If you were asked to name the most successful football boot of the 2008 / 2009 season, the PUMA v1.08 would be right up there.
Nicolas Anelka wore it whilst becoming the Premier League’s leading scorer whilst on the Continent, the football boot received brilliant coverage through the exploits of Barcelona’s Samuel Eto’o. The striker, now at Inter, was even wearing it when he scored the first goal in the Champions League final against Manchester United.
Today, PUMA launches its latest speed football boot range, the v1.10.
As the successor to the v1.08, we’d been hoping that some of the early images that started floating around cyber-space at the start of the year were wide of the mark. Sadly, they weren’t. Having received two pairs of the new football boots, we can report that the v1.10’s are something of a let down.
No doubt other reviews will be more flattering, but at Footy Boots, we don’t answer to any retailers so therefore, we are at liberty to give it to you as we see it. So buckle up…this is going to be a rough ride.
First off, compared to its predecessor, the v1.08, the football boot isn’t overly attractive.
Whilst retaining some of the basic shape and measurements, the flowing lines that were achieved by the v1.08 seem to have been thrown out in favour of a more clumpy, thick set sort of look. Put these new football boots next to the Gold / Black v1.08’s and they look like a hurriedly discarded prototype rather than the finished article. We always thought that the v1.08 (and the elegant v1.815 Ferrari) had the look of a boot that could have been created by Vincent van Gogh. By comparison, the v1.10 design is more reminiscent of Dick van Dyke.
The colourways also leave a lot to be desired. Whilst the Red / Black / White is OK, the Blazing Yellow / Red screams out ‘notice me, please notice me’ like a long forgotten supermodel trying to attract the attention of a Hello magazine photographer at a Z list party.
PUMA should look at the way that Nike used the Voltage Yellow colourway in the Superfly or Vapor V. They have a look of superiority and subtlety about them. The v1.10 is about as subtle as a roast beef sarny at a vegetarians tea-party. And with the web styling within the PUMA flash combined with the bright yellow, it’s all a bit Bananaman meets Spiderman.
As one of our boot testers pointed out, while the yellow colourway may well appeal to a number of African nations (which is where PUMA are obviously aiming the football boot) it reminded him of the arches of McDonald’s. McDisaster!
Additionally, we are not sure about the lace cover. Whilst appreciating that they are almost ‘de rigueur’ these days, it’s disappointing that PUMA didn’t buck the trend and stay with the uncovered off centered lacing.
Such was the success of the v1.08 that we think PUMA could be taking one all-mighty risk here by including it now. Let’s hope for their sake that the likes of Eto’o and Anelka are well tied in to a contract to use them. If not, PUMA could always approach Jin-Hyung Song who wore the v1.10’s while playing for Newcastle Jets versus Sydney FC in round 7 of the A league last weekend.
One last gripe - it’s a shame to see they haven’t changed the toe end of the football boot back to the more ‘classic’ shape of the v1.06 as we know that some users have found the v1.08 range a little uncomfortable, particularly those who have second toes longer than their big toes.
There are positives – it’s extremely lightweight. Fantastically so in fact. It also features an advancement of PUMA’s revolutionary UNI technology in which the upper is stitched – not glued or lasted – to the sole.
And like all PUMA products, it’s well put together with extra support in the heel, a new one-piece outsole design which offers some serious traction and a carbon fibre inner chassis which gives the boot good support and strength.
Finally, the upper of the football boot is made from lightweight microfibre and synthetic leather which is thin, abrasion resistant and is reinforced on key pressure points.
It might yet grow on us, but all in all, the PUMA v1.10 reminds us of a clever but underachieving 13 year old at college. The kind of pupil who comes home all too regularly bearing a note from his / her teacher saying ‘could do better’. Sorry PUMA, extra lessons most definitely required.
Retail sale: 10th October
UK sizes: 6 – 11
Price: Between £100 and £120
Loading ...
