whats a good approach shoe for the grand teton?

Im climbing the grand teton in september and i'm curious what shoe/boot you would recommend for the trek?

I would be more worried about the conditions in September as that will dictate the footwear for the both the approach and climb. That said, ya really need to be more specific. The Grand has over a dozen major routes on four very different aspects. 

Any approach shoe is fine: La Sportiva, Scarpa, Salewa. Arc'teryx or Black Diamond. You can use grippy trail runners as well if you like. 

Eric Craig wrote:

WTF??????? Those are BASIC mountaineering boots,  and the East ridge of the Grand is a basic alpine climb. I suppose I could "flex", but specifically chose not to. 

I do realize I am a bit old school, and yeah I do have a little fun with that. But "flexing"?????????? 

I still don't know what flexing means since it overused, but your basic mountaineering boot advice is basic bad advice for 2024. 

With hundreds of boots/shoes out there that are lighter, climb better, hike better, cheaper, don't require days of breaking in, why would you have a little fun doling out bad advice? When people ask for ski advice, do you also recommend the best 2x4s you used in the '80s?

Tyler Dribnak wrote:

Im climbing the grand teton in september and i'm curious what shoe/boot you would recommend for the trek?

September 1st or 30th?  As others have indicated it could well change from summer to winter in that window.  The answer to your question is going to totally depend on the conditions at the time you try.  You absolutely need to be monitoring things for a week or two prior and plan accordingly.  The answer might be Eric's clodhopper's (BTW I climbed the E Ridge in 1972 in boots (Super Guides) that were even clunkier) or it might be some grippy trail runners.

Other factors - the "best" choice is going to be the one that fits YOUR foot the best.  Personally I like LS TX-something-or-others - because they fit MY feet.  

I am assuming you are going on one of the south side hopefully no snow routes - anything that involves snow will push you to the clodhopper end of the spectrum.

You are probably going to want something with decent padding under foot - its a long rocky descent - but again that involves a tradeoff with how well they climb.

Lol what a thread...    I use and like the Scarpa Crux. Last time I went up the Ex i never took them off even though I had TC pros in the pack. Tons of Sportiva TX4's up there too.  

If you go in July and August and the mountains are dry, any decent approach shoe will do. 

But if you manage to hit the peaks after a snow storm (and with ice on the upper mountain), you will not only need more stable footwear but most likely crampons as well. 

What route you plan on doing makes a huge difference too. The North and West Sides of Grand are  seriously more alpine. 

The approach to the Lower Saddle (for ex) and the regular route (in good conditions) can be done in approach shoes.

You will need to watch the weather and find out about conditions. As any mountain, Tetons can be benign and very alpine in the same week. 

September (in most years) is past summer season. Some years there is already plenty of snow on the ground and on the mountain.

So you might travel to Wyoming with approach shoes and also some mid weight footwear that accept at least strap on or better yet, new-matic crampons. Decide on which shoes to wear based on local conditions. 

That would be for the regular route or equivalent. The alpine terrain on the North side will require something way more substantial.

I think this entire thread could be summed up by this:

The Owen Spalding when weather is good is a decently easy and straightforward alpine climb which could be climbed in anything from running shoes to expedition style double boots. Any approach shoe will do just fine. People across the whole spectrum of experience climb this every year successfully with all different styles of shoes. For some actual feedback, I really like the La Sportiva Tx3 for approach shoes or the La Sportiva Bushido for sticky running shoes. That being said, people of all experience levels die in the tetons every year, so while it is fairly easy thats not to say it cant become much more difficult depending on weather etc.

Mike-Mayhem wrote:

I think this entire thread could be summed up by this:

The Owen Spalding when weather is good is a decently easy and straightforward alpine climb which could be climbed in anything from running shoes to expedition style double boots. Any approach shoe will do just fine. People across the whole spectrum of experience climb this every year successfully with all different styles of shoes.

