Under Armour Boots

Having a mid-top in a non waterproof shoe serves no purpose unless you are trying to keep debris out of your shoes.

> I'm looking for a boot that is supportive Try downhill ski boots. They are supportive. Alternately, wear low-cut joggers and develop some ankle strength. In the long run, this is much safer. Cheers

First post, honest question. Why do you have to make fun of him? You'll say you weren't and were just offering constructive advice, but we all know that's not true. Just my 2¢.

#ERROR!

#ERROR!

> Why do you have to make fun of him? That was certainly NOT my intention. Make fun of the concept of 'ankle support'? Yeah, sure – because it is a silly idea promoted by the boot mfrs. Sometimes it is easier to get a message across in a light-hearted manner than by being seriously serious. Cheers

#ERROR!

Roger was a little snarky in how he rolled it out, but I agree that "ankle support" is a mostly bogus concept. If you really want to protect your ankle, you'd immobilize that joint and the adjacent bones: foot, ankle and lower leg. If those are immobilized, you'll be protecting the ankle. Ever hear of a downhill skier with a broken ankle? I'd often explain, as a downhill skiers signed the waiver when I set their bindings, that this equipment protected nothing except their feet and their ankles. "I thought the bindings release before my leg breaks?" Maybe. But your legs are hanging out in the open, with some protection against the leverage of the ski but no protection from collisions, falls onto rocks, trees, etc. The typical to-the-ankle or slightly-over-the-ankle hiking boot allows you complete freedom of movement about your ankle. Otherwise, it would be really annoying to walk in. Freedom of movement = freedom to injure. There are some lace-up nylon boots (usually with leather trim) that stiffen the ankle joint, that give some resistance to rolling inward or outward. And that's nice if you're jumping out of a perfectly good airplane and don't have far to walk after you land. But for hiking, to be fighting that boot stiffness with every step, and being unable to sidehill much at all wouldn't work for me.

Last month Cabela's sent me a flyer with the UA models, so tried the lowest hiking mid on at the Scarborough (Portland area) ME store. * The top lace hooks abraded my ankles, usually a sign of poor design * Overall the boots were quite stiff, and did not appear to be made of a material that would 'break in.' * They looked like they would not last very long. A subjective judgment, but based on years of trying out boots in the field. * I've not seen UA hiking mids before, so have no way to assess for waterproofness & breathability. This is a major issue for me with the rain and muck we get in the north woods of New England. The fit was not great for me, but that is just an individual matter. Agree with Roger that ankle support is not a desirable feature for BPL. Full range of motion in the ankles is what I look for. Prefer the mids only for protection from the wet, not ankle support. The most important support issue for me is how well the boots retain the heel snugly in the heel compartment without heel slip, especially on rugged ground. Ended up buying another pair of Danner 452 GTX Radicals to modify*. Heavier than desired, but have had good experience with water resistance, traction and durability, and they just happen to fit my duck-shaped feet (narrow at the heel, wide at the forefoot) reasonably well. *Modifications include substitution of hooks for eyelets (except the lowest couple),and bonding Spenco inside the bellows closures (for greater tongue depression and comfort).