November 21st, 2007, 12:23 PM #1
Wood is what's good for hockey
Well, I totally disagree with the article.
The author states that composites are less accurate for shooting which nulifies their advantage? Really? I'm sure he's never used one. I would only agree that they're harder to receive a pass with.
He mentions that the MLB only allows wood bats because aluminum is too much of an advantage. Well, if baseball stadiums had moved all of their fences back 20 feet (a rough equivalent of modern goaltendending equipment and technique), the MLB would encourage aluminum in order to keep scoring. Since I started playing 15 years ago, there is now noticeably less net to shoot at. I think NHL goalie save percentages are probably too high these days.
November 21st, 2007, 01:19 PM #2
Used a composite, went back to 5030's after about a year. I missed how the puck felt.
To me, the composites felt like you were using a plastic stick. I shot harder, but it never felt like I had as much control with the puck.
November 21st, 2007, 02:17 PM #3
I do like the weight of the composite that I use (a balistik stick...22 caliber). But I also use wood as well (Damn Bauer 1000 Supreme with the Lindros curve keeps me coming back). I love it when I have been slashed by a guy with a composite stick onto my woodie and his breaks...love it!!!!!!!!!!
November 21st, 2007, 02:25 PM #4
Maybe Blake, Lubo & Fro should revert back to wood.
November 21st, 2007, 03:35 PM #5
Easton graphite with a Joe Sakic blade. I prefer wood but have been unable to find a wood stick with a Sakic curve so I went graphite.
FYI...if the MLB used aluminum you'd see pitchers behind batting practice screens. It'll never happen.
November 21st, 2007, 04:44 PM #6
yeah you can't compare aluminum bats and composite sticks. at least goalies get to wear pads...
i read this article a few days ago and think it's total crap. the goaltending equipment has changed more and so has the style. the goalies are getting better, faster, and BIGGER (physically, not just the pads). THOSE are the reasons why scoring is harder, not the sticks.
the only thing that can be taken away by going composite is feel and even that is debatable according to some. i highly doubt accuracy is different between the two. if anything, a composite stick will be more consistent over time where as a woodie will go to crap if you use it long enough. i have used a wood all my life, but the first time i touched a composite i knew i would never go back. there's a reason why the sherwood factory is stopping the wood. they can't keep up with the technology. you know how superstitious the pros are. if it was THAT good, they wouldn't have switched over to the newer sticks. and i bet gretzky was misquoted on that one. or does he wish the nhl would go back to his old aluminum sticks too? rofl...
November 21st, 2007, 05:07 PM #7
I like wood personally because stickhandling is better (lower hand moves easier up and down the shaft .... no masturbation jokes, please). And laminated wood sticks (Easton Z-carbon) are still damn light in weight.
I wouldn't object to a mandated return to all wood sticks if for no other reason than as a way to lower the cost barriers to play this sport. Don't tell me that you can seperate the pros vs. the amateurs with different rules/restrictions: (a) kids are always going to pester their parents for the best equipment their heroes use, and (b) the stick companies didn't invest all this money in composite stick technology so they could sell only to a few thousand pro players.
This is also why I'm against that new heated-skate-blade technology. $500 disposable skates weren't enough of a money pit? Now we need $300-400 add-on electrical blade systems, too? If the hockey powers really want more people to play they'd be trying to lower the costs, not raise them, and get their money back in volume.
November 22nd, 2007, 11:19 AM #8
I use a one piece composite (Mission Hex1) because of the lightness along with the thinness of the blade.
I need a lighter stick since my carpel tunnel surgery and I haven't found a wood stick that has worked yet. I'll give the Easton recommended here a shot in the next month or so.
Shooting the puck with a composite gives me better wrist/snap shots but seems to be less effective (for me) on slap shot, not that I actually use this shot much.
The stickhandling for me and the ability to move my stick quickly for defensive purposes is why I'm still using one.
If I could find a Northland type of stick that I did use (a long time ago) I would certainly not use the composite stick. If my kid starts to play hockey he will never have one (unless he's paying for it).
On the heated skate thing. I HATE plastic heat-molded skates. I use graf but really wish the skate makers would return to the mostly leather made skates. Trust me - you'll skate better even if your skates weigh more.
Last edited by Rocket; November 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 AM.
November 22nd, 2007, 01:15 PM #9
I'm using an Easton "Z carbon" wood stick which has a sakic curve.
Originally Posted by OrangePuck
I would be all over a sherwood 5030 coffey except they don't make them tall enough for me (I'm an even 6 foot with barefeet). Even the z carbon I'm using right now is a bout a tape width too short for me.
November 22nd, 2007, 11:56 PM #10
?! In my experience a composite stick will be shattered all over the ice and replaced before a wood stick ever losses anything.
Originally Posted by yipperzz
It's all wood sticks for me. I tried a composite and just didn't like how it left in my hands. I don't know exactly what it was, maybe weight, flex, how solid it felt, whatever, but it just didn't feel right, so I stick with wood. Currently using a CCM 492 Tacks with Recchi blade.