D'artagnan II vs. D'artagnan III

[EnduringDusk]

Right now I have an old pair of II's
I'm debating on whether or not to get III's

Has anyone tried both? Which has better feel? Comfortable? Helps with lunge?
Please give me the details of the differences if you can.

[CvilleFencer]

The DIII's really are not fencing shoes. The are repackaged overpriced badminton shoes and IMHO they suck for fencing. If you are going to go that route much better to get some feathers or Stabils. For about the same money as the DIII's check out the LP Blades.

There is really nothing in common with the DIII's and the old ones. Better to find some Enguards if you want a similiar feel for about the same price in an Adidas shoes as the old Darts.

[erooMynohtnA]

+1 to what Cville said.

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

Yep...what they say ^^^

It looks like Adidas has given up on their venerable old design, which I have worn for 20 years (back to the old blue-stripe style). Alas, when my last two pairs of D'Art IIs bite the piste, I'll have to find another style of shoe (cuz it sure ain't gonna be IIIs).

[rudd]

They are still selling the En Garde which is the same design. It's featured in the current Adidas fencing flyer.

[Alex_Paul]

Originally Posted by rudd

They are still selling the En Garde which is the same design. It's featured in the current Adidas fencing flyer.

Agreed and we are not going to stock the Dart III and are going to start stocking the En garde instead.

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

Originally Posted by Alex_Paul

Agreed and we are not going to stock the Dart III and are going to start stocking the En garde instead.

Alex, I am proud of you!

[jfarmer]

So the En garde would be a good recommendation in that price range? Does it's sizing run similar to the Dart 1's and Dart 2's?

[rudd]

It's practically the same shoe as the D'Art II.

[W. Richmond]

The sole is basically the same but the materials used in the rest of the shoe are not of the same quality, the DIIs are much more flexible at first and require less break-in time.

[D'Art]

I'm getting confused with all these references to me.

Back on topic, what's wrong with the new Adistars? They look pretty nice from what I've seen.

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

Originally Posted by D'Art

I'm getting confused with all these references to me.

Back on topic, what's wrong with the new Adistars? They look pretty nice from what I've seen.

Why? I don't think Craig will let you change your name.

[CvilleFencer]

The new Adistars are very nice. I have been fencing in them for a few weeks now with no problems. Fairly light, lots of cushioning and decent traction on most surfaces. A little higher up off the floor than some might care for and not really designed for people who roll their back foot, but a nice shoe for epee. So far at least. There are already a couple of wear areas that are giving me some concern, but they are holding up well so far.

Now the DIII's, as opposed to the Adistars, are crap.

[Sean Butler]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

The new Adistars are very nice. I have been fencing in them for a few weeks now with no problems. Fairly light, lots of cushioning and decent traction on most surfaces. A little higher up off the floor than some might care for and not really designed for people who roll their back foot, but a nice shoe for epee. So far at least. There are already a couple of wear areas that are giving me some concern, but they are holding up well so far.

Now the DIII's, as opposed to the Adistars, are crap.

Since you went into such great detail about why the Adistars are good, why not further elaborate on the crapiness of the DIII's? Usually, with any gear there are trade-offs. Some trade-offs might be worse for certain people than others. For example, the traditional fencing shoe I wore back in the 80's, the German Addidas, was a great shoe for fencing, but it had almost zero impact absorption. One virtually had to wear a heel cup to use it because otherwise you'd come home from a tournament or a long night of practicing with a heel that felt like you'd hit with a hammer repeatedly. Further, if the floor was a bit too solid, as poorly chosen athletic surfaces often are, you'd easily get shin splints after a prolonged use of the facility.

These modern shoes like the Adistars, and possibly even the DIII do seem to offer a lot more impact absorption than the old ones did. I am sure there is a big trade-off between the impact absorption and the weight/height issues of such a shoe, but if joint pain or other issues were more important, one might sacrifice some modicum of mobility for longer lasting joints.

Can you think of more reasons than a slightly decreased dexterity of the feet that a fencer might choose a more traditional shoe over something like the DIII?

Thanks and best regards,
Sean

[CvilleFencer]

I have a policy of not going into any great detail about something unless I have used it/owned it for enough time to get a feel for it or have had it tested by fencers in my club. I will say that I am a gear junky and I try a wide range of things that come on the market, or use some of my fencers or coaches at my club for testers.

I checked out the DIII's when I was looking for a new pair of shoes and I was immediately put off by the weight, the sole design and the the overall cut which was very much a court shoe and not a fencing shoe. In short, I did not even seriously consider them. Apparently neither did at least one major vendor/manufacturer whose opinions I have a great deal of respect for.

Several other fencers I have talked to came away with the same impression. I only know one fencer who did not think they were too bad and he normally wears basket ball shoes to fence in and is admittedly not a footwork guy.

So no direct experience fencing in them, but from having looked at them with the eye of someone who has tried about everything out there and beta tested a fair amount of fencing specific products in my time I gotta say, I am not a fan. IMHO a lot of the "fashion" non-fencing fencing shoes would be an overall better choice for most fencers. For those that do want a tennis or basket ball shoe for cushioning or ankle support, there are much cheaper options that would seem to give the same or better performance.

As with any opinion/review your mileage may vary...

[Craig]

One bit of feedback on the D III's is that if you have some issues where you need more arch support on the back foot, they are good. If you have problems with your arches and the traditional fencing shoes cause problems, then moving to a court-based shoe like the D III is better.

Of course, I would tell those people to check out the Lightster, on which the D III is based, but the Lightsters don't seem to be available through Adidas any more.

Craig

[rudd]

The Lightster is also the Adidas Alphasys repackaged. The sole was originally meant for handball. The Alphasys is difficult to find as well outside of handball playing countries.

[TBean]

I wear the Lightster - as opposed to the D'Art III - I do footwork, move around a lot and find them to be a comfortable shoe with good traction. They are not that heavy, and for anyone who needs an ounce of support or impact absorption - for arches, knees, hips, back - they are an excellent choice. I fenced a recent tournament on a concrete floor in them and came away feeling pretty good. Not something that could be said of almost any other fencing-shoe I have tried.

[dtcaslick]

I just bought the D'art IIIs from Kfir on a visit to NYC. I have been having heel pain that has been attributed to fencing and I was looking for a shoe with support and cushioning and the D3s fit the bill for sure. My heel pain is now minimal and easy to tolerate. They are a bit bulky and you can't feel the floor too well, but I think they do exactly what I bought them for.

YMMV



Todd

[seven6ty]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

The new Adistars are very nice... A little higher up off the floor than some might care for and not really designed for people who roll their back foot, but a nice shoe for epee.

Gah! You shouldn't be rolling your back foot anyways.