View Full Version : Boots: Old School/New School - Why?
donthaveoneyet
10-03-2015, 17:12
I don't think I still have any of the hiking boots that I bought and used in the mid-1970's thru early 80's. I'm not sure what brands were popular, but I do remember them being heavy, leather, high-topped boots. I also remember carrying plenty of moleskin.
Although I don't have any of those old boots, I do have some that I've had a long time that I think are somewhat similar. In the picture below, I show several different boots that I own. On the far left, are my Asolo TP 520 GV's. These are the boots that I use mostly nowadays. Next to them is a pair of Chippewa's that I've had for over 30 years. They are awesome boots. I think I bought them mainly for work, when I was working as a carpenter in New England in the 1980's. Next to them is a pair that I have had for well over 20 years. Can't find a name on them. They are lighter than the Chippewa's, but comfortable. Next to them is a pair of Merrill Moabs. I bought these when I got a shin splint about 3 years ago hiking, because my doctors told me to get "better footwear." As you can see, they haven't been used much, because I promptly manage to tear an Achilles tendon while hiking with them. That's when I got the Asolo's (and green Superfeet). In the front is a pair of NB 965's - I was wearing these when I got the shin splint.
So I think the "old school" hiking boots were more like the Chippewa's than any of the others - heavy, leather, high-topped, with big heavy soles. I wore boots like that hiking from Springer north on the AT about 100 miles, through the Whites on the AZT, in the Colorado and Canadian Rockies, and all through Nantahala and Pisgah many times, among other places. When I started hiking again a few years ago, I found that boots had changed a lot (as has everything else). I love all the new, light gear. It helps my old self to be able to hike more. But I can't quite get my head around the new footwear. Everyone seems to wear "trail runners." You can't even find real high-topped hiking boots. The Asolo's were the closest thing I could find, and as you can see, they are much lower than the old boots there.
I've read seemingly endless "debates", and lots of people seem to say that high-topped, firm, heavy boots do not really protect against injury. My experience seems to suggest otherwise. But I'm not a doctor (although I've seen several about these issues).
My question is, why do you think we've moved away from high-topped hiking boots? And what is your opinion and your experience with various boots, including as it might relate to injuries or the avoidance thereof.
Thanks.
32189
We've moved away from heavy, clunky boots, because they are heavy and clunky. Do you really need more explanation than that?
mattjv89
10-03-2015, 18:16
My experience is that I hike much better in trail runners with a typical thru hike load (25-30ish out of town with water for me). I had the experience of trying both on my thru hike and I absolutely did better in the trail runners. I went from Waynesboro VA to Rutland with a pair of Vasque Inhaler which are a heavier shoe, more of a low top boot than a trail runner. Wasn't really a choice, Rockfish Gap Outfitters doesn't sell trail runners and the old pair of runners were about 100 late for the trash by that point.
When I switched back to a pair of trail runners in Rutland I noticed a couple things right away. I stubbed my toe about 80% less frequently, which I attribute to lifting my foot lower in the heavier shoes. I frequently caught myself walking with a very heavy stride in the boots towards the end of the day like they were dragging me down a lot more. Again, that stopped with the trail runners. I also find that I'm more careful with my steps in trail runners because there is much less padding so if I'm walking with a heavy stride or stepping on things I could step over I'll feel it right away. Having done both I doubt I'll ever use anything but trail runners again for 3 season AT hiking.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
garlic08
10-03-2015, 18:31
I pretty much gave up backpacking about 20 years ago due serious knee pain with the old clunkers. My wife, more open-minded than me, started trying lighter shoes and I was inspired to do the same. That's when my long distance hiking career really took off. Hiking became painless and fun.
I had to work for several months on adjusting to running shoes. I never thought I could simply replace my boots with shoes, hike on the same terrain, and everything would immediately get better. I had to train my lower legs to walk differently (probably developing different muscles and strengthening different sinews), and train my brain to look at the trail differently. The payback is immense.
Footwear certainly has improved over the years. I was also a leather boot person for years. Found that sneakers and hiking did not do my toes any favors. That old experience has kept me away from trail runners. Today I still use ankle high boots usually Merrills, but do keep an open mind. They certainly are much lighter than old school leather and have about the same useful life. Also discovered early on that the sock is very important and always carry an extra pair.
fiddlehead
10-04-2015, 08:43
I look at professional porters around the world.
