Best Approach Shoes

I’m happy with my 5.10 guide tennies. I’ve got short, broad feet with high arches and I don’t mind the weight for what I do, but I wouldn’t want to have to lug them up multipitch routes.
I went with them because of how cushy they are for long approaches. They don’t tire my feet out on long hikes and I can still climb in them and do technical scrambling.

Scarpa Gecko

I have 6 different kinds of approach shoes, and they're all the best in different situations.

You don't need approach shoes in Central Texas. Get Chacos.

Russell Bangert wrote: I have 6 different kinds of approach shoes, and they're all the best in different situations.

You don't need approach shoes in Central Texas. Get Chacos.

Lol for most of the year my approach shoes are 1$ Walmart flip flops. But for when I travel to places with rocks, I like to have something more substantial 

I've had plenty and my current Scarpa Crux are too notch. They fit like a glove. Great rubber too. My previous pair were TX4 and I thought they were amazing until I tried the Crux.

Oh I also meant to mention, scarpa geckos and evolv cruzers are what I wear out more often. 

For moderate scrambly stuff Five Ten Camp 4 mids.

For class 4 and above, Guide Tennie mids.

The new 5.10 guide tennies are bomb proof and climb well for me. I wore through the soles before there was peeling anywhere on the shoe. I have never had an approach shoe hold up so well - and they fit my feet way better than the old ones.

La Spo TX3.  I can climb up to 5.7 in them easily and use strap-on crampons with them all the time. They dry fairly quickly too.

I like the TX4's and TX2's

But occasionally I just rock my trail runners.... to which I would add that HOKA trail runners are by far the WORST running shoe for approaches. Those things have the grip of a 20 year old tire. 

TX4's

or if conditions permit, Bedrock Cairn sandals

I wish someone made a zero-drop approach shoe...

Richard Fernandez wrote: I've had plenty and my current Scarpa Crux are too notch. They fit like a glove. Great rubber too. My previous pair were TX4 and I thought they were amazing until I tried the Crux.

X2 for Scarpa Crux. The new version  Scarpa Crux II has updated rubber to make it more durable, but still plenty grippy.

La sportiva ganda. 

The Blueprint Part Dank wrote:But occasionally I just rock my trail runners.... to which I would add that HOKA trail runners are by far the WORST running shoe for approaches. Those things have the grip of a 20 year old tire. 

Which Hoka's? Statements like this are about useful as recommending a shoe that hasn't been made in five years (e.g. Sportiva Gandas).

IMO the rubber on the Hoka Speed Goat 2 is WAY stickier than the "sticky rubber" on the Sportiva Wildcats, but it would be ignorant to stereotype all Sportiva rubber on trail runners as similarly poor since the Ultra Raptors are decently sticky because, surprise, Sportiva uses different rubber on different trail runners.

Noah Yetter wrote: I wish someone made a zero-drop approach shoe...

I mean, why? The forefoot area  on say, the TX2 is pretty thin to keep a little sensitivity. If the heel area of the sole was that thin, you'd have a less useful shoe for hiking in. You wouldn't want to put more midsole in the forefoot area, I wouldn't think. For scrambling (or I guess the scrambling that I do in the Flatirons), I'm rarely on my heel - I'm plastered on my forefoot, so the cush found in the heel isn't too critical.

The heel drop on the TX2 is pretty minimal. The TX3 is quite a bit more - but I still haven't felt it's detrimental to my scrambling. I could see doing back to back to back days in TX3's on some ultimate ridgescramble, though.

Rexford Nesakwatch wrote:

Which Hoka's? Statements like this are about useful as recommending a shoe that hasn't been made in five years (e.g. Sportiva Gandas).

IMO the rubber on the Hoka Speed Goat 2 is WAY stickier than the "sticky rubber" on the Sportiva Wildcats, but it would be ignorant to stereotype all Sportiva rubber on trail runners as similarly poor since the Ultra Raptors are decently sticky because, surprise, Sportiva uses different rubber on different trail runners.

Interesting.... I have the Challengers, and I have eaten massive shit multiple times hiking down from Boulder Canyon crags in them until I relegated them to just running. 

Salomon X-MISSION 3 for approach.  Extremely comfortable but they are trail runners - no edging.  Any Merrell trail running shoe if you are hauling it up to walk off - they are extremely light weight and have fairly good traction.

The Blueprint Part Dank wrote:

Interesting.... I have the Challengers, and I have eaten massive shit multiple times hiking down from Boulder Canyon crags in them until I relegated them to just running. 

Challengers have the least grippy sole of any of the Hoka trail runners I have tried. It is mostly foam with only a little rubber. The Torrents or the Evo Mafate are quite a bit better. Although if you're not running, you likely don't need the cush of the Mafate, and I have run up to 30 miles or so in the Torrent's without feeling too beat up, so they're probably up to the task of most approaches. Be warned that many Hokas have midsole foam contacting the ground, as well as lightweight uppers. They are not durable, especially in scree or the like where the uppers take some abuse. Generally the less stack height on a running shoe the better they climb. Be warned that the Altras that Jaren suggested are great if there is no climbing involved, but I can't think of too many worse climbing, running shoes than the Altra Olympus. The Lone Peak is only marginally better. Roomy toebox, and high cush is great for running, horrible for climbing. Also if you're not used to zero drop shoes they can take a toll on your calf muscles going up hills, and Achilles on the level or on the ascent. And Altras, bar the Superior, are pretty bulky on a harness or in a bag. La Sportiva shoes in general tend to climb better than the average trail runner. As far as climbing ability and durability the new Five Ten Guide Tennie seems pretty bomber in both aspects. I would hate to clip 'em to the back of my harness though, as they're heavy and bulky.

Anybody have an opinion on a preferred shoe for a fast (running between climbs) Tuolumne Triple? Needs to climb well foremost, second is running ability. Durability and packability come last.

Long Ranger wrote:

I mean, why? The forefoot area  on say, the TX2 is pretty thin to keep a little sensitivity. If the heel area of the sole was that thin, you'd have a less useful shoe for hiking in. You wouldn't want to put more midsole in the forefoot area, I wouldn't think. For scrambling (or I guess the scrambling that I do in the Flatirons), I'm rarely on my heel - I'm plastered on my forefoot, so the cush found in the heel isn't too critical.

The heel drop on the TX2 is pretty minimal. The TX3 is quite a bit more - but I still haven't felt it's detrimental to my scrambling. I could see doing back to back to back days in TX3's on some ultimate ridgescramble, though.

+1 on why for a zero drop.

There is no biometric data/ science to back up that zero drop gives any sort of health or performance benefits. Now if you are conflating a wide boxy fit (like an altra or sandal gives you) that is a bit antithetical to what gives you a good climbing approach shoe. 

Ryan Pfleger wrote: Anybody have an opinion on a preferred shoe for a fast (running between climbs) Tuolumne Triple? Needs to climb well foremost, second is running ability. Durability and packability come last.

IF you can stand GTX (my feet run to hot for gtx in the summer)...and get them shipped from the EU (can't get them in the states). The North Face Verto Amp. It's built on a trail running midsole but with an approach outsole of Vibram Megagrip.