thebackpacker.com - backpacking, hiking and camping Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account   login  
     home : trailtalk
    articles  beginners  gear  links  pictures            

Boots - Necessary?

View Messages

Viewing posts 1 to 27 of 27 messages posted.

To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
 

Are they necessay?
I have done weekend hikes in my New Balance sneakers with 30 lb. pack and have not had any major problems besides sore feet. I'm now planning longer trips (1 week) and am wondering, Are hiking boots totally necessary? I just can't get myself to justify spending 100-200 dollars on them as I've been doing fine so far. Will I suffer on longer trips? Will I be paying a larger price in the long term?
last edited: 4/05/07 9:02:33 PM
Dodger
9:01:42 PM
4/05/07

In difficult terrain you should wear boots. The more hiking you do and the more challenging your hikes, the more apparent that will be. You may need to make up your mind from experience like I have. I finally got to a point where I wanted boots bad. Then, after one trip with a lower cost pair that hurt my shins (and luckily started falling apart the first day out so I got to return them for my money back) I sprung for the $225 all leather units. I now appreciate the value of good footwear. These are so nice I don't even care if I get out of them at the end of the day. My suggestion is get the boots and spring for top of the line.
PauloftheWild
9:16:02 PM
4/05/07

Anymore, I dislike hiking in traditional boots. The weight and lack of ankle flexibility wears me out. I prefer decent hiking shoes (low or mid-height).

I agree with you that if you keep the pack weight relatively low, lighter footwear works fine for on-trail hiking.

Off-trail or rocky paths may require a more substantial boot, however.
Owl
9:20:55 PM
4/05/07

It depends on teh person. A couiple years ago there were a couple girls that thruhiked the AT barefoot. There are plenty of dudes that hike in Tevos and even more that hike in hiking sneakers
hyway
9:23:42 PM
4/05/07

Best answer is a question, "necessary for what?"

There really is no pat answer. It depends on your body, how you hike and how much weight you carry have as well as the terrain. And then there is a matter of individual preference.

I've hiked for a week over very rugged terrain in bad conditions in trail runners - my pack weight never reached 25 pounds. I had to be more careful about where I stepped and how I stepped with trail runners.
pedxing
9:31:30 PM
4/05/07

As long as you are able to hike your hike with running shoes, I say do it. I have done both the heavy duty hiking boots and the ultralight weight trail runners thing. My preference is something in between. I like the durability of hiking boots, but hate everything else about them. My feet and ankles do not need mega hiking boots support and I normally say screw the waterproof stuff since a good pair of trail runners will dry from a stream crossing faster than you imagine. Seriously – give your running shoes a try before spending big $ on heavy boots.
hubcap
9:43:32 PM
4/05/07

i have one really bad ankle and the trails here in SoCal are really rocky. i recommend boots here. as far as money, well, you get what you pay for a lot of the time. if your feet hurt already, maybe it's time to spend the money.
Pamela
9:45:23 PM
4/05/07

I have always hiked in boots. I can not imagine hiking in sneakers. But I have foot problems, especially now and I need the protection, support and durability boots offer. By the same token, I am a geezer and they have come a long long way from the Converse All-Star sneakers I grew up with. Not to say the CAS are bad shoes. They are great but there are low and stable shoes now that were not around when I started hiking.
Ramblinrev
9:54:33 PM
4/05/07

I like the light weight of a "trail shoe" during the warmer months, but in winter or spring mud, give me a good GTX boot anytime.
BackSlacker
10:02:38 PM
4/05/07

I started hiking with trail runners a while back. You could count on me twisting my ankle at least twice on every trip.

Started wearing boots again a couple weeks ago. Not one single ankle twist.
Gem
10:11:54 PM
4/05/07

As nearly everyone else has said, it depends on you. Most of my hiking is in West Texas over non-existent trails (My wife's family has a ranch 45 minutes from the house) that are rocky in parts, muddy in parts, grassy in parts with some nice elevations to scamper up.

I also have weak ankles (used to be a skateboarder and tore one up rather badly once) so I need boots. If I were just day-hiking on a well maintained trail you can beat your boots (Ha, I kill me!) I'd just be wearing my Teva sandals and have done with it.
Bard
10:27:59 PM
4/05/07

Thanks!
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their input. I think I'm going to go with the sneakers for the summer and see what happens. I plan on staying on trails mostly (AT) and fording streams (Cohutta) so I think I'll see how much longer they last. Once winter comes around, or if I decide to go off-trail, I may invest. (I'm 25 and a bit on the small side but been an athlete my whole life. Right now I'm in grad school and very short on money, my main concern.)
Dodger
11:06:23 PM
4/05/07

I have always worn all-leather boots since the '70s and I can't say that I have ever twisted an ankle.

