LS TX2 Approach Shoe, Supportive enough?

Recently purchased the La Sportiva TX2 approach shoe (online, no trying-on). The fit is great and the weight is nice, but I feel it will be lacking in arch support. I'm coming from a La Sportiva Bushio II as my primary trail hiker/approach shoe. I've read a few review, but does anyone have good or bad things to say about the TX2? Trying to decide if I want to keep them or go with a more supportive, and heavier model like the TX3 or TX4. Cheers.

I’ve taken mine out for 3-4 days in the backcountry with a heavy pack, strapped on micro spikes, hiked and scrambled many miles, climbed tons of moderate 5th, and even led 5.10. They’re sweet shoes. That being said after 12 months, and less than 200 miles, the uppers were falling apart and I’d all but worn through the soles.
There’s not much in the way of “support” as found in stability focused running shoes. If I was concerned with overpronation etc I wouldn’t have taken them out on the longer/heavier trips, and would probably just save them for short and light approaches. As long as you don’t have an injury or known orthopedic issues then I recommend putting these shoes to the test. Also the laces are pretty flimsy and get mythos-syndrome quickly, especially if you use them for much jamming. I replaced mine with elastic laces which is super convenient for slipping them on and off between climbs at the crag.

I own TX2s and TX4s.  They're both great shoes but different classes IMO.  Which shoe you keep depends on what you want from them.  

The TX2s are great shoes for carrying up a climb with a walk off.  They also climb quite well given how low profile they are.  Their greatest benefit is their light weight.  I would say their main weakness is support for long hikes.  I find them a bit uncomfortable for longer hikes, especially if the terrain is rough.  For instance, they wouldn't be my first choice for a long approach with a lot of talus hopping while carrying a pack.  Some folks can wear them just fine on longer hikes.  I guess it depends on how strong your feet are and personal preference.  Even a more minimal trail running shoe like the Bushido will be a better, more supportive hiker than the TX2.

If you want more comfort and support for longer hikes, the TX4 is the ticket.  It is heavier and climbs only slightly worse than the TX2 IMO.   It should be more durable with a leather as opposed to fabric upper as well.  

I find the TX4 is a better all around shoe.  If you want one shoe to do it all including longer hikes, get the TX4.  If you want a super light shoe for walk offs or something that climbs technical rock better, get the TX2. There's a case for owning both (if that works for you) since they excel in different areas.  

Hey Mike and Mike, thanks for sharing your experiences. I think I'll give them a try and get a another trail hiker/runner for longer stuff when the Bushidos go.

Arch support in footwear can be overdone and actually make your arches weak-- says one philosophy 

Tx2s absolutely fucking suck. The most disposable outdoor gear I've ever bought. Granted, they're marketed as a lightweight shoe, and thus I shouldn't expect durability; however, these deteriorated/broke far faster than anyone should expect even from a relatively light piece of gear. Also jamming in them blows compared to guide tennies.

Mike McL wrote:

I own TX2s and TX4s.  They're both great shoes but different classes IMO.  Which shoe you keep depends on what you want from them.  

The TX2s are great shoes for carrying up a climb with a walk off.  They also climb quite well given how low profile they are.  Their greatest benefit is their light weight.  I would say their main weakness is support for long hikes.  I find them a bit uncomfortable for longer hikes, especially if the terrain is rough.  For instance, they wouldn't be my first choice for a long approach with a lot of talus hopping while carrying a pack.  Some folks can wear them just fine on longer hikes.  I guess it depends on how strong your feet are and personal preference.  Even a more minimal trail running shoe like the Bushido will be a better, more supportive hiker than the TX2.

If you want more comfort and support for longer hikes, the TX4 is the ticket.  It is heavier and climbs only slightly worse than the TX2 IMO.   It should be more durable with a leather as opposed to fabric upper as well.  

I find the TX4 is a better all around shoe.  If you want one shoe to do it all including longer hikes, get the TX4.  If you want a super light shoe for walk offs or something that climbs technical rock better, get the TX2. There's a case for owning both (if that works for you) since they excel in different areas.  

I have both TX2 and TX4's and agree with all said above.  I wouldn't carry a multiday pack with TX2's, yes with TX4's.  The soles of both go pretty quick.  I resoled my TX4's with dot rubber for some more life.

Depends on what you want the tx2s for. Shorter approaches? Climbability? Lightweight? This shoe nails all those things.

Just use your Bushidos for any longer approaches.

Or throw an aftermarket insole into the tx2s. 

