Brooks Ravenna 7 vs. ASICS GT-2000 4 review

Brooks Ravenna 7 strikes a good balance between stabilty, cushioning, and comfort. ASICS GT-2000 4 delivers a stable and comfortable ride with a secure fit and cushy forefoot.

NEW! Brooks Ravenna 8 vs. ASICS GT-2000 5

The Brooks Ravenna 7 and the ASICS GT-2000 4 are stability running shoes that are meant to provide overpronators with a moderate amount of support and stability, so they should match up well against each other.

ADVERTISEMENTS

The uppers of the ASICS GT-2000 4 The preceding link takes you to Amazon.com and the Brooks Ravenna 7 are similar in that they consist partly or entirely of no-sew overlays and add additional support around the midfoot.

The Brooks Ravenna 7 adds additional support through a band that connects the saddle to the back of the running shoe, while the ASICS GT-2000 4 has broad stitched-on overlays on the medial side where runners need the most support.

The Brooks Ravenna 7 The preceding link takes you to Amazon.com only has stitches at the front and back of the shoe, so the rest of the upper should feel quite comfortable and not cause irriation points.

It also has a forefoot that is quite open, since most of the more supportive overlays have been pulled back on the upper. However, the ASICS GT-2000 4 also has a forefoot that is quite open because of the pulling back of overlays.

The main difference is that the ASICS GT-2000 4 has an external heel counter at the back that gives a good amount of support there, but all in all, both the Brooks Ravenna 7 and the ASICS GT-2000 4 deliver quite a bit of support through their uppers.

If I had big bunions or a wide forefoot, I would go with the ASICS GT-2000 4 instead of the Brooks Ravenna 7, since the ASICS GT-2000 4 is more free of overlays at the sides of the forefoot.

The ASICS GT-2000 4 comes with two layers of foam and GEL cushioning in the heel and the forefoot to soften your ride.

While the Brooks Ravenna 7 provides heel-to-toe cushioning, it is not known to deliver plush cushioning.

However, running shoe lab tests reveal that there is little to no difference to be noted in the amount of forefoot cushioning provided by the ASICS GT-2000 4 and the Brooks Ravenna 7 to women. However, the Brooks Ravenna 7 has a slightly more cushy heel than the ASICS GT-2000 4 for women.

For men, the Brooks Ravenna 7 turns out to also have a more cushy heel than the ASICS GT-2000 4 for men. However, its amount of forefoot cushioning lags far behind that of the ASICS GT-2000 4, which has a super cushy forefoot.

So one can conclude that if you are a heel-striker, the Brooks Ravenna 7 might give you better shock absorption at heel-strike than the ASICS GT-2000 4.

The Brooks Ravenna 7 has a crash pad that runs along the outer edge of the heel and connects well to the forefoot via the midfoot to provide a good amount of ground contact under the shoe.

The ASICS GT-2000 4 has GEL cushioning to help soften your landings and which functions like the crash pad in the Brooks Ravenna 7.

However, the connection between the rearfoot and the forefoot is not as seamless as in the Brooks Ravenna 7, since the ASICS GT-2000 4 has a midfoot shank that provides a good amount of support under the midfoot but does not touch the ground.

The Brooks Ravenna 7 also has a midfoot shank, but it is only located on the medial side of the shoe where there is also a piece of firmer foam to help stop your foot from rolling too far inward.

The support system of the Brooks Ravenna 7 is more concentrated under the heel, whereas that of the ASICS GT-2000 4 comes a bit more forward toward the forefoot.

If you look under the shoe, you will also see that the piece of firmer foam comes far in under the heel, which increases the amount of support provided by the Brooks Ravenna 7.

This might also be why the Brooks Ravenna 7 is rated by running shoe lab tests as being slightly more supportive than the ASICS GT-2000 4.

Keep in mind, however, that the location of the firmer foam may affect the way the pronation is controlled and that some runners may need support while rolling in more toward the forefoot (ASICS GT-2000 4) or more directly under the heel (Brooks Ravenna 7).

So the key is knowing how your foot rolls in as you overpronate, because this will determine which running shoe is suitable for you.

The rubber outsoles of the ASICS GT-2000 4 looks quite different from that of the Brooks Ravenna 7 mainly due to the amount of ground contact provided.

The ASICS GT-2000 4 has a classic outsole with a good amount of flex grooves for flexibility and a good amount of separation for shock absorption.

The outsole of the Brooks Ravenna 7 is a little bit more segmented than that of the ASICS GT-2000 4, so the Brooks Ravenna 7 is more likely to give you a smoother ride due to this and the amount of ground contact it provides.

Running shoe lab tests rate both the Brooks Ravenna 7 and the ASICS GT-2000 4 as being on the stiffer end of the spectrum for both men and women with the Brooks Ravenna 7 being just a tiny bit more flexible for men.

The women's version of the Brooks Ravenna 7 weighs approximately 8.6 oz (244 grams), while the ASICS GT-2000 4 for women weighs approximately 9.2 oz (261 grams).

The men's version of the Brooks Ravenna 7 weighs about 11.0 oz (312 grams) , and the ASICS GT-2000 4 for men weighs 11.3 oz (320 grams).

Whether you choose the Brooks Ravenna 7 or the ASICS GT-2000 4 will depend on the factors mentioned previously in this article, but whichever way you go, they are both very supportive running shoes that provides a good amount of cushioning.

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.


This review falls under: ASICS | Brooks

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.