BallReviews
Equipment Boards => Bags, Shoes, Accessories => Topic started by: xrayjay on April 02, 2015, 12:30:17 PM
-
I mentioned in an older post these shoes where going for $180-$190...I need to save and stock up on water....
http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-5499-dexter-the-9-bowling-shoes-available-72015.aspx
-
Wow that's $40 more than the SST 8's. Dexter's starting to get out of hand here they are just bowling shoes.
-
hopefully the sst8 black n purple drop a few $10s so i can pick it up
-
They still look like cheap etonics..no thanks!
-
They still look like cheap etonics..no thanks!
haha true they do but i like how the nine stands out but the back of the shoe just looks like etonics.
-
Wow that's $40 more than the SST 8's. Dexter's starting to get out of hand here they are just bowling shoes.
Starting?
and they're still made in China.
-
Since Dexter went to MAP pricing recently, maybe that is what they set for a price so Joe Bowler isn't paying the same price from an online pro shop that a regular pro shop is paying from a distributor. Just a WAG.
-
Loving my 3G's even more !
-
It's called price protecting...what other entity allows the retailer to buy at the same price as the wholesaler?
Bowlers have seriously devalued the market due their entitlement expectations
-
If the bowlers have set the value at less then desired the increase in price will likely have a decrease in sales. Then the results are the same with a likely loss in accessories sales.
-
The bowlers have not set the price they've devalued the price due to their delusional expectations...sorry but it's the truth
Bowlers truly believe they're owed something for merely participating
-
Bowlers are cheap. This isnt the bowlers fault. This falls on the people who distribute the product. Ebi pulled away from 3 online shops for almost a year. It didnt fix the problem. Dexter sales fall off what did they prove? It will not drive shoe sales up for brick and mortar shops.
-
It's protecting their product and their customers...the brick & mortar pro shops
Argue how you will but the direction or state it's in is putting many varying entities out of business....then more will bitch
-
Why do the manufactures not go after the main ones that sell to or have online shops as store fronts? If they go unchecked as they do then is this just posturing that will fade in a few months?
-
The manufacturers cannot control the end user or how they price...they can create a MAP or MSRP but there are ways around it
Due to the environment the manufacturers have created due to desperation, it's very difficult to put pandora back into the box
The industry has turned into a brothel and the customers are not increasing the value
-
Cant wait to see cost from a distributor. If its $189 online im picking the over for proshop cost from the distributor.
-
they remind me of the storm shoes. same style in the back.
-
I will stick with 3G Tour Ultra's. Best shoes that I have had.
-
I will stick with 3G Tour Ultra's. Best shoes that I have had.
+1 ... ditto for me plus they don't cost $189 either ...
-
The bowlers have not set the price they've devalued the price due to their delusional expectations...sorry but it's the truth
Bowlers truly believe they're owed something for merely participating
You can turn this around and say the manufacturer has overvalued their product. Keep in mind it's the manufacturers responsibility to understand the market and the consumer. Not the other way around. Consumers always want value. I agree some consumers are delusional with their expectations.
But if you, Mr. Manufacturer, make a bowling ball or shoe and price it above what consumers are willing to spend, that's on the you. Just because something can be gold plated and have tons of bells and whistles does not necessarily make it "worth" more.
-
Perhaps Dexter is trying to create another level to their product line. It's amazing what people will buy just because it costs more.
-
Once it's on TV finals, guys will buy them.
-
Once it's on TV finals, guys will buy them.
Shows the smarts or lack of, of bowlers in general.
Remember when cigarette ads were banned because people had to be protected from themselves when cig companies glamorized smoking. Mostly young new smokers. Maybe bowlers need to be protected from themselves. :P
-
Maybe the $189 includes Dr Scholls inserts for comfort. Look at msrp for the different shoes on Dexters website.
-
Wow. I read through this thread, and I see a lot of pissing and moaning over a relative few bucks. The new Dexter 9's are a whopping $20 more than the 3G Tour Ultra's:
http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-2336-3g-mens-tour-ultra-bowling-shoes-black-left-handed.aspx (http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-2336-3g-mens-tour-ultra-bowling-shoes-black-left-handed.aspx)
If you get 4 years of full-time use out of the 9's (conservative), that amortizes out to a mind boggling $5 a year. That's the cost of a bracket in one league night. I guess it's time to mortgage the house. ::)
Bowlers are like Lemmings when they rush to hand over cash for the newest ball with a bolt or neomark graphic engraved. Yet they make an issue over a few additional bucks for a great shoe that's further improved in the next release. Go figure.