September 25th, 2009 at 6:35 am
anyone know how many ounces the v1.10 are? the v1.08’s were 7.6
September 25th, 2009 at 6:40 am
just out of curiosity… didnt they skip a number?? they went from V 1.08 to V1.10… just saying…
September 25th, 2009 at 7:00 am
I’m with you Footy Boots. I’m not impressed. Loved the v1.08’s - just detest these.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Red one doesn’t look too bad but what were they thinking when they came up with the yellow model?
Love the comment in the piece - Bananaman meets Spiderman!! LOL
September 25th, 2009 at 7:17 am
The number refers to the range and the year it is launched, so v1.06 is the version 1 (top end) range released for 2006. v3.08 is the midrange version for 2008 and v5.10 is the lowest price point for 2010.
The gloves, balls and kit align with this structure.
In saying that, these are tosh…
September 25th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Absolutely rank.
Just wondering, if Footy-Boots isn’t tied to a supplier.. How do they work?
I’d love to see an article of how Footy Boots was founded and operates.
Keep it up.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Good knowledge Pumer. And yes, you are right, total tosh.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Hi Ryan - thanks for your comments.
Footy Boots is associated with a retailer as we do a lot of work with Kitbag. But, unlike a large number of other sites that are controlled or aligned to a retailer, we are not and therefore retain our editorial objectivity.
If we like something, we’ll say so. If we don’t, we’ll say that too!
September 25th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Wow, funny to see these get lambasted as they have. Maybe I possess the psychological trait of “look at me, please look at me” and thus like this boot in the yellow colourway, although i have always been a sucker for yellow boots. Obviously, this boot is not appealling to the masses, so puma will have to do something radical, or just hope that it grows on people, as it has on me. Hopefully people have kinder words about the performance than the design if they give them a go.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:29 am
how many grams are they? Mercurials are 185g
September 25th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I don’t even know where to start, these Puma V1.10 look very low awful. I wonder how that design and colourways were approved by Puma’s high branch. Puma should’ve kept the same line of design of the V1.8.
These football boots could ruin Puma’s reputation in the football boot industry. Puma better Do something before is to late.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Eww.
I would never even think of wearing these. Disguisting. V1.08’s were ALOT better.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:10 am
hahaha what are puma thinking?? these things are rancid, totally agree with the comment bananaman meets spiderman, class.
Theres a few pairs of these available on ebay actually! when I saw them, I thought, yeah ok cheap tacky puma rip offs, ha maybe not!!
a HUGE let down from what used to be a fantastic brand! UNIMPRESSED
September 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am
sick
September 25th, 2009 at 10:13 am
really like the design of these boots, but i don’t know how they would play.
They say about the ball getting good grip on the boot but i can’t see how it would grip so much. I would really have to try these on as they seem a very small fit.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:19 am
What about the silver ones? They were my faves.
Also shouldn’t they have a v1.09
P.S what are the vapor 6’s - link to picture.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:22 am
also like colourways but stitching looks messy
September 25th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I think puma have gona a few years back with this..
awful boot, looks so cheap and plastic..
im i not seeing something here??
September 25th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Blhaaaaaaaaaaaaac these boots are too horrible…
What are they thinking? I am surprised with this lack of quality..
September 25th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
The FG are 230 G.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
230 Grams
September 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
A bit our of question but how durable is the v3.08 ? V1.08 is kinna expensive for me haha …
Anyway does this v1.10 come with a leather version cause if I remember correctly v1.08 and v3.08 had leather
September 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Well, never had a good experience with Puma anyway. While I had the konstructs they were great. But I don’t know any of their boots that would last longer than a year. I would immagine same for these. Flashy, shiny, pretty. We’ll see how they perform
September 25th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I’m thinking that perhaps the PWR-C 1.10s might be a better replacement for the V1.08s I haven’t had the opportunity to try them out yet but they look better than the V1.10s in my humble opinion. Have you had a chance to review the PWR-C 1.10s as yet?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Does anyone know how these will hold up on artificial turf?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
the number at the end is the year
September 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
v1.08 - Vincent Van Gogh
v1.10 - Dick Van Dyke
Absolutely hilarious comment!
