Leather or rubber soles for everyday shoes?

[Mr Tickle]

Just wondered what people prefer these days.
Personally I find rubber soles are more comfortable plus more casual in appearance. I have chukka boots and derbies with leather soles but find they just feel a little too formal and dressy to wear everyday with jeans/ chinos. In exactly the same way that the average rubber sole feels not quite dressy enough for shoes I would wear to a formal attire wedding / funeral (there are no work occasions where I have to wear formal any more as I am past the stage in life where, hopefully, I will have to attend job interviews again!)

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Either/or. It’s good to have a variety depending on the conditions outside, but I have casual shoes/boots in both and feel perfectly comfortable.

 

[rjc149]

I never wear leather soled or heeled shoes outside of a suit, because it offers no shock absorption and if you do a lot of walking, over time your knees and ankles will start to ache. I know this after wearing Allen Edmonds to work everyday for a decade. They are simply not good for your feet or joints, and they are not intended to be worn for a lot of walking.

You may be able to put cushion inserts into them, but they're usually not designed for that, especially dress shoes which are supposed to fit snugly in thin dress socks.

I am personally looking for a pair of brown derby shoes with some sort of cushioned or rubber heel, that are intended for a lot of walking, but that can also elevate a dress-casual chino outfit.

The dilemma is always this: rubber-soled shoes tend to be cheap, and cheap things need to be replaced, which raises their overall cost. Leather-soled shoes tend to be higher quality and can be resoled again and again, lowering their overall cost, and of course they look much better, but they're not good for you. I'm still searching for the compromise.

 

[johng70]

Regarding the idea that rubber shoes are cheap. It all depends. Lots of quality good yer welted boots or shoes with danite or vibram that can be re soled. There are cheap leather soled shoes too. My Crockett & Jones danite soled boots or White's vibram are better quality than some of my leather soled AE products. And they are all re-soleable.. But I have some AE products I like very much... My rancout shoes in bith leather and vibram are some of the worst wearing. I stick to leather for dress but my casual are a mix of leather and danite/vibram. Newer rideway soles look primising (danite is hard wearing but slick in snow/ice).

 

[yorkshire pud]

I prefer Dainite rubber studded soles on all my "Smart shoes" even Oxfords that I wear with a suit, Then again I live in Northern England where it rains 70% of the time.

They look smart enough that you wouldn't really notice the difference but a lot more comfortable and weatherproof

 

[breakaway01]

I have to disagree with the statements that (1) leather soles are not good for your feet or joints or (2) rubber soled shoes are cheap. Nor do I think that rubber soled shoes always provide more shock absorption than leather soles. I have a number of Dainite soled shoes and while they are quite durable, they are also quite hard—possibly more so than leather soled shoes.

the premise that more cushioning = fewer injuries, while seemingly logical, has been surprisingly contentious in running shoe research. One school of thought (also difficult to prove) is that minimally or unpadded running shoes are actually better, since they more closely replicate the experience of running barefoot (see the book “Born To Run”). Anyhow, while I would not want to run or walk 10 miles in leather or Dainite soled dress shoes, I have no problem walking up to several miles a day with either.

 

[yorkshire pud]

I have to disagree with the statements that (1) leather soles are not good for your feet or joints or (2) rubber soled shoes are cheap. Nor do I think that rubber soled shoes always provide more shock absorption than leather soles. I have a number of Dainite soled shoes and while they are quite durable, they are also quite hard—possibly more so than leather soled shoes.

the premise that more cushioning = fewer injuries, while seemingly logical, has been surprisingly contentious in running shoe research. One school of thought (also difficult to prove) is that minimally or unpadded running shoes are actually better, since they more closely replicate the experience of running barefoot (see the book “Born To Run”). Anyhow, while I would not want to run or walk 10 miles in leather or Dainite soled dress shoes, I have no problem walking up to several miles a day with either.

I think Dainite has better grip on wet surfaces and insulates from the cold better than leather, that's why I feel more comfortable wearing them

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I never wear leather soled or heeled shoes outside of a suit, because it offers no shock absorption and if you do a lot of walking, over time your knees and ankles will start to ache. I know this after wearing Allen Edmonds to work everyday for a decade. They are simply not good for your feet or joints, and they are not intended to be worn for a lot of walking.

You may be able to put cushion inserts into them, but they're usually not designed for that, especially dress shoes which are supposed to fit snugly in thin dress socks.

I am personally looking for a pair of brown derby shoes with some sort of cushioned or rubber heel, that are intended for a lot of walking, but that can also elevate a dress-casual chino outfit.

The dilemma is always this: rubber-soled shoes tend to be cheap, and cheap things need to be replaced, which raises their overall cost. Leather-soled shoes tend to be higher quality and can be resoled again and again, lowering their overall cost, and of course they look much better, but they're not good for you. I'm still searching for the compromise.

just about everything you’ve said is incorrect.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

the premise that more cushioning = fewer injuries, while seemingly logical, has been surprisingly contentious in running shoe research. One school of thought (also difficult to prove) is that minimally or unpadded running shoes are actually better, since they more closely replicate the experience of running barefoot (see the book “Born To Run”). Anyhow, while I would not want to run or walk 10 miles in leather or Dainite soled dress shoes, I have no problem walking up to several miles a day with either.

notice how you don’t see that many minimalist running shoes any more. Let alone those Vibram 5-finger shoes.

