flip12

And after his fastest skater lap in the Oilers' comp, we can see where his speed comes from. He skates like Mike Gartner straightaway, but has his own crossover style. Interesting to note, for maximum straightaway speed, it's just the simple forward stride and no "linear-crossovers." He does use the crossovers differently than others and credits them especially in the interview afterward, but he's still fast in straightaways and even to the first corner where he's only had one initial crossover.

Stealing his skates would work too.

Never thought I'd see this. Looks like he's ditched his tweaked Kovalev mirror patterns for a P92 or something similar. From what I could see on Getty Images, he seems to have made the change early on this season.

@colins I definitely agree, lots of great discussion in this thread. I think it's a matter of combining both skating and stickhandling that being comfortable with taking anything as the next stride isn't taught. It's tough enough to learn to skate very well and it's also tough enough to learn to handle the puck very well, then doing the two in tandem on top of it all. I agree with @boo10 regarding Grabner. It looks like his speed is just a matter incredible power and perfect technique. It's a shame he's slumped again otherwise he may have gotten a place in the All-Star Game and we could have seen him race again. I wonder how he would do in the preliminary format used to pick Larkin for the lap timing. It would also be interesting to see if he could also have broken Gartner's record on the shorter track with the nets at the top of the crease and Larkin's head start from the blue line. What was it with those ICM's @JR Boucicaut? Fedorov seemed to stay on them as long as he could as well, at least in his one90's in Columbus. In Washington he was on Custom+ again. My gripe with the linear crossover message is it's confusing the way it's presented makes it sound like it's the key to skating the best rather than creating space on the attack and I think it leads to its overuse. I was at a Wild game in October and I saw Charlie Coyle use one in trying to get to a loose puck in the defensive zone. I can't remember his exact stride sequence, but he took a starting stride from a stop or a standstill, another forward stride, then a linear crossover, then another forward stride. I just thought, "that's odd," as it looked like he simply wasn't comfortable skating forward. I think Coyle works with Belfry, who's associated with teaching the linear crossover, so it could be there are others who misunderstand when to use linear crossovers based on how it's presented.

I was wondering if you were thinking of this before, but it sounds like you're on the "Linear Crossover" topic. I'm actually quite skeptical that this works the way that the guy who's always pushing it describes. It is a powerful weapon for attackers, but it's not all about top end speed. If it were you'd see guys taking linear crossovers when they get their first step out in the open on a breakaway. Also, the guy with the best speed today might still be Grabner and he hardly ever takes crossovers. He just outskates everyone on the ice and with a lower stride rate to boot. Where I think this technique actually has its effect is in forcing the defense to constantly update its angles of coverage, kind of like a weaving game of "whack-a-mole" plugging holes so the shiftier skaters can't break through. Changing direction with the puck places much more demands on the coverage of the attack and this is why the biggest points producers use "linear crossovers," because they're unraveling the defense as they transition. Even Ron Francis or Pierre Turgeon were masters of this and they weren't the fastest skaters by any means, just quick and shifty. This makes sense because hockey is more a game of 2-D races, going for patches of open ice, than it is a game of linear 1-D races of just to get to a point first. The 1-D race does come up but not nearly as often as the 2-D race, and the guys who are best with the puck continually reset the table by shifting the patches that they're using to apply pressure on the defense with. This is where the linear crossover comes in: keep going down the ice with speed, but open up a little space so this defenseman comes over, then back and now by him because he's not keeping up, or pull him over then pass to the recently covered ice that's now open for the sniping winger to come in and profit from the opening. I think that the explanation needs a little more detail to make the most sense. To say that linear crossovers are the best way for speed just doesn't jive with what I see the best skaters do when there's no one in their way.

I prefer shallower hollows and have ended up on edges deeper than 1/2 from eBay purchases and it feels awful, like the ice is ripping my knees out of my legs on every turn and stop. I also prefer a long radius, so I think the shallow hollow goes hand in hand with that. The shallowest I've seen was 1.5", on a pair of Gaborik-used skates that were up for sale on eBay. He was also on a long radius: 10-20.

I read on here Fedorov skated on 11' radius at 1" hollow. I'm not sure about the source though.

I would guess the other side of 1/2". Like a lot of the best skaters in NHL history, McD's a major bender, which gives more bite from less hollow. Still just a guess though. Take away his lateral speed, he's still incredibly fast.

How much lower on the ankle are they than VH? Are they also lower than the Grafs you've had?

Cool. Good to hear. I have a few Kovalev blades, from Inno, Warrior and Base, and they all have that longer tenon. They range from 190-202g's. It's not so bad, since the extra length means I don't have to use an end plug in a classic standard shaft. Shafts are so long these days, that doesn't really matter so much anymore.

How much does it weigh? I've got a BASE standard Kovalev that's 199g. Curious how much lighter the tapered version is.

I find my Kovalev blades match the rocker of a Darby/E13 almost exactly. The main difference is the heel on the Kovalev is lower and more rounded, but just a couple of cm in it starts to line up very closely. The Darby also stops up short of the Kovalev length a few cm. 5.5 seems like the perfect description to fit most of the blade.

