You mean everyone doesn't do this?

Three.

i love a good 2-for-1 special.

I fear my comment was a little too cryptic. Three was the number of times it took me to read your first post before I got it. and that's a magic number.

2+1=3

no worries burt...

we all know that i love "cryptic statements"

Oh boy...

oh yeah...

3-2-1-0h my

So I've been reading up on the Minimus, looks like a pretty great shoe. I guess I've got to wait until March to find out. Have you ever run in the 100's? If so, it looks like the 101's are a good improvement on an already good shoe. This my first "minimal" trail running shoe, so far I love it. Crockett gives a good thorough review of the "hoka" on his blog today. This hoka appears to be the antithesis to the 101.

cool. i didn't know when the minimus were scheduled to be released. i never got a pair of the 100's (poor grad student didn't want to spend money on unknown shoes), but several friends did get a pair or two, and i got pretty good reviews from them. the one complaint i got concerning the 100's was that there wasn't quite enough lateral reinforcement to keep the foot from moving side to side within the shoe. other than that, it was supposed to be a good shoe. glad to hear it's treating you well...

i'm fascinated with the concept of hokas. i saw the day karl meltzer posted up that he had switched to them as a sponsor, and if i'm not mistaken, he's the one that has introduced them to everyone in the US like crockett. they look so different, and i have a hard time thinking that they would be as stable as karl claims that they are, but apparently they are a hit with some folks. i'm with you; they appear to be the absolute antithesis of the mt101's or minimus type shoe.

(ever tried inov-8's?)

I just got the 101's. I thoroughly like them. They widened the toe box considerably and reinforced the upper from the 100's. I can't say enough good about them.

I also have run in inov-8 roclites on nevels recommendation all summer and I like those a lot also, they have worked very well for me.

As far as Hoka's, see an honest write up here from bryce on the blog, a hoka part-time user. http://aaronkennard.fastrunningblog.com/blog--Who-can-guess-which-of-these-shoes-is-/10-02-2010.html

I think the hoka's are a lot of hype personally and the simple physics behind the tall raised platform of a shoe clearly would suggest that they are going to be much less stable on uneven terrain than a thinner shoe. But what do I know!

now y'all have me anxious to get a pair of 101's...

(i'm still in my love affair with the roclites..)

i'm with aaron on the hype behind the hokas. it just seems like we're regressing back to a cushier version of the old montrail lines, which is fine if it's what you're after, but i have a hard time believing that 1.5 inches or more of cushioning can help stability at all. the analogy i give most people when they ask about some of my low(ish)-profile shoes is to imagine trying to run down a cobblestone street barefoot versus in 6" stilleto's; which would be more stable? (and let's be honest, meltzer is going to be blazing fast no matter what shoes he wears...)

Yeah, I've been getting away from the cushioned platform, and I feel like I'm getting stronger because of it. Less injury too as I'm compelled to run with better form with less between me and the road/trail. I'm really learning to like that feel. It gives me pause though to see an accomplished ultra runner like Crockett using the hoka. That guy has an amazing amount of experience running 100 milers, so something must be right about the shoe. I guess every runner's different.

true; crockett knows what he's talking about, and i have neither the experience, nor the wisdom to argue with him. all i know is that big, bulky shoes gave me 28 hour and 27.5 hour 100 milers (and very sore feet/blisters), whereas a more pared-down pair of inov-8 roclites gave me a 19:42 100-miler with substantially less effort and consistent training than the previous two.

experiment of one: what works for me might be different from what works for him/you/the other guy/bob/bill/bubba/boomhower/belinda/brunhilda/bobby/bessie/bono/bugs/babyface/bigbird/and maybe even someone else...

No, it looks like you covered everybody.

you forgot bertha.

and bob barker.

I agree...how could you miss Bob Barker?

It's true that there are different strokes that work for different folks. I personally look to the example of the faster ultra runners who are actually winning 100 milers. Not to diminish Crockett at all, because he's an incredible runner, and very accomplished. But his review of and wearing of the Hoka's doesn't make me question what I've already experienced and what is in my mind sound principle and logic. If a bunch of people started winning all sorts of running events wearing hoka's that might have more sway to me. But even in crockett's review the jury is still out somewhat on the Hoka's. I think JD that you're on the right track with lower injury etc with better form and lower profile shoes and if its working for you then go with it! It should be noted that Kyle Skaggs set the Hard Rock course record in a pair of New Balance 790's!! And those 790's almost make the new 101's look like padded/rock-protective luxury. And of course there's Anton who wins just about everything he enters or darn close and he's wearing 101's.