To add to the discussion, it’s worth noting that while anti-shock poles may modestly reduce peak impact forces—some studies suggest roughly a 5–10% reduction at the wrist—the clinical significance for joint health, especially during prolonged descents, remains unproven. Long-term reliability is indeed a concern; field reports and limited endurance testing indicate spring-based mechanisms can develop play or even fail under grit and repeated flexion, whereas elastomer systems tend to maintain performance better but may stiffen in cold.
On technical or uneven terrain, a common observatoin among experienced users is that anti-shock systems can mute ground feedback and occasionally cause “bouncing,” affecting precision foot placement. For challenging scrambles, many prefer rigid poles for this reason. The real advantage of anti-shock seems best realized on long, sustained downhills or hardpack surfaces rather than mixed or alpine environments.
For standards, ISO 11334-1 covers general requirements for walking aids but doesn’t specifically address anti-shock mechanisms in hiking poles, so manufacturer data often dominates the conversation. The trade-offs remain nuanced and largely personal, especially over multi-day use.