Originally Posted by TeamHumphrey
@loosegroove -- There is a huge difference between "minimalist" shoes that strive to make you feel as if you are not wearing a shoe at all, and Chuck Taylors.
The Chucks are heavy, inflexible, squishy, and lack ground feel compared to the new minimalist shoes. The toebox can also be a bit too narrow for some people. Finally, the outsole does not grip as well as some of the newer shoes.
While relatively low to the ground, the old canvas chucks don't really have very good lateral stability, or even front to back stability -- your feet tend to move in the shoe, rather than the shoe and the foot moving as one.
I am biased though -- I would wear Chucks for weight lifting, but not for any other athletic endeavor -- I have tried, but I have had more injuries potentially attributable to footwear in Chucks than any other shoe.
If you are looking for a "normal", cheapish, and fashionable minimilish shoe, I'd look at indoor soccer shoes. The Adidas Samba might be a bit better than the Chucks performance wise.
Yeah. I definitely realize that Chuck's and the new minimalist shoes are VERY different. I was just asking since Chucks did seem like an option for a more minimal shoe, though obviously not as an alternative for those who want the Vibram styling. I recently hit with my Chucks because I was letting my friend wear my tennnis shoes and they felt pretty good. Though I have a relatively narrow foot and they fit me perfectly.