Originally Posted by corners
I think that all those systems are misnamed. They are not foot support systems. Rather, they are systems designed to keep the foot on top of the foam block that is the shoe's midsole. None of those gizmos do much of anything to support the foot, which would mean to restrict one part of the foot's movement relative to another part of the foot. All they do is tether, one way or another, the foot to the sole of the shoe, essentially transferring the friction characteristics of the sole's rubber to the foot by cleverly strapping the foot to the sole/midfoot. These are fancy strapping methods. They don't support the foot much at all.
BTW, Asic's Trusstic system was originally designed to reduce the support of the shoe: the idea was to remove material from the midsole (the foam block, in other words) to allow the plantar fascia and the bones above it (the cuboid, primarily) to deflect downwards. The midsole is usually shaped with an arch contour, which impedes the downward deflection of the midfoot and plantar fascia. Removing the foam under the plantar fascia was supposed to allow it to extend naturally, allowing it to store and return energy as it is supposed to. To maintain the structural integrity of the shoe with this foam from the center of the midsole removed, they added a plastic shank unit. All manufacturers use these plastic shanks nowadays, and I think Asics usually now uses the Trustic system for this purpose rather than to allow plantar fascia deflection. But the shape remains as before, usually, with a very noticeable plastic piece directly under the cuboid bone, which happens to be shaped like a cuboid.
Generally, I think it's a big mistake to give these guys too much credit for their shoe designs. The majority of their "stability" gizmos are just attempts to stabilize the foot on top of the thick midsole. The midsole, being a block of foam, by nature destabilizes the foot, and so they have to invent things to bring stability back to the foot/shoe system. Pretty much all of these gizmos are straps, tethers or buttresses, nothing more. Shoe "technology" is in the same class as racquet "technology", IMHO. It is much more about marketing than real innovation.
I wasn't posting to claim any one of the shoe companies had a "technology" better than another. Only that they did design some system to prevent the foot from sliding around in the shoe like feet would do in running shoes during changes of direction.
"Rather, they are systems designed to keep the foot on top of the foam block that is the shoe's midsole."
"The majority of their "stability" gizmos are just attempts to stabilize the foot on top of the thick midsole."
I think that this is what makes a tennis shoe superior to a running shoe for tennis.
The foot is kept in place in the shoe.
Because a running shoe lacks medial and lateral support, the foot would be sliding back and forth in the shoe during changes in direction.