flip12

Bauer P14: curve is all over. I haven't seen one in person in a while, but the most similar curve I can think of is the classic Sher-Wood Coffey, but with a very different blade shape. Coffey's all chunky and beaky while Bauer P14 is rather svelte. CCM P14: curve is at the heel. Absolutely nothing happening at the toe; calm seas. P28s vary in how hooked their toe curve is from so subtle they're almost nonexistent (CCM and Warrior), to a noticeable bump (True--but with more heel curve than toe), terminating in hooked and hooked again (Bauer, Pro). Easton's was somewhere between True's and Bauer's degree of toe kink, if you can find one. I'll second @Buzz_LightBeer's point on the P46. It's quite unique in today's lineup of P92 and P28.

CCM's P14 is the same as Bauer PM9 which is the base curve for P46. It's just a PM9 shape with shaved toe and P92 curve with a tiny bit of toe added. Bauer's P14 has some similarities, but it's much more aggressive in both its toe rocker and curve depth. Not sure about P77. Can't think of any other than the Sher-Wood Coffey, but isn't that obsolete today? Pro Stock Hockey Sticks offers P46. If you really love that curve, that's probably your best bet.

The ribs are APX/X7.0 style (X90 continued that configuration); X:60's ribs were more Porsche 911 compared to the X7.0 Lamborghini slashes. As for fit, I wonder if you could order them in Fits 1-3 or if it's all via the Length Forefoot/Heel paradigm. I've seen plenty of pro customs with the L F/H markings and none with F1-3. That doesn't mean they don't exist though. Depending on what did or didn't work for your fit in specific generations of Vapors I'd think a proper custom order would take care of it, if Mosocas are still offered. Vapor up until recently was always low volume, but the little changes to forefoot sidewall shape, toe cap version, or tongue thickness could nudge a player one way or the other. Mosocas weren't subject to this though, since they were never retail. There was possibly a more standard package offered to teams at lower purchasing levels, but specs could be made to tune the fit. Prostockhockey had a ton of Duncan Keith Mosocas in at one point a few years ago. The big difference that stood out between pairs was the toe caps. All of them were represented: the original shaggy Vapor toe caps from 8 - XXX, the naked toe caps from XXXX - 1X (both of them), and the Twiggy toe caps from the 2X Pro. Tongues and liners could be further specified if desired, and I think maybe even internal padding types and thicknesses could as well if I'm not mistaken. Naturally, with so many variables, it's a complicated spec space to navigate.

It's very much in the spirit of MSH's DBs. The closest thing I've seen is Icehockey360.ru's measurements comparing boot and holder dimensions for the sizes he was trying: https://icehockey360.ru/baza-znanij/geometricheskie-parametry-stakanov/ It's on the older side now, and there were some surprises in there which makes me wonder about his methods. The general trend that emerges already in his measurements is that the industry was trending toward standardization. I think that process is now complete. True's new holder is supposed to be more in line with Bauer and CCM and I vaguely recall Warrior's skate representative saying on HockeyTutorial that their holder has the same pitch as the others. If those observations aren't mistaken, most of the value in the holder db would be to archive historical idiosyncrasies which have gone the way of the cookie cutter in recent years.

Our local shop is just so so but they do have a try-3 profile option for those with Bauer or CCM holders. I did it and ended up with some very strong opinions about the different options. Something like that might be good, if it's available in your area. Overall, as usual, profile is 100% personal preference. While 9'/10' might be quite popular and effective for a lot of players, for me, I personally hated it. I felt twice as good on the same Catalyst 7s after switching their profile from the stock 9/10 to Ellipse II. I suspect an individual's profile search is akin to finding 3D local maxima. 9/10 might just be optimal for your son. But it might also be a completely different paradigm suits him better.

What's with the Piet Mondrian tape jobs?

P92 is actually a heel curve even though it's often identified as a toe curve. The pitching wedge effect comes from its openness, not its curve profile. I haven't seen Praux's Malkin in person, but Malkin has based a lot of his curves off the PM9 shape, just like Kovalchuk has. Praux's Thrashers-era Kovalchuk curve is definitely PM9 based. It has the same profile from heel right up to the shaved toe. It's got the same very closed face up until the toe as well. Depending on which Malkin the P71 is based on, it could be basically the same as the ThrasherChuk, but with the toe shape closer to the original PM9.