$100 to $200 for boots is not an outrageous sum of money considering that I paid $90 for Pivetta Italian mountaineering boots in '79 and $70 for a lighter pair of the same brand the same year.
Both those pairs lasted until the '90s when the leather mid-soles finally gave it up.

I now have a pair of Cabela's All-Leather Mountain Hiker Boots with the wrap-around, cemented rubber sole instead of the old-style stitched Norwegian welt on the Pivettas. Those Cabela's boots are 3.5 years old and still good though rather worn.
They too are Italian and cost $150.
These modern boots are lighter than my old leather boots and considering inflation over 25 years, $150 is a bargain.

I never cross streams in my boots.
Keeping the boots dry is imperative and until I discovered Teva sandals some years ago, I would cross streams barefoot.
MarkO
11:13:46 PM
4/05/07

ok, so you don't wanna spend money on boots right now. i guess as long as you don't have to spend any money on fixing your ankles or feet or knees, it's not really an issue.

one fall = one torn miniscus left knee + one severly sprained right ankle

x-rays, ct-scans, lost hours of work, various medications, various wraps, splints, braces, etc
Pamela
1:54:52 AM
4/06/07

My ankles are like rope from combat boots (lack of support) and soccer. So they turn with or without boots on. When my pack is 35 lbs or under, and the weather is above freezing, I wear trail runners. And I get out quite a bit, and am on very rocky trail. I do have to focus on where I place my feet, and balance - but I think I woudl need to be just as careful regardless of footwear.

Someone said before that there is no pat answer. I like that. So there is the Patsquach answer.
Patsquach
7:21:48 AM
4/06/07

In the southeast all you need are good trail runners if you watch out for tree roots. In California or anywhere else where you're hiking through loose gravel and rocks you'll want boots that support your ankles.
solitary hiker
7:26:07 AM
4/06/07

No. I no longer hike in boots unless its cold and snowy. Boots kill my feet. Running shoes are fine.
spirit coyote
7:28:25 AM
4/06/07

in the south east? sol...you know that's not true!!

Unless you're talking about Florida.
last edited: 4/06/07 7:53:25 AM
Gem
7:52:53 AM
4/06/07

I would recommend that you do a 500 miler with a boot on your right foot and a trail runner on your left. The results will be self evident:) I like both.
Nimblefoot
8:06:53 AM
4/06/07

Sounds like you are in GA (did a lot of hiking in the Cohutta when I lived out there). You should be fine with something less burly since those trails are mostly dirt. I used to hike in the GA mtns in sandals all the time because there were so many stream crossings. Hiking on granite is a different story.
roseymonster
9:49:23 AM
4/06/07

Unless you're talking about Florida.

Ever hiked in sugar sand?
Yeah, that'll turn an ankle with a quickness.

For me it's boots all the time.
Yes, even when I was in Florida.
humanpackmule
10:06:11 AM
4/06/07

Haha, one on each foot! I bet the rest of you wish you were as smart as Nimblefoot.
lyra
10:27:45 AM
4/06/07

(they do, but they aren't)
Nimblefoot
10:29:38 AM
4/06/07

Boots -- Not a bad idea.
Tilt
10:42:33 AM
4/06/07

I rather like boots for hiking.
Roam Around
10:52:13 AM
4/06/07

I'm all about the trail runners after learning about it from Hubcap. I wore boots to a 5-day hike we went on to Isel Royale and suffered pretty horrible blisters. He wore trail runners and I don't think he had any problems, even on that terrain.

From that time on I went with trail runners. I do about 9 - 14 miles a week of dayhiking in the dunes in them. Then about a month ago I decided to go back to the boots for that day's hike. Big mistake. I couldn't believe the difference. I couldn't even finish my normal 4.5 mile loop.

It's definitely a personal preference. But if you have been happy so far, stay with it. Maybe invest in a better pair of trail runners rather than boots when you're ready to get something new.
Ruby
11:14:03 AM
4/06/07

The first couple of times I went backpacking I wore tennis shoes. That was five years ago, and I still have problems with my arch in my right foot bothering me. The rocks caused some damage in the tendons of my foot, and to this day I still feel it.

I recommend that whatever you wear make sure that the sole of the shoe is thick and sturdy enough to protect your feet. Hiking boots are better because of the support they provide.
jahunsmythe
9:01:35 AM
4/10/07

<< back to Trail Talk main page

 

Post a Message

In order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.

 

Login Form

Username:
Password:

 

 

Post a New Thread
Search Threads
Browse Archive

Create a New Account

Trail Talk Main Page