Death knell for Hoka??!!

I think Adidas is far and away #1 in terms of quality.

Especially in ~2014 or so. They were the first ones on the TPU market and their shoes still last me longer than any other band.

Other brands have closed the gap in recent years, but my adidas shoes have been much higher quality than any new balance, saucony or Nike shoes I’ve tried over the past few years.

Hoka is about to break into the fashion world in a big way much like Nike and Adidas have. It will be interesting to see how this will supercharge their growth and R&D. Most recent fashion week in Paris saw almost everyone wearing HOKA, Salomon, and other technical runners and trail shoes. I assume HOKA sales are going to double or triple within the next 18 months. Should be good for business and running.

Hokaohno wrote:

Hoka is about to break into the fashion world in a big way much like Nike and Adidas have. It will be interesting to see how this will supercharge their growth and R&D. Most recent fashion week in Paris saw almost everyone wearing HOKA, Salomon, and other technical runners and trail shoes. I assume HOKA sales are going to double or triple within the next 18 months. Should be good for business and running.

Their development sucks, nothing considered a real breakthrough except for thick eva cushioning.

How many reiterations can they come up with? Uppers are industry standard nothing breakthrough.

Trainers are hot for the moment , talk in Paris was whats next, you don't know fashion, this will be out in a years, Hoka is not considered fashion or cool in fashion circles. People like it to walk or stand in.

Hoka are not just about thick Eva soles. They also have low drop, 3-5mm as opposed to Nike archaic 10-12mm. They also have a very successful 'bucket seat' heel cup which adds a lot of stability without traditional posting (which is proven not to work). Whether you think they are doing anything 'new' is neither here nor there. Runners like their shoes and are buying them instead of the traditional brands.

I laughed when I first saw Altras, then I ran in them and realised that their zero drop and foot shaped upper is more revolutionary than anything Nike has done in 30 years. It's well thought out and lots of their research is supported by scientists. You know that all of the worlds top shoe co.'s have been invited to present their 'tech' to independent scientists and they never have.

Take a look at a first generation Nike Skylon, then look at the current Pegasus. Is there really much difference? Phylon midsole, air unit, mesh and synthetic leather upper and a carbon waffle outsole. Where is the R&D you are paying for? It isn't development, it's fashion, a few trims and reflectors, a new mesh. Barely anything.

Nike don't want anything to change, they can keep peddling the same old stuff and tart it up every two years with a big endorsement campaign. The small companies have to be genuinely revolutionary just to survive.

Deckers owns HOKA and has the money for R&D.

Don't act like you understand the business.

Deckers = ~2 Billion

You come to a lot of conclusions and state a lot of ‘facts’ without proof. Link some evidence to back up your post. Otherwise it’s nonsense on par with ventolin.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

I think Adidas is far and away #1 in terms of quality.

Especially in ~2014 or so. They were the first ones on the TPU market and their shoes still last me longer than any other band.

Other brands have closed the gap in recent years, but my adidas shoes have been much higher quality than any new balance, saucony or Nike shoes I’ve tried over the past few years.

I agree. Adidas is #1 in running shoe quality.

I recently got my first pair of Hokas — a pair of Hoka Hupana 2s from RunningWarehouse on sale. I am enjoying them quite a bit.

Bruh just go look at Hoka, Altra or Nike's website website... Most of that stuff is common knowledge... and you don't need to look very hard to gain a basic understanding in the evolution of a shoe, especially one as well documented as the Pegasus from a large company like Nike.

I highly doubt this study is the "death knell"- but now that Hoka's are more popular triathletes will switch to wearing even more boutique and expensive brands like On or whatever.

I really love Hokas for trail running. The cushion isn't over the top, pretty light, 4.5mm drop is just right, and they don't have the super dramatic rocker thing. I can't imagine enjoying them on roads though.

Sauconys all the way for road running though. Never had a quality issue, and that sweet spot of 4mm drop.

Just stating my experience and not telling everyone what's what (pls don't crucify me)

I wore light minimalist shoes running with very good form (not perfect but VERY good) and got navicular stress fractures in both feet. After a lot of thinking I've concluded that the shoes were a large contributor to the problem (the other is "too much too soon"). I switched to hoka cliftons and swapped out the insole for a paper thin one. I felt no difference to the minimalist shoes other than the more cushioning. (but then again I do run with good form and an active foot strike- I still feel the ground). Also, I run somewhat fast (collegiate runner,, my absolute slowest runs are 7:10/mi)

Question to minimalist folks out there: have you actually tried running in maximalist shoes? How was your experience? (I suspect that people absolutely need very good form and an active foot strike with strong feet to benefit from hokas, otherwise you suffer dearly)

Also, for the love of god can we please tone down the hostility? Maybe then we could actually have a decent conversation and maybe learn some things.