Yeah I think most of the people bashing the TX2s are using them for the wrong purpose.  They are a minimalist shoe meant to pack down small in your bag or carry in your harness.  They’re not meant for carrying a big pack through the wilderness, so yeah they’re going to suck at that because the whole point of the shoe was to sacrifice arch support and durability for weight and bulk.  They are, IMO, the best “approach” shoe you can get if you’re being literal about the purpose being to approach a rock climb that you’ll be doing in another pair of rock shoes.

No, they are no supportive enough. They are a descent shoe more than a distance approach shoe. Even for short approaches, if the crag has boulders/talus I would take my TX3s or TX4s. I also think the TX2s are too soft to climb well unless you size them really tight.

I don't own them (yet) but I think the shoe to rule them all is the TX Guide. Stiffer than the TX4s and climb better than the TX2s. Low volume like the TX2s but more support that the 4s. 

Rexford Nesakwatch wrote:

No, they are no supportive enough. They are a descent shoe more than a distance approach shoe. Even for short approaches, if the crag has boulders/talus I would take my TX3s or TX4s. I also think the TX2s are too soft to climb well unless you size them really tight.

I don't own them (yet) but I think the shoe to rule them all is the TX Guide. Stiffer than the TX4s and climb better than the TX2s. Low volume like the TX2s but more support that the 4s. 

Thanks for the input. I had also considered the TX Guide but when I tried them on at REI they were very narrow in the toe box, and quite firm as well. I didn’t get the impression they would stretch/mold to my foot much and were uncomfortable to wear even for a short time. TC Pros would be more comfortable for cruising around talus/scrambling than the TX Guide, for me. My foot is medium to narrow width (for reference). 

RJNakata wrote:

I have both TX2 and TX4's and agree with all said above.  I wouldn't carry a multiday pack with TX2's, yes with TX4's.  The soles of both go pretty quick.  I resoled my TX4's with dot rubber for some more life.

Alternative data point: I love my TX4, but I still don't find them stiff enough for a multiday trip. I'd opt for my Garmont Dragontail MNT or Vetta GTX for any multi-day use.  FWIW I use custom orthotics in all mentioned shoes, after a plantar fasciitis episode post back surgery.  

Rexford Nesakwatch wrote:

No, they are no supportive enough. They are a descent shoe more than a distance approach shoe. Even for short approaches, if the crag has boulders/talus I would take my TX3s or TX4s. I also think the TX2s are too soft to climb well unless you size them really tight.

I don't own them (yet) but I think the shoe to rule them all is the TX Guide. Stiffer than the TX4s and climb better than the TX2s. Low volume like the TX2s but more support that the 4s. 

Depends on what you’re climbing.  They are fantastic slab shoes and I find them great for technical approaches where you’re doing some low Fifth class moves.  I wouldn’t want them for a long approach with a big pack though, that’s for sure.

Boulder X

Rexford Nesakwatch wrote:

No, they are no supportive enough. They are a descent shoe more than a distance approach shoe. Even for short approaches, if the crag has boulders/talus I would take my TX3s or TX4s. I also think the TX2s are too soft to climb well unless you size them really tight.

I don't own them (yet) but I think the shoe to rule them all is the TX Guide. Stiffer than the TX4s and climb better than the TX2s. Low volume like the TX2s but more support that the 4s. 

So you don’t own the guides but you’re claiming they climb better than the tx2? Huh. The sensitivity of the tx2s (I’ve climbed 5.11 in them) allows them to climb well, whereas the guides certainly have a beefier, stiffer sole.

I own the guides, tx2 and tx3. Considering selling the guides due to the narrow toe box. I’ve given them about 6-8 days of actual approach and climbing use as well as some casual use to break them in. So far they aren’t giving at all/relaxing in the toe box—so don’t count on them to stretch out much.

If the guides would fit me like the tx2, I’d be sold. Concept and construction are solid. 

Adding my 2 cents. I own the tx2 and tx3. I wished I had bought the leather version of the tx2, as the synthetic uppers are so thin it hurts real bad to jam or even just graze a rock. I don’t really think the tx2 climbs that great in general, and dare I say the tx3 climbs a hair better due to the support. The tx3 are my favorite so far, likely due to the roomier fit (I’m slightly wide) though I use both for their various applications. I’m honestly still waiting for the perfect one, maybe it’s the guide tennie, maybe one of the new BD models, but all that said, right now I’m a tx3 guy, sized perfectly for hiking/climbing just like my-all day tc pros. —11.5 foot, 12 running shoe, tc pro 44.5, tx3 44.5, oh, and even the tx2 are 44.5 (snug). 

Mike McL wrote:

The TX2s are great shoes for carrying up a climb with a walk off.  

Agree. That's why they have those elastic "rubber band" things that wrap the heel - to compress the shoes together when on your harness or in your pack.