Puma Ultra 2.1 crampons review

This post contains affiliate links. “As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.”


Besides the high-end models, on footpack we like to test the other versions. So what is Puma Ultra 2.1 really worth?

Of course, we would all like to play with the same crampons as professional players, we would also like to take advantage of the many endowments that the pros receive. But the reality is often very different and the budgets devoted to crampons are not always stretchy. It is precisely to meet these needs that we now regularly test the different versions of crampon models. Flagship model of this second half of 2020, the Ultra had already been tested on footpack in its Elite 1.1 version. Today, we are attacking the 2.1 model at 130 €.

Style

To be completely honest, this is not the football shoe that I’m the most fan of at first glance. Even if I like the design, I remain on my hunger concerning this pair and this, in spite of the presence of this orange color which this time suits me much better, me who particularly likes the “flashy” colors

test-puma-ultra-2.1-footpack-1

Comfort

If it took me a little time to adapt to this Ultra 2.1, I felt quite comfortable throughout this month-long test. We have very good support, especially for me who have slender feet and the separate tongue is really very pleasant. It undoubtedly contributes to good support in the shoe. My foot doesn’t slip at all and unlike a lot of new football boots, I didn’t have any blisters to complain about.

test-puma-ultra-2.1-footpack-2

Maneuverability

Me who is used to playing with high shoes, it inevitably made me weird to iron on a shoe with a low cut. But surprisingly, I really enjoyed going back to “the basics”. We feel real freedom of movement at the ankle. As mentioned in the comfort section, we have very good support, which accentuates responsiveness. The pair also has good stability thanks to this sole with herringbone studs. During this test, I played on natural and even rather fatty terrains and I was totally satisfied with the grip it provides. Finally, although I found that the sole was not the softest that I could test, I find it very responsive. Which is obviously important for a speed shoe.

test-puma-ultra-2.1-footpack-7

To touch

At first glance, I found that the coating was a bit “plastic” compared to version 3.1. But in the end and during use, the sensations are good and the fineness of the material offers a real interaction with the ball. The Grip Control technology really plays its role without too much catching the ball.

test-puma-ultra-2.1-footpack-3

Durability

To carry out this test, I was able to evolve with the pair for a good month and by training three times a week. In the end, the pair did not budge. The upholstery is very easy to clean and if you take good care of it I think you can easily last the entire season while still maintaining the same level of performance.

test-puma-ultra-2.1-footpack-5

Quality / price ratio

For 130 €, this is a really good shoe and a good surprise for me. So much so that I’m even going to play with it all season long, and yet I have a few high end pairs in my closet. It combines all the qualities of a speed shoe. It is thin, light and the sole fulfills its role perfectly thanks to its herringbone crampons. The Mercurial clearly has some worries to be had!

test-puma-ultra-2.1-footpack-10

Global mark

7.8

Rated out of 10

  • Style

  • Comfort

  • Maneuverability

  • To touch

  • Durability

  • Quality / price ratio

Description of the tester

  • Last name : Thomas Duclos
  • Type of practice: In a club (3 times a week)
  • Post: Attacker
  • Type of feet: End
  • Weight: 63Kg
  • Practice area: Natural lawn
  • Crampons : FG
  • Usual models: Puma Future 4.1, Nike Mercurial Superfly 6