Adidas Stycon Laceless Tennis Shoe

Got my pair today. Not as hard to put on as I thought but still harder than any kind of traditional tennis shoes for sure. Fit is back to true to size (in my opinion the sole court boost runs half a size big) Bounce cushion feels nice but nothing spectacular. Ankle part feel very snug and the forefoot feel a bit looser. Overall very similar to Ubersonic 2 including fit and feel under foot. But you see Ubersonic 2s are under 100 bucks and these one is 150...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dont those colorway.

Russell Jiang said:

Got my pair today. Not as hard to put on as I thought but still harder than any kind of traditional tennis shoes for sure. Fit is back to true to size (in my opinion the sole court boost runs half a size big) Bounce cushion feels nice but nothing spectacular. Ankle part feel very snug and the forefoot feel a bit looser. Overall very similar to Ubersonic 2 including fit and feel under foot. But you see Ubersonic 2s are under 100 bucks and these one is 150...

Click to expand...

So like is there a whole shoe in there, trying to understand - is it like a covering of like elasticised upper and are you sure that's going to be tight enough for the jagging back and forth we do?

Am calm myself with the fact that Adidas has very good returns policy... it doesn't look like it's enough of a shoe!!

Doesn't look like it is possible to have an ankle brace on while wearing these shoes. Too bad ... I wanted to try these but I need an ankle brace now after tearing multiple ligaments on both sides of my ankle playing badminton.

This will never sell in tennis. They will be on clearance in a couple of months.

dje31 said:

Looking at the pics, they do look really low to the ground...wonder if it's like the Minimus shoes from New Balance and similar thin soled shoes from other brands.

Click to expand...

They look low to the ground, but from trying them on yesterday at the Adidas flagship store NYC, there is a layer of bounce midsole in there that's quite supportive. Overall, it's a nice fit but I'm still on the fence about how they'll perform on court. Only one way to find out!

bertrevert said:

So like is there a whole shoe in there, trying to understand - is it like a covering of like elasticised upper and are you sure that's going to be tight enough for the jagging back and forth we do?

Am calm myself with the fact that Adidas has very good returns policy... it doesn't look like it's enough of a shoe!!

Click to expand...

There are two layers on your foot. One like a booty construction and then there’s the grey upper you see above that. It’s not too snug in the forefoot for me but I have a narrow feet. I have a pair of brand new Ubersonic 2 in my hand as well and I’m pretty confident to say the fit is pretty much identical to the Stycon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Russell Jiang said:

Got my pair today. Not as hard to put on as I thought but still harder than any kind of traditional tennis shoes for sure. Fit is back to true to size (in my opinion the sole court boost runs half a size big) Bounce cushion feels nice but nothing spectacular. Ankle part feel very snug and the forefoot feel a bit looser. Overall very similar to Ubersonic 2 including fit and feel under foot. But you see Ubersonic 2s are under 100 bucks and these one is 150...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing - couple questions if you don't mind:

How heavy do they feel? TW has them listed at low 16oz, wondering if they feel sluggish at all or not really an issue?

Also, how is the overall comfort? Not sure if you ever tried the original Asics Court FF 1, but those were hard shoes to get into, and once you're in, I really loved the way that shoe almost made me forget that I was even wearing shoes. Wondering if this is at all similar to that.

tomato123 said:

Thanks for sharing - couple questions if you don't mind:

How heavy do they feel? TW has them listed at low 16oz, wondering if they feel sluggish at all or not really an issue?

Also, how is the overall comfort? Not sure if you ever tried the original Asics Court FF 1, but those were hard shoes to get into, and once you're in, I really loved the way that shoe almost made me forget that I was even wearing shoes. Wondering if this is at all similar to that.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly these don’t feel heavy. For my experience I feel the sole court boost feel heavier on foot than Stycon (even though Stycon is heavier in weight) they are very comfortable but nothing spectacular (like I said, very close to Ubersonic 2 in terms of fit and feel) I did have the Court FF one before and I would say that one is a little bit harder for me to put on. For the Stycon, it come with a shoehorn but I don’t really have to use it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is the lockdown on these shoes? The main complaint for the laceless football boots from Adidas is the lack of lockdown. Given that tennis has even more lateral movement than football (soccer for us Yanks), I would be worried that about a lack of stability. I suppose their laceless basketball shoe would be the better comp, b/c the movement patterns in basketball are probably closer to tennis. I don't remember reading any reviews of those though. I'd also surmise that fit will be the biggest factor as to if these will work well. I just can't see a laceless shoe being able to perform well for all foot shapes.

3 biggest questions from me:

1. How is the outsole durability?

2. How is the traction?

3. Is there any ankle cushioning like foam padding like a vapor x?

Remember each person has different footwork and mobility, not to mention foot type and body weight, which counts in how a shoe performs. I play b ball and the NLs do well for short sprints for that locked in feel. But tennis has more demanding sprint and stops, with change of directions, and I tried hitting with the NLs for 20 mins just for laughs. They are HOT but work well enough for hitting, but I didn't try very hard to test the stability.
I bough a pair of Stycon black clay because they look fun and can double as casual shoes when I hit on clay this spring. Worst case scenario, I paid too much for a pair of mid tops casual shoes, like every hipster millennial! Haha

It's a little surprising that Tsitsipas is using a shoe with the BOA system. Doesn't make the shoe and its tech look very convincing.

bwongman said:

It's a little surprising that Tsitsipas is using a shoe with the BOA system. Doesn't make the shoe and its tech look very convincing.

