Why didn't hokas work for me? They seem to work well with many others

if hokas don't work for you, don't force yourself to wear them

i enjoyed my time in the brooks launch. long runs did beat me up a bit, but they're cheap and durable and versatile. as long as you take care of recovery you should be fine.

To be fair, everything after the Clifton 1 has been complete junk. Why they felt the need to change what was BY FAR the most popular shoe they ever had is beyond me. The 2 was horrible, the 3 was okay, but still not as good as the original. I haven't bought it since because of this.

I've heard really good things about both the Mach and Cavu, but like you, am hesitant to spend more money when I already have a go-to shoe. Maybe you can pick up a pair on Ebay for cheap?

I tried them too and while they felt good, they seemed to mess up all of my mechanics. The light weight was great but it was like I was running in sand and had quite a few minor injuries. All of it went away when I went back to neutral Mizuno and Saucony.

Like anything else, you have to use what works for you. If they didn't work last time doubt they will be any better now.

Launch it is then. Thanks guys.

Different people have different results with running footwear, and it doesn't help shoe companies keep "updating" their products to the point of making extinct good/great shoes.

Don't be loyal to a brand/model if it fails to work or causes problems. The silver lining of the churning running-shoe market is that other new brands and models can take the place of a beloved-but-discontinued shoe. Keep checking and asking. Here's where, if you have access to this resource, a good running store/employee is worth every penny of the store mark-up.

I've been bouncing around among Saucony, Nike, New Balance and adidas (primarily, with some forays into other brands) over my 25+ years of regular running and racing. My buddy swears by Mizunos and Asicses, which were, for me, correlated with achilles issues.

Keep eyes and options open!

Good point.

My only experience with Hoka is the Tracer and demo run in the Mach, but the problem could just be with the softness of the shoe. Softer shoes, while easier on your feet, will make the knee work harder to stabilize itself. If your feet are fine, stick with the firmer, cushioned shoes. If you really want to wear Hoka for some reason, I would try the Mach or Tracer.

Launches are 10mm drop, Cliftons are 5mm. This is probably why Hokas don't work for you. If you found a cheap shoe that works for you, why would you ever switch. Just buy up a few pair for when they "improve" them or discontinue them.

You guys need to consider the overall stack. Imagine if you were wearing a show that was 50-65 or whatever, way up there. It wouldn't be terribly stable, right? Corners would be difficult, and you might experience a fair amount of torque when running, it's just physics.

Compare this to running barefoot. Corners are no issue, and with nothing between your foot and the ground there's no conversion necessary torque-wise.

I'm not saying run barefoot. I'm saying that for some people, it's necessary to consider the overall stack of the midsole, and whether or not it works for you.

r2k83 wrote:

Softer shoes, while easier on your feet, will make the knee work harder to stabilize itself.

I got patellar tendinitis in both knees after switching to Hokas for about two years. I had not had knee trouble in over a decade of hard high mileage training and racing marathons.

The Clifton is something like Hoka's reference shoe. If you really didn't like it, chances are low that you'll enjoy other Hokas. Some shoes just don't work for some people. The fact that you enjoy a high-offset, firm-soled shoe like the launch suggests that the low offset, high-stack, high-cushion Hoka approach just isn't a good match for your feet.

I tried the Launch as a daily trainer and things went badly, but then I switched to using it as a workout shoe, and it's been great. I'm running my first marathon in them in a few days. I don't think I'd want to run most long runs in my Launches, though. So you might try the Ghost instead, if Brooks seems to fit your feet well.

Here's a very recent thread that kind of covers the same ground:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9030283

To me, the question is more why Hokas work so well with many others rather than why they don't work for some people, but it seems that they do. At any rate, I don't know why you'd go from a shoe that works to one that doesn't, back to one that works and then think maybe you should go back to that one that didn't work.

HRE wrote:

Here's a very recent thread that kind of covers the same ground:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9030283

To me, the question is more why Hokas work so well with many others rather than why they don't work for some people, but it seems that they do. At any rate, I don't know why you'd go from a shoe that works to one that doesn't, back to one that works and then think maybe you should go back to that one that didn't work.

I spent a year focusing on 1500-5000m type races. Now I am wanting to go back to HM-M races and see what I can do. Not much of a mileage change, but just a little more and some longer long runs. Just nervous that I may be beat up with the longer runs.

Unfortunately, some people are born with deformed feet and are unable to run in the Hoka brand of shoes. It is a cruel fate but running is an unforgiving endeavor.

Good Luck

Go to RunningWarehouse.com

Buy the Napali model

Thank me later.

I'm on my 4th pair and will probably never wear another shoe as long as they are not discontinued.

Hokas are crap. Different colors of the same Cliftons fit completely different. I had to butcher the heel counter of the Challenger with scissor and then rolled my ankles in them on trails. Claytons had weird arch support. Lastly, they are heavy compared to the namebrands. No serious runner trying to run fast will wear this garbage unless they're paid to. These issues may not be noticeable if you're a hobby jogger or trail runner, but for serious road runners putting in big miles these issues are magnified and easily noticeable.

start here wrote:

The Clifton is something like Hoka's reference shoe.

Clifton 3 maybe, but 4 feels nothing like the 3 and I hear 5 is like the 4. Clifton 4 is quite firm, has a different arch feel, and is more like any other brand shoe than like the other Hokas I've had.

FFF wrote:

You guys need to consider the overall stack. Imagine if you were wearing a show that was 50-65 or whatever, way up there. It wouldn't be terribly stable, right? Corners would be difficult, and you might experience a fair amount of torque when running, it's just physics.

Compare this to running barefoot. Corners are no issue, and with nothing between your foot and the ground there's no conversion necessary torque-wise.

I'm not saying run barefoot. I'm saying that for some people, it's necessary to consider the overall stack of the midsole, and whether or not it works for you.

The heel stack height on Clifton is only 2 mm higher than Brooks Launch.

not a hobby jogger wrote:

Hokas are crap. Different colors of the same Cliftons fit completely different. I had to butcher the heel counter of the Challenger with scissor and then rolled my ankles in them on trails. Claytons had weird arch support. Lastly, they are heavy compared to the namebrands. No serious runner trying to run fast will wear this garbage unless they're paid to. These issues may not be noticeable if you're a hobby jogger or trail runner, but for serious road runners putting in big miles these issues are magnified and easily noticeable.

Clayton weigh less than a pair of Pegasus 35.