I've been researching boots for a couple weeks now and decided to order these boots to do an out of the box comparison. The Tibets are pretty popular and a lot of people are running them. The Zamberlan's were pretty new to me though. Brock Ackers is running them right now and has a nice review of them on the site. I ordered both boots through Shoebuy.com and was able to get 25% off of the Lowa's but the Zamberlans seem to be excluded from all of their promotions. A little background on myself before I get going. I have been running the Cabelas Meindl Denali's for the last three years. I probably put (guesstimating) somewhere around 100-150 miles each season over the course of the three years. My foot is probably considered narrow, but I can typically make a "D" width work depending on the brand. I had some minor issues with heal slip in the Denali's. I would get a decent hot spot on my heels each summer but once my foot toughened up I didn't have anymore issues. On to the review...
Out of the box the Lowa's felt really good. When lacing the boots up I really liked their lacing system and how the I-lock cam locks the laces on the top of your foot. My heels were rock solid with no slip noticed. And the upper part of the boot (cuff?) was like a snug glove. The toe box had slightly more volume that I was hoping for, as I tend to like less volume in the toe box, but it felt good. I hopped onto the treadmill and walked at a good incline for about a 1/2 mile. Again these boots felt great with no slippage. My size 13 came in at 2 lb 7oz per boot.

About a week later the 960 Guide's showed up. The construction on these boots were awesome. As good, if not better, than the Tibets. Overall the 960's are about 1/2in shorter and 3oz lighter (size 13) than the Tibets. Also, they had a slighly softer flex than the Tibets, but not by much. I was really excited about these boots and looked forward to trying them out. As I tried them on I immediately noticed that the toe box was slightly more narrow than the Tibets and really wrapped my foot. The lacing system isn't as nice as the Tibets, however they do "lock" the laces in over the top of your foot. The eye hook over the top of the foot is dimpled and helps to keep the lace secure. Once I got them laced up I did notice that the very top of the boot was more loose/sloppy than the Tibets. I had the top laces cranked all the way down so there wasn't any more room to spare. I do have what some would call "chicken legs" so this is probably why they weren't as snug. This didn't seem to affect the support but, it didn't wrap around my leg like the Tibets. They did feel pretty good laced up though. Once on the treadmill I immediately started to notice some slight heal slip in my right foot. I stopped and re-laced but it continued to slip. It wasn't much but was noticeable. I tried a few other lacing techniques but couldn't get it to stop. Its possible that an aftermarket footbed would help but I didn't have anything available at the time.

Overall, both the Tibets and 960 Guides are great boots. In the end I decided to stick with the Tibets simply because they fit my feet better. I haven't had them outside yet but I look forward it. I will probably mess around with some other footbeds because the Lowa's are known for being pretty poor.

Out of the box the Lowa's felt really good. When lacing the boots up I really liked their lacing system and how the I-lock cam locks the laces on the top of your foot. My heels were rock solid with no slip noticed. And the upper part of the boot (cuff?) was like a snug glove. The toe box had slightly more volume that I was hoping for, as I tend to like less volume in the toe box, but it felt good. I hopped onto the treadmill and walked at a good incline for about a 1/2 mile. Again these boots felt great with no slippage. My size 13 came in at 2 lb 7oz per boot.

About a week later the 960 Guide's showed up. The construction on these boots were awesome. As good, if not better, than the Tibets. Overall the 960's are about 1/2in shorter and 3oz lighter (size 13) than the Tibets. Also, they had a slighly softer flex than the Tibets, but not by much. I was really excited about these boots and looked forward to trying them out. As I tried them on I immediately noticed that the toe box was slightly more narrow than the Tibets and really wrapped my foot. The lacing system isn't as nice as the Tibets, however they do "lock" the laces in over the top of your foot. The eye hook over the top of the foot is dimpled and helps to keep the lace secure. Once I got them laced up I did notice that the very top of the boot was more loose/sloppy than the Tibets. I had the top laces cranked all the way down so there wasn't any more room to spare. I do have what some would call "chicken legs" so this is probably why they weren't as snug. This didn't seem to affect the support but, it didn't wrap around my leg like the Tibets. They did feel pretty good laced up though. Once on the treadmill I immediately started to notice some slight heal slip in my right foot. I stopped and re-laced but it continued to slip. It wasn't much but was noticeable. I tried a few other lacing techniques but couldn't get it to stop. Its possible that an aftermarket footbed would help but I didn't have anything available at the time.

Overall, both the Tibets and 960 Guides are great boots. In the end I decided to stick with the Tibets simply because they fit my feet better. I haven't had them outside yet but I look forward it. I will probably mess around with some other footbeds because the Lowa's are known for being pretty poor.