Click to expand...

Why? He is a pro athlete and pro athletes have different (higher) requirements compared to the amateurs. Do you think the same when you see the customised kicks from Nike, Yonex etc: that their tech doesn't look very convincing?

i guess you are the kind of customer the companies just love

bwongman said:

It's a little surprising that Tsitsipas is using a shoe with the BOA system. Doesn't make the shoe and its tech look very convincing.

Click to expand...

Proof of concept that they could do it? I’m thinking that maybe it will be a foundation for other laceless designs, so adidas and others can learn from the mistakes of the stycon.

Tennis_Hands said:

Why? He is a pro athlete and pro athletes have different (higher) requirements compared to the amateurs. Do you think the same when you see the customised kicks from Nike, Yonex etc: that their tech doesn't look very convincing?

Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from. At the same time adidas might as well shoot them selves in the foot (intended or not). It tells the consumer that their product isn’t good enough for their professional representatives

Tennis_Hands said:

Why? He is a pro athlete and pro athletes have different (higher) requirements compared to the amateurs. Do you think the same when you see the customised kicks from Nike, Yonex etc: that their tech doesn't look very convincing?

Click to expand...

This is different. The shoe is focused on the fact that it is laceless. The pro version has the built in BOA lace system totally slaps the point of the shoe in the face.

Them using the BOA is probably the same idea behind how in cycling, when the clipless pedals came out, some pros STILL used straps OVER the clipless pedals because they simply didn't trust clipless yet and they were used to the feel of the god awful straps. Greg Lemond was a prime example. https://pelotonmagazine.com/features/tech-king-versus-traditionalist/

I remember when Lemond won with ADR he had Time pedals as well as a strap. I've done that...but only on the velodrome

volleynets said:

This is different. The shoe is focused on the fact that it is laceless. The pro version has the built in BOA lace system totally slaps the point of the shoe in the face.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Unless the one that is using it can put the same stress on the shoe as Tistsipas and even then it might be just that Tsitsipas tested different variants and liked the one with the BOA the best and Adidas decided to go with something different for the mass market. The lack of BOA doesn't say absolutely anything about how good the mass market laceless shoe is. Adidas is not hiding the fact that it has something different about it, unlike other companies that do PJs on their shoes to look like something different, but pack the mass market shoes with cheap imitations of what the pros are wearing. I think that the shoe is ugly, and I am not going to buy it ever, but some people around here are really hell bent on talking BS for many reasons.

djNEiGht said:

I understand where you are coming from. At the same time adidas might as well shoot them selves in the foot (intended or not). It tells the consumer that their product isn’t good enough for their professional representatives

Click to expand...

Nope. The latter conclusion is erroneous for many reasons. BOA might be a personal preference. BTW, the consumer is not their professional representatives, so he might as well get down to Earth as far as his requirements are concerned. Nike, Yonex etc certainly aren't shying away from showing their consumers where their place is. Do they "shoot themselves in the foot" too?

Tennis_Hands said:

Nope. The latter conclusion is erroneous for many reasons. BOA might be a personal preference. BTW, the consumer is not their professional representatives, so he might as well get down to Earth as far as his requirements are concerned. Nike, Yonex etc certainly aren't shying away from showing their consumers where their place is. Do they "shoot themselves in the foot" too?

Click to expand...

Nadal and Federer both wear shoes that are not available to the general consumer but in like form. The shoe is endorsed by them. It's not news and Nike isn't shooting themselves in the foot. At one point it appeared that Federer's shoe was roughly the Vapor top with the Ballistic bottom. Nadal's Ballistic "wire" feature was merely cosmetic. Overall the shoe looked the same. This is a watergun to the foot. This laceless system the general consumer could buy is not so laceless on Tistsipas feet. This is more of a shotgun to the foot.

djNEiGht said:

Nadal and Federer both wear shoes that are not available to the general consumer but in like form. The shoe is endorsed by them. It's not news and Nike isn't shooting themselves in the foot. At one point it appeared that Federer's shoe was roughly the Vapor top with the Ballistic bottom. Nadal's Ballistic "wire" feature was merely cosmetic. Overall the shoe looked the same. This is a watergun to the foot. This laceless system the general consumer could buy is not so laceless on Tistsipas feet. This is more of a shotgun to the foot.

Click to expand...

You know that you are alredy on a thin ice when you need to qualify how much companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Like I said, Adidas is neither disingenuous as other companies, who straight up are trying to lie to their (uninformed) consumers what their pros wear, as Adidas is not even hiding that there is a difference between Tsitsipas's shoe and the retail model, nor the use of BOA on Tistsipas shoe tells anything about how good the retail shoe is, especially considering its intended customer (players with different requirements than the pros). The differences in Federer's and Nadal's shoes compared to what Nike is trying to sell to the public are not only cosmetic, we know that, so focusing on the fake details is not nearly the whole picture as far as the delusion with their shoes goes.

Tennis_Hands said:

You know that you are alredy on a thin ice when you need to qualify how much companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Like I said, Adidas is neither disingenuous as other companies, who straight up are trying to lie to their (uninformed) consumers what their pros wear, as Adidas is not even hiding that there is a difference between Tsitsipas's shoe and the retail model, nor the use of BOA on Tistsipas shoe tells anything about how good the retail shoe is, especially considering its intended customer (players with different requirements than the pros). The differences in Federer's and Nadal's shoes compared to what Nike is trying to sell to the public are not only cosmetic, we know that, so focusing on the fake details is not nearly the whole picture as far as the delusion with their shoes goes.

Click to expand...

I'm husky so I can swim in ice water

Tennis_Hands said:

You know that you are alredy on a thin ice when you need to qualify how much companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Like I said, Adidas is neither disingenuous as other companies, who straight up are trying to lie to their (uninformed) consumers what their pros wear, as Adidas is not even hiding that there is a difference between Tsitsipas's shoe and the retail model, nor the use of BOA on Tistsipas shoe tells anything about how good the retail shoe is, especially considering its intended customer (players with different requirements than the pros). The differences in Federer's and Nadal's shoes compared to what Nike is trying to sell to the public are not only cosmetic, we know that, so focusing on the fake details is not nearly the whole picture as far as the delusion with their shoes goes.

Click to expand...

The whole point of the Stycon shoe is the "laceless" technology. They are trying to tell you that laceless is good enough for tennis players to use and feel confident in. Obviously Thiem and Tsitsipas were able to test out these shoes during the off season and their conclusion is that the tech is not good enough for their needs, which to me, implies that there is still something lacking in this technology that they are trying to sell. Adidas is also definitely trying to hide the fact that Tsitsipas' shoe is different from the retail model, because all the promotional material has Tsitsipas and Thiem playing in the "laceless" version.

Nike is not trying to sell you anything groundbreaking when Federer and Nadal are using a modified version of what is available to the public. Fed and Nadal may have liked certain qualities of previous shoes or needed certain personalizations for their style of play, but Nike needed to change the shoes for the public due to the end of a product cycle. The differences in the shoes may be the outsoles or the way the shoes tie down, but none of that is new technology.

I would have no issues if the shoes that Tsitsipas uses has a different outsole, but I do have a problem that he isn't actually using a "laceless" shoe.

I am not saying that the shoes are not good enough for retail or that the tech is not useable. I am just saying it looks bad for Adidas.

bwongman said:

The whole point of the Stycon shoe is the "laceless" technology. They are trying to tell you that laceless is good enough for tennis players to use and feel confident in. Obviously Thiem and Tsitsipas were able to test out these shoes during the off season and their conclusion is that the tech is not good enough for their needs, which to me, implies that there is still something lacking in this technology that they are trying to sell. Adidas is also definitely trying to hide the fact that Tsitsipas' shoe is different from the retail model, because all the promotional material has Tsitsipas and Thiem playing in the "laceless" version.

Nike is not trying to sell you anything groundbreaking when Federer and Nadal are using a modified version of what is available to the public. Fed and Nadal may have liked certain qualities of previous shoes or needed certain personalizations for their style of play, but Nike needed to change the shoes for the public due to the end of a product cycle. The differences in the shoes may be the outsoles or the way the shoes tie down, but none of that is new technology.

I would have no issues if the shoes that Tsitsipas uses has a different outsole, but I do have a problem that he isn't actually using a "laceless" shoe.

I am not saying that the shoes are not good enough for retail or that the tech is not useable. I am just saying it looks bad for Adidas.

Click to expand...

Bolded: there is nothing obvious is what you say. It is not known what they have tested, and why they prefer one over the other. I use cycling shoes that have velcro straps and cycling shoes that use ratchets. I have tried cycling shoes that have the BOA system, and they don't do it for me. In my case it is a personal preference, just like it might be for Tsitsipas and Thiem. They didn't even properly test the shoes they are wearing, which is why one of them switched to SoleCourt Boost in his next match, so your claim about what they have tested is up in the air.

BTW, laceless is not a "technology". I have never heard of laceless boots having a "technology".

Nike is trying to sell you something that is not what it appears and that is much worse as far as credibility of the product and technologies involved are concerned. There is nothing groundbreaking in laceless either. It has been around for centuries, and even in the athletic footwear it is not something new.

Your last sentence is what your position here boils down to and not whether you have any objective criticism. You even admit that the "technology" might actually do its job well. How would that look bad for Adidas, who are also pretty open about offering a different thing (i.e. not trying to lie to the customers) is beyond me.

Tennis_Hands said:

Bolded: there is nothing obvious is what you say. It is not known what they have tested, and why they prefer one over the other. I use cycling shoes that have velcro straps and cycling shoes that use ratchets. I have tried cycling shoes that have the BOA system, and they don't do it for me. In my case it is a personal preference, just like it might be for Tsitsipas and Thiem. They didn't even properly test the shoes they are wearing, which is why one of them switched to SoleCourt Boost in his next match, so your claim about what they have tested is up in the air.

