In for a pair. I have 3 pair which I rotate and love how comfortable they are. Most comfortable shoe I have ever owned. I wore Ultraboosts before and these are way more comfortable. But t like the others said, they do wear quick. For $70 it's probably worth it. But not for $150 or whatever they want for them not on sale because of how fast they wear.
Would you happen to know if the size of brooks is comparable? Everyone says brooks is great so guess I'll try them next. I frankly just want a shoe to last and be comfortable. It's crazy the amounts of money they are asking for and you don't get jack out of it.
I wear both. Brooks mostly, exclusively for running. I'd say size wise they are very similar, except I buy Wide in Brooks and regular for Hokas since I feel Hoka's are roomier (at least in the toe box). My HOKA's and my wife's have lasted, and I'd say my wife wears hers more often, daily shoe for work. That said, at this price point, it doesn't hurt as bad if it does not last.
HOKA is seeing weaker demand for their shoes in 2024. Last week Hoka's parent company, Deckers Brands, which trades under the stock ticker DECK was downgraded by one investment firm for this very reason.
Are you are still replying negatively to every Hoka post? How many years has this been going on for? I will occasionally drop into a Hoka deal just to see if you are have something to say, and like clockwork, there you are with the anti Hoka commentary.
I think the stock commentary might take the cake. Now you're doing deep dives into their financials and that's somehow going to impact someone's decision on if a shoe is good for them.
Again, I think it's a fair question -- which shoe brand do you work for and why is it their DNA to actively trash Hoka via you?
Or more importantly, why is your "experience" with Hoka superior to everyone elses?
I mean, you've spent an incredible amount of time bashing them.
My Mach 4 only lasted about 30-40 miles before the midsole died.
Have the Mach 5 too. The midsole is better because it's infused with nitrogen. But I don't trust it and thus don't run in it...
I have this shoe but I never wear it because the big bold "HOKA" font on the upper looks very tacky. You feel like a walking billboard.
This UGLY shoe is not worth $90.
I tried on a pair of HOKA 6 or 7, can't remember which. The shoe felt too narrow in the arch, a common problem with most HOKA models.
The Bondi 8 is perhaps the worst fitting shoe HOKA sells. The arch is narrow, prominent, and painful.
But HOKA shoes are not the most comfortable shoes on the market.
I have the Mach 4 and the Mach 5. The Profly midsole core on the Mach 4 was a huge disappointment. It packed out after only 3 runs. For the Mach 5 HOKA switched to a new supercritical EVA,...
This is one of the uglier HOKA models. The Mach series is more fashionable and more comfortable.
It's a total ripoff. HOKA prints money for their parent company, Deckers. The stock was $78 in March 2020. Recently the share price crossed the $900 threshold. Money, money, money.
But wearing this shoe in a workplace environment would be potentially hazardous. Anyways, their collecting dust in my closet and I rarely wear them.
I'll say their shoes are comfortable but for 180$ shoes they lasted me all but 3-4 months. Insane for such an expensive shoe.
Yeah, they need to bring that durability up to match the price point, for sure.
Had the same experience with Nike React Flyknits - lasted me all of 2 months before the midsole foam was creased and worn. Not acceptable, esp with the $200 MSRP.
Are you are still replying negatively to every Hoka post? How many years has this been going on for? I will occasionally drop into a Hoka deal just to see if you are have something to say, and like clockwork, there you are with the anti Hoka commentary.
I think the stock commentary might take the cake. Now you're doing deep dives into their financials and that's somehow going to impact someone's decision on if a shoe is good for them.
Again, I think it's a fair question -- which shoe brand do you work for and why is it their DNA to actively trash Hoka via you?
Or more importantly, why is your "experience" with Hoka superior to everyone elses?
I mean, you've spent an incredible amount of time bashing them.
My Mach 4 only lasted about 30-40 miles before the midsole died.
Have the Mach 5 too. The midsole is better because it's infused with nitrogen. But I don't trust it and thus don't run in it...
I have this shoe but I never wear it because the big bold "HOKA" font on the upper looks very tacky. You feel like a walking billboard.
This UGLY shoe is not worth $90.
I tried on a pair of HOKA 6 or 7, can't remember which. The shoe felt too narrow in the arch, a common problem with most HOKA models.
The Bondi 8 is perhaps the worst fitting shoe HOKA sells. The arch is narrow, prominent, and painful.
But HOKA shoes are not the most comfortable shoes on the market.
I have the Mach 4 and the Mach 5. The Profly midsole core on the Mach 4 was a huge disappointment. It packed out after only 3 runs. For the Mach 5 HOKA switched to a new supercritical EVA,...
This is one of the uglier HOKA models. The Mach series is more fashionable and more comfortable.
It's a total ripoff. HOKA prints money for their parent company, Deckers. The stock was $78 in March 2020. Recently the share price crossed the $900 threshold. Money, money, money.