Many wear flip flops.
Many wear nothing on their feet.
Sherpas wear boots when they must work in deep snow. Usually double boots, some plastic, some leather.
But, even the porters in Nepal (not above snowline) wear flip flops or sneakers.
Who wears leather boots? The army? (do they still??? I don't know)
But yes, hikers too have changed over to lighter weight on their feet.
I think it was one of those things that everyone felt they had to do until Ray Jardine told us we didn't have to.
We tried it, and we liked it.
Up to you of course though.
Pedaling Fool
10-04-2015, 08:55
My experience confirms (in my mind) that heavy leather hiking boots don't protect ankles from rolling, i.e they don't protect this type of injury. Other type injuries are debatable; conditioning your ankles only real way to protect them.
As for why we use to hike in heavy boots I think is because what else was there? When I was growing up, sneakers were very flimsy, so it was only natural to go with heavy leather boots. However, as hiking became more popular of course it would attract innovators. The rest is history...
I use gaiters, because I have a high likely hood to kick stuff up in my shoes and I hate muddy socks; however, I've been accused of wearing these things because I look more like a hiker -- not true in the least. However, I do believe many wear hiking boots because of the look and I personally do like the look, so in that case my accusers may be correct:o
Recently I've hiked very rugged trails in simple $30 running shoes and I felt fine, but didn't like the look.:o:o The truth really hurts sometimes...
bamboo bob
10-04-2015, 09:05
The reason we have moved to trail runners instead of Scarpa boots or Rachle's is that our pack weight has dropped so much we do not need a heavy boot for support. If your back is 40 pounds those boots could still be needed.
Sarcasm the elf
10-04-2015, 09:06
I never learned much about boots in school one way of the other. :D
In my experience, the main problem with high topped boots accomplish is they lock up my ankles, making it impossible for them to properly flex and bend and preventing them from doing their job of helping me balance and as a result substantially increasing the force of impact as I walk. Additionally all of the impact that my ankles are designed to absorb/prevent is transferred straight into my knees.
The main advantage to boots is that they keep my feet warm and dry.
I hike in sneakers as long as the temperature is above freezing, but switch over to my Skarpa boots when winter hits.
Traveler
10-04-2015, 12:01
I still use my Asolo 520s in winter condition when I may be using traction devices, snowshoes, or want to be sure I stay dry in below freezing conditions. However, I have mostly moved into low shoes in non-winter conditions due to their relative lighter weight and flexibility of motion. The differences between runners and shoes tends to be in construction, shoes tending to be a little more robust. However for a while now I have enjoyed using the lighter low shoes, especially on well groomed trails.
I still miss the protection of a higher topped shoe though and recently got a pair of Salomon X-Ultra mids that are about an inch lower than my 520s, but fit, feel, and act like a low trail shoe. They are less than half the weight of the 520s and perform better than my trail shoes. I don't know how water resistant they are, I have only had them out in some showers (in heavy wet grass) and through occasional trail ponding without problems but time will tell on these. Since they behave more like low shoes than boots I would suggest trying a pair of these on to see how you like them if you are looking to change your footgear.
donthaveoneyet
10-04-2015, 18:49
Thanks all for the very thoughtful replies. Some points I hadn't thought of before. Mostly, I hadn't thought of the notion that, if we can carry less, we need less in foot support. Makes sense. Even so, in the old days, I seem to recall 35 lbs was our target weight; my target now may be 10 lbs less than that, but I'm also a lot older. :)
FWIW, I haven't been too concerned about twisting my ankle (although that was a major reason for wearing the old monsters years ago -- which, btw, I remembered were Fabiano's). It's mostly the tendon injuries that worry me now. My docs tell me that as I get older my tendons are weaker, and take longer to recover. Hm. I do realize the best approach is to work them, build them up, but that takes time and I don't want to re-injure myself doing it.
Anyway, thanks, I will continue to wear the 520's for now. Considering a pair of Limmers and custom orthotics. Oh, and btw, I actually think the 520's are ugly as hell - the Merrill's "look" much cooler. (I'm laughing, but it's true.)
Another Kevin
10-05-2015, 08:40
I've found that for me, what matters for not hurting an ankle is the heel cup, not the boot top. Most trail runners come with insoles that are worthless, so I toss the stock ones and put in green Superfeet. (Superfeet come in a bunch of colors. Green is what fits me. Someone with a lower arch might need blue. Someone whose foot rolls in the other direction might need copper. and so on.) But on rereading, I see you're using those already.
Trail runners will not support traction gear. I've hiked with some people who think otherwise. They haven't convinced me, and it's my arse that's on the line. Come shoulder season, I switch to mid-height boots with over-the-calf gaiters. Then I switch again to Sorel pac boots for real winter. I envy Elf the fact that he found his Scarpa boots for cheap! (Of course, if I switched to hardshell boots, I'd have to relearn crampon technique. You step a different way with semi-flexible boots and strap-ons then you do with hardshells. It's just as secure, as long as you're not doing technical climbing. It's just different.)
If your 520s don't give you problems, stick with them! Shoes that don't give you problems are hard to find. I don't care if they're "old school," those Italian boots were great. I'd still love to have the Pivetta boots that I used in college. I hiked in them for twenty years, but I can't replace them because they're not being made any more.
Of course, take what I say with a grain of salt, since right now I'm nursing a bad heel that's probably fasciitis. :( I don't blame my shoes for that, though, since it flared up during a time that I wasn't hiking. I was forced off trail for six weeks with a knee injury, which happened in a fall, so I don't blame my boots for that one either.
vamelungeon
10-05-2015, 08:48
Heavy inflexible footwear causes more injuries than it prevents. Light flexible footwear strengthens the feet and makes them less prone to injury, IMHO. Do societies where shoes aren't worn have all these foot and ankle problems?
MuddyWaters
10-05-2015, 08:56
95% of the benefit of boots on established trails is proprioception.
Most learn to do without it fine.
Bushwacking offtrail is where boots are needed.
Another Kevin
10-05-2015, 09:09
Heavy inflexible footwear causes more injuries than it prevents. Light flexible footwear strengthens the feet and makes them less prone to injury, IMHO. Do societies where shoes aren't worn have all these foot and ankle problems?
Most societies where shoes aren't worn don't have quite the same life expectancy we do. A lot of the foot and ankle problems you hear about on this forum are from the old poops. (And, as I already said, I wear trail runners when the traction allows. The moment that there might be ice about, they go in the closet.)
95% of the benefit of boots on established trails is proprioception.
Most learn to do without it fine.
Bushwacking offtrail is where boots are needed.
Or winter hiking. Well, I guess that always involves at least some bushwhacking off trail, since trails in winter are ... approximate. But I've been on some pretty gnarly bushwhacks in summer in trail runners and gaiters.
I hiked in leather boots for many years, back when that was the norm. Then in the early 2000s (age 50 or so) I began hiking in fabric boots, and by 2007 or so I was using running shoes or trail runners.
Most recently I've moved back to ankle-high fabric boots, at least for situations where the trail may be wet or muddy. On my most recent AT trek I really appreciated the Vibram soles.
For hiking in winter in the White Mountains, I wear Sorrels.
I hiked in leather boots for many years, back when that was the norm. Then in the early 2000s (age 50 or so) I began hiking in fabric boots, and by 2007 or so I was using running shoes or trail runners.
Most recently I've moved back to ankle-high fabric boots, at least for situations where the trail may be wet or muddy. On my most recent AT trek I really appreciated the Vibram soles.
For hiking in winter in the White Mountains, I wear Sorrels.
donthaveoneyet
10-05-2015, 12:17
Most societies where shoes aren't worn don't have quite the same life expectancy we do. A lot of the foot and ankle problems you hear about on this forum are from the old poops. (And, as I already said, I wear trail runners when the traction allows. The moment that there might be ice about, they go in the closet.)
Also, I think in those kinds of cultures, people are living without footwear (or with very little) from an early age, and live very mobile lives. Their bodies are no doubt conditioned very differently than ours. As a once-upon-a-time anthropology major, I tend to take comparisons to such societies with a large grain of salt.
Tipi Walter
10-05-2015, 15:49
If your 520s don't give you problems, stick with them! Shoes that don't give you problems are hard to find. I don't care if they're "old school," those Italian boots were great. I'd still love to have the Pivetta boots that I used in college. I hiked in them for twenty years, but I can't replace them because they're not being made any more.
I have found a brand that fits me well and never gives me problems and are comfy right out of the box. Asolos! Problem is, their quality control is terrible and I need to find a suitable brand-replacement.
No trail runners for me, I need some lug soles for grip and trail runners have terrible soles for wet or muddy trails. It's funny to see backpackers around me in trail runners slipping and sliding with long skid marks all over the trail. Remember the old lug boots of the 1970s?
Plus, I need higher boots with more support to both carry my 80 lb packs and to do low water fords without immediately soaking my socks. A high Asolo Fugitive boot is what I use, goretex of course. 85% of all creek crossings in the Southeast mountains of TN, Georgia, NC and VA are easy fords between 1 to 6 inches deep and so whatever you are wearing will sink to that depth in order to do a ford or to rock hop.
Try these little crossings in fabric boots or trail runners and POW you've just saturated your socks---not good on the first day of a 21 day winter trip. A good boot with a GTX liner is able to pull 6 inch deep wadings with no leaks, and of course you don't stand in the water for 20 minutes. Fabric boots soak in water like a canvas tennis shoe and so the high need for an above ankle GTX boot.
But alas poor Asolo---
https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpack-2015-Trips-161/Big-Frog-Wilderness/i-jTbwrsM/0/L/TRIP%20168%20186-L.jpg
A brand new pair of Asolo Fugitives---3 months old. This is their third backpacking trip. Oops, and a hard at-home repair but I did it with an awl and needle/thread. I wonder if Asolo boots are made in Romania by spider monkeys???
Sarcasm the elf
10-05-2015, 17:39
No trail runners for me, I need some lug soles for grip and trail runners have terrible soles for wet or muddy trails. It's funny to see backpackers around me in trail runners slipping and sliding with long skid marks all over the trail. Remember the old lug boots of the 1970s?
This is one thing that is causing me aggrivation about trail runners at the moment. I had a great pair of Vasque Velocitiy runners that had some of the grippiest soles I've ever seen, and tough as a car tire too. It took me fuve years to finally destry them and they are now discontinued. I have been trying to find a really good replacement but can't find any sort of trail runner with an aggressive grippy tread. It's as if the manufacturers don't fully understand the conditions encountered when running on a trail.
aka.cyberman
10-05-2015, 20:18
I used to have Asolo Yukons. They were tough as nails and as heavy as cinder blocks. I'm taking up hiking again and just bought a pair of Lowa's. They are 2lbs 5 oz.
Giving them a test drive next week. My guess is, they are going to be comfortable.
donthaveoneyet
10-05-2015, 21:50
I was not familiar with the Sorel boots. Was looking at the website, and those "Paxson" and "Conquest" boots look awesome.
Sarcasm the elf
10-05-2015, 22:25
I was not familiar with the Sorel boots. Was looking at the website, and those "Paxson" and "Conquest" boots look awesome.
I had been a big fan of the Conquest boots, except that the stitching on mine tore out right where the rubber upper connected to the leather. People have since told me that this is a common problem with "pac" boots after a couple of seasons of use. However aside from that bit of caution I found them to be very good boots when they lasted.
Since I mention it, does anyone have a suggestion on how to fix this? Shoe-goo, which is my ususal go-to fix only lasted for a couple of days before coming undone.
hikehunter
10-06-2015, 02:42
The only good "old school" boots still on the market are the REDWING hikers. I have found that they are the best winter boot. When the weather warms-up and it is mostly dry it is time to go to the mid-weight midhight boot or a quality trail runner like Merrell.
The Redwing boot wi keep your feet warm and dry. You are most likly caring a larger load and will need the better support in the winter weather...
Tipi Walter
10-06-2015, 08:47
The only good "old school" boots still on the market are the REDWING hikers. I have found that they are the best winter boot. When the weather warms-up and it is mostly dry it is time to go to the mid-weight midhight boot or a quality trail runner like Merrell.
The Redwing boot wi keep your feet warm and dry. You are most likly caring a larger load and will need the better support in the winter weather...
