flex and duarbility?

[Chadd 916]

like i said im a big guy, and i think that the stiff flex is fine. i dont take slap shots really - mostly snaps and wrists. i understand the concept of drag, and more flex helping those shots and i agree - but to a point. i found once i got used to a stiffer flex, my release was actually quicker. it reminds me of when i grew up using woodies. the brand new woodie always shot great, and broke in nice for a few days. in time, the flex would increase and i found that it became easier to be accurate and get a real comfortable snap with it -  i loved it. the first thing noticed when i got a new stick was how much more ooomph my shot had. you can tell me till the cows come home that my two 110's are brittle and likely to shatter, but like i said they've been around for over 5 years each - and ive buried a dozen 100 flex's in that time. i can go back and forth on which flex helps my shot more, but i find i shoot well with both once im used to it - and there is nop doubt to me that the 110's have lasted longer.

which reinforces the tire theory. like i said... the facts have been stated. they are not debatable since they are FACTS. the rest are all personal preferance and opinion. the fact that i had to repeat the statement multiple times is proof. i wanted to thank the guys that broke it down from an engineering standpoint- that took alot of time to write. i can see why the people that really know don't contribute- it takes too long to write and for someone that does not know or agree to drop 5 or less sentences disputing everything. it's like the guys who jump in on arguments only to make more arguments..." yeah... but what IF.... yea but what IF... yeah but IF " while offering no real information or relevant statment other than well i have had this shaft for 5 or 10 years and it still rocks. IF grandma had balls she'd be GRANDPA!!!! to oeahc his own and to those who GET IT thank you!

sorry if i crossed your line somewhere. to me the proof is what im using tonight -and from my 28 years of experience being a player/coach/ref/rink manager/rinkrat and general fan of the game. ive seen it play out for years. i know guys who are my size and have bombs of shots - one guy in particular who is a narch d1/pro player who has to use 110 ultra lites because everything else in 100 breaks within a week. ive seen him do it - thats how hard he shoots. its just the way they worked out - he prefered 100's, but couldnt get any to last. he has to use 110's, and they work for him. you cant tell me his 100's were more durable. his experiences reflect my own, thats the only way i can look at it.

Just because he has a hard shot doesn't mean he has good technique. Anecdotal evidence shouldn't replace actual facts in any discussion.

[opus22 0]

im 6'4", 215. ive been playing for over 25 years. i can tell you from only my pov, of course, but to me there is no question that 110 lasts longer than anything ive used. i have an old zcore 110 and an old original ultra lite in 110 - i have nothing else older than 6 months. its not like they sat in the closet either, i used the zcore for a year and a half before lending it to a buddy who is my size and a stick swinging dman. he gave it back two weeks ago after 4 years. he doesnt have time to play anymore and felt guilty. he said it was the strongest most durable stick he ever had. it looks the same as the day  i gave it to him....four years ago. i bought 2 syn 2 shafts on ebay for a good price and broke them both in a month in a half. 100 flex. i ran out of shafts and went back to my old 110 ultra lite, which ive used on and off for 5 years - stuck a heatley st blade in it, and ive been using it 2-3 times a week for over a month and a half. the shaft is as strong as ever, and the blade barely has a mark...when a focus flex or syn2 blade would be flaking on the top of the blade.

ive been told from hockey reps they get flex ratings based off how much weight the shaft can take before it snaps. if there is any truth to that then by definition the 110 is more durable. i always prefered 100 for a little snap, but ive really gotten used to the 110 and the durability makes it an obvious choice for me.

I think the differences in your shafts was the models, not the flex. The Ultra Lites had a kevlar weave on the outside, and the Zcore was graphite wrapped around an aluminum core (I think), and both are much tougher than the Synthesis 2s.

i definitely agree to a point. i think the zcore were tanks, and to a certain extent you can say the ultra lites maybe were. its just ive gone through at least 7-8 100 flex ultra lites, and i cant berak the 110 which is older than all the rest.

all im trying to say is that despite all the analytical talk, that the original poster wanted opinions on what people thought the differences were. im saying for myself and a couple of other guys i know who are big and we've all played a decent level of hockey that the 110's while maybe taking some time to get used to and not naturally lending themselves to wrist/snapshots are seem to last a lot longer - and as a big guy i found my wrist/snaps were in most ways improved.

im not trying to dispel all the great posts the insiders gave, just giving an alternate view - something i thought these message boards were for.

