ANTA “Shock The Game” KT4 High Performance Review

This post may contain references to products from one or more of our advertisers as we are reader-supported. We may receive compensation and commission when you click on links to those products. Our affiliate commission helps support the continued creation of content on our site and will not affect the original content of The Sneaker Brief.

A friend, and big supporter of TheSneakerBrief.com, Alan, (@zippy.the.jap), brings us yet another performance review. Read below to check out his thoughts on the performance on one of ANTA’s most popular budget-friendly basketball shoes.

According to ANTA, the shoe I’m reviewing today is called the “Shock The Game” KT4 High, which is quite confusing because the other A-Shock foam basketball shoe I have is called the “Shock the Game 3.0 Mid”. Check out that other performance review first because I will be comparing the two models in this performance review.

Traction:

1) Anta’s solid-colored durable outdoor rubber
2) Most of the shoe’s traction lines are large deep grooves, and the forefoot has a more tightly spaced
pattern that outlines the ball of your foot and your big toe
3) Dust was not an issue at all on indoor courts. Outdoor traction is just as good and durable as hell
4) Sometimes little rocks would get stuck in the grooves. It didn’t affect the performance, but I’d
imagine that if all the grooves were rock-clogged, traction would suffer.
5) Unlike the Mids that had the forefoot section rubber wrap up on the sides, the Highs only have a
small piece of rubber on the lateral and medial forefoot.
6) The toe rubber actually comes up to cover your toes like a work boot’s toe guard

Cushion:

1) According to their site: the heel is 45 ° A-Shock foam and forefoot is 50 ° A-Shock foam
2) In reality, it is just full-length A-Shock 2.0 foam. I suspect it’s some sort of EVA.
3) The insole is a 5-6 mm thick plush Ortholite insole (not the cheap thin Nike Ortholite stuff)
4) It’s a combination of Boost and Bounce: soft but not overly plush, stable but not stiff.
5) Compared to the Mids, the High’s forefoot feels a bit thicker and higher off the ground.
Furthermore, the foam is exposed a bit more than the Mids because there is no rubber covering it. Slightly more impact protection at the cost of a few millimeters up on the ground.

Midsole Shape:

1) Unlike the Mids, the Highs have a totally flat surface. This is a more traditional setup.
2) The heel portion of the cushion is bulbous and “chubby”, but definitely not as exaggerated as the adidas D.O.N. Issue #1.
3) The midsole actually comes up the sides a bit so your foot is cradled inside of the midsole
cushion in addition to the heel counter and lateral forefoot rubber piece that comes up on the side

Material Quality:

1) Underlaying the whole shoe is a knit material that covers your foot like a sock
2) Covering the heel is a pliable yet supportive synthetic leather
3) The forefoot has a super durable yet flexible fuse material + the rubber toe guard
4) The materials are more supportive than the Mids, but they also are a bit hotter and not as free
flowing as the Mid’s mesh, but by no means is the High a hot, bulky shoe. It’s very agile.
5) The materials are very durable even for outdoors, but I wish the price tag was 10 dollars cheaper
for the artificial materials we got.

Support/Stability:

1) The internal heel cup and the synthetic leather keeps your heel locked down while the forefoot fuse allows you to make hard lateral movements yet still be locked down.
2) Absolutely zero heel slippage (this also ties into the fit of the shoe)
3) Overall, the outsole is flat, and the forefoot section is wide. But because these are a couple
millimeters higher up on the ground than the Mids, I would have liked a wider outrigger.
4) Their actually is an outrigger this time: the small traction bit that comes up on the side is also the
outrigger
5) There is an internal midfoot torsion bar that stops right before your forefoot. Again, not the best,
but still good enough.

Fit/Containment:

1) My true size is a Nike 6.5 Wide, and I ordered this shoe in a 6.5 and it fit me perfectly
2) The upper material was soft and flexible, but it didn’t stretch at all
3) My big toe had less than a centimeter of wiggle room which is perfect for me lengthwise
4) My foot is wide and width wise I did not feel any pinching or pressure
5) I recommend actually measuring your foot size in cm and then going to Nike to match up your
shoe size because Anta says they use Nike’s sizing
6) The heel section is slightly padded, but I wish there were some achilles or heel pads. No
padding in the forefoot either. It’s comprised of the internal bootie and the outer knit material.
7) As mentioned before, you don’t actually sit on top of a slab of foam. The midsole foam actually
comes up the sides of your foot, so your foot is sitting inside of the foam. Add that to the heel
counter and the outsole rubber caging your forefoot, and you have a pretty solid lockdown.
8) However, if you are LeBron, don’t wear this shoe. The material will contain us mortals just fine,
but if you’re LeBron, I’d stick with a material that has more plastic fuse and Foamposite.
9) If the shoe fits you lengthwise but the upper feels a little tight, remove the thick-ass insole.
10) My only complaint is the lacing system. It’s a one bootie upper and the forefoot uses 3 flywire-
like cables as lace loops while the rest of the shoe uses eyelets. For some reason I could never get
a good forefoot lacing because of the flywire. It was either too loose or too tight. This didn’t
affect the lockdown because the forefoot fuse does most of the containment work, but I would
have liked for the forefoot to use traditional eyelets, too.

Overall effect on my playstyle:

1) I really loved the containment of the shoe, especially the forefoot area. The soft yet sturdy knit,
fly wire that goes down in to the footbed, flexible supportive fuse, and rubber toe guard really
locked me down. I could play aggressive perimeter defense and make quick lateral cuts at will.
Hands down best forefoot containment in a shoe I have worn.
2) These have a lot more “flatness” and thus more “ground-to-shoe surface area” than the Mids. And
because of that, these were slightly more stable than the Mids.
3) However, comparing these to the Mids, which promote quickness and momentum, I definitely
prefer the decoupled midsole, super low forefoot cushion, and rounded heel and toe off section.
4) I could still play the same defense as I usually do, but I felt a touch slower than the Mids. The
lack of a toe off section and thicker cushion were a bit slow coming off of the fast and low-profile
Mids. I depend a lot on precise and quick foot movement, so I prefer the Mids over the Highs.
5) Again, don’t get me wrong, but both shoes are very lightweight and agile. However, the Mids
have a very exaggerated midsole shape, while the Highs have a normal midsole and ride. It just
depends on your preference. The Highs have more stability while the Mids have more court feel.

Pros of the Highs over the Mids:

1) Flat, stable midsole is more suitable for most players
2) More containment and outdoor durability than the Mids

Pros of the Mids over the Highs:

1) Unique decoupled, rounded midsole is great for quick guards and specific shooting movements I’ve mentioned in the Mid review
2) The lacing system and materials are easier to tie and lighter on your feet


Price: $118

If you’re interested in purchasing more ANTA shoes, you can head over to ANKTShop.com and browse more of ANTA’s collections.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
REVIEWS, ,

Written by Nick Montesano

Founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheSneakerBrief.com. Constantly bringing you all early and reliable news, reviews, and much more. Always looking for room to improve our content. Favorite shoe: Harden Vol. 3. Favorite player: LeBron James.

Leave a Reply

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: