Adidas Solecourt Boost Official Thread
- Thread starter J011yroger
- Start date
bertrevert
Legend
Think women's shoes also have narrower heel usually - they always look narrower. Pretty sure men cannot wear ladies shoes!
!<-_->!
Hall of Fame
Which outlets?
Sardines
Hall of Fame
Sure they can if their foot types fit. Besides the obvious sizing differences, women's shoe are cheaper also because they are designed for up to 20% less weight than the men's version. So the Bounce midsole is designed to take less punishment. Many people complain about the SCB having not very secure heel lock, and that's because for many men, their feet types have narrower heels (smaller Talus and Calcaneus bones). Unfortunately for me, women's sizing only goes up to 12, and I"m out of luck as I need a 13, which is rare for many brands!
mistapooh
Semi-Pro
An Adidas outlet near me that only has shoes, no clothing.
!<-_->!
Hall of Fame
Oh. Interesting. Never seen those before. What state are you in?
FedGR
Professional
They didn't. Women's size 10 is the same as men's size 10, just narrower.
Source: I own them both.
haqq777
Legend
Very good eye. I noticed that as well. I have 3 pairs of SCB; original black/red, blue Parleys, and the recent black/orange colorway.
The most recent one I got (black/orange) has a seam and the Adidas logo has moved a little bit on the side:
And this is what the back of Parley (and the original version) looks like:
I haven't noticed any differences in fit -especially at the ankle - due to the seam. Have you or anyone else?
airchallenge2
Hall of Fame
Usually this kind of change happens to improve the heel fit. I bet adidas had few complains about heel slippage and that should take care of that.
Heel fit is one of my few complaints. Combined with no lace hole to do lock-lacing, it stops the shoe from being truly outstanding.
I just lace-lock using the last two normal holes, but it's such a simple oversight. Why would you not do it?
haqq777
Legend
That is a good point, actually. I do not use lace lock since they fit me very well without it, and I have zero complaints about heel fit. But I don't think there would be any issue whatsoever if they did add those small holes for those who might need the lace lock. Win win for everyone.
There must be a lot of people who buy these for the forefoot width but just have normal fit heels. Lace-lock holes would make the shoe work for people like me, but not negatively impact people like you.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
They should continue to make this shoes.. Stepanoe Tsisipas refuses to wear anything else except this one
Agreed. A hybrid between the Ubersonic 2 and SCB could be great
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Yea,, why don't they put this Boost material in all their tennis shoes ?? if it adds too much weight then they could add it in just the Heel area for some of their shoes instead of full length. Like some of the Adidas speed shoes, they could just add it in the heel area so it won't get too heavy...
Boost is supposedly their best cushioning and energy giving material so I thought they would add it to all their tennis shoes?
SlvrDragon50
Semi-Pro
Don't think Boost on the "speed" shoes makes sense since Boost soles are always super thick. I imagine they have to have a lot of material for Boost to function properly.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
BBender716
Professional
New to scbs here. So these run wider? (Which would be great btw!) I currently wear GR7s but wish they could be just a tad wider...
Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
DJTaurus
Hall of Fame
Yes. And before you buy, try them a half size down compared to your regular one.
SlvrDragon50
Semi-Pro
Do you have examples because every single one I have seen has monster heels that are way too high off the ground. They all have at least a 1-2" heel.That is not true.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I have been an early user of the Boost and have had a number of shoes with it. I have had/have Adi Tempo Boosts, Adi Adizero Adios, and Adi Bostons (different generations) and they are all low profile full length (or at least full length functional) Boost shoes. I own a pair of Adidas Classics with Boost which is also a low profile casual shoe. I have also had in my hand the Adidas Takumi Sen and Energy Boost (partial Boost at the front and the back respectively). All these shoes are low profile Boost that have nothing to do with the huge chunks of Boost material that is ubiquitous in most sports and casual shoes.
