althoma1

They're definitely a pain to fit and I only ended up in a size that feels right to me by reading through threads like this one and watching @Hills sizing video on YouTube. The 30 day satisfaction guarantee helps with current True models, however; that likely doesn't apply to the clearance skates. The fact that the sizing was changed again with the new Catalyst line has pros and cons. On the one hand, people coming from CCM and Bauer might have an easier time if the sizing lines up, but people that finally figured out their True TF7/9 sizing will have to start over again. It'd be nice if the True scanning app could be used to recommend a skate size instead of only scanning for custom skates. Like the CCM and Bauer scans, that'd only be a starting point and you'd still have to get the skates baked on your feet, but it'd would hopefully get people pretty close to the right size.

Yes, the True TF skates are definitely the closest skates I've found to the Makos. The TF7s have a way thicker tongue vs. the TF9s, so that might make them feel a little smaller in the same size. I haven't had a chance to try on the Catalyst skates yet, but from what I've read/heard, the sizing is closer to Bauer/CCM and they aren't quite as wide as the TF skates. It's great that the flex tendon guard is available aftermarket and can easily be used on the TF skates.

With the TF9 skates, if they feel like the right size before baking and break in, they'll likely end up being too long. The correct size should have your toes hard against the cap before baking (not bent) and feel a bit too small. It's good that you have 7 days to send them back - don't judge the sizing until after baking them properly (200F for 10 minutes and use the luggage wrap method Scott Van Horne demonstrates on Youtube). Even after baking you'll gain a few more mm of space once they break in and the padding compresses a bit.

I don't think he tried on the 7.5W as it wasn't available - he tried 7.5R and 8R. The store didn't have the W sizes. I also have 8EE Mako II skates and when I tried the TF9s before baking, the 8W was obviously too big, the 7.5W felt like the right size before baking and the 7W had my toes HARD on the cap and felt too small. I still went with the 7W for an inline conversion and after baking and break in, the 7W actually feels close to the 8EE Mako II in size, maybe ever so slightly smaller. I'd think the 7.5W would be a little bit longer than the 8EE Mako II after baking and break in. Externally, when I put the 7W TF9 and 8EE Makos side by side, they definitely seem to be the same length and depth. On the Bauer 3D Fit machine I scan as a 7.5 Fit 3. It's common for people to go down a half size vs. CCM and Bauer with the TF9 and TF7 skates. With the Catalyst line, I believe they adjusted the sizing and that's no longer the case.

If you're an 8EE in CCM, you're likely a 7.5W in the TF9s. You'll gain about half a size in length after baking and break in. The 8W will likely be too long after baking and break in. In the right size, your toes should be hard against the cap before baking with the TF9s.

If 6.5 feels like the right length in Bauer Supreme, I would definitely go with a 6 in the TF series. You then need to choose between the R width and W. If you are a EE or Fit 3 Supreme, wide makes sense. If you are a D Supreme, then I would stick with R. Either way, the right size in the TF skates will feel too small before baking. Your toes will be hard on the cap. After baking and break in, you gain about a half size in length. At least that was my experience with the TF9.

I had the same experience with the sizing of the Reakt vs. Fitlite Titanium. The Fitlite in large was longer and wider and fit my face and helmet better. I haven't attempted to change the chin cup on mine, but hope someone else can answer that for both of us.

For me, the CCM Fitlite Titanium large fits my helmet and face better than the Reakt, but those were both great cages (I've tried both, but sold off the Reakt and picked up a couple CCM Fitlite titanium cages). It's too bad those were discontinued as the titanium cages are lighter than steel cages and don't rust. Those two cages also had the flat bars. It's great to hear that Bauer is coming out with a new Titanium cage. I doubt I'll need a new cage anytime soon, but it's nice to know they'll be an easier to find option if something happens to one of my Fitlite titanium cages.

