general question. i have been hiking with poles for a number of years (ever since knee surgery, not taking any chances....) i use standard telescoping poles. can anyone give opinions on standard telescoping poles and poles with shock absorbers? wonder if there is any real difference. thanx to any and all

I would post the question on the Grand Canyon hikers group on www.yahoo.com

It's hard to say if there's really any great benefit. I'd say if you hike a lot, or if the hikes you do are long dayhikes, then it's probably worth it to get poles with shock absorbers. Not sure that they're of great benefit on real short hikes or for someone who gets out infrequently.

thanx all. i went to gorp and looked up gear guide and the expert there said, hmmm very questionable. i figured if folks had any experience here, why not see because travelers are different from outdoor experts... real world kinda stuff... (IMHO)

the poles with the shock absorbers were rediculously cheap - end of season kind of stuff but not "top brands" they are a couple of ounces heavier than my other poles.

bottom line sounds like for me anyway, i have a spare set of poles!

I'd suggest the shock absorber ones.

A lot depends, of course, on your personal preferences and style. What kind of trail do you usually hike on: easy, moderate, difficult? How long are your hikes - an hour, a few hours, all day? How fast do you like to hike - slowly or churning along as fast as possible?

I usually hike moderate to difficult hikes. i don't like trails that average elevation gains in excess of 700 ft. per mile. i consider 6 miles a nice hike, i'll go 10 (can do more but choose not to). approx 1/2 hour per mile

I aspire to the trail churner as it would mean i am in better shape. i haven't been able to hike much lately due to family obligations but those are done so i am hoping to get back on top of things,

i'll try the shock absorbers in yellowstone this week.