Comments on: I Got Wood

By: Missourimike

Missourimike — Sun, 10 May 2009 17:35:45 +0000

The question is does changing the equipment that Stars of today use make the records they break any less spectacular. I mean most of the records from the 80′s won’t be broken anytime soon anyways because of how much the game has changed but does this place an * beside records that get eclipsed?

In swimming for example Phelps used new technology (in the bathing suit design – how can u improve speedo’s? and surpassed Spitz’s Olympic medal total. Does it make it less impressive than had he competed wearing what Spitz wore?

By: goon

goon — Sat, 09 May 2009 23:01:24 +0000

My buddys kid is a goalie and the sticks are in the 250-350 range and I broke two of them in one week. Expensive. I think they were composite as well.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sat, 09 May 2009 18:07:21 +0000

You can get goalie sticks in composite or wood. I believe the composite goalie sticks run close to $300 though. I also cant really speak to their durability either.

Anyone think a coach will institute a wood only on PP or PK anytime soon? I would bet we see it at some level in the next year or two.

By: goon

goon — Sat, 09 May 2009 00:27:35 +0000

If I was a hockey player I wouldn’t be helped by wood composite or Alum because I would be a non-skilled energy player. I think composite today’s sticks could be likened to the Drivers of today, think what Jack or Arnie could have done with a big headed graphite shaft driver with a nice metal head. The sweet spot is huge with these things and you can really tee it up same with the composite sticks…

By: Missourimike

Missourimike — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:15:33 +0000

I don’t think goalies sticks are. I’m pretty sure they are made of wood.

By: Bob Roberts

Bob Roberts — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:13:40 +0000

Are goaltender’s sticks all composite too? Suddenly occured to me I’d never thought about it. Theirs is a position where a broken stick is more likely to lead to a goal, so if they do use composites they must be different I’d guess. Yes? No?

By: Twitted by pjames

Twitted by pjames — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:03:35 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by pjames – Real-url.org [...]

By: david

david — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:51:52 +0000

I remember when the cool new stick on the market was the Brett Hull Silver Easton.

By the way, amazing usage of “that’s what she said”.

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:26:09 +0000

If I was a player, and for those of you who have ever seen me play hockey I assure you I am not, I would use a composite stick during the first two periods, and a regular stick during the third, for the theoretical reason that a broken stick resulting in a turnover may cost me more severely in the 3rd period than in the first two stanzas. It’s the same logic that would see me use an illegal curve (.com) in the first two periods, but not in the third when a penalty would be especially detrimental. (Are you listening Marty McSorley?)

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:18:34 +0000

Jarick, while I am certainly willing to concede they are lighter (anyone ever have to lug a Titan around?), I still think that many players use them because they are the accepted or cool stick on the market.

Hockey players are still human, and the desire to have the same twig as the other guy has to be pretty strong.

By: Jarick

Jarick — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:58:43 +0000

There’s a few pros and cons to composite, but the big reason they are used is the lighter weight, which makes stick handling and generally moving the puck quicker and easier. In addition, they load up faster for a split second quicker release on shots, which can be the difference between a goal and a save, especially with the size of goalie pads and the quick reflexes of NHL goalies.

Let’s think about it. If wood sticks really were that much better because they are more durable (which they only are in terms of snapping, not in terms of long-term usage), wouldn’t more centers and defensemen use them? If it meant you would always have an advantage on the draw or on the PK, wouldn’t they be far more common?

The benefits must outweigh the positives for NHL’ers to overwhelmingly choose composite.

If teams don’t want to pay for the supply of sticks, that’s fine, let the NHL’ers buy them. But if money were a concern, I’m sure a team would rather get an extra 5 goals each year for the $50-75,000 it might cost between composite and wood.

Composites can be made more durable, but NHL’ers still prefer lighter sticks to durability. I’m sure certain players pick out sticks for durability (Warrior comes to mind).

Bottom line is, we want more offense, not less. I’m sure if wood sticks had an advantage, they would be used. But the technology has helped and will continue to improve. I would much rather aim to reduce the size of goalie equipment than reduce scoring chances.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:52:08 +0000

Good points Goon. Especially considering what a player like Bobby Hull could do with an old wood twig. I still think that the potential benefits of these sticks are only realized by a fraction of today’s players.

If I am a set-up type centre, I think I would rather have a wood stick just for feel and face-offs alone.

By: goon

goon — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:47:20 +0000

It is a good subject and we have talked about it from time to time with my buddies that I watch the college games with. I was over at Scheels a few days back and picked one of these things up they don’t even feel like the hockey sticks of old.

I will say that I miss the aluminum and woods sticks and I am tired of watching all of these composite sticks break all of the time. I also hate sound of the slaps shots from one of these sticks. Heck just think off all the all-pros that used woods sticks; Bourque, Neely, Coffey, Kurri etc…