Sage Canaday signs with Hoka

Aquaman#2 wrote:

HRE wrote:

And if it doesn't work for you you'll be out how much money for those five minutes of running?

No, you return them and get something else. They are not for everyone. You should be out 0$. No different if you bought adidas, and the don't work for you.

You can't return stuff at my local running shop.

Gcol wrote:

I totally agree with the sell-out mentality showcased by Brooks and New Balance. You can't preach for years that too much shoe underfoot is bad for you and then jump on the gravy train with the over-the-top cushioning movement.

This is where I give Nike props - remember "toning" shoes? Nike didn't believe in it and stayed out, sacrificing millions in revenues, but they just didn't believe in the trend and let Reebok and Skechers sink with the fad. To this day, I can appreciate that.

I would have totally respected Brooks and NB, and anyone else that came out with "Pure" or "Minimalistic" lines to stay away from the Hoka innovation, but they were too afraid to stick to their guns. Heck, Brooks and NB, why don't you start playing up your forefoot with foam and be totally unoriginal?

You are assuming there is one true shoe type that is best for everyone all of the time. Actually, the same people who might want a minimalist shoe some of the time might want to mix it up or use a maximalist shoe at other times. Or different runners might need or prefer different kinds of shoes and shoe companies want to sell shoes that meet those needs or wants.

Part of the problem with the extreme minimalists was the cultish and dogmatic approach to minimalism. You do not have to be a minimalist true believer to think that minimalist shoes are sometimes good, or should be in the mix with other kinds of shoes.

HRE wrote:

Aquaman#2 wrote:

No, you return them and get something else. They are not for everyone. You should be out 0$. No different if you bought adidas, and the don't work for you.

You can't return stuff at my local running shop.

Your local running shop will probably let you try them out on the store treadmill or around the block though. My local shops would let you return them within either within a year (REI) or a something like a month (LRS). My LRS has an interest in helping people get into shoes that work for them, so they are willing to take returns when it doesn't work out.

You're full of crap. No one that trains in minimalism would wear Hoka's. Name me one guy.

Maybe you need a new local running shop? Thanks for your contribution.

The guy is a good runner; I hope he doesn't blow out his ankles and mess up his hips and low back with this gimmick.

Gcol wrote:

You're full of crap. No one that trains in minimalism would wear Hoka's. Name me one guy.

I'm not going to name him, but I have a friend that tests shoes for New Balance, does most of his running in one of their more minimal shoes, and uses Hokas for training and ultras.

Gcol wrote:

I totally agree with the sell-out mentality showcased by Brooks and New Balance. You can't preach for years that too much shoe underfoot is bad for you and then jump on the gravy train with the over-the-top cushioning movement.

This is where I give Nike props - remember "toning" shoes? Nike didn't believe in it and stayed out, sacrificing millions in revenues, but they just didn't believe in the trend and let Reebok and Skechers sink with the fad. To this day, I can appreciate that.

I would have totally respected Brooks and NB, and anyone else that came out with "Pure" or "Minimalistic" lines to stay away from the Hoka innovation, but they were too afraid to stick to their guns. Heck, Brooks and NB, why don't you start playing up your forefoot with foam and be totally unoriginal?

Lets be honest though- anything any other company does, Nike has likely already done it long before (Nike Air Max, Nike Frees...). The problem with these "niche" companies is it's hard for them to diversify and go against their philosophy (thinner/lighter Hokas, Newtons without lugs), which is going to hurt them in the long run, vs. the major companies that carry something of everything. They'll be a fad, people will get bored with them, move on to the next fad, or naturally seek out shoes for other purposes (like running fast!).

Also, while Hoka is paying these athletes to wear their shoes (which is more than most companies give), it will be interesting to see Hoka allows their athletes to wear other shoes to satisfy their needs. You see a lot of the trail racers (North Face, Montrail athletes) wearing other shoe brands for road and even trail racing.

heard around the block wrote:

Also, while Hoka is paying these athletes to wear their shoes (which is more than most companies give), it will be interesting to see Hoka allows their athletes to wear other shoes to satisfy their needs. You see a lot of the trail racers (North Face, Montrail athletes) wearing other shoe brands for road and even trail racing.

