Stiffness vs sensitivity

Hey all,

This topic has been a constant dilemma for me when buying shoes and seems to divide the climbing world. One route (most popular) many top climbers seem to go is to get super stiff, monster edging machines like the Miura VS or Solutions. The tag-line is that you sacrifice comfort and sensitivity for the ability to stand on dime edges all day, a huge boon for harder grade climbs. The other day I noticed, however, that the late great Dean Potter climbed almost exclusively in 5.10 Mocassyms, and absolutely crushed just about everything - including extremely overhung Boulder problems. Admittedly, he was a freak of nature, but he also had access (and sponsorship) to the same wide variety of shoes we do, yet he chose to go the soft route. Sportiva is also pushing hard for the "no edge" concept with the Futura and Genius, which is making me reconsider whether stiff rubber is the Solution for high end footwork (forgive the pun). What do you guys think? Is edging simply a manner of technique, and are stiff shoes actually a crutch? Do you personally prefer a stiffer or softer/more sensitive shoe? Why?

I've noticed that whilst I can climb at my limit (not very hard) in moccs, for all-day climbing my feet will get tired faster in a shoe with a soft and flexible sole. Then I have to spend more effort concentrating on foot tension.

You are misrepresenting what Dean actually wore. You SAW a lot of mocs, because what you tyically saw was him on crack climbs, where mocs rule. No laces to grind in half, low bulk to get into thinner cracks.

Go look at footage of him on the Eiger solo. Anasaszi blancos, a stiff laceup. On Sinister solo, anasazi pinks a stiff lace up. Half Dome free and on his free solo of Astroman way BITD, two pairs..slippers for cracks, stiffer shoes for face. Speed solo of the Nose, high top boreal ballets (a stiff lace up).

I bouldered with him a few times and he was in, from what I remember (it was over 10 years ago) anasazi velcros.

Pick the right tool for the job.

I find that if I'm going to climb all day I need a shoe with a firmer sole as my feet get tired. I used board lasted shoes way back but I'm not sure if the make those any longer

I find that if I'm going to climb all day I need a shoe with a firmer sole as my feet get tired. I used board lasted shoes way back but I'm not sure if the make those any longer

"Stiffness and sensitivity"

Pretty sure the pharmaceutical companies have tackled this one.

shoes make the biggest difference in climbing ....

that said many good climbers can climb anything in almost any pair of shoes ... for years sharma climbed at his limit with mocs sport and bouldering ... and up heres some of the hardest slab is done in miuras

whether you want a "stiff" or "soft" shoe is a personal choice to a large degree ...

what soft shoes will do however is strengthen your toes and feet over time ... of course doing some barefoot climbing will do that as well =P

if you have a soft shoe you soon learn to "smear" or roll the shoe onto the edges rather than simply place it straight down as with stiffer shoes

as to feet getting tired ... i find my toes start hurting faster in stiffer shoes even if sized a bit generously on long multi, my feet prefer some flex ...

of course tens of thousands of folks have used softer shoes such as the mythos for long multi for decades just fine ...

;)

I learned to climb in mountain boots and did my hardest climbs BITD in shoes stiffer, less sensitive, and much less sticky than any of today's shoes. Sticky rubber revolutionized foot technique, making it possible to pivot on a weighted foot without causing the foot to pop off. Sticky rubber also made "smedging" a lot more effective, reducing the differences between stiff and flexible shoes.

Since it is possible to own a quiver of shoes for different applications, it seems to me that the "stiff vs. flexible" dilemma is only relevant to multipitch climbing, where one shoe will have to do it all (and even here there are rare exceptions, when someone brings a second pair of climbing shoes for some particular application).

For multipitch, I think the advantage goes to stiffer shoes. They are better in cracks---except for the thinnest ones---and allow you to stand longer, more securely, and more easily on small holds. But my judgement is surely skewed by my training, which was edging-oriented by virtue of the footwear of the day.

If you are going to spend hours in any shoe, I'd say fit matters more than anything else. Any stiff vs. flexible advantages will be negated if your feet are in agony.

Right, but those are controllable factors. I think people fixated on my example of Dean and the Moccs a bit too much and missed the point; the "right tool for the job" can mean different things to different people. A better example might be the "no edge" concept that Sportiva is pushing. Both the Futura and the Miura are edging machines in their own right, but they accomplish this in very different ways: the Futura, by being super sensitive and allowing you to feel every piece of the rock (for Better or worse), and the Miura by having a massive, thick, stiff toebox so that you can stand on dimes without feeling a thing. Barring these extreme (and brand specific) examples, many of the differences between similarly performing (and functional) shoes come down to personal preference over sensitivity and stiffness. Which do you prefer?

Ted Pinson wrote:Both the Futura and the Miura are edging machines in their own right, but they accomplish this in very different ways

I've never heard anybody claim Futura, or any of the other no-edge models, being good at true micro-edging. These types of soles are good at rolling up on divots (especially limestone & sandstone) that allow higher foot extension than traditional soles.

That being said, climbing shoes don't need to be have really stiff soles to be good at micro edging. The down-turned heel tension rand design does allow more sensitivity, and IMO much better high stepping capability, than flat shoes relying only on a stiff sole. Granted they do fatigue the feet more.

Fit and comfort are key factors. I have settled on "all around" shoes, shoes that have good edging power, moderate toe-down, and reasonable amount of sensitivity for steeps and bouldering. On the downside, all around shoes are not the best in anything in particular, but these days I no longer care. My current two all around shoes are Sportiva Katana Lace and Scarpa Vapor V from 2013. For me, the KL is the slightly better shoe so I use it outdoors and the Velcro VV at the gym (quick on, quick off).
Whatever shoe you get, learn and practice good, precise footwork.

reboot wrote: I've never heard anybody claim Futura, or any of the other no-edge models, being good at true micro-edging. These types of soles are good at rolling up on divots (especially limestone & sandstone) that allow higher foot extension than traditional soles. That being said, climbing shoes don't need to be have really stiff soles to be good at micro edging. The down-turned heel tension rand design does allow more sensitivity, and IMO much better high stepping capability, than flat shoes relying only on a stiff sole. Granted they do fatigue the feet more.

http://m.outdoorgearlab.com/Climbing-Shoes-Reviews/La-Sportiva-Futura

Ted Pinson wrote: m.outdoorgearlab.com/Climbi…

That's a lot of beating around the bush trying not to say it doesn't micro edge...What the heck is an "artificial edge"? If there is a sharp micro edge, you use it. There's no beating around the fact the no-edge concept isn't good at those types of foot holds.