The Steph Curry 2 Sneakers Might Look Like Dad Shoes, But They Get The Job Done

06.23.16 10 months ago 6 Comments

By now, pretty much everyone in the world has seen and/or goofed on Under Armour’s “Chef Curry” 2 Low, which was unveiled on June 9 and immediately savaged via social media. Even Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert kept the roast going on their respective late night shows. The backlash was so pervasive and severe that it has created a self-perpetuating shoe roasting apparatus that will likely stick around for a while yet.

But we wanted to give the shoe a fair shake. Under Armour sent us a pair, I wore them for a while, played ball in them, logged some hours in them, and here is my objective review of these bad boys.

Appearance

Under Armour

Let’s just go ahead and get this out of the way up top. Yes, the shoes look almost exactly like you would expect them to after seeing the ubiquitous press photo of them. The main difference is that there are a lot more reflective elements in person, ones that just do not photograph at all. The “UA” logo is reflective grey material and the “I can do all things” script on the inside is similarly shiny, but that’s pretty much the extent of flash on these.

There has been some debate over whether these shoes would have gotten as much flak if they had a Nike Swoosh on the side instead of the Under Armour logo. There’s no way to know for sure, but I am leaning on the side of “probably not,” although the Nike model these most resemble is probably the Monarch, which is pretty definitively a dad shoe.

Regardless, Steph should probably get some points for dropping, bar none, the least-flashy signature kicks in history. The average pair of LeBrons looks like something out of Neon Genesis Evangelion, so kudos to a baller having the gumption to be like, “Nah, just white.”

They certainly look better on the feet than they do just sitting there, but they’re just not flashy shoes. I have to believe that’s the entire point.

Around The Web