[opus22 0]

like i said im a big guy, and i think that the stiff flex is fine. i dont take slap shots really - mostly snaps and wrists. i understand the concept of drag, and more flex helping those shots and i agree - but to a point. i found once i got used to a stiffer flex, my release was actually quicker. it reminds me of when i grew up using woodies. the brand new woodie always shot great, and broke in nice for a few days. in time, the flex would increase and i found that it became easier to be accurate and get a real comfortable snap with it -  i loved it. the first thing noticed when i got a new stick was how much more ooomph my shot had. you can tell me till the cows come home that my two 110's are brittle and likely to shatter, but like i said they've been around for over 5 years each - and ive buried a dozen 100 flex's in that time. i can go back and forth on which flex helps my shot more, but i find i shoot well with both once im used to it - and there is nop doubt to me that the 110's have lasted longer.

which reinforces the tire theory. like i said... the facts have been stated. they are not debatable since they are FACTS. the rest are all personal preferance and opinion. the fact that i had to repeat the statement multiple times is proof. i wanted to thank the guys that broke it down from an engineering standpoint- that took alot of time to write. i can see why the people that really know don't contribute- it takes too long to write and for someone that does not know or agree to drop 5 or less sentences disputing everything. it's like the guys who jump in on arguments only to make more arguments..." yeah... but what IF.... yea but what IF... yeah but IF " while offering no real information or relevant statment other than well i have had this shaft for 5 or 10 years and it still rocks. IF grandma had balls she'd be GRANDPA!!!! to oeahc his own and to those who GET IT thank you!

sorry if i crossed your line somewhere. to me the proof is what im using tonight -and from my 28 years of experience being a player/coach/ref/rink manager/rinkrat and general fan of the game. ive seen it play out for years. i know guys who are my size and have bombs of shots - one guy in particular who is a narch d1/pro player who has to use 110 ultra lites because everything else in 100 breaks within a week. ive seen him do it - thats how hard he shoots. its just the way they worked out - he prefered 100's, but couldnt get any to last. he has to use 110's, and they work for him. you cant tell me his 100's were more durable. his experiences reflect my own, thats the only way i can look at it.

Just because he has a hard shot doesn't mean he has good technique. Anecdotal evidence shouldn't replace actual facts in any discussion.

well, its all opinion of course - but i really doubt anyone would question his technique. he's a very high end player. im not trying to replace facts with anecdote - alternate opinions should be allowed in any conversation.

[Saintkeat 0]

very very true.. i totally believe in what chadd said.. usually the shaft breaks on a shot as a result on a bad shot... when theres good technique it shouldn't break unless there was structural damage dealt to the stick earlier, for example a slash can damage a stick's structural integrity and therefore make it much weaker. which is why you would find nhl players having a stick broken while making a pass..

[Chadd 916]

well, its all opinion of course - but i really doubt anyone would question his technique. he's a very high end player. im not trying to replace facts with anecdote - alternate opinions should be allowed in any conversation.

When it's opinion vs opinion you're right, however facts and physics invalidate opposing opinions. There are even guys at the NHL level who have less than ideal shooting techniques, it works for them but it doesn't mean they are shooting "properly".

[opus22 0]

i tried to pm you to give some background on what im talking about - but it probably wouldnt matter. your box is full. i understand what your saying - its just my experiences lead me to feel what i do. i think for some big guys,110's are more durable and no experience ive ever had with them showed them to be brittle. if that makes me the exception compared to the rule, then thats what it is.

[shnuggs 0]

like i said im a big guy, and i think that the stiff flex is fine. i dont take slap shots really - mostly snaps and wrists. i understand the concept of drag, and more flex helping those shots and i agree - but to a point. i found once i got used to a stiffer flex, my release was actually quicker. it reminds me of when i grew up using woodies. the brand new woodie always shot great, and broke in nice for a few days. in time, the flex would increase and i found that it became easier to be accurate and get a real comfortable snap with it -  i loved it. the first thing noticed when i got a new stick was how much more ooomph my shot had. you can tell me till the cows come home that my two 110's are brittle and likely to shatter, but like i said they've been around for over 5 years each - and ive buried a dozen 100 flex's in that time. i can go back and forth on which flex helps my shot more, but i find i shoot well with both once im used to it - and there is nop doubt to me that the 110's have lasted longer.