It could, but good weather is only half of the equation. The OS being west facing is notorious for having verglas. As such, the following is a better summary:

The Owen Spalding with good weather and good route conditions is ...

I did not know Allan but friends with his brother Dale. The ANAC report:

Fall-on-Rock-Inadequate-Belay-and-Protection-Wyoming-Grand-Teton-National-Park-Grand-Teton-Owen-Spaulding

Note the following:

The conditions at the time of the accident were very poor, with snow and verglas, though the route was certainly within the abilities of Bard

accidents-1997-07

Eric Craig wrote:

Yeah Allen. I am familiar with all that.

While we are familiar with Allan's accident most others are not.

Eric Craig wrote:

Really. I do have minimal experience with the newer footwear. It has it's pluses, and it's minuses. They are somewhat lighter. The rest is, well I am not sure there's a clear winner. Different. 

Why would people recommend floppy little approach shoes, without a specified route? In September? On a nearly 14,000 ft mountain? Where one of the most accomplished American mountain guides of his time died? On the "normal " route, I don't remember the month, but it was summer, like July or early August. I remember getting the news from Peter Lev, a day or so afterward. I knew Allan. I climbed with him, skied with him, and guided with him. I even remember where and when I met him. March 4,  1973, in the Sunnyside (Camp 4) campground parking lot. It was raining, threatening to snow..............

Seems to me a good general mountaineering boot is a winning choice.  Versatile, effective in a  wide range of applications. In modern parlance, I  think a good fitting B2 type makes sense. In general, they will rock climb much better than the stiffer boots for fully "automatic" crampons ( I don't remember if that's  the B3 or B1) If you like, I can explain why.

As I stated up thread, I 've played the alpine game in running shoes. I can be done. Can even be fun. It limits your options. 

I don't like being  an asshole. But I can play the game. 

Eric, I’m genuinely interested in hearing your thought process on why a B2 boot is definitively better than the modern selection of approach shoes?

You seem to be in a minority versus several comparably experienced climbers with more familiarity with the current selection of footwear.

But you have enough experience that I wonder if there’s some aspect to using a boot in that terrain you may know that I never caught on. 

Mammut Eiger Speed Boa would do well!

Common Strategy:

Wear trail runners to the Morain or Lower Saddle. Switch to approach shoes or 3 season boots. Surface conditions and temperatures will dictate what you wear. Could be warm, could be not so warm. Your feet will be happier. 

Sportiva TX 3 or 4 of Guides are common and work well. Not many Scarpa Rapids up there. I would not recommend 'trail runners' if it's your first lap. Shoulder season ascents might require shoulder season tactics. 

3 season boots: Sportiva trango series or Aeqalibrium Series , or Scarpa Zodiac Tech.  All will accept a strap or newmatic crampon. 

Most here have hit on the main options and nuances. My first trip in the Tetons I used the same Raichle Eigers as Eric.  Never used em again. Light is right and those are wrong. 

For main objective in September, choose upper Exum over OS as the better more reliable option under most odds of weather/route conditions.

To me, some footwear choices depend on your own plan and assessment of ability and comfort level….are you going car to car or camping can be a factor as well   

1. Are you planning to bring and use actual climbing shoes on any of pitches on the route? (If so, I’d used lightweight running shoes for the rest)

2. Are you looking to wear one shoe for it all?  Then I’d use LS TX guides or similar/equivalent.

3. What Matt Shove said above works as well, use a comfy light running/trail shoe to the lower saddle then stash ‘em and switch to a “performance fit” TX Guide or something for the climb from there.  My TX guides climb to 5.10, but to get there, i have them too tight for a full Teton approach.  Right now,  I have em sized for comfortable climbing shoes.   I’ll get a new size to include long approaches on my next Teton trip.  

4. No matter what you do, no matter what the weather, the last few miles of the descent back to the car will suck ass, and you’ll be pissed that paragliding is illegal in the park.

