[pct-l] Running Shoes vs. boots

[Stephen]

I find I agree with Diane here in that one tends to walk according to the 
footwear they have on. I'll also add that the lighter foot gear the more 
nimble and quick you can redirect your foot and with less energy.  Some 
folks still swear by boots, and that's fine, but also, boots are not what 
they used to be.  Perhaps the glue they use now is not as good or the 
midsole rubberers.  Don't know, but they do break down, and the product 
reviews on various outfitters and camping goods web sites will attest to 
this moer than anywhere else.  The best boots, though heavy, are still 
traditionally stiched down leather and vibram lug soles.  But just about any 
recently broke in pair of light to mid weight boots should get through the 
Sierra so long as your feet can.  I favor a over the ankle mid light hiking 
shoe/boot without gortex so they'll dry faster.  When I break out the 
regular mountain trekking boots Ican expect a lot less miles, and amoften 
finding that I have to be more careful as with the higher heel of a big boot 
is when I find I catch loose rock and stuff and have a tendency to turn my 
ankles out, which while I haven't had any injury that has slowed me down, I 
did notice the stiffer boot translates the ankle turn up to my knee.  So the 
boot means generally a slower pace, less miles, and a lot more chance of 
heel blistering in my case on those long Sierra switchback and uphill 
grades.  In snow I'd rather have the boot, but not if I have to cross creeks 
in the same day as hiking in wet boots don't care for.
A good compromise for me has been something like Merrel's non-Gortex 
Camelions for a few trips, but never did more than about fifteen miles a day 
in them.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diane at Santa Barbara Hikes dot com" <diane at santabarbarahikes.com>
To: <ned at pacificcrestcustombuilders.com>
Cc: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Running Shoes vs. boots


>
> On Feb 27, 2009, at 5:59 PM, <ned at pacificcrestcustombuilders.com> wrote:
>> What I was thinking about was more of evasive maneuvers, sudden
>> changes of course, the quick turn you have to make when you see a
>> root, boulder, or branch in your path. Sometimes just quickly
>> moving around the campsite my foot will roll over a twig, cone, or
>> stone on the compacted ground there.
>
> Well, ballet dancers wear slippers, not boots.
>
> From what I have read in my research about the evils of shoes in
> general (mostly pro-barefoot points of view), one of the bad things
> about heavy shoes is that they allow you to just crash your way
> through rocks and twigs. The less you have on your foot the more
> carefully you will place your foot and the less you will find
> yourself rolling over twigs, cones and stones.
>
> Someone said they could not remember anyone on the trail wearing
> boots. I remember Steve wore boots. His trailname became Salty, from
> what I've learned. He wore Asolo boots, very nice ones. He had to
> replace them in Agua Dulce because the soles delaminated. He said he
> just preferred boots. Nobody really cares what anyone else uses (with
> the exception of Sneering Ultralight Warner Springs Monty). So if you
> prefer boots you should use them. You should use the gear that will
> give you the success you need.
>
> My Uncle Lorenzo wore boots, too, and had a huge, heavy pack full of
> fancy camera gear. He wore a huge Nikon around his neck with a huge
> lense. He hiked fast and with a permanent smile on his face. I wish I
> knew what happened to him. Did he make it?
>
> By the way, not everyone uses an ultralight, frameless pack either.
> Some people still use external frame packs. And why not? They are
> great. A woman last year used one. Kristina or Kathleen or something
> like that was her name.
>
> Diane
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>