which reinforces the tire theory. like i said... the facts have been stated. they are not debatable since they are FACTS. the rest are all personal preferance and opinion. the fact that i had to repeat the statement multiple times is proof. i wanted to thank the guys that broke it down from an engineering standpoint- that took alot of time to write. i can see why the people that really know don't contribute- it takes too long to write and for someone that does not know or agree to drop 5 or less sentences disputing everything. it's like the guys who jump in on arguments only to make more arguments..." yeah... but what IF.... yea but what IF... yeah but IF " while offering no real information or relevant statment other than well i have had this shaft for 5 or 10 years and it still rocks. IF grandma had balls she'd be GRANDPA!!!! to oeahc his own and to those who GET IT thank you!

sorry if i crossed your line somewhere. to me the proof is what im using tonight -and from my 28 years of experience being a player/coach/ref/rink manager/rinkrat and general fan of the game. ive seen it play out for years. i know guys who are my size and have bombs of shots - one guy in particular who is a narch d1/pro player who has to use 110 ultra lites because everything else in 100 breaks within a week. ive seen him do it - thats how hard he shoots. its just the way they worked out - he prefered 100's, but couldnt get any to last. he has to use 110's, and they work for him. you cant tell me his 100's were more durable. his experiences reflect my own, thats the only way i can look at it.

Just because he has a hard shot doesn't mean he has good technique. Anecdotal evidence shouldn't replace actual facts in any discussion.

I have a buddy who had a simliar experience -- huge guy -- anything less then 110 seemed to break on him in a couple of weeks. That being said --- could be faulty technique. Brett Hull used a 80 flex and he was a big boy with an extremely hard shot -- yet he didnt seem to break more sticks then the avergae player.

[TBLfan 25]

I meant that when you shoot with a stiff flex your stick doesn't flex as much so it takes less time before it leaves your blade. When you have a soft flex your loading your stick with flex then it's released. This gives you a bit of lag, actually enought that sometimes a goalie that wouldn't quite be down in the butterfly has time to do so.

I think it's all about finding a middle ground where your release is fast and your able to use the stick flex as an advantage.

This comment brings up an interesting point.

Spring force loaded in shaft (F) = stiffness constant (k) * displacement (x)

Unloaded force from shaft (F) = mass of puck (m) * acceleration (a)

So the higher the loaded spring energy in the shaft, the harder the shot (higher acceleration). This is a simplistic way of looking at it, because there's a transient effect as well where you want to maximize the time a puck spends on the blade during release to maximize acceleration from the recoil energy of the shaft.

A stiffer shaft just has a higher stiffness constant k. But that doesn't automatically translate to a harder or softer shot. You can flex a stiffer shaft less than a regular shaft and achieve the same shot acceleration. This is why unless you are strong enough to flex a stiffer shaft as much as a regular shaft, you will not realize any benefit from it. But if you are strong enough to flex a stiffer shaft the same amount, your shot will be harder. Your strength, when applied to a regular shaft, will have to flex that even more if you want to achieve the same hard shot, but if that regular shaft wasn't designed to handle that increased amount of bending repeatedly, it would break more easily.

I always thought it was best to use the stiffest shaft you can flex with ease and regularity to maximize shot acceleration. How much flex you want to "feel" to get that shot acceleration becomes a matter of personal preference. But to get the best shot you have to balance your strength to bend a shaft and the time the puck spends on the blade during release.

Yeah that's what I was trying to get at. But while the shot is harder because of the flex generated it takes longer to get off the blade which leads you more likely to get hit, the goalie to get in position or any number of outcomes that can come down to milliseconds. BUT if you are using a stiff stick that you CAN flex(more than a little bit, enought to generate some force) then the recoil of the stiff flex will(or at least I think it will) generate a faster shot.

Basically saying that the rebound of a stiffer flex is faster than that of a softer flex. Imagine a plastic ruler bent to the point of almost breaking and release... Now take a wooden ruler and do the same, the wooden ruler is stiffer and recoils faster... The down side to this is being able to effectively flex the stiffer ruler. In the end it all boils down to technique, strength and comfort(with the stick and flex of the stick).

We haven't really mentioned the proper "rolling of wrists" but this have a very big impact on more than whether the puck flies straight. As a goalie I learned that the rolling of the wrist slings the puck off the toe of the blade giving a LOT more force than if just shot using the flex of the stick. With a goalie stick the effects of this is very noticeable because it's extremely exaggerated(length of the blade). Not when I think of the two flexest we are talking about I'm assuming that a softer flex(that allows the puck to stay on the blade longer due to building force through the stick) would allow for better closing of the wrists, which would probably even out the differences in a stiff and a softer flex velocity when leaving the blade. But this is all speculation meant to bring about more thought on the subject.

