Adventure shoes v walking boots

I have this strange urge to ditch my faithful walking boots in favour for some (ludicrously) adventure shoes...

Has anyone done the same and if so how do they fair trashing round snowdonia, up tryfan and the like? I tend to walk with a large daypack as I lead groups and end up with rope, kissu etc so am a tad unsure as to whether they would be siutable (they would be a rather expensive mistake!)

Depends on the shoes, your surefootedness and your ankles. I did the Horseshoe last month in a pair of Salomon Pro Sticky Lows and they were generally fine, though not as sticky as they might have been. I did semi-turn my ankle walking back to the car park at the end of the day, but that was just sheer carelessness and probably would have happened with boots.

Generally you do lose a bit of stability, mainly because most shoes aren't as laterally stiff, but you gain a bit of nimbleness and dexterity. Personally I'm happier with a pair of lightweight boots though I suspect the impression of ankle support is illusory - stability is really down to the heel cup and lateral stiffness of the sole. Is a soft ankle cuff on a boot really going to present a real physical obstacle to an ankle sprain? I'd still rather have used the Pro Sticky Mids tho.

Also depends on the individual shoe - some are good, some less so. Watch out for sole compounds as well, some of the most common ones seem a bit hard for use in the wet. Eg: Berghaus Vertigo Los.

---

OutdoorsMagic Editor | jon@outdoorsmagic.com 

I sometimes walk in trainers or approach shoes, which is perhaps not quite the same thing. They're fine in the dry, but it's a different story in the wet. Salomon Exit Lows just slide all over the place on the wet rock , whereas any old running shoes I've used have always been fine (mind you I always ask about the suitability of running shoes for wet roads before I buy them). The comfort makes up for any lack of stability.

But the one thing they're very poor with is wet approaches, especially mud. Even if the upper is resistant, stuff gets in over the top. So best kept for dry routes and dry days.

I always wonder about the durability of these things. Leather boots - while they do scuff - tend to slide off rocks and stuff, while 'shoes' of whatever type have raised lines of stiching, lots of joints, fabric patches etc, and seem to get roughed up more.

On rocky terrain in suede / fabric affairs I tend to feel the sharp bits more, both through the sole and especially the sides of the uppers. However in the Scarpa SLs (leather sides, stiffish soles) I feel very protected.

To me that is the main difference rather than ankle support.

Whether its a boot or a shoe I value grip and comfort above whether footware keep your feet dry but I am one of those people who are less likely to get a blister when my feet are wet. This does not apply to everyone and some people not only get blisters if they walk in wet footware but other unpleasant problems as well. Regarding the support issue, when considering the support a boot will give you need to look at the forces involved. 2 people who are the same weight walking in a similar manner and taking the same size footware could apply very different forces to their footware because of height difference.

Unfortunatly there is no universal solution for everybody and the number of footware manufacturers still in business is not just a product of fashion.

You need to find out what suits you and be vary wary of anybody that says you must have a particular sort of footwear to walk in a particular area.

hmm here's a little something

WHY EVERY TRAVELLER SHOULD HAVE THEM

THESE all-purpose boots will take you anywhere that doesn't require ropes and crampons. They are so light (only 880gm for my size 6 pair)you could almost dance in them. This makes a difference - research at Sheffield Hallam University demonstrates that carrying an extra 500gm on your feet is equivalent to carrying between 2-2.5kg in your rucksack.