Hokas Pocus? No, Cuz.

Oh, I forgot one thing.

Seventh, the insole is the worst I've ever seen in a supposedly top-of-the-line running shoe. The arch squares inward, and it felt like I had a hard wad of material right in the middle of my arch. I couldn't run one mile in those insoles without pain. If I bought any of these Hokas I'd have to immediately replace the insoles with something else.

Ok, I'm finished.

Even though I own two pair because I couldn't find the right size when they were released, I can't totally disagree with what you say. As a disclaimer, I am not a Hoka guy. I prefer the Altra because of comfort and toe box, but was intrigued by the lightness of the shoe. So here is my point by point counter to your post:

1) Agree and disagree. The upper is flimsy, but after putting 75 or so road miles on the pair that are too small for me, the uppers are holding up very well. So while they seem cheap, they also seem to be holding up okay.

2) Agree 100%, and if I could agree more than 100%, I would. After my first 17 mile run in these I had a horrible bone bruise or vessel pop, or something on top of my foot from where either the laces crossed the tongue or the tongue had a crease in it. For my next couple of runs I had to pad beneath the tongue.

3) I don't even feel the rocker. Don't know if that's because of my forefoot strike form or not. Not a factor to me.

4) You are correct in that the outer lugs are wearing. I don't think it's a big deal and most of my runs have been on pavement in these, so whereas I confirm that it is happening, I'm not sure I've used them for their intended purpose.

5) Disagree. I don't think they feel clunky at all. Very light and for me that's how they run.

6) They are expensive that's for sure. But your Boosts are $180 and I've read some of the same concerns about their wear and tear. But I agree, a buck 30 is too expensive for shoes.

7) I didn't have an issue with the insole. They give you two for each shoe and I use them both.

All in all, I bought them for one reason - to run pavement during a horrendous winter and save my knees while training for a trail 50k in March. For me, mission accomplished. They absorbed lots of wear and tear that my 55 year old legs would have taken otherwise. I don't love the shoe at all and now the snow and ice are gone, I've taken them on the trail several times and wasn't blown away. I've got enough invested that I feel I have to give them the ol' college effort again, but I doubt they'll displace my Altra LP2's or original issue Nike Wild Horse.

I have owned a couple of pairs of Hokas. The thin tongue is an issue that I noticed on the Bondi 3. A padded tongue has been added to the Bondi 4.

The Clifton also has a thin tongue but I don't seem to notice it as much.

A very thoughtful, intelligent post. And you didn't even attack me. Pleasant surprise because I expect constant attacks by anonymous know-it-alls on this forum.

I'm 53 myself, so I know what you're saying about saving the legs. I really, REALLY wanted to like the Hokas, and as I said the Challenger ATR in that black-and-blue is a beautiful, although a bit clunky-looking shoe. Even at my age, I like to run trails, so I was hoping these Hokas would be all they're hyped to be.

As for the $180 Adidas Ultra Boost, I've said on this forum before that I'd NEVER pay that price. If you pay that much for the Ultra Boost, which appears to be no better than some of the other Boost models for $100 or less, you're either loaded with money or you're a fool. I bought my first pair of Boost, the Supernova Glide 6, on sale in Peru for $80 when it was $130 in the U.S. And I just bought a second pair of the same shoe for $45 on a great sale from Finish Line. I never pay top dollar for any running shoe, preferring to wait and buy the previous year's model of the same shoe, since most previous year's model is almost always just as good as the most current model.

I am also a forefoot striker, and I couldn't really get out and run in the REI store, so maybe the "meta-rocker" would be less noticeable out on the road when you really get going. So you may be right about that.

I have nothing against Hoka. It's an obviously brilliant company, and its shoes are increasingly popular. If they make some changes to address the clear problems, I may give them another try in the future, but right now if you gave me a brand new pair of Challenger ATR or Clifton, they'd just sit in the closet until I gave them away. To each runner his or her own. We're all individuals, even though we're all the same in our love of running.

Thanks for the excellent post.

One correction to my last post. I am a MID-foot striker, not a forefoot striker. Where a forefoot striker kind of bypasses the whole "meta-rocker" thing, a mid-foot striker, and especially a heel-striker would definitely notice is. However, some of you might like this gimmick and think it's legit. Again, thanks for the excellent post.

So you reviewed a shoe that you only wore in a store. Brilliant.

Try a few hundred miles in them then get back to us.

Magnum P.I. wrote:

So you reviewed a shoe that you only wore in a store. Brilliant.

Try a few hundred miles in them then get back to us.

As a person who has gotten to wear test some shoes in the past, the fact that he tried them on in the store and didn't like them based upon this is a HUGE thing to shoe manufacturers.

A few of the questions always asked were something to the effect of: If you walked into a store and saw it on display, would you pick it up? Do you like the color scheme? Based upon initial try on and walk around in the shoes, would you buy these? (They asked more questions about toebox, heel, arch, etc).

