I think in two years the only posts on running message boards will be from the employees of shoe, apparel and swim wear companies. It's becoming pathetic.
I think in two years the only posts on running message boards will be from the employees of shoe, apparel and swim wear companies. It's becoming pathetic.
Collin,
I think what Sage is doing is just speaking about the good things he has experienced with Hoka and speaking up for the brand. I don't believe he is trying to convince you to buy Hoka One One shoes. I am not saying what you did was wrong but you did come on here and attack Hoka One One. I am currently trying a pair of Hoka One One shoes and I am having a great experience. I found myself wishing they would make a lighter shoe that I could race in. Looks like that wish has been granted. I have a bad habit of trying different brands every time I am due up for new shoes. I currently run in a pair of Altra shoes, a pair of Newtons and I just added The Hoka One One to the rotation. I just finished up using a pair of Asic Kayano and a pair of Newtons. The point to saying that is I am currently planning on buying more Hokas next time after I wear out one of the other shoes in the rotation. They make a great product that seems to be working for a lot of runners. Sage thanks for coming on here and sharing some info on the new shoes coming out.
It should be noted I don't run ultras I mostly run 5ks to 10ks. I have run 2 marathons and 1 half marathon.
Sorry, after I wrote that, I realized that I misspoke. I meant to say that without Karl, no-one in the US would know Hoka. Hokas were first sold in running stores in Utah because people wanted to try shoes from the company that had just sponsored him (coming off a year when he won 6 or 7 100 mile races). Mostly because of people wanting to try the shoes he was using, they got big in Utah in 09-10, and then the ultramarathon community nationally started wearing them to a larger degree in 2010. Without Karl, they would've eventually made it onto the US market in a pretty big scale, I'm sure, but he was the guy that brought them here and popularized them in an area full of trail runners, which then helped them spread across the country.[/quote]
None of that is true. A store in Colorado was the first to sell the shoe.
I understand that he was just emoting his ebullience with a brand of shoe and I hope that I have such an intimate relation with a shoe or computer sometime in the future.
I'm so glad that you shared your personal experience with the Hoka One One shoes. And I must admit, your description of trying on a pair of Hoka One One was truly a great experience.
I certainly hope you buy Hokas for your all your future runs.
Run to.... wrote:
Collin,
I think what Sage is doing is just speaking about the good things he has experienced with Hoka and speaking up for the brand.
If I was being paid by them, I'd speak highly of them too. He left Scott for the $$$$, not because Hokas are superior shoes. Same goes for paying Karl and Leo. Until someone actually runs fast in them, they're just heavy, over-priced recovery shoes, not performance shoes. My friends who have done ultras in them said they're too heavy for running hours upon hours in them. Why would I pay $150 for a pair, when I can get a pair of Skechers GoRun Ultras for $85 or less? Their track spikes goes against the philosophy and leaves a mixed message- it would be like Newton making shoes without the lugs. It's an injury waiting to happen, going from over-built shoes to spikes.
heavy and over-priced wrote:
Run to.... wrote:Collin,
I think what Sage is doing is just speaking about the good things he has experienced with Hoka and speaking up for the brand.
If I was being paid by them, I'd speak highly of them too. He left Scott for the $$$$, not because Hokas are superior shoes. Same goes for paying Karl and Leo. Until someone actually runs fast in them, they're just heavy, over-priced recovery shoes, not performance shoes. My friends who have done ultras in them said they're too heavy for running hours upon hours in them. Why would I pay $150 for a pair, when I can get a pair of Skechers GoRun Ultras for $85 or less? Their track spikes goes against the philosophy and leaves a mixed message- it would be like Newton making shoes without the lugs. It's an injury waiting to happen, going from over-built shoes to spikes.
7.9 ounces.
Collin wrote:
See you in a month, when I hope to run within an hour of your time from last year.
what's your training look like? 6:10ish is quick on that course.
How many races do most of you run in a year?
10?
20?
30?
Even if you race 30 times, that means you are probably running 300 other days during the year.
What would you consider more important? The shoes you train in 300 times (more if you double)or the shoe you race in?