If there's a scramble at the net and the goalie can't get to the puck because there's a player in the crease, but that player doesn't initiate contact (say, the goalie tries to slide over and makes contact with the player), then it's no goal and the faceoff comes outside, but there's no penalty. If the player initiates the contact with the goalie (or could have reasonably avoided the contact and chooses not to), then there's a penalty. In general if there's accidental, incidental contact that's very light, I'm not calling a penalty. I'll yell at the player to watch the goalie and if a goal is scored at the point or right after the point of that contact, it's going to be washed out. If there's any intentional contact or more than very mild contact initiated by the player, then they're getting a minor, major or match penalty depending on the exact scenario. I officiate under the Hockey Canada rules and there are some differences vs. what I'm reading in the USA Hockey rules. So, you may be better off getting advice from a USA Hockey official, but I suspect that you're not seeing penalties called when the officials feel that the contact is light/incidental or when the attacking player doesn't initiate the contact. For my frame of reference, here's the Hockey Canada Goalie Interference section: Rule 8.5 Interference with the Goaltender Goaltender interference refers to any attacking player who, by means of their stick or body, interferes with or impedes the movements of the goaltender by actual physical contact. While incidental contact with the goaltender may occur, attacking players must make an effort to avoid contact in all circumstances. The onus is always on the attacking player and players who do not make an effort to avoid the goaltender must be penalized. Protection of the Goaltender: A Goaltender is not ‘fair game’ just because they are outside their goal crease. A penalty under this rule will be called where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with the goaltender anywhere on the ice. Likewise, Referees should be alert to penalize goaltenders for infractions they commit within the vicinity of their goal. Goal Crease Area: Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking team may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the goal will NOT BE ALLOWED. However, if an attacking player is in the goal crease but does not interfere with the Goaltender and another attacking player (who is outside the goal crease) scores, the goal WILL BE ALLOWED provided that the player who was in the goal crease does not attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or obstruct the Goaltender’s view or movements. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a Referee to judge that a situation may warrant disallowing a goal under this rule without assessing an attacking player a penalty. The penalty should be announced as “Interference with the Goaltender”. 8.5 (a) A Minor penalty will be assessed to any player who commits interference with goaltender. 8.5 (b) A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the referee, based on the degree of violence of impact, may be assessed to any player who commits interference with the goaltender. A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty will be assessed to any player who charges the goaltender. Note 1: See Rule 7.4 (b)(Interpretation 2) – Charging, for the definition of “charging”. A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty will be assessed to any player who injures an opponent by an Interference with the Goaltender infraction that would otherwise call for a Minor penalty. 8.5 (c) A Match penalty will be assessed to any player who attempts to injure or deliberately injures a goaltender by Interference. 8.5 (d) No Misconduct penalty may be assessed for interference with the goaltender. 8.5 (e) A Game Misconduct penalty must be assessed any time a Major penalty is assessed for interference with the goaltender, as detailed under Rule 8.5 (b). INTERPRETATIONS Interpretation 1 Rule 8.5 (a) Any goal scored on a play where an attacking player initiates contact with the goaltender will be disallowed, regardless of whether the contact occurs inside or outside of the goal crease. The only exception to this is where the attacking player is fouled by a defending player and, as a result, is unable to avoid contact with the goaltender. Interpretation 2 Rule 8.5 (a) Where an attacking player is tripped, hooked, cross-checked, or otherwise interfered with, falls, and makes contact with the goaltender, there must be an effort by the attacking player to avoid making contact with the goaltender. If the player does not make an effort to avoid contact with the goaltender, then they must be penalized for interference with the goaltender. The referee should also penalize the defending player who committed the initial foul under the appropriate rule. Interpretation 3 Rule 8.5 (a) An attacking player is NOT committing a foul by simply standing in the goal crease. However, if while standing in the crease, the attacking player attempts to play the puck, interfere with the play, or impede the goaltender’s vision or movements, then no goal may be scored. If the puck enters the net in this situation, the goal must be disallowed. Note 1: No penalty would be assessed unless the attacking player’s body or stick makes actual physical contact with the goaltender. Interpretation 4 Rule 8.5 (a) An attacking player is standing in the goal crease. The puck is shot, hitting the player in the crease, and drops down in the crease. The attacking player gets out of the crease, then shoots the puck into the goal. GOAL. The puck did not enter the goal while the attacking player was actually in the crease.

I believe the USA Hockey reference is under Rule 625 Interference and the key difference between a faceoff outside and a penalty is physical contact: (a) A minor penalty shall be assessed for interference. This includes the following actions which shall be penalized under this rule: (8) Any player who makes physical contact, using their stick or body, in a manner that interferes with the movement of the goalkeeper, unless otherwise specified in the rules. (b) A face-off shall be conducted at the nearest neutral zone face-off spot any time an attacking player stands, holds their stick, or skates through the goal crease provided the puck is in the attacking zone, the attacking team has possession of the puck and the goalkeeper is in contact with the crease. No goal may be scored with an attacking player in the goal crease unless the puck has preceded the player(s) into the goal crease or the goalkeeper is out of the goal crease area. However, if the attacking player has been physically interfered with by the actions of a defending player that causes them to be in the goal crease, play shall not be stopped and any legal goal scored shall be allowed. (Note) The goal crease area shall include all the space outlined by the semi-circular crease lines (including crease lines) and extending vertically to the level of the top of the goal frame. The interference section is in reference to minor penalties/taking the faceoff outside. For plays that may be majors or match penalties, see Rule 607 Charging: (c) A minor plus a misconduct or a major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to a player who body checks or charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease or privileged area. (d) A goalkeeper is NOT “fair game” because he is outside his privileged area. A penalty for interference or charging should be called in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. Likewise, Referees should be alert to penalize goalkeepers for any infractions they commit in the vicinity of the goal. (Note 1) For the purpose of this rule, any accidental or unavoidable contact that occurs with the goalkeeper shall be penalized under the Interference rule. Any deliberate body contact or check that is delivered to the goalkeeper shall be penalized as Charging. (Note 2) The goalkeeper’s “Privileged Area” is an area outlined by connecting the end zone face-off spots with an imaginary line and imaginary lines from each face-off spot running perpendicular to the end boards. (e) A match penalty for reckless endangerment may also be assessed for charging.

I have a wide forefoot, an average heel, narrow ankle with an average instep. So, it sounds like your foot is somewhat similar, but you have a higher instep. I still use 8EE Mako II's for ice and also have 8EE M7's converted for inline as well as a pair of 7W True TF9 skates converted for inline. When I tried on a Nexus D years ago, it was too wide all over and I had crazy heel lift. D width Supremes were too narrow. EE Supremes were a bit too wide in the heel. When I tried on EE Super Tacks, I found them to have good heel lock, but they weren't quite wide enough for my forefoot. That was unbaked and they were the original Super Tacks. With the True TF9 skates, the 8W was obviously too large when I tried them on. The 7.5W felt like the right size before baking. The 7W had my toes HARD on the cap and felt too small, but I still went with the smaller size based on what I read here and the @Hills aka Hockey Reviews Youtube sizing video. I'm glad I did as after baking, I gained a little space and then 4 or 5 hours gave me even more space and they're the right length now. My heel lock is also great. Compared to the Makos, the TF9 is stiffer all over, the toe cap is taller and less anatomical and the tendon guard is stiffer. You'd likely also have to go down a holder size to get the right size in the TF9. When I put the TF9 in 7W next to my 8EE Makos, the boot length, height and depth seem identical (other than the fact that the Mako is taller on one side than the other - True doesn't share this feature). True has since released the Catalyst 9 skates. I haven't tried these yet, but apparently they're sized closer to Bauer and CCM. The tendon guard is more flexible on them (but you can buy it directly from True for $30 US/$35 CAD and it will fit on the TF9 skates), the holder was tweaked for durability and steel lock and the toe cap is more streamlined and anatomical. The Catalyst skates also aren't as stiff as the TF9 - between the toe cap and the stiffness, it seems like the Catalyst line may be more like Makos than even the TF9s were. True has a 30 day satisfaction guarantee via participating retailers. This will apply to the Catalyst skates, but I'm not sure if it will apply to the TF9 skates since those seem to be on sale/clearance everywhere. If you can find a TF9 in 6.5W and have them baked properly, they may be an option. A 7.5W CAT9 may be another option. I know the width and heel lock of the TF9 in W work for me - the depth may be questionable for you though since I just pass the pencil test with them and don't have a high instep. I'm not sure what the depth is like on the CAT9. Dave Cruikshank and Scott Van Horne worked on the DASC/MLX skates together. Then Dave went to Easton and designed the Makos. Scott Van Horne designed the VH and then True bought them out. So, the True and Mako skates are related in a way and the True skates will be the most similar skates you'll find to Makos today.

