Brooks Ravenna 10 vs. ASICS GT-2000 7 review

Brooks Ravenna 10 provides comfort and a responsive ride to overpronators. ASICS GT-2000 7 provides a supportive and responsive ride to overpronators and neutral runners.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 and the ASICS GT-2000 7 are stability running shoes for mild to moderate overpronators.

ADVERTISEMENTS

The uppers of the Brooks Ravenna 10 The preceding link takes you to Amazon.com and the ASICS GT-2000 7 offer different things to runners.

The ASICS GT-2000 7 The preceding link takes you to Amazon.com comes with a forefoot that is free from overlays, so you should be able to get a good amount of comfort from the toe box of the ASICS GT-2000 7.

As you move back, the ASICS GT-2000 7 increases the amount of support you get through overlays and underlays around the midfoot, including straps that can be pulled tight through the saddle.

Finally, the structure of the upper becomes more closed around the heel and there is a piece of material that hooks at the back.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 is different in that almost its entire upper consists of mesh that delivers very lightweight support.

Then it has an internal bootie that should be able to give you a closer-to-foot fit.

Therefore, when you compare the upper of the Brooks Ravenna 10 with that of the ASICS GT-2000 7, both running shoes should be able to deliver comfort through their uppers, but the ASICS GT-2000 7 turns out to be the one that offers much more support in terms of a secure fit around the midfoot, where overpronators tend to need the most support.

The midsoles of the ASICS GT-2000 7 and the Brooks Ravenna 10 differ in that the Brooks Ravenna 10 has a all-in-one midsole, while the ASICS GT-2000 7 has a midsole that consists of two layers of foam with GEL cushioning between those two layers.

Neither the Brooks Ravenna 10 nor the ASICS GT-2000 7 is meant to deliver tons of cushioning, because they are running shoes that are meant to feel responsive.

However, the Brooks Ravenna 10 was updated to have more foam under the forefoot, which should also increase the cushiness in that area.

The ASICS GT-2000 7 has been found to deliver a good amount of forefoot cushioning, but its heel cushioning is on the moderate side.

ADVERTISEMENTS

So in that respect, the cushioning profiles of the Brooks Ravenna 10 and the ASICS GT-2000 7 would not differ by a huge amount.

The main difference between the midsoles of the Brooks Ravenna 10 and the ASICS GT-2000 7 is the way in which they provide support.

The ASICS GT-2000 7 is more traditional in that it comes with a support system on the medial side of the midsole and has a midfoot shank to increase the amount of support you get under the midfoot.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 implements a more subtle way of delivering support through GuideRails, which are elevated sections at the upper edge of the midsole.

Because GuideRails are a more gentle way of providing support, they should theoretically speaking not get in the way of neutral runners.

So while the Brooks Ravenna 10 has been listed as a running shoe that delivers support, it could also be worn by neutral runners who require a little bit of support.

Note that the ASICS GT-2000 7 has been listed as a running shoe that can be worn by both neutral runners and overpronators.

In the case of the ASICS GT-2000 7, there is a thinner layer of softer foam just above the support system on the medial side, so if you are a neutral runner who does not turn their feet inward during the gait cycle, you should not feel the firmer foam on the medial side. However, you might still feel and get support from the midfoot shank.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 provides some additional support through the amount of ground contact that it delivers. This ground contact also helps you to achieve smoother heel-to-toe transitions.

When you look at the two running shoes as a whole so consider the support in the upper as well as in the midsole, the ASICS GT-2000 7 would be the one that delivers a bit more support than the Brooks Ravenna 10.

The rubber outsoles of the two running shoes have been set up in a different way and have different goals in mind.

The ASICS GT-2000 7 has less flex grooves in its forefoot than the Brooks Ravenna 10, and it has large areas of rubber, so the main purpose of the ASICS GT-2000 7 is to deliver durability through its outsole, and it is less concerned with flexibility.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 connects its heel to its forefoot by using rubber with an X pattern under the midfoot to deliver faster heel-to-toe transitions. It also has a good amount of flex grooves and small rubber pods.

Therefore, the goal of the Brooks Ravenna 10 is to help you achieve smoother and faster heel-to-toe transitions.

The good amount of forefoot cushioning delivered by both running shoes is likely to make them feel somewhat stiff, but stiffness is a good thing for stability and support.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 is a bit lighter than the ASICS GT-2000 7 for both men and women, according to manufacturer's data.

If you are a mild to moderate overpronator who is looking for a comfortable and responsive ride, you could turn to either the Brooks Ravenna 10 or the ASICS GT-2000 7.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 has been kept light to help you run faster, and it uses a more subtle way of delivering stability and support. The latter has been claimed to reduce knee injuries.

The ASICS GT-2000 7 is a more traditional and durable running shoe that delivers support where overpronators need it most.

Note: The weight of a running shoe depends on the size of the running shoe, so any weights mentioned in this review may differ from the weight of the running shoe you choose to wear. Running shoes of the same size were compared for this review.

The two links above will take you to Amazon.com where you can read more about the running shoes.


Disclaimer: This running shoe review on www.motioncontrolrunningshoe.org is based on personal research and analysis of data that has been made publicly available by running shoe manufacturers and other companies that are dedicated to serving runners, and is not claimed to be accurate, complete, or up to date. While the information presented in this review is intended to help you better understand the differences between running shoes, we shall not be held liable for any purchasing decisions you make based on this information. Please use your own good judgment before making a purchase. The owner of this website receives a small compensation whenever you buy a product after clicking a product link on this website. Read our full disclaimer and privacy policy.