Start here: http://www.slowtwitch.com/...ne_Bondi_B_1960.html

And then do a search on this forum. Lots of posts about the Hokas like this one: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...um.cgi?post=3315747;

---

--------------------------
IMWI 2011 - check - 11:54
IMMT 2012 - check - 10:49
Michigan Titanium 2013 - 11:50
http://www.ironmanbythirty.com/

I tried the Hoka One One's after some of the very positive reviews here. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be working for me.

I wanted them because my body just feels beat to schitt on any run 10 miles or above. However, he extra cushioning in the shoes seems to lead to excessive pronation, which in turn led to (self-diagnosed) Morton's Neuroma.

I really liked running in them, as they were very comfortable and they seemed to provide the extra cushion I was looking for....but causing the neuroma made it a deal breakr for me.

FWIW, I had a similar issue with the Brooks Pure Connect....

My advice would be to make sure you buy them from a place that takes returns after a 30 day test period. Quite a few local running stores are now offering that. I made the mistake of buying from Zappos.com and basically lost $170.

Great shoe if hey work for your stride / gait,but not a shoe that works for everyone.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I'll second what the other replies have said. They are great shoes, but the fit is not for everyone. I love them for trails and really feel like they minimize the wear and tear on my legs. Unfortunately, I have wide feet and the original Hoka Mafates don't fit me very well. I've heard the newer models have a little more room, so I'm looking forward to getting to a shop to try them on. I'd definitely recommend trying them on to see how they fit, but if they do, you'll love them.

Mike

I use them & love them. I am on my 2nd pair and have racked up a total of 900+ miles on the 2 pair. I am 215 lbs and 57 years old, with slight pronation. I found that the shoes allowed me to extend my long runs past 10 miles. I was at 15 miles in less than 4 weeks and most all of the post running discomfort in feet/ankles/knees was gone. I do have a narrow foot so the fit was good for me. Only issue is the cost at $175 a pair. I rationalize it because I get more miles per shoe by a good margin over my Old Asics or Brooks.

I have run oveer 120 miles a month since July 2011 hitting a peak of 170 in March. Love em. Couldn't do it without em (and the BarryP running program).

---

http://bigmikega.wordpress.com

Regarding fit. I have a pair of the Bodi Bs and I love the shoes but they were too narrow for my old feet. I just got a pair of the new Stinson EVOs and they are a huge improvement in fit for me. I sized up a half size from my normal size and they fit great. Love them so far.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
mikew

I've been wearing New Balance shoes, size 10.5 EE, since i started running in 1979. I need the width but I find that NB shoes have a low toebox. In the past I would loose toenails from long run training. Do you think they have a size to fit me?

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

When I read the reviews of the Stinson EVOs everyone said they fit truer to size than the older versions and the Bondi Bs. I was still a bit nervous about getting the 10.5s which are my normal size so I got the 11s and they are more than roomy enough for my wide feet. I have not used them enough yet but so far they seem right for me. If you are concerned about toe width, I think it is always a good idea to upsize. IMHO. Oh and yes they seem tall enough in the toe box to prevent black toes.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
mikew

Awesome shoes that I got turned on to after Slowman raved about them. At $170 / pair, I'm 'slow' to follow suit, but they're really soft and light.

A sponsored athlete is currently doing a Triple Badwater run in them right now! Crazy stuff; there has to be an easier way to get a free pair of shoes ;-)

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

The Hokas have allowed me to run longer for more months with less damage, than any other shoe I have tried.

There is no doubt that the mechanics of your run will change slightly and later when you run in a more traditional shoe it will feel strange. However what you get is mileage you might not have managed and that gives you the conditioning to run better. I have also noticed a distinct lowering of HR as a result, which can only be a good thing (I hope).

As for expense. There is a small premium, I figured it out as about the cost of a bottle of Tylenol. Which fortunately I no longer need. :)

You sound like a long-time user so I have a question. I bought the leather Bondi Bs because they were cheap on Zappos. I hoped they would break in a bit and be more flexible, but they have not. Having used them for a while is the lack of flexibility a function of the thickness of the shoe, do you think?
Chad

I ran in them for about two months prior to breaking my leg in February. For the first time in years I was able to increase my mileage without foot or ankle issues. My running is on hold for now until my leg is rehabbed but I think they'll allow me to get back to it in time.

---

Formerly DrD

for anyone who is not entirely happy with his current running shoes: i'd give the bondi b a try. it's the only shoe i run in now, for everything, on and off road, training and racing. but if you have excessively wide feet, then the stinson. i don't like the stinson so much. too wide. the bondi is the shoe for my feet, which are rather average in width.

i don't know anyone who's a pronator would complain about these shoes. if you're a pronator, and these shoes do not provide you sufficient medial support, you should be looking for an orthotic, rather than another set of shoes. the bondi is a straight-lasted shoe that supports an orthotic fine. it's an extremely high mileage shoe, that is, you can run a lot of miles in this shoe before you need to get another pair. for that reason, i do not find this an expensive shoe.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm also a 10 1/2 2E and have worn NB shoes for many years, most recently the 1190s which I've used up to half IM distance without issues. I ordered last year's model of the Hoka Stinson B (new version is called the "Evo"). I ordered size 11 as I was concerned the width of the 10 1/2 wouldn't accomodate my wide forefeet. The 11s have worked sizewise, though I did do a 33-mile trail ultra in them and ended up with some blisters on the outer edges of my big toes and black toenails on the little toes on each foot. Since then, I've continually adjusted the lacing and so far no more blister issues, though I have developed some callouses on the outside of each big toe, and haven't run further than 10 miles since that race.
I will be doing another ultra and a trail marathon in the fall, along with IMAZ, and plan to wear the Hokas for all of them. Apparently the newer versions have updated the sizing somewhat. I emailed the USA customer service guy about sizing/width and got this reply:

"The new Stinson Evo has about the same shape as the old model but is more foot-conforming due to the new upper material and micro-fiber tongue. It comes with stock speed-lacing that you can replace with the supplied standard lacing. Also in the box is a set of replacement insoles to add to the shoe or replace the sole to make more room. It certainly gives you some options.