SlvrDragon50
Semi-Pro
I still don't see a reason why Adidas would put Boost on the "speed shoes". Not without other advancements in tech anyways.I have been an early user of the Boost and have had a number of shoes with it. I have had/have Adi Tempo Boosts, Adi Adizero Adios, and Adi Bostons (different generations) and they are all low profile full length (or at least full length functional) Boost shoes. I own a pair of Adidas Classics with Boost which is also a low profile casual shoe. I have also had in my hand the Adidas Takumi Sen and Energy Boost (partial Boost at the front and the back respectively). All these shoes are low profile Boost that have nothing to do with the huge chunks of Boost material that is ubiquitous in most sports and casual shoes.
Boost is an inherently unstable material since it's a soft, compressible foam. If you go with a thinner amount, it's not going to provide any cushioning, and you're better served with a thinner but firmer foam. The only reason why the SCB is able to accomplish stability with the amount of Boost it comes with is the plastic/firmer layer that goes around the entire length of the shoe. I have Boost STs and they are without a doubt some of the most unstable shoes I have ever tried because of only a knit interface with the Boost sole. So if you're asking Adidas to add in some layering stability to their speed shoes, it just doesn't make sense since now your "speed" shoes are just getting heavier.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I understand where you are coming from, but I will make a couple of remarks.
"Speed" shoes more often than not are not about cushioning at all: they are about agility, speed and lightness, so when one says that Adidas could/should put some amount of Boost in such shoes that is not to be understood that the shoes will literally become heavily cushioned shoes, they won't. What that could accomplish is to increase the comfort of the shoe while retaining its other characteristics, thus making it better in its class.
"If you go with a thinner amount, it is not going to provide any cushioning"
To repeat what I have written above, the Boost is not going to turn a shoe with less than generous amount of Boost into a heavily cushioned shoe. However, you are simply wrong in your suggestion, that the use of Boost won't provide "any cushioning". In fact, the opposite is true (a lot of cushioning with very little material). Indeed, the front of some of these shoes has an almost ridiculously thin layer of Boost, yet the comfort they provide is very very noticeable. These shoes are for long distance competitions, where the pounding over distances of 20 km and above is considerable and cushioning is VERY noticeable. I am a typical forefoot striker, and, believe me, it makes a huge difference if there is a Boost or not, even with such a tiny amount of Boost.
There are other concepts apart from putting heavy plastic around a foam that can create stability. Adidas went with a cradle-like midsole/footbed for their Stycon model, so if they use it in a lightweight shoe with Boost I believe that that can achieve additional stability (and I am sure that they will do it with other shoes in the future too). Again, that won't turn a lightweight speed oriented shoe into a tank like the Barricades, but it will be enough to retain the shoe's other characteristics while adding comfort. I have no doubt that yet more ways to utilise the properties of the foam can be/are found.
To add to the above, Adidas is now putting Boost HD in some of their shoes, which, from what I gather,is a material that has a different compression characteristics than the original Boost, so now more fine tuning can be achieved depending on the needs.
The reason why Adidas might not want to put Boost in all of their shoes might be as much a branding concern as it is a financial concern. It doesn't make sense to blur the boundaries between their lines by utilising the same material everywhere and advertising the same thing for different purposes. It is also probably cheaper to put Bounce in some of their lines, and Bounce is hugely underrated cushioning IMO i.e. it does an excellent job, so spending more and more just for the sake of putting Boost instead of Bounce might not be such a good idea.
Lastly, I am not proposing that Adidas puts Boost in their lightweight offerings (although I don't see why not if they can make the most of its properties while working to create better than the previous model shoe). I just noted that the idea that Boost only works when in copious amounts is a myth.
SlvrDragon50
Semi-Pro
I don't like using running as an analogy because there are people who run marathons and longer with minimalist shoes. The cushioning for running is not necessarily the same as for other sports as you won't have as large ground reaction forces in running as you will when doing rapid cuts and sprinting.I understand where you are coming from, but I will make a couple of remarks.