BTW, laceless is not a "technology". I have never heard of laceless boots having a "technology".

Nike is trying to sell you something that is not what it appears and that is much worse as far as credibility of the product and technologies involved are concerned. There is nothing groundbreaking in laceless either. It has been around for centuries, and even in the athletic footwear it is not something new.

Your last sentence is what your position here boils down to and not whether you have any objective criticism. You even admit that the "technology" might actually do its job well. How would that look bad for Adidas, who are also pretty open about offering a different thing (i.e. not trying to lie to the customers) is beyond me.

Click to expand...

There are pictures online showing Thiem practicing with this shoe during the off season. Also, if I were a world class athlete, I am pretty sure I would have tested out the shoes in practice before wearing them in an actual match... Especially one that has no laces.

I don't understand how your logic can justify Adidas marketing a laceless shoe that is supposed to provide great lockdown and support, but their own sponsored player is not using a shoe with this laceless feature in a match? Even the promotional material shows Tsitspas, who is the face of this shoe, is wearing the laceless model and running around in them. Then you also come out and say that they are not trying to lie to their customers? Also, if there were 2 models and one of them had the BOA system, then maybe your argument makes sense, but there is only one shoe available and it is the laceless version. It doesn't matter what the player's preference is in the end, it matters that they aren't using the laceless shoe.

If there isn't anything groundbreaking in laceless then why is Adidas pushing this shoe so hard and emphasizing its laceless feature? I am sure laceless has been around for centuries, barefooted athletes have been around before that as well. The reason we are using the shoes we are now is because of progress. The current norm in tennis is to play with shoes that have laces in them so that it provides support and lockdown. Adidas is now saying that we don't have to follow this norm any longer because the laceless feature has progressed enough where it can do the same, if not better, thing than what we are used to using now.

I also don't understand your concern with Nike when Adidas does the same thing. Do you honestly think that the shoes Thiem and Tsitsipas wears are 100% identical to the retail version? Adidas is also trying to sell you something that is not what it appears, but they just aren't able to hide it. You just seem to really have a prejudice towards Nike.

Ordered a pair of Stycons for my husband and will try to post pics when they arrive. I know he won't like them since they look funny but whatever. Maybe they turn out to be that hidden gem.

bwongman said:

There are pictures online showing Thiem practicing with this shoe during the off season. Also, if I were a world class athlete, I am pretty sure I would have tested out the shoes in practice before wearing them in an actual match... Especially one that has no laces.

Click to expand...

"There are pictures". Yes, and that supports the idea that these athletes have tested different versions as I said. Clearly they have not settled in their preferences, otherwise they wouldn't be changing shoes, especially during the first outings of the new model: that supports what I said about them not testing them sufiiciently.

bwongman said:

I don't understand how your logic can justify Adidas marketing a laceless shoe that is supposed to provide great lockdown and support, but their own sponsored player is not using a shoe with this laceless feature in a match? Even the promotional material shows Tsitspas, who is the face of this shoe, is wearing the laceless model and running around in them. Then you also come out and say that they are not trying to lie to their customers?

Click to expand...

Whatever their sponsored athletes are wearing it hasn't got anything to do with what Adidas claims about their retail shoe. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about that. Adidas claims that in regard to the end customer, and as you already said, the shoe could very easily fulfil the promise the manufacturer makes. If that is the case, there is absolutely no place for speculations as yours, so it remains to be seen if that is the case or not. Basically your claims boil down to "if it is not exactly the same shoe as the one the sponsored athletes are wearing it cannot be as stable and whatever else Adidas says about it as the company is claiming". That doesn't make sense.

Yes, they aren't. If they were, they would put a white thingy, functional or not, on the spot where the BOA ratchet is (similar to how Nadal's shoes had the fake "wires"), so that they look the same for the casual observer, or would have covered it sufficiently. Instead their athletes are openly and obviously using the BOA system.

bwongman said:

Also, if there were 2 models and one of them had the BOA system, then maybe your argument makes sense, but there is only one shoe available and it is the laceless version. It doesn't matter what the player's preference is in the end, it matters that they aren't using the laceless shoe.

Click to expand...

Of course, it is not difficult to understand that the shoe with the BOA is a player's custom version. Why would they put out two different models out there and why would that be required for what I am saying to make sense? Also, what the players preference is is pretty much all that matters to the pros. Even if the company produces a phenomenal shoe, if the athlete doesn't like it for some reason he won't wear it. The players are known for sticking to their customs and feel for equipment, which is the reason why so many of them use old models of shoes, racquets etc. The practice shows that you are wrong.

bwongman said:

If there isn't anything groundbreaking in laceless then why is Adidas pushing this shoe so hard and emphasizing its laceless feature? I am sure laceless has been around for centuries, barefooted athletes have been around before that as well. The reason we are using the shoes we are now is because of progress. The current norm in tennis is to play with shoes that have laces in them so that it provides support and lockdown. Adidas is now saying that we don't have to follow this norm any longer because the laceless feature has progressed enough where it can do the same, if not better, thing than what we are used to using now..