FYI the Bondi B (road-specific model) might be your choice however since the toebox is wider. This shoe performs quite well on hardpacked trails and is raced on trail by our Pros. However, putting training miles on trails would likely cause premature tread wear since trail is not its intended purpose.

A few things to consider J

Best regards,

CYRUS MANALO"

So, my next pair might be Bondis, but my Stinsons are showing very little wear at this stage. I have found WAY less ankle/foot soreness on long runs with these, and can run over rocky sections on trail runs that I used to have to soft step over.

---

------------------
My business-eBodyboarding.com

Only if you run on natural surfaces. the Bondi's outsole features a large foam section that wears extremely fast on concrete. This is why I love the new Evo's - the outsole has much more rubber and is longer lasting (although a tad heavier).

I do love the Hoka's for long stuff and they'll be my exclusive shoe as I return from a 5th metatarsal fracture.

Trained for 100 mile run in stinsons. Ran my first 100 mile run in them. My feet, ankles, knees, and hips feel so much better the day after a Long run in these shoes than any other shoe I have tried. Running is way more enjoyable too. Go farther and harder and feel better the next day. Well worth the investment.

Sorry, mine are not leather (Hoka 1 is all I could get). So can't answer.

The leather Hokas are the model for walking.

"Description

• The miles just seem to fly by when you're in the supreme cushioning of the Bondi B Leather walking shoe from Hoka One One.
• A minimalistic shoe that's ideal for athletic walking and casual wear."

They'll be great for long hours at the mall. Running, not so much.

Big fan of the HOOs, BTW. For racing (IM and ultras) more so than training.

Interesting, it said nothing of that on the zappos site. However, with about 20 hours of running in them so far, they work all right. I was just wondering if the regular Hoka shoes are also very inflexible or if that is a function of the model.
Chad

I have about 20 miles in some stinson b evos, so far I think they're much stiffer uppers than my brooks adrenalines. The upper seems to break at an odd spot over the middle of my toes, not at the base of my toes. But the shoes are new so we'll see what happens. Actually wondering if I should size down, I wear 13 in brooks, the hokas are 13.5. Maybe just a little too big. I would say the width is the same but much higher volume compared to the brooks, at least for my thin feet. I'm liking them.

Mmmm, did actually. I copy/pasted from the Zappo's site. http://www.zappos.com/...k-grey-green#prdInfo

Anyway, hard to tell how much of the stiffness you feel is the leather. Certainly HOOs are much less flexible than the NB Minimus and Inov-8s that I do most of my running in. You have to get used to the feeling of rolling over the rockered thick sole. I wouldn't expect, though, that a shoe marketed as a walking shoe would be the best bet for hard core running.

I just got them and I'm wearing them around the house. After about an hour I took out the insole and put in the flat insole that was included. Fit wise, they feel pretty good. Running around the house it's like running on pillows. I can't wait to run tomorrow.

Do you think I give anything up without the arch supports?

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Hard to say. I think on long runs is where you might miss the arch support, but reserve your judgement until you have a couple of weeks at least of running in them.

---

------------------
My business-eBodyboarding.com

Well, my Bondi Speeds arrived today. I'm a bigger guy (6'2, 205) and usually wear Newton Motions.

Size wise, I think the two are pretty equal. maybe a little more length in the toe box, but the rest of the upper feels about the same. The Newton upper is a little softer and more breathable, though.

If you're self-conscious, you might not want these. They look weird. I mean, really weird.

Of course, that weird look becomes less of a concern as soon as you step off on your first run. At first they felt unwieldy because of all the cushioning--like running on those giant springs that the Coyote used to jump canyons and such. The midfoot of the shoe is much less distinct feel-wise than the Newtons--the lugs are very noticeable and you get some tactile feedback on where you're landing. Once you find the right spot on the Hokas, though, they feel almost a bit more natural.

The ride is amazingly cushy. I'm not a big trail runner but I ran over some dirt, patchy grass, and large gravel, and I was amazed at how the shoes smoothed it all out.

What's odd, though, is that I don't feel like there's a ton more cushion vs the Newtons--IF you land right on the midfoot and use the lugs properly. When the miles wear on and form gets sloppy, though, the Newtons get unforgiving and the Hokas just soak everything up. It's pretty incredible. The shape of the insole definitely promotes a midfoot strike, but sloppy form doesn't send the impact up your spine either.

One thing I will try on my next run is to throw my Superfeet into the Hokas, but I didn't feel a ton of pronation or anything even with the stock setup.

Am I throwing away my Newtons? Nope. But I'm defnitely intrigued by these ugly monsters and I can't wait to run on them again.

Where did you purchase?

---

Team Every Man Jack

http://www.teamemj.com