PUMA V1.10

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.

puma v1.10 yellow red

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.

puma v1.10 red / black / white

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.

puma v1.10 yellow red heel

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.

puma v1.10 mcdonalds

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.

puma v1.10 red / black / white 2 boots

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.

puma v1.10 soleplate

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.

puma v1.10 heel

Retail sale: 10th October

UK sizes: 6 – 11

Price: Between £100 and £120 Rate it: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars (2 votes, average: 8.00 out of 10)


Written By
More from Felipe


Look what Ronnie has got on his feet now - The new...
Read More
Join the Conversation


    1. says: Pumer

      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…

  1. says: Ryan

    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. 😉

    1. says: Editor

      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!

  2. says: Aussie Lad

    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.

  3. says: Splinter09

    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.

  4. says: Keil Leisk

    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

  5. says: mwatkins7

    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.

  6. says: rondal

    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

  7. says: Bob

    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

  8. says: Derek

    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?

  9. says: KK

    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.

  10. says: boost

    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.

  11. says: Jaspi

    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.

  12. says: fifinho

    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 🙁

  13. says: KickSprint45

    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.

  14. says: Jose Luis

    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.

  15. says: Irwin

    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.

    1. says: Editor

      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.

  16. says: francisco

    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)

  17. says: harambeplayer444

    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

  18. says: Aresh

    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.

  19. says: davidaoooo

    i’ve got these boots in black/red and yeah they are lightweight and stuff but they really hurt my feet. I wont say that my feet are exactly wide but after playing in these i’ve had blisters and i think its down to the carbon fibre not moulding to your foot properly but what do i know about this sort of tech 🙂

  20. says: mom

    Well these were all my son wanted for Xmas and sadly they split all the way down the side after just 1 season! The last Pumas v1.08’s did that too but they at least lasted a year! Don’t think I will buy Puma’s again

Leave a comment
Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *