Running shoes good for Tennis

[Andyroo10567]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I use the Federer Nike Vapor Airs from TW for everything - work, weekend chores, tennis, travel.

How long did they last? or how long has it been since you bought them?

[tennytive]

When we were kids we had one shoe for everything… PF Flyers.
Then Converse All Stars, also with canvas uppers. Basketball, baseball, football, tennis, badminton, everything.
Then the Jack Purcell, a "real" tennis shoe appeared. Cool for tennis and the street.

Way back then there was an ad in an old tennis mag with Borg wearing Tretorns. I wore them for years. They look like canvas bowling shoes. They would wear out in two weeks.

In contrast my Nike City Court V tennis shoes lasted almost 6 months on hard courts 3 to 4 times a week. Limousines for the feet.

[Alchemy-Z]

I have a pair of Vapors and some CB 3.3's

but I still mostly play in my Nike Air Max's

As far as rolling ankles....everyone I personally know that has that injury all had the same thing in common.

(Top Heavy) either Slinging their beer gut around on court or a few that only spend time on the upper body at the Gym.

I am of even build and playing hockey for years leading up to tennis I'd say my lower body is stronger than my upper body.

I like to get to net quickly and in my air maxes I seem to do it better than in my "tennis shoes"

Throw some good insoles in them and my legs/feet/knees last way longer than my arm does.

[charliefedererer]

Originally Posted by newyorkstadium

What is medial/lateral support? Where is it on the shoe? What if a running shoe has a zero drop heel?

Click on the S curve video in the middle of this web page to see the support system of a tennis shoe is from New Balance. http://www.newbalance.com/New-Balanc...efault,pd.html


Similar types of support are engineered into all top of the line tennis shoes.

For instance, Asics calls their stabilization system the "trusstic system", and you can learn more about by clicking on the GEL-RESOLUTION 4 video on this page:
http://www.asicsamerica.com/footwear...-4-e201n-mens/

Adidas has the "Torsion System":






Looking at the web sites for the different manufacturers today, it seems there are less pics on their stabilization systems than in the past.
Maybe they don't want to give competitors insight into their specific designs.

[corners]

Charlie,

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.

[charliefedererer]

Originally Posted by corners

Charlie,

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.

[WildVolley]

Originally Posted by corners

Charlie,

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. ........

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 agree with you. I think the main problem with running shoes is that the side support usually isn't stiff enough to keep the foot on top of the midsole during hard lateral cuts and stops. The foot can slide off the midsole, press out the side, and then cause a critical failure (roll) that can injure the ankle. A tennis designed shoes should be stiff enough to keep the foot on top of the midsole during slides.

If a running shoe has a stiff enough upper, because of straps, etc, then it could be used for tennis safely.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Andyroo10567

How long did they last? or how long has it been since you bought them?

I can make them last 6 months

[Povl Carstensen]

People roll their ankles all the time in tennisshoes. They would be better of in that respect with a minimal, low to the ground, non elevated shoe (call it running or not), imo and experience.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by corners

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.

Exactly, it is a reinforcement of the shoe. An attempt to remedy the problem that the shoe/midsole itself is. Then it is called "foot support", as if it was the foot that needed it.

[hcb0804]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

This ^

Only a complete fool would wear running shoes to play tennis in.

I have in the past used cross-trainers - and indeed so did many pros - but the trend in trainers in recent years, especially Nike, has been shifting them towards the running shoe side of fence - much lighter and flimsier than tennis shoes. I imagine this is because so many people use them primarily as casual shoes and the last decade's growth in gym use as opposed to outdoor training.

A really popular Nike tennis shoe in the late 80s worn by McEnroe and Agassi was the Air Trainer 1.

Whose autograph is that? And I never saw those with mesh uppers, only leather.

[chrischris]

Originally Posted by r2473

You guys still use shoes to play tennis?

Don't you know that barefoot is the only way? The natural way?

You are just slaves to the great sports shoe conspiracy man.

No not really.
We are just making sure business doesnt die out and the economy too. The shoe must go on.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

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.

I just did an experiment. Try and stand up barefoot/in socks/in minimal shoes like Vivo Barefoot or Vibram FF if have them, and try to roll your ankle outwards to the point of pain. You (I) cant.
Then I put on my only pair of normal raised shoes. Admittedly they are regular black shoes, that I keep for when that is needed. I tipped my ankle outwards, and suddenly it got over the edge/tipping point of the sole, and I felt a sharp stinging pain. When you get over this point, the sole works as lever that multiply the forces working on the ankle/ligaments to the point were you get injuries. The samme happens when the edge of the raised sole catches the court/a line, the force is multiplied by the leverage. I guess we have all seen 1 or 2 slowmotion recordings of this happening, making us cringe.

[pvaudio]

I wear Asics GTs when running. While I am convinced they help me run faster than any other shoe I've owned, I cannot imagine bringing them on a tennis court. They are made for straight line, constant speeds. Nerd terms: running shoes are for velocity and vertical support, tennis shoes are for acceleration and lateral support.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

I've found that running shoes definitely have more cushion than tennis shoes, and so it really helps keep my knees tendinitis-free.

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.

But with running shoes -- and the softer edges -- there is no point of no return. When you start to roll a little, you can always catch yourself.

I used to roll my ankles fairly severely and frequently until I swtiched to running shoes 5 years ago. Now I know that tennis shoes are dangerous and high risk for my ankles.

By the way, I am being 100% serious -- this post is no joke.

To heck with all the engineers and kinetic science. This guy plays in running shoes so everyone should.

- said no one ever

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

I just did an experiment. Try and stand up barefoot/in socks/in minimal shoes like Vivo Barefoot or Vibram FF if have them, and try to roll your ankle outwards to the point of pain. You (I) cant.
Then I put on my only pair of normal raised shoes. Admittedly they are regular black shoes, that I keep for when that is needed. I tipped my ankle outwards, and suddenly it got over the edge/tipping point of the sole, and I felt a sharp stinging pain. When you get over this point, the sole works as lever that multiply the forces working on the ankle/ligaments to the point were you get injuries. The samme happens when the edge of the raised sole catches the court/a line, the force is multiplied by the leverage. I guess we have all seen 1 or 2 slowmotion recordings of this happening, making us cringe.

Try this, put on a boxing glove and punch yourself in the face as hard as you can. Then, remove the glove and punch yourself equally as hard in the face. Tough guys can try this same experiment with 2 punches to the groin.

My experiment has zero to do with shoes. I just giggled trying to picture this guy rolling his ankle on purpose. Figured he'd be a test dummy for me.

[pvaudio]

Being as respectful as possible, but the people saying that running shoes are either just as good or better than tennis shoes for playing tennis probably aren't moving that explosively.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Try this, put on a boxing glove and punch yourself in the face as hard as you can. Then, remove the glove and punch yourself equally as hard in the face. Tough guys can try this same experiment with 2 punches to the groin.

My experiment has zero to do with shoes. I just giggled trying to picture this guy rolling his ankle on purpose. Figured he'd be a test dummy for me.

Tried the experiment. Looking foreward to compare notes. I just have a problem with blood in my keyboard.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Tried the experiment. Looking foreward to compare notes. I just have a problem with blood in my keyboard.

Nah, no comparing. You're the expert on this one.

Just show pictures of how it went and ill be a believer.

[Povl Carstensen]

Stkjll hdajavinsg psroblems witsrh tashe keæyboaræd...