But wearing this shoe in a workplace environment would be potentially hazardous. Anyways, their collecting dust in my closet and I rarely wear them.
Thanks for the penetrating psychoanalysis of my comment activity. While it may appear that I have a hard on for Hoka the truth is I have negative opinions on and criticisms for EVERY running shoe brand.
The reason why I devote more of my energies to critiquing Hoka is because unlike all the other brands Hoka still benefits from an undeserved halo effect. Most people are under the impression that Hoka is associated with comfort, performance, and quality Because of clever marketing and informational cascades in footwear trends Deckers has been able to create considerable sales momentum for Hoka over the past decade. Deckers also owns Ugg, multi billion dollar brand geared towards women. The company decided several years ago to reposition Hoka as a female friendly running shoe brand with a strong tilt towards ath-leisure. Hoka's marketing is female centric. Women are the target audience. Specifically women who are fashion forward. Deckers wants their Ugg customer base to also buy Hoka shoes. With this type focus and strategy style is prioritized over considerations.
My goal is to point out that other brands make shoes that are either more comfortable, offer better durability, or better performance than anything Hoka has managed to produce. I'm not even a fanboy of any of the other footwear brands. It's just a case of Hoka being bottom barrel in the 4 most crucial factors: Comfort, Performance, Durability, and Value.
Thanks for the penetrating psychoanalysis of my comment activity. While it may appear that I have a hard on for Hoka the truth is I have negative opinions on and criticisms for EVERY running shoe brand.
The reason why I devote more of my energies to critiquing Hoka is because unlike all the other brands Hoka still benefits from an undeserved halo effect. Most people are under the impression that Hoka is associated with comfort, performance, and quality Because of clever marketing and informational cascades in footwear trends Deckers has been able to create considerable sales momentum for Hoka over the past decade. Deckers also owns Ugg, multi billion dollar brand geared towards women. The company decided several years ago to reposition Hoka as a female friendly running shoe brand with a strong tilt towards ath-leisure. Hoka's marketing is female centric. Women are the target audience. Specifically women who are fashion forward. Deckers wants their Ugg customer base to also buy Hoka shoes. With this type focus and strategy style is prioritized over considerations.
My goal is to point out that other brands make shoes that are either more comfortable, offer better durability, or better performance than anything Hoka has managed to produce. I'm not even a fanboy of any of the other footwear brands. It's just a case of Hoka being bottom barrel in the 4 most crucial factors: Comfort, Performance, Durability, and Value.
The self-absorption in your posts come flying right off the screen.
You are not the de facto king of shoe analysis, despite your over-the-top commentary.
Even if we attempt to ignore the obvious, your inability to acknowledge any sense of Hoka reality immediately kills any of your credibility on everything else.
Walk around your city. Go to a gym. Visit a farmer's market. Attend a track event. Take a stroll in a hospital.
Are you going to tell me that the massive percentage (and it's huge) of people wearing Hoka are doing so due to "clever marketing" and an "undeserved halo effect". Can you insult them just a little bit more?
You can't even lend one thought that these same people just might have tried on other shoes before? Might actually own other shoes to compare them to?
And ... stop me if it's getting too logical ... decided THEY ARE comfortable? THEY ARE durable? THEY DO provide performance they want? THEY ARE A VALUE to them?
No, clearly you can't. You bring nothing to the discussion other than your obvious contempt.
The self-absorption in your posts come flying right off the screen.
You are not the de facto king of shoe analysis, despite your over-the-top commentary.
Even if we attempt to ignore the obvious, your inability to acknowledge any sense of Hoka reality immediately kills any of your credibility on everything else.
Walk around your city. Go to a gym. Visit a farmer's market. Attend a track event. Take a stroll in a hospital.
Are you going to tell me that the massive percentage (and it's huge) of people wearing Hoka are doing so due to "clever marketing" and an "undeserved halo effect". Can you insult them just a little bit more?
You can't even lend one thought that these same people just might have tried on other shoes before? Might actually own other shoes to compare them to?
And ... stop me if it's getting too logical ... decided THEY ARE comfortable? THEY ARE durable? THEY DO provide performance they want? THEY ARE A VALUE to them?
No, clearly you can't. You bring nothing to the discussion other than your obvious contempt.
You really like your Hokas. But they don't seem to tame your Boomer grumpiness. Which reminds me. Hoka is quite popular with seniors.
28 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Clifton's comfort level is alright. The cushion part is too solid and i end up replacing the insoles 3 months later.
I can't remember if I've gotten this model before but for 70 bucks why not!
Also I tried Onclouds and they only lasted 3 months too.
I think the stock commentary might take the cake. Now you're doing deep dives into their financials and that's somehow going to impact someone's decision on if a shoe is good for them.
Again, I think it's a fair question -- which shoe brand do you work for and why is it their DNA to actively trash Hoka via you?
Or more importantly, why is your "experience" with Hoka superior to everyone elses?