Well, I think part of the attraction for Sage is that they are coming out with shoes that he can race in, and that he is already using and testing them. 7-8 oz is as light or lighter than the most popular marathon shoe around (Adidas Adios variants). It's a good opportunity to be able to contribute to the development and marketing of new shoes, if you are into that kind of thing, which Sage seems to be. Kind of like how Meb has a good thing going with Skechers.

Here is a screen grab of the Huaka from his Hoka sponsorship announcement. It has a profile kind of like the Scotts he has been using as well as the Pearl Izumis - a bit more thickness in the middle, with an undercut or less prominent heel. I would definitely be interested in trying it out, especially if it is in the 7-8 oz range.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2mg6n0m.jpg

The North Face has an issue or does what you guys say Hoka may do with Sage on the roads (allow him to wear his Scotts)

Rob Krar, sponsored by The North Face, runs in Nike

Mike Wolfe, sponsored by The North Face, runs in Nike

Jordan McDougal, sponsored by The North Face, runs in The North Face

Michael Wardian, sponsored by The North Face, runs in Hoka One One

Stephanie Howe, sponsored by The North Face, runs in Saucony

Anton Krupicka, sponsored by New Balance, runs in Patagonia jackets

Update: Mike Wardian is fully sponsored by Hoka One One now.

zzzz wrote:

Here is a screen grab of the Huaka from his Hoka sponsorship announcement. It has a profile kind of like the Scotts he has been using as well as the Pearl Izumis - a bit more thickness in the middle, with an undercut or less prominent heel. I would definitely be interested in trying it out, especially if it is in the 7-8 oz range.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2mg6n0m.jpg

That is one beefy shoe, even if it is lighter. Can't see it being good for getting up on the toes. We know these get raves for downhill running, but how about uphill running? I personally like a shoe to be able to flex.

It's not as beefy as it looks. The midsoles on Hokas wrap very high up the side. Here's a view of the Stinson cut in half:

http://freakrunner.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/the-secret-i-learned-by-cutting-my-hoka-evo-stinson-running-shoes-in-half/

zzzz wrote:

It's not as beefy as it looks. The midsoles on Hokas wrap very high up the side. Here's a view of the Stinson cut in half:

http://freakrunner.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/the-secret-i-learned-by-cutting-my-hoka-evo-stinson-running-shoes-in-half/

xm

armadillo wrote:

I've heard some runners say they're fine for easy and/or recovery runs, but not for anything fast. I'm recovering from a knee injury and am actually thinking of trying a pair.

Yeah, they're hideously ugly. I'm so old that I don't even care what I look like anymore, so bring on the clown shoes.

What I found surprising, is how your foot rolls with the rockered bottom. Prior to these my trainers were adidas boston,if that matters. They look like they should be clunky and an unstable, but for me they aren't.

I have hated the Hokas since Karl first started wearing them a few years ago. They are just so ugly. Anyways, yesterday I went on a run with a guy that is sponsored by Hoka and he was running in a pair that are brand new to the market (some weird shoe name). Towards the end of our run he talked me into swapping shoes with him to try them out. I was actually super impressed. They felt so light and reminded me a bit of the Flyknits but with traction. I would have ran a bit longer in them but I don't wear socks and the shoe was cutting into the top of my feet. My attitude about the shoe has totally changed.

I am not sure if I would make the change over to them but I definitely will not be making fun of people that wear them anymore. They are comfy.

yeah yeah wrote:

armadillo wrote:

So order them online. It ain't 1997 anymore.

Yeah, there have been many amazing inventions since HRE started shopping at his local running shop...things like fire and the wheel.

Sending them back is a hassle and I'm not buying something I can't try on first. Come to think of it, the $150 plus running shoe is one of those amazing inventions I'll skip. I don't think I've ever paid half that much for a pair of shoes.

SpiceGirls wrote:

When he said he had signed with a new sponsor they were the last company I thought he would sign with...

Sage Canada versus Max King. Who wins? And yes, I'm too lazy to do a search for ultramarathon results.

I've never heard of Sage, but I've heard of Max.

Is Max King sponsored by Hoka? Will he be next if not?

What about the binge drinking alcoholic ultra-runners in Born to Run? He only gives their first names. Are they sponsored by anyone?

Thanks,