Shoes and over the ankle imperative

[Robert E. Spenger]

In 2000, I started from Arles and crossed the Pyrenees at Somport. I used the
highway for the Pyrenees crossing, since the guide book warned that the trail
was poorly marked and that the stream crossings were sometimes impossible,
especially in bad weather. By this time I had had enough of poorly marked
trails and having to do a wide detour on account of a raging torrent that was
ordinarily an easy stream to wade through. The route follows the GR 653 and the
most rugged part would seem to be the trail up the Gorge d'Herault. But it was
simply that, a trail. No cross country (except when I got lead astray near the
end of the descent), no bush-whacking, no boulder hopping, and no sliding down
a loose scree slope jumping from one loose-looking rock to another to take the
most advantage of gravity. In other words, no resemblance to a Sierra Nevada
(Calif.) peak bag - except Whitney, which does have a trail to the top. On the
last day of that trip, I did get into a tricky situation, trying to climb down
the cliff from the lighthouse at Fisterra. But this was not really a part of
the camino. I was just trying to get close enough to the Atlantic to be sure
that I could throw my stick that far. The rockiest part of the regular camino
that I remember in Spain was from Foncebadon to Ponferrada, but my low-cut
shoes were more than adequate to handle it. On this year's trip, from Lisboa,
the rough paving stones used in the cities were as hard on my feet as anything
that I came across on the trails in all three countries. I developed a bad knee
pain just walking around Lisboa - without pack - on the afternoon before my
flight home. I suppose it was nervousness, but I suddenly realized that I had
been taking short quick steps, instead of allowing my legs to take their normal
pendulum swing. I had noticed this happen before, when I walked with
short-legged companions and unconsciously started matching their pace.

With regard to footgear, a lot of it is just the current fad. I remember in the
20's and 30's, that outdoorsmen were always pictured with boots that were
almost knee high and laced all the way from the instep to the top. The
rationale was that they were needed for protection from snake bite. Apparently
these are still made. A friend of ours has a pair that she wears on hikes all
the time, usually just short nature walks. They look quaint, but I would bet
that they are awfully hot for the feet. I didn't ask, because, even if they
were, I am sure that she would not admit it. My own hiking, with the Boy
Scouts, started in the mid thirties, but I don't remember what kind of shoes I
had. Not likely the high boots; they would have been expensive, especially
since I grew out of my shoes every few months. In the early 40's I marched in
the army issue ankle covering boots and, as a civilian after the war, continued
to use them for hiking. I got into backpacking in the mid 50's and continued to
use the smooth sole army boots, which where available cheap from the surplus
stores. They were a bit treacherous on smooth, wet granite, but great for
standing glissades on the snow slopes. Eventually I switched over to the heavy
mountain boots, with Vibram soles, which most people were using by then.
However, there was an older European hiker in the local Sierra Club group that
swore by his old hobnailed boots. People needled him about them being awfully
cold in the snow, but he ignored that.

In the early 60's, I got into rock climbing a bit, and even bought a pair of
kletterschuhe, made for that purpose. Climbing shoes have evolved a long way
since then, but they are still basically a very light weight, very tight
fitting shoe, completely unsuited for walking. The early ones had thin lugs,
which helped on very smooth surfaces, but now it is smooth soles for most
applications.

The switch to artificial materials was a real revolution for shoes in general
and has been a great boon for hikers, reducing the weight that has to be lifted
with each step. I don't remember the exact number using in the saying but it is
something like, "a pound on the foot is like ten pounds on the back." I first
got a pair of light weight, over the ankle boots and appreciated how much
lighter they were than the old lined leather boots that I had used before.
Later, when I read about the utramarathoners doing their 100 mile races on
mountain trails wearing running shoes and about the Tarahumaras of Mexico
running for hours in sandals, I began to question the need for over the ankle
support. I am now convinced that, for just trail walking, that it is not
necessary. The shoes that I wore in Europe weigh 600 grams apiece. They are
leather, which has a very effective waterproofing, and have a foam lining. They
have lugs, but the lugs are not very deep, which helps cut weight. The 1600 km
walk last year wore away two heels on each and wore the center lugs away to
where the center of the sole is smooth. This year's walk was much shorter, so
the shoes are still in good shape.

Well, I am sure that you hadn't intended to get such a long drawn-out answer to
your brief questions, but I get carried away. Just chalk it up to the
garrulousness of old age.

Leonie Galil wrote:

> To Robert, where did you start your pilgrimage from, did you go over the
> Pyrenees? This could make a difference, also if you are a hiker or is this a
> new experience? All this goes into the shoes/boots consideration.
> Leonie