BoJack Horseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Fair enough, each to their own and probably pretty trendy with the young guys right now but... On that score?... I am glad to be old and unfashionable, dinnae get the tight jeans and rubbers thing at all. They seem to be popular aye. Don't worry, no skin tight jeans for me. I'm 6'4 and a tad too top heavy for that caper. I used to rock the Cortez as a youngster. My first pair were black. Last pair of black trainers I ever bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 They seem to be popular aye. Don't worry, no skin tight jeans for me. I'm 6'4 and a tad too top heavy for that caper. I used to rock the Cortez as a youngster. My first pair were black. Last pair of black trainers I ever bought. Hard to get good black trainers that do not look shan with jeans. They're no too shabby though. Need a bit of colour in there too though, or for some reason they become... "wrong" with jeans IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Hard to get good black trainers that do not look shan with jeans. They're no too shabby though. Need a bit of colour in their too though, or for some reason they become... "wrong" with jeans IMO. Black trainers are wrong with jeans. In fact, they're wrong in general if they're leather/plastic I think. Only trainers I'd wear with jeans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheiky Baby Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Black trainers are wrong with jeans. In fact, they're wrong in general if they're leather/plastic I think. Only trainers I'd wear with jeans... These are the balls with jeans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 These are the balls with jeans I think you can't really go wrong with a canvas shoe. Fairly understated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Black trainers are wrong with jeans. In fact, they're wrong in general if they're leather/plastic I think. Only trainers I'd wear with jeans... Where are the trainers Barney? You seem to have posted a pic of some fey basketball shoe type things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Where are the trainers Barney? You seem to have posted a pic of some fey basketball shoe type things. Semantics Boris, semantics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_(footwear) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Semantics Boris, semantics. http://en.wikipedia....iner_(footwear) Hmmm...sorry. Not having that. Trainers are trainers and canvas booties are canvas booties! This homogenisation of leisure and sporting footwear is a poor show, yet somehow symptomatic of the dumbed down nature of our current society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Hmmm...sorry. Not having that. Trainers are trainers and canvas booties are canvas booties! This homogenisation of leisure and sporting footwear is a poor show, yet somehow symptomatic of the dumbed down nature of our current society. So what do you regard as 'trainers'? Is there a specific criteria? Trainer or Running shoe? Trainer or Tennis shoe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'd say running hsoes, tennis shoes etc could all quite easily come under the generic "trainer" heading. Plimsolls, gym shoes, ballet shoes, canvas booties etc shouldn't. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'd say running hsoes, tennis shoes etc could all quite easily come under the generic "trainer" heading. Plimsolls, gym shoes, ballet shoes, canvas booties etc shouldn't. IMO. You are making essentially no sense. So tennis is acceptable. Canvas is not. I present to you: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The Nikes were running shoes -I have very nifty pair myself- the Smiths are (IMO) trainers, I call all fashion or non-specific/non-techy liesure footwear 'trainers'. The canvas booties are the baseball equivilent of playing football in a pair of samba. I have a few Fred Perry and Lacoste 'poloshirts' for example... But do not play tennis or polo. I also have a couple of RL polo shirts that I would just never play a sport in fullstop. Trainers are fashion-wear IMO, while they may be *******isations of old fashioned sport equipment, they are no more usefull to the modern athlete in that role than a Porsche 911 can still be called a VW Beatle. Not into baseball boots fullstop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The Nikes were running shoes -I have very nifty pair myself- the Smiths are (IMO) trainers, I call all fashion or non-specific/non-techy liesure footwear 'trainers'. The canvas booties are the baseball equivilent of playing football in a pair of samba. I have a few Fred Perry and Lacoste 'poloshirts' for example... But do not play tennis or polo. I also have a couple of RL polo shirts that I would just never play a sport in fullstop. Trainers are fashion-wear IMO, while they may be *******isations of old fashioned sport equipment, they are no more usefull to the modern athlete in that role than a Porsche 911 can still be called a VW Beatle. Not into baseball boots fullstop. Chuck's are basketball but I get what you're saying. As much as they aren't your style... they're still trainers right? Fashionised sports shoes = trainers imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Fashionised sports shoes = trainers imo. It must by my age then... So golf shoes must equal trainers by your logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It must by my age then... So golf shoes must equal trainers by your logic? Now, now Boris. Now you're being obtuse. Those are clearly shoes designed to play golf. Not trainers based on such a design. Bar the running shoes (that some people strangely wear for fashion) the footwear I have posted have all been based on sports shoes, not shoes designed for sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Now, now Boris. Now you're being obtuse. Those are clearly shoes designed to play golf. Not trainers based on such a design. Bar the running shoes (that some people strangely wear for fashion) the footwear I have posted have all been based on sports shoes, not shoes designed for sport. But isn't a shoe designed for sport a sports shoe? A shoe designed for fashion, aping the design of a sports shoe IS NOT a sports shoe. IMO, of course. And I wasn't being obtuse. Faceatious perhaps, but not obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.