I’m skiing in mens boots: the journey

[Verve]

Hello divas

Figured I’d start a little journal thread about what I’m sure will be my evolving experience in my new boots - men’s or unisex boots in fact. Maybe other divas have had similar experiences or maybe someone will be on the fence in the future and benefit or maybe this will just keep me honest when I go chat with my bootfitter

stats: 5’11”, 175lbs, lifetime skier but not crazy aggressive with it. Can get down anything but really love a cruiser day. Previously fit in Lange RS 130 LV and self fit in Lange RX 110s when those wore out. Feet are average width, street shoe size 9, the skinniest ankle to heel measurement you can imagine, one lowish arch, one average arch and one foot a bit longer than the other as a result. My fitter is Peter at Alpine Options.

New boots are Salomon S Pro Alpha 120 in my usual 24.5. I’m surprised the men’s version comes that small but we had it. The biggest difference in the men’s is that the cuff comes up a good inch+ higher on my leg than any boot I’ve had. I’m theoretically pretty excited about that! It seemed weird that I have such long legs but my boot cuff would be the same as a woman who nearly a foot shorter

Fit out of the box is what I’d expect from the performance size I go for. Definitely friendlier after heat molding. No other work done yet but probably a custom insole eventually.

First runs were yesterday and it’s too soon to tell anything for sure, of course. Quad burn from focusing so much on my stance . Control felt all there, edge hold for days - maybe too all there in that way where you’ve been overcompensating for a less responsive system and now every movement transfers to the ski. I didn’t feel thrown into the back seat at all, which I was expecting for some reason but smoothing my turns was something I had to really focus on. The flex actually felt a bit softer than my last boots, in some ways. No pain, but I always get a little ache in my arch after long runs, and that was there by the end of the 3rd lap.

Anyway! Perhaps this is interesting to some I’m sure a bunch of our racer-types have been in unisex plug boots. Curious to hear others experience and I’ll update here with anything relevant as the season goes on.

 

[HikenSki]

I'm 5'10, 174 and am in mens RX 120 LV. My lower legs are long is why any women's boot I would crush because the cuff is too short and wouldn't provide extra support. My height and strength is more like what find with men. While I have a wider foot I do have a narrow ankle so that did make it harder to find a boot that holds my ankle. I do have a thin layer of foam on my right leg to fill in some space in front of the ankle. Did have to punch out the little toe a little and add in some wedges under my foot post baby to get feet to stand level again. Post ACL surgery I did have them pull one bolt to provide me a little more flex to help me relearn to ski and they had to be recanted to reduce pressure on my knee. All good now!
When I bought them in Fall 2019, I didn't care if my boot had girly colors or fuzzy linings. I just wanted my boot to fit, provide comfort, and give me the control I wanted. I left it to my boot fitter to look at my feet and find the best candidates to start with. So glad you found your boot!

 

[HuntersEmma57]

Thanks for enlightening folks on the benefits of looking at men's and unisex gear as options.
I'd always been told women's boots have to be different due to how much lower the calf muscle comes down on the leg. I believed it and never challenged that assertion.Like @Verve, I have very trim ankles and low volume shallow heel. And I have very muscular cyclist cut calves.

I started this season with some new Daleboot VFF Pro unisex custom boot. They have a much taller cuff and I LOVE IT. I'm not as tall at 5'5" 160# but I have a 31" inseam.

I am a relatively aggressive skier skiing mostly off piste. I experience a lot of uneven terrain, sudden drops, and off camber descents, replete with drifts and patches of windblown. I truly need a boot (and ski) that can perform under all conditions. The Daleboot with the taller cuff is the real deal.

I haven't gotten them off piste much due to low snowpack here so far this year, but I can say I absolutely ripped on groomers with the higher cuff. I was frankly shocked by how much more drive I get out of the taller boot. On the one really soft day I've had this season, the boot was a dream come true.

