Despite how many athletes end up signing with Hoka One, I am still really skeptical about their shoes

go to their website and check out the weights of their newer models.

not heavy at all.

i've put almost 900 miles on the Huaka, which is just 8.9 oz.

Some of them are signing because their current contracts expire on December 31st and they have been notified that the contract won't be renewed.

That seems super heavy. The shoes I train in are around 5 ounces, not more than 6 for sure (Hyperspeeds, Saucony Type A5).

Then why would you want to wear hokas? The Clifton is their lightest shoe at 7.7 ounces. If that's too heavy, then don't wear them.

well........ wrote:

I currently train in the Asics Hyperspeed and the Hoka Ones look WAY too clunky and heavy. Plus that much heel cushioning? I'm still very skeptical.

You have a right to be skeptical and ought to bear in mind that athletes have to make money. This is not a time in which integrity matters for someone's reputation or $ power. Sports stars prostitute themselves out for joke corporate products all the time. A lot of the time I would argue it's not even that bad: I call that the Wilt chamberlain argument--which I agree with, that athletes should be able to make money endorsing junk food if factory workers, office workers, corporate executives, etc. can do the same in working for shyte companies.

Torrence is a good guy. He's gotta put food on the table. I don't take Torrence, Manzano or Meb and their links to their respective shoe companies as having any correlation to the quality of the shoes those companies put out. The fact is, additionally, shoes on the market, like men's fashion in general, are getting worse and worse quality. Caveat emptor. Companies will pass on the costs, hide beyond fancy marketing and stupid consumer group-think and petty shoe-fetish fashionization blind of quality considerations. This has been going on for years, with major shoe companies creating differentiated, inferior quality shoes (still selling at high prices) at department stores, etc. Anyways, I could write all night proving a thousand points, but it would be futile.

As a serious runner, it's up to us to get out there and find a great shoe. The opinions of others can be helpful, can be wrong, can be noise, etc. And the needs of an individual can change over time.

Scouring online and speciality running shoe stores, I've found more high quality Asics shoes than other brands. If Sketchers or Hoka One One have some obscure, rare shoe that happens to be anything better than decent, than it's almost irrelevant since most of their product line is abominable. But Adidas, Nike, Brooks, etc. are also putting out more and more mediocre crap quality bottom-line padding shoes, too.

Still have an old pair of Asics Tarthers bought around 2010/2011? kept for reference sake. I might re-up. When I bought them, they looked fast, they felt fast. Good combination of being light enough and having enough support.

well......... wrote:

That seems super heavy. The shoes I train in are around 5 ounces, not more than 6 for sure (Hyperspeeds, Saucony Type A5).

Most world class athletes train in shoes that are "super heavy" by your standards.

wel,. wrote:

well......... wrote:

That seems super heavy. The shoes I train in are around 5 ounces, not more than 6 for sure (Hyperspeeds, Saucony Type A5).

Most world class athletes train in shoes that are "super heavy" by your standards.

This. I think most of the Nike athletes log a bulk of their mileage in Pegs or Structures. Symmonds is in the Ravenna. Not sure about Adidas athletes other than their race shoe. Saucony athletes have had the Kinvara or the Ride. New Balance has the 890s or 980s.

Even though all of those brands have a lightweight trainer/racer, the signed athletes wear the heavier, more cushioned models. So I would say that your argument for Hoka's being too heavy and clunky isn't there.

well........ wrote:

I currently train in the Asics Hyperspeed and the Hoka Ones look WAY too clunky and heavy. Plus that much heel cushioning? I'm still very skeptical.

Try them on.

I raced a half marathon Sunday and was deciding between racing in Hoka cliftons or adidas adios boosts. The boosts are fun, but they light up my calves like no one's business.

Despite the huge differences in the shoe, I put them on the micro scale and they weighted EXACTLY the same: 8.7 oz in a size 11. Another candidate for the race, my Sayanoras are 9.4

I raced in the Hokas.

The only knock I have on them is that super soft shoes will put a beating on your Achilles.

I know too many good runners that wear these for their long runs and easy runs. These things aren't like vibrams where they were worn by nobody but back of the packers.

micro scale wrote:

well........ wrote:

I currently train in the Asics Hyperspeed and the Hoka Ones look WAY too clunky and heavy. Plus that much heel cushioning? I'm still very skeptical.

Try them on.

I raced a half marathon Sunday and was deciding between racing in Hoka cliftons or adidas adios boosts. The boosts are fun, but they light up my calves like no one's business.

Despite the huge differences in the shoe, I put them on the micro scale and they weighted EXACTLY the same: 8.7 oz in a size 11. Another candidate for the race, my Sayanoras are 9.4

I raced in the Hokas.

The only knock I have on them is that super soft shoes will put a beating on your Achilles.