[tsanga 0]

We haven't really mentioned the proper "rolling of wrists" but this have a very big impact on more than whether the puck flies straight. As a goalie I learned that the rolling of the wrist slings the puck off the toe of the blade giving a LOT more force than if just shot using the flex of the stick. With a goalie stick the effects of this is very noticeable because it's extremely exaggerated(length of the blade). Not when I think of the two flexest we are talking about I'm assuming that a softer flex(that allows the puck to stay on the blade longer due to building force through the stick) would allow for better closing of the wrists, which would probably even out the differences in a stiff and a softer flex velocity when leaving the blade. But this is all speculation meant to bring about more thought on the subject.

Righto...a shaft that you can comfortable flex more will let you have more time with the puck on the blade upon release. This extra time gives you more time to roll your wrists for more pop, and it also gives you more time to control the puck for higher accuracy.

Yet another addendum: BUT...if the shaft is too flexible relative to your strength (strength meaning a combination of raw muscle strength, weight and technique) then you end up losing accuracy.

[TBLfan 25]

so basically after about 3 pages of discussion we basically come back to PP just like every other MSH thread. hahahaha :lol:

[tsanga 0]

so basically after about 3 pages of discussion we basically come back to PP just like every other MSH thread. hahahaha :lol:

It's the nature of the beast.

[Chadd 916]

so basically after about 3 pages of discussion we basically come back to PP just like every other MSH thread. hahahaha :lol:

It's the nature of the beast.

It also has a lot to do with people who will never change their mind no matter what is explained to them. Much like the evolution - creation debate.

[tsanga 0]

Original post:

I was curious if a stick has a more stiff flex does that make the stick more durable.

Example. An 85 flex compared to a 110 flex. Is the 110 flex more durable?

Only if you prefer it to! :lol:

[rugdnit 0]

like i said im a big guy, and i think that the stiff flex is fine. i dont take slap shots really - mostly snaps and wrists. i understand the concept of drag, and more flex helping those shots and i agree - but to a point. i found once i got used to a stiffer flex, my release was actually quicker. it reminds me of when i grew up using woodies. the brand new woodie always shot great, and broke in nice for a few days. in time, the flex would increase and i found that it became easier to be accurate and get a real comfortable snap with it -  i loved it. the first thing noticed when i got a new stick was how much more ooomph my shot had. you can tell me till the cows come home that my two 110's are brittle and likely to shatter, but like i said they've been around for over 5 years each - and ive buried a dozen 100 flex's in that time. i can go back and forth on which flex helps my shot more, but i find i shoot well with both once im used to it - and there is nop doubt to me that the 110's have lasted longer.

which reinforces the tire theory. like i said... the facts have been stated. they are not debatable since they are FACTS. the rest are all personal preferance and opinion. the fact that i had to repeat the statement multiple times is proof. i wanted to thank the guys that broke it down from an engineering standpoint- that took alot of time to write. i can see why the people that really know don't contribute- it takes too long to write and for someone that does not know or agree to drop 5 or less sentences disputing everything. it's like the guys who jump in on arguments only to make more arguments..." yeah... but what IF.... yea but what IF... yeah but IF " while offering no real information or relevant statment other than well i have had this shaft for 5 or 10 years and it still rocks. IF grandma had balls she'd be GRANDPA!!!! to oeahc his own and to those who GET IT thank you!

sorry if i crossed your line somewhere. to me the proof is what im using tonight -and from my 28 years of experience being a player/coach/ref/rink manager/rinkrat and general fan of the game. ive seen it play out for years. i know guys who are my size and have bombs of shots - one guy in particular who is a narch d1/pro player who has to use 110 ultra lites because everything else in 100 breaks within a week. ive seen him do it - thats how hard he shoots. its just the way they worked out - he prefered 100's, but couldnt get any to last. he has to use 110's, and they work for him. you cant tell me his 100's were more durable. his experiences reflect my own, thats the only way i can look at it.

again i point back to the point that one guy made which is how much FORCE IS PUT INTO THE ICE ( you have to put a ton a force in to load the shaft with a stiff stick ). i know guys that have bullets that shoot 85 flexes. i also know guys that have bombs but for some reason they miss the net alot ( gotta love the guy that goes for the corner all the time and misses only to watch the puck wrap around the glass and out of the zone ). you did not cross MY line- this is all fair debate. just because you have a long job title does not mean you know more than anybody here as i also have a long job history in MANY different facets of the sport so don't think that all the stats you listed will get me to back off what i know to be FACT and what i know to be personal PREF / OPINION. i also stated that it is good that not everybody is the same and that it takes all different types to make a team. so far all i hear is you wanting to be heard and not fully absorbing what others are saying ( so maybe this relates back to the " yeah but.... yeah but ... yeah but ... ". i am not here to get in a pissing contest about who is older or who has played longer at what level or whose D$ck is longer.

