The 1999-released Shox technology took over a decade to perfect before being utilized by Nike. It has been a smashing success to date – acclaimed both by critics and fans alike . But who said BOING was to have all the fun? By '02, Adidas has already released its rival to the Shox - the A³ (“cubed”) cushioning system. While they'd be quick to deny it, the A³ is targeted directly at Shox's product lineup. The question that immediately comes to mind is – do these technology really work?

      In the time that we spent with the A³, we see much potential for the cushioning technology. Not only does it make a worthy competitor to the Shox, its relatively lower price range should give consumers every bit of their buying attention.

      The shoes we tested for the Adidas cushioning system is A³ Basketball - a true big man's shoe. All the essentials are there. High rise built. Good quality of material used. The shoes surprised us at how durable it was constructed. We compared it to Foamposite material in terms of how well it held up over time. The disadvantages were that it was stiff and amazingly had an even longer break-in period than Shox based shoes. It took a good 20 wears before the cushioning system started to ease up. While the appearance did not appeal to us straight off the bat, it was value wise a no-brainer.

      When compared side by side, it was easy for us to agree that the Shox were more refined, comfortable, lower-profile and more aggressive looking than the A³. However, functional wise, both technology were surprisingly similiar in terms of cushioning.

      Nike Air has proven to be the industry's best lightweight cushioning technology over the years. So the launch of the Shox based technology in 1999 was a careful and planned approach by Nike since it runs almost contradictory to their marketing claims on the Air-based technology. The Shox is heavier, higher off the ground and its cushioning advantages are not as immediately noticeable as Air. Many consumers even claim that Nike Shox is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. The "Boing" compaign during the year 2000 featured runners and basketball players who can run faster and jump higher with Shox. This assertion became a near-reality when Vince Carter jumped over France's Weiss during a dunk in the 2000 Olympics.

      But does that mean the Shox based shoes REALLY work? Let's be realistic here, Vince Carter could have and would have dunked over Weiss in just about ANY basketball shoe. Remember, he was wearing a pair of And1 Tai Chi's when he performed the mind-shattering dunks of the '99 Slam Dunk Contest (a shoe featuring no advanced technology other than a traditional EVA midsole). The answer can not be found on TV but on your feet. Does the technology make you jump higher by catapulting you off the ground? Not really. Does it make you run faster? Not necessarily. There is simply no evidence of either claim. However, that's not to say that the system can't do what it is designed to do. Much like any other cushioning system, it can't make you do something that you ordinarily can not do, but it can provide the same or better cushioning results – just in an entirely different way.

      With the hype aside, we can take a clear look at the so called “Boing” technology. For consumers who claimed the Shox technology does not work, chances are they never wore it long enough for it to work. It can take a first-time Shox wearer a good 10-15 wears before breaking-in the shoes. It is not uncommon to experience discomforts, blisters, shin and knee ailments during that period. This break-in time can especially apply to earlier Shox shoes like the BB4. Later Shox models such as the Shox Status were tweaked to make the shoes more comfortable straight out of the box. Once the shoes are broken-in, the result is an astounding comfortable and high performing shoe. Shox becomes an extension of your foot that works to provide impact protection as well as a quick responsive system that turns absorbed energy back into your next step. Essentially, you are bouncing from step to step – always an explosive spring away from your opponent.

      What we've found over time is that Shox CAN work, but the results will not necessarily be obvious for everyone. For the most part, Shox works best for a player with a moderate amount of mass and weight. Super light-weight guard who mostly use lateral movements on the ground just won't experience the same effects as a heavier, up & down type of player.

      One common complaint about both technologies is that Shox/A³ adds structure stability but lacks relative foot stableness since they are higher off the ground than many other technologies. Nike's Zoom Air and AdiPrene+ are both much better for this particular performance category. Guards that focus mostly on side to side movements are much better off with Zoom Air and AdiPrene than the straight up and down impact protection provided by the Shox. With that in mind, we have concluded that A³ and Shox are new additions to the game but hardly replace the existing technologies. They are a new and welcomed approach to the age old problem of cushioning. If you are curious about either technology, we highly recommend Shox Stunner and BB4 as well as the A³ Electrify.

      This is one comparison where we can not pick a winner or loser. Truth is, the answer entirely depends on the player's game and his/her preference for any particular model rather than a technology in general. Below is a recommendation chart for those who are considering the Shox or A³ technology based shoes.

Shoe	Guard	Guard/Forward	Forward/Center
Adidas A3 BBall:
Adidas A3 Electrify:
Adidas A3 FF:
Nike Shox BB4:
Nike Shox Limitless:
Nike Shox Status:
Nike Shox Stunner:
Nike Shox Supremacy:
Nike Shox VC I:
Nike Shox VC II:

Do YOU want to send in a review? Email it to us at submissions@kicksguide.com with the subject Review Series.