Adding to the report on Unisex/Men's Gear: More, if not most, skis are unisex now. The only difference is the top sheet, so most women are already benefitting from what I've experienced as better construction of men's skis.
TBH, my least favorite pair of skis in my quiver is the only women specific design 2023 Blizzard Black Pearl 97s (again, have only skied them almost all on piste this season). Nothing specific that I can suss out. They just feel...uncommitted, middling. I haven't figured out where or even if they'll shine yet. I'll ski them on cruiser days (who doesn't love a good cruiser day at least once in a while), but I'll avoid taking them off piste where they bombed for me. After now 5 days on them, I won't even just ski these off the sides of the groomers. I'm hyper-risk avoidant and will not ski without having the right tool for the job.

I suspect women-specific skis may just be a code for "meant for lighter skiers". Anyone else have an explanation, experience, or theory?

 

[Verve]

@HuntersEmma57 I’d also heard that about the lower calf attachment point! I work with a woman who is even taller than me, which larger feet, and she has struggled with fit in men’s boots for that reason and ultimately prefers a lower cuff. My calves are quite skinny, so no discomfort for me yet - and I think there are lots of mods to make cuffs more comfy as needed.

On the women’s specific ski thing: this varies SO much brand to brand. There are brands like Blizzard who have invested in developing their women specific lines (since 2006) and those that seem to treat their women’s lines as an afterthought. Some ski lines have even been developed for women but then gone unisex - the wider Line Pandora for example. So I’d hesitate to say that those who have to ski womens specific skis because of the length they need always get an inferior product. I’d actually point to your BP 97s as an example of a very demanding, stiff ski developed for women and catering to a particular style of directional, charging skier - despite having no metal, until this year. But one of the things I appreciate about brands that really do research their female specific lines is that they know that there is as much diversity in females skiers as in their male customer - hence the Blizzard Sheeva which comes in a similar waist width but has a much more playful rocker profile, lower swing weight, softer tips and tail, and caters to more off piste skiing.

 

[HuntersEmma57]

@HuntersEmma57 I’d also heard that about the lower calf attachment point! I work with a woman who is even taller than me, which larger feet, and she has struggled with fit in men’s boots for that reason and ultimately prefers a lower cuff. My calves are quite skinny, so no discomfort for me yet - and I think there are lots of mods to make cuffs more comfy as needed.

On the women’s specific ski thing: this varies SO much brand to brand. There are brands like Blizzard who have invested in developing their women specific lines (since 2006) and those that seem to treat their women’s lines as an afterthought. Some ski lines have even been developed for women but then gone unisex - the wider Line Pandora for example. So I’d hesitate to say that those who have to ski womens specific skis because of the length they need always get an inferior product. I’d actually point to your BP 97s as an example of a very demanding, stiff ski developed for women and catering to a particular style of directional, charging skier - despite having no metal, until this year. But one of the things I appreciate about brands that really do research their female specific lines is that they know that there is as much diversity in females skiers as in their male customer - hence the Blizzard Sheeva which comes in a similar waist width but has a much more playful rocker profile, lower swing weight, softer tips and tail, and caters to more off piste skiing.

@Verve Thanks for that info so I don't go around spreading disinformation. Looks I've just found the wrong ski for me. The Sheeva sounds closer to the mark, but I found my soulmate for that spot on my quiver - the Voilè Supercharger (140-106-124) with "playful rocker profile, lower swing weight, softer tips and tail".

My home mountain here in Utah has no manmade snow so our generally softer groomers work well enough with my Superchargers, but we now ski at Aspen multiple times a year (son & family there) and I needed something that could handle their firmer, quickly skied out slopes. The BP had no sense of play by comparison. It performs ably on the hard pack, but as you said, needs to be ridden hard. Every turn felt like a commitment - kinda the opposite of agile to me.
I'm not sure what a directional ski is, but I know I'm a "quick change of direction, pivot and sideslip on short notice" skier because I ski mostly trees in deep powder. FWIW, many of my expert skiing friends here swear by DPS and Wailers (really short tail) in particular. I hated them so much, I'm still not over it. I sold them within a month at a heavy loss. I don't think I'll have to abandon the Black Pearls, but they're in the rotation mainly for Aspen. And it may well have nothing to do with being "women-specific."

 

[Verve]

@HuntersEmma57 the superchargers sound great. so curious if you’ll end up liking the BP 97s for that Aspen application. You’re so right that it’s so much about personal preference. If you get a chance to demo the new Blizzard Anomaly 94, I’d be really curious if you’d like them better. And to make it even more complicated they also changed the Black Pearls this year, deepening their rocker lines and adding metal underfoot! Still doesn’t sound like they would be ideal for your style but trending more that way. I bet you can get decent $ for the Black Pearls if you do decide to sell them.

I use directional (maybe not correctly, haha) to mean exactly what you assumed - wanting to be driven from a more aggressive, forward stance. More carvey turns, less slarve-y turns. Directional can relatedly refer to where the bindings are mounted on the ski - more forward, progressive mount points closer to the center of the ski tend to ski more upright and lend themselves to pivoting turns, slashy turns with that stance, while more directional mounts toward the back of the ski are often setting you up for those edgey carved turns. I think most of us use a variety of turn styles to get down different types of terrain and skis fall somewhere on that spectrum of what they’re best at, though of course marketing would have us believe that they all do it all, lol.

 

[HuntersEmma57]

I'm all boot center. As an older skier, my hips will never be in close proximity to the snow on any turn that I will complete successfully. I hated the DPS mounted so far back, so sounds like I'm where I need to be at this stage. I do love a good mogul-top pivot tho! If there enough snow, I'll find happy somewhere. Thanks for your help.

 

[SnowHot]

@Verve While fitting boots at a shop I was often finding men in 24.5, especially since I live in an area where there are a lot of smaller asian men. I was thankful that the shop where I worked carried a variety of unisex 24.5 boots.

As for the taller cuff height, I am one of those women who has a long-ish shin bone and don't care for a lower cuff height, and I also tend to ski in a 110 minimum flex, but most often a 120 (or in women's #s 115)
And just as a bit of information, the women's 115 flex is comparable to a unisex 120. Manufacturers started putting the different number on women's boots a few years back to differentiate, and (some say) because they felt 115 would be less intimidating to women during a fit session.
Mind you, as a fitter, I have run into several woman who are daunted by a bigger flex number. We need to remember that we women on SkiDiva are not the "average" skier.

I recall a boot manufacturer sending me a set of 100 flex short cuff boots two years ago and I had so much leg burn from having to "flex on demand". That was short lived.

It will be interesting to follow your journey. Thanks for sharing.

 

[pinto]

I am in only my second pair of women's boots in the last, oh, 15 years? I'm 5'9" 130 and mostly leg (34" inseam) so it's all about physics for me. These particular boots -- Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 115 -- have a decently high cuff for a woman's version, and I added Zipfits so they are a little stiffer and more supportive in the cuff than with the stock liner. But I have been in multiple 120 and 130 flexes over the years, and as long as they fit well, the stiffer flexes were fine. (A stiff boot that doesn't fit quite right is a beast, though!) Oh-- I do have a Scarpa 130 touring boot too, but I could go a little softer with that one for sure. It certainly rips on groomers! But as a dedicated backcountry boot, I don't need quite that much.

But I echo your thoughts: not all of us have low wide calves or whatever it is (that seems like one of the main ones) that makes a boot female. The other thing is that for so long, a narrow boot was one with a higher flex rating. Now they do make a wider variety of last widths at different flexes, so that's nice.

Anecdotally, if a boot shop automatically steers me to the women's wall, I lose a little respect for their expertise. So there's that.

 

[pinto]

And just as a bit of information, the women's 115 flex is comparable to a unisex 120. Manufacturers started putting the different number on women's boots a few years back to differentiate, and (some say) because they felt 115 would be less intimidating to women during a fit session.

That's funny. But I guess it makes sense. When I got these Atomics last season, I ordered the 120 and 130 men's and 115 women's. The 130 was too much and the 120 was just not the same top-of-line boot as the 115, and I couldn't tell much difference with flex. I'm lighter and slower and weaker than I was a few years ago, so the softer boot is all good!

 

[SnowHot]

That's funny. But I guess it makes sense. When I got these Atomics last season, I ordered the 120 and 130 men's and 115 women's. The 130 was too much and the 120 was just not the same top-of-line boot as the 115, and I couldn't tell much difference with flex. I'm lighter and slower and weaker than I was a few years ago, so the softer boot is all good!

Right???
It's a mind game because those of us who are embedded into the ski culture are okay with the numbers but those who are not are *potentially* intimidated* by it.

 

[SnowHot]

I am in only my second pair of women's boots in the last, oh, 15 years? I'm 5'9" 130 and mostly leg (34" inseam) so it's all about physics for me. These particular boots -- Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 115 -- have a decently high cuff for a woman's version, and I added Zipfits so they are a little stiffer and more supportive in the cuff than with the stock liner. But I have been in multiple 120 and 130 flexes over the years, and as long as they fit well, the stiffer flexes were fine. (A stiff boot that doesn't fit quite right is a beast, though!) Oh-- I do have a Scarpa 130 touring boot too, but I could go a little softer with that one for sure. It certainly rips on groomers! But as a dedicated backcountry boot, I don't need quite that much.

But I echo your thoughts: not all of us have low wide calves or whatever it is (that seems like one of the main ones) that makes a boot female. The other thing is that for so long, a narrow boot was one with a higher flex rating. Now they do make a wider variety of last widths at different flexes, so that's nice.

Anecdotally, if a boot shop automatically steers me to the women's wall, I lose a little respect for their expertise. So there's that.

You have the ski ability and leg length to use the leverage of a ski boot.
At what point does the cuff height and flex # factor into it?
Is it injuries, body breakdown, age???
All of us have to figure it out.

 

[Verve]

2nd day on the new boots (bc I’m picky about conditions and crowds I have been sticking to XCD mostly this season so far ).

The boots felt even better than day 1 - it was a little warmer and sweating in them a bit may helped everything settle in? They feel tiny when I first get in them, each time, but the responsiveness is worth it and by run 3 things were feeling ducky. No discomfort on the shin, calf but definitely some pressure over the top of my feet - felt it most intensely skating to the lift. I’m thinking of skiing a few more days in them and then getting custom insoles.

Boots are so much less fun to research and buy than skis, for me, but I feel like these boots are going to unlock new ways to pilot my skis so in a way, it’s like getting new pairs. I’ve been jazzed to try them with each of my quiver and see the impact.

 

[jthree]

What a good update! Love that your boots are so responsive.

Since I need to find boots and Alpine options is a good place for me to go, can I ask about your bootfitter, Peter? Have you worked with him before? Is he the only bootfitter at Alpine Options, or would I need to call and check when making an appointment?

 

[Verve]

What a good update! Love that your boots are so responsive.

Since I need to find boots and Alpine options is a good place for me to go, can I ask about your bootfitter, Peter? Have you worked with him before? Is he the only bootfitter at Alpine Options, or would I need to call and check when making an appointment?

Of course! Full disclosure: I work there sometimes so I’m biased but they were my go-to in the area before I started working there last year. Peter is excellent but so are all of the boot fitting staff. It’s a boot shop, at its heart and they work on boots essentially free after purchase unless you need expensive parts. Just a really honest, nerdy crew who wants people to love their ski experience. If you’ve had specific challenges getting a good fit in the past, happy to ask the boot room who is most experienced in a specific area but I’ve honestly heard/seen good things all around. Appointments can be booked online but call if you have questions prior.

 

[SnowHot]

getting custom insoles.

Custom insoles can make a big difference on how comfy they are when you put them on.

Another tip I have given is to wear knee high nylons for the first few days of skiing so the liner packs out to the shape of your feet with a very thin layer between your feet and liners.

