Discussion in 'Shoes and Apparel' started by SunFlash, Jul 10, 2006.
Breath Free II's or Breathe III's?
Which one should i buy?
Pros and cons?
Go for the II's, they are cheaper and better good looking
which is better on the court?
couldnt tell you 'cause i have only wear the bII's
u like them? I have them too
i have a pair of the IIIs that i havent worn yet. Dont know if i will cause i had a friend who got a pair and he said he was just hittin around and almost rolled his ankle a few times...guess nadal has some special cut so that dont happen cause he moves WAY faster than me or my friends
:mrgreen: well i just wanted to know if i got a good deal or not.
i've had the BFIIs and am wearing the breathe 3's right now
pros - low to the ground, very comfortable, good fit, good ventilation, good traction
cons - a bit low cut but ankle protection is ok because the shoe is low to the ground, lots of reports on popped airbag including mine, not durable (warranty helps a lot here), kind of a pain to put on
pros - fits a little higher so somewhat better ankle protection, comfortable but not as much so as the BFIIs, good fit but BFIIs are better since they wrap around your foot (due to lack of tongue on the BFIIs), ventilates well like BFII, traction is good, cushioning holds up and is more stable, more durable
cons - not as low to the ground as the BFIIs but it has a thicker midsole so that's expected, take time to break in (almost rolled my ankle twice during break in period but havent done it since), colorways aren't as cool as the BFIIs.
for those who have tried both shoes, about half liked the bfIIs more and the other half liked the breathe 3's more. honestly, i like both. the breathe 3 is an improvement of the BFIIs in some areas but not in others. you seriously can't go wrong w/ either as both are excellent shoes and you won't regret buying them...that's for sure.
so does that mean best comfort is BFII better durability is BFIII im thinking of getting a pair cant decide
in terms of comfort, they are about the same, but the BFII fits a little better (at the cost of being a pain to put on sometimes) because the BFII does not have a tongue and instead kinda wraps around your foot.
durability in the Breathe IIIs are definitely better. the midsole is not only thicker, but the outsole seems to be more durable as well.
So which one do u prefer?
snoflewis likes both, apparently.
BF II all the way
I have the II's and really didn't like them but have grown to really like them. I had to cut one of the tounges out so I could put the shoe on with my ankle brace after I sprained my ankle really bad. If they had non-attached tounges I would of liked them 10 times more.
like emcee said, i like both. if i was given one pair, i wouldnt really miss the other. if i absolutely had to go w/ one, i'd probably go w/ the Breathe 3's. reason being that the cushioning holds up (BFIIs are notorious for popped airbags) and is a little bit more solid, durability is better (along w/ the 6 month warranty), it's easier to put on if you're foot or ankle is injured (although you probably shouldnt be playing), and they're a little higher up for ankle protection. the breathe 3's take a couple wearings to break in, but nevertheless they are great shoes and i would definitely recommend them.
Well, my BFII came with six month warranty and i havent had any ankle trouble.
I dunno why people complain about that
Like snoflewis, I also own both kinds and I prefer the BF IIs. Maybe I got a decent-but-not-great pair of IIIs because mine don't feel nearly as comfortable as the IIs. I basically use the IIIs as casual shoes when I'm wearing my basketball or football jerseys. I may give them another shot but for now, I'm playing in the BF IIs (I've got two pair).
i haven't tried the III's, but i really like the II's. very snug fit in the collar thou (w/ the uni-tongue), but lightweight, stable, soft, with good traction.
Separate names with a comma.