Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad vs Shock Absorbing Base: which is safer?

Macgregor Shock Absorbing Base is our pick, better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.

Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad

Easton

Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad

PFAS grade

Good 65/100

Overall grade

Poor 49/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 4

Material

Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane

Confidence

72%

PossibleFormaldehyde in textile finishes

PossibleAzo dyes in shell fabric

PossibleAdhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing)

Why this grade

Our pick

Macgregor Shock Absorbing Base

MacGregor

Shock Absorbing Base

PFAS grade

Good 65/100

Overall grade

Good 53/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 3

Material

foam or elastomer cushioning in shoe base

Confidence

45%

PossibleFoam degradation and off-gassing

PossibleAdhesive and binder leachables

PossibleFormaldehyde resins in binders

Why this grade

Where these two actually differ

  • We flag Formaldehyde in textile finishes, Azo dyes in shell fabric, Adhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing) and Microplastic shedding from foam breakdown on the Easton and not on the MacGregor.
  • We flag Foam degradation and off-gassing, Adhesive and binder leachables and Formaldehyde resins in binders on the MacGregor and not on the Easton.
  • The Easton is Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane where the MacGregor is foam or elastomer cushioning in shoe base, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
  • These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.
  • We are less certain about the MacGregor grade, at 45% confidence against 72%, because it discloses less.

Both products run through the same public rubric, which covers materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →

More sports equipment padding, see the full ranking