New Pants

[Jarick 5]

I'm currently using XXV's but find I would like more padding and spine protection, and a bonus would be a little longer length. I'm 5'8 175 in a medium right now and prefer the European style fit (tighter waist and longer legs).

Can anyone compare the Tackla 9000's versus the Vapor X:60's? Anybody loved or hated one or the other?

[Dr. Funk 6]

J.,

I don't claim to be an expert on Tackla pants, but I'm very happy with my 9900 Pro's (which I purchased from Cyclone Taylor and may be a Canadian-made SMU; never heard of that particular number before) and my 5000x's. They both have the European-style fit, but the 5000x are tanks. I believe that this model is one of Tackla's pro-level models. Protection is outstanding, and they're actually not THAT bulky - a bit more svelte than my Warrior Hustlers, actually. They break in very nicely, are super-tough, and are my most comfortable pant.

The 9900 Pro's are a bit lighter and more mobile, and appear very similar in photos to the 9000s. Break-in was a bit easier, and they don't weigh quite as much (if that sort of thing matters to you). They've also been very durable.

However, if you're purchasing Tackla from a US-based retailer, I believe that you'll likely receive a Thai-made product. Both of mine are Canadian-made (I'm in the US, but I purchased from Canadian retailers). Not commenting on quality of goods based on factory location at all, just an FYI.

[duch 0]

I'd go with Tacklas. In my opinion one of the best hockey pants on the market but as previously stated try to get the Canadian made ones.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

I'd go with Tacklas. In my opinion one of the best hockey pants on the market but as previously stated try to get the Canadian made ones.

I havent used x:60s, but I had XXXXs before I got Tackla 9000s about a month ago. The fit was actually pretty similar, which I wasnt expecting considering all I read on here about Tacklas.

Midsection was nice and tight, like the XXXXs, but there was definitely more room lower in the pads. I always felt that the XXXXs hugged my legs a little tight, so the Tacklas definitely feel better to me.

Can't go wrong with either (if the x:60s are like the XXXXs), but personally I like the 9000s better.

[Jarick 5]

That's what I was expecting, thanks for the feedback.

[Jarick 5]

So I checked out both pants and the 9000s didn't really seem all that protective. They had a lot of foam, but that's it. Meanwhile, the x60s had a lot of protection but it limited the movement.

Would 5000s going to be significantly different?

[Jarick 5]

I'm actually pretty intrigued by the Reebok 11k's and the Easton ST16, going to check those out after work. Might also look at the girdles.

I think what I'm looking for is some kind of padding all around the leg (no dead zones) with some good tailbone and hip protection. Looks like a lot of pants have one or the other.

Also, anyone have experience with the Eagle X88? Looks a lot like the 5000 pant to me...

[mickz 107]

The X88 looks more like the 951 than anything.

[Jarick 5]

Tried on a bunch more including some girdles. I think I've nailed down what I'm looking for: plenty of tailbone and hip protection, including a spine protector that moves forward with the body (my current pants leave a massive gap and don't move with me). I like a bit wider legs without the feeling that they're just a shell with a piece of plastic on the end that rides up when I crouch.

I did like the 2010 Reebok 9k's and CCM U+ Fit09's, but I kept getting recommendations for the old CCM Tacks if I could find them.

What kind of fit were the CCM's compared to the Reebok and U+?

[Andoy 5]

I have the thai-made 5000x because I got them from a US LHS and I'm pleased with them. I had to get used to the fit of the pant because they're snug around the hips but after break in they feel great.

[Jarick 5]

I picked up a used pair of RBK 8k's from 2005, they're the predecessor to the current 11k. They seem pretty mobile and protective but I'm not sure I'm going to keep them as the girdle is a pain to get on and the spine/back protector on the current models is better.

As of right now, I'm kind of torn between the current 9k's and the 9000's...I tried on the Tacklas again and they are really mobile and well built, just cost a good chunk of change.

[duch 0]

I picked up a used pair of RBK 8k's from 2005, they're the predecessor to the current 11k. They seem pretty mobile and protective but I'm not sure I'm going to keep them as the girdle is a pain to get on and the spine/back protector on the current models is better.

As of right now, I'm kind of torn between the current 9k's and the 9000's...I tried on the Tacklas again and they are really mobile and well built, just cost a good chunk of change.

I picked up a used pair of RBK 8k's from 2005, they're the predecessor to the current 11k. They seem pretty mobile and protective but I'm not sure I'm going to keep them as the girdle is a pain to get on and the spine/back protector on the current models is better.

As of right now, I'm kind of torn between the current 9k's and the 9000's...I tried on the Tacklas again and they are really mobile and well built, just cost a good chunk of change.

Both of these pants are excellent pants with excellent protection and mobility. This is a tough one. I guess it comes down to your personal preference and finances. If money isn't an option I'd go with the Tacklas but if your a bit tight on cash then the 9K's are an excellent alternative. These are both high end pants and you really can't go wrong whichever way you go.

I believe the Eagle pant is made by Tackla for Eagle so it probably is the same pant and is very good protectively. As far as overall protection I'd go with the Easton ST 16. I've found very few gaps in protection in high end Easton pants as opposed to some other brands and they are more streamlined than the 11K's.