Will anyone buy the crappy Hokas?

What model are you guys talking about? Not the Carbon Rocket, right?

Gordon Gekko wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Easy solution to that for the patient. Wait a year, and some colorways will be on sale for half price. No need to be first in line.

But that would be still $90. I am more a $70 kind of shoe guy.

They're $160.

And I have gotten Hokas for $50.

That's the carbon rocket. Y'all were talking about the carbon x, weren't you? (now that I've actually read the thread)

hokey pokey wrote:

Gordon Gekko wrote:

But that would be still $90. I am more a $70 kind of shoe guy.

They're $160.

And I have gotten Hokas for $50.

https://www.runningwarehouse.com/HOKA_ONE_ONE_Evo_Carbon_Rocket/descpage-HECRMS1.html

Wrong shoe.

game over Hoka wrote:

That Guy? wrote:

Didn’t some guy just run 2:09 at Boston in Hokas?

Yeah, and everyone in front of him was NOT wearing Hokas. You'd wear them too if Hoka was paying you $100,000 salary to wear them. Hoka doesn't have enough money for real runners, and everyone not sponsored is rocking the Vaporfly's.

So...all the people behind him wearing the VF. Why didn't their shoes make them run faster? Should they lose their pro status now they got beat by a Hoka runner?

Hoka Carbon X $180

https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/hoka-one-one-carbon-x-release-date-price/

Kitten Mittens wrote:

Have you ever seen a Hyundai?

People are dumb. They will buy it.

I got a chance to wear them yesterday for the first time. I was at the Hoka Carbon X event but didn't test them that day. N, they didn't give me a pair. I tried on a friend's pair so I've got no reason to lie.

They are more like a zoom fly than a vaporfly. They definitely felt smooth at around 5:30-6:00 pace, which for me is roughly marathon pace. I've had a couple pairs of the zoom flys in all 3 variations (original, flyknit, and I've also used the unreleased 3rd version) and I also have the original 4%s.

The carbon x isn't plush/mushy like other Hoka models. you'll feel the carbon plate/rocker under the forefoot like you do in the Nike models. The toe off in all of these carbon plated shoes is what feels the most different between standard flats.

As for the materials, the Hoka Carbon X is a wider fit than any of the Nikes. (I haven't worn the Next%). I have a narrow foot but it still fit fine for me without needing to be precise with the lacing. The upper of the shoe feels like the Hoka Elevon or the Hoka Cavu, in fact it's probably the exact same material. The midsole is some type of EVA above the plate, and the outsole is a rubberized foam, RMAT. same RMAT that you'd see in the Hoka Mach. so there's no rubber to wear out, it's just the RMAT foam which has better traction than regular foam. I actually think that we will be seeing trailrunners using the carbon x as well, in dry conditions. That's my main interest in the shoe...if it will be functional for 50k-50mi trail races.

game over Hoka wrote:

Hoka created a poor man's version of the breaking 2. Do they really think people are going to buy their shoes over the Nike Vaporfly's? I'd laugh seeing anyone wearing those clown shoes other than the people paid to wear them.

Clearly the OP worked for HOKA and was fired. Very bitter they are doing so well!

Have not heard positive feedback about it. Held a women’s version, light, but that shoe is stiff as heck! Way stiffer than the first zoom fly. And it doesn’t compare to the 4% it compared to the zoomfly, and trust me, it’s worse. Especially worse than the react foam zoom fly.

They’re 180.00 bud.

Shunpo wrote:

Have not heard positive feedback about it. Held a women’s version, light, but that shoe is stiff as heck! Way stiffer than the first zoom fly. And it doesn’t compare to the 4% it compared to the zoomfly, and trust me, it’s worse. Especially worse than the react foam zoom fly.

Hard disagree.

Far superior to the Zoom Fly models.

Review to be released soon :-)

They are great for upper deckers. The low heel to toe lift and amazing pillow like cushioning makes for a great squatting tool if your feet are on the toilet seat and butt right under where the toilet tank lid goes

I am going to give them a try. I have been looking for a long run trainer shoe that is not the usual Nikes I wear for most stuff. I have tended to wear an old pair of vaporflys for long runs, but I think constant wear in those is not helping my IT band flare ups. I cant stand the Peg Turbos anymore for anything but recovery runs and for casual shoes, while the Zoom Flys still have the narrowness of the vaporfly - great for tempo and speed workouts under 10 miles.

My problem is bonking at mile 22 ish, cause I frankly didn't do enough long, long runs both time and mileage - had a 650 pace, then hit 22 wall to 8:40 (sad, but expected with only 2 long runs). Hoping these offer some nice support for those runs while providing the plate feedback and rocker I could use as a heel striker.

Admittedly, I have tried other Hokas without any luck mainly due to heal collar issues, but these look different. I guess we will see.

Not according to the 5+ people I know who ran in them lol and feeling them in person a couple times.

Been monitoring the posts in here. TheJeff is definitely not an unbiased source. Most likely a Hoka shill.

TheGeorge wrote:

Been monitoring the posts in here. TheJeff is definitely not an unbiased source. Most likely a Hoka shill.

Lol.

When I started a post about the Beacon, I was accused of being a NB shill. Later, same story after I posted about the Razor 3: all of a sudden, I was a Skechers shill.

Now I am a Hoka shill. Ok. (FWIW, this is literally the first HOKA I won’t be returning. They have never worked for me before this shoe.)

It’s a good shoe. Really good, in fact. I worry about 1. It’s resistance to compression degradation, and 2. It’s catering to a niche market: Road Ultra Runners. But, it is as fine of a Long Distance Trainer - and possibly Marathon Racer - as you will find.

theJeff wrote:Lol.

When I started a post about the Beacon, I was accused of being a NB shill. Later, same story after I posted about the Razor 3: all of a sudden, I was a Skechers shill.

Now I am a Hoka shill. Ok. (FWIW, this is literally the first HOKA I won’t be returning. They have never worked for me before this shoe.)

It’s a good shoe. Really good, in fact. I worry about 1. It’s resistance to compression degradation, and 2. It’s catering to a niche market: Road Ultra Runners. But, it is as fine of a Long Distance Trainer - and possibly Marathon Racer - as you will find.

It's really bizarre how people on here are literally getting ANGRY at anyone who dare say they like and run in HOKA shoes....like what does it matter to anyone else if someone wears a certain shoe and likes them? I seriously don't understand it...LMAO.

Hoka Bondi's are keeping my legs feeling fresh! Screw the haters! I'll kick your asses on race day!

The easy answer is no.

$180 is way to much for a running shoe. I get 2.5 pairs for that price. Sure these are not this years models. But this years models are next years last years models.

If running shoe looks would have shaved of actual time from our running, we all would run 2:15 marathons by now. For whatever reason that didn't happen. So my guess is, that running shoes don't matter that much.