Go slow to go fast.

It was of course the New Balance 101's. You wouldn't be that stupid to drop that kind of money for that silly shoe! I know you better than that! Maybe I will get me a pair to run in this winter! New Balance and snow are a great pair.

Is Cody right?

Cody does know me better than that! I'm quite sure I will never be caught running anywhere in those Hoka's. No offense to anyone who likes them of course, but they really do look pretty silly. I'm no one to judge of course since I prance around in rubber socks half the time, but beyond the moon-bootish look, the massive sole doesn't jive at all with my running philosophy.

The 101's on the other hand are the perfect fit for me! Super light, great rock protection, virtually flat, very comfortable, relatively inexpensive (And they look pretty cool which is what it's really all about of course)

At the end of Sapper Joe, Larry O'neil was chasing me down a long descent on gravel the size of golf balls. He was wearing Hokas, I was wearing MT100s. I wish I had been wearing the Hokas, too, because the New Balance rock plate just doesn't seem to cut it when the terrain gets dicey. And yet, for some reason, I keep wearing them.

By the way, Jun and I were talking about Hokas, minimalism and such on Saturday. The way I see it, there are really two schools of minimalism: 1) the less is more school, which is really more of an aesthetic consideration, and 2) the "natural running" school, which is more focused on a barefoot running style.

I think the NBs fit with the latter, since the only thing that makes them minimalist is that there's so little to them. Given the heel-toe ratio, they're essentially a traditional running shoe, stripped down to the basics.

On the other hand, the Hokas fit with the former. They have a relatively flat sole and therefore facilitate a forefoot strike. The cushioning doesn't rule them out as a minimalist option if you're only worried about form. I have a hard time believing that our bodies can distinguish between running on soft terrain and running on a soft shoe.

My real problems with the Hokas are that they clash with my running clothes, they cost about three times more than a running shoe should, and they make me about 6'7".

Interesting points FG.

I guess I haven't hit gnarly enough terrain yet in the 101's to find a problem with the rockplate.

I find that the heel to toe drop in the 101's is so minor that it doesn't hinder a mid to fore-foot strike at all for me.

I would agree with you that our bodies probably can't distinguish between soft terrain or a soft shoe, but I don't see how any benefit can be gained by training in soft shoes and thus actively weakening the foot muscles.

I agree with all your problems with the HOKA's, but I would add to that my biggest beef being that I wouldn't want my foot muscles and tendons to atrophy by running on pillows all the time. I feel there is a huge benefit to letting the feet do more work, especially in training. Using them only for a race day to be able to bomb the down hills faster I might be able to be persuaded if I'm feeling really tired that day and it were a really good salesman, but the goofy looks and the high price would still jump in and kill the deal I'm guessing.

I agree with both of you. My biggest . . . BIGGEST beef is that they are unquestionably the ugliest shoe on earth. I think I would rather wear flippers than run in those things.

I got a chance to try a pair on yesterday. If you think they look ridiculous in general, you should see them in a size 13. They didn't feel nearly as squishy as I thought they would, and they certainly didn't feel agile. But I wouldn't mind trying a pair if someone gave them to me. As far as I've heard, everyone who has tried them has loved them, no matter how skeptical they were before.

All right Aaron, you asked for it, so here’s all of it.

Great points so far. I’ll try to add a little bit of insight from a Hoka owner. I’ve had my pair for about 3 months and have probably put 300 miles on them, including 48 at the Bear 100. Size 11.5 (wish they were a 12) My other shoes are the La Sportiva Wildcat and Crosslites.

First of all, . . . Ummm , the looks? Really?, the question is do they function. But that’s coming from me who, well, Jun has seen my Toyota, I just don’t care that much about what stuff looks like.

Even though I run in Hokas regularly, I would absolutely not want to run in these as my full time shoe. That said, I am really glad that I own a pair and would buy another. For me it’s love/hate all the way. I love’em in the middle of a long training week when I’m headed out for a mellow run on relatively mellow (not steep) terrain, they are a very real break for tired and beat up legs. Rocky, technical stuff is great in the Hoka, and they do really absorb a lot of the smaller stuff you would either feel or have to step around in a minimal shoe. They feel light for the size, and don’t seem “clunky” at all to run in.

All of this good stuff, however, goes straight to hell in my opinion, once you get them on steep downhill terrain with any kind of loose dirt or rocks at all, on off camber terrain, or on loose, rocky, and steep uphill grades. On steep loose downhill a wide base does not equal traction as Hoka claims, applies on climbs too. Like wearing ice skates, they need to put some tread on the damn things. The other problem I have with them on steep descents is the lacing system does not seem to hold my foot back at all. My toes end up slammed right in the front of the shoe. Granted mine are ½ size small, but I don’t think ½ size would make much difference on this one. On off camber terrain the thick EVA tends to roll a lot so, despite being wide as boat, they don’t feel super stable. Also, my foot sits so deep in the shoe that the upper digs into my ankle horribly on the uphill side, and they don’t seem to fit snugly enough, despite being a 1/2 size small, so my foot rolls in them on off camber stuff, making the upper problem that much worse.

Love and hate. They really made a huge difference in the 100 miler. I wasn’t planning on switching shoes, but my feet and legs were feeling beat up at mile 52 so I switched into them, thinking I would switch back at the next aid if they weren’t working. They made a huge difference on the next downhill (pretty mellow grade) section so I ended up staying in them to the finish, which meant I had to put up with a lot of what I hate about them as well for the next 48 miles. Funny, around mile 85 I recall having weird thoughts about how it would be cool if you could push a button and morph shoes from the Crosslite to the Hoka depending on terrain.

As far a running form and economy, to me I lose all sense of the ground. I would relate it to trying to tie your shoes with gloves on. Everything just feels kinds blunted, which I guess is the point, but I prefer to feel the trail. I am a recovering heel striker, and I notice my form gets sloppy if I run in Hokas too much. Return of the heel strike. I agree with Aaron, seems you would lose a lot of foot strength running regularly in Hokas. I was afraid it they would feel sluggish due to the softness, but they roll right along and seem to return energy well.

Again, they are great for about 15 -20 miles a week. I ‘m glad I have them as they help me get out when not really feeling it. For most runs though, I’ll stick to my more traditional shoes. Interestingly, seems alot of folks I talked to after the Bear did the same as me and switched into them at some point in the last half, and they too were part time Hoka wearers, preferring regualr shoes most of the time.

Interesting Bryce. Your love/hate of them makes sense. I can see how with sore/tired feet on lots of miles the Hokas could make it easier get more miles in. It's not surprising at all to hear about the instability on rocky and tilted terrain. For me, putting on the 101's or inov8's feels less stable and overly cushioned compared to the FF's or bare feet that I run a lot of my miles in. So I kind of do a similar thing as you, by wearing thicker soled shoes on some days but not on all my runs. My main purpose though for wearing anything thicker than FF's is just to be able to still run fast in rocky terrain...so I I'm pretty sure I'll never go to the Hoka's since they don't really excel in that area stability-wise. (Plus I'm still way more vain than you and I wouldn't want jun making fun of me in them!!)