The research simply doesn’t support most of what is marketed. Regardless of foot type, a neutral cushioned running shoe offers the best chance at minimizing injury.

 

[rjc149]

just about everything you’ve said is incorrect.

Can you elaborate? Particularly, how I'm incorrect about my knees aching after walking around an hour in my dress shoes?

 

[rjc149]

I have to disagree with the statements that (1) leather soles are not good for your feet or joints or (2) rubber soled shoes are cheap. Nor do I think that rubber soled shoes always provide more shock absorption than leather soles. I have a number of Dainite soled shoes and while they are quite durable, they are also quite hard—possibly more so than leather soled shoes.

the premise that more cushioning = fewer injuries, while seemingly logical, has been surprisingly contentious in running shoe research. One school of thought (also difficult to prove) is that minimally or unpadded running shoes are actually better, since they more closely replicate the experience of running barefoot (see the book “Born To Run”). Anyhow, while I would not want to run or walk 10 miles in leather or Dainite soled dress shoes, I have no problem walking up to several miles a day with either.

I want to emphasize that I'm speaking from personal experience, and my use of the "tend" over your interpretation of that to mean "always."

I do not own a pair of leather-heeled, cork-bedded dress shoes that are as comfortable to walk in as a pair of sneakers. I do not believe that anyone does, regardless of what they say.

If two pairs of shoes fit the foot identically well, but one pair is cushioned for shock absorption while the other isn't, the cushioned shoe will be more comfortable and better for your joints. This is a self-evident truth.

 

[johng70]

I do not own a pair of leather-heeled, cork-bedded dress shoes that are as comfortable to walk in as a pair of sneakers. I do not believe that anyone does, regardless of what they say.

I would agree with this. None of my 30 odd pairs of shoes/boots are as comfortable for a 5 mile walk as actual walking/running shoes. I have a number of pairs that are comfortable for normal walking (1 mile or less) but none when you get to longer distances. Not that they cause pain per se, but definitely less comfortable than shoes designed for the purpose of walking/running. I would also add that if you're routinely walking several miles a day you're going to spend a LOT of money on re-soling shoes. Much cheaper to buy $150 walking shoes and replace as needed

 

[rjc149]

I would agree with this. None of my 30 odd pairs of shoes/boots are as comfortable for a 5 mile walk as actual walking/running shoes. I have a number of pairs that are comfortable for normal walking (1 mile or less) but none when you get to longer distances. Not that they cause pain per se, but definitely less comfortable than shoes designed for the purpose of walking/running. I would also add that if you're routinely walking several miles a day you're going to spend a LOT of money on re-soling shoes. Much cheaper to buy $150 walking shoes and replace as needed

Yes, I consider my Allen Edmonds to be fairly comfortable for dress shoes -- I would not call them comfortable. I do a fair bit of walking in them, and I will tell you, they're not good for walking. I can wear them all day and walk about a mile or so on the commute, but that's their limit. Wearing them into the evening, or going to a museum or show etc. after work, with swelling and sweaty feet, they become downright miserable.

The comparison I was making was between hard-soled dress shoes, and the cheaper soft-soled dress shoes you see from brands like Florsheim, Ecco, Rockport, Johnston and Murphy which are intended to feel much like sneakers and be disposable. I think my use of the term "rubber sole" was too broad, which I did not mean to extend to Dainite, Vibram etc. which are all seen on high-quality footwear, are fairly hard-wearing but transfer a good deal of impact to the joints.

 

[rjc149]

the premise that more cushioning = fewer injuries, while seemingly logical, has been surprisingly contentious in running shoe research. One school of thought (also difficult to prove) is that minimally or unpadded running shoes are actually better, since they more closely replicate the experience of running barefoot (see the book “Born To Run”).

I am surmising that this falls into a newer school of thought that replicating the paleolithic experience is healthier and better for our bodies, since this is the more "natural" state of things. I always caveat these hypotheses in my mind with the fact that paleolithic humans died of old age in their 30's and experienced quite a bit of excess wear-and-tear on their bodies as a result of their lifestyles.

While unstructured running shoes may more closely replicate "healthier" barefoot running, the barefoot paleolithic human did not live long enough to experience arthritis and long-term joint damage that modern running shoes are designed to prevent.

 

[breakaway01]

I want to emphasize that I'm speaking from personal experience, and my use of the "tend" over your interpretation of that to mean "always."

I do not own a pair of leather-heeled, cork-bedded dress shoes that are as comfortable to walk in as a pair of sneakers. I do not believe that anyone does, regardless of what they say.

If two pairs of shoes fit the foot identically well, but one pair is cushioned for shock absorption while the other isn't, the cushioned shoe will be more comfortable and better for your joints. This is a self-evident truth.

Your original post was not comparing dress shoes with sneakers. I interpreted your original post was comparing leather soles on dress shoes with rubber soles on dress shoes but you clarified later that you actually mean leather soles on dress shoes with soft rubber soles on sneaker-like shoes.

Yes of course sneakers are more comfortable than dress shoes, regardless of the sole material. I was responding your contention that leather soles are "not good for you" (your words).

Incidentally you might look into the Alden All-Weather Walkers. Am wearing a pair of them today. The crepe soles are comfortable and the picture on the website doesn't quite do them justice. They look better in an outfit.