Tennis Shoes Aren't Comfortable Like They Used To ...

WilsonPlayer101

Professional
I'm pushing 50 and I know from past experience that shoes used to be built more comfortably.

I understand that today's shoes are lighter and more streamlined with the thought in mind to be more maneuverable but I think actually comfort and support for your foot has gone out the window. Even K-Swiss are not that comfortable.

I bought some shoes today. I don't buy from TW or any online source tennis shoes unless it's a model I know works well for me. I will buy racquets and strings and other gear from TW but shoes I have to try on. Now I know a shoe I bought today is good I can buy from TW. This goes for other shoes, just not tennis. For example, at Ross about two years ago I tried on some Brooks Ascend running shoes that were inexpensive there but expensive full price at a regular retail store. Those shoes are super comfortable and supportive and not too heavy. Now I know the Ascend work for me and what size is right in that model, now I can buy online which I have since.

Okay, so I need new tennis shoes, I am long overdue. I was wearing a pair of Diadora I started wearing a year ago and these were good at once but now way worn out. I finally have time to go to the tennis shop near me and buy some. So it's sad, I try out about 7 different brands and many models of each brand and I can only come up with one that really is the right shoe for me and a couple others that are a bit better than just okay. I settled on the Head Revolt in 11. I'm normally 10.5 but in some brands you need to go up and this one I did. This Revolt had a good arch support and the whole shoe had good support for my whole foot. The Nike Cage 2 was roomy and comfortable enough but it didn't feel as supportive as the Revolt. Another I semi-liked was a K-Swiss. I forget which model but it was passable for a good shoe but not nearly as good as the Revolt. Sadly K-Swiss used to be one of the most comfortable and most supportive shoe out there in my opinion but they followed suit as the other major brands and now aren't really that good in terms of comfort and support. Just 10 years ago my wife bought me some K-Swiss. I forget the model. It was the most comfortable and supportive shoe. I wish I had foresaw the change of shoe design and stocked up on old school tennis shoes. Some people describe really comfortable plush tennis shoes as being bulky and built like a boat but not all were all that bulky but at the same time they were of great comfort.

I think younger people who just started playing about 10 years ago when shoes started to change drastically are none the wiser but for people who have been playing since the 80s or 90s or very early Y2K we know better, we have something to compare to.

Even running shoes. I use good running shoes as my everyday walking shoes when I don't need to wear dress shoes. I found that the running shoes sub-$100 aren't really that comfortable. I need to buy something along the lines of a over $100 Brooks or Asics to get that feels really good and are supportive. The Big 5 usual lower line Asics don't cut it. I don't have to spend over $100 for a good one but I mean ones that usually go for over $100 are the right ones. I always find them on discount somewhere. So I may spend $90 plus tax or shipping on a closeout model but they normally would be about $130 or up. If the Ascend 2 is an old model and the 3 is out I can find the 2 for a lot less than the 3 or when the 2 was a new model.

Shoes now are either too narrow in the toe box or they lack arch support or the general support for the foot is just not there. Most shoes that I tried feel like shoes that I have worn out and feel hard under the foot with no much cushion. Like a shoes that started out good but now has not much support. If I wanted that I would just keep on wearing my old Diadora that were once good.

Do you old school players like me notice the difference in shoes now? And you fairly new players who started in the past 10 years do feel shoes don't have much support or cushion even though you haven't had much experience with a really good supportive shoe?
 

Lukhas

Legend
It's funny you didn't see this thread that complains exactly about what you're talking about:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-decline-of-proper-cushioning.502040/

You also have to consider that 20+ years ago, you weren't pushing 50 either. That also has an impact. Personally, being younger and even though they've been reissued a few times, I wouldn't dream of using a Air Max Oscillate or a Air Tech Challenge 2 on court for more than a couple of reasons.
 

WilsonPlayer101

Professional
It's funny you didn't see this thread that complains exactly about what you're talking about:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-decline-of-proper-cushioning.502040/

You also have to consider that 20+ years ago, you weren't pushing 50 either. That also has an impact. Personally, being younger and even though they've been reissued a few times, I wouldn't dream of using a Air Max Oscillate or a Air Tech Challenge 2 on court for more than a couple of reasons.

Hi Lukhas,

Thanks for the reply. Funny enough, after I posted my thread I saw the other thread about 20 minutes later. So now I am working on reading that one.

I wasn't pushing 50 20+ years ago but my feet have good memory (similar to muscle memory) as does my mind, so I can say without a shadow of a doubt that shoes back then, even 10 years ago were more comfortable and offered better overall support as well as specifically arch support.

I spoke to a regional sales rep for Reebok a few months back while at a Reebok outlet store and I mentioned what I mentioned above and he claims that the Millennials don't want a bigger toe box for example, they want a more cut toe box to look cooler. They are more into looks than fit and feel and comfort. To me it sounds like the shoe industry convincing the young public that you want cooler looking shoes rather than fit, then the Millenials believe that and decide that is what they want. So the shoe companies cut back on materials and save a little bit of money each shoe which adds to the bottom line of their balance sheet because saving $2 on material per shoe adds up to millions of dollars to the bottom-line each year or billions over the years.
 

Lukhas

Legend
Hi Lukhas,

Thanks for the reply. Funny enough, after I posted my thread I saw the other thread about 20 minutes later. So now I am working on reading that one.

I wasn't pushing 50 20+ years ago but my feet have good memory (similar to muscle memory) as does my mind, so I can say without a shadow of a doubt that shoes back then, even 10 years ago were more comfortable and offered better overall support as well as specifically arch support.

