Mountain Project Logo

Best Approach Shoes

Karl Walters · · San Diego · Joined May 2017 · Points: 106

Vans skate shoes, specifically the Pro line. They have better insoles, but still have a ton of board/ground feel and the best sole, which was adapted from boat shoes. I find sticking to rock easier than sticking to a wet plastic boat hull. I've also climbed V4 in them, so they do work for that too.

Honestly it probably doesn't matter much. Every possible shoe is advocated in this thread, which shoes that something that fits and has some stickiness and feedback to it will suffice.

Nathan · · Tel Aviv · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 170

La Sportiva Mix
La Sportiva Boulder X
Evolv Zender (Not super durable, but useful when you size aggressively)

Stu L · · Washington, DC · Joined Oct 2016 · Points: 0

Arc’teryx has designed a new trail runner, the norvan SL, that looks very appealing. Absolutely featherweight at 13 oz for the pair, Vibram megagrip, luggy but with good surface area, and a medial heel carabiner clip in point. Fits pretty well too, a tad on the narrow side, but would definitely inspire confidence on approaches requiring a mix of trail hiking and scrambling. They may be my next pair. 

Ryan Pfleger · · Boise, ID · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 25
Jaren Watson wrote: Obviously, one doesn’t wear trail runners for their climbing abilities. I don’t believe anyone advocating using them that way.

For “approach,” however, they can be pretty great.

Maybe I’m just feeling my age a bit. I really don’t like wearing true approach shoes over eight to ten miles. For long distances, I don’t think trail runners can be beaten.

I hear ya. Altras are just worse than the average trail runner at scrambling, specifically edging. Although they are quite good on loose dirt or even scree. Horses for course, right? I've worn everything from mountain boots to flip flops to get to climbs, depending on the specifics.

Noah Yetter · · Lakewood, CO · Joined Jul 2015 · Points: 105
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.

Because heel lift is bad, period. The TX2 does indeed have a lower heel than the TX3/4 but it doesn't fit me. All my everyday shoes are zero-drop. Walking short distances in my TX4s is ok but doing long hikes in them fucks up my hips, knees, and feet.

Noah Yetter · · Lakewood, CO · Joined Jul 2015 · Points: 105
NorCalNomad wrote:

+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. 

Humans didn't evolve to walk on elevated heels, it's that simple. There is plenty of evidence to support the benefits of zero-drop shoes.

Chris Hatzai · · Bend, OR · Joined Sep 2015 · Points: 909

Guide Tennies are still bomb. 5.10!

Ryan Pfleger · · Boise, ID · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 25
Noah Yetter wrote:

Because heel lift is bad, period. The TX2 does indeed have a lower heel than the TX3/4 but it doesn't fit me. All my everyday shoes are zero-drop. Walking short distances in my TX4s is ok but doing long hikes in them fucks up my hips, knees, and feet.

"Heel lift is bad for me", and "heel lift is bad, period" are two very different statements. I like zero and low drop shoes. I ran a lot of 40 to 60 mile weeks in zero or low drop shoes for a couple years, then injured my Achilles and now have trouble doing fast runs or high mileage in zero drop shoes. I still really like Altras for the wide toe box but I use a pad for some heel lift and it makes a world of difference for my Achilles. Interestingly the Vaporfly 4% has a 10mm drop. But what do Nike and Eliud Kipchoge know about running? 

Karl Walters · · San Diego · Joined May 2017 · Points: 106
Noah Yetter wrote:

Humans didn't evolve to walk on elevated heels, it's that simple. There is plenty of evidence to support the benefits of zero-drop shoes.

Find some that isn't anecdotal. Evolution and beneficial muscle/skeleton correction are very different things. Almost none of what we do today are things we evolved to do hence all the specialized equipment for doing anything but mill about.

Danny Herrera · · Sebastopol · Joined Jul 2015 · Points: 562

North face hedgehogs $35, lasted me 2 years

Forthright · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2011 · Points: 110
Noah Yetter wrote:

Humans didn't evolve to walk on elevated heels, it's that simple. There is plenty of evidence to support the benefits of zero-drop shoes.

