Leaderboard

You can collect data on whatever you are measuring. Sensors can collect force delivered to a spot, the direction of the force can be measured. That data would be valid. The interpretation of how that data would translate into something as complex as concussion prevention is something different. That is why when you read the news the headline is usually some big leap of logic suggesting that science has found the answer or something ridiculous and when you read the story the scientist merely says, "We have data that could suggest blah blah blah but more studies are needed." People collect valid data all the time and misinterpret the results.

It depends on how you use it. If you sharpen and use them until they are dull, the Step would likely require some extra passes. If your maintaining an edge, then no.

I didn't notice any difference in that regard 🙂

I’m not sure what you mean by football headform. A quick search found this: https://nocsae.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NOCSAE_Football-Helmet-Standards-Overview-_May-2018.pdf However, if I understand correctly, the above is saying that rotational forces are the ones that cause the most damage, and a helmet does nothing to reduce those. Was it an earlier link that said that ~124 out of 125 NHL brains studied had significant damage (CTE) from repeated traumas?

Since we are debating testing methods then it isn’t a question of meaningless semantics, not that difficult a concept.

No, I do not believe they are actually. And please do not take it as a "Hey I know more than you message in the last post". It's just we have been trying to figure out how to best test for rotational impact for the last 5 years and I believe. And we have still not come up with a conclusive test to get the measurements! When your playing with someone's brain you want to get it right and not second guess or use football head forms on hockey helmets. Hence why nobody at CSA or HECC fins this study has any validity!

Here is the issue. Nobody's brain or skulls are the same. There brain trauma is all different. So ok matter the helmet foam construction or anything. None of it .matters in the end because if the person wearing the helmet has had 5 conks vs subject B that has had zero the brain damage coukd actually be equal because subject B didnt drink near enough water and was actually more severely injured. There is absolutely no way a helmet can do anything to alter the outcomes of brain damage in a hockey incident. I were talking fractured skulls... ok then we can discuss best product for dollars. Concussions. Nothing....

When I am bored at work, all i do is scour Ebay, Sideline and Kijiji looking for Old Equipment that i used when I use to think i was a good player lol, thinking maybe it will take me back to those old days. I pretty much purchase any old Drury RH Easton stick i can find in a reasonable price range.

I believe that chart is FBV to ROH not Fire. I normally skate on a 3/4 ROH. When I switched to the Fire ring I went 3/4. They did not feel the same or even close. I had to drop down to the 5/8 Fire to get the same grip I got with the 3/4 ROH. So rule of thumb when switching to a Fire ring, drop down (aka go sharper) to maintain comparable grip to your ROH. Probably been mentioned. The Sparx Fire is nothing like a Blackstone FBV. It's closer to Blademasters version of the Flat Bottom.

@Leif to answer your question yes I do have scientific data to support this. I am on the CSA board that conducts the saftey tests for helmets. I got in involved because I am also on the board of Stopconcussions a not for profit with Ketih and Wayne Primeau. Also was the first brain donor for the Canadian Brain bank similar to the one in Boston. Although not a medical Dr I have had 13 concussions documented and almost died from my last major one playing Football in 1985 for the Slough Silverbacks of the Budweiser league in the UK. I feel these experiences and board positions give me an adequate amount of understanding of how helmets work as well as what can and cannot prevent a concussion. Example: 4 years ago one of my players wearing a top helmet was hit with a shoulder and not even the hard cap in the side of the head as she turned to go up the ice. She was knocked out. She didnt skate again till October and didnt return to play till November and this was in April. Another time Jennifer Botteril was playing shinny as I was the equipment manager and Raffi Torres was out there with some buddies. Jen turned up ice and ran into him all by accident bit she was out for 2 months. Helmets do not prevent concussions. Period.

No. Because your cynicism is spot on.

Although I'd still consider myself a gear guy, my interest has definitely wained. This might be Grandpa Simpson yelling at cloud territory, but for the most part, hockey and hockey equipment have become so 'clinical' for lack of a better term. Again, just my opinion, but I don't see a lot of brand distinctiveness between the two dominant players Bauer and CCM. I've used most of the top end of both (save skates), and overall they seem to perform on equal levels and have really similar product offerings. Warrior has a bit more personality to their brand and I like they've gotten away from the 'edgy' narrative, but still, walking into a giant hockey shop is just way less interesting to me than walking into a smaller shop even ten or fifteen years ago. To be completely honest, although I love the game of hockey as it's given so much to me (played pro in Eur, I still teach at a high-performance hockey school twice a week, so many lifelong friends etc), the game overall seems to me to have lost some its nuance and quirkiness and whether through my own biases or not, I feel like I see that in the gear. Kid's skillsets are so practised and refined, everyone is so good, for me it feels like it's diminished the different roles and personalities that made up a hockey team. Similar to this, I loved seeing someone express their game through their gear, and the dominance of Bauer and CCM gear seems less conducive to that, although there are still players who pull it off (our boy DP57 for example, Ovi, Pasternak, O Reilley). To become good enough to play aaa or junior, you basically require a certain degree of wealth or access and a lot of parents consider their kid playing hockey as an investment for a future pro or full ride payoff. It's really becoming almost explicitly a rich person's sport and it feels more 'corporate' and straight-faced to me than it ever has (maybe I'm naive?). This bums me out, and the increasing exclusivity of formulaic looking and performing gear (it's like 360$ for a custom Bauer stick -- many of the kids I teach have already had their parents put an order in) reminds of this truth I don't particularly like. This is probably a long-winded way of saying that the sport and the equipment are getting better, more expensive, more formulaic (because companies know what works), and overall simply more serious and money focused and that makes this ageing dude uncomfortable. "Back in my day..." Please disagree with me. I really want to be less cynical.