[rugdnit 0]

which reinforces the tire theory.  like i said... the facts have been stated.  they are not debatable since they are FACTS.  the rest are all personal preferance and opinion.  the fact that i had to repeat the statement multiple times is proof.  i wanted to thank the guys that broke it down from an engineering standpoint-  that took alot of time to write.  i can see why the people that really know don't contribute-  it takes too long to write and for someone that does not know or agree to drop 5 or less sentences disputing everything.  it's like the guys who jump in on arguments only to make more arguments..." yeah... but what IF.... yea but what IF... yeah but IF "  while offering no real information or relevant statment other than well i have had this shaft for 5 or 10 years and it still rocks.  IF grandma had balls she'd be GRANDPA!!!!  to oeahc his own and to those who GET IT  thank you!

I base all of my comments on the facts that I have seen, experienced and products created. I have seen it all first hand, having gone far beyond what most reps do.

IF that is not enough, I'm sorry.

tsanga, I respect all of your posts and understand what you are saying. It is all full of great info and facts.

Unfortunately, hockey has so many variables, such as slashing, stick baking in your hot car, etc., that MANUFACTURING cannot control. I think that is where a "variance" enters the equation and throws things off.

The bottom line to me is that if you want a performance item, you shouldn't expect it to last. Should it break on the first shot? NO. However, I also think that one shouldn't expect them to last. Just my opinion.

SRI you nailed it! just like i equated sticks to performance racing tires.

[rugdnit 0]

i tried to pm you to give some background on what im talking about - but it probably wouldnt matter. your box is full. i understand what your saying - its just my experiences lead me to feel what i do. i think for some big guys,110's are more durable and no experience ive ever had with them showed them to be brittle. if that makes me the exception compared to the rule, then thats what it is.

i would agree with that. i never stated that 110's and the like were brittle. i have been approaching from a shot TECHNIQUE standpoint and how a stick should work provided the shot mechanics were good. look at golf swings- the higher up the club comes the more that can go wrong. and then look at how alot of golfers start offsetting their grip and their arms to compensate for something else. as long as you have a flex that works for you and your style of game... that is the point that i have been trying to make. it takes all types to make a TEAM.

[Patrick67 1]

I never understood the roll your wrists motion, anybody have any illustrated picture/or video link???

[tsanga 0]

I never understood the roll your wrists motion, anybody have any illustrated picture/or video link???

These are good pages:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/shooting1.html

http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/shooting2.html

[jimmy 194]

i think for some big guys,110's are more durable and no experience ive ever had with them showed them to be brittle. if that makes me the exception compared to the rule, then thats what it is.

That's exactly what the big guys tell me too. Stiffer flex sticks last them longer. It's not just a few guys either. So it all goes to show you, science, facts may be true but real life experience are just as true for those who experience them.

[rugdnit 0]

i think for some big guys,110's are more durable and no experience ive ever had with them showed them to be brittle. if that makes me the exception compared to the rule, then thats what it is.

That's exactly what the big guys tell me too. Stiffer flex sticks last them longer. It's not just a few guys either. So it all goes to show you, science, facts may be true but real life experience are just as true for those who experience them.

" then i guess your perception is your reality "

big guys know everything so i am going to do what the big guy tells me.

kinda like in the NHL where they give the big guys a chance to prove they can't play whereas the smaller guy has to wait to get the chance to show he CAN play. ROFL how far this has to go until somebody gets hurt. sure sure... your stick is stiffer than mine..... you are a better person than i am. you're smart.... i'm dumb.... you're good.... i'm bad.....blah blah blah..... is this thread dead yet?????

i would like to take the opportunity to thank the guys that actually contributed to this thread whereas the ones that relied on what big guys tell them.

[opus22 0]

i think for some big guys,110's are more durable and no experience ive ever had with them showed them to be brittle. if that makes me the exception compared to the rule, then thats what it is.

That's exactly what the big guys tell me too. Stiffer flex sticks last them longer. It's not just a few guys either. So it all goes to show you, science, facts may be true but real life experience are just as true for those who experience them.

