How 1500 guys can you pick up?
I know it's good for those guy who are now getting paid by Hoka. After all no one else would pay them. But they might want a 800, 5k ,10k half or marathon guy or girl.
Does this company make money yet?
How 1500 guys can you pick up?
I know it's good for those guy who are now getting paid by Hoka. After all no one else would pay them. But they might want a 800, 5k ,10k half or marathon guy or girl.
Does this company make money yet?
They do make the best running shoe in the history of mankind. (The Clifton)
Doesn't concern me who they sponsor.
I just remembered they sponsored David Torrence--what's he up to lately?
3,000 miles this year wrote:
They do make the best running shoe in the history of mankind. (The Clifton)
Doesn't concern me who they sponsor.
One trick pony , shoes don't work for everybody , over priced.
They are buying athletes on the cheap , b & c level types which is actually a good thing as they would not get sponsorship otherwise.
Wasn't one of their first signings 800m runner Mike Rutt?
I agree they need to get more extremist 800 and 5K runners.
They obviously don't know what they are doing from a sports marketing standpoint. Oh, wait, yes they do, it's called the shotgun approach.
So lets see...
People on this board bitch about the lack of sponsorship availabilities for athletes (other than thru Nike/Adidas). Then a relative start up decides they want to sponsor some athletes and the people on this board bitch about which athletes (and distances) they choose to sponsor.
Got it.
HOKA-O-NO wrote:
How 1500 guys can you pick up?
I know it's good for those guy who are now getting paid by Hoka. After all no one else would pay them. But they might want a 800, 5k ,10k half or marathon guy or girl.
Does this company make money yet?
They sponsor Tyler Andrews who recently ran under 2:17 at California International.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
So lets see...
People on this board bitch about the lack of sponsorship availabilities for athletes (other than thru Nike/Adidas). Then a relative start up decides they want to sponsor some athletes and the people on this board bitch about which athletes (and distances) they choose to sponsor.
Got it.
Well, you're definitely not new here..
Unfortunately, I'm not. There are some great threads on this site, but then it's this kind of thinking that makes me wonder why I come back.
Sage Canaday is sponsored by them, as are 18 other runners they classify on the Hoka website as "ultra". Michael Wardian is another of those and given the wide variety of distances he races he brings distance diversity to the program all by himself. Magdalena Boulet was an Olympic marathoner who has moved into ultras.
They currently list 5 track athletes on their sponsorship page. Lee Emanuel is a 1500m-5000m guy. Manzano we all know...1500m. Mike Rutt's an 800/1500 guy. Nicole Schappert, also 800/1500. Desean Turner is a steeplechase guy.
They also sponsor a handful of triathletes.
On the whole, pretty decent event diversity for a company of this size/age. When the last "fad" came along I don't remember Vibram or any of the other minimalistic companies doing much to sponsor high levels runners, let alone cover the spectrum that track and LDR is made up of.
Don't drink the koolaide wrote:
[quote]3,000 miles this year wrote:
They do make the best running shoe in the history of mankind. (The Clifton)
Doesn't concern me who they sponsor.
, over priced.
/quote]
Brooks ghost $120. 350 miles a pair
Hoka Clifton $130. 750-800 miles
Doesn't seem overpriced to me.
Hokas are for hobby joggers who just love shuffling their feet for an hour a day. Its pathetic, its the least flexible shoe I've ever held, and they're heavy. I'd personally never wear them
Hoka Clifton 7.7 oz.
Not a heavy shoe by any means
non hobby joggist wrote:
Hokas are for hobby joggers who just love shuffling their feet for an hour a day. Its pathetic, its the least flexible shoe I've ever held, and they're heavy. I'd personally never wear them
Anyone who wears any running shoe is a hobby jogger, in my opinion.
They are not 7.7 ounces as they FALSELY market. Most companies list the weight of their shoe based on the normal sample size which is 9 to 9.5. Hoka lists the weight of a size 8.5 or smaller. We personally weighed the size 9 for men and it was well over 8 ounces.
Also someone listed that they get 750 miles out of the Hoka? Lets be honest you can get 1000 out of a flat but that does not mean they feel good. Hoka's may allow you to get 100 miles or so more than the average shoe on the market however, they are in fact over priced when you do the simple equation and realize that paying 20-30 bucks more for a shoe that does not provide any performance enhancement or much more mileage than the average quality shoe is not worth it.
They are sponsoring athletes who could not get big contracts elsewhere. So they offer smaller contracts to B level athletes and try to hope they will help with marketing their horrible looking shoes. Their athletes are not winning any competitive level events in Hoka Shoes and many of their athletes arent wearing Hoka's when they are in uber competitive events. Says alot about the athletes they picked up as well as the lack of respect Hoka has for themselves and expectations of loyalty regarding their athletes
non hobby joggist wrote:
Hokas are for hobby joggers who just love shuffling their feet for an hour a day. Its pathetic, its the least flexible shoe I've ever held, and they're heavy. I'd personally never wear them
LOL, wrong on all counts.
Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Try several models on till one fits you best, then take a jog in them.
I'd agree with you that from outside, they look heavy and stiff, then you put them on, and they feel great.
One thing they need to fix is the tread/sole. They all need to be more durable ala the Stinson.
It's like having Pre's trail under your feet all the time. Low impact, and the slight cupping around the outside makes your feet feel secure in them -- it's not like you are wearing Elton John platform shoes from the 70's.
The ride is akin to a Nike Tuned Air shoe.
For older runners, or runners who get sore easily, they are great at reducing impact without feeling mushy. For some it might take 3-10 days to get used to them.
Oh, and they're conversation starters, women always ask me what brand of shoes I am wearing...
Right now I'd recommend the Stinson ATR, which my friend just got, I have the Stinson Trail, these two models have a more durable tread.
As to who they sign for their team; I'm all for them signing whoever they want, more runners need more sponsors!
You're right here. I was looking at their site specs. My buddy weighed his upon getting them and it showed 8.5oz (has the dropbox pic to prove it). Still not a heavy shoe.
Almost everyone who wears Hoka says the same thing "they really help with the (lack of) soreness and recovery". I'd be willing to say that's a performance enhancement in and of itself. If you are able to train better, you should, conceivably, run better.
I have over 900 miles on a pair of Stinsons. It was only after 750 miles did I begin to notice them not feel good anymore.
If it's performance shoe please tell me one race where they had an athlete do something competitively in a pro field? Recovery does lead to performance but the hoka shoe itself is not for performance. Even their 1 mile athletes were wearing other shoe companies during road races this past year