Click to expand...

Pushing the shoe so hard? It is the newest shoe in their range, what do you expect them to do? BTW, the new versions of the SoleCourt boost get more versions from Adidas, so that is quite the overstatement. It is normal that they will market a new shoe, but I am not sure that they are "pushing it hard". The way I see it, they are advertising it as something different than what is currently available and rightly so. On their home page they describe the new shoe as "provocative", not as an "innovation".

Thanks for letting me know what we use laces for. I wonder, are my Chelsea boots not providing support? They don't have laces. Bummer.

bwongman said:

I also don't understand your concern with Nike when Adidas does the same thing. Do you honestly think that the shoes Thiem and Tsitsipas wears are 100% identical to the retail version? Adidas is also trying to sell you something that is not what it appears, but they just aren't able to hide it. You just seem to really have a prejudice towards Nike.

Click to expand...

I was giving you an example with Nike, which is much more extreme as far as appearances about "technologies" go. No, pros have different requirements and preferences, which is what I was driving at when I responded to these overblown claims about the "authenticity" of the Stycon on Tsitsipas feet and its connection to "technologies". You seem to have claimed that somehow failing to put the same technology in the retail shoe as that in the pros shoes means that the retail product is a "failure". I just put into perspective your statement by giving you an example with Nike, who regularly misses to put the "technologies" from the shoes of the pros in their retail offers, and asked you whether you hold them to the same standard? You seem to not do that, so the question is, why aren't you using the same standard?

BTW, I had a good laugh with yet another claim that Adidas couldn't just fake that detail on their shoe, if they wanted to. Is a certain group of people really that delusional as to think that there is only one brand on Earth that can do things (even with no so noble intentions), if they put their resources into it?

Tennis_Hands said:

Bolded: there is nothing obvious is what you say. It is not known what they have tested, and why they prefer one over the other. I use cycling shoes that have velcro straps and cycling shoes that use ratchets. I have tried cycling shoes that have the BOA system, and they don't do it for me. In my case it is a personal preference, just like it might be for Tsitsipas and Thiem. They didn't even properly test the shoes they are wearing, which is why one of them switched to SoleCourt Boost in his next match, so your claim about what they have tested is up in the air.

BTW, laceless is not a "technology". I have never heard of laceless boots having a "technology".

Nike is trying to sell you something that is not what it appears and that is much worse as far as credibility of the product and technologies involved are concerned. There is nothing groundbreaking in laceless either. It has been around for centuries, and even in the athletic footwear it is not something new.

Your last sentence is what your position here boils down to and not whether you have any objective criticism. You even admit that the "technology" might actually do its job well. How would that look bad for Adidas, who are also pretty open about offering a different thing (i.e. not trying to lie to the customers) is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Do you work in the adidas marketing team for this shoe or something??

Tennis_Hands said:

"There are pictures". Yes, and that supports the idea that these athletes have tested different versions as I said. Clearly they have not settled in their preferences, otherwise they wouldn't be changing shoes, especially during the first outings of the new model: that supports what I said about them not testing them sufiiciently.



Whatever their sponsored athletes are wearing it hasn't got anything to do with what Adidas claims about their retail shoe. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about that. Adidas claims that in regard to the end customer, and as you already said, the shoe could very easily fulfil the promise the manufacturer makes. If that is the case, there is absolutely no place for speculations as yours, so it remains to be seen if that is the case or not. Basically your claims boil down to "if it is not exactly the same shoe as the one the sponsored athletes are wearing it cannot be as stable and whatever else Adidas says about it as the company is claiming". That doesn't make sense.

Yes, they aren't. If they were, they would put a white thingy, functional or not, on the spot where the BOA ratchet is (similar to how Nadal's shoes had the fake "wires"), so that they look the same for the casual observer, or would have covered it sufficiently. Instead their athletes are openly and obviously using the BOA system.



Of course, it is not difficult to understand that the shoe with the BOA is a player's custom version. Why would they put out two different models out there and why would that be required for what I am saying to make sense? Also, what the players preference is is pretty much all that matters to the pros. Even if the company produces a phenomenal shoe, if the athlete doesn't like it for some reason he won't wear it. The players are known for sticking to their customs and feel for equipment, which is the reason why so many of them use old models of shoes, racquets etc. The practice shows that you are wrong.



Pushing the shoe so hard? It is the newest shoe in their range, what do you expect them to do? BTW, the new versions of the SoleCourt boost get more versions from Adidas, so that is quite the overstatement. It is normal that they will market a new shoe, but I am not sure that they are "pushing it hard". The way I see it, they are advertising it as something different than what is currently available and rightly so. On their home page they describe the new shoe as "provocative", not as an "innovation".

Thanks for letting me know what we use laces for. I wonder, are my Chelsea boots not providing support? They don't have laces. Bummer.