-
Wow. I read through this thread, and I see a lot of pissing and moaning over a relative few bucks. The new Dexter 9's are a whopping $20 more than the 3G Tour Ultra's:
http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-2336-3g-mens-tour-ultra-bowling-shoes-black-left-handed.aspx (http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-2336-3g-mens-tour-ultra-bowling-shoes-black-left-handed.aspx)
If you get 4 years of full-time use out of the 9's (conservative), that amortizes out to a mind boggling $5 a year. That's the cost of a bracket in one league night. I guess it's time to mortgage the house. ::)
Bowlers are like Lemmings when they rush to hand over cash for the newest ball with a bolt or neomark graphic engraved. Yet they make an issue over a few additional bucks for a great shoe that's further improved in the next release. Go figure.
How do you know they are great? The price, because they are the next release with a higher number which obviously means better? There hasn't been a big change in shoes since the SST5 which for the price included more heel and sole options then higher priced later models to come.
Do people notice a price change,of course. Will people pay it if it seems worth well, yes again. Until the release what else do people have to talk about. It is a shoe that looks like most previous shoes.
-
Interesting analogy as for the most part this describes EVERY new bowling ball released just too many frock to them...
-
Wow. I read through this thread, and I see a lot of pissing and moaning over a relative few bucks. The new Dexter 9's are a whopping $20 more than the 3G Tour Ultra's:
http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-2336-3g-mens-tour-ultra-bowling-shoes-black-left-handed.aspx (http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-2336-3g-mens-tour-ultra-bowling-shoes-black-left-handed.aspx)
If you get 4 years of full-time use out of the 9's (conservative), that amortizes out to a mind boggling $5 a year. That's the cost of a bracket in one league night. I guess it's time to mortgage the house. ::)
Bowlers are like Lemmings when they rush to hand over cash for the newest ball with a bolt or neomark graphic engraved. Yet they make an issue over a few additional bucks for a great shoe that's further improved in the next release. Go figure.
How do you know they are great? The price, because they are the next release with a higher number which obviously means better? There hasn't been a big change in shoes since the SST5 which for the price included more heel and sole options then higher priced later models to come.
Do people notice a price change,of course. Will people pay it if it seems worth well, yes again. Until the release what else do people have to talk about. It is a shoe that looks like most previous shoes.
My personal opinion is that the SST8 is a great shoe. I've had my pair for 5 years, and I've logged thousands of games across approaches that range from dirt to ice. The 9's aren't out yet, but they appear to address problems that some bowlers have experienced (trailing shoe toe, sole flexibility, leather softness). So in my opinion, if this is true, it makes an already great shoe even better.
All this aside, I have to shake my head over bitching about $20. It just reenforces what we already know about bowlers.
-
This and the fact bowlers do not replace their shoes very often. I had my SST6s for years before getting the Brunswick labeled SST7/8 shoes because it i needed new shoes and it said Brunswick. SST anything last and are usually well built. Hope the comfort is addressed.
Justrico is there another new ball coming out that cost more then everything else currently on the market????? I hope it is something DIFFerent so i can be the first to get one here locally. Not often we have much hype for shoes......or rosin bags, or bags in general. Maybe raising the cost of everything will change peoples perception of the product.
-
If they're as comfy as people say the tpu-xs are, I'd be interested.
-
Wow. I read through this thread, and I see a lot of pissing and moaning over a relative few bucks. The new Dexter 9's are a whopping $20 more than the 3G Tour Ultra's:
http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-2336-3g-mens-tour-ultra-bowling-shoes-black-left-handed.aspx (http://www.buddiesproshop.com/p-2336-3g-mens-tour-ultra-bowling-shoes-black-left-handed.aspx)
If you get 4 years of full-time use out of the 9's (conservative), that amortizes out to a mind boggling $5 a year. That's the cost of a bracket in one league night. I guess it's time to mortgage the house. ::)
Bowlers are like Lemmings when they rush to hand over cash for the newest ball with a bolt or neomark graphic engraved. Yet they make an issue over a few additional bucks for a great shoe that's further improved in the next release. Go figure.
I believe what everyone is trying to say is that they don't believe that people have a problem spending $20 more for a shoe if it is more comfortable and lasts longer than the 3G Tour Ultras, but if it isn't more comfortable and doesn't last as long, then yes, it is only common sense that people will have a problem spending $20 more, myself included.
I have had my 3G Tour Ultras ever since the first year they were available. That was how many years ago, 10 years or so give or take a bit? I don't recall the exact year the 3G Tour Ultras were available, but to sum it up, I am still wearing mine today and they are still comfortable and in good shape, so it would be difficult for me and I am sure others in a similar situtation to justify paying $20 more for a shoe "on the chance" it might be better than that.
-
Brick, what I'm getting from this thread is mostly the angle of SST9 price vs. most other shoes available. I brought up the pricing of the 3G Tour Ultra's because they're the main competitor to the SST 8/9 series.
From my perspective, selection of a shoe is much more than just perceptions (which may be true or false) of initial comfort and longevity. The fact is that Dexter SSTs and 3G Tour Ultras are in many ways different types of shoes. Much the way Mini Vans and SUVs are different types of cars with different pluses and minuses.
