Are Hoka's worth the hype?

I jumped into a pair of the Huakas. They're a new light model that are just under 9 oz. I use them on my long runs and I really like them. They're great on downhills as well, really takes the impact off the knees and quads. I typically wear the Ravenna's and PureCadence. I'm decently effecient so neutral shoes are no strangers in my rotation.

i found them on sale for $85 at running warehouse and i'm not all that thrilled. they feel pretty clunky.

A guy on my run club who always had foot pain during long runs has been using them for a few weeks and says the pain is gone. Long-term results not in yet.

The new Clifton's are just under 8oz for size 9 or thereabouts. They don't feel big or heavy, just cushy. If you are at all fragile or putting in very high mileage I highly recommend them.

Yes

*Hokas

Pluralization does not require the use of an apostrophe.

Try to keep up.

As a few stated above- go try out the new shoe the Clifton. If you're a fan of a good amount of cushion it's the way to go, and is incredibly light weight. The others I will agree- a little clunkier for my liking. But if they start releasing more shoes like the Clifton they will do very well for themselves.

How are Hokas support for front foot / toes runners??

That happens wrote:

*Hokas

Pluralization does not require the use of an apostrophe.

Try to keep up.

So it's acceptable but not required?

I bought a pair of the Conquest by Hoka. They fit better than the other Hoka shoes in the store, but to be fair the entire Hoka line wasn't present. Anyway, I found the shoe to be downright light, not just lighter than I expected. The shoe definitely delivered on cushioning--my knee problems were just gone. It also looked so well constructed that it probably would have lasted half a decade.

Unfortunately those things didn't matter, as I had to take them back for 2 reasons: (1) Something about the way the shoe dropped changed my gait enough that my leg muscles were working overtime, and I could only run a few miles. I chocked this up to my body just getting used to the shoe, and might have kept the pair, had it not been for the second reason. (2) The material inside the shoe is quite slippery, and despite a nice fit in general (and the next size down being way too small), my foot slid around in the shoe a bit. It was just enough movement to cause the seam around my Achilles tendon to rub my ankle raw.

i just picked up some cheap Huakas a few weeks ago. 208 miles on them so far, definitely have become my go-to shoe for everything but workouts.

like somebody mentioned, they're great for downhills. not heavy or clunky by any means.

but yeah, i've only worn the 8.9 oz huaka model.

bought them when i got a few niggles all within a week or two which is unusual for me, and i figured some cushier shoes would fix it. bought the hokas, have been doing all easy runs in them. all those niggles were immediately gone, though i cannot say for sure that my new shoes fixed it.

shoes i had in my rotation before (all 200+ miles on them)

saucony virrata (lightweight trainer)

asics gel neo33 (clunky, heavy trainer)

brooks pureconnect2 (lightweight trainer)

plus others i wore infrequently

Pretty sure the Conquest has a 4mm drop, so a fair bit lower than you standard 8-12mm drop most trainers have. Definitely will take a little getting used to. I've found Hoka's have a slightly wider toe box as well, so not much you can do about #2