flip12

His stick is long compared to a lot of 90’s stars, and they managed to shoot with hands closer and further apart (see Coffey, Sakic, Bure, Kovalev, and Fedorov amongst many others). There are too many variables to just look at stick length relative to height and say how one’s hands are forced to be when shooting. Matthews has a rather upright stance, for example, which probably contributes to his hand offset.

Everything is old Jofa though, just redressed a bit to make different elbows seem distinct. They’re actually all just copies of those established archetypes (Jofa 2-piece and 3-piece). They may have miniscule differences but there’s nothing new under the Sun yet.

I agree I’d go with one of the existing integrated solutions available: cage, bubble, or combo. It’s hard to agree this is “ultimate protection,” what with those gaps for a stick or something to wedge into or latch onto, and there’s no chin cup. It also performs poorly on the mirror test, especially from the side: I’d wager that’s one of the more important deciding factors when it comes to the market’s acceptance of new product.

Give me balance over minimum weight any day.

Did you try the lipstick spot check Van Horne shows in a video? Put lipstick on the sore spot of your naked ankle/foot, put your skate on and then press your foot up against the skate. Because it sounds like it’s an area where your ankle is moving back and forth in the skate, try to replicate that motion with and without the tongue in place. I’m wondering if it could be the edge of the tongue, as the TF9 tongue lacks the usual plush felt around the edges like a traditional tongue would have.

With Clarino-lined skates, would one’s socks weigh more at the end of the game?

But for future proofing CCM is better than the lineup name in big text. As a counterpoint which I always read as “All Out. Oh CCM.”

The part in bold sounds like a generalization to me, but to each his own. I suspect some others may have read that that way as well, which could be why there’s been some speculation on why you’re afraid you might boot or bottom out in 100Ks. There’s nothing wrong with knowing what you like in a boot, but asking if a boot generally behaves such and such a way under certain circumstances sounds like blaming the arrow rather than looking at the archer. Attributing performance to equipment is probably the number one fallacy of hockey equipment marketing, so it’s important to stamp that thinking out as much as possible.

True, it could be you have invented a particular method for bottoming out. I'm not quite sure what you mean, can you elaborate on your technique?

Bottoming out is rather a balance issue than a boot issue. If you’re over the right part of the blade it’s not possible to bottom out, given your edges and the ice you’re covering are in working condition.

What do you mean?

Isn’t that just the gravity of the marketing black hole? On the one side it’s all negative spin, as a marketing attack on the competition. On the other it’s all positive, as marketing propaganda masquerading as “promotion.” What about this flexible Mako sole? I’m still interested in finding sources for it. So far it sounds like I missed some of the marketing behind the skate or that that element was absent in Easton’s representation of the design. I know nothing about bobsledding, so that line of thought provides just as much insight.

Even under the foot? I know it was softer up high, but I thought it was meant to be stiff and resist flex between the towers of the holder. That’s supposed to be the benefit of the monocoque shell: more stiffness under the foot to resist torsion and provide sharper response. I won’t say agility because I see that as a function of an individual player in an individual skate on an individual blade geometry; way too many factors to attribute a change in one to make an effect overall.

I missed this being a feature of the Mako. I thought its shell was meant to be stiffer, resisting torsional rigidity to make it more responsive. Was it just the midsole that flexed like this or the shell as well?

I thought they were new ones designed to best fit their footscan matrix.

Today’s 3-piece elbow archetype is also Jofa. Alpha DX looks closer to a Jofa copy to me than a return to the Projekt pattern.

Interesting. How do you mean?

Was going to say the same as @Vet88. The two Projekt releases seem to be Warrior’s only iconic elbow, but they abandoned it in favor of the standard Jofa copies. Sher-Wood’s Code V looks like a pretty faithful rendition of Projekts though:

I don’t think any top end skate today qualifies as heavy. We’re in the light and lighter era. Whenever I switch between Grafs and MLX in the same session, it’s night and day in weight perception. Cases in point: 1. Grafs were light before the Vaporization of hockey skates. 2. MLX are unnecessarily weighty due to the MacGyver TM holder attachment system.

Ah. Should the asym. toe boxes really count toward HypeLight’s Mako-ness? It’s Bauer’s 3rd release since that change. I guess if you’re looking for Mako presence in Bauer skates overall. Did the Mako have an intentionally flexible outsole? I thought it was the opposite—an increased torsional rigidity —the Mako featured there. I know the original Home Depot SE Mako had some tendency toward flex (and shearing) in its outsole, but not as an intentional aspect of its performance properties.

What are the Mako similarities you see? Cosmetically, there is some resemblance in the grey to black fade.

Was the Mako designed with flex in its outsole? I don't get the idea. HT's video is great at regurgitating the marketing jargon, and that includes mentioning it has 5% flex. 5% of what? In which axis? How does this affect the holder? What about heel striders like the OG Vapor Monster, Pavel Bure? Though, to be fair, Bure's early Vapors had TPU outsoles, but that's mostly what he had used up until that time. I found out by using boots without any lateral stiffness in the ankle that I was bottom out on turns where I was leaning back on my heels. Shifting my weight toward my toes made it impossible to bottom out, and now I can't recall the last time I've done it in a stiffer skate. Agility to me, then, seems to be about the front of the blade as well. Props to Bauer for trying something different, but I'm stumped about how it's supposed to work.

Indeed! There were several Penguins at the end of the oughties that wore them: Talbot and Fedotenko as well. About a handful, but that's a lot considering it was still a prototype skate with very little presence behind it. The difference between Gonchar's and Lemieux's skates and the others', though, is that the former are the only two I've seen with the Scott Van Horne build that's reminiscent of a 90's CCM Tacks boot, with the silver heel wedge. Both Gonchar and Lemieux were Tacks wearers, so it makes sense they would use that construction, but it died out after them as far as I can see. Fedotenko, Malkin, and Talbot (as well as Byfuglien and the other early MLX guys) all had skates that resemble the eventual MLX "genie boots" stock look, only with fewer bumper pieces glued on. I wonder when Lemieux became an investor and how that influenced his players using the skates (or perhaps the other way around or a little of both). It would be an interesting history to hear, especially seeing how big of an impact the Scott Van Horne skate has had on the hockey skate market overall.

I’ve heard it can feel less wrapped or less connected.

That’s the Yeezy Boost 350 influence.