Notice the picture of our Ultraposite below when brand new. The photo clearly shows the Peel Off protective film that keeps the shoe from being scratched up. Once you remove it and get these shoes on the court however, you'll quickly notice that the $160 you just dropped on an ultra-luxury class pair of shoes have just turned into Scarface. These scuff marks permanently destroy the graceful lines and look of the shoe.

The Posite line has always endured the highest quality and durability over the years. So how is it acceptable for a top of the line shoe such as the Ultraposite to look so bad after a few games on the court? If Nike knowingly put a protective film on the shoe when it is brand new, then shouldn't they also know how ugly the shoe will turn out to be once you actually wear them?

In this picture, the top shoe is brand spanking new while the bottom pair shoes considerable scuffs and scratches. How many consumer would've bought the top pair had they known it was going to look like the bottom one after just a few wears?

        Let's get right down to business. Foam or Flight, it didn't matter. The Nike Posite line was suppose to be the best of the best, the ULTRA premium of the cream of the crop. Since it's debut in 1997 as a $200 shoe, the Posite was often imitated but never duplicated. Last year, only the highest expectation was placed on the Nike Ultraposite upon its release. The shoe was the exclamation mark to cap off a highly successful 6 years of the Posite series. The initial reaction was fantastic: "Nike has done it again!" "The Flightposite is back!" "The cutting edge of basketball shoes!"

        Unfortunately, the good feelings didn't last. Nike stopped manufacturing the Ultraposite shortly after its production run. The model came to a screeching halt after just one colorway - something unprecedented in this day and age at the Swoosh. A lot of money was poured into the design and mold of the shoe. Why on good earth would Nike discontinue its highly sought after flagship model?

        A large part of the Ultraposite demise was its cost. While the expenses weren't insurmountable, the high production run definitely took its toll on even the biggest Posite supporters. The Ultraposite was also a cultural shock to many. At $160, its futuristic design didn't sit well with the parents who were going to shell out the big bucks. Sure, the Foam Ones, Foam Max were priced even higher, but $160 was hard to swallow for a shoe that didn't really bring anything new to the table in terms of technology and innovation.

        Besides all that, the biggest issue we've found with the Ultraposite is something that was never addressed by Nike's Quality Assurance. One word: Scarface. A year after our initial test with the Ultraposite, our long term review has shown that the shoe just doesn't live up to what one would expect of a shoe after normal wear and tear. Would it have been so far fetched if consumers were to protest against a $160 shoe that can't stand the slightest resistance to scratching and scuffing? Perhaps Nike would've been forced to recall the shoe if they had continued to mass-produce the Ultraposite. Perhaps the biggest reason why the line ended prematurely was because Nike simply wanted to cut its losses as early as possible and sweep the mess under the rug.

        We know what you are thinking. Surely scuff marks isn't enough to warrant all that fuss. Sure, the Ultraposite performed wonderfully in terms of performance, comfort and all that good stuff. No arguments here. However, the Ultraposite was priced and sold for $160 for a reason. The image of a clean, shiny high profile shoe is partially the reason why you would want to pay the extra premium. What if your $90,000 Mercedes were to lose its paint job after a few drives on the highway? How would you react if your Benz dealership tells you that it is just "normal wear and tear"?

        The gripe against the Nike Ultraposite is simple as this: Nike knew about the possible deficiency of the shoe. Why else would they deliberately put a protective film which you can peel off to prevent scratching from occurring prior to the consumer purchase of the shoe? Yet the shoe was put into production anyway... and sold at its hefty price tag... at YOUR expense.

        A year later, most probably have forgotten about the last of the Posite line. But those holding on to their Scarfaces should remember that their shoes simply are not built up to par, especially to the standards that Foam & Flight Posite predecessors have adhere to. It's not often that Nike gets called out for quality, but this is one time that they've definitely dropped the ball. The Ultraposite could've been better - and deserved better...