I'd suspect the holders are misaligned and that's what's causing the steel to bend/break. I haven't been there myself (since I'm in Toronto), but I've seen some YouTube videos from B-Sharp in Ottawa on the True skates and they seem quite knowledgeable. If that's not where you're going already, I'd try going to a shop like that and have them inspect the holder mount to make sure it's aligned properly. If it's a holder alignment issue, you'll continue to have steel problems.

I dropped by the Leaside Sport Chek to get my skates sharpened today and figured I'd try on a pair of 7.5W CAT9 skates while I was there and see if they used a 263mm or 272mm holder. They showed that size in stock online (it says limited stock for Leaside, but out of stock for most other locations in the GTA), but when I got there the sales rep said that all the Catalyst skates they had were recalled and they were waiting to be restocked. I suspect that's likely due to the holder alignment issues. I needed my skates sharpened anyway and don't need new skates anyway, but I just thought that was interesting. Another customer was there that had broken steel on older Supremes with a Lightspeed holder. He was having a hell of a time trying to get replacement steel - that location didn't have any and he'd already tried Pro Hockey Life and Just Hockey. He was actually starting to consider just getting new skates - the rep directed him to the Bauer M4 skates. I politely suggested he at least try on the True TF9/TF7 skates if they had his size in stock (and told him about them feeling too tight before baking and most people needing to go down a half size vs. Bauer) since they had the TF9s on for $499 and the TF7s for $299, plus today is the last day of the friends and family sale which gives people an additional 10% off of sale items or 25% of regular priced items. The Catalyst skates would've been an option as well had they not been recalled. I'm not sure what he ended up doing as I just browsed around for 15 minutes after that and then left after my skates were ready. The one review, from about a month ago, on the Sport Chek site for the CAT9 specifically mentions the holder issue (well, they think the bent steel put stress on the holder, but it's much more likely the misaligned holder bent the steel): I bought these skates and couldn’t of been happier as the fit is amazing and feels like nothing I’ve never worn before. When the store took the blades out one blade was really warped when held up to the other blade and when put back into the holder you can clearly see that the holder was under stress from the bent blade. I contacted true warranty and they they said what you’d expect them to say “we will replace the blade”. I got some more advice from the guys at the pro shop and they said return them as they have had nothing but problems with this model.

Before you switch to super long laces, try threading the top two eyelets from behind the tongue and then pulling the lace over top of the tongue. That's what I need to do with my TF9 inline conversions - I really struggled trying to thread the eyelets in front of the tongue, but now I can do it with ease from behind the tongue.

I just saw a FB post from STX that they are having a US only tent sale on all hockey equipment starting this Thursday. I am not sure if this means that they are just clearing out remaining inventory before exiting hockey or if they are making room for new products.

I hope they aren't dead as I really like the Surgeon 500 and Halo gloves I own and I was impressed by the elbow pads when I tried them on years ago.

