Mad Rock Shark 2.0 Review

Performance Comparison

Single strap shoes are great for bouldering or short sport routes. The Sharks are one of the more affordable single strap options.

Photo: Jack Cramer

Edging

The Shark 2.0 is made with 3.8 m of Science Friction rubber fitted to an AES sole that's soft at the center but stiff on the edges. Theoretically, this stiffer outer edge should facilitate good edging, but our testers remain unimpressed. Part of the problem is that the single strap slipper design is ineffective at keeping the foot in place inside the shoe. This lateral play makes it more difficult to use the Shark on small edges and is the primary reason why it receives a subpar edging score.

The Shark isn't particularly great at edging. This is partially due to the single strap design which isn't very ineffective at locking your foot inside the shoe.

Photo: Jack Cramer

Cracks

Apart from the elastic tongue, almost the entirety of the Shark is encased in sticky rubber. This would provide excellent grip inside a crack, if only you could endure the pain this shoe causes. The primary issue Shark's moderate downturn, which places your toes in a curled position. This makes foot and toe jams considerably more painful. These shoes could still be useful for difficult thin cracks with limited jamming, but for ordinary cracks that are hand-sized or larger, there are much better options.

The synthetic upper on the Shark is pretty inelastic. This makes taking them on and off more of a chore than you might expect for a single strap design.

Photo: Jack Cramer

Comfort

The lead tester wears a 10.5 street shoe but had to size up to an 11 to squeeze his feet inside the Sharks. During the break-in period the Syn Flex upper hardly stretched at all. The result is a shoe that still feels like it doesn't fit despite two months of regular use. Our testers were also underwhelmed with the elasticity of the tongue. Ordinarily, single strap slippers are easy to take on and off, but it's an unpleasant task with the Sharks because they don't stretch open very wide.

The Sharks perform modestly well for pocket climbing. The toe volume is a little smaller than average, but they lack a sharp downturn in the forefoot.

Photo: Jack Cramer

Pockets

When talking about pocket climbing performance, it's important to consider the profile of the toe. From top to bottom, the toe of this shoe is pretty slim, but from side to side, its wider than average. That means the Shark can fit inside some small pockets, but not all. It depends on how they're oriented. If the toe can get inside, the Shark is good for pulling with your feet because they have a considerable downturn from heel to toe and an added edge on the underside of the toe from the concave AES midsole.

There is a little extra play in the heel of the Mad Rock Shark 2.0, which makes heel hooks less secure than with most other bouldering shoes.

Photo: Jack Cramer

Sensitivity

The Shark has a soft midsole that stiffens on the forefoot, especially along the edges of the toe. This stiffness boosts support but interferes with your sensitivity in the exact location where the shoe usually contacts the rock. It also features a "Molded Edge Heel" made of a harder rubber compound that heel hooking an imprecise endeavor. Together this means that the Shark is surprisingly insensitive for its otherwise soft design.

The Sharks never became one of our testers' favorites, but their low price makes them worth considering for boulderers on a budget.

Photo: Jack Cramer

Value

Perhaps the best aspect of the Shark is its price. For just a little more than a hundred buck you get a decent shoe made from solid materials. However, there are cheaper options that we recommend for beginners, such as the Best Buy-winning La Sportiva Tarantulace, and we suggest experienced spend a little more to get a lot more performance. Thus, despite its low price, we don't think the Shark is an exceptional value.

Conclusion