5.  In September, watch the weather forecasts closely, but I often do an “inverse alpine start”.   Wait for all the noobs to clear out in the cold and dark early morning hours, and you start refreshed much later in the warm sunshine.  More often than not, you are not worried about the afternoon thunderstorms of summer.  Enjoy the climb during the warmest parts of the day and soak up the fall evening sun with an otherwise crowded mountain to yourself.   Can be risky and need to keep the pace, cuz you don’t want to be dragging ass and descending the Grand your first time in the dark, but can be great option for planning and consideration.   

Jaren -  I agree with you.  Maybe more emphasis is needed on my “disclaimer” on the technique — it’s risky if you are a first timer running late.  I definitely do not recommend relatively inexperienced people, especially those unfamiliar with the Grand in particular, to try descending and route finding in the dark.  A good and honest self-assessment on skills and capabilities is needed, but I also wouldn’t want to assume that it’s somehow over his head.  A fit and savvy person can accomplish a lot if they have good judgment and assess all advice appropriate to their own status.  Any advice, good or bad, is wasted on an idiot.

Eric — after that trip, those Eigers got relegated to hunting boots for a couple years, then spare boots at the Northern MN deer shack.  I believe they have sat as a “mice condominium” under a bunk there for 20 yrs.  I wouldn’t charge you myself, but I’ll see if the mice will negotiate a fair price.  I’ll check on their status for you this fall and take some pics.  

Eric Craig wrote:

Nate, are you still interested in a response from me? 

Yes, Eric, I really am. With intent to have a genuine discussion. I’m not here to pick a fight. 

Eric Craig wrote:

Ok. Approach shoes.  Designed and intended for use on approaches to and descents from technical rock climbs. Lightweight, for easy carry when not in use. Someguy capability on technical terrain. Many approaches involve negotiating mild to moderately technical terrain. That's it. Some models climb very good, some not as much so. It's always been that way. 

Like most of today's rock climbing guides, I personally have climbed A LOT in approach shoes. When I worked at YMS, I wore comfortable rock shoes while teaching classes, and did most of my guiding in Five Tennies.  Somewhere in the 5.10 realm of things, a rare day guiding,  I would switch to good rock shoes. I have also used approach shoes for personal outings in the Sierra high peaks. I think I am well acquainted with approach shoe use. I have even crossed snow fields in them. I don't believe I ever claimed approach shoes should not be used on the Exum ridge. I did suggest an alternative. 

I also have both personal and guiding backgrounds in alpine climbing about equal to my rock climbing experience. More of the personal climbing is in the Canadian Rockies, and somewhat less in the Sierra,  kind of the opposite guiding wise, and some of both in  other North American ranges. I personally have never worn approach shoes guiding in the mountains. The closest would be, on just a couple of occasions,  my old Robbins boots. Except for that, and when on primarily snow/ice/glacier routes, I have worn Hanwag Super Frictions (NOT a friction climbing shoe) or the Raichle Eigers. I can't say for sure about guests, but I don't recall any of them ever using approach shoes.  Rock shoes yes, for the few harder Sierra alpine rock routes ( 3rd Pillar,  Mt Goode, Fishhook arete). On all the more moderate climbs clients used medium hiking to light mountaineering boots. And I can't think of a single time one of them ever being overly stressed by rock climbing challenges. They were always,  every  time  successful. Most common alpine rock routes were ( with their old gradings) Lone Pine Peak N ridge, 5.4,  Mt Whitney E face, 5.4, Mt Sill Swiss Arete,  5.4, Mt Conness N ridge,  5.6. To me it is interesting that 3 of these four climbs are now 2 or 3 number grades harder. And based on MP and YouTube postings they seem to require real climbing shoes (I imagine not for guides). So, what gives here? How much better for technical climbing are these modern shoes? Don't get me wrong, in dry conditions, there isn't a pressing need for something resembling a mountaineering boot. But based on my actual experience and observations, boots work. Really well in fact. 