Here's a pic of the Red Wing Hiker boot---
http://in1.ccio.co/OF/OE/sA/51Pg1zEfysL.jpg
There are ALOT of boots like this on the market---hundreds. Plus, it must be remembered, Red Wing now makes Vasque boots and see the line up here---
http://www.vasque.com/USD/activities/winter-hiking
Or their backpacking boots---
http://www.vasque.com/USD/activities/backpacking
shakey_snake
10-06-2015, 12:51
IMO, the biggest disadvantage of boots is that they take forever to dry out. That alone causes all sorts of nasty foot problems.
The second biggest problem is that they are heavy. I'm already very conscious of my pack weight, it makes little sense to then wear an extra pound on each foot compared to lighter alternatives. My legs are noticeably fresher after a long day in trail runners. The fact that boots take forever to dry out exacerbates this problem.
The biggest issue with runners is that I kick stuff into them. Fortunately, breathable, light gaiters like dirty girls solve that problem with little side effect.
I feel like most the discussion about injuries is going to be happenstance. None of us is going to individually have a large enough set of data to make statistically significant conclusions. If we hiked enough to do so, we probably wouldn't be posting so much on Whiteblaze. :P
However, I do personally feel that I'm personally going to be less prone to stepping-related injuries when my legs are active and fresh. If I hurt myself it's usually when I'm tired, not mentally-footsure and plodding. So again, a lighter runner is going to win.
However, I will say that the super-light, non-supportive "barefoot" style shoes definitely did NOT leave me more comfortable when hiking the rocky jeep roads and dry streambeds I was often on in AZ (AT's Penn section might as well be paver stones in comparison).
FlyFishNut
10-06-2015, 18:22
No trail runners for me, I need some lug soles for grip and trail runners have terrible soles for wet or muddy trails. It's funny to see backpackers around me in trail runners slipping and sliding with long skid marks all over the trail. Remember the old lug boots of the 1970s?
Contraire Mon Frere.... These trail runners are like having velcro on your feet. I ran a few Spartan (mud) races in the rain in these and everyone was sliding and I was like spider man---girls were actually holding on to me (definite perk). The lugs are soft - so I don't know how long they would hold up hiking (I run in them not hike).
http://www.rei.com/product/757243/salomon-speedcross-3-trail-running-shoes-mens
So, I'd been a convert to trail runners until this summer, where on two separate hikes, I ended up walking with wet shoes and socks for days on end. Is there any way around that?
A frequent question on the trail. From 2009 to 2012, I used Vasque Breeze midcut boots, they were fine, but heavy. Decided to make a change, and I've hiked with Garmont Momentum low-cut trail running shoes from 2013 to early 2015. They felt great, light weight, moved fast, high miles each day. But in my case it came with a price. I endured frequent foot injuries during that time, different tendonitis issues, then the achilles tendon tear I'm blogging on this website. That's not to say low cut trail runners are not perfectly fine for hiking the AT. Many, many hikers use them with great success.
In my case, whenever I recover from the achilles surgery, I plan to use a different brand midcut boot again....possibly Keen or Lowa hiking boots.
really it will come down to the individual
cycle003
10-06-2015, 21:27
I like that newer type of hiking boots and shoes don't really need to be broken in like old school leather boots, which often result in initial suffering.
I like my Merrell Moab waterproof mid cuts. Light, and comfortable.
Last trip, I could not find them anywhere. (they were hiding under the bed).
I had to use my old Columbia mid cuts. I don't remember the model name, I don't see it in there current offerings.
Basic leather boot, sturdy standard vibram sole. I had liked them, but they are pretty heavy.
I was nervous about how the additional weight we feel.
Turns out, not so bad. The additional weight is offset by my much lighter pack (compared to when I bought the Columbias). And, I was surprised to find my feet felt better than I expected them too. The old-school harder sole protected my feet from the rocks better.
Still, I like the Merrells a little better.
Yes, I have soft feet. And weak ankles. Product of nearly 30 years of desk job.
Every section hike, I have at least one incident where I roll my ankle, and my boot limits it so much that it is a non-event, never even missing a stride. For me, I'd be an idiot to use low-cut footwear, I'd end up having to hop several miles, or get rescued. Every time.