" then i guess your perception is your reality "

big guys know everything so i am going to do what the big guy tells me.

kinda like in the NHL where they give the big guys a chance to prove they can't play whereas the smaller guy has to wait to get the chance to show he CAN play. ROFL how far this has to go until somebody gets hurt. sure sure... your stick is stiffer than mine..... you are a better person than i am. you're smart.... i'm dumb.... you're good.... i'm bad.....blah blah blah..... is this thread dead yet?????

i would like to take the opportunity to thank the guys that actually contributed to this thread whereas the ones that relied on what big guys tell them.

where the hell did that come from? its just a differing viewpoint about how it applies to big guys. i thank the guys who contributed to this as well - how this becomes such a point of contention you throw a hissy fit about it, i dont know. my long job title didnt mean crap to me either - it wasnt the point. i was just saying im not some tripod who bought a stick ten years ago and now im chiming in.

[opus22 0]

i tried to pm you to give some background on what im talking about - but it probably wouldnt matter. your box is full. i understand what your saying - its just my experiences lead me to feel what i do. i think for some big guys,110's are more durable and no experience ive ever had with them showed them to be brittle. if that makes me the exception compared to the rule, then thats what it is.

i would agree with that. i never stated that 110's and the like were brittle. i have been approaching from a shot TECHNIQUE standpoint and how a stick should work provided the shot mechanics were good. look at golf swings- the higher up the club comes the more that can go wrong. and then look at how alot of golfers start offsetting their grip and their arms to compensate for something else. as long as you have a flex that works for you and your style of game... that is the point that i have been trying to make. it takes all types to make a TEAM.

i agree with this, and the point i was making is the guy i know who snaps all his 100's has a very good technique to his shot. he is actually one of the purest shooters ive seen up close and personal. he isnt some hack trying to dig a hole to china. he shoots hard and accurate - and the 110's are all he can use. that was my point.

[rugdnit 0]

i think for some big guys,110's are more durable and no experience ive ever had with them showed them to be brittle. if that makes me the exception compared to the rule, then thats what it is.

That's exactly what the big guys tell me too. Stiffer flex sticks last them longer. It's not just a few guys either. So it all goes to show you, science, facts may be true but real life experience are just as true for those who experience them.

" then i guess your perception is your reality "

big guys know everything so i am going to do what the big guy tells me.

kinda like in the NHL where they give the big guys a chance to prove they can't play whereas the smaller guy has to wait to get the chance to show he CAN play. ROFL how far this has to go until somebody gets hurt. sure sure... your stick is stiffer than mine..... you are a better person than i am. you're smart.... i'm dumb.... you're good.... i'm bad.....blah blah blah..... is this thread dead yet?????

i would like to take the opportunity to thank the guys that actually contributed to this thread whereas the ones that relied on what big guys tell them.

where the hell did that come from? its just a differing viewpoint about how it applies to big guys. i thank the guys who contributed to this as well - how this becomes such a point of contention you throw a hissy fit about it, i dont know. my long job title didnt mean crap to me either - it wasnt the point. i was just saying im not some tripod who bought a stick ten years ago and now im chiming in.

i am insensitive sometimes, but never a hissyfit. to the detriment of my face and teeth i have never been afraid to speak up. i was just making a point that 10 or 100 years is not the deciding factor in all things hockey. some people have a tendency to never change and to that all i can say is " if you do what you have always done..... you will always get what you have got ". one of my best friends uses a 110 and he can bench disgusting amounts of weight and has a strong pro resume. he cannot always get his pro pattern so he will use an Easton Drury in a 100. it took him a while to realize that to shoot a 100 flex all he had to do was back off a touch and guess what? he got the same results as the 110.... just with alot less energy. it takes all types.

[opus22 0]

well of course that makes sense, but your presuming the guy im talking about didnt think of that. he shoots how he shoots, and it works for him. he doesnt have to change - he scores a butt load of goals the way he does it. he also hacks like there is no tommorow, which obviously plays a role in durability as well. all im saying is that despite tests and the intentions of the manufacturers, one of the byproducts of the stiffer flex is that myself and a few other big guys tend to not break their 110's - where they do break their 100's. technique to me seems a bit irrelevant (in my examples case, he has good technique), because if one breaks with bad technique, and one doesnt - to me thats a sign that the one that didnt break can take more.

[rugdnit 0]

you win.... is this thread dead yet??????????