For some background, I suffer from chronic Achilles tendonitis and Plantar Fasciitis. In other words, my feet suck. Nothing short of risky surgery is going to fix it, and I'm not going down that path. This is the primary factor in any shoe choice I make.
SST8s provide more arch and stability support than the 3G Tour Ultras. I tried the 3Gs several years ago, and while they felt good and soft right out of the box, my feet were killing me after 3 game sets. The overall foot support wasn't there. For the amount I bowl (25-30 games a week), that wasn't going to work.
For bowlers who don't have foot problems, the 3Gs might be a better choice. Or maybe not. The point is that we're all different, and there is no single answer for everyone. That's why I tend to roll my eyes at these threads that evaluate shoes using narrow and simplistic factors.
-
Steven, in your particular case and from what you describe, I can understand your need for the SST's, but for those like myself and others that don't have your foot problem, it is difficult to justify spending that extra $20. I used to buy Dexters and never got more than 2 years max out of a pair, thus my decision to try the 3G's when they first became available. I did that and I have never had to buy another pair of shoes since. I agree with you that there is no single answer for everyone.
-
Lol I dont care if the shoe is $289.99..they're still ugly as all get out. I'd rather wear Amy SST 5-8...just Jes saying..;)
-
Lol I dont care if the shoe is $289.99..they're still ugly as all get out. I'd rather wear Amy SST 5-8...just Jes saying..;)
+1 dunno what these folks talkin about but them sst9 straight up ugly... rock the sst8s anytime
-
Steven, in your particular case and from what you describe, I can understand your need for the SST's, but for those like myself and others that don't have your foot problem, it is difficult to justify spending that extra $20. I used to buy Dexters and never got more than 2 years max out of a pair, thus my decision to try the 3G's when they first became available. I did that and I have never had to buy another pair of shoes since. I agree with you that there is no single answer for everyone.
brick, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to switch. If you like your Tour Ultras, stick with them.
I'm just trying to promote a rational discussion. 20 bucks in the overall scheme of things is a nit if it's money well spent. The 9's are compelling because they appear to address comfort and durability complaints, plus they seem to retain the other advantages the SST8's have always had. All I'm suggesting is that should be enough to dismiss the $20 difference, and they deserve a look by those in the market.
-
Just come out and say it. If you're that worried about $20, you're either on a very tight budget or you're CHEAP. :o
Steven, in your particular case and from what you describe, I can understand your need for the SST's, but for those like myself and others that don't have your foot problem, it is difficult to justify spending that extra $20. I used to buy Dexters and never got more than 2 years max out of a pair, thus my decision to try the 3G's when they first became available. I did that and I have never had to buy another pair of shoes since. I agree with you that there is no single answer for everyone.
-
Just come out and say it. If you're that worried about $20, you're either on a very tight budget or you're CHEAP. :o
Steven, in your particular case and from what you describe, I can understand your need for the SST's, but for those like myself and others that don't have your foot problem, it is difficult to justify spending that extra $20. I used to buy Dexters and never got more than 2 years max out of a pair, thus my decision to try the 3G's when they first became available. I did that and I have never had to buy another pair of shoes since. I agree with you that there is no single answer for everyone.
Kennedy, your post shows that you haven't read all of my posts at all. My point is that if the shoes are better, then yes by all means spend the $20, but if they are not one iota better, then why spend the $20 for same or less quality and comfort? If you will go back and read all of my posts, you will see that my experience with Dexter SST's has been their shoes lasting 2 years max whereas I have had the 3G's ever since they were first made. I am not sure what year that was, but I believe it is at least 8 years ago and maybe more. As Steven said in one post, there is no single answer for everyone.
-
Kennedy, your post shows that you haven't read all of my posts at all. My point is that if the shoes are better, then yes by all means spend the $20, but if they are not one iota better, then why spend the $20 for same or less quality and comfort? If you will go back and read all of my posts, you will see that my experience with Dexter SST's has been their shoes lasting 2 years max whereas I have had the 3G's ever since they were first made. I am not sure what year that was, but I believe it is at least 8 years ago and maybe more. As Steven said in one post, there is no single answer for everyone.
+1...
Kennedy, I've known Brick for a while, I can say with certainty he's not cheap. He wants to understand potential value before spending $20, and I can't argue that.
However, it's well known that bowlers in general are cheap, and not the sharpest tools in the shed. There are plenty of other legitimate targets on this board if you want to go down that path. ;)
-
Lol I dont care if the shoe is $289.99..they're still ugly as all get out. I'd rather wear Amy SST 5-8...just Jes saying..;)
+1 dunno what these folks talkin about but them sst9 straight up ugly... rock the sst8s anytime
They look cheesy and will look great on that "wannabe" pro bowler. Also, the 35-45 years guy who's wife dresses him...he will also love em. I'll pass on the $190 etonics, lametonics.
