CBC Marketplace 2019

Evaluation of Basketball Shoes

Human Performance Laboratory

The University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada

Calgary, Canada
A research report for CBC Marketplace
investigating the mechanical properties
of basketball shoes.

Wannop, J.W.
Clermont, C.
Perewernycky, N.
Stefanyshyn, D.J.

Human Performance Laboratory

The University of Calgary
2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2N 1N4

Phone: (403) 220-8637

Email: darren.stefanyshyn@ucalgary.ca
Executive Summary
Marketplace would like to compare the qualities of basketball shoes at different price
points. They are interested to determine the differences/similarities between more and
less expensive footwear and to understand how potential differences could be related to
performance and or injury. Mechanical footwear properties such as traction, cushioning
and forefoot bending stiffness have all been shown to influence athletic performance and
may also influence athlete injury.

Therefore, the primary purpose of this project was to compare mechanical traction,
cushioning and bending stiffness values across a range of basketball shoes. Since
the data and information are being provided for the Marketplace program, a
secondary purpose was to provide commentary on the data as well as
opportunities to capture visuals.

Eleven different basketball shoes selected by CBC Marketplace were mechanically tested
to determine their traction, cushioning and forefoot bending stiffness properties. Outsole
traction of each shoe was tested using a six degree of freedom robotic testing machine.
Footwear midsole stiffness (compliance), energy return and forefoot bending stiffness
were quantified using a servo-hydraulic testing system.

Traction is important for performance and for an athlete to start and stop quickly. Traction
results were similar for both braking and acceleration traction, with Nike shoes having
lower traction, Under Armour shoes having a moderate amount and adidas shoes having
a large amount of traction. While no biomechanical performance data was collected in
this study, it is assumed based on past experience in working with basketball footwear,
that all the footwear included in this study would have sufficient available traction which
would allow for maximum performance of the athletes for most common movements.
Rotational traction has previously been associated with injury risk during cutting and
turning movements in sport. Previous studies have shown increased rotational traction is
associated with an increased risk of lower extremity non-contact injuries. Results were
similar for braking and acceleration traction with Nike having low rotational traction, Under
Armour having moderate rotational traction and adidas having high rotational traction.

In general, shoe manufacturers attempt to maximize energy return as it is believed that

having lower energy loss is associated with increased performance. adidas shoes had
the highest energy return in the rearfoot, with the adidas Harden Vol.3 only losing 18% of
the energy that was put into the shoe. Nike shoes had a moderate amount of energy
return, while Under Armour shoes had higher energy. In the forefoot, the data shifted
slightly with both adidas and Nike footwear having low to moderate energy loss, with both
the Nike Jordan Why Not and the adidas Harden Vol. 2 having the lowest energy loss.

The Under Armour Lockdown had the highest stiffness in both the forefoot as well as the
rearfoot. The Nike Lebron XVI and the adidas Harden Vol. 3 tended to have the highest
compliance (lowest stiffness). The Under Armour Curry 6 had the highest forefoot bending
stiffness while the adidas Dame 5 had the lowest forefoot bending stiffness.

1
Introduction
Marketplace would like to compare the qualities of basketball shoes at different price
points. They are interested to determine the differences/similarities between more and
less expensive footwear and to understand how potential differences could be related to
performance and or injury.

Mechanical footwear properties such as traction, cushioning and forefoot bending

stiffness have all been shown to influence athletic performance and may also influence
athlete injury.

Therefore, the primary purpose of this project was to compare mechanical traction,
cushioning and bending stiffness values across a range of basketball shoes. Since
the data and information are being provided for the Marketplace program, a
secondary purpose was to provide commentary on the data as well as
opportunities to capture visuals.

Methods
Eleven different basketball shoes (Figure 1, Table 1), selected by CBC Marketplace, were
mechanically tested to determine their traction, cushioning and forefoot bending stiffness
properties. All shoe sizes provided were a size US 11.

Table 1. Shoe models tested. Shoe masses represent the mass of a single shoe.

Manufacturer Model Mass [g]

adidas Dame 5 417

adidas Harden Vol 3 468
adidas N3XT L3V3L 391
adidas Pro Spark 2018 374
Jordan Why Not? Zero.2 SP 468
Nike Kyrie Flytrap II 395
Nike Lebron XVI 522
Nike PG 2.5 414
Under Armour Curry 6 376
Under Armour Lightning 5 366
Under Armour Lockdown 3 377

2
Figure 1. Image of all the footwear tested.

Outsole Traction Testing

Testing of the outsole traction of each shoe occurred using a six degree of freedom P2000
servo-driven parallel link robotic testing machine (Mikrolar Inc., Hampton, USA) utilizing
a movable platform stationed under a rigid steel frame. A sample hard court basketball
surface supplied by Robbins, was rigidly attached to the movable platform of the robotic
testing machine and a right prosthetic foot, which was used to simulate a physiological
foot was fitted with each size 11 shoe for testing. The foot and shoe were rigidly attached
to a triaxial load cell mounted on the cross head of the robot (Figure 2).

