Leaderboard

yea, when purchasing, those who know, know to ask for more pictures of the shaft and the end label when purchasing if those labels are not shown in the listing. Those who don't know what to ask for or look for, can often times get duped.

Buy once cry once is my motto. The CCM jock has lasted me far longer than any other jock I’ve used so while I agree it’s expensive, it’s also lasted

Why not buy a CCM pro jock combo instead? The cup itself covers a lot more and is much sturdier than regular cups in jock shorts.. Most protective jock/cup on the market.. I would never use any other jock.

Such as? They run their test at 3 impact speeds on 4 helmet locations. To come up with a single rating, they have embedded an assumed number of impacts for each of the 12 combinations. There is little research data published on what to use and they have chosen 1 reference to use. "The average hockey player experiences 227 head impacts per season." Until very recently they only published this single rating and even when reading their paper, you were not able to determine if a helmet has bad for a certain type of impact. Recently, they updated their results presentation to include ratings for each of the 3 impact speeds. Be careful reading the numbers because all the ratings are relative and the scale adjusts. The one the surprised me the most is the SuperTacksX. Having looked at the helmet, I would have expected it to fail at the high velocity impacts and be great at the low velocity. But the results show the opposite. @marka https://helmet.beam.vt.edu/hockey-helmet-ratings.html#57 The 2nd aspect is the risk analysis, the correlation between test results and likelihood of concussion. This is harder for me to dispute, as I am not an expert, but combining their testing with other concussion research models for this would be good. Overall, I greatly appreciate the work they have done, as no one else has published anything close to this level of scientific analysis on the helmets available.