I've never replaced the tendon guard on any of the Easton Mako skates I used for ice or inline. I wore out some of the skates, but the tendon guards were still fine. I haven't had any issues with the True TF9 tendon guards, but I've only used them for about a year. On the other hand, I've seen posts of broken tendon guards from other companies (mainly Bauer) and in those cases, I'm sure the skate owners would've appreciated an easily replaceable tendon guard. So, I'm sort of on the fence. If the tendon guard is durable and well made, then no, I don't think it needs to be replaceable. If it's likely to break during the life of the skate, then being able to easily replace it is nice.

True went with a screw with the TF series in 2020, but it looks like with the release of the Catalyst skates they've went back to using a rivet. Some people complained that the screw would loosen over time with the TF skates, but I remember people complaining about the rivets coming loose on the old skates. I think the Mako skates two bolt system was better for the tendon guard as I've never had one of those off, but perhaps they can't do something like that do to intellectual property rights. The catalogue that shows the rivets and the different tendon guard options for the custom skates (standard or flex) was posted in the Catalyst thread. I'll paste the link here to make things easier: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:85882b7e-1b8b-3288-a9dd-53243a6c6bf2#pageNum=1

Yeah, the water bottle holder is a good idea. I don't have this backpack, but I have an older Alkali RPD Max that's very durable and works well. I see the new Alkali Revel looks similar, but is out of stock. The Alkali doesn't have the water bottle holder, but it does have a chest strap that clips up that helps distribute the weight evenly. Unfortunately, it looks like the Mix doesn't have a chest strap. The other non-wheel backpack that seems to be in stock is the Warrior Pro Carry Backpack, but that one doesn't have the chest strap or the water bottle holder and is more expensive than both the Mix and Alkali. If I was in the market for a new backpack, I'd gamble on the Mix if I was in a hurry or wait for the Alkali to come back in stock if there was no rush since I like my current Alkali bag.

8 years ago Grafs fit about a half size smaller than Bauer and a full size smaller vs. CCM. In that time period CCM adjusted their sizing to more closely align with Bauer. You're probably around a 9 in CCM and Bauer now for a performance fit with your toes brushing the cap and a 9.5 if you don't want your toes to touch. In the True TF series you'd likely be an 8.5. Don't worry about shoe size when fitting your skates, just try on as many models and sizes as you can and go with what fits. Some people leave more room in their shoes than others. I wear a 10W dress shoe, 10.5 running shoes and have 8EE Makos, scan as a 7.5 Fit 3 in Bauer and have 7W True TF9 boots converted for inline; so, the True boots are 3.5 sizes down from my running shoes, but they are a good performance fit.

Before baking, they were very hard against the cap, but not bent. After baking, I gained a few mm, but they still felt slightly short and a little narrow in the forefoot/toe cap. I spot heated the forefoot area where it felt a little tight and then stood up and did squats with the skates on to try to gain a little more room in that area - it did help. They're still not as comfortable as my Makos in the toebox, but aren't painful in that area either. After about 10 hours of skating I could just barely feather the toe cap - they were still slightly tight in the forefoot/toecap widthwise, but not painful. They're comfortable to play one or two games in, but probably wouldn't be as comfortable in the forefoot for me as my Makos for a long day of tournament reffing - that's just an issue with my wide forefoot though and not a knock on the skates.

With my TF9 inline conversions, I was HARD on the cap before baking, more than feathering after baking with the luggage wrap and even after a second bake, but after 10 hours of skating I was just brushing. So, based on what you've said, if I were you, I would try the 6.5 TF9s and try to skate as much as possible in the next 3 weeks and then decide. As long as the store honors the 30 day satisfaction guarantee, there's really no risk for you. If the size 7 was already feeling too roomy in the forefoot, that won't get better with use. It's interesting that the Catalyst forefoot and toe area felt narrower. That's not really what I wanted to hear as the TF9 in W is just barely wide enough for my wide forefeet, but it's good to know.