I did too, but I pictured it as lateral. I confess, I don't know what it is exactly you goalies do, but I couldn't model it in my head as medial. That would be the opposite motion and pushing with the outside edge, aka, cross-over territory. Agreed, it's the same either way: bake the range of motion into the skate and it shouldn't be a problem anymore, regardless of which side it's happening on.

If I'm following right, it sounds like it's the inside top of the boot digging into the outside (lateral) of your ankle (rather than the medial, which would be the inside of your ankle, closest to the other leg). I had that issue in my MLX (not exactly the same boot, but a sibling to the VH) where it would dig into the outside of my leg especially on starting or accelerating forward strides. Just a page back, I detailed my solution based on adapting SVH's demonstration on molding a short track boot to accommodate the full short track stride. This allows me to get the ankle aversion necessary for a good push without the skate cutting of the flexion of the muscles that enable that position.

That'd be great. We need more low lie options!

@FivehoIe I found I had to mold my MLX boots with my ankle flexed in forward stride position so that it wouldn't cut into my peroneous muscles for the ankle eversion needed for forward acceleration strides. Not everyone skates with their ankles flexed outward as well as forward, especially nowadays, yet it looks and sounds like others struggle with that motion in their VH, such as Puljujarvi in this backchecking sequence. Now, I don't know if Puljujarvi's at the end of a shift and dead tired there, but he didn't look that awkward when he was skipping the top eyelet in Vapors. Seeing him struggle there made me immediately recall my first experiences in MLX boots. I got the idea to mold with my peroneous group flexed from this video where SVH demonstrates molding the full range of motion into a pair of short track boots. I'm not sure this will address your problem, but it sounded like it might be related, so it's worth a shot. The beauty with VH is they can be remolded again and again so problem areas can be addressed. Hope this helps.

Is it like those self-checkout lines at Target?

Also, rereading my original post that you quoted @hawkeyfan, I should have been clearer on saying I was on the hunt for a hybrid of the PM9 and the E28 and that's exactly what the P46 is. (That's what I meant by "PM9/E28.")

Good question. I'll explain how I've been plotting it in the blade space...To be clear, I mean the current P46, the ones labeled Landeskog or Bergeron depending on the model year of the sticks I've been seeing. Shape: If you compare the blade faces of the PM9 and P46, they're the two closest you'll find on the retail market. P46 is just a touch longer and has a toe-shooter's launching slice removed in a gesture toward the E28 but not as drastic. Lie: The P46 lie is just a hair higher than the PM9 on the toe-half of the blade, but the heel rocker and lie matches up almost exactly. Compared to a P88, there isn't the second lie zone on the P88 like there is on the PM9 or P46. PM9 is deceptively more rockered than it gets credit for. You can feel it when shooting with it versus the rockered heel then flat toe blades like the P88 or W10. The lie and shape for me are crucial. If a blade's not low enough, I'll have to chop my sticks so short, they're extreme to shoot with, so I look very carefully at the lie profile of a blade. The shape on the other hand does a lot for how the puck feels on the stick for me. I think it has to do with counterbalancing the blade weight and it's easier for me to do with a consistent height blade. The P46 matches the PM9 in those two respects much more than it does any other blade. Curve: P46 has the heel curve of the PM9, but it curves again around the mid-toe. I've curved some PM9's at home and the ones that don't break get smoothed out, with a more continuous or gradual curve, just like the P46. The blade face ends up roughly as open as well--that is, a bit, but not so much as an E28. That would really depend on how much you want to emphasize the blade opening up, though, and I personally just like it a little more neutral. Curve wise, I see why you'd put it next to the P88. There are a lot of similarities there. To me that sounds like what you're describing: a pro-made variant of a longer PM9. I've been wondering if it isn't originally Bergeron's pattern, actually. His pro pattern looks like a near neighbor to the P46, but I haven't been able to find many examples of game used or return sticks from him online. I know Bjugstad's supposed to be the P46's "designer," but hasn't he gotten credit for the E28 too, which also has an alternate origin story with either Kamil Kreps or Ovechkin by way of Kamil Kreps? I'm suspecting potentially another similar story. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that its potential for being a pro curve that has trickled into the retail market is the same as it being more "pro" than retail. There are tons of pros who use tamer curves than retail curves. There are also many that use exact retail curves. There just aren't so many non-pros tinkering with their composite blades as there were non-pros tinkering with wood blades back in the day.

I'll get on it :)

Any potential for a P46? I've been hunting for a PM9/E28 without realizing that's precisely the P46. CCM's not going to keep it around much longer, I know it.

What were the hot spots or problem areas for you in Makos @ChrisB? A lot of people find them extremely comfy, except for maybe the arch. Not that that was its only problem area, but pain-wise, it seemed that was the most common.

A rapper once said: "Then you get your Master's. Then you get your Master's' Master's. Then you get your Doctorate..." I.e., the learning's never done.

That's what I thought. In that case, definitely, something around what would be labeled a 4.

Can you do a side by side shot with that and your lie-5 BM09? If it's close to that, then I'd be happy with the existing BC28. But if it's like the 28's I've seen from other manufacturers, they're not a 5 on the same scale as the E4/PM9 even though they're often labeled as 5's. If it's labeled as a 4 and has a lie similar to the E4, then I'd happily go for that. I don't care what the number is as much as I do the actual geometry.