Hoka OneOne (Read 590 times)

I wanted to try the Hokas to get another type of shoe into my rotation thinking it might help with plantar fasciitis, etc ... Can someone recommend a regular pair of Hokas for the road with normal laces?

It's funny you mention trying Hoka's thinking it might help with PF. That's exactly what I did. And it did. Rarely do I go "all in" with a shoe but I've run nearly every step in them since I brought them home form the store. The one exception was when the Hoka's were soaking wet from a run in a torrential downpour I had to go back to the Saucony Mirage for one run and it felt like running on bricks.

I got the Clifton 2's. They have a fairly normal lacing system.

So, yeah, I'm wearing Hoka's. I know, right? I'm actually thinking of getting a 2nd pair already.

 

 

 

So, yeah, I'm wearing Hoka's. I know, right? I'm actually thinking of getting a 2nd pair already.

W.

T.

F.

I bought Hoka Rapa Nui 2 and was super excited about them and decided to go for 3 hour run. Ended up getting blisters on both ankles; I never experience this before! I ended up stopping after 90 minutes and called a friend for a ride. Needless to say I returned them.

Normal laces... in the past, many of the models had those damn "speed laces", but the hoka rep I talked to a couple weeks ago told me that going forward, all hokas "should" have regular laces.  Of course, being hoka, they tend to zigzag decisions a lot. So, "should".

BTW, if you don't like the Rapa Nui... and I'm not a fan... you probably won't dig the Speedgoat that's the current gotta-have buzz-filled hoka.  It's, well, it's the Rapa Nui 3 but with a better name.

Anyway, I have a love/hate relationship with my Hokas.  My stinsons are the main reason I was able to finish my 150, and they are what I was wearing when I won the only race I've ever won. I also wore a different pair of stinsons (and, uh, 2 pairs of challengers) for vermont, and they were dreamy.  But a loop in the godforesaken rapa nui really hurt me at Rocky Raccoon, which I later DNFed for unrelated reasons... but choose to blame the hokas.  And all it took was two really really gnarly ankle tweaks on technical trails to teach me to never ever ever wear the stinsons on technical trail. Similarly, my one attempt at wearing Mafates in a trail race... Indiana Trails, which ain't technical... tweaked my ankles too. Nope.

BTW. I love my cliftons.  Mikey is the first person I've heard who actually LIKES the clifton 2.  I suspect I will; I haven't tried them yet.  But man I haven't heard this much crying about a model change since the Mustang became the Mustang II.

Edited to add: ah crap. Old thread. I've already responded.  Still love them and hate them.

I'm about to buy a pair of the Clifton 2 shoes.  I've had two pairs of Clifton 1s (646 miles and 639 on the current pair).  Both shoes have failed in the upper.  I've heard that the 2s have more 'stuff' in the upper?  For such expensive shoes I'd like 'em to last 1000 miles.  I'm am a fan of the cushyness of these things so I guess I'll fork out the dough again.

Like others here I originally bought them to help with PF and other foot issues I was having.  I do believe the extra cushioning took a little less out of my feet and legs while training and allowed me to get back ahead of the recovery curve.

 Agree with the biomechanist quote above.

I run almost all of my 'maintainence' runs in Cliftons (and even some workouts) but use lot of other shoes for different workouts and races.  I like mixing things up in all aspects of my running from shoes to surfaces to locales to paces to distances etc.  I guess I've 'fallen' for the Hoka "fat-tire bike of running" thing because I'll be on my 3rd pair soon but I did skip the barefoot thing of a few years ago!

I've tried multiple Hoka models hoping to like them, but none have worked for me.  My Saucony Triumphs, however, have me running without pain for the first time in 2 years.  I need to stockpile 20-30 pairs of them.

 I've heard lots of good things about the Cliftons, but I don't have any issues with my Sauconys, so I haven't tried them yet.

 

“I run 70-80 miles a week, which is extreme, and I was suffering from extreme issues,” he said. “So I need extreme support.”

 

I'd agree that it's higher than your average hobby jogger, but is it really "extreme"?

In the grand scheme of things, yeah. I suspect less than 1/10th of 1 percent of people run that much. Probably less than 2% of people who consider themselves runners even run that much. We tend to have a warped sense of these things since we surround ourselves with weirdos.

The Clifton 2 is the only Hoka shoe I've tried apart from trying on a friend's Hoaka, but the biggest thing for me is how "normal" they feel. They sort of take the shoe out of my consciousness so that I can just run. Part of the reason for this is that I was (and still am) dealing with a brutal case of PF in my left foot and any run in "normal" shoes is just painful and the less cushioning the worse it gets--so racing flats are not happening right now. Whereas the Hoka's make it (the PF) almost not noticeable.

But also the shoe just feels like a lightweight, simple running shoe. They don't feel bulky or stiff at all to me. The closest thing I can compare them to is when the original Nike Lunar Trainer came out, except the Hoka's put the majority of the plush cushioning under the midfoot and forefoot which is where I need it.

The biggest complaint I have about them (other than the price) is that they are tiny bit too wide in the midfoot and heel and too narrow in the toebox, but I can tie them just right so it's not an issue. I've done runs up to 16 miles with no blisters or hot spots. I hate that I'm addicted to a shoe that I can't find for less than $110, but hey, at least I can run without pain, mostly.

mta: it makes sense how normal they feel based on srlopez's comments about how the Clifton is the least hoka-y hoka.