What's so special about "tennis" shoes

[sstchur]

I have foot problems and it was recommended to me (by a doctor) to get a very high quality pair of shoes. He was talking high quality, like, brands I've never heard of (not Nike or Adidas or Prince, etc...)

His suggestion was Brooks. He claimed that they are one of the very best quality shoes, but you don't hear of them because they put their money into making good shoes (as opposed to advertising).

I did some research and it seems that Brooks made a variety of athletic shoes, but nothing labeled "tennis" as such.

If a pair of cross-trainer Brooks are going to provide the necessary comfort and support to counter the problems I'm having, why not use them? Wouldn't a really high-quality pair of "non-tennis" shoes still be better for me when playing tennis than a lower-quality, less comfortable pair of "tennis" shoes?

What's so special about the "tennis" label? As long as I've got traction, support, cushioning, and it's a kind of shoe material that will not harm the court, isn't that all that really matters?

 

[ODYSSEY Mk.4]

i believe tennis shoes are designed for multi directional movement. while running and walking shoes are designed for forward only im not sure if im any help here

 

[DizBoiDanny]

Tennis shoes has more durability and less likely to break your feet

 

[BreakPoint]

Most athletic shoes (e.g., running, etc.) are designed for you to move in only one direction - forward. Tennis shoes are designed for you to move in all directions as lateral stability is very important in tennis. Also, tennis shoes tend to use more durable outsoles as sudden stops and starts takes off a lot of rubber.

 

[esm]

i have a pair of Brooks ( GTS 8 ) for running and gym training. they were selected due to the size/shape of my feet and they way i walk and run (one-directional). they'd feel "higher quality" because you have spent more time in selecting it to make sure it suits your feet/requirement.
now i have had it for a while, i wouldnt run in another pair of shoes.

i wouldnt wear my Brooks for tennis. it has no lateral support (the mesh front & sides provides great vetilation during running, but no support at all).

 

[Il Mostro]

I have been a long-time fan of the Brooks Beast (until they mucked it up with the newest version) which is the king of support oriented running shoes. Even the Beast would not provide the lateral support needed for tennis. I wish they made tennis shoes, as their products are well engineered and are first rate in materials/construction. Brooks does plenty of marketing in serious running circles, not the mass market.

 

[tacotanium]

me too. i have foot problems as well. after i change to wear some expensive running shoes to play tennis everything turned out fine. i can play a lot longer than usual. but i'm still deciding if i want a pair of badminton shoes or tennis shoes. i was reading a few thread on this forum the adidas barricade v (what i really wanted) tears down on you in a few weeks. yonex badminton shoes have really good cushion, but i never worn any of these shoes before so i don't know if they support the arc of your feet well. running shoes have a nice arc to support though. i might as well buy another running shoes.

Most athletic shoes (e.g., running, etc.) are designed for you to move in only one direction - forward. Tennis shoes are designed for you to move in all directions as lateral stability is very important in tennis. Also, tennis shoes tend to use more durable outsoles as sudden stops and starts takes off a lot of rubber.

most? you mean most athletic shoes are made for all directional movements. basketball shoes, badminton, football, baseball, soccer. running is the only sport i can think of that their shoes goes in one direction.

 

[sstchur]

Right... why is the general consensus that most athletic shoes are meant for only one direction? Basketball shoes come to mind right away as shoes that would need to give you support moving in multiple directions.

If you ask me, I think an awful lot of this is just to get people to spend money on "tennis" shoes.

 

[ag200boy]

not athletic shoes that are for unidirectional movement, brooks are running shoes, and in running you only go forward and backward so instead of a stable side of the shoe it is just mesh for comfort

 

[sstchur]

With Brooks in particular, perhaps you're correct.

But my points still remains. If you find a pair of "athletic" shoes, that have good lateral support and all the qualities needed for the movements of tennis, then "tennis" label or not, why not use them? Especially if they fit you better than any pair of "tennis" shoes.

The point is that the label "tennis" isn't magic, but people seem to think it is. Everyone seems to think that if the label "tennis" is missing, then the shoe CAN'T POSSIBLY provide the proper lateral support needed for playing tennis. That's silly.

 

[sphinx780]

With Brooks in particular, perhaps you're correct.

But my points still remains. If you find a pair of "athletic" shoes, that have good lateral support and all the qualities needed for the movements of tennis, then "tennis" label or not, why not use them? Especially if they fit you better than any pair of "tennis" shoes.

The point is that the label "tennis" isn't magic, but people seem to think it is. Everyone seems to think that if the label "tennis" is missing, then the shoe CAN'T POSSIBLY provide the proper lateral support needed for playing tennis. That's silly.

Agreed, it doesn't need the label as long as it falls into having the qualities that are required of a functional tennis shoe...lateral stability, proper cushioning, non marking soles, proper court traction, etc. The proper fit is just as important as the rest of the factors.

 

[monomakh]

"Tennis" shoes are the only kind made with the high durability rubber over the front and side areas to protect my foot from my ridiculous toe dragging.

Otherwise, anything that didn't mark and provided lateral support would be fine.