I was giving you an example with Nike, which is much more extreme as far as appearances about "technologies" go. No, pros have different requirements and preferences, which is what I was driving at when I responded to these overblown claims about the "authenticity" of the Stycon on Tsitsipas feet and its connection to "technologies". You seem to have claimed that somehow failing to put the same technology in the retail shoe as that in the pros shoes means that the retail product is a "failure". I just put into perspective your statement by giving you an example with Nike, who regularly misses to put the "technologies" from the shoes of the pros in their retail offers, and asked you whether you hold them to the same standard? You seem to not do that, so the question is, why aren't you using the same standard?

BTW, I had a good laugh with yet another claim that Adidas couldn't just fake that detail on their shoe, if they wanted to. Is a certain group of people really that delusional as to think that there is only one brand on Earth that can do things (even with no so noble intentions), if they put their resources into it?

Click to expand...

Are you trolling? It’s pretty obvious to see the irony that the version the pros are using goes directly against the main point of the shoe.

volleynets said:

Are you trolling? It’s pretty obvious to see the irony that the version the pros are using goes directly against the main point of the shoe.

Click to expand...

The main point of the shoe is to provide stability and locked in feel for the custormers that will buy that shoe with those qualities in mind, so if it is so what you say doesn't make sense as it ignores the reality for some perceived fictional equivalence.

That statement from you, combined with your previous ridiculous question shows how people actually will believe in the most absurd things, if they decide so.

I didn't know Peter Pan signed with Adidas...

Tennis_Hands said:

The main point of the shoe is to provide stability and locked in feel for the custormers that will buy that shoe with those qualities in mind, so if it is so what you say doesn't make sense as it ignores the reality for some perceived fictional equivalence.

That statement from you, combined with your previous ridiculous question shows how people actually will believe in the most absurd things, if they decide so.

Click to expand...

Nice Trolling. A focused lace less shoe is being used with laces by the pros is the fact here.

volleynets said:

Nice Trolling. A focused lace less shoe is being used with laces by the pros is the fact here.

Click to expand...

It is a fact that doesn't actually say anything about the properties of the shoe sold to the public (i.e. a different shoe). Once the reports about how it performs by the regular players are out we can make a judgement whether it works. If it does the concept has succeeded, if it didn't it didn't.

You’re as entertaining as you’re stubborn.
The core value of the Stycon is the fact that it’s laceless. The pros endorsing this shoe use a shoe with laces.
End of story here unless you are paid to do so or have time to loose.

ChrisG said:

You’re as entertaining as you’re stubborn.
The core value of the Stycon is the fact that it’s laceless. The pros endorsing this shoe use a shoe with laces.
End of story here unless you are paid to do so or have time to loose.

Click to expand...

So, you do know for a fact that it doesn't provide the stability and locked in feeling that the laceless retail version should supposedly provide? Do tell, have you already tried them, or you are "paid to speculate or have time to lose"?

Wow kinda funny how a pair of laceless shoes, which already have b-ball versions, can illicit such debate. I should go back and check on whether if paintjobs carried such controversy or how many people lap up the new technologies RF, RN, ND supposedly use in their sticks in every iteration that's released.
Anyhow, marketing is just that, BS for the masses, to get us to consume. There's science to getting humans to be more consumeristic! Using players (aka influencers) is part of it. I don't think it matters whether they actually use the product or not!

Tennis_Hands said:

So, you do know for a fact that it doesn't provide the stability and locked in feeling that the laceless retail version should supposedly provide? Do tell, have you already tried them, or you are "paid to speculate or have time to lose"?

Click to expand...

Well actually the wife is out, kid#1 and kid#2 are out, the baby is sleeping so yes I have some time to loose haha !!

I’m pretty sure that if the concept was nearly as good as a regular tennis shoes, the pros would have endorse it. From what we know it’s not the case, therefore we can say that there are better options as a tennis shoe than the Styrcon.
Can Murray hit some winners with a Graphene radical ? Sure. Does it make it a good racket by the standards he is used to ? No.

Back in 2015, adidas came out with the 9th generation barricades available to the public at large. The shoes were so good that even the pros used them, without any modification. A little later adidas also came out with the adizero ubersonic 2. Same as the barricade 9/2015 barricade, uber2 retail was so good, that pros using had no need to modify them. What adidas has nowadays is not fit for pro tennis. It came out with Uber3, SoleCourt boost, and now the Stycon. None of these models are used by pros; they even had to put Uber2's back into production because Zverev and others couldn't play with them, preferring the Uber2, players who used the SoleCourt didn't like the boost, so those too were modified to their needs. Now, the Stycon has only been out for just a few days and we are already seeing Players using BOA lacing system for their "laceless" shoes. adidas need to understand what is good for pros is also good for their retail business. Thus far, revert back to Uber2, the rest is just marketing.

Tennis_Hands said:

It is a fact that doesn't actually say anything about the properties of the shoe sold to the public (i.e. a different shoe). Once the reports about how it performs by the regular players are out we can make a judgement whether it works. If it does the concept has succeeded, if it didn't it didn't.

Click to expand...

I agree with this part. I'm not saying it's not or can't be a success because the pros have a boa lace version.