Hi, Shawn

Hoka's are better with a little time on them. I hear you on the uppers, as they do seem flimsy. I wear the Bondi which has a padded tongue and a bit more under foot. Bricks out of the box, with a hundred miles on them they are butter and a really good shoe for me. I had the same experience with the Clifton.

Heavy Meta Rockers, Zero Drop Shorts, etc. I don't really pay attention to any of that crap and really could care less. I choose my shoes based on feel. I will say that running in the Bondi's has restored my legs a bit and cleared up the little aches and pains that come from years of running. They are no race shoe, or ideal for being one of those zen mountain whacko, hipster trail runner or Sage Canaday. They are a cushioned trainer for mileage.

I haven't tried the Challenger ATR, but they seem similar to the Cliftons. Bondi's took about 15 hours of running to break in. Cliftons took about 10.

If you decide to try any of them, make the investment and see how a break in period changes your assessment of the shoe. We've all done it with other brands. I've wasted money on so many bad pairs of DS Trainers over the years after being sucked in by the awesomeness of the 7 and the 11, mostly to no avail. I'm an older runner, now and appreciate the cushion over the responsiveness. I'm no Hoka brand loyalist and had a similar impression as you at first. I had a guy I trust give me similar advice that I'm passing along to you and I'm glad i listened to it, for what it's worth.

Shawn H wrote:

Ok, Hoka supporters, fire away.

I'm 53 and about 50 miles into my first pair. I have Cliftons. I also wear Adidas boosts.

I have to say, your post is next to useless. You went to a store and tried them on and you drew all of those conclusions? You make those statements on any new shoe you are unfamiliar with. It seems to me you went into the process looking for something to be wrong or looked to confirm what someone wrote here.

I took the advice of a poster here who said "you need to run in them for a while to understand if you'll like them or now. Worst case scenario you have a nice pair of walking shoes".

My first runs in them were easy 5 milers. Yes, it feels different, but you start to adjust like any new shoe. By the third run I was getting used to them, the main thing I notice is my legs aren't a sore running on asphalt and concrete.

I have a really high instep, and for me, the thin tongue is great. It's the first shoe I've had in a while that I can lace tighter without causing soreness on the top of my foot.

The furthest I've gone in them is 7 miles, next week I'll bump it up then do a long run the week after for their final test.

My conclusions so far:

Make my legs feel better and fresher the next day.

More room in shoe, may need to adjust to thicker socks.

Smoother ride than I expected.

Anyone who calls them "moon boots" hasn't run in them for anything more than a jog. To me, they have the attributes of my favorite shoe ever, the Adidas Adios of the around 2004/06. A little higher, but the same feel.

Not sure if they are going to become a racing shoe yet, but they are sure going to help me train harder by reducing the beating my legs take.

Maybe others with more experience in them can add to my comments so I can hear what others went through adjusting to them, but for me they seem to be something that is going to be really useful for helping me get more miles in.

Great points, guys, and worth considering. But not for $130+. I guess after 36 years of running I know what will almost certainly be a good shoe or a bad shoe (for me) the moment I try them on and at least walk and jog in them on a hard surface. Would they be better after 50 miles of "break in"? I don't know, but would it really be worth the money, time and effort in an obviously uncomfortable shoe when there are so many better options? Just the idea of having to "break in" a running shoe for 50 miles so it will feel more comfortable sounds kind of ridiculous, don't you think? With the Adidas Supernova Glide Boost 6, I knew from the moment I tried them on that they would be great, and I haven't been disappointed. I still have doubts that the Boost material will keep its "Boostness" significantly longer than any other manufacturer's midsole material since I only have a little over 200 miles on them, but so far so good. The Hokas intrigued me, and I went to the store expecting that they would be as good as advertised, at which point I would pay the $130 to order a pair in black-and-blue online since they didn't have that color at the store. But I was greatly disappointed. As I said, though, if it appears that Hoka addresses my issues with their shoes, I may try them on again.

I'm just throwing my $0.02 in here but I do have to agree with the OP on the try-on/break in period question:

if a shoe feels bad in the store, I don't think its worth the time. I do think that many shoes begin to feel better after a "break in period" (a term I use loosely as I don't think the shoe is changing in any way but more the idea that my body is adjusting to the new shoe), but those shoes generally go from feeling good to great if that makes sense. In other words, the shoe feels good in store and then after running in it for a week it may start to feel great. Yes its possible a shoe can go from feeling bad to good, but thats only even with the shoe that initially felt good.

