Originally Posted by travlerajm
Also, I argue that running shoes actually reduce my risk of rolling my ankles. Tennis shoes have wider base and hard edges, while running shoes have much softer edges.
Once you start to roll in tennis shoes and get past the point of no return, you've rolled it. Now you're out for a few weeks.
Yeah, the physics of it say completely otherwise.
Running shoes have softer soles all the way across (left to right) so they start to compress and lean over with uneven weight application way earlier than any good tennis shoe. So you reach the point of rolling earlier also - that being the point at which your weight is outside the lateral strength limits of the ankle joint when the foot is bent under.
The wide base of a tennis shoe is the start of the support advantage over a running shoe. While running shoes often have the same sort of sole width - that is so they have enough rubber on the ground for grip, not support. Above that they have more spongy soles and so far less lateral support.
Try it. Put a piece of board on a phone book and stand on it. Then put the same piece of wood on a pillow and see how unstable it is comparatively. Extreme example but shows why tennis shoes are such a tricky piece of equipment to make well - you have to give support but its high impact nature necessitates cushioning.
What you say about running shoes in relation to injury however might hold some sort of merit. The fact that running shoes will roll more readily may mean you bail out when there's less force being applied - ergo the roll wont be as severe as if it happened much later with a bigger weight behind it.
Personally I'd rather not find out I was wrong and so wear the shoes designed for the job. If I get tendinitis in my knee I'd address that at the time.