Since most runners are NOT sponsored they can race in anything they want. I love to train in Hoka but I certainly wouldn't run a 5k or 10k in them. I'll just keep racing in Kinvaras until they wear out. My last pair of racing flats (fasttwitch) lasted 10 years.
nbskis wrote:
Collin wrote:See you in a month, when I hope to run within an hour of your time from last year.
what's your training look like? 6:10ish is quick on that course.
Actually, really lazy, but managing to race well. Last 4 races were a 2:42 marathon in bad weather, 2nd place finish in a trail marathon with 7k-8k' vert (faster than Karl Meltzer's average time on the course), non-aided half in 1:15, recent super aided half win by 8 minutes in 1:10. I ran that trail marathon in 4:06 this year (4:00 last year), and last time I ran Speedgoat (7;42 while in extraordinarily bad shape), I had recently done the same trail marathon in 5:20. Speedgoat is certainly not my ideal course, so I guess we'll see!
Collin wrote:
zzzz wrote:My Adidas Adios 2s (size 11.5) weigh 8.9 oz. on my scale. This is the model of shoe that the current men's marathon world record was set in.
Standard shoe weight is measured as weight of a size 9. Adios 2s are a 7.7 oz shoe.
OK, Runningwarehouse lists it as 7.8 oz. And the Adios Boost at 8.0 oz. And the Adios Boost 2 at 8.1 oz. Somehow there seems to be a fleet of sub-2:05 runners using shoes that are 30% to 35% heavier than your 6 oz marathon shoes limit to run sub-2:05 and win/place at major marathons. Can't be that bad. The Hoka Clifton apparently weighs less than the Adios Boost and Adios Boost 2.
S. Canaday wrote:
Oh man! I know I've really gone downhill. My PR really is 2:16:52 though...so closer to 2:17.
But really I got the flu 5 weeks before Carlsbad and couldn't run for 7 days...then I had 4 weeks of specific training for that race. When I ran my marathon PR I had a good 2 months or so at 120mpw and was all road/track running with actual speed workouts. Training for 50 mile ultras in the hills/mountains isn't all that specific to road speed when you're trying to crack 2:20. We'll see what happens at Chicago, but I know from experience that that course profile is a good 2min + faster than Carlsbad.
40_still running wrote:Sage I remind you and the board, your marathon PR is a 2:16. In context, running 5 minutes slower than your PR is not a good showing.
Sage,
I am a huge fan and you have used one of my questions on your VO2Max podcast, but I hate your excuses. Your marathon pb took place over 2 years ago and you probably would be a 2:14 (or better) marathoner by now if you would have stuck with the marathon. Please don't act like a Trials qualifying time in Chicago would be impressive. A 2:16 in Chicago would just be proof of how your MUT experience has stifled your improvement as a marathoner.
nbskis wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMuIC83Cd8U7.9 ounces.
Until Running Warehouse comes out with the specs, I'm not believing it. I wear a men's size 9- 7.9 ounces is heavy for a racing flat. You can only make a shoe so light, with that much cushioning, until you have to whittle the cushioning down to get lighter and on par with other companies. That would go against their shoe philosophy though. They've cornered themselves by making these overly cushioned shoes. 10-12 ounces is an absolute brick compared to other companies currently making trainers in the 8-10 ounce range and racing flats in the 5-8 ounce range. I tried them on at the store and cringed at the thought of running in shoes that heavy.
Collin wrote:
Actually, really lazy, but managing to race well. Last 4 races were a 2:42 marathon in bad weather, 2nd place finish in a trail marathon with 7k-8k' vert (faster than Karl Meltzer's average time on the course), non-aided half in 1:15, recent super aided half win by 8 minutes in 1:10. I ran that trail marathon in 4:06 this year (4:00 last year), and last time I ran Speedgoat (7;42 while in extraordinarily bad shape), I had recently done the same trail marathon in 5:20. Speedgoat is certainly not my ideal course, so I guess we'll see!
good luck. looking for sub 6 myself.
nbskis wrote:
Collin wrote:Actually, really lazy, but managing to race well. Last 4 races were a 2:42 marathon in bad weather, 2nd place finish in a trail marathon with 7k-8k' vert (faster than Karl Meltzer's average time on the course), non-aided half in 1:15, recent super aided half win by 8 minutes in 1:10. I ran that trail marathon in 4:06 this year (4:00 last year), and last time I ran Speedgoat (7;42 while in extraordinarily bad shape), I had recently done the same trail marathon in 5:20. Speedgoat is certainly not my ideal course, so I guess we'll see!
good luck. looking for sub 6 myself.