 

[Olesya C]

Thank you for sharing @Verve and everyone. I am 6'1" 183+ pounds and have been skiing in men's Nordica Promachine 130 for 4-5 years or so, I am on my 2nd pair and love them. They have been extensively customized to my feet by Billy, a fantastic bootfitter in Philly area. I am an advance skier and also tall, so the taller and upright cuff (less forward lean) and stiffer flex is really what I needed. I am so happy with the boots, my skiing and confidence has improved a lot after switching to these boots.

 

[SnowHot]

This thread is an important lesson that we're all unique in our needs.

I recall a conversation with a well resepected woman in the industry, talking about how women have different needs when it comes to ski boots. I gave a little push back on that mindset because I fully believe that we women are all different from one another just as much as women are different from men.

@mustski and I have very similar needs in a ski boot fit, however, I have hypermobile joints, including my ankles, while she has bone inhibited ankle ROM.

We ski with Ann, who has a big vamp measurement and larger calves, so her boot fitting needs are really different.

@contesstant has a tiny vamp measurement and though she's an avid cyclist and has strong legs/calves, they are quite skinny.

I could go on, but you get the point.

I really like the light this thread is shining on different aspects of a bootfit that we all need...uniquely.

 

[floatingyardsale]

Thanks for enlightening folks on the benefits of looking at men's and unisex gear as options.
I'd always been told women's boots have to be different due to how much lower the calf muscle comes down on the leg. I believed it and never challenged that assertion.Like @Verve, I have very trim ankles and low volume shallow heel. And I have very muscular cyclist cut calves.

I started this season with some new Daleboot VFF Pro unisex custom boot. They have a much taller cuff and I LOVE IT. I'm not as tall at 5'5" 160# but I have a 31" inseam.

I am a relatively aggressive skier skiing mostly off piste. I experience a lot of uneven terrain, sudden drops, and off camber descents, replete with drifts and patches of windblown. I truly need a boot (and ski) that can perform under all conditions. The Daleboot with the taller cuff is the real deal.

I haven't gotten them off piste much due to low snowpack here so far this year, but I can say I absolutely ripped on groomers with the higher cuff. I was frankly shocked by how much more drive I get out of the taller boot. On the one really soft day I've had this season, the boot was a dream come true.

Adding to the report on Unisex/Men's Gear: More, if not most, skis are unisex now. The only difference is the top sheet, so most women are already benefitting from what I've experienced as better construction of men's skis.
TBH, my least favorite pair of skis in my quiver is the only women specific design 2023 Blizzard Black Pearl 97s (again, have only skied them almost all on piste this season). Nothing specific that I can suss out. They just feel...uncommitted, middling. I haven't figured out where or even if they'll shine yet. I'll ski them on cruiser days (who doesn't love a good cruiser day at least once in a while), but I'll avoid taking them off piste where they bombed for me. After now 5 days on them, I won't even just ski these off the sides of the groomers. I'm hyper-risk avoidant and will not ski without having the right tool for the job.

I suspect women-specific skis may just be a code for "meant for lighter skiers". Anyone else have an explanation, experience, or theory?

My theory is that "women's specific" mostly means "designed for someone 5'4"/shorter who is proportionally lighter." For me, at just about 5'4", women's-specific when it works mostly means "ergonomic for someone who isn't the average height male."

 

[Verve]

I am an advance skier and also tall, so the taller and upright cuff (less forward lean) and stiffer flex is really what I needed.

It's such a contrast! I'm honestly still adjusting to the more upright approach but I am excited about it long term, for sure - and if it continues to feel strange, I guess I can add the included 10mm spoiler for a bit more forward lean. My boots also have the "progressive / directional" dial on the back, which just softens a bit by turning a piece of metal inside the boot. Might monkey around with that a bit, too - it's currently at the stiffest setting. Hopefully can play around in more forgiving conditions - it's a scrapey mess out there in Central VT right now with the super cold temps.