-
I'm not targeting anybody. Although a lot of that seems to go on here.
If he's not cheap, then he sure is obsessing about $20. And yes, bowlers definitely aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Dexters have always worked well for me AND last a long time.
Kennedy, your post shows that you haven't read all of my posts at all. My point is that if the shoes are better, then yes by all means spend the $20, but if they are not one iota better, then why spend the $20 for same or less quality and comfort? If you will go back and read all of my posts, you will see that my experience with Dexter SST's has been their shoes lasting 2 years max whereas I have had the 3G's ever since they were first made. I am not sure what year that was, but I believe it is at least 8 years ago and maybe more. As Steven said in one post, there is no single answer for everyone.
+1...
Kennedy, I've known Brick for a while, I can say with certainty he's not cheap. He wants to understand potential value before spending $20, and I can't argue that.
However, it's well known that bowlers in general are cheap, and not the sharpest tools in the shed. There are plenty of other legitimate targets on this board if you want to go down that path. ;)
-
They look cheesy and will look great on that "wannabe" pro bowler. Also, the 35-45 years guy who's wife dresses him...he will also love em. I'll pass on the $190 etonics, lametonics.
Such anger over shoes yet to be released. I've owned the Etonics you keep referring to, and they're not close. If you want to ignore reality and believe otherwise, carry on.
Kennedy: Again, Brick isn't cheap. He didn't previously have all the information related to the potential pro's of the $20 difference, but he gets it. I don't want to spend more money than I need to either. That's why these exchanges are valuable.
-
They look cheesy and will look great on that "wannabe" pro bowler. Also, the 35-45 years guy who's wife dresses him...he will also love em. I'll pass on the $190 etonics, lametonics.
Such anger over shoes yet to be released. I've owned the Etonics you keep referring to, and they're not close. If you want to ignore reality and believe otherwise, carry on.
Kennedy: Again, Brick isn't cheap. He didn't previously have all the information related to the potential pro's of the $20 difference, but he gets it. I don't want to spend more money than I need to either. That's why these exchanges are valuable.
There not the same but they are close to looking the same. Just gotta look at the shape of the shoe like toe to heel and you can feel like you seen them sst9 from somewhere and its the etonics!! I'm not saying sst9 is a bad shoe since they made it to fixx all the complaints people had on the sst8 for example the toe dragging problems. But like my Jordan's I gotta rock something lookin niceeee
-
There not the same but they are close to looking the same. Just gotta look at the shape of the shoe like toe to heel and you can feel like you seen them sst9 from somewhere and its the etonics!! I'm not saying sst9 is a bad shoe since they made it to fixx all the complaints people had on the sst8 for example the toe dragging problems. But like my Jordan's I gotta rock something lookin niceeee
Maybe you missed earlier where Rico confirmed that the Etonic bowling uppers are essentially their golf shoes. So how do the rounded toes of the 9's remind you of the noticeably more pointed toes on the Etonics? If you "gotta rock" so be it, but where is the disconnect on this??
-
There not the same but they are close to looking the same. Just gotta look at the shape of the shoe like toe to heel and you can feel like you seen them sst9 from somewhere and its the etonics!! I'm not saying sst9 is a bad shoe since they made it to fixx all the complaints people had on the sst8 for example the toe dragging problems. But like my Jordan's I gotta rock something lookin niceeee
Maybe you missed earlier where Rico confirmed that the Etonic bowling uppers are essentially their golf shoes. So how do the rounded toes of the 9's remind you of the noticeably more pointed toes on the Etonics? If you "gotta rock" so be it, but where is the disconnect on this??
I just said why the shoes reminded me because of the shoe shape??? and no i did not miss the part about golf has nothing to do wit why it reminded me of seeing etonics. the outline of the shoe reminds me of etonic if it doesnt to you then i m sorry that i dont see it your way.
-
I just said why the shoes reminded me because of the shoe shape??? and no i did not miss the part about golf has nothing to do wit why it reminded me of seeing etonics. the outline of the shoe reminds me of etonic if it doesnt to you then i m sorry that i dont see it your way.
Yes, that's exactly what you said. You stated previously "Just gotta look at the shape of the shoe like toe to heel"
If the outline of the pointed 'golf like' toe on the Etonic reminds you of the rounded toe on the new 9, it helps me understand where you're coming from. Thanks for the update.
-
They are NOT SST9's they are THE 9...
-
They are NOT SST9's they are THE 9...
Hahaha dang THE 9 that's gonna take me some time to get use to saying.
-
Lol dont get mad everyone! I'm just stating my opinion. I tend to like version two of the shoe anyways. I'll probably give em a go a few years from now... When I have to lol