Following what @Hills suggests, Graf still has the 735 lineage alive for now in the 755: https://grafhockey.com/skates/ice/player/g755-pro/ It might not be quite as stiff as your G35s, but the cut and fit should be the same. They're not cheap though, $730 at Ice Warehouse right now: https://www.icewarehouse.com/Graf_Classic_G755_Pro/descpage-GCLG755.html

I find your reasoning not so simple. Considering whether "young players should train on what the pros use" and using your Bedard example, I come to the opposite conclusion. If a young player finds something that elevates their play (as you say you think Bedard's boot and steel choices did for his skating) they're optimizing their performance, which is directly connected to their visibility and chances of making it to and beyond the next level. If instead they opt to stay inside the box of what's in the pro arsenal, they could be leaving performance on the table, diminishing both their chances of making it to higher levels, as well as their degree of excellence at those levels. Once they get to a level where they're professionally outfitted (team buys, EQM does the work, sponsorships could be available, etc.) then the element of "being a team player" with your equipment preferences could come in. Until that, I'd say it makes the most sense to do whatever you can that's legal to elevate your play. Not to mention that "what the pros use" isn't static, it evolves. Those pros who do use what pros used when they were kids are few and seen as curiosities--Sidney Crosby being the best example. Consider the clap skate as a counterexample. The technology was there collecting dust for around a decade before some elite skaters finally gave it a fair shake. Then everyone switched and all the world records fell, not necessarily in that order. Just because the pros don't use it doesn't mean it's not any good. There's a significant familiarity bias when the margins are razor thin.

I do tend to use my Dolo with an end plug, but that also helps focus the feel for me with newer sticks like Hyperlite and Praux VF. Torquegate never bothered me with my Dolomite. Balance is a stick by stick issue and I don't think stick balance has improved linearly over the years. A lot of super light sticks have really strange balance. The only stick I've used that felt perfectly balanced for me without any counterweight like a 25-30g Tacki-Mac and or a 20-30g end plug was my RibCor 2. I think that was around 430g. Felt amazing. My least tweaked stick with good balance right now is a Malkin pro stock SE16 that's right around 450g and has a 30g Kovalchuk Tacki-Mac on it. Without the Tacki-Mac, it feels dead to me. With it, it sings. I don't sense much more power from newer sticks. This could be tested though. Get one of those testing machines to shoot pucks with NOS Synergy, TPS XN10, G3, etc., and compare it to the latest and most expensive models and see how much more powerful the shots are with the same swing.

I have an original Dolomite I bust out sometimes. I think it shoots just as well as anything I've tried since. Sure it's heavier, but the balance is nice so I don't notice the weight. I think the newer sticks are mostly marketing hype. There has to be a narrative that promotes their superiority otherwise there's no reason to try anything new, and certainly not anything more expensive than its previous iteration. The original Synergy is a lot closer to today's sticks in performance than it is to the sticks that were around at the time of its release.

Good find! My vote for best skate of all-time.

Easton had the exposed shell thing going for a few years before the MLX acquisition. Mako is 100% MLX crossed with a full-fledged production capacity and budget. I think some of Cruikshank's ideas were emphasized as well. True still hasn't really done a flex tendon that comes close to the flex of the MLX tendon, and the Mako tendon guard was even softer.

I can't say definitively he wasn't involved at any point--maybe Cruikshank consulted him here and there? But from all I've read and heard about MLX going to Easton, Cruikshank was the one that was touted as their personnel acquisition. Scott seemed to distance himself from the Mako when presenting his initial launch of VH Footwear hockey skates on here. It could be anything, but the tone of his remarks makes me think he didn't think Mako was the way to go with what they had started. Maybe that's how he got to sell his portion of MLX and not get blocked for 5-10 years with a non-compete clause, if he had anticipated or even just contemplated launching into hockey under VH, it would have made sense to make sure that that was legally possible.

Scott wasn't involved with the Mako at all from anything I've heard. Somehow he didn't even have a noncompete after the sale of MLX or VH Footwear wouldn't have been able to release hockey skates. Dave Cruikshank was involved. Easton already had plenty of engineering and product development in house.