3
Figure 2. Setup on the robotic testing machine used for translational and rotational
traction testing.

During testing three different movements were investigated in order to determine the
outsole traction of each shoe under a range of common movements in basketball. The
movements consisted of:
• Acceleration – selected to represent an athlete accelerating forward. During testing
the foot was placed in 20o of plantarflexion to simulate the foot orientation during
a sprinting movement. The test consisted of the movable platform being translated
50 mm in the anterior direction at a rate of 100 mm/s.
• Braking – selected to represent an athlete performing a sudden stop. During
testing the foot was placed in a flat position to simulate foot orientation during a
stopping maneuver. The test consisted of the movable platform being translated
50 mm in the posterior direction at a rate of 100 mm/s.
• Rotation movement – selected to represent an athlete performing a cutting or
pivoting movement. The foot was placed in 20o of plantarflexion to simulate foot
orientation during a cutting maneuver. The test consisted of the movable platform
being internally rotated 15o at a rate of 75o/s

All traction tests were performed with a normal load of 750N applied to the shoe and five
trials were conducted for each movement and shoe with force and moment data being
collected at 1000Hz for the duration of each test. The mean values of peak coefficient of
translational traction (ratio of horizontal force to vertical force) and peak moment of
rotation of all footwear conditions were compared between conditions.

4
Rearfoot and Forefoot Cushioning
The stiffness (compliance) and energy return of the footwear midsoles were quantified
using a servo-hydraulic testing system (MTS 858 Mini Bionix II test system, Minneapolis,
USA). Each shoe condition was fitted with a rigid US men’s size 11 shoe last and mounted
onto a force transducer (Figure 3). The transducer-shoe combination was then mounted
onto the crosshead of the MTS machine such that the bottom of the shoe was parallel to
the ground with the entire shoe flat on the surface. Testing was conducted both on the
rearfoot cushioning and on the forefoot cushioning. Testing methodology for both rearfoot
and forefoot cushioning was identical, with the only difference being on how the shoe last
was mounted on the crosshead of the testing system.

Figure 3. Photograph of the rearfoot (left) and forefoot (right) mechanical cushioning
testing setup.

Each shoe condition was subjected to three test sessions with each session consisting of
20 consecutive loading and unloading cycles. It was determined during pilot testing that
this was the number of cycles needed to ensure the midsoles reached steady state
hysteresis (i.e. the hysteresis changed less than 3% from the previous cycle (Sun et al.
2008). During each cycle, the shoe was compressed at a rate of 4250 N/s until a maximal
load of 2000N was reached, at which point the shoe was unloaded until no load was
detected. The loading rate and maximal load were selected as they are representative of
vertical ground reaction forces experienced during running.

During each cycle the force and deformation of the midsoles were recorded at a frequency
of 1000Hz. For data analysis, force-deformation curves of the 20th loading-unloading
cycle were plotted. The stiffness of each midsole was determined by calculating the slope
of a line of best fit to the loading curve. The energy absorbed by the midsole (represented
by the area under the loading curve) and the energy returned by the midsole (represented

5
by the area under the unloading curve) were calculated (Figure 4). The hysteresis or
energy lost by the midsole was represented by the area between the loading and
unloading curves. For each shoe, average stiffness and hysteresis values were calculated
using the 20th loading-unloading cycle from three test sessions.

Figure 4. Sample force-deformation curves obtained from the mechanical cushioning

tests of a stiff shoe with high energy loss (dashed line) and of a soft shoe
with low energy loss (solid line).

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

Forefoot bending stiffness was assessed using the same hydraulic testing system that
was described for cushioning, similar to the methods of Ballun et al. (2011). Briefly, each
shoe was fixed to a load cell mounted on the crosshead of the loading system. For this
test, the shoe was positioned such that the distal part of the forefoot was just touching a
rigid metal plate (Figure 5). The shoe was then displaced downwards as force and
displacement were recorded at 1000Hz.

Figure 5. Photographs of the forefoot bending testing with no bending (left) and
considerable forefoot bending (right).
6
Based on shoe geometry, these data were then used to generate a moment-bending
angle curve to calculate forefoot bending stiffness. The forefoot bending stiffness was
taken as the average slope of the moment-bending angle curve over the duration of the
test. Three trials were conducted for each shoe and the average of the three trials was
compared across conditions.

Results and Discussion

Traction Testing
The results for braking and acceleration traction values of all shoes are shown in Figure
6. In general, the results were similar for both braking and acceleration traction, with Nike
shoes having lower traction (0.86-1.03 for braking and 1.26-1.52 for acceleration), Under
Armour shoes having a moderate amount of traction (0.97-1.08 for braking and 1.58-1.78
for acceleration) and adidas shoes having a large amount of traction (.98-1.25 for braking
and 1.49-1.87 for acceleration). Braking and acceleration traction are important for
performance and for the athlete to start and stop quickly. In general, the athlete needs to
have enough traction between the shoe and the sport surface to prevent slippage while
generating the appropriate ground reaction forces for optimal performance. While traction
can have a large influence on performance if the available traction of the footwear (the
maximum amount of traction that can occur for a specific shoe-surface combination) is
greater than the required or utilized traction of the athletes (the amount of outsole traction
that the athlete needs to perform the specific movement), performance will be unaffected.
If two shoes have large differences in available traction but both shoes provide available
traction which is above the required traction the athlete needs to perform the movement,
then the performance difference between the shoes will be minimal. Luo and Stefanyshyn
(2013) presented evidence that a critical traction threshold exists such that increasing
traction beyond this threshold has no effect on performance. Even if footwear had
substantially different available traction values, athletes were not able to utilize the greater
traction of the footwear in order to increase the athlete’s performance.

While no biomechanical performance data was collected in this study, it is assumed

based on past experience in working with basketball footwear, that all the footwear
included in this study would have sufficient available traction which would allow for
maximum performance of the athletes for most common movements. Worobets and
Wannop (2015) found that increasing traction coefficients from 0.8 to 1.2 resulted in
improved sprint times, cutting drill times and jump and reach heights. All of the tested
shoes had traction values above 1.2 (acceleration traction coefficients) and, therefore, for
the majority of common movements, the athletes would not slip and would have sufficient
performance. However, this cannot be confirmed without biomechanical performance
testing. Additionally, it should be noted that these tests were conducted on a clean, high
quality basketball court surface. Traction values and athlete performance may be altered
based on floor contamination (dust) or if played on different basketball flooring surfaces.

7
Figure 6. Translational traction coefficients calculated during simulated braking and
acceleration conditions.

Rotational traction values from the study are presented in Figure 7. Results were similar
for braking and acceleration traction with Nike having low rotational traction (32-38 Nm),
Under Armour having moderate rotational traction (38-45 Nm) and adidas having high
rotational traction (41-46 Nm).

8
 Better

Figure 7. Rotational traction values (peak moments) for each of the different
basketball shoes measured during a simulated turning movement.

Rotational traction has previously been associated with injury risk during cutting and
turning movements in sport. Previous studies have shown increased rotational traction is
associated with an increased risk of lower extremity non-contact injuries (Wannop et al.
2013; Lambson et al. 1996). Changes in rotational traction of 3.6 Nm measured
mechanically can have a significant influence at increasing the resultant joint loading at
the ankle and knee joint during a cutting movement (Wannop et al. 2019). Therefore, an
athlete would want to select a shoe that had sufficient braking and acceleration traction
in order for them to perform all their movements at maximum performance, while
attempting to minimize rotational traction. However, it is common that rotational traction
and translational traction (braking and acceleration traction coefficients) are highly
correlated, which was also true for the basketball shoes tested in this study (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Correlation of the translational acceleration traction coefficient and the

rotational traction.
9
Cushioning
The energy return in the rearfoot and forefoot of all footwear is shown in Figure 9. adidas
shoes had the highest energy return in the rearfoot, with the adidas Harden Vol.3 only
losing 18% of the energy that was put into the shoe. Nike shoes had a moderate amount
of energy return, while Under Armour shoes had higher energy loss (with the exception
of the Under Armour Curry 6). In the forefoot, the data shifted slightly with both adidas
and Nike footwear having low to moderate energy loss, with both the Nike Jordan Why
Not and the adidas Harden Vol. 2 having the lowest energy loss, only losing 17%. Both
in the heel and the forefoot the Under Armour Lightning 5 and the UA Lockdown 3 had
the highest energy loss, both losing 30% in the heel and over 27% in the forefoot.

r
Bette

r
Bette

Figure 9. Energy return in the rearfoot and the forefoot of the different basketball
shoes.
10
In general, shoe manufacturers attempt to maximize energy return as it is believed that
having lower energy loss in footwear is associated with increased performance (Frederick
et al., 1986). Recent studies have shown that increased energy return in the midsole has
been linked to improved running economy (Worobets et al., 2015; Hoogkamer et al.,
2018).

The cushioning stiffness of the various shoes are shown in Figure 10. The Under Armour
Lockdown had the highest stiffness in both the forefoot as well as the rearfoot. The Nike
Lebron XVI and the adidas Harden Vol. 3 tended to have the highest compliance (lowest
stiffness). Some shoes varied in their cushioning stiffness depending on location; for
example the adidas N3XT L3V3L had a lower stiffness in the rearfoot and a higher
stiffness in the forefoot.

Cushioning stiffness has been shown to be important for perception of footwear comfort
with lower stiffness generally being perceived as more comfortable (Goonetilleke, 1999).
This is especially true in the rearfoot due to large forces that exist during heel landings
during movements such as running. In basketball, forefoot landings during jumping are
also common and, therefore, forefoot cushioning is also an important factor in the comfort
of basketball shoes. Thus, in general, lower stiffness is linked to improved comfort with
the caveat that if the stiffness is too low, the cushioning will not be sufficient to support
the large forces during landing, which may lead to “bottoming out” of the shoe and
associated large, uncomfortable forces.

11
Figure 10. Forefoot and rearfoot cushioning stiffness of the tested basketball shoes.

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

The Under Armour Curry 6 had the highest forefoot bending stiffness while the adidas
Dame 5 had the lowest forefoot bending stiffness (Figure 11). Increased forefoot bending
stiffness may be a suitable footwear intervention to reduce the risk of athletes suffering
metatarsal stress fractures and metatarsophalangeal joint sprains, however, the efficacy
of this potential intervention currently remains unknown and targeted research within
these areas is needed (Stefanyshyn and Wannop, 2016).

Figure 11. Forefoot bending stiffness of the different basketball shoes.

12
The general consensus in the literature is that bending stiffness can influence
performance, and there appears to be a specific amount of forefoot bending stiffness to
elicit performance increases with most athletes performing optimally with footwear of
medium stiffness and sustaining a negative reaction when performing in footwear of low
or high stiffness (Stefanyshyn and Wannop, 2016). Unfortunately, the exact optimal
stiffness remains unknown and it appears that it may differ depending on the activity or
movement. However, Worobets and Wannop (2015) showed that increasing bending
stiffness from 0.22 to 0.33 Nm/deg improved sprinting, cutting and jumping movements.
It is likely, therefore, that shoes with bending stiffness lower than 0.22 Nm/deg have
reduced performance but it remains unknown if shoes with bending stiffness higher than
0.33 Nm/deg have either improved or reduced performance.

References
Frederick, E.C., Howley, E.T. and Powers, S.K. (1986) Lower oxygen demands of
running in soft soled shoes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 57(2), 174-177.

Goonetilleke, R.S. (1999) Footwear cushioning: Relating objective and subjective

measures. Human Factors, 41(2), 241-256.

Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S. and Kram, R. (2018) The biomechanics of competitive male
runners in three marathon racing shoes: a randomized crossover study. Sports
Medicine, 49(1), 133-143.

Lambson, R., Barnhill, B. and Higgings, R. (1996) Football cleat design and its effect on
anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a three-year prospective study. The American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 24(2), 155-159.

Pavailler, S. and Horvais, N. (2014) Sliding allows faster repositioning during tennis
specific movements on hard court. Procedia Engineering, 72, 859-864.

Stefanyshyn, D.J. and Wannop, J.W. (2016) The influence of forefoot bending stiffness
of footwear on athletic injury and performance. Footwear Science, 8(2), 51-63.

Wannop, J.W., Luo, G. and Stefanyshyn, D.J. (2013) Footwear traction and lower
extremity non-contact injury. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45(11),
2137-2143.

Wannop, J.W., Foreman, T., Madden, R. and Stefanyshyn, D.J. (2019) Influence of the
composition of artificial turf on rotational traction and athlete biomechanics. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 37(16), 1849-1856.

Worobets, J.T., Wannop, J.W., Tomaras, E., and Stefanyshyn, D.J. (2014) Softer and
more resilient running shoe cushioning properties enhance running economy. Footwear
Science, 6(3), 147-153.

13
Worobets, J. and Wannop, J.T. (2015) Influence of basketball shoe mass, outsole
traction, and forefoot bending stiffness on three athletic movements. Sports
Biomechanics, 14(3), 351-360.

14