Well put. 2 months ago I tried them on and was sold and I am NOT an easy sell. I went from the Adios Boost to the Cliftons. In 2013, I tried on their previous models and they were a bit heavy for me. I actually laughed when they first came out thinking oh how cute now we can run in BRICKS. I had always hoped they would come out with a lighter model but with all that sweet cushioning. The Clifton was the answer. I just did my speedwork in them today and have raced a marathon and won a 50K in the US in them a few weeks ago. After both longer races I can honestly say I had no aches, soreness, and or niggles. My recovery was better too probably because the cushioning saved my legs from a beating. I made a HUGE MISTAKE and tried a season in Newtons in 2008-9 and fecked up my left Achilles at the attachment point. I have had to deal with it off and on since though I did have success a yr ago with prolozone therapy. The Clifton is my go to racer now and I got a pair a half size up for the 100k. I train in the Bondi and or the Stinson Tarmac. I am surprised you said they bugged your Achilles. This is the first shoe that hasn't irritated it at all for me. The Adidas Energy Boost was my go to trainer, but still sometimes I could feel that old niggle. The Hokas are also super super comfy for walking in too. For the track, I have come to like the NB MRC5000 which is only 3 oz. It's strictly for racing though. I warm up and cool down in the Hokas for protection. For the road stuff up to 10k there is the Zoom Streak LT or the Hyperspeed-again only for racing no warming up and cooling down in it. Depending on the surface, I might go with the Clifton for 10k and up.

I am in the running specialty business and being skeptical is part of the job description. If I allow myself to be smitten by the ebb and flow of the hottest footwear trends, it is bad for business (to an extent). For years I scoffed at HOKA as something not even worth my time.

Then a friend of mine (a fast friend of mine) got sponsored by them and I tried one of his pairs on. My mind was changed. It was a bit awkward at first, but the 5mm drop keeps your steps quick and I found my hips fell right into place. During my run, the word "apogee" came to mind when I was trying to describe how good my form felt.

Many of my colleagues at other stores throughout the country shared this sentiment: they doubted it, they tried it, they love it and they sell lots of it. Despite my seemingly glowing endorsement of HOKA, my real point is: there are plenty of shoes that I hate made by any of the "Big 7" brands and there are also shoes that I love that most people detest. The important thing is how they feel for the INDIVIDUAL - and you'll never know until you try.

Try them on! You might love them. Or you might hate them. Just remember, the latter doesn't mean the shoe sucks for other people; just for you.

TURNTLIVES wrote:

I am in the running specialty business and being skeptical is part of the job description. If I allow myself to be smitten by the ebb and flow of the hottest footwear trends, it is bad for business (to an extent). For years I scoffed at HOKA as something not even worth my time.

Then a friend of mine (a fast friend of mine) got sponsored by them and I tried one of his pairs on. My mind was changed. It was a bit awkward at first, but the 5mm drop keeps your steps quick and I found my hips fell right into place.

NJRC? 4001?

What signed athletes wear isn't the point. If someone finds a shoe too heavy or clunky then it is, for him, too heavy or clunky regardless of how others may find that shoe.

well......... wrote:

That seems super heavy. The shoes I train in are around 5 ounces, not more than 6 for sure (Hyperspeeds, Saucony Type A5).

You do know that you wear a racing flat right? Of course a normal training shoe is going to feel heavy. Compare apples to apples.

HRE wrote:

What signed athletes wear isn't the point. If someone finds a shoe too heavy or clunky then it is, for him, too heavy or clunky regardless of how others may find that shoe.

The guy didn´t say they felt clunky for him. He said that they "seemed super heavy".

John Clendon wrote:

This. I think most of the Nike athletes log a bulk of their mileage in Pegs or Structures. Symmonds is in the Ravenna. Not sure about Adidas athletes other than their race shoe. Saucony athletes have had the Kinvara or the Ride. New Balance has the 890s or 980s.

Even though all of those brands have a lightweight trainer/racer, the signed athletes wear the heavier, more cushioned models. So I would say that your argument for Hoka's being too heavy and clunky isn't there.

A lot of them wear the Boost Glide, a handful wear the Adistar Boost. Boston or Adios for workouts.

Not a lot of elite athletes in stability shoes; Rupp and Cain in the Structure, Symmonds in the Ravenna, and a handful of Adidas athletes who use the Adistar (those latter two being light stability).

I've been running since the late 1970's and during most of that time the sales pitch was about "air" or "gel" or "web" technology that was supposed to improve shoe cushioning. I like how Hoka surpassed all that with a fat (but stable) slab of EVA that's way more cushioned than anything I've ever worn. For the past couple of months I've been doing track workouts in a pair of Stinson Lites. Even with their thickness you can still get up on your toes and go. And they are plenty light given their thickness, but how light does a trainer have to be? Lightness is hyped by shoe companies in order to justify the use of less durable materials to the extent that many shoes fall apart before their midsoles lose cushioning. Hyper-lightness=profiteering. I experienced that first hand earlier this year with the Asics Gel-Nimbus 16, a shoe that fell apart in about 5 weeks/~250 miles (holes opened in the shoe's mesh upper and its forefoot outsole wore down absurdly fast.) I had actually been a loyal Asics customer up to that point, but my Nimbus 16 experience led me to try Hoka.

Couldn't the same be said for Sketchers and Meb? How many people actually think the Gorun is a good shoe?

Do people actually base their footwear purchases on what professional runners are wearing instead of what is best for their feet?

At least with Hoka you have a customer base who actually uses them for their benefits. They were originally made for Ultra Runners and triathletes. People who were doing very long races, and doing a lot of downhill running. This group of athletes tends to enjoy them. Go to any ultra marathon and look at whats on peoples feet. They were not meant to be the ideal trainer for someone trying to run a fast 5k or 10k.

This may have changed when Deckers bought the brand, and that may be why you are seeing Hoka release some lighter, not as over sized models. They are attempting to reach a broader audience now.

Here is the final sentence in the post I was replying to:

"So I would say that your argument for Hoka's being too heavy and clunky isn't there."

Try reading more carefully.