Casey & Gina
10-07-2015, 13:57
Here's a pic of the Red Wing Hiker boot---
If I were going to go for a boot, I'd want something with less seams. I don't understand why so many modern boots have all the styling with multiple pieces of leather, except perhaps that these are cheaper and easier to make this way, and I guess manufacturers are okay with throwing in a waterproof liner instead of focusing on keeping the leather outer layer waterproof with proper maintenance. Ideal boots would be very few, larger pieces of full-grain leather. Gussetted lace holes like the ones on the bottom of the Red Wings pictured above are the most failsafe. I prefer the inside of the boot to also be leather as this is both more durable and comfortable. A layer of padding between the inner and outer layers of leather can increase comfort and add insulation. Also, a good boot should be possible to resole numerous times while the upper continues to stand the test of time.
Something like this design seems to be ideal:
32212
Casey & Gina
10-07-2015, 13:59
Also as a former ice skater, I can say that custom boots made on lasts shaped after your individual feet make a HUGE difference versus wearing a stock size. I am not sure whether there are reputable custom boot makers that specialize in hiking boots, but if there are this would probably be the most ideal way to go for the sake of your feet.
Casey & Gina
10-07-2015, 14:08
Also as a former ice skater, I can say that custom boots made on lasts shaped after your individual feet make a HUGE difference versus wearing a stock size. I am not sure whether there are reputable custom boot makers that specialize in hiking boots, but if there are this would probably be the most ideal way to go for the sake of your feet.
After a quick bit of searching, Limmer boots (http://www.limmercustomboot.com/cgi-bin/CustomBoot/index.pl) look rather intriguing!
32213
Casey & Gina
10-07-2015, 14:08
Also as a former ice skater, I can say that custom boots made on lasts shaped after your individual feet make a HUGE difference versus wearing a stock size. I am not sure whether there are reputable custom boot makers that specialize in hiking boots, but if there are this would probably be the most ideal way to go for the sake of your feet.
After a quick bit of searching, Limmer boots (http://www.limmercustomboot.com/cgi-bin/CustomBoot/index.pl) look rather intriguing!
32213
Old Hillwalker
10-07-2015, 15:13
I have owned and worn Limmer Customs since 1980. I have two pair since the first set was resoled too many times for the last go-round. For the past few years I have only worn the Limmers for trail work, or on really extremely rough trails carrying heavy loads. My go to boots for semi-lightweight backpacking are New Balance mid high boots. My Limmers cost $180 (1980) $650 (2002) way too much money for today's hiking equipment. My original Limmers were insulated and I wore them for winter hiking back in the 80s and early 90s. In the 90s I got a pair of Koflach Extremes for winter use.
Another Kevin
10-07-2015, 22:05
So, I'd been a convert to trail runners until this summer, where on two separate hikes, I ended up walking with wet shoes and socks for days on end. Is there any way around that?
This summer, early, was just horrible. I've never seen the mud that bad. I got the distinct impression that waterproof boots would have been even worse, because my socks would have been wet the first time I went in calf-deep - which happened with distressing regularity - and then there'd have been no hope at all of walking them dry because the Gore-Tex would keep the water in.
About all that worked for me was to use Gurney Goo twice a day on my feet so that at least I didn't get trench foot.
kombiguy
10-14-2015, 20:45
The only good "old school" boots still on the market are the REDWING hikers. I have found that they are the best winter boot. When the weather warms-up and it is mostly dry it is time to go to the mid-weight midhight boot or a quality trail runner like Merrell.
The Redwing boot wi keep your feet warm and dry. You are most likly caring a larger load and will need the better support in the winter weather...
The Redwings have nothing on Alico. Still handmade in Italy, Goodyear welt, Vibram montagnabloc soles, these are the ne plus ultra of old-school.32303
Sarcasm the elf
10-14-2015, 20:59
The Redwings have nothing on Alico. Still handmade in Italy, Goodyear welt, Vibram montagnabloc soles, these are the ne plus ultra of old-school.32303
This is interesting. I used to have a handout from EMS about boots vs trail runners vs hikers made in the late 1990's or early 2000's, which I sadly last years ago. According to the pamphlet, the true difference between a traditional boot and a hiker was that boots had an upper that was sewn onto a sole which could be replaced when it was worn out, where as the defining characteristic of a hiking shoe or sneaker was that the upper or sole were either glued or injection molded together which made it so the sole could not be replaced.
It's good to see that someone is still making a real hiking "boot"