Nike Zoom Rookie Performance Review

Traction – 7.5/10

Cushion – 2/10

Materials – 9/10

Fit – 4/10 (This is based on personal experience)

Ventilation – 4/10 (not bad as the material need low ventilation)

Support – 8/10

Overall – 5.75/10

Traction – Good enough to get by, not the best for dusty courts. Clean and properly maintained courts the traction was great.

Cushion – Equipped with only a thin heel Zoom Air unit, the cushion is not great. Forefoot is firm and non responsive whatsoever. Cushion provided doesn’t reflect the retail price at all.

Material – Love the materials and they are as durable as they come.

Fit – Fit was decent in the heel once molded to your foot. Forefoot left much to be desired as the pods on the right shoe dug into my foot upon each and every wear no matter how hard I tried to break them in.

Ventilation – There isn’t much and that is what the Foamposite material requires in order to properly mold to your foot. Can’t complain as this was an intended feature.

Support – Plenty of support is offered both in the arch with the carbon fiber shank as well as the pods featured on the shoe. Foamposite is typically sturdy and supportive as well so the heel and toe area are built tough to withstand beating on court and retain its shape to offer optimum support.

Overall – Great looking shoe with quite a few performance features yet under performed in every way. My advice, stay far away from these if you planned on taking these for a spin on-court… casually they should be fine as any shoe would be.

(10) Comments to “Nike Zoom Rookie Performance Review”

  1. Disappointing. How do you like the Foamposite Ones or Pros as performance shoes. I’ve always wondered but never pulled them out on court. Maybe you have

    • Nightwing2303

      I haven’t yet either but i plan on it this year.

    • I’ve used my retro blue Foamposites on the court and really like the way they perform. Zoom cushioning is great, they mold to your foot, and the traction didn’t disappoint. I had some durability issues as the nubuck used torn in a couple places. Also, though the Foams look like a high top, they play more like a low top. There’s very little in terms of ankle support but I thought the foamposite material worked very well as a heel counter.

  2. Really appreciate you actully took your time to review these not mentioning all the foot pain you had to endure in these. You deserve better, lol. I would never play in “hybrid” shoes such as these. I don’t even consider they’re performance sneaker. There are some good performing retro shoes out there (for example the retro AJ XIIIs) because the originals were great performers. However, hybrids don’t have history or any reputation at all. That’s why I would not consider to play in them but i would like to see you review the air huarache bball 2012 tho. It would be interesting to see how Free Tech works on bball shoes for the first time.

    • Nightwing2303

      Thanks! I will be taking the bball 2012s on court for sure. Very intrigued by those personally.

  3. I just saw D-Rose’s review on the 2.5s. Looks like it has the same midsole as the 2, but it has the Crazy Light’s outsole. Will you do a review on it? I know you have a TON of shoes to review, but I’m just curious.

  4. I am bit iffy on the Zoom Rookie by appearrance seeing that foamposite is stiff and offers no flexibility or torsion when you run or jump. I’m suprised you did’t attempt to flex/twist the shoe as you would normally do in testing out a good basketball shoe. Looks flashy but looks poor and painful in playability.

    • Nightwing2303

      I did inspect them but either way they were going to get reviewed… Didnt anticipate the pain theyd bring though.

Leave a Reply