Yeah human's didn't evolve to hammer things with their hands either. But we sure as hell figured out that one. 

You are falling for an appeal to ancient wisdom logical fallacy. Karl said it well "Evolution and beneficial muscle/skeleton correction are very different things. Almost none of what we do today are things we evolved to do hence all the specialized equipment for doing anything but mill about."

SHOES ARE TOOLS. You think Nike would be making 12mm drop shoes for some of the fastest people in the world if zero drop shoes were faster? I work with people who've worked at Nike and all over the performance footwear industry for decades. There has yet to be studies that conclusively says any amount of drop (with everything else constant) yields a performance benefit. Remember how Vibram got sued partly over their zero drop claims? The reason the Nike 4% pro shoes have such a high drop is for cushioning performance, cf plate encapsulation, and "stride enhancement" at a 26.6 mile distance.  But those same athletes who get the one off shoes also train and are fast as fuck in 4-8mm drop shoes.

There are very legitimate performance reasons to have a certainly level of heel to toe delta. /rant
Forthright · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2011 · Points: 110

you're right there is a decades long global conspiracy to mess everyone up with shoes

walmongr · · Gilbert AZ · Joined Aug 2015 · Points: 151

TX-3's  I done long approaches with heavy loads and they climb well. I,m on my second pair. They dont carry in a pack well. I usually leave them at the bottom with my pack.  I have a pair of Merrell trail gloves that pack in a small day pack  and use those for walk offs.

Long Ranger · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2014 · Points: 669

According to this,

https://runnerclick.com/la-sportiva-tx2-review/

The TX2 has a 4mm drop. That's... that's not a lot.

Billcoe · · Pacific Northwet · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 936

Depends on the approach. 5.10 guide tennies work well generally and the grip is excellent on dry rock (Evolv rubber works much better on wet rock), but for granite rock hopping they can get ripped up much quicker than most other shoes. (talking leather version). I've had multiple versions of them and the current pair is the first pair of 5.10ies I've almost worn the rubber through. So that tells me the quality is improving.

brianszero · · Rogers, Ky · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 21

For the people who really need a wide toe box, the tx3 and tx4 have a wider toe box than the tx2's. I love the tx4's for approach, hiking and bought a pair of tx2's and was expecting a similar fit and it is not.

Buck Rio · · MN · Joined Jul 2015 · Points: 16
brianszero wrote: For the people who really need a wide toe box, the tx3 and tx4 have a wider toe box than the tx2's. I love the tx4's for approach, hiking and bought a pair of tx2's and was expecting a similar fit and it is not.

Hey Brian, I noticed that too. I use the TX2 as more of a light climbing shoe than an approach shoe because the last is so snug. Great for short approaches/descents, but not really stable enough for talus with a pack. I have a pair of Zamberlan Intrepid RR for more involved hikes, without sacrificing grip. Very similar to the LS Boulder X.

Long Ranger · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2014 · Points: 669

Def. a snugger fit - I'm sure the last itself is all different, but the volume of the toe box in the TX2 is visually smaller compared to the TX3.

Forthright · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2011 · Points: 110
Long Ranger wrote: Def. a snugger fit - I'm sure the last itself is all different, but the volume of the toe box in the TX2 is visually smaller compared to the TX3.

Same last, different upper materials and a stiffer midsole (on the tx3  and 4) make the toe area feel more voluminous. 

Evan C · · Chatty Fatty · Joined Oct 2015 · Points: 326

Evolv's approach flops (send-als?) are actually pretty good:

https://evolvsports.com/slack-sandal/

They fit super snug and the rubber is grippy. They lasted longer than I expected, but they're starting to fall apart on me, still feel like I got my money's worth though.

They're pretty fun to climb in as well :)

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Climbing Gear Discussion
Post a Reply to "Best Approach Shoes"

Log In to Reply
Welcome

Join the Community! It's FREE

Already have an account? Login to close this notice.