Butora Altura v TC Pros

rkrum wrote:

I have moderately prominent haglund's deformities too. I took a dremel with a grinding attachment and thinned out the rubber around that spot. I did not cut the rand like some do, just ground it down enough in that one spot so it doesn't put quite so much pressure on the bone spur. It has made a pretty significant difference for me.

Slight derailment:

+1,000,000 for grinding the rubber off of the heel bone spur (Haglund's). It's a lifesaver.

I love the TCs, narrow heal medium-forefoot and they feel great. More sensitivity as well. I tried on the Alturas and they felt like bricks on my feet.

Stever wrote: Sounds like you didn't like them... how come?

I actually had the board lasted low top, not the high top. I initially was optimistic, but the poor design of the lacing towards the toe, poor fit of the toe box in general (tongue created weird pressure points and voids, worse than the TC pro for me at least, but the Altura was better here), and absolutely abysmal rubber (far too soft and thick for the stiffness of the shoe, could literally watch it roll off 1/4" edges) was what made me give up on them. The fact that they weren't high tops didn't help their cause at all, but of course I knew this going in.

I bought the low tops after trying on both shoes. I was actually looking for a shoe that would be better or at least more durable on offwidths, particularly inverts, than tc pros. The Alturas were not an improvement vs the TC pro in the ways I wanted. The low tops were at least stiffer, so I figured I'd give them a shot. Their utter hopelessness at everything else quickly made me abandon them.

Alex Temus wrote: I've NEVER heard anyone say that La Sportiva makes wide shoes! it's a European company and Europeans tend to have much narrower feet than Americans.

For what it's worth, I recently bought Evolv's new trad shoes - "The General" because the TC Pros were way too tight on my feet. I've been really happy with them!

Can't speak on the Alturas though.

How about La Sportiva themselves?

Notice that the TC is on the wide side of average, according to the company themselves.

It's such a nonsense chart, though. I mean look at the 3 Miura shoes, which are all built on the same last yet plotted in 3 different spots on the chart. And even ignoring that, would anyone claim the Miura VS is a wide-fitting shoe? The Skwama, Otaki, and Kataki, three shoes all built on the same last, are also plotted at different points (though at least close together). And specifically they're plotted in the medium zone, despite having a wide fit, and being advertised as such.

I don't find that chart to be of any use. I'd be curious to hear from anyone whose experiences match it in a better-than-random way.

The Miura VS is absolutely a wide shoe, especially in the ankle/heel area, where almost everyone has dead space.  It is significantly wider in the forefoot than my Anasazis, which are a whole size larger and longer.  This whole notion that Europeans have narrow feet and make their shoes accordingly is nonsense IMO.

It is not uncommon for different shoes on the same last to fit very differently, including width.  I can’t wear Five Ten Blackwings, for example, because they’re so narrow, but Dragons are comfy.

mountainhick wrote:

The Alturas and the  "low tops" you are referring to are entirely different models.

Your review is totally valid in terms of what works/doesn't work for you, but you are mixing up comments about two different models that are very different from each other. You say you tried on the alturas but bought the "low tops". Those are the Mantras. The Mantras have entirely different construction. Mantras are board lasted, Alturas are slip lasted. The foot shape of each is different, the lacing configuration is different, the randing and "slingshot aspect are different etc. The Mantra is not a low version of the Altura. I tried on both in the store and climbed on their wall. For me, the Alturas (narrow) fit my feet very well and did not roll off holds. But one quick try and I knew the the Mantra's didn't work at all for me. The Mantras fit was weird/wonky, the lacing indeed was weird down at the toe, the board last was super uncomfortable etc. I am still considering picking up the Altura though. 

I am aware of the differences between the two models. I was simply answering the question that was posed to me: why I ditched the shoes. I made sure to specify that the shoes I bought then trashed were the mantra (forgot the model name), not the altura.

My comment regarding the butora rubber still applies to the Altura, but being a softer shoe overall, it seemed like it worked a little better than the mantra. Still would have preferred a harder rubber though. Definitely does not transfer power like a tc pro, although that is probably a combo of rubber and overall construction.

