I mentioned I was going to buy a garmin 225 in a thread and someone said something like "why in the world would you buy that one?" I asked for clarification but never got it. Whats the general consensus?
Most importantly, I want to know my pace, but I also want to know my cadence and HR. I aldo decided on garmin because they seem to have a decent warranty that they actually stick by. Is that watch a good choice?
I have the Garmin 225. The wrist-based HR sensor isn't perfect, but it is a pretty good estimate. Plus you can always get a chest strap if that's a really important factor to you.
The GPS and pace are quite accurate, and I like how I can upload my training to Strava with bluetooth on my smartphone. SO easy. Plus there are other little nice features. Not cheap - but a solid GPS watch. buy it.
I'm glad I went with the 235 but the 225 is OK.
I had a Garmin 225 and generally liked it, but I upgraded to a 630 a year ago. I assume you are getting it used since I don't see it on the Garmin website currently. It gives you the truly useful info and is a good value. The 630 is nice, but it costs considerably more and gives you a lot of information that really isn't that useful.
I like my 225 quite a bit. After just under a year with it, I find that being able to check my pace once each mile is enough, but it's pretty useful. Being able to check my HR is occasionally useful. I once tried checking my cadence as I ran, and found it completely unhelpful. It's fun to look at the cadence from the results after a run, but basically what you find is faster running = more steps per minute. I've used my 225 for preprogrammed workouts, but I'm still not using all its features, and I have no idea why I would want to pay more for a watch with even more features I wouldn't use.
Look up DCRainmaker. I trust that guy on his GPS recommendations. FWIW, his ~$250 watch recommendation was the Garmin Vivoactive HR, not the 225/235.