I mean, you've spent an incredible amount of time bashing them.
Have the Mach 5 too. The midsole is better because it's infused with nitrogen. But I don't trust it and thus don't run in it...
Yeah, they need to bring that durability up to match the price point, for sure.
Had the same experience with Nike React Flyknits - lasted me all of 2 months before the midsole foam was creased and worn. Not acceptable, esp with the $200 MSRP.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I think the stock commentary might take the cake. Now you're doing deep dives into their financials and that's somehow going to impact someone's decision on if a shoe is good for them.
Again, I think it's a fair question -- which shoe brand do you work for and why is it their DNA to actively trash Hoka via you?
Or more importantly, why is your "experience" with Hoka superior to everyone elses?
I mean, you've spent an incredible amount of time bashing them.
Have the Mach 5 too. The midsole is better because it's infused with nitrogen. But I don't trust it and thus don't run in it...
Thanks for the penetrating psychoanalysis of my comment activity. While it may appear that I have a hard on for Hoka the truth is I have negative opinions on and criticisms for EVERY running shoe brand.
The reason why I devote more of my energies to critiquing Hoka is because unlike all the other brands Hoka still benefits from an undeserved halo effect. Most people are under the impression that Hoka is associated with comfort, performance, and quality Because of clever marketing and informational cascades in footwear trends Deckers has been able to create considerable sales momentum for Hoka over the past decade. Deckers also owns Ugg, multi billion dollar brand geared towards women. The company decided several years ago to reposition Hoka as a female friendly running shoe brand with a strong tilt towards ath-leisure. Hoka's marketing is female centric. Women are the target audience. Specifically women who are fashion forward. Deckers wants their Ugg customer base to also buy Hoka shoes. With this type focus and strategy style is prioritized over considerations.
My goal is to point out that other brands make shoes that are either more comfortable, offer better durability, or better performance than anything Hoka has managed to produce. I'm not even a fanboy of any of the other footwear brands. It's just a case of Hoka being bottom barrel in the 4 most crucial factors: Comfort, Performance, Durability, and Value.
The reason why I devote more of my energies to critiquing Hoka is because unlike all the other brands Hoka still benefits from an undeserved halo effect. Most people are under the impression that Hoka is associated with comfort, performance, and quality Because of clever marketing and informational cascades in footwear trends Deckers has been able to create considerable sales momentum for Hoka over the past decade. Deckers also owns Ugg, multi billion dollar brand geared towards women. The company decided several years ago to reposition Hoka as a female friendly running shoe brand with a strong tilt towards ath-leisure. Hoka's marketing is female centric. Women are the target audience. Specifically women who are fashion forward. Deckers wants their Ugg customer base to also buy Hoka shoes. With this type focus and strategy style is prioritized over considerations.
My goal is to point out that other brands make shoes that are either more comfortable, offer better durability, or better performance than anything Hoka has managed to produce. I'm not even a fanboy of any of the other footwear brands. It's just a case of Hoka being bottom barrel in the 4 most crucial factors: Comfort, Performance, Durability, and Value.
You are not the de facto king of shoe analysis, despite your over-the-top commentary.
Even if we attempt to ignore the obvious, your inability to acknowledge any sense of Hoka reality immediately kills any of your credibility on everything else.
Walk around your city. Go to a gym. Visit a farmer's market. Attend a track event. Take a stroll in a hospital.
Are you going to tell me that the massive percentage (and it's huge) of people wearing Hoka are doing so due to "clever marketing" and an "undeserved halo effect". Can you insult them just a little bit more?
You can't even lend one thought that these same people just might have tried on other shoes before? Might actually own other shoes to compare them to?
And ... stop me if it's getting too logical ... decided THEY ARE comfortable? THEY ARE durable? THEY DO provide performance they want? THEY ARE A VALUE to them?
No, clearly you can't. You bring nothing to the discussion other than your obvious contempt.
You are not the de facto king of shoe analysis, despite your over-the-top commentary.
Even if we attempt to ignore the obvious, your inability to acknowledge any sense of Hoka reality immediately kills any of your credibility on everything else.
Walk around your city. Go to a gym. Visit a farmer's market. Attend a track event. Take a stroll in a hospital.
Are you going to tell me that the massive percentage (and it's huge) of people wearing Hoka are doing so due to "clever marketing" and an "undeserved halo effect". Can you insult them just a little bit more?
You can't even lend one thought that these same people just might have tried on other shoes before? Might actually own other shoes to compare them to?
And ... stop me if it's getting too logical ... decided THEY ARE comfortable? THEY ARE durable? THEY DO provide performance they want? THEY ARE A VALUE to them?
No, clearly you can't. You bring nothing to the discussion other than your obvious contempt.
You really like your Hokas. But they don't seem to tame your Boomer grumpiness. Which reminds me. Hoka is quite popular with seniors.
Says the guy who tells people on here he owns "12 pairs of Hokas". You are something else.