Pros:
>They are the original running and basketball shoe.
>Unisex.
>Comes in high tops, mid tops, and low tops.
>Comes in a rainbow of colors and styles.
>Looks better the dirtier they get.
>Relatively inexpensive.
>A E S T H E T I C A F
>Comfy as fuck.
Cons:
>????
Cons:
>look like clown shoes on average or larger feet
>holes develop very easily on canvas
>no arch support
>laces way too tightly when worn by people with narrow feet
you must be smoking crack if you think these are comfortable. I own this exact pair and I would die if I worked/walked more than a mile in em.
Cons:
>make running impossible and potentially debilitating
>make the wearer look like a theater kid from a disney movie high school
>constructed poorly out of low-quality materials
>thin, flimsy, even a single drop of water soaks through instantly
>obviously cannot be worn with shorts, unless we are considering the low tops as well, which have their own set of problems
Shall i go on
I wear them a size bigger. Yesterday I walked four miles in them and my feet feel fine.
>tfw size 12
>own a pair of cons and know my feet look like clown shoes but still wear them
having big feet sucks bros
12 isn't that big dude, fuck off. It's just large, not huge. All shoemakers make at least up to your size. Though I wear 10.5/11
I knew a kid in middle school who wore size 14, now I felt sad for his hugeassfeet
I wear them to work everyday and I'm on my feet for ten hours straight.
Shoe that makes you look like an idiot
will give you flatfoot after x years.
kys, OP
try being size 17. at 5'5 i am a perfectly shaped L
KEK
post pic
The canvas monos are shitty pleb shit.
i refuse to believe someone like this exists
I shouldn't give you clues, it only elevates you children to my level. But oh well, i was feeling nice atm
wow
yes cons are perfectly fine.
Never had any trouble with them and i am 40 years old.
pls post pics
A better shoe would be
Reebok club C's
Vans old skools
Asics gel lytes
Air force 1s
Onitsuka tiger GSM
>>Comfy as fuck.
Anyone got 70's and how are they?
More durable than regulars, better looking soles.
Chuck II are same and have lunarlon which is comfy as fuck.
>made out of shit tier materials with shit tier build quality
And all you do is look normal
Pls what are low top disadvantages?
Bitch please, you must be smoking rocks
Sk8-Hi's are better in every single way.
Comfier, better build quality, unisex too, actually has a full white model, no shitty logo on the side, etc.
>Name a better shoe
Desert boots, duh
I'm more a fan of the classics.
That image gets me every time
ditto on no arch support, kills my feet walking between classes all day. Fuck these shoes if you need to walk anywhere
chucks are becoming too pricey for what is essentialy a piece of rubber with some canvas glued on
In Australia they cost at least $90. I really want a pair but I simply can't justify buying more expensive shoes, that might not even last or be comfortable
only people with weak little penguin feet say this, try walking more than once a week
These are great, I got chuck 2's and put some new balance insoles in them. Comfy as fuck.
clown shoes, it really looks terrible
...
How tf you run in these? Was running on track with these, they easily slowed me down 35% as well as tired me out faster.
You don't. It's like racing with a Model T. Chuck IIs seem like an improvement though.
:^)
I have these leather ones are they effay?
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>Jussi-sukat
Jaa kato moro :D
veljen kenkulit oikeasti kuvassa, omat 1490-varsimaiharit eivät yhtä paskassa kunnossa ole.
bow down plebs
Uuugly.
the 70s are superior, regular ones are trash