Cool, you're a local Utah guy? I'll try to place for about that, but will probably lose it going up the last climb. Haha.
I don't think you realize what a typical marathon progression is for guys in the 213 to 217 range..it's really really hard to even beat your debut time sometimes. Just look how many guys at Hansons got "stuck" at 214 to 215 (most didn't even run that fast). If i ran 216 low at Chicago and Pred (esp. 4 weeks after the RUT 50k I'd be ecstatic! I'm a 29:47 10km runner...I know where I stand when it comes to my marathon potential...but thanks (I guess).
You are better than that wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:Oh man! I know I've really gone downhill. My PR really is 2:16:52 though...so closer to 2:17.
But really I got the flu 5 weeks before Carlsbad and couldn't run for 7 days...then I had 4 weeks of specific training for that race. When I ran my marathon PR I had a good 2 months or so at 120mpw and was all road/track running with actual speed workouts. Training for 50 mile ultras in the hills/mountains isn't all that specific to road speed when you're trying to crack 2:20. We'll see what happens at Chicago, but I know from experience that that course profile is a good 2min + faster than Carlsbad.
Sage,
I am a huge fan and you have used one of my questions on your VO2Max podcast, but I hate your excuses. Your marathon pb took place over 2 years ago and you probably would be a 2:14 (or better) marathoner by now if you would have stuck with the marathon. Please don't act like a Trials qualifying time in Chicago would be impressive. A 2:16 in Chicago would just be proof of how your MUT experience has stifled your improvement as a marathoner.
Why would the value of these athletes relative to the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL be so much less? Is it about the nature of the sport, lack of fan support, something about their personality or characteristics that lack marketability, failure of organizations that manage the sport, or failure of their agents? It has to be one or all of the above.
1. Galen Rupp
2. Bernard Lagat
3. Evan Jagar
4. Chris Derrick
5. Matt Centrowitz
6. Leonel Manzano
S. Canaday wrote:
I don't think you realize what a typical marathon progression is for guys in the 213 to 217 range..it's really really hard to even beat your debut time sometimes. Just look how many guys at Hansons got "stuck" at 214 to 215 (most didn't even run that fast). If i ran 216 low at Chicago and Pred (esp. 4 weeks after the RUT 50k I'd be ecstatic! I'm a 29:47 10km runner...I know where I stand when it comes to my marathon potential...but thanks (I guess).
Dick Beardsley's 10k PR is 29:12. So keep at it.
[quote]S. Canaday wrote:
I don't think you realize what a typical marathon progression is for guys in the 213 to 217 range..it's really really hard to even beat your debut time sometimes. Just look how many guys at Hansons got "stuck" at 214 to 215 (most didn't even run that fast).
I agree with Sage about them being stuck and posted it numerous times, but got thrashed (in his eyes) from Kyle who couldn't come to terms with reality...which is all I was saying. If you run 2:14 plus, you are a 2:14 marathoner, NOT a 2:10 marathoner. Sage is a pretty nice guy and I'm sure Kyle was as well, but he was a 2:15ish marathoner who never got faster.
who cares what sage could be running if he stuck with 26.2? he didn't, because he apparently (i would hope) enjoys MUT stuff more. PRing off the sort of training he's been doing would be pretty cool. obviously if he'd been doing normal marathon training for the past 2 years, he'd probably be quite a bit quicker for the marathon.
Collin wrote:
Cool, you're a local Utah guy? I'll try to place for about that, but will probably lose it going up the last climb. Haha.
yup. 6:28 last year, had no idea what i was doing. this year, things are different.
Will Leo Manzano be running USAs in this model or a thicker pair?
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-06/18/13/enhanced/webdr07/grid-cell-27490-1403114088-6.jpg