Sardines said:

Wow kinda funny how a pair of laceless shoes, which already have b-ball versions, can illicit such debate. I should go back and check on whether if paintjobs carried such controversy

I don't think it matters whether they actually use the product or not!

Click to expand...

Healthy debate. What the Pros using and what that might mean (or not) for the retail version available to us. Productive debate. (Yes for sure paintjob debates have raged in the racq forum over the years. Again healthy debate.)

Yes agreed my own journey among racquets or shoes is my own journey and I imagine everyone else is the same. The use of influencers as you rightly point out has gone on forever. Most of us I reckon just ignore them.

But I agree with Jean-Pierre just above

The Barricade has not been their focus since the 9 version... they've brought out a lot of other models out but have they actually made progress, debatable?

Tennis_Hands said:

The main point of the shoe is to provide stability and locked in feel for the custormers that will buy that shoe with those qualities in mind, so if it is so what you say doesn't make sense as it ignores the reality for some perceived fictional equivalence.

That statement from you, combined with your previous ridiculous question shows how people actually will believe in the most absurd things, if they decide so.

Click to expand...

It's very obvious that you are trolling here.

If Adidas wanted to make a shoe that provided stability and a locked in feel, they could have just thrown some laces on this shoe and there would be no debate. The fact that they chose to make the shoe laceless and tell people it works as well as a shoe with laces obviously shows that it is the main feature of the shoe. Having their players not use the shoe for its main feature destroys the purpose of that shoe. That is just plain logic.

Tennis_Hands said:

Thanks for letting me know what we use laces for. I wonder, are my Chelsea boots not providing support? They don't have laces. Bummer.

Click to expand...

This comment just shows you are trolling. The purpose of the Chelsea boot is not to provide support during a tennis match. It obviously provides enough support for your basic walking needs, but that is not the support we are talking about.

Jean-Pierre Boucher said:

What adidas has nowadays is not fit for pro tennis. It came out with Uber3, SoleCourt boost, and now the Stycon. None of these models are used by pros; they even had to put Uber2's back into production because Zverev and others couldn't play with them, preferring the Uber2, players who used the SoleCourt didn't like the boost, so those too were modified to their needs. Now, the Stycon has only been out for just a few days and we are already seeing Players using BOA lacing system for their "laceless" shoes. adidas need to understand what is good for pros is also good for their retail business. Thus far, revert back to Uber2, the rest is just marketing.

Click to expand...

Umm that covers the actual issue, which is to wear what fits the user the best. Pros are paid to 'endorse' a line, and their foot types, may or may not fit the retail version of the design. regardless of technology. The retail version has to fit as many foot types around the world as it can. Given that different regions of the world have certain characteristics, eg. wider forefoots/heels, narrower forefoot/heels, more bony, less bony etc. It's now a global market, it's not surprising that shoe manufacturers have moved certain marquee models to become wider etc, to cater to a wider market. Tsitsipas/Thiem not wearing the same shoe as the retail isn't relevant to me, because I'm not bordering 200lbs running and changing directions at 13-15kph, per match and training daily.
Then again, players like Trae Young use the laceless NL, and he's heavier and faster than me, and probably Thiem or Tsitsipas. But he plays on hardwood, vs hardcourt, where the outsole traction may affect how the shoe plays.
My wife just brought me back a pair from Asia, where it's already out in retail shops.

Russell Jiang said:

Surprisingly these don’t feel heavy. For my experience I feel the sole court boost feel heavier on foot than Stycon (even though Stycon is heavier in weight) they are very comfortable but nothing spectacular (like I said, very close to Ubersonic 2 in terms of fit and feel) I did have the Court FF one before and I would say that one is a little bit harder for me to put on. For the Stycon, it come with a shoehorn but I don’t really have to use it.

Click to expand...

Did you find that it was too snug and because of the encapsulating sunk in design, that you had to size up? I just tried mine with thick Thorlos and it feels overly snug and short. It fits but I went to thinner socks for it to be comfortable. Compared to the Next Level, it feels like it's shorter and narrower, because of the sunk in design, but less compression on the arches.

bwongman said:

If Adidas wanted to make a shoe that provided stability and a locked in feel, they could have just thrown some laces on this shoe and there would be no debate.

Click to expand...

Yes, but they wanted to see if they can make a tennis shoe without laces that can be stable and with locked in feeling, so why would they be making a shoe with laces, if that was their objective: just so that there is "no debate"? Last time I told you that they advertise it as "provocative", so they a looking for the opposite of what you here say.

bwongman said:

The fact that they chose to make the shoe laceless and tell people it works as well as a shoe with laces obviously shows that it is the main feature of the shoe. Having their players not use the shoe for its main feature destroys the purpose of that shoe. That is just plain logic..

Click to expand...

