BBC0%

Cool or gross? Why 'ugly shoes' are taking 2026 by storm 43%

By Ellie Violet Bramley0%

5/13/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Recency Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 28.5% saturation with 398 hits. Analysis detected 3,304 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,395 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.8% and a BS Rank of 43% (11,809 of 20,517 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.60% of the article peer group.

Odd-looking shoes that are hybrids of the practical and the fashionable are everywhere. 
From the five-toed sneaker to the snoafer, footwear never looked so awkward. 
What's the appeal? 
For some people shoes are an afterthought. 
The more inconspicuous the better. 
For others, they take centre stage  the main character of an outfit. 
But where a showstopper shoe might once have meant a Manolo Blahnik stiletto, for the fashion-forward these days, it's just as likely to mean something flat, wide, possibly a bit gross and perhaps even looking not unlike a potato  in a word, bizarre. 
The weird shoe 
There are the shoes that laugh in the face of elegance or "good taste" to offer something unexpected, bizarre or outright daft. 
Think Crocs or those five-toed shoes that clothe toes like a glove; or the iconic frog wellington boots, the Wellipet, that Jonathan Anderson brought back out of the pond and on to the catwalk in 2023. 
Clogs in general have offered a rich seam of inspiration, from sensible orthopaedic models to avant-garde takes, such as the jelly clogs with an embossed rococo-style design from Parisian brand Y/Project. 
Then there are the currently infamous Gardana gardening clogs the colour of mucus that are seen on trendy feet from Brooklyn to Paris. 
The Frankenshoe 
And among other things, mutation and cross-breeding are "in". 
There is the so-called "Frankenshoe", a hybrid of shoe silhouettes mashed into one. 
Among the best-known hybrid-shoe is the sneakerina  a dainty, balletic trainer-pump  which jeté'd its way across the fashion industry last year 
The flat, wide, five-toed shoe was originally intended to be for barefoot-style walking (Credit: Getty Images) 
Then there's also the snoafer (the sneaker and loafer), which The Wall Street Journal coined "the footwear equivalent of the spork". 
It doesn't stop there: there's also the sock-boot, the clog-trainer and the wedge-trainer, once a staple of the 00s and now cautiously back. 
The cloven-toe shoe 
A main character in this story is the cloven-toe shoe. 
Laughably gross to many, the split-toe design has been wending its way on to fashion-lovers' feet around the world for years now thanks to the renaissance of Maison Margiela's Tabi shoes. 
Debuted in 1988 and inspired by 15th-Century Japananese sock design, their impact has been seismic. 
And you'd now be hard pushed to find a trainer brand not offering some kind of cloven design. 
"A deliberately awkward, hybrid or unexpected shoe can break the stiffness of an outfit and make someone look less overly polished  J'Nae Phillips" 
But perhaps the most hyperbolic of all ugly shoes, tellingly designed by an art collective more for the sake of generating memes than protecting metatarsals, is the MSCHF big red boot, worn by many street stylers after they were launched in 2023. 
Some of these strange shoes are as much stunt as shoe. 
As J'Nae Phillips, creator of the Fashion Tingz newsletter, tells the BBC: "people increasingly enjoy fashion items that provoke reactions, become conversational objects, or function almost like visual memes". 
The "jelly" clog is among the weird and wonderful styles that have originated from gardening clogs (Credit: FarFetch) 
But for many of these strange footwear choices, particularly the less sensational among them, real-life demand is high. 
Sneakerinas, for instance, are in demand, versionas of which made their way on to Lyst's index of the hottest products last year. 
The snoafer 
There are other permutations of the sneaker. 
Sales of Mary Jane-inspired sneakers were "up more than 350% year-over-year in Q1 2026, which is a clear signal that this is moving beyond editorial hype and into genuine consumer demand," Brendan Dunne of re-sale platform StockX tells the BBC. 
And the snoafer's most popular take, the New Balance 1906L, "has seen more than 13,000 sales on StockX since launch". 
There is, he says, "huge interest in hybrid silhouettes that blend sport, fashion, and a bit of unexpected design". 
If You Know You Know 
So what's going on? 
Why are fashion-lovers so intent on breaking out of the shoe-box? 
According to Phillips, these oddities signal something that the fashion literate like to communicate: "a deliberately awkward, hybrid or unexpected shoe can break the stiffness of an outfit and make someone look more self-aware, more culturally fluent, and less overly polished." 
There's also an element of If You Know You Know, which has been a potent force in fashion of late. 
As Meg Palmer of market research agency Verve says of split-toe shoes, they are "a nod to even knowing about Maison Margiela, it… shows that you are part of an elite subculture". 
Although, she points out, "it’ll be interesting to see how (and if at all) split toe shoes will continue to signal status as they become more widespread and get co-opted by different brands. 
Will we need even 'uglier' variants?" 
The wrong-shoe theory 
These out-of-the-box shoes came to the fore at a time in 2023 when a styling trick by Allison Bornstein, dubbed the "wrong-shoe theory", was gaining traction on TikTok  she posited that footwear that was a mismatch or looked a little "off" was the perfect way to add personality to an outfit. 
And what’s more "off" than a Frankenshoe? 
The snoafer (sneaker and loafer) has been described as "the footwear equivalent of the spork" (Credit: New Balance) 
It's the perfect antidote to carefully curated online environments. 
As Phillips puts it: "a lot of these shoes also carry a kind of anti-perfection energy.” 
And, "in a moment where personal style feels increasingly performative and optimised, an unusual shoe can signal individuality, humour, discernment, or even a refusal to dress in an overly predictable way". 
Palmer agrees. 
"In the age of AI slop, perfectly curated Instagram feeds, predictable algorithms etc these 'ugly' shoes feel like a juxtaposition to the 'perfection' we see online." 
More like this: 
 The artworks that inspired eight Met Gala looks 
 The moment Cher wore the ultimate 'revenge' outfit 
 The risqué 80s jeans ad that 'created shockwaves' 
In that way, these shoes can become a bit anarchic: "you can wear a Damson Madder 'girly' frilly outfit with a Nike split-toe Air Rift shoe and it feels like a middle finger to the beauty standards and gender conventions we're being served," says Palmer. 
"These hybrids also mirror broader cultural mashups: the blurring of work and leisure, masculine and feminine codes, high fashion and functionality  J'Nae Phillips" 
Plus, lines are blurring everywhere we look, not just in fashion, and hybrids are a natural by-product: another good example are the Franken-pastries rising in the world of baking, where croissants, doughnuts and cookies are constantly being cross-baked. 
For Phillips, "in many ways, these hybrids also mirror broader cultural mashups: the blurring of work and leisure, masculine and feminine codes, high fashion and functionality." 
The approach shoe 
Plus, she says, "we're seeing the continued collapse of boundaries between utility wear, sportswear, orthopaedic design, luxury fashion and internet aesthetics." 
In this light, "shoes originally designed for hiking, recovery, barefoot movement or pure practicality now read as culturally interesting because they disrupt conventional ideas of elegance or attractiveness." 
The approach shoe is a current trend  and is a cross between a hiking shoe and a climbing shoe (Credit: Keens) 
It's part of why approach shoes, which marry the comfort of a hiking shoe with the strong grip of a climbing one, have been scaling fashion's heights of late. 
Objectively a bit odd to look at, though not strictly speaking ugly, they offer intrigue and function. 
And this links to another often overlooked reason we are seeing some unexpected moves in fashion's footwear of choice. 
When it comes to many of these shoes  the more potato-like ones and the clogs designed for horticulture in particular  it comes down to one thing. 
"You can talk a lot about rebellion, AI slop fatigue, taste, status etc," says Palmer. 
"But it's all just as simple as… they're really, really comfy." 
My approach shoes, I can confirm, feel like a fluffy loaf of bread on your foot. 
And who wouldn't want that? 
-- 
If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter  a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. 
For more Culture stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook and Instagram. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Ellie Violet Bramley: 1.4%BBC: 3.0%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Ellie Violet Bramley: 2.9%BBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic14.1%This article: 4.5%Ellie Violet Bramley: 1.8%BBC: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.2%BBC: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Ellie Violet Bramley: 1.4%BBC: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias5.7%This article: 2.4%Ellie Violet Bramley: 6.8%BBC: 4.7%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.1%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.8%BBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.2%BBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Ellie Violet Bramley: 2.0%BBC: 3.6%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 2.4%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.3%BBC: 0.9%Pessimism Bias2.4%This article: 23.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 4.7%BBC: 4.4%Negativity Bias23.0%This article: 1.1%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.1%BBC: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.8%BBC: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Ellie Violet Bramley: 2.1%BBC: 1.0%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Ellie Violet Bramley: 6.0%BBC: 4.6%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.3%Ellie Violet Bramley: 2.0%BBC: 1.1%Recency Bias15.3%This article: 2.6%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.6%BBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 1.4%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.2%BBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%Ellie Violet Bramley: 3.7%BBC: 5.5%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 0.6%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.3%BBC: 1.1%False Dilemma0.6%This article: 2.8%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.3%BBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope2.8%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 28.5%Ellie Violet Bramley: 6.4%BBC: 5.5%Hasty Generalization28.5%This article: 2.4%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.3%BBC: 0.1%Red Herring2.4%This article: 3.9%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.5%BBC: 0.7%Bandwagon3.9%This article: 7.5%Ellie Violet Bramley: 3.2%BBC: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 4.7%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.6%BBC: 0.5%Begging the Question4.7%This article: 18.6%Ellie Violet Bramley: 4.1%BBC: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 1.1%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.1%BBC: 0.6%Appeal to Nature1.1%This article: 3.6%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.8%BBC: 0.4%Composition/Division3.6%This article: 9.9%Ellie Violet Bramley: 2.9%BBC: 3.5%Anecdotal9.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.9%Ellie Violet Bramley: 2.7%BBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.2%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.2%BBC: 0.1%Middle Ground1.2%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.4%BBC: 0.1%Special Pleading3.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%Ellie Violet Bramley: 1.4%BBC: 1.2%Unattributed Quote1.5%This article: 0.2%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.8%BBC: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.2%This article: 13.8%Ellie Violet Bramley: 8.6%BBC: 5.8%Biased Writer Voice13.8%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.3%BBC: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Violet Bramley: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Ellie Violet Bramley: 4.0%BBC: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.3%

1395 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers41%attributed speech824writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageGetty Images • 16 words • 0.0% coverageThe Wall Street Journal • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJ'Nae Phillips • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJ'Nae Phillips • 29 words • 0.0% coverageFarFetch • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageBrendan Dunne • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageBrendan Dunne • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJ'Nae Phillips • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNew Balance • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJ'Nae Phillips • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJ'Nae Phillips • 31 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 45 words • 100.0% coverageJ'Nae Phillips • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJ'Nae Phillips • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKeens • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMeg Palmer • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageBBC • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

J'Nae Phillips

100%flagged-word coverage
191 attributed words33% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.4 ptsWriter: 23.4%J'Nae Phillips: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%J'Nae Phillips: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.4 ptsWriter: 0.4%J'Nae Phillips: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.