Are you asking about retail sizing in the TF9 or TF7 skates, custom or the new Catalyst skates? I can provide some guidance for the retail TF9 and TF7 skates, but can't help with customs or the Catalyst line. I scan as a 7.5 Fit 3 Bauer (and have demoed 7.5EE Supremes at a Modsquad event in the past), was measured as 8EE on a CCM Brannock and wear 8EE Easton Mako II skates. When I tried on TF9 skates, 8W was obviously too big before baking, 7.5W felt good before baking and 7W had my toes HARD against the cap and felt too tight. I still went with the 7W for a roller conversion based on watching @Hills YouTube video (search for TF9 sizing, hockeyreviews) and reading the sizing comments @PBH and others made in the True TF9/TF7 skates thread. I'm glad I did. After baking, I gained a few mm, but they still felt a bit tight. After about 10 hours of use, they felt just right with my toes just brushing. After several months of use now, they still feel very good - snug, but comfortable with good heel lock. So, if you're a 7.5D Fit 2 in Bauer, I'd say that if you went to a store to try on the TF9 skates, you'd likely think you'd need a 7.5R and the 7R would feel too small. After baking and break in, I believe a 7R is likely the size you need. If you went into a shop and tried on a 7.5R TF7, you might even think that's too small since the tongue on the TF7 is much thicker than the one on the TF9, but again, I think after baking and break in, you'd want a 7R. I'm not sure if they tweaked the sizing on the Catalyst skates to line up better with Bauer and CCM. Someone on another forum mentioned trying on a TF7 and the new Cat7 in the same size and felt that the TF7 felt a half size longer (and that was before baking). That's only one person's impression though. There's a lot more feedback on the TF line, with a lot of people needing to go down at least a half size vs. Bauer and CCM. Customs are another ball game. What I've heard of some people doing is asking for the code from the seller and then emailing True to get sizing information from them.

I wear 8EE Mako II's with my toes just brushing. For a roller conversion I went with 7W TF9 boots. The 8W were clearly too big before baking, the 7.5W felt perfect before baking and the 7W had my toes HARD on the cap before baking and felt too small overall. I still went with the 7W based on the sizing video @Hills put on his hockeyreviews.ca YouTube channel and the sizing comments on threads here. The 7W still felt a bit too tight after baking, but about 10 hours of use compressed the padding enough to make them fit perfectly with my toes just brushing. For my feet, I think the 7.5W would've ended up being a little too big after break in. With that said, every foot is different - I know 8.5D Makos would be too long and narrow for my feet. I tried baking 8D M8 Makos and they ended up being too narrow. I didn't tried 8.5D Makos, but the 8EE Makos have me just barely brushing and I wouldn't want any more length. When I first baked the 7W TF9s and wanted to test the fit the next morning, I tried slipping them on barefoot and did scrape the top of my right foot on the eyelets using the twisting method. Once I put my usual thin skate socks on, I no longer scraped the top of my feet. Using them with thin socks will definitely save the top of your feet from pain. If the TF9s feel too stiff for you, perhaps you should try the new Catalyst CAT9 skates when you can find them in your area. The official launch date is July 15th, but they're starting to pop up in some stores already. They have a more streamlined toe box that looks somewhat similar to the Mako, have a more flexible tendon guard and are designed with a more flexible quarter package. This document that @PBH posted in the Catalyst thread has more details: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:85882b7e-1b8b-3288-a9dd-53243a6c6bf2 I don't know if the sizing on the Catalyst line will be the same as the TF line, someone on another forum said they tried on the CAT7 and the TF7 and felt that before baking, the CAT7 was about a half size shorter than the TF7. That's just one person's feeling though - ideally you'd want to get to a shop and get them on your feet (baked would obviously give you an even better idea).

Yes, they have chrome and yellow. See this post from October for pictures: