I guess I gave the wrong impression. No, I wouldn’t say they have a bad rep at all. They where the standard for hiking boots for years.
For myself though, I much prefer the lighter weight hiking boots. And as I said, Vasque is offering up this now as well.
This type is what I ‘clobed’ around in. Mine where a bit older, bigger and heavier. I much prefer the lighter weight materials and fit of the new designs.
Explain then how Crocs can be described as comfy shoes suitable for being on your feet all day when a 10 mile run in them would probably cause serious injury. Meanwhile shoes that will hold up to a 10 mile run are being described here as even more excessive fashion trends. Seriously. I don’t get it. I think people are being taken in by what might seem comfortable during a few minute test drive and the convenience factor.
I don’t find it likely that an injection molded, mono-material clog is going to outperform composite designs stitched and glued over a shoe last in any category other than low cost manufacturing.
There’s a huge difference between shoes made for athletic activity (like running over rocky terrain) and shoes made for people who are on their feet all day at work (standing and walking around), like nurses. If you can’t understand that, I don’t know how to explain it any better.
I don’t know anything about the extreme athletic shoes. I do sit and page through the Gall’s catalog and wish I could buy various expensive leather boots. THAT’S what I wear to work. I have two pairs, Magnums and Thorogoods. They take about two weeks to break in, and then they’re very comfy.
That’s my most expensive footwear. I have a $40 pair of Nikes, and the rest is from Target or Payless.
I see. It’s so simple that you can’t explain it. It’s axiomatic, so why bother. Only a fool would not understand that a performance shoe capable of doing much more than you are asking it to do is poor choice for the hospital or the office, and that what you really need in those situations is a lower performing shoe.
I suppose people who don’t commute very far to work would find Pirelli tires unsuitable, and should carve their tires from blocks of wood.
Why on earth would someone who simply needs to stand or walk inside a building all day demand a shoe that they can also run 10 miles in? You seem to be insisting that if a shoe can’t perform both, then it’s useless, which is rather strange reasoning. Why buy a $100+ pair of shoes when one that costs much less will do what you need it to? Similarly, someone who only needs to drive a short distance to work will probably be fine with, say, a Goodyear rather than a Pirelli.
Yep, just like hiking boots don’t translate into good running shoes. They can be comfortable though.
Crocs are good for certain things. Just like running shoes or hiking boots. Many people say they are good if your on your feet all day. I have no reason not to believe them.
I wear medium/light hikers, running shoes or clogs. Different shoes for different stuff. Though I’ll wear any of them to the office. Depends on the weather.
Waverly, it’s pretty clear you’ve never worn a pair of crocs, as you seem to think they are hot hard rubber chunks. Yet even though you haven’t worn a pair, you don’t believe that other people can find them comfortable. Ummmmm. Ooookay. What is it to you what other people like in a shoe?
No, I am not insisting this. I am reacting to statements about Crocs being better, not just adequate or good enough, while performance shoes have been described by at least a few as nothing more than fashion trends themselves. I find that odd.
I haven’t once suggested that more costly means better, though I did say that Crocs would be damned inexpensive to produce.
You’d have better luck wresting a pair of ballet slippers onto an alligator than putting a pair of Crocs on me. Going back to my OP, first and foremost I find them a ridiculous example of style over form and function. As I hinted, and someone else said outright, they look like they were designed to appeal to, and be easy for a severely mentally handicapped person to don and doff.
I don’t understand your insistence that a running shoe would be the best choice for not-running.
And the continued argument from personal incredulity is tiresome. You haven’t worn them (neither have I) so what do you know about them? Nothing. You know only what you assume and discard the input of actual wearers. That’s goofy.
Those decorations are targeted at kids, not the ‘severely mentally handicapped.’
:rolleyes:
Not quite my point, as I tried to explain to Geobabe.
You seem kinda slow on the uptake. Are you SURE you don’t wear Crocs? I’m not conducting a scientific study. I’m not surveying IMHO. If you don’t like my stated reasons for loathing Crocs, than try to grasp this: I think they look fucking ridiculous. I hate the bright colors. I hate the snap on flair. I have a visceral negative reaction to some doofus wearing them to a sit-down restaurant. Pretend I don’t have a single logical reason for disliking them if it makes you feel better, and just listen to me say, I fucking hate them!
I don’t need to pretend you don’t have a logical reason, since if you had one you would have said. I really don’t care if you hate them. No skin off my nose. Just don’t try to hide the irrational hatred behind a veil of logic and reason.
If you had just stuck to “I hate them I hate them!” I wouldn’t have said anything. I don’t think they are attractive either.
But you keep trying to defend your position using things you don’t know anything about. You say they’re uncomfortable though you’ve never worn them. You say that they don’t function the way wearers say.
Stick with what you know. You know you hate them. Now we all know you hate them, too. Don’t try to defend with logic a position you didn’t arrive at logically.
What I got out of that was you thought that if Crocs were so comfortable for people who had to be on their feet all day, then they should perform like an expensive running shoe.
Huh. Well that’s one of the reasons I like them. I have to watch out what I wear on my feet and rotate shoes. Otherwise, I risk stinky feet and athletes feet. The crocs alow good ventalation and allow me to kick them off and on.
I also like them for knocking around the house on a lazy weekend morning. Don’t really need to put my running shoes on for that. Does that make them better than running shoes? For knocking around the house on a lazy weekend morning, you bet.
Yet you’ve never worn a pair. Lets see if you want an easy to put on and off, comfortable, easy to clean, light weight, durable (far as I can tell) shoe, I’d say they handle form and function down pretty well.
That wasn’t my intent. There were a number of people who essentially said, “You think Crocs are bad, what about Teva/Keen/etc.? They are just as goofy and are expensive to boot.” I said I think they are different. Those examples might be ugly, but in large part their ugliness is because they are tools as much as shoes. Keens might be over designed for a walk down to the beach, but of course they can do it – plus a whole lot more if required. Whether you agree with me or not, I think most people who wear red Crocs are wearing them because they are red Crocs, not because they are ideally designed for whatever it is that a person who would wear red Crocs does.
You can argue with me, insist that I’m not being rational (maybe not), and fantasize about chaining me to the wall and forcing me to wear yellow Crocs with jiblets (or whatever those button thingies are called.) That’s all fine, and hopefully you take any of my negative comments about people who wear Crocs in good humor. All except for one, anyway. This one: I would never, ever been seen in the company of someone wearing Crocs, and yes it is because I am so very much better than that. 
I have to say, props to Waverly for keeping up the hate. I would have moved on by now, but apparently, I have found someone who hates crocs more than I. Hats off, sir.
Actually, they’re very carefully designed for children and adults.
Maybe it’s because the first pair of Crocs I ever noticed were on the feet of someone who was mentally handicapped, but they look designed for that purpose to me as well. (Even more than Docs, which were designed for use by mental patients - or is that an urban legend?)
For someone who claims to be a runner, you are woefully ignorant of the different types of stress to which one subjects one’s feet while running, walking, or standing.
Running shoes are, as actual runners know, designed to accomodate the high-impact stress at specific areas of the feet and are also not designed to be worn all day, every day. Walking/standing-around-all-day shoes are designed for low-impact stress over a broader area of the foot and, obviously, are designed to be worn all day, every day.
Your “high performance” shoe isn’t actually worthless for low-impact activities but it’s pretty close. That, along with those “high performance” shoes not being intended for all day wear and thus wearing out quite quickly, makes them a ridiculous alternative to the ugly-but-comfy shoes.
I’ll assume for the moment that you are asking for clarification and not suggesting I’d have any reason to lie about being a regular runner.
I do most of my running on the road, track, or paths and for this I use dedicated running shoes. I wouldn’t wear them for anything else. Some time during the course of this thread I used the example of hiking of running over sand and surf. I would use Solomon or Keen hikers for this, and unlike my running shoes, would also wear these shoes casually.
A while back, PetSmart was selling Hermit Crab Bling kits containing sparkly puffs, sequins, and fake jewels to glue on your hermit crab shells. I thought I had seen the pinnacle of tacky. These decals do not surpass the crab blinging, but someone, somewhere is gluing sequins to their Crocs. That, my fellow Dopers, will be the pinnacle of tacky.