My one experience with the Hoka Challengers I had to use scissors to cut the lateral heel counter cause it was cut too high. On trails they were so soft and thick I nearly rolled my ankles a few times. No tactile feel to the terrain. Their racing flats are cut funny in the arch- tried both the Tracers and Claytons. Too heavy compared to namebrands. No idea how a brand could be so off with the design of their shoes.

Feet are like snowflakes... no two are exactly alike. The shoes that work great for one person might not work at all for another runner.

I buy shoes on three criteria:

Do they fit my feet right?

Do they help prevent injuries?

Do I feel faster in the shoe?

Frequently, I'll take 3-4 pairs of shoes to interval workouts and switch during the workout to see which shoe feels faster. I keep coming back to the Newton Distance. It just has a pop that other shoes don't have.

Today, I did intervals in the Hoka MD Rocket and my fast warm up in the Newton Distance. These shoes might not work for most LetsRunners, but that's really a moot point. What matters is whether they work for me. I have a pair of Hoka Cavu coming tomorrow. Will they work for me? I don't know. Hokas tend to be more hit than miss for me, but they vary a lot from one model to another. We'll see.

One could always resort to physics instead of opinions, brand loyalty or 'fashion'.

Ask a biomechanist what contribution the impact force has to injuries? Much less than you think, even for issues like shin splints, they are usually due 'unnatural overuse'.

So is 'cushioning' trying to solve a problem that does not exist?

Question the 'cost' of it in terms of reduced efficiency and your muscles doing what they are intended to. Cushioning absorbs energy, that does not require knowledge of physics and also increases contact time, both of which reduce efficiency and energy return, besides you muscles not activating as they are naturally intended to.

However...its your money

Loved the orginal Clifton for recovery and easy runs (I must have purchased ten pairs) incredible plush cushion and very light weight ... Their new shoes are hard as a rock and have gained 5-6 ounces. I can't stand running in Hokas now... They would make a killing on a retro Clifton... Take a look at their Facebook page or Instagram comments, people begging for a return to the orginal Clifton.

Almostsbs wrote:

Loved the orginal Clifton for recovery and easy runs (I must have purchased ten pairs) incredible plush cushion and very light weight ... Their new shoes are hard as a rock and have gained 5-6 ounces. I can't stand running in Hokas now... They would make a killing on a retro Clifton... Take a look at their Facebook page or Instagram comments, people begging for a return to the orginal Clifton.

The Napali is a somewhat retro Clifton. It's a copy of the Clifton 3 with a modified uppper and is much squishier than the Clifton 4. The Clifton 5 now out is supposedly softer. They learned their lesson with the Clifton 4 failure but haven't quite returned to the light and cushy Clifton 1.

Funny thing about the high heel- that's one of my favorite parts of hokas. I think this perfectly shows that Hoka shoes, like most shoes, aren't for everyone. But the difference between the shoes working great and being terrible is greater than with other shoes, imo.

Also, I haven't tried hokas on trails but I can see why they wouldn't be stble on trails (I only feel safe running in my cliftons on flat surfaces with no rocks bigger than pebbles). I've rolled my aankle several times on one very mild trail run and avoided trails with hokas since.

I meant "haven't tried hoka trail shoes" not "haven't tried on trails"

go with namebrands. wrote:

The real problem with Hokas and other non-name brands is using more inferior materials (shoes are heavier) and reduced quality control. They're investing so much in marketing, at the expense of s***** research/design/production. I spent a year trying a variety of brands. I kept going back to the namebrand shoes because there was a huge difference in quality, weight of the shoes, and less body aches. Nike/New Balance/Brooks/Asics/Adidas- those are the brands you go with. Hokas, Skechers, and Altras are pure rubbish.

no.

its the larger companies who post a number and then need to continue to beat that number (for shareholder value, etc) who are constantly looking for ways to cut corners, to expand margin.

when companies cannot show a profit based on increased sales, their only option to show good numbers to the street is to control costs. cost cutting is a MASSIVE part of running a big company.

you are silly to think the big shoe companies have better materials. if they can save a penny on a single pair of shoes, think of the economies of scale there across the ridiculously large amount of shoes they are producing.