crooked tongues magazine News Features

17aug 10
Nike Air Max Modular 95 SI image

We're pretty on the fence with this hybrid of two Nike styles that are close to our collective hearts. Big Windows have been around since their debut. They've become so ubiquitous that we regularly take the shoe for granted in favour of its flashier follow-ups and bulkier predecessors. Follow-ups didn't get much flashier than the Air Max 95—a shoe so elaborate, awesome and expensive that it took a few years to truly appreciate. With such a recent onslaught of new runners, we assumed the era of the cut and shut was coming to a close. Not so. In fact, when we were a little indifferent to the new Nike BW design we were scorned by some Nike honchos. The selling point for the new wave of this shoe is apparently the modular nature of the shoe. That got us hyped—the scope to flip a midsole on iD is something that's been hinted since the 'One Time Only' opened the floodgates to fuse models all over the shop.

The first evidence of the BW platform's scope to double-up is the Air Max Modular SI. These shots are of the samples that we grabbed earlier in the year, so don't hold us accountable for any altered paintwork. 'SI' stands for 'Sports Inspired', and these are drenched in neon Air Max 95 styling to the point where it's a bit overwhelming. That midsole's window's become a lot bigger, with a rear view too, and the heel and tongue are translated straight from the futuristic favourite. They're alright at what they do, but while this exists, the neon Air Stab that was shown to us but never released in late 2005 remains shelved. Where's the justice in that? If you're interested, these are set to drop in Foot Locker soon. Us? We'll be retaining our pound notes for the next wave of Modular experiments...

Nike Air Max Modular 95 SI image
Nike Air Max Modular 95 SI image
Nike Air Max Modular 95 SI image
Nike Air Max Modular 95 SI image

Comments (18)

Anon on February 21, 2011 @ 08:09

I saw them in real life. farout, the whole extra air window at the back amazes me. It sets you apart.

Anon on December 5, 2010 @ 03:53

maybe if they gave some better offerings in classic big window colourways, they wouldnt have to resort to offering this more chavvy look. what happened to sick BWs like the persians? they gave up even trying after that and even bothered releasing persians in the Gen 2 setup as well. nike needs to pay more attention to the BW and 90s these days, they are just focusing on AM1s for the heads and chavvy JD versions of everything else

Anon on November 8, 2010 @ 22:43

fuk al u

Anon on August 29, 2010 @ 06:22

Pure rude, dems da future, stop being so stuck in the past y'all. Innit?

Anon on August 26, 2010 @ 18:14

why change a all time classic !!

slik1972 on August 19, 2010 @ 12:19

These are almost as bad as those retard Sketcher things on the TV.

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 17:05

i love max....but these look cheap and chav

nguyentoan112 on August 18, 2010 @ 15:11

asdasd

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 11:58

an when are they released cus they aint in footlocker now...?

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 11:56

i'd buy them. Would like to see some other c/w's though

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 11:52

nah i like em...

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 10:44

But why bother? Why bother to waste effort slamming together parts whose sum is significantly less? Would kids who'd buy these not have bought a regular BW in that colourway? Course they would have.

I just don't see the point, especially as the forefoot midsole is modern tech but then they've dropped other elements of the BW Gen II that pushed it forwards.

All in all, a pointless exercise in effing over two iconic shoes.

Sorry.

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 10:13

TheKingoftrainers.com approves!!! The King has spoken!!

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 10:12

Not bad, would like them in a different colourway though...

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 10:11

These Trainers are wicked!!!

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 10:06

Thought I wouldn't like these but they're nice.. @Insprtn

Anon on August 18, 2010 @ 09:52

Bet you would've found a few more positives if you had 'em in store. You're reviews are becoming worthless.

Anon on August 17, 2010 @ 18:37

Not very good.

Leave a reply