login
Hoka Conquest ???
-
No new posts
 2014-10-18 10:09 AM |
Expert  1644     Oklahoma |  Subject: Hoka Conquest ???I've been running in Bondi 2's with great success but the only problem is I can't find any Bondi 2's in my size anymore. I'm a little gun shy about trying the Bondi 3's due to all the bad reviews I have read. So I'm holding out and waiting for the Bondi 4's to come out but in the mean time I need something to replace my 2's. Anybody running in the Conquest? What are your thoughts on the shoe? Even though the Bondi is a neutral shoe it seems to lock my foot in place and has a great platform for my orthotic. Does the Conquest have this same feature? It also appears in the picture to have a more pronounced rocker sole than the Bondi. Is this true and is it noticeable when running? Thanks for any info! |
| 2014-10-18 10:40 AM in reply to: EKH |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: Hoka Conquest ??? I'm a Hoka guy. Went through three pairs of Bondi 2, one pair of S2, two pairs of Bondi 3, a pair of Conquests, and a pair of Cliftons. The Conquests are noticeably less soft as the RMAT material used in that shoe is not as soft as the EVA material used in the Bondi, Stinson and Clifton shoes. The Conquests are a harsher ride than the others. Still a softer ride than every other running shoe on the market but it's the harshest in the Hoka line. They drain a ton better than any other Hoka shoe with the drain channels. That's all I liked about the shoe though. The Conquest is a little narrower than the Bondi. Otherwise I didn't notice much of a difference beyond that and the softness. What size do you wear? I have a second pair of Conquests that have six miles on them that I'd sell for 1/2 price. Size 12. |
| 2014-10-18 10:47 AM in reply to: GMAN 19030 |
Expert 1644 Oklahoma | Subject: RE: Hoka Conquest ??? Originally posted by GMAN 19030 I'm a Hoka guy. Went through three pairs of Bondi 2, one pair of S2, two pairs of Bondi 3, a pair of Conquests, and a pair of Cliftons. The Conquests are noticeably less soft as the RMAT material used in that shoe is not as soft as the EVA material used in the Bondi, Stinson and Clifton shoes. The Conquests are a harsher ride than the others. Still a softer ride than every other running shoe on the market but it's the harshest in the Hoka line. They drain a ton better than any other Hoka shoe with the drain channels. That's all I liked about the shoe though. The Conquest is a little narrower than the Bondi. Otherwise I didn't notice much of a difference beyond that and the softness. What size do you wear? I have a second pair of Conquests that have six miles on them that I'd sell for 1/2 price. Size 12. I wear a 9. If I was a size 12 I would be all over that! Thanks for the info. Sounds like they would work until the 4's come out. |
| 2014-10-18 12:18 PM in reply to: EKH |
Expert 2373 Floriduh | Subject: RE: Hoka Conquest ??? I too am a devoted Hoka fan, I bought a pair of Conquests because I wanted a new pair of Hokas for some upcoming races and they were on clearance. My impression is same as above, they are a fair bit firmer than running in Bondi's. A lot closer to Bondis then a pair of Brooks Adrenalines, but not nearly as soft. I don't see this as better or worse, just different. They are a bit narrower than Bondis, but seem to be not as narrow as the Stinson Tarmacs I have. I do races w/o socks and the Conquests are better for this than the Bondis. I just can't imagine not having socks on when running in Bondis because they are so roomy in the toe box. I really like the Conquests, but my next purchase will be a pair of Cliftons really just because of the weight savings. |
| 2014-10-18 5:54 PM in reply to: EKH |
Master 2855 Kailua, Hawaii | Subject: RE: Hoka Conquest ??? Originally posted by EKH I'm a little gun shy about trying the Bondi 3's due to all the bad reviews I have read. I'm a Bondi 3 user, and on my second pair. I like the Bondi 3 much better than the Bondi 2. The rocker is more suited for mid foot and just feels great. Really the only negative things I noticed about the Bondi 3 was the sole tread wore quickly and the toe box is more narrow that it's predecessors. I just did an IM in these and have no complaints. |
| 2014-10-19 10:26 AM in reply to: metafizx |
Expert 1644 Oklahoma | Subject: RE: Hoka Conquest ??? Question for everybody that ran in a Bondi 2 and 3. Did you go down half a shoe size from the 2 to the 3? The shoe fitter on running warehouse says you need to go down half a size in these shoes. |
| 2014-10-19 12:30 PM in reply to: EKH |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: Hoka Conquest ??? Originally posted by EKH Question for everybody that ran in a Bondi 2 and 3. Did you go down half a shoe size from the 2 to the 3? The shoe fitter on running warehouse says you need to go down half a size in these shoes. A lot of that sizing difference between the 2 and 3 was due to the different tongue design. The padded tongue of the 2 (which was, IMO, far superior) made for a tighter fit than the 3. The 3's are roomier but I had to stick with the same size (12) because I have very wide feet and going down to an 11.5 made the shoe too narrow. |
| 2014-10-19 2:15 PM in reply to: EKH |
Master 2855 Kailua, Hawaii | Subject: RE: Hoka Conquest ??? Originally posted by EKH Question for everybody that ran in a Bondi 2 and 3. Did you go down half a shoe size from the 2 to the 3? The shoe fitter on running warehouse says you need to go down half a size in these shoes. I did not change my sizing from Bondi 2 to Bondi 3. They both fit well.... Now if we go back to the original Bondi B, I believe there was a sizing problem at one point. But that was eventually fixed, to be more true to size. As for the tongue design, I had issues with the Bondi 2's tongue, would chafe by toes, but the Bondi 3 was not an issue. |
|
|
|
| |||
| I'm loving me some Hoka One One's Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK