Forum menu
The reviews on those adidas suggest that they are not too well built.
These?
[img] 
[/img]
I fear I am not high roller enough for those.
martinhutch - Member
Sisyphus wore these ones:
LA SPORTIVA
Boulder X Approach Shoe
WAS [s]£100.00[/s] [b]£55.00
[/b]
That is a very good price if you can get the size. They are good quality as I checked them at my local outdoor shop recently.
My wife has this problem too - with me.
I won't wear any shoes that aren't comfortable and that I can't just head off up the hill on, ie I expect the shoes I put on in the morning or wear up town to also be able to go squelching through a bog, scrambling up some rocks, or ride my mtb. Hence I wear walking boots or Keen sandals most of the time.
She'd like me to wear leather shoes. The problem is that anything that looks reasonable (to her eyes) is far too tight. Maybe I spent too long running around barefoot when I was a kid, but I have flat wide feet and prefer to have them unconstrained.
Hmm:
[img] 
[/img]
Quick Q for the Haglofs fans. Are they true to size?
I reckon so. I'm a 43 in most brands and a 43 in Haglofs. They also come with half decent insole/footbeds fwiw. Used to be Sole ones, but are now own-brand, but still pretty good.
Just back from GoOutdoors and they had sod all in my size. Looks like it's internet order ahoy.
Got a nice pair of shorts tho....
I wouldn't wear them casually (eg to the pub) but then I wouldn't wear any shoes of this ilk. In fact I dislike anyone who wears [s]hikey shoes [/s]trail running shoes in [s]non outdoors[/s] non trail running environments. But that's just me.
Touché.
I seem to have hit a nerve. I just mean that pretty much all shoes designed for walking look a bit dorky when you're not doing that activity. For the same reason, I don't wear my red roadie SPD shoes when I'm out and about. Well, that and they're basically impossible to walk in.
I've got Salomon OrthoLite shoes, comfiest I've ever had, great for walking. Dont look like walking shoes, but they still do look horrible. I dont care, they are soooo comfy.
Actually, the latest versions of them dont look bad.
http://www.salomon.com/uk/product/xa-chill-2-canvas.html?article=379896
I just mean that pretty much all shoes designed for walking look a bit dorky when you're not doing that activity.
I am on a mission to find a relatively non-dorky pair.
So far I have been mildly unsuccessful, I guess the market for those seeking sensible footwear that looks like an Adidas Busenitz is quite small.
[quote=bongohoohaa ] I just mean that pretty much all shoes designed for walking look a bit dorky when you're not doing that activity. Most of my shoes are designed for walking, even the cycling ones are a compromise. I guess there must be a (very small?) market for shoes designed to be put on a desk, or only for sitting down but it must be a pain swapping them on and off every time you want to go somewhere.
Not sure it was me who originally said that quote, scotroutes.
😆
Most of my shoes are designed for walking, even the cycling ones are a compromise. I guess there must be a (very small?) market for shoes designed to be put on a desk, or only for sitting down but it must be a pain swapping them on and off every time you want to go somewhere.
Well, since we're deliberately misunderstanding: Amongst the myriad of non walking shoe options we have ice skates, ballet shoes, snowboarding boots, tap dancing shoes, roller skates, ski boots, driving shoes, golf shoes, pressure ulcer prevention boots. Some shoes are even, apparently, designed with the only real function of looking non-dorky. That's probably not even an exhaustive list, but let's not* turn this into a thread about different shoe genres.
I think you know what I meant.
* 😉
Just a 'I'm stuck on hold on the phone bored so thought I would update this thread' post.
Tried the Haglof Rocker GTs - High instep didn't suit
Tried the Haglof Vertigos - Really wanted to like them as super comfy, but rubbed a bit when walking, even tho size was right. Still tempted to pick them up anyway, and hope they break in, but at £126, it's a bit of a risk
Tried assorted Merrels, but not a fan really.
Tried some Adidas Terrex Swift R....just confirmed I do not have Adidas feet. 9 too tight across forefoot, 9.5 oddly too 'loose'.
Got some Salomon XA Pros being delivered in a bit from Amazon, so will see how I get on with those.
I hate buying shoes. I will be happier when we can all get our feet swapped for ISO approved sizes so all footwear fits ok. I also think I am on the verge of being banned from Gooutdoors after being in there for an hour last night....I know how to have fun.
I'm just shocked at the apparent confusion on this thread between Sisyphus and Zeno.
just confirmed I do not have Adidas feet. 9 too tight across forefoot, 9.5 oddly too 'loose'.
seen that comment elsewhere as well
I'm just shocked at the apparent confusion on this thread between Sisyphus and Zeno.
