support and lockdown were two of the best aspects of that shoe, along with trusty Micro G underneath for a well-rounded cushioning setup.

The sequel to that shoe is, obviously, the Anatomix Spawn 2. It doesn’t look strikingly different, keeping roughly the same midsole/outsole tooling and same silhouette. Like its predecessor, the Spawn 2 has a lot of positive aspects that make it a good option, but I can’t say it’s an improvement over the original because of two key areas: fit and flexibility.

Fit
The Spawn models are some of the few shoes you don’t have to lace all the way to the top eyelet in order to get the security you need. In fact, I’d recommend not lacing them all the wa up in order to give your ankle just a little more mobility. Lockdown is simply fantastic from heel to midfoot to toe.

Despite that, I still have some issues with the upper. Whereas the Spawn 1 featured fused layers of mesh and synthetic overlays, the Spawn 2 uses a layered synthetic upper (the material I think is called Flexgear) that feels sort of rubbery. You can see the layers contrasted against thinner panels, and some spots have padded, raised portions that give the upper some texture and detail. And while the flexibility of Flexgear is good, it leaves too much volume in certain areas when laced up. Rather than contouring to your foot when it moves and flexes, it bulges out and creates unnecessary room. You can see it most noticeably in the toebox, which I felt had too much volume, but you’ll also notice odd flexing when you’re walking around with it laced up.

Is this a dealbreaker? Not really, but it doesn’t achieve the 1:1 fit of the best shoes out there.

Heel-Toe Transition
I didn’t love the heel-toe transition in the first model, and not much is different with the Spawn 2. It’s not bad and I loved the TPU support piece used to give the midsole more structure anyway. The outsole is laid out almost exactly the same in the 2.

But where the Spawn 1 had several deeply recessed channels to aid flexibility, the Spawn 2 has a more traditional flex grooves and wasn’t quite as flexible at toe off. Is it going to be noticeable to anyone besides a nerd like me? Probably not, but I did find a slight difference there.

Cushioning
Like always, Micro G is one of the best cushioning platforms in the industry. The Spawn 2 checks all the boxes: low, cored-out court feel, responsiveness through the footstrike and fantastic stability. It also features that unique TPU support cage, which is wraps up around the lateral side wall for arguably the best midfoot support in the industry.

As long as the shoe isn’t too narrow for you, I’d recommend the Spawns to any bigger player or anyone with injuries looking for added support. The cushioning setup is unchanged from the Spawn 1, so if you liked it then the Spawn 2 won’t disappoint.

Traction
This was probably the worst area for the Spawn 1, as the shoe was pretty much only useable indoors on a good surface. The Spawn 2 didn’t change much besides the flex grooves I mentioned before, so I can still only recommend for indoor play. It’s not a danger or anything, just not as good as other shoes out there. A deeper herringbone pattern would be much appreciated.

Materials/Durability
I mentioned Flexgear before as a major material change and while I didn’t like it as much as the original in terms of fit, I do think it’s a more durable synthetic than the mesh combo used for the original. It is really skin-like and feels like it will withstand flexes and abrasions fairly well. No complaints with the finish or build quality either – Under Armour’s top models can be compared with any other brand out there.

The last two UA models I’ve done – the ClutchFit Drive and Spawn 2 – are fantastic performers and have the potential, at least from a performance standpoint, to compete with Jordan/Nike/adidas. While the two former names on that list absolutely dominate market share, Under Armour is making high quality basketball shoes.

The Spawn 2 overall is a very supportive shoe suitable for all positions. You get great cushioning across all three categories, pretty good overall fit and durability, and decent traction on the right surface. For my playing style, I’ll take the ClutchFits, but the Spawn 2 is one that definitely merits consideration when you go to cop your next pair.

September 22, 2014April 2, 2015 jtsittler Featured, Performance Reviews

Performance Review: Under Armour ClutchFit Drive

Prose: Jake Sittler (@jtsittler)

Under Armour has been all over the news lately. From hosting the nation’s top high school hoopers in the Elite 24 event in Brooklyn, to making a wild run at Kevin Durant’s endorsement (which may have been a buzz-generating ploy if nothing else), to most recently surpassing adidas as the No. 2 company in the U.S. in combined footwear and apparel sales. While UA certainly would have loved to add Durant to its stable of athletes, the past few months can generally be considered a success for the Baltimore-based brand.

That’s all well and good but as a hooper, I’ve been interested in UA’s latest technological innovation – the ClutchFit uppers that have been turning up across a variety of UA footwear. Designed as a second-skin, the rubbery textile overlays are intended to flex naturally with the foot and provide support via a kind of web/weave when force is applied. The result is supposed to be a closer-to-the-foot fit and better flexibility.

I’m always curious about new shoe tech, whether it’s cushioning systems or different textiles and support structures for the upper, and the ClutchFit Drive piqued that interest. Even better, the shoe – and the technology – delivered.

Fit
As you know, everything starts with fit when it comes to performance hoops shoes, and the ClutchFit Drive is pretty close to perfect when it comes to overall fit and lockdown.

I went with an 11.5 and didn’t feel the need to drop down to an 11 for a more snug fit. The width is average (some shoes, like the Kobe IX, seemed very tight under the midfoot – not so with the ClutchFit Drive) and should suit most players. There’s adequate room in the toebox too.

As mentioned before, ClutchFit was designed as a second skin for the foot. It’s supposed to deliver a thinner upper while the webbed structure provides dynamic support when it’s needed. And it does exactly that. There’s no slippage at all when laced up – thanks also to a full-length, high ankle inner bootie – and the upper flexes naturally through the foot strike. I felt secure and locked in at all times.

The high cut is probably a love/hate feel for most players, and I am somewhat of a fence rider in that discussion. I honestly prefer lows and love the mobility of a lower collar, and at first I didn’t like the feel of the padding and inner sleeve all the way up my ankle. It didn’t affect me in any way, other than me just noticing it, and after awhile I wasn’t aware of the high cut because of the fantastic flexibility of the upper. Still, I’d probably prefer the low version if/when it drops in some capacity.

It is also surprisingly well-padded, especially around the collar, and the stretchy, dynamic fit of the upper was a joy to play in.

Heel-Toe Transition
Full-length Micro G with no midfoot shank provides an extremely responsive and smooth ride. You’ll feel like you’re gliding from heel strike to toe off. The lack of a shank does have its minor drawbacks (covered later) but the quality of Micro G foam and thicker outsole rubber provide some of the smoothest transitions you’ll find.

Cushioning
I’ve long been a fan of Micro G cushioning and it’s fantastic on court once again. I think it’s the best foam compound on the market today, and it’s utilized perfectly here. Cushioning is consistent thanks to full-length Micro G, and plays extremely low to the ground and stable. It’s highly responsive and simply feels natural underfoot.

It scores well on each of our three scales, but cushioning is always going to have a personal element. For me, I like my shoes to have some support built in. I’ve played competitively in high school, college, and dozens of local leagues, and had both hips reconstructed after my freshman year of college ball. I know my body well, and I know that I need a certain amount of midfoot support to keep me feeling good after a competitive game or hour-long workout.

The KD7 is the most recent shoe to meet that need (I also felt the Anatomix Spawn and Crazyquick were good in this area), but the ClutchFit Drive gave me a surprising amount of support given the way it is built. It’s built to be flexible and doesn’t have any kind of midfoot shank. But the firm Micro G setup and high-quality rubber outsole give it enough support that I can hoop in these all day.

Traction
Full-length herringbone with deep tread and various flex grooves give it a natural flex and near-perfect traction. I went through a workout on a pretty poor YMCA floor tonight and I was still squeaking on my change of direction

Materials/Durability
So far, so good. Under Armour once had a rep of not building the highest quality shoes, but the Anatomix Spawn held up well for me last year and these show no early signs of wearing out. In a way, it’s a pretty simple shoe as far as construction goes, so there’s not a whole lot to nitpick. The upper is thicker than I would have expected, and the collar is very well padded. Micro G is a durable compound and holds up under heavy use.

I don’t necessarily love the shiny, plastic-y, rubbery finish of the shoe as a whole and I think it knocks the shoe down some in the eyes of a lazy consumer. I wish there were some different premium textures/materials used in one way or another. I know neon is in for the youngbloods, but I also wish you could actually find a simpler colorway in stores. That’s my old man soapbox.

The shoe instantly raises questions from other hoopers and when people have asked me what I thought of the shoe overall, and I describe it like this: it’s what the Kobe IX should have felt like. I think the IX was a very good shoe in its own right, but it fell seriously short in the cushioning department with the gimmicky drop-in midsole. The ClutchFit Drive simply felt more natural to me and the cushioning was near-perfect.

I’d sure like to get my hands on a low-top version and sometimes I want the support of the KD7. But the fit/flexibility, traction and cushioning have made the ClutchFit drive a favorite of mine and contender for shoe of the year.