"Speed" shoes more often than not are not about cushioning at all: they are about agility, speed and lightness, so when one says that Adidas could/should put some amount of Boost in such shoes that is not to be understood that the shoes will literally become heavily cushioned shoes, they won't. What that could accomplish is to increase the comfort of the shoe while retaining its other characteristics, thus making it better in its class.
"If you go with a thinner amount, it is not going to provide any cushioning"
To repeat what I have written above, the Boost is not going to turn a shoe with less than generous amount of Boost into a heavily cushioned shoe. However, you are simply wrong in your suggestion, that the use of Boost won't provide "any cushioning". In fact, the opposite is true (a lot of cushioning with very little material). Indeed, the front of some of these shoes has an almost ridiculously thin layer of Boost, yet the comfort they provide is very very noticeable. These shoes are for long distance competitions, where the pounding over distances of 20 km and above is considerable and cushioning is VERY noticeable. I am a typical forefoot striker, and, believe me, it makes a huge difference if there is a Boost or not, even with such a tiny amount of Boost.
There are other concepts apart from putting heavy plastic around a foam that can create stability. Adidas went with a cradle-like midsole/footbed for their Stycon model, so if they use it in a lightweight shoe with Boost I believe that that can achieve additional stability (and I am sure that they will do it with other shoes in the future too). Again, that won't turn a lightweight speed oriented shoe into a tank like the Barricades, but it will be enough to retain the shoe's other characteristics while adding comfort. I have no doubt that yet more ways to utilise the properties of the foam can be/are found.
To add to the above, Adidas is now putting Boost HD in some of their shoes, which, from what I gather,is a material that has a different compression characteristics than the original Boost, so now more fine tuning can be achieved depending on the needs.
The reason why Adidas might not want to put Boost in all of their shoes might be as much a branding concern as it is a financial concern. It doesn't make sense to blur the boundaries between their lines by utilising the same material everywhere and advertising the same thing for different purposes. It is also probably cheaper to put Bounce in some of their lines, and Bounce is hugely underrated cushioning IMO i.e. it does an excellent job, so spending more and more just for the sake of putting Boost instead of Bounce might not be such a good idea.
Lastly, I am not proposing that Adidas puts Boost in their lightweight offerings (although I don't see why not if they can make the most of its properties while working to create better than the previous model shoe). I just noted that the idea that Boost only works when in copious amounts is a myth.
The Stycon I feel is a complete counter argument against the concept of a lightweight shoe with Boost. The most common complaint about the Stycon is that it is a heavy shoe, and it weighs more than the SCB. Unless Adidas develops some sort of carbon fiber or ultra lightweight stability frame, the current tech just doesn't make it possible right now.
I agree that there is some marketing factor at play here. Throwing Boost in every model will definitely drop sales of SCBs, but I do think that it's fair for consumers to expect a top of the line "stability" and "speed" shoe, both with similar tech.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Yes, running and tennis have different requirements as far as shoes are concerned, but that is what I have experience with, so that is my contribution to the topic of "thin layer of Boost". Still, cushiong is cushioning, so there isn't that much of a difference in that between tennis and running (and just like in running in tennis some people are light on their toes and some are stomping the ground with their heels/midfoot). Cuts and sprinting have more to do with stability and energy return than cushioning, and while those are related they are not the same. Tennis shoes also utilise technologies to take care of that while running shoes don't (which is why playing tennis in running shoes is a disaster), so it is not like one makes the cushioning responsible for these additional requirements (one shouldn't, IMO).
My mentioning of Stycon was not aimed at giving it as an example of a lightweight shoe, but as an example of utilising different method of providing stability. It is a stability shoe in its core (Adidas advertises it as such), so it was build like one, which is in the Barricade model range, not in the Ü2 model range. It is not clear how much of its weight is due to the cradle midsole, but I don't see a reason why Adidas shouldn't be able to utilise the same concept in a more lightweight shoe. In fact, I am sure they will at some point as the concept of a speed oriented shoe and the concept of a low to the ground shoe, which is one of the benefits of the cradle midsole are in line with each other.
