SOLE COLLECTOR: Sneakers

SPACE

SPACE
Key Tech: Visible Air-Sole unit (heel), encapsulated Air-Sole unit (forefoot)

Use: Hoops, Indoor

Position: Guards and light forwards

Colorway Tested: Black/Cement Grey

Price: Retro price is $125 for GR & $135 for LS

Pros: Still provides good overall comfort and fit; surprisingly good court feel; scores high on the sentimental value meter

Cons: Midsole is quite hard and feels a bit too thin up front; wide base gives the shoe a blocky feel; traction could be better

SPACE

PACE

THIRD TIME’S THE CHARM

THEY SAY GOOD THINGS COME IN THREES AND THE AIR JORDAN III IS NO EXCEPTION.

Through his first few seasons in the NBA, Michael Jordan surprised a lot of people with his seemingly magical ability to make both established records and inventories of his namesake shoes disappear. But it wasn’t until his fourth season, the season in which the Air Jordan III was released, that Jordan’s transformation from popular athlete to pop-culture phenomenon began. What happened? It’s partially about design, partially about timing and, in my view, a lot about performance.

To start with, the Air Jordan III was, and still is, a head-turning shoe. For one thing, never before had anyone used elephant print leather on a sneaker-and perhaps with good reason. But whatever your take was on its aesthetic appeal, the Air Jordan III was undeniably distinctive. The man primarily responsible for its standout looks was a little known (at the time at least) architect turned footwear designer named Tinker Hatfield. The III was Hatfield’s first Air Jordan design and his collaboration with MJ over the course of the shoe’s development marked the beginning of what would become a long and remarkably fruitful relationship between the two. It’s a relationship that continues to this day (see Retrokid’s interview with Tinker Hatfield on page 42 for more on his work with MJ) and that has, in large part, fueled Nike’s rise from an upstart sneaker maker in Oregon to a global athletic footwear and apparel juggernaut.

The Air Jordan III also marked a few other firsts. It was the first shoe in the Air Jordan line to employ Nike’s Visible Air, which gave it a certain high-tech aura. It was also the first shoe in the Air Jordan line to feature the now globally recognized Jumpman logo, a more iconographic representation that very explicity linked the shoe to the high-flying, awe-inspiring exploits of its sole endorser. And speaking of endorsing, Jordan did quite a job of it over the course of the 1987-88 season, winning his second consecutive Slam Dunk Contest, his first league MVP award and pretty much every other honor there was to win save the League Championship. Last but not least among the firsts was that, with the III, the world at-large was introduced to a certain Mars Blackmon (as played by Spike Lee, reprising a character he created for his 1986 film She’s Gotta Have It), an adoring “everyfan” who asked the now famous question: “Is it the shoes?”

Basically, the Air Jordan III had the right look, the right marketing and dropped at just the right time. But, in my opinion at least, even with this unique confluence of design, messaging and timing, the III would not have sparked the Air Jordan phenomenon if it had not delivered on its promise of performance. The Air Jordan III didn’t just look high-tech, it was high-tech and, in its day, represented the state of the art in basketball footwear.

Much of the credit for this has to go to its midsole, which, as noted above, employs a visible Air-Sole unit under the heel and an encapsulated Air-Sole unit under the forefoot. Both units are encased within a dense, highly sculpted polyurethane (PU) midsole, which was, in itself, quite unique for its day. The end result of all this is a firm, stable base that will hold up very well to wear both indoors and out.

While its durability is a plus, after a couple of weeks of playing in the III’s I’d say that its midsole is a bit too firm all around and feels a bit too thin under the ball of the foot. It’s not anywhere near as bad as the Air Jordan I in this regard, but the III isn’t a shoe I’d recommend to people who are very heavy for their height. Another downside is that the stability I mentioned just a minute ago comes at a cost in agility, meaning that the III’s broad base gives it a sort of blocky feel, particularly at the rear. Still, these critiques are coming from a 2005 point of view. Back in early 1988, when the Air Jordan III was originally released, nothing could touch its combination of impact protection, stability and court feel.

And yet, as advanced as its midsole was, the IIIs upper was no slouch when it came to breaking new ground either. Of course, there was the aforementioned elephant print leather, but the really crazy thing about the Air Jordan III’s upper was its cut. To the best of my knowledge, the III was the first performance hoops shoe to feature a mid-height cut, meaning that it just barely wrapped around, but not over, the big bones of the ankle (aka the malleoli). Before the III, hoops shoes were either cut high, like the Converse Weapon, or cut low, like the original adidas Superstar. Amazingly, no one had thought to offer a cut in-between the two that would offer a mix of the support benefits of a high and the mobility benefits of a low. But Hatfield, perhaps because he came from the world of architecture and wasn’t as wedded to the conventions of the footwear industry, changed all that. Mids are so prevalent today it’s hard to imagine hoops shoes weren’t always cut that way, but when it was released, the Air Jordan III’s mid-height cut was a sensation.

In terms of performance, the III’s upper provides generally good if not totally locked down fit, with very good support around the base of the ankle. And for those who might have found its lower than usual cut disconcerting, the III’s externalized thermoformed heel counter-a seeming homage to the Air Jordan II-and sculpted midsole provide excellent support and stability around the base of the heel, an attribute that plays a much bigger role in preventing ankle injury than how high up the ankle a shoe’s upper extends.

The only area where I felt a bit let down by the III was traction. After the glue-like grip of the I and II, I was expecting more of the same sticky goodness, but the Air Jordan III’s solid rubber outsole provided only mediocre traction. Note, though, that these comments are limited to the colorway of the shoe that I tested, which was the classic Black/Cement Grey. It’s entirely possible that other colorways of the III fare better (or worse) in this department.

Now, it should come as no surprise to hear that the Air Jordan III is not perfect. It has, after all, been nearly 17 years since it was originally released. No, the surprise to me after a couple of weeks of playing in the III was not its flaws, but rather how well it’s withstood the test of time, both in terms of its performance and its design. It can no longer match, let alone surpass, the on-court prowess of most other shoes available at its $100 price point. But the III somehow still manages to feel more special than just about anything else out there today-at any price. That’s why it’s the only shoe I’ve reviewed to date that I’d score below an “A” for overall performance and yet still be willing to buy with my own hard earned cash. Not a very logical proposition, I know, but owning a pair of Air Jordan IIIs is like owning a classic car-it might not be a statistical match for its modern-day counterparts, but it’ll make you grin from ear to ear with every ride.

—From Issue 7, article by Professor K