Heavy Shot

[cbettner66 0]

yeah i didn't mean that if you are 6'4 you automatically have a cannon - but i do think you are further ahead than a guy that's 5'8 with a short stick

besides im pretty sure hal gil's hands are made of granite :P

what guys currently in the nhl would you say have heavy shots?

i would pick pronger, chara, souray

but the biggest thing they seem to have in common is they are all tall guys with extremely long sticks

is it just because they have long sticks that end up flexing alot when they shoot?

correct me if im wrong..

Huh, I never thought Chara had one of the harder shots in the league. Granted, I'm in the West so we never see him, but everything I've been exposed to tells me his shot wasn't that hard.

I don't think its all about height and stick length because then people might actually fear Hal Gill's offense. Being 6'+ helps, but I don't think you have to have monster proportions (although a little extra weight does help).

[Jason Harris 31]

what guys currently in the nhl would you say have heavy shots?

i would pick pronger, chara, souray

but the biggest thing they seem to have in common is they are all tall guys with extremely long sticks

is it just because they have long sticks that end up flexing alot when they shoot?

correct me if im wrong..

The widest part of an arc produces the most power, which is why batters try to extend their arms when they can. So, conceivably, a longer stick and greater height could produce more power IF ALL ELSE WERE EQUAL: balance, speed, strength, technique.

[hockeydoc 0]

what guys currently in the nhl would you say have heavy shots?

i would pick pronger, chara, souray

but the biggest thing they seem to have in common is they are all tall guys with extremely long sticks

is it just because they have long sticks that end up flexing alot when they shoot?

correct me if im wrong..

The widest part of an arc produces the most power, which is why batters try to extend their arms when they can. So, conceivably, a longer stick and greater height could produce more power IF ALL ELSE WERE EQUAL: balance, speed, strength, technique.

Not to mention the leverage produced from a longer lever(Longer stick) where as the lower hand is the fulcrum. ;)

[Neal 41]

The widest part of an arc produces the most power, which is why batters try to extend their arms when they can. So, conceivably, a longer stick and greater height could produce more power IF ALL ELSE WERE EQUAL: balance, speed, strength, technique.

Not to mention the leverage produced from a longer lever(Longer stick) where as the lower hand is the fulcrum. ;)

Technique must out weigh these areas though. Otherwise why would M.A. Bergeron, all 5'10" (ahem) of him be the hardest shooter on the Oilers?

[LkptTiger 1]

Sometimes I do feel as though the length of my stick (or lack thereof) might be part of my problem. I'm about 6' and my sticks, when on skates, barely come-up above the very bottom of my sternum. As I said, my shots are fast, but sometimes they come off the stick feeling very 'light' and close to my hands.

[Jake 0]

I think Jordin Tootoo was clocked at around 97 mph in his WHL days.

[Project824 0]

Sometimes I do feel as though the length of my stick (or lack thereof) might be part of my problem. I'm about 6' and my sticks, when on skates, barely come-up above the very bottom of my sternum. As I said, my shots are fast, but sometimes they come off the stick feeling very 'light' and close to my hands.

Wait your stick only comes up to the bottom of your sternum??? That's short, even compared to guys who are notorious for using short sticks. It would definitely take some speed and "heft" away from your shots. In addition, it's probably throwing you off balance a bit when you shot since you need to crouch/bend over so low. Definitely try using a bit longer of a stick, maybe add 3/4 inch at a time until you get near your collarbone. Your shots will definitely be harder.

[LkptTiger 1]

Yeah, I've been trying to convince myself to keep my sticks a little longer for the past year or so, but I just can't seem to bring myself to do it. I know the length (or lack thereof) is ridiculous, but I just feel I can control the puck much better with the short stick, and I have found a length that I have been comfortable with for quite some time now. I feel like I can do whatever I want with the puck, and it certainly makes tight moves through traffic a bit easier. I don't think it has any effect on my wristers or snappers, but I definitely think I might be losing a little something when I wind-it-up.

Last season I tried going a couple practices with the butt-ends back in...it didn't go so well for me. I might have to keep my next "order" of sticks a bit longer and try to force myself into some sort of happy medium.

[Jason Harris 31]

The widest part of an arc produces the most power, which is why batters try to extend their arms when they can. So, conceivably, a longer stick and greater height could produce more power IF ALL ELSE WERE EQUAL: balance, speed, strength, technique.

Not to mention the leverage produced from a longer lever(Longer stick) where as the lower hand is the fulcrum. ;)

Technique must out weigh these areas though. Otherwise why would M.A. Bergeron, all 5'10" (ahem) of him be the hardest shooter on the Oilers?

I was thinking about this further and came to the thought that, although the widest part of an arc produces the most power, maybe there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of speed. What I mean is one guy uses a 59" stick while another uses a 63" stick. Obviously, for both of them, their blade is the widest part of the arc and a source of power. But maybe the guy with the 59" stick is similarly as strong as the other guy, so he's able to create more speed because there's less distance the stick has to travel.

[chippa13 1844]

If you're positioned properly at the side of the net and the goalie is even the least bit aggressive then you will have the whole net open to you.

Use enough qualifiers and virtually any outcome is possible.

Not really. If the goalie stays deep in his net then the play doesn't work. If you aren't straddling the goaline then you are too far out and the play doesn't work.

[gman 0]

The widest part of an arc produces the most power, which is why batters try to extend their arms when they can. So, conceivably, a longer stick and greater height could produce more power IF ALL ELSE WERE EQUAL: balance, speed, strength, technique.

Not to mention the leverage produced from a longer lever(Longer stick) where as the lower hand is the fulcrum. ;)

Technique must out weigh these areas though. Otherwise why would M.A. Bergeron, all 5'10" (ahem) of him be the hardest shooter on the Oilers?

I was thinking about this further and came to the thought that, although the widest part of an arc produces the most power, maybe there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of speed. What I mean is one guy uses a 59" stick while another uses a 63" stick. Obviously, for both of them, their blade is the widest part of the arc and a source of power. But maybe the guy with the 59" stick is similarly as strong as the other guy, so he's able to create more speed because there's less distance the stick has to travel.

I think that is absolutely true. Whichever blade is moving the fastest at contact will transfer the most energy to the puck. The longer the lever (stick), the higher the speed possible. There are happy mediums of course. To take it to a rediculous extreme imagine swinging a fifteen foot stick compared to one reaching your sternum. The huge stick has more potential for speed, but phsically no one can move it as fast as the smaller one. So if you are strong enough to move a 63" stick as fast as someone else can move a 58" stick, then you can put more energy into the puck. But then technique comes into play with weight transfer and contact point and on and on...

[Jason Harris 31]

It becomes obvious that you're right, gman, if you think about it in reverse. As long as the speed of the lever is the same, a fifteen foot catapult would fling an object further than a five foot catapult. I suppose that is more a measure of distance rather than power, but I would suspect more power is being created.

[gman 0]

It becomes obvious that you're right, gman, if you think about it in reverse. As long as the speed of the lever is the same, a fifteen foot catapult would fling an object further than a five foot catapult. I suppose that is more a measure of distance rather than power, but I would suspect more power is being created.

Great analogy Jason. I was thinking about my post too, and thought I may need to re-think something. Whatever a blade is attached to, if it going the same speed it will generate the same force. So what needs to be thought of is being strong enough to move your hands as fast with a 63" stick as with a 58" stick. If your hands are moving the same speed, then the end of the lever will be moving faster due to the longer radius of the longer stick. My son can shoot much faster with his stick than with mine because he cannot move mine as fast as he can move his. Am I all hosed up or am I thinking clearly???

[chippa13 1844]

Fella, you're giving too much credit to stick speed and not enough to technique. It is good technique that gets the optimum flex and recoil from a stick and generates the power for the shot.

[gman 0]

Fella, you're giving too much credit to stick speed and not enough to technique. It is good technique that gets the optimum flex and recoil from a stick and generates the power for the shot.

You're absolutely right pal, it is in the technique. I do not think I was giving undue credit to stick speed. We were just discussing theory. When I was five I learned that you cannot whip a stick faster than the stick can whip itself after flexing. I assumed that everyone knew that. Sorry if the discussion was misleading.