Seriously, though, I’m really disappointed with these. I loved the v1.08s, but these are just terrible to look at, and don’t look of the same quality. It seems Puma decided to change the fit of the boot in all the wrong places. The v1.08 fits my foot perfectly, but these don’t look like they will.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
they only do even numbers. like v1.06 then 1.08 now 1.10
September 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
i thing they look kinda funny but i would still wear them
September 25th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
the design is nice. but the choices of fabric are awfully awful. puma needs to step their game up
September 25th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Had a pair of v1.08s in yellow they were class but these look rubbish compared to them and i cant strike a ball as cleanly with boots like that, that have really flat and wide toes. I also cant wear most nike boots for this reason. Red adipures all the way so comfy and easy to strike a ball with.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
nice job footy boot
September 25th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
they look sick
September 26th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Puma has entered the space age.
This shoe isn’t flashy.
This shoe isn’t elegant.
This shoe is just plain ugly.
Really reminds me of something that could be sold separately with a Happy Meal.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:40 am
I like ‘em
with a black coulourway i could buy them, but i think its going to be laser 3 next season for me 
September 26th, 2009 at 10:02 am
great piece from Footy-Boots that pretty much sums up what I was thinking.
The look of the boot is probably my main problem but also the material used in the upper looks a bit cheap and tacky as does the lace cover D: I’ve always been a leather boot man though and hopefully they will release a leather version that will perhaps add a little bit of much needed class and style to this boot. disappointed PUMA
September 26th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Like somebody said, I think the design is good but the material is shockingly bad!
My advice to Puma would be to use Usain Bolt to promote these boots like Asafa Powell did with Nike (only way they would sell) or revamp the whole boots.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am
why do you want to know the weight? weight has nothing to do with how good a player you are!
September 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
ronald mcdonald called. he wants his boots back.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
The stock photos from Puma used in the adverts make the boots look much better than they actually are. Very tack looking boot!
September 28th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The colorways are related to the African Continent where the World Cup will be held, even the upper has a graphic printing related to the native tribes of Africa and is really sticky in dry and wet conditions to get the best grip with the ball. I agree they do not look appealing but believe me they are a good pair of football boots. I do not know how long they will last, but if you are a fast and explosive player they are a good choice.
October 1st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
The Power C 1.10s don’t hit until February.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Would have appreciated more about how the v1.10 performs, since aesthetics can be so subjective. The Nike CTR review was much more about how the boot felt (and imho, what a boot review should be). I got a good laugh out of the Van Gogh vs Van Dyke comments, but at the end of the day, how the boot wears is what matters to most players.
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:09 am
Dead right Irwin and thats why you’ll be seeing a football boot wear test on the v1.10’s very soon similar to the CTR review.
But, on the day of launch, we only had the images to go on and no other official PUMA info so that’s why it’s a review very much based on looks alone.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:13 am
OK if u dont like these u r dumb. These are the slickest cleats ever.
(I hate nikes)
October 7th, 2009 at 5:05 am
i have f50s and nike tiempos but still puma always still seems to be the best of all and the v1.10 just adds to the list(so dont bag on them cause later everyone would want them) (i hate nikes too)
October 9th, 2009 at 1:07 am
pumas are the sickest shoes over, i have these and there BETTER then the 1.08. they hold up just find and are very comfortable
October 9th, 2009 at 1:09 am
pumas are so good
October 18th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
8.2 ounces
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 am
i like this version then that of the v1.08.but i fear this one doesn’t look that durable.especially the outer part of the boot where a rubber netting is attached for the swerve.it looks so less armored at that point.i think a serious contact at that point might rip apart the whole netting.i might be wrong.its best to hear from the ppl who have used this boot.