In the case of less experienced climbers, something more boot like has advantages. People who climb a lot develop strong feet. People with weak feet start to suffer after leaving the trail. Some before leaving the trail. Many people will be better served on the in between terrain with something more substantial. As for how B1 or B2 boots climb, they ought be a least as good as my old Raichle Eigers. For most people,  learning to use them effectively will take more than a day. But it isn't that hard. And they are mountaineering shoes. Designed and intended for the job of climbing mountains. The trail, the climb (snow or rock or ice), and the in between. Anyone that thinks they don't work well hasn't learned how.

I don't really care what you do (that's generic you). I like the advantages of going with just one pair of shoes.  To me it's part of being a skilled alpinist. 

So Nate, you might note that I (claim anyway) to have  experience with both  shoes and boots. My opinions are based on that experience, with both. 

Eric, thank you for expounding on this. It makes your opinion on this matter a lot clearer, particularly the part about weak feet. While I think your point about foot fatigue is very valid in inexperienced climbers, how do you consider the effect the added weight of a boot in the same individual for the Grand Teton? The individual who's not climbed enough to have strong feet, likely doesn't have the fitness base for the 7mile and 6000ft approach to be easy either. In that case, isn't the added weight savings and cushioning of an approach shoe a factor that has to be weighed against the foot fatigue?

I climbed the Grand Teton yesterday. It was a particularly crowded day as the prior days had been rain/snow up high and many guided parties were backed up. My other experiences on the Grand were via different routes and this was my first time on the Owen Spalding. With the crowding I had plenty of time to chat and observe at the belays. What I saw makes me think that things have perhaps changed significantly in the intervening years from your time guiding to now. The guide services no longer seem to push their clients to wear mountain boots, but are in fact actually renting approach shoes to them for July-September climbs. While I'm very familiar with the old Five Tennies that you've mentioned in one of your prior posts, I think that "approach shoes" have perhaps evolved and expanded into a category where many models are intended for this kind of specific objective.

I find it a bit curious how you seem to have a bias that everyone here knows little and is completely green. I feel like if you had posted the above information and added your own recommendation that the original poster perhaps consider a light B1 boot versus an approach shoe, it would have been more well received. You have a great deal of experience that you can share, but your posts can carry a tone that comes off a bit condescending. I'd like to genuinely encourage you to share that experience, but do it like a guide would. Give people information in an encouraging way and do it with knowledge for them to consider for the future. 

Climbing today is sorely in need of mentors. You are one who has that history and knowledge, it would be awesome to see you share it in a way that it can be received productively. 

Eric Craig wrote:

For anyone interested, check out "entre terre et ciel" on YouTube. In particular the last few minutes demonstrates rock climbing in old school boots. Plus, he is leading with his bivouac supplies in the pack on his  back. 

I looked this video up because I love these old videos and really enjoyed it. It's always impressive to see what they were doing with the technology that they had. 

It’s hard to reference now because you’ve gone back and deleted posts so I can’t quite recall.

It was more the general tone. And when questioned about why you recommended boots you kind of posted a resume of climbs you’d done in boots rather than giving an answer. “I’ve done xyz back in the day” doesn’t endear people to take advice as much as “I think a boot works better because I’ve noticed it to be less fatiguing on the feet.”

And maybe I should just shut up and let you post however you wish without saying anything? I never asked if you wanted my feedback, so for that I apologize. I chose to say something because I can see there’s a lot of experience and knowledge worth sharing. I’ve also noticed that the approach is losing the audience you’re trying to gain. It comes off a bit insulting to the experienced climber (like myself) who has spent time learning the old ways and meshing them with the new.

The assumption that no one in the room knows anything is a risky and alienating stance. 

Not at all. I think you’re being considered and discussing now. I was clarifying because I was afraid I offended.