it just depends on how well you’re built as a runner. pure project shoes seem to me to be overwhelmingly neutral throughout the line. my take on it is that he footwear industry thinks it’s a binary choice: you build shoes the old way - high ramp, all kinds of stability features - or you build shoes the new way - low ramp, forefoot padding, neutral, no stability features.
the hoka was built the new way, however…
these guys were building shoes for themselves. they were ultra trail runners. they stuck in there all sorts of stability features not intended for runners who have structural problems (like me) but for trail runners who want shoes that hold up when they’re bombing the descents over rocks and roots. they unwittingly made a shoe the new way - low ramp, forefoot cushion - but with stability for those of us with structural problems, debunking the design constraint of either low ramp / forefoot cushion or features for imperfect footfalls.
what i’m waiting for is for the rest of the footwear industry to note this. so far, not yet. you might say, well, wait, once they see what the bondi does, they’ll certainly copy it. but i have seen good shoes come and go and nobody takes notice, as long as the footwear companies still sell their in line models at the requisite number. that said, the barn door is open. mcdougall cracked the code. now footwear companies are a bit on their heels, pardon the pun, and they’re questioning themselves. i hope this causes them to stop looking only at each other - asics, brooks, etc., all just seeing what those in their competitive sets are doing - rather to look again at shoes from the ground up.
for you, if your foot caves in on the inside, you’re an overpronator. you need support. the bondi offers that. if you don’t need support, the world is your oyster.