Nike’s Air Max line is no stranger to evolution. Over the years, we’ve seen everything from slight refinements to full-blown reinventions. But with the latest “Big Bubble” iteration of the Air Max 95, a debate has sparked within the sneaker community, one that questions whether bigger really means better, or if the essence of an icon has been compromised.
The Original Air Max 95: A Legacy Built on Precision
Designed by Sergio Lozano and released in 1995, the Air Max 95 was groundbreaking. Inspired by the human anatomy, its layered gradient design mimicked muscle fibers, while the midsole structure echoed a spine. But perhaps the most revolutionary feature was the visible forefoot Air unit, something unseen in previous Air Max models. The OG silhouette struck a balance between aesthetics and function, with a sleek yet aggressive shape that became a streetwear staple. Its bulging air units were part of that identity, making the shoe feel more integrated and proportionally perfect.
Bigger Isn’t Always Better?
The new Air Max 95 Big Bubble aims to capitalise on the recent trend of oversized Air units, as seen in the return of the Air Max 1 Big Bubble. Nike’s reasoning? A nostalgic nod to early Air prototypes, where larger bubbles were intended for cushioning before manufacturing constraints scaled them down. But what worked on restoring the Air Max 1 silhouette doesn’t necessarily translate to the 95.
The issue? Many sneakerheads feel the exaggerated air units disrupt the sleek, anatomical flow of the OG design. The forefoot bubble, once a subtle yet defining feature, now dominates the midsole and the changing shape throws off the original proportions. Instead of feeling like an upgrade, some argue it is an unnecessary modification, one that prioritises visual impact over authenticity.
The Authenticity Debate
With sneaker culture so deeply rooted in nostalgia and detail, changes like this don’t go unnoticed. OG collectors, purists, and long-time fans often scrutinise even the smallest tweaks in shape, materials, and tooling. The Big Bubble 95’s bulkier air units, combined with potential differences in shape and structure, make it feel like a reinterpretation rather than a true retro. It raises an important question: What defines authenticity in sneaker design? Is it the exact specs of the original, or is it the evolution of a model in line with modern sneaker tech? We spoke to some of the community to get there thoughts :
“In my view, they’re just pulling designs from the archive, sending the CAD files to the factory, and calling it a day, there’s no real development happening. It feels like, “Yeah, if we bring XYZ back, they’ll be happy.” Take the Nike Air 180, for example, when Leon Witherow (Prestology) was involved, they got every detail right because they had someone from the community who genuinely cared about making it a true 1:1. And Leon actually works for Nike, put him on any shoe, and he’ll make it happen, no question. Even bringing in focus groups with real community members like us wouldn’t go amiss. Instead, it feels like they’re just filling these groups with random nobodies, might as well be Dick and Dom in there.” – @TN.Worldwide.Official
“There are plenty of my friends in the 95s groups who are worried that the big bubble being used on most 2025 releases a) won’t make it feel special and b) the shape still looks off in the premium release images and early leaks. If they use the Big Bubble sole on most releases, it will get boring, it should be reserved for OG colourways only. I’m skeptical after the ‘86 AM1 bubble; it feels super plasticky on those, and the extra depth seems weird. I hope it’s not the same on the 95s. At the moment, I’m on the fence about how they’ll turn out. If it’s not executed properly, the purists will definitely let Nike know.” – @Nitrousoxide19
In my opinion, it’s somewhat authentic to a point. The issue I have, as part of the community, is the expectation that we’re going to get a retro that’s a true 1:1 reissue, when in reality, we know Nike very rarely delivers that. An anniversary year should aim to be as close to the OG as possible without sacrificing any modern technology where appropriate. That said, it does feel very manufactured in the sense that they’re bringing back pairs just to appease the community rather than to further develop the line. I genuinely don’t think Nike has a real understanding of what true enthusiasts want, or they simply ignore it because it doesn’t make financial sense. In a celebration year, that’s a little disheartening, to say the least. Nonetheless, as a collector and fan, I’m still excited to see where we end up. It’s always interesting to see Nike’s direction with these retros. – @Am95ent
A Polarising Release
While some might welcome the new take as an experiment in maximizing Air technology, others see it as another misstep in Nike’s Air Max legacy of keeping classics true to their roots. The Air Max 95 has always been about more than just its Air unit, it’s about proportion, shape, and cultural impact. And for many, this Big Bubble version simply doesn’t hit the same. Will Nike continue down this path of oversized Air for future retros? Or will the backlash remind them that sometimes, you don’t fix what isn’t broken? Time will tell.
