Home› General Training Discussions

Anyone try the new HOKA conquest yet?

jendatjendat
in General Training Discussions

Has anyone tried the new HOKA conquest yet?  Any feedback would be appreciated. I currently run in the Bondi and am trying decide if I want to try the conquest.  Also anyone running in the Kailua? Just wondering the difference between the models. I can't seem to find many reviews of specific models.

Comments

  • Paul HoughPaul Hough
    I would like to hear too! I am going to the Gasparilla distance festival expo tomorrow and hope to get a new pair of Hokas.
  • John WithrowJohn Withrow
    I got the conquest and have run in them a few times. I really like them. They feel "lighter" than my other Hokas. I have always described my Bondi Speed S2 as a little flatter wider soled and more "stable of a base" and a little less "soft" than my other Hoka's. Where I would describe my Stimson EVO Tarmac's as a little bit more "unstable" and much "softer". (The Mafate 3 trail is even softer/bigger/unstable yet, so much so that ironically I can't actually run on trails in them. They are now just my favorite "walking around" shoes.)

    The Conquests are somewhere in between the Bondi Speed S2 and the Stinsons from a softness perspective. They provide a much better "stable platform" than the Stinsons. They also "seem" much more narrow than the Bondi's. Not necessarily more narrow on your actual foot, just no extra material outside the actual foot bed if that makes sense. It's almost like they are contoured around my foot. I really like them. They "feel" faster than the others because I swear they feel lighter, but I don't know if they actually are or not.

    If I'm going to be doing a ton of pounding, I might still choose my Stinsons. But I'll probably be racing in the Conquests.
  • Peter NoyesPeter Noyes
    I have the Conquests, but it is my first "big" shoe. I definitely like them. I am coming from Brooks PureCadence 2's and the weight is actually about the same. I feel just as fast in them as I do in the Brooks, but with more cushion. My first run in the Conquests was 14 miles and nothing bad happened so I give them a thumbs up!
  • jendatjendat

    Thanks for the info. I have heard that the Conquests are actually more of a stability shoe than a neutral shoe but are marketed as neutral as they don't have the actual stability "bar" built in.  I have also heard the lacing under the tongue is a bit annoying, but I figure you can relace them above the tongue if necessary. 

  • SwanieSwanie
    Just got the conquests, moved from the Bondi B's. These are not as cushy, but are nice to run in. I primarily use them for recovery runs or if my legs are sore. I like them because they have more carbon in the sole.
  • jendatjendat

    I took the leap and ordered the conquests as well. It does seem less cushy than the Bondis. It feels like my foot is better supported though. I need to try a few more runs in them, but I think I prefer the Bondis for longer runs. I like the cush! I DO LOVE the color of the conquests. I have the bright purple ones.

  • thaimaithaimai

    This is a question for anyone who actually bought a Conquest.  Did you try on the new Bondi 3 before buying the Conquest?

    I bought the Bondi 3 mainly due to it being a popular model and the Conquest is a brand new one.  Now that several of EN'ers are happy with the Conquest, I'm wondering if I should return the Bondi 3 and get the Conquest to train and race in.

    If you have tried both models, what are the main differences?

  • jendatjendat

    @ Thai,

    I wanted to give the Conquests a fair test before I responded to your last post. I personally prefer the Bondi's.  Although I DO like the conquest, the Bondi's have a bit more "cush", which I tend to like. I do not notice one model being "faster" than another. 

  • dpiburndpiburn
    I also moved from the Bondi B to the Conquest recently. I used the Bondi's as my winter outdoor running shoe, since I put put screws in the soles for gripping the ice/snow.
    The Bondi's, at least to my feet, felt much more cushiony than the Conquests do - but I find I prefer the Conquests now, thanks to what I perceive as a more solid base for my feet.

    And I swear I run faster in them, for some reason. Like @John said, I'll be racing in them this season.
  • donymodonymo
    I've been happy with my Conquests in the 3 weeks that I've had them. I completed a duathlon and a bunch of training runs. My other running shoe is a Saucony Kinvara, which I like too. However, I do feel a difference running in the Hoka's - I am not as sore afterwards.
  • GMAN 19030GMAN 19030
    I'm liking the Conquests so far.
  • Al TruscottAl Truscott

    Posted By Don Nowak on 24 Apr 2014 01:31 PM


    I've been happy with my Conquests in the 3 weeks that I've had them. I completed a duathlon and a bunch of training runs. My other running shoe is a Saucony Kinvara, which I like too. However, I do feel a difference running in the Hoka's - I am not as sore afterwards.

    I've read about the Hoka Cliftons coming out in August. Said to be their answer to Kinvara, weighing just under 8 oz, as well as "dropping" their price point to $130. If there is a shoe with a 3-5 mm ramp, weighs less than 8 oz, allows freedom of foot motion, and helps deter quad soreness on runs longer than 11 miles, it would be the answer for me. The worst thing about running for me is how much my quads hurt during and after long runs. Is that what you all mean by soreness, or is it specific for each individual - foot pain, shin splints, mid calf soreness, etc etc?

  • Brad MarcusBrad Marcus
    @Al - ran 3x in new Hoka's this week, including 13 miles yesterday. Soreness for me in calf, Achilles and ball of foot. As mentioned above, this may because of the drop in this running shoe (4.5mm) vs what I'm used to (11mm). No additional soreness anywhere else, but not feeling like I would want to do another long run today either.
  • jendatjendat
    I am still preferring the Bondis over the conquest. They have a bit more cushioning which seems to be less aggravating to my plantar fasciitis. I still like the conquest but not as much as the Bondis. As for reduced soreness, I notice an improvement in joint soreness as well as relief from PF.
  • SwanieSwanie
    I have run in the Bondi's until they were worn out. Bought the Conquest's because they were new and wanted try them. I prefer the Bondi's and will return to them when I need a new pair. I like the Bondi's because of the cush the provide. I can go out on a recovery run after doing a long run or a high intensity run and there is less impact on my sore legs.
  • donymodonymo

    @Al  Sorry for the delayed response.  First you should know that I am a beginner runner.  I've been run training for triathlon for about 15 months and my longest run to date is about 10 miles.  I've been on the short course plan for the last 2 months since joining EN, so my longest training run has been 75 minutes.  I am 48 years old and whenever I run for an hour or so, I am sore in the ankles, knees and hips after.  By the next day, I am ok.  Previously, I've run in Saucony (Cortana2 and Kinvara).  I decided to try the Hoka Conquests.  The feel of running in them is much different than the Sauconys - softer landings.  After completing a run in them, I would say that I am 50-75% less sore than after the same run in Sauconys.  So far, I like them.  

Sign In or Register to comment.