Imo, the Altura is a much better shoe overall, but it still really can't compete with the TC pro when it comes to edging or thin cracks.

Alex Temus wrote: I've NEVER heard anyone say that La Sportiva makes wide shoes! it's a European company and Europeans tend to have much narrower feet than Americans.

For what it's worth, I recently bought Evolv's new trad shoes - "The General" because the TC Pros were way too tight on my feet. I've been really happy with them!

Can't speak on the Alturas though.

As I laid out on page 2, THE TC PRO IS WIDE (but short + padded), the only really shoes that are wider are the Butora Altura's (can't confirm the new Scarpa mid, but didn't look it by eyeballing. So if your foot is wide, but not tall then it'll feel wide. If you have overall flint-stone feet, then yeah it'll feel narrow.

If you want numbers... I measured at the widest point of the outsole, yeah they are different sizes but it gives you a good perspective

Botura Altura SIZE 10.5/44: 3 7/8"
TC Pro SIZE 9/42: 3 3/4"
5.10 Grandstone SIZE 10/43: 3 5/8"
5.10 Pinkie SIZE 10/43: 3 1/2"

Didn't measure toe box height (cause some have significant wear time) but those all are taller in the toebox and have significantly less toe padding. So even though the TC pro is a wide shoe it feels smaller.

Noah Yetter wrote: It's such a nonsense chart, though. I mean look at the 3 Miura shoes, which are all built on the same last yet plotted in 3 different spots on the chart.

I don't find that chart to be of any use. 

That's because you're only looking at it through last numbers, that chart takes into account "feel"/ construction. Which sounds a little out both side's of my mouth considering my last post. But in climbing shoe construction subtle changes to pattern, closure, and material choices make BIG differences to fit. I've seen two shoes pulled off the exact same last that ONLY had different outsole rubber on them and they looked a full size different, hell even measured that way without a foot in them. Even the way the outsole rubber is shapped can make a difference (molded and buffed is stiffer than vs cut from flat sheet then buffed) and a consumer isn't going to be able to look at see the difference.

The Futura and Muira VS both come of the same last but they are very different stiffesses and constructions so of course they fit different

Actually I'm ignoring the last numbers. The Miura lace and VS are clearly made on the exact same last because they fit exactly the same (notwithstanding the differences inherent to the closure systems). Likewise the Otaki, Kataki, and Skwama were explicitly stated (at trade shows) to be made on the same last, and it shows because again they all fit exactly the same.

The Miura VS is absolutely a wide shoe, especially in the ankle/heel area, where almost everyone has dead space.  It is significantly wider in the forefoot than my Anasazis, which are a whole size larger and longer.

I'm genuinely curious how we could have such opposite impressions. The Miura is widely acknowledged to be a very narrow-fitting shoe. On my foot it's one of the few shoes that gives a snug fit on the heel, unlike for example the Katana Lace which is very baggy, and the Futura which is baggy even a half size smaller. Comparing to the Anasazi shoes is hard since Sportiva and Five Ten use such radically different sizing, but my 43 Miura VS versus 10.5 ("44") Anasazis, the MVS certainly feels narrower. The area just ahead of the ankle on the Miura definitely has dead space, but that has nothing to do with width, that's just a design flaw in how the leather for the upper is cut.

comparison, the one on the right is a Miura xx, the wider one is the Miura vs, there is a noticeable width difference and you can definitely feel it. I would say both have a similarly fitting heel (definitely narrow) with the vs being better at heel hooking due to the more secure closure. I have had anasazis (arrow heads) before, super narrow really hurt narrower than tc pros but that could just be the lacing.
Futuras have a extremely similar overall fit to the Miura with the heel being just a tad softer.
Just checked my my miuras, miura vs to my tc pro's  the tc pro's are by far the wider shoe, they're really really wide i think when people say it's a narrow shoe i think they really have issues with the extended moderately aggressive taper.