Wilson Rush Pro 2.0 Women's Shoe Review

Comfort - Score: 3.5

The Rush Pro 2.0s are quicker, lower to the ground and even more stable than their predecessor. For the most part our playtesters found a great fit, but they did quickly note that Wilson removed some of the plush cushioning from the original version. When Tiffani first put these shoes on she felt the fit was good for her wider feet. She explained, "I didn't feel any pinching and my feet sat comfortably in the shoes. The shoes flexed pretty well right out of the box, but it took about a half-hour to an hour before I felt the shoes had loosened up for optimal heel-to-toe movements. I liked the low ride in these shoes, but I did miss some cushioning. The minimal cushioning offered good court feel, and I enjoyed that on the court. However, after logging an hour or more on the courts my feet would be a little sore. It wasn't bothersome on the court, but the mild soreness set in about 15 minutes after leaving the court."

Karly noticed that there was more cushioning in the original Rush Pro. However, she was happy that the 2.0s still did a good job keeping her feet comfortable during play. She said, "The Rush Pro 2.0s offered just enough padding in the right spots to prevent any blisters on my feet. They needed a tiny bit of a break-in, especially where the upper creased and my feet flexed, but that stiffness went away after the second or third time I wore them. They didn't live up to the exceptional comfort of the original Rush Pros, but I was happy with the comfort of the 2.0s since they never caused any foot pain or discomfort."

"Overall, these shoes were pretty comfortable," began Michelle, "but it was obvious from the beginning that these weren't as plush as the previous Rush Pros. However, they did feel noticeably lighter and faster. I did have two minor issues with the comfort of these shoes, though. I experienced a little bit of toe jamming when I was on a full sprint to the ball and I had some arch soreness. My higher arches were craving a bit more support, so I changed the insole for an easy fix. Besides those two things the Rush Pro 2.0s fit my feet well, and they were comfortable in every other way."

Brittany and her narrow feet needed a few hours to break in these shoes. She offered, "At the start of the playtest the uppers were creasing in the toe box area and digging into the top of my feet. After a couple hitting sessions the upper softened up and the creasing was no longer an issue. Compared to the previous version, I found the cushioning to be supportive and firm rather than plush. There was adequate cushioning around the ankle collar, but I wanted more in the tongue. The fit was on the wider side for me so my feet were moving around inside the shoes, but I had no issues with rubbing."

Ventilation - Score: 3.4

Our team playtested the Rush Pro 2.0s during the mild months of winter in California so they didn't get to put the ventilation to a true test. However, the team agreed that the ventilation was about average. Karly did find that once she started moving around on the court her feet felt warm, but not bothered. She said, "My feet tend to run hot, so I'm used to warm feet even with well ventilated shoes in higher temperatures. There aren't a lot of perforations in the toe box, so it didn't surprise me that they ran a little hot. I'm just happy that they weren't hot enough to distract me during play."

Michelle felt like there was more breathability in the Rush Pro 2.0s than there was in the original Rush Pros. She noted, "It was winter when we were playtesting these shoes so the conditions were never really hot. Let's just put it this way, I never noticed the shoes overheating and the ventilation was never an issue for me. I was happy with the level of breathability."

Agreeing that these shoes had about average ventilation was Brittany, who commented, "There were some warmer days when I felt my feet heating up and I took off my shoes as soon as I was done. The mesh panels on the upper helped with air circulation, but I would have liked a little more ventilation."

Tiffani said, "Ventilation was average for me as well. I didn't find the Rush Pro 2.0s to be extremely breathable and my feet sweat as usual even on cool days. However, the breathability was adequate."

Arch Support - Score: 3.6

While our playtesters with low and medium arches found the arch support of the Rush Pro 2.0s to work well for their feet, our playtester with higher arches had a bit of an issue. One of Michelle's least favorite things about these shoes was the arch support. She explained, "I have a higher arch and don't usually need high support, but something about these shoes caused some discomfort for me. I noticed my feet aching when I warmed up and when I got off the court, so I ended up changing out the insoles to something that supported my arch a little better and had a bit more cushioning, which seemed to help."

The rest of the playtest team had no complaints. Brittany and her medium arches were plenty happy in these shoes. She said, "The arch support hit in the right place and was the perfect height. I didn't have any issues!"

"The arch support seemed pretty low to flat to me," said Tiffani. "I do have flat feet, but I also prefer some arch support. Often I switch out to Superfeet insoles, although I stuck with the stock insoles on this playtest. After a couple of hitting sessions the arches molded to my feet. I didn't experience any arch pains -- always a good sign."

Karly added, "The arches were low, but they worked just fine for my flat feet. The shoes offered just enough cushioning to not cause any issues or pain for me on the court."

Foot Support/Stability - Score: 3.5

With a new Pro Torque Chassis, the Rush Pro 2.0s provide support and a stable ride. Because the shoes fit too wide for her narrow feet, Brittany was having trouble securing her feet inside the shoes. She explained, "My ankle was the most secure because I was able to tie my laces tightly and the ankle collar hit at the right height. However, the rest of my foot was twisting and sliding around in the shoe when I was making aggressive movements. It was most noticeable when I was making a sudden change of direction; the shoes would stop but my feet kept sliding over the edge almost to the tipping point."

On the other hand, since Tiffani found the shoes to be pretty light and they fit her feet well, she felt secure in her lateral movements. She offered, "These shoes always supported my ankles well. I only had a few instances where the shoes felt pushed to their limits. When I was really stretched out and trying to push back quickly to the other side my feet tended to slide off the footbed slightly. There was no chance of rollover on any of these occasions, but because of the lack of cushioning I could really feel it underfoot. Still, for as light as the shoes felt to me I was impressed with the level of support and stability."

Karly felt the Rush Pro 2.0s did their job when it came to support and stability. She said, "There was enough support to keep my feet safe when I made quick cuts and aggressive movements. However, my expectations from testing the originals left me slightly disappointed. I thought the 2.0s lost some stability. The uppers loosened up much faster, especially around the ankles, and they didn't make the shoes feel as secure. They did provide average support to keep my feet safe, and that's all I can ask for. "

"I've always felt like the Rush Pros are supportive, stable shoes, and this version was no different to me," commented Michelle. "Even better, the actual shape of the shoes in this update has changed slightly, and I felt locked in and supported. I really felt like these shoes held up well when I was changing directions."

Overall Sole Durability - Score: 4.5

Our team agreed that the durability of the Duralast outsole was a standout feature of the Rush Pro 2.0. Tiffani said, "The durability of the Rush Pro 2.0s impressed me. The shoes maintained a lightweight feel and managed to be durable as well. The tread is deep, and after about 15 hours or so I haven't managed to do much damage to the outsole."

Seeing that these were lighter in weight, Karly was surprised at how long they held up. She said, "I thought the durability was tremendous. I put these shoes to the test for more than 30 hours and have yet to see any wear. They look just as intact as they did after hour 3. I was extremely impressed with their durability since they aren't heavy shoes. I honestly wasn't expecting to get this much play time out of them!"

"The outsole durability is definitely one of the best features of these shoes," Michelle agreed. "I've worn these for several weeks and am seeing little wear on the outsoles. I appreciate that Wilson has taken some weight out of this shoe but has maintained such a durable outsole."

The outsoles of Brittany's shoes looked virtually brand new after she spent 15 hours in them. She commented, "There was no balding or smoothing in any areas -- I have many hours left in these shoes. What impressed me the most was how such a light shoe could hold up so well. That combination is tough to accomplish, and I thought Wilson nailed it perfectly."

Toe Durability - Score: 4.4

The durability of the Rush Pro 2.0s continued to shine when our toe draggers put the toe durability to the test. Brittany said, "The toe bumper is thick, and the height protects the upper from most toe dragging. There is another material above the toe bumper that offers additional protection. There are a few scrapes, but I have plenty more hours left before I start seeing some major wear."

Our other toe-dragger, Tiffani, agreed. She said, "I really like how these shoes don't have that built-up, tank-like toe, yet they manage to offer excellent toe durability. I have minor scrapes and have smoothed the toe guard ever so slightly, but I have hardly done any damage."

Traction - Score: 4.1

Our team was pleased with the traction they found in the Rush Pro 2.0. "Just like the durability of the outsole, I was extremely happy with how well the traction held up throughout the entire playtest," stated Karly. "I hardly noticed any loss in traction over time, and they provided the perfect combination of grip and give, which allowed me to plant hard and change directions easily. I could move confidently in these shoes without worrying about slipping or feeling stuck to the court."

Michelle echoed, "Again, this feature was really good for me. I never felt like I was slipping or sliding. I've come to expect this high quality from Wilson since the previous version also had a similar level of traction. I never lost my footing on the court, and I felt comfortable and confident in these shoes when quickly changing direction."

One of Brittany's favorite features of these shoes was the low-to-the-ground feel. She said, "When I first wore these shoes I felt like my feet were barely off the ground and I was connected to the court. Moving in these shoes was a breeze, and I could change directions with just the right amount of grip."

Initially, Tiffani thought the Rush Pro 2.0s were a bit too grippy. She said, "I felt like I was sticking to the court a bit. After a couple of hours the traction level settled to where I like it. I never had any issues with slipping, so once the break-in was done I was happy with the amount of grip I had on the hard courts."

Weight - Score: 4.1

It was obvious from the first time our team laced up these shoes that the Rush Pro 2.0s were lighter and quicker than the version they replaced. Michelle appreciated the lighter feel and was content with the weight. She said, "I like that they still have a sturdy feel but also feel quick. I think Wilson did a good job making a stable, durable shoe lighter. I wouldn't put this in the same category as an Asics Gel Solution Speed just yet, but they're definitely lighter than some of the other shoes that offer durability guarantees."

"I also found this update to play lighter than the previous version," said Brittany. "The original Rush Pros played lighter than their weight but weren't light shoes by any means. This version feels faster and lighter on the court. I felt quick, and I never felt the shoes were a hindrance."

Tiffani added, "These weren't the lightest I've ever played in, but I didn't feel sluggish at all. However, I felt like the shoes could have used a bit more cushioning, I would gladly give up some of the lightweight feel for improved cushioning."

"Considering their exceptional durability, I thought the weight was great," Karly said. "They felt much lighter than most durable shoes, and the have a low-to-the-ground feel. They didn't slow my movements down at all, and they lasted a long time for being so light. I was really happy with how little these tough shoes weighed."

Overall - Score: 3.8

Playtester Foot Types:
Tiffani - Wide width / Low arch
Karly - Medium width / Medium-low arch
Michelle - Medium width / High arch
Brittany - Narrow width / Medium arch

Review date: January 2015. If you found this review interesting or have further questions or comments please contact us.

All content copyright 2015 Tennis Warehouse.

Click here to see all Tennis Warehouse reviews