"Similar tech" is not a requirement, unless they can make that tech work for both applications. Like I said I expect that to happen, but not soon. Boost is expensive, and the speed shoes of Adidas have historically been cheaper than their stability offerings, while providing the players that use them with what they need (Ü2 was so loved that Adidas was almost forced to bring it back). I think that the use of Boost can increase the comfort of these some, but that is not what players using them might be concerned about. In any event, I expect that to happen sooner or later.
D
Deleted member 768841
Guest
I pray to GOD that when or if they update it the shoe gets an outsole warranty.
sanister
Professional
Don't think Adidas has a warranty right now on any of their offerings if I'm not mistaken. I hope they bring it back when they revitalize the Barricade line (I know, I know seems like a longshot at this point to me).
SlvrDragon50
Semi-Pro
The durability of the SCB sole is pretty disappointing honestly. Luckily I don't play enough that my shoes are over the 6 months timeline, but I could see these shoes falling apart in like 2 months if you played daily.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
you can't have everything. if the company keeps replacing shoes for free, they will go bankrupt and no more sole court boost or adidas. we have to pay for good shoes, it is the norm
SlvrDragon50
Semi-Pro
I was really tempted to buy another pair. I don't think my soles have much longer. If I am unable to wear my Asics with my ankle braces, I might have to get another pair of SCBs. I just really don't like the lack of a heel lock hole. With my ankle brace, it's really tough to get a secure lacing on the shoes.
I don't love the weight, but as I said above, the omission of a the lace lock hole is the biggest knock on this shoe.
Still a good shoe, but could have easily been so much better.
Knowing my luck, a revision will come out next month (when I have 4 pairs in the cupboard).
They fit true?
SlvrDragon50
Semi-Pro
No a bit large. If I were to buy another pair, I'd go down another 1/2 size. If you buy from TW, buy 1/2 and full size down and return the non-fitting one.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Agree, I too bought 1/2 size smaller than my Yonex or nike and it fit me just fine, I think it is cause SCB has such a good wide forefoot area.
sanister
Professional
You mean the Solecourt Boost is continuing? Any hint on new colorways?
sanister
Professional
Yes, I believe a poster here compared the two. He was on the solematch bounce playtest by TW. If I recall correctly, the fit was very similar.
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
The next step would be a tennis shoe with lightstrike, a cushion that Adidas has implemented in quite a few performance shoes recently.
It's an extraordinary material. Imagine a lighter version of boost with the same impact protection and better court feel..... That's lightstrike.
The only potential problem is the longevity of the cushioning. How long does it retain it's spring and volume before flattening out? That was always the knock on lunarlon, which was also an amazing foam but suffered from a short shelf life.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
how does it compare to Powercushion or Airzoom cushioning ?? i am not sure why more manufacturere copy this powercushion ? i never seen any cushion that returns this much energy ?
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
In terms of energy return, Yonex might still be the best. The only issue I have had with Yonex shoes is they changed the way the uppers are designed quite drastically. It was a big enough problem for me to stop wearing them even though the cushion is incredible.
Yonex shoes around 2014-2015 were the best on the market imo.
California
Semi-Pro
I agree. I tried on a pair of running shoes with lightstrike and I liked them better than boost running shoes. Super springy and light, don't how long that feel would last but they were impressive. Would love to see an Ubersonic shoe with that midsole.
sanister
Professional
You are absolutely spot on about Lunarlon. It was great but the shoe comfort and cushioning dropped incredibly after longer use.
I might have to try Adidas lightstrike. I am in the market right now for a running shoe. Which ones are the good one?
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
The Adios 5 and SL20 both use lightstrike (adios 5 uses combined boost/ lightstrike) but I think in running shoes, Nike's concept of Zoom X and carbon fiber is the best midsole for doing daily K's. Perfect combination of cushioning and bouncy energy return.