I spoke to a regional sales rep for Reebok a few months back while at a Reebok outlet store and I mentioned what I mentioned above and he claims that the Millennials don't want a bigger toe box for example, they want a more cut toe box to look cooler. They are more into looks than fit and feel and comfort. To me it sounds like the shoe industry convincing the young public that you want cooler looking shoes rather than fit, then the Millenials believe that and decide that is what they want. So the shoe companies cut back on materials and save a little bit of money each shoe which adds to the bottom line of their balance sheet because saving $2 on material per shoe adds up to millions of dollars to the bottom-line each year or billions over the years.
I don't feel the CourtBallistec 2.3 nor the Barricade 5 were significantly more comfortable or supportive than today's Barricade 2017 (or even the 2016) nor the Lunar Ballistec (or the Zoom Cage, or even the Air Max Cage). And these are shoes that are about 10 years old too that I did wear. The only advantage the Barricade 5 had over the newer ones was the absurd level of durability they offered, and the newer ones aren't poor on that regard. The newer ones are far more comfortable, less bulky and very supportive while being way lighter. The Lunar are quite the departure from the CourtBallistec line, but they're certainly not any less comfortable nor supportive while being more streamlined. However they're also far less durable than the old CourtBallistec, and I dislike Lunarlon cushioning personally as I find it mushy and pillowy. The 2.3s were significantly bulkier than the 4.3 and even more so than the Lunar, no question about it; nevermind the Cage line.

And for even older shoes, just a look at the Air Oscillate or the Air Tech Challenge 2 are enough for me to completely dismiss them compared to modern shoes. Very soft, fake leather uppers that also are heavy, bulky look and build (especially for the Challenge), thin outsole (again, especially for the Challenge), no protection on the medial side, terrible ventilation. I wouldn't even consider them on par with more modern, top of the line shoes even if they do have their enthusiasts as I have a coach who did buy a pair of the reissued Challenges them for very casual hitting as well as coaching. Needless to mention, he was a 90's kid too.

EDIT: Basically, I think that while anyone can very well have fond memories of a model or regret a specific shoe model, it's a big stretch to say that today's top tier tennis shoes are worse in any way than shoes from 10 or 20 years ago. Even if I do wish Lotto would bring back the Raptor, and they're not even that old.
 
Last edited:

Ramon

Legend
I'm 52, so been through a lot of shoes over the years. I actually feel the opposite way. For me, athletic shoes in general are better than they have been in the past. They have better cushioning (Boost, Zoom Air, Micro G, etc.) and they have more support and ventilation. If you want arch support, the aftermarket insoles are a better solution because you can find an insole that's right for you instead of relying on a stock insole that's made for everyone. One difference between us is that I have a narrow foot, so obviously I don't mind shoes that are designed for a snug fit.
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
i'll be 50 next year.. and shoes used to be awful.... when i was a kid and starting to olay the shoes were slabs of rubber.. but my feet didn't care. shoes then got quite a bit better but were not durable at all. todays shoes are pretty good considering how hard tennis is on shoes.. and the quick stops and turns you have to make all the time. shoes last 2 months.. 8-10 hours a week of tennis. i have been saying it a lot lately but i love the cage from nike.. they last well for those 2 months.. the structure and comfort of the shoe last until the sole wears out and they are ready to be sent in for the guarantee. i am glad they have a 6 month warranty..but don't last nearly that long..because if the sole lived for 4 months you would have to wear that shoe past it's prime to get the benefit of the warranty.. 2 months is not great when these shoes are north of $100.. 80 hours on a pair of shoes is not bad when a fresh pair shows up in your mailbox.
 

airchallenge2

Hall of Fame
S#it, I am old too and think that shoes have never been more comfortable and better than they are nowadays. You mentioned Brooks and Asics, names that make excellent choices. Have you tried boost? It's like something else! In the history of mankind there has never been a more comfortable shoe material as boost! And I am in no way affiliated with adidas.
 

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
Shoes are too highly specialized now. You have to try on 100 pair in every conceivable combination of sizes to find one that fits just right. Only to take them home to find out that after 3 weeks of wearing said shoe, they are killing your feet. :-(
 

mctennis

Legend
I'm 52, so been through a lot of shoes over the years. I actually feel the opposite way. For me, athletic shoes in general are better than they have been in the past. They have better cushioning (Boost, Zoom Air, Micro G, etc.) and they have more support and ventilation. If you want arch support, the aftermarket insoles are a better solution because you can find an insole that's right for you instead of relying on a stock insole that's made for everyone. One difference between us is that I have a narrow foot, so obviously I don't mind shoes that are designed for a snug fit.
I think you are right in the point of the shoes being better. They tend to have better feel and support. However, I see a trend now going in opposite direction. Less true material for comfort and now all money spent in the looks. They have gone from leather to plastic ( they say it breathes better and is lighter on your foot). I think plastic is plastic regardless of how many holes they put in it. It makes my feet sweat and gives less support to the foot. The plastic tend to hold moisture and they will smell more. The men's locker room always has that funky smell in it when they leave their wet shoes inside the lockers. It definitely costs less and as far as weight, I have NEVER had an issue of a shoe feeling heavy on my feet. If you have that issue , go to the gym and do some leg weight training. These aren't the 10 lb Converse Chuck Taylor All Star rubber soled shoes we wore in gym class years ago ( thank goodness).
 

prjacobs

Hall of Fame
I'm pushing 68. (how the h**l did that happen[emoji4]?) and in the old days, I'd occasionally lose the nail on my big right toe, running towards the net and stopping. I found that Nikes,with a narrower toe box, prevented my feet from sliding forward and jamming my toes. I've never had a more comfortable shoe than my Asics GSS2s, clay version. And I find the newer Nikes just as comfortable as they ever were.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Top