Nike Hypervenom Phantom III low test and review

Posted by admin 11/05/2017 0 Comment(s)

After the Hypervenom Phantom III DF, in February, place the test of the low version of the pair without collar Dynamic Fit: Hypervenom Phantom III. Are there big differences between these two high-end versions of the pair? The answer in this test.


Tester Information:
Type of practice: club
Position: Winger, offensive midfielder
Type of feet: fine feet
Weight: 65 kg
Duration of test: 1 month
Practice area: Synthetic lawn
Type of shoe cleats: FG (Firm Ground)
Usual models: Nike TiempoLegend 6, Nike HypervenomX, Nike Mercurial Superfly V, adidas Messi16.1, Puma evoTOUCH.


At the comfort level, Nike has chosen to fit a low-cut shoe with a Flyknit rod. Nike's flagship technology features a one-piece stitched mesh for a second-skin effect and extreme comfort. It should be noted that neither the Mercurial Vapor (the lower version of the Mercurial) nor the Magista Opus (the lower version of the Magista) possess this rod and is therefore the first Nike shoe with a stem Flyknit. The result is without appeal, one feels like in slippers in it, as for the Phantom III DF thanks to the Flyknit, the Hyper-Reactive outsole always so supple and especially thanks to the small sock that replaces the tongue Traditional on the instep and which offers a great comfort.

The only downside is the bracelet around the ankle which remains a bit rigid and that spoils a little this feeling of ultimate comfort. This feeling of rigidity fades after a few minutes of play but still plays against the low version of the Hypervenom Phantom III, compared to the high version, which is almost irreproachable.


In terms of style, this is obviously very close to the Hypervenom Phantom III DF with this feline side that characterizes this silo since 2013. Poron foam pellets are found, the height varies according to the places of the foot while the pair Remains as racy as the Mercurial Vapor XI. The absence of tongue with a kind of small low sock on the instep remains as original and pleasing to the eyes. At the level of the style, it is kif-kif between the two versions.


By finding the new Hyper-Reactive outsole on this low version, I was not likely to be disappointed. As a reminder, this Hyper-Reactive sole is inspired by the NikeFree soles, used on running shoes and fitness. Its aim: to allow the forefoot to always be in contact with the ground during changes of direction and accelerations. And if you've already read or seen the Hypervenom Phantom III DF test, you already know that it's terribly effective and incredibly versatile whether it's on natural or artificial ground. Even though I do not recommend wearing FG studs on synthetic ground, I tried to do it in practice and I was pleasantly surprised. The traction is really good on synthetic lawn. The hexagonal and herringbone crampons do not hang too much synthetic lawns (of last generation), so that I really took my foot while playing with this pair.

Moving with this Hypervenom Phantom III is a treat since it is really very handy. Afterwards, at the level of the ankle support, one feels nevertheless more comfortable and more stable in the version with the sock Dynamic Fit. But I did not have abnormal twists of my ankle during the game so ... The stability of the foot is also with the appointment with this low version.


This Hypervenom Phantom III is equipped with all the new technologies flagship of the rising version for the touch. To know :

- Poron pads, usually used on the soles of shoes to improve the cushioning, present on the front and the instep to assist the ball strikes;

- ACC (All Condition Control) technology for an all-weather intact balloon;

- the Flyknit stem, for an effect closer to the ball or "barefoot" effect.

As a result, this low version is in the same vein as the high version with strikes that are well assisted and that go well; A very nice and smooth ball touch on the dribbles with good sensitivity at each touch. In short, we touch the top of the top!


I will not surprise anyone by saying that this is the weak point of this shoe (high or low version). As explained in the test of the Hypervenom Phantom III DF, the Flyknit certainly offers an optimal comfort but it does not bring the guarantees necessary to feel well protected of the blows of cleats adverse. So, of course, even with a kangaroo leather upper or sturdy, the crampons on the instep hurt, but this feeling can be exacerbated with a stick that is so fine, even if reinforced with a Synthetic layer. A small question also arises on the reliability of the eyelets that are fine and mesh. Over time, it is feared that one of them will tear as a result of a hook with an opposing crampon or crumbles by wear. However, as with the Hypervenom Phantom III DF, the pair did not show any signs of wear during my trial month.


As you can see, there are no big differences between the Hypervenom Phantom III in the low version and the Hypervenom Phantom III DF in the high version. Comfort on both shoes, even if the Dynamic Fit collar offers a little more flexibility, comfort (especially at the heel) and better ankle support. For the rest, we have the same excellent characteristics for the touch and maneuverability at the top. The low-cut pair also has the same defects as the high version with questionable durability but is probably the most comfortable low-cut footwear on the market. If I had to choose between the Hypervenom Phantom III DF and the low-cut, I would still opt for the pair with the Dynamic Fit because of the extra comfort it brings. But you opt for one or the other version, you will not lose at the change!

Leave a Comment