Go on...
The other great thing about Salomon trainers is the speedfit lacing system - just shuffle yer feet in and yer done. I only ever pull the laces tight if the going gets a bit iffy.
Good choice, can't fault the Salomon XA Pro, on my 3rd pair , always pick up when reasonably cheap, never paid over £60. Wear for just about everything.
Go on...
I'm getting to it.
The North Face Litewave GTX fit the bill for me. Bloody marvelous, use them for everything. I have no fashion sense though so for all I know I could be embarrassing myself further (If gave a hoot):
[img] 
[/img]
Used to work in a Cotswold. Salomons were comfortable. Tend to be narrow at the heel and come up small. But be quite wide around the toes. So always went half a size bigger on those.
Meindl Respond GTX was quite nice, quite stiff. Looks like a trainer, Quite a lot of support around the heel and arch. Medium width all round.
NorthFace Litewave/Hedgehog GTX- lacking any sort of arch, inner sole comfort. But the actual shoes were very good. Had to buy some other inner soles to fit in these.
Agree. I have a pair of Fellraisers, and the lacing, as well as being able to tuck it all in the tongue pocket, is very handy.
I just they did a more subdued design.
Edit: Although they do a[url= http://www.salomon.com/uk/product/x-ultra-ltr-gtx.html?article=369024&intcmp=shphiking_mtng_pdt_xultraltrgtx_SS16_uk ] leather version of the Ultra 2s apparently[/url]...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
The other great thing about Salomon trainers is the speedfit lacing system
I've only had one pair of Salomon, and the thing I most hated about them was the stupid speedfit lacing. Much prefer proper laces - you can change the lacing pattern, for starters.
Of course, not everyone likes the lacing system....like this guy ^^^^ 😀
Of course, not everyone likes the lacing system....like this guy ^^^
😀
I'm getting to it.
You're so close...almost there!
You're so close...almost there!
Twice as close now as I was before, but still...
Hmmm. This thread is quite the paradox.
always pick up when reasonably cheap, never paid over £60.
I managed to get some of the GTX ones from Amazon for £75. Probably don't need goretext, but seemed a good price. Here's hoping they fit ok. Gone .5 size up as seems to be the common wisdom with Salomon.
Tried the Haglof Vertigos - Really wanted to like them as super comfy, but rubbed a bit when walking, even tho size was right. Still tempted to pick them up anyway, and hope they break in, but at £126, it's a bit of a risk
I've been through about four pairs of these now. They feel a little solid when new, but break in nicely with use.
Is it fair to point out that these shoes all actually look like walking shoes?
Totally fair. Also totally fine to point in the direction of what appears to be a mythical shoe that is good for walking that doesn't look like a walking shoe.
Personally, I have accepted defeat, and growing a beard as we speak, to accompany my new footwear.
I've also given up, on punctuating; correctly it seems.
Is it fair to point out that these shoes all actually look like walking shoes?
At least they don't look like ducks though. Or spring flowers. It's a bit like the way road bikes look like road bikes rather than mountain bikes say. 'I'm looking for a road bike that looks like a downhill bike...'
Is it fair to point out that these shoes all actually look like walking shoes?
It's fair to point out that all those shoes look like the same shoe (trainer, really) in different colour schemes. None of them look like walking shoes unless you walk in the dry all the time.
The daft snobbery about beards, Clarks and cardigans is doubly ridiculous when you suggest a black trainer that looks like one of the original football trainers from 1973 but chunkier.
What you want is a Brasher shoe. Proper leather. Waterproof and wipe clean. Comfortable for people who aren't Italians with pointed feet. You don't look like a 40 year old IT operative. You DO look like somebody in control of your life.
What you want is a Brasher shoe. Proper leather. Waterproof and wipe clean. Comfortable for people who aren't Italians with pointed feet. You don't look like a 40 year old IT operative. You DO look like somebody in control of your life.
Except that Brasher shoes don't exist any more, partly because people in control of their lives chose not to buy them - projection can be deceptive.
When I was in GoOutdoors last night I'm sure I saw a sign saying Berghaus and Brasher were now the same company?
Edit: This very sign in fact:
[url= http://i.imgur.com/MnQ5COU.jp g" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/MnQ5COU.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
The daft snobbery about beards, Clarks and cardigans is doubly ridiculous when you suggest a black trainer that looks like one of the original football trainers from 1973 but chunkier.
😀
I think the ribbing is mild at best. So don't get too offended by it.
Someone mention Clarks?
[img] 
[/img]
I could see those poking out under a nice trouser-leg. Maybe next year...
What's wrong with Scarpa then?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]