Shitt, I read the whole of your post, not picking up on the fact you had only tried them on in the store. What a waste of my time. I agree about the tongues though.

trossi wrote:

I'm just throwing my $0.02 in here but I do have to agree with the OP on the try-on/break in period question:

if a shoe feels bad in the store, I don't think its worth the time. I do think that many shoes begin to feel better after a "break in period" (a term I use loosely as I don't think the shoe is changing in any way but more the idea that my body is adjusting to the new shoe), but those shoes generally go from feeling good to great if that makes sense. In other words, the shoe feels good in store and then after running in it for a week it may start to feel great. Yes its possible a shoe can go from feeling bad to good, but thats only even with the shoe that initially felt good.

Exactly. I've bought dress shoes, boots, etc. and expected a break-in period because of the stiffer materials used. But I've never, EVER had a running shoe that was uncomfortable in the store become comfortable after breaking them in for 50 to hundreds of miles. On the contrary, they simply cause blisters, make pain, and lead to injuries. The Hokas might be better than that over time, but seriously, how many of you EXPERIENCED runners--and I'm talking decades here--don't know by now whether a running shoe is any good for you after simply trying them on and doing a little walking/jogging on a hard surface at the store? A modern running shoe should NOT require breaking in to go from uncomfortable to comfortable. Do any of you EXPERIENCED runners disagree? With the Hokas, I certainly didn't expect them to be VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, of low-quality appearance and feel, and "clunky" as they were when I tried them on. I repeat, I wanted to love them, and I went to the store with a positive attitude expecting to end up buying them. And STILL they disappointed me greatly.

Older guy wrote:

[quote]Shawn H wrote:

Ok, Hoka supporters, fire away.

Anyone who calls them "moon boots" hasn't run in them for anything more than a jog.

The recreational runner , moving towards the Moon Boot Hoka, is just a sign of the Phase in your life. You are one step closer to being a brisk walker for exersize, running is to punishing . Nothing wrong with that. As far as the elite, all athletes wish they could blaze down the track with Nike,asics,Brooks,NB or Saucony logo on their singlets. The fact that you have a Hoka contract means non of the above were interested in you. The worst of the combo's are the bloggers with Hoka's and Oiselle gear , pretending to be in an elite training environment.

Magnum P.I. wrote:

So you reviewed a shoe that you only wore in a store. Brilliant.

Try a few hundred miles in them then get back to us.

If he did not find them comfortable at the store, what makes you think he'd find them comfortable after a 100mi?

Hoka backs their shoes 100%, if you wear a hole in them, take them back, replaced for free at running specialty shops - that is what I was told and have had that service for another issue.

They are working on the quality control issues.

The rocker takes a day or two to get used to. It is more noticeable when you are standing. I don't notice the rocker any more.

I know they don't want this to be their primary market, but I passed an 80 year old runner in Seattle last week...wearing Hoka's, we both said "nice shoes."

Not every shoe and every brand is for every person.

The Hoka's just give my overtrained too much impact when I were a lad, body great relief from the impact of pavement and cement.

Literally feel like I am running on a soft, flat, powdery beach.

Moon Boots wrote:

Older guy wrote:

[quote]Shawn H wrote:

Ok, Hoka supporters, fire away.

Anyone who calls them "moon boots" hasn't run in them for anything more than a jog.

The recreational runner , moving towards the Moon Boot Hoka, is just a sign of the Phase in your life. You are one step closer to being a brisk walker for exersize, running is to punishing . Nothing wrong with that. As far as the elite, all athletes wish they could blaze down the track with Nike,asics,Brooks,NB or Saucony logo on their singlets. The fact that you have a Hoka contract means non of the above were interested in you. The worst of the combo's are the bloggers with Hoka's and Oiselle gear , pretending to be in an elite training environment.

I have bad news for you. You are closer to me the 53 year old recreational runner than you'll ever be to the slowest Olympian.

You'll also have to come to grips that some of us like to discuss products we buy on the message board and just because we do, doesn't make us employees of the company that makes them. Hopefully you'll understand both some day soon.

Magnum P.I. wrote:

So you reviewed a shoe that you only wore in a store. Brilliant.

Try a few hundred miles in them then get back to us.

Should I buy these , they did not feel good in the store and the Material felt cheap. but after 200 miles they will feel good?

A Duck wrote:

Hoka backs their shoes 100%, if you wear a hole in them, take them back, replaced for free at running specialty shops - that is what I was told and have had that service for another issue.

They are working on the quality control issues.

The rocker takes a day or two to get used to. It is more noticeable when you are standing. I don't notice the rocker any more.

I know they don't want this to be their primary market, but I passed an 80 year old runner in Seattle last week...wearing Hoka's, we both said "nice shoes."

Not every shoe and every brand is for every person.

The Hoka's just give my overtrained too much impact when I were a lad, body great relief from the impact of pavement and cement.

Literally feel like I am running on a soft, flat, powdery beach.

I believe it. Everyone is different, although we're all runners. What sucks for me may be right for you, and vice-versa. I'm happy for anyone who finds something that works for them and keeps them running.