 

[_mats_]

The point is that the label "tennis" isn't magic, but people seem to think it is. Everyone seems to think that if the label "tennis" is missing, then the shoe CAN'T POSSIBLY provide the proper lateral support needed for playing tennis. That's silly.

Then play with the Brooks, you started asking an honest question but now you are defending yourself, as if you already had the answer.

 

[Cup8489]

With Brooks in particular, perhaps you're correct.

But my points still remains. If you find a pair of "athletic" shoes, that have good lateral support and all the qualities needed for the movements of tennis, then "tennis" label or not, why not use them? Especially if they fit you better than any pair of "tennis" shoes.

The point is that the label "tennis" isn't magic, but people seem to think it is. Everyone seems to think that if the label "tennis" is missing, then the shoe CAN'T POSSIBLY provide the proper lateral support needed for playing tennis. That's silly.

many athletic shoes are made so that the foot sits in them at an angle, almost like a permanent ramp under your foot in order to get maximum acceleration. tennis shoes are completely flatsoled, so you can move in any direction..

plus theyre more durable than most athletic shoes.

 

[yoh4u]

tennis shoes to me last way longer than any other pair i have.

 

[tacotanium]

"tennis shoes"....it's just how they make money. thats all. same with all other sport shoes.

tennis shoes to me last way longer than any other pair i have.

are they comfortable as well?? i'm saving up for the barricade v maybe.

 

[BreakPoint]

most? you mean most athletic shoes are made for all directional movements. basketball shoes, badminton, football, baseball, soccer. running is the only sport i can think of that their shoes goes in one direction.

Football, baseball, and soccer shoes are actually cleats and I don't think they have as much lateral support as tennis shoes do. Would you wear football, baseball or soccer cleats to play tennis is? That was my point.

 

[BreakPoint]

Serious tennis players wear tennis shoes. They offer much better traction, stability, lateral support, and durabilty than most other plain "athletic shoes". But if you're not a serious tennis player and only play once in a blue moon then go ahead and wear your basketball shoes or cross trainers.

 

[volusiano]

If you ask me, I think an awful lot of this is just to get people to spend money on "tennis" shoes.

I can almost always tell right away by looking at the design of the sole of a pair of shoes whether they're for tennis or not. I don't need to make sure it says "tennis" on the shoes or on the rack or box first before I decide to look at the shoes.

The point is that shoe makers don't just "slap" the tennis label on shoes for marketing purposes so that people HAVE to buy shoes only with the "Tennis" label. They actually design the shoes with the specific purpose of optimizing them for tennis play, and the most tell tale sign is on the sole.

If you happen to find a pair of shoes that meets all your criteria for playing tennis but is not labelled for tennis, then by all means use them for tennis. Nobody is going to stop you.

But don't turn it around and try to say that people are dumb enough to let shoes makers dub them into buying expensive shoes just because they slap on the "tennis" label. Give people more credit than that. They buy tennis shoes because they know what they want and what they can expect out of those shoes.

 

[tacotanium]

Football, baseball, and soccer shoes are actually cleats and I don't think they have as much lateral support as tennis shoes do. Would you wear football, baseball or soccer cleats to play tennis is? That was my point.

hahaha. yes i know those have cleats and no one won't want to play tennis with them. i was just saying that your statement was wrong:

Most athletic shoes (e.g., running, etc.) are designed for you to move in only one direction"

but actually running shoes are the only athletic shoes designed for you to move in one direction. honestly i think badminton shoes are the best for multi-direction movements since the sports requirement a lot of weight shift in all direction. but the thing is they aren't made for concrete so they won't last long.

 

[staedtler]

With Brooks in particular, perhaps you're correct.

But my points still remains. If you find a pair of "athletic" shoes, that have good lateral support and all the qualities needed for the movements of tennis, then "tennis" label or not, why not use them? Especially if they fit you better than any pair of "tennis" shoes.

The point is that the label "tennis" isn't magic, but people seem to think it is. Everyone seems to think that if the label "tennis" is missing, then the shoe CAN'T POSSIBLY provide the proper lateral support needed for playing tennis. That's silly.

In some ways you are correct. There are shoes besides tennis shoes that have enough lateral support needed to play tennis. Basketball shoes are very much good enough to play tennis in. Some good crosstrainers with some strong forefoot overlays can provide lateral support. Volleyball shoes could handle the movements of tennis players. Alot of bball shoes and volleyball shoes borrow the radiused edge on the medial side of the outsole, from tennis shoes. Bethanie Mattek, she use to wear a lot of basketball shoes for her matches. Ive seen her in pairs of Nike basketball shox shoes, and Jordan shoes. So really theres not stopping you from using other shoes for tennis, unless it has a marking sole, then those clubs with hardcourts will really hound you.

But what makes tennis shoes, so effective for tennis, is that they are designed for that sport specifically in that they are definitely more durable than say a basketball shoe. In terms of durability, bball shoe outsoles would wear out pretty quickly. Unless it was a street bball shoe, then you might get away with it.

Sadly we can't compare cleats to tennis shoes. But I think if you were to put a tennis soleplate on a football cleat, youd get a pretty supportive shoe.

 

[RestockingTues]

I play tennis in basketball shoes. If they're new though, they feel pretty heavy because the concrete hasn't scuffed off all of the material yet.