It is also plain logic to realise that what the pros are wearing and what the public is wearing are different for reasons mentioned above, and also that if it works the way the company advertises the shoe, it more than fulfils its promise, regardless of what the pros do, but you somehow fail to use plain logic when it comes to this, despite of me making that point several posts in a row.

bwongman said:

This comment just shows you are trolling. The purpose of the Chelsea boot is not to provide support during a tennis match. It obviously provides enough support for your basic walking needs, but that is not the support we are talking about.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the Chelsea boot is to provide support just like a shoe with laces would, that was the implication, not that it would be used in a tennis match (interpreting my example in that way is ridiculous in the extreme). I used it to support my statement that laceless "technology" has been around for a very long time, and it is no technology whatsoever.

I suggest you stop attacking me on the grounds that what I am saying must be irrational. I clearly don't do that regarding your opinion, although I think that you don't understand what I am saying. If you disagree, fine, I am not forcing you to agree with me.

Tennis_Hands said:

Yes, but they wanted to see if they can make a tennis shoe without laces that can be stable and with locked in feeling, so why would they be making a shoe with laces, if that was their objective: just so that there is "no debate"? Last time I told you that they advertise it as "provocative", so they a looking for the opposite of what you here say.



It is also plain logic to realise that what the pros are wearing and what the public is wearing are different for reasons mentioned above, and also that if it works the way the company advertises the shoe, it more than fulfils its promise, regardless of what the pros do, but you somehow fail to use plain logic when it comes to this, despite of me making that point several posts in a row.



The purpose of the Chelsea boot is to provide support just like a shoe with laces would, that was the implication, not that it would be used in a tennis match (interpreting my example in that way is ridiculous in the extreme). I used it to support my statement that laceless "technology" has been around for a very long time, and it is no technology whatsoever.

I suggest you stop attacking me on the grounds that what I am saying must be irrational. I clearly don't do that regarding your opinion, although I think that you don't understand what I am saying. If you disagree, fine, I am not forcing you to agree with me.

Click to expand...

I didn’t see him say anything that’s attacking you. Are you OK?

volleynets said:

I didn’t see him say anything that’s attacking you. Are you OK?

Click to expand...

He said that I was trolling, when I gave a pretty sound argumentation of why I think what I think and it still makes sense more than what he (or anyone sharing his views on that matter) is saying. He may disagree, but he doesn't get to label people because of that, and now (as far as I can see) he is attracting other posters that are ready to play to his tune due to that, so I am OK, and you are meddling for no reason whatsoever.

Tennis_Hands said:

Yes, but they wanted to see if they can make a tennis shoe without laces that can be stable and with locked in feeling, so why would they be making a shoe with laces, if that was their objective: just so that there is "no debate"? Last time I told you that they advertise it as "provocative", so they a looking for the opposite of what you here say.



It is also plain logic to realise that what the pros are wearing and what the public is wearing are different for reasons mentioned above, and also that if it works the way the company advertises the shoe, it more than fulfils its promise, regardless of what the pros do, but you somehow fail to use plain logic when it comes to this, despite of me making that point several posts in a row.



The purpose of the Chelsea boot is to provide support just like a shoe with laces would, that was the implication, not that it would be used in a tennis match (interpreting my example in that way is ridiculous in the extreme). I used it to support my statement that laceless "technology" has been around for a very long time, and it is no technology whatsoever.

I suggest you stop attacking me on the grounds that what I am saying must be irrational. I clearly don't do that regarding your opinion, although I think that you don't understand what I am saying. If you disagree, fine, I am not forcing you to agree with me.

Click to expand...

Your first statement contradicts your argument.

I do realize that the pros are usually wearing something different from the public, but they should not be so different that they undermine the premise of the main feature of the shoe itself. If the pros weren't satisfied with the version they were given they could have requested adjustments to the materials of the shoe to make it tighter or stiffer or whatever else they require, which would make it different from the retail shoe. The fact that they need to use an entirely different system that is not the main feature of the shoe Adidas sells is the problem.

Also, I never intended to come off as attacking you. I felt that I was just trying to convey my thoughts. If I did so then I apologize. The reason I said you were trolling was because it appeared obvious that your responses were an attempt to elicit a strong reaction from others.

bwongman said:

Your first statement contradicts your argument.

I do realize that the pros are usually wearing something different from the public, but they should not be so different that they undermine the premise of the main feature of the shoe itself.

Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is that when a "wire" in Nadal's shoes is fake (which has similar function to give more support, by the way), it undermines the main feature of the Nike shoe itself, regardless of whether a real "wire" in the retail shoe provides the said support? I am trying to understand your logic here.

bwongman said:

If the pros weren't satisfied with the version they were given they could have requested adjustments to the materials of the shoe to make it tighter or stiffer or whatever else they require, which would make it different from the retail shoe. The fact that they need to use an entirely different system that is not the main feature of the shoe Adidas sells is the problem.

Click to expand...

I will have to repeat myself, but don't see a problem, because I don't see a connection between the technology in the shoe of the pros and that in retail. They are clearly intended for different customers with different needs. You seem to insist that the only thing that guarantees that the shoe sold to the customers in retail to work is if it is the exact same shoe the pros are wearing. No other option. I disagree.

bwongman said:

Also, I never intended to come off as attacking you. I felt that I was just trying to convey my thoughts. If I did so then I apologize.

Click to expand...

Appologies accepted and it is better if we commit to commenting the substance of our posts.