Berian: "I'd basically go anyone but Nike...or HOKA, haha."

What's wrong with Hoka? serious question. They're actually the only shoes I run in now, but maybe them as a company is not very good?

Link?

Bottom of page 42.

Page 16 had me lolling.... "I cant do it and write at the same time"

JourneyToMediocrity wrote:

What's wrong with Hoka? serious question. They're actually the only shoes I run in now, but maybe them as a company is not very good?

I think it's more to do with the fact that he is a 800 runner and their brand is more geared towards distance and trail. Doubt if he has anything negative to say about the company personally.

Would Berian consider waving a big Mexican flag in the stadium if he medals at the Olympics? Hoka Ha Ha likes that.

2016 in 2016 wrote:

JourneyToMediocrity wrote:

What's wrong with Hoka? serious question. They're actually the only shoes I run in now, but maybe them as a company is not very good?

I think it's more to do with the fact that he is a 800 runner and their brand is more geared towards distance and trail. Doubt if he has anything negative to say about the company personally.

HOKA's US 800/1500 stable is probably 4 times the size of New Balance's.

Name me the top US 800 or 1500 runner that wears NB....

What an idiot.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

2016 in 2016 wrote:

I think it's more to do with the fact that he is a 800 runner and their brand is more geared towards distance and trail. Doubt if he has anything negative to say about the company personally.

HOKA's US 800/1500 stable is probably 4 times the size of New Balance's.

Name me the top US 800 or 1500 runner that wears NB....

Jenny Simpson. Brenda Martinez.

The Implication wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

HOKA's US 800/1500 stable is probably 4 times the size of New Balance's.

Name me the top US 800 or 1500 runner that wears NB....

Jenny Simpson. Brenda Martinez.

Sorry, should have said men. NB does not invest in male middle distance runners. HOKA does.

Where did HOKA come from anyway? I only noticed them recently. Yeah, yeah, I was off LR for a year or so living my life. I'm sure I missed a few things.

are you kidding?!they are terrible looking! even the 'small' onesmoonboots. dopey. no athletes wearing them look athletic.they are basically sketchers but big, so maybe worse than SketchersDon't get me wrong, i would accept a sponsorship from any compnay, by the way, but no one with any taste can say Hoka has cool shoes. i'm 100% serious

JourneyToMediocrity wrote:

What's wrong with Hoka? serious question. They're actually the only shoes I run in now, but maybe them as a company is not very good?

[quote]what does your gut say? wrote:

are you kidding?!

they are terrible looking! even the 'small' ones

moonboots. dopey. no athletes wearing them look athletic.

they are basically sketchers but big, so maybe worse than Sketchers

Don't get me wrong, i would accept a sponsorship from any compnay, by the way, but no one with any taste can say Hoka has cool shoes. i'm 100% serious

What are you talking about? JourneyToMediocrity never said they looked good. I'm 100% serious.

Maybe Hoka uses a standard reduction clause in their contracts.

What's wrong with Hoka? serious question. They're actually the only shoes I run in now, but maybe them as a company is not very good?

Lack of efficiency.

Hoka is the equivalent of running on firm sand. It feels good, but it takes a little more effort. Traditional racing flats are lighter, more efficient, and can transfer more force to the ground.

The Tracers are a step in the right direction. The Claytons are a complete joke. Worst shoe I've ever worn.

Now, if you weigh +30 lbs over race weight, then the extra cushioning may outweigh the benefits of a more efficient transfer of force. So, obviously, the Hoka will be a popular shoe in a sedentary (i.e. obese) culture where +30 lbs over optimum race weight is considered normal.

littleTXtornadotaco wrote:

Where did HOKA come from anyway? I only noticed them recently. Yeah, yeah, I was off LR for a year or so living my life. I'm sure I missed a few things.

Came from nowhere in 2010 from some French guys who used to work for Salomon, then acquired by shoe giant Deckers in 2013. Do not confuse Deckers with Dockers or Skechers. It's very confusing.

clayton_returnee wrote:

What's wrong with Hoka? serious question. They're actually the only shoes I run in now, but maybe them as a company is not very good?

Lack of efficiency.

Hoka is the equivalent of running on firm sand. It feels good, but it takes a little more effort. Traditional racing flats are lighter, more efficient, and can transfer more force to the ground.

The Tracers are a step in the right direction. The Claytons are a complete joke. Worst shoe I've ever worn.

Now, if you weigh +30 lbs over race weight, then the extra cushioning may outweigh the benefits of a more efficient transfer of force. So, obviously, the Hoka will be a popular shoe in a sedentary (i.e. obese) culture where +30 lbs over optimum race weight is considered normal.

you are wrong on all fronts. THey are very efficient because they arent full of a bunch of worthless motion control shit in the midsole. THey dont feel like sand and they dont take more effort to run in.

as for the original post.......Hoka is a real running shoe company that has 100% of their market in the running community unlike NIke. Borian would be stupid to start talking sht like this

you are wrong on all fronts. THey are very efficient because they arent full of a bunch of worthless motion control shit in the midsole. THey dont feel like sand and they dont take more effort to run in.

I went to a speed lab where they measure efficiency and transfer of force. The data didn't lie. Plus, it's common sense.

In shoes, like in life, there are trade-offs.

Yawn wrote:

My favorite thing to come out of this lawsuit.

Sick burn, Boris.

We also got insight into Brenda's salary.