twiztidwrista10 3 Report post Posted January 4, 2011 Hey all, I'm putting my Christmas $ towards some new pants. I'm coming from CCM and Reebok pro stock MHP 520's. I wouldn't mind picking up another pair of those but 1) their hard to come by and 2) the retail offerings fit a little better. Large's in both the retail and pro stock are WAY to big around the waist, mediums are a little snug in pro stock and perfect in retail. Here's my dilemma, being somewhat skinny and tall I don't know whether to choose the 2010 model 7K's or the 9K's (with the ability to lengthen them 1"). I'm 175-180 LBS, and 6'1"-6'2". I'm a former AAA player, playing mens league now, but hopefully (tuition $$ issue) will be playing ACHA college hockey next year. What are you taller than average players wearing in Reeboks offerings? Did you opt for the 9K because of the length adjustment capability? Protection wise, I'd like something at least on par with the MPH 520, which both appear to be. I like the lace up front of the 7K a lot, as well as the graphical simplicity. Although the length adjustment feature of the 9k is making me lean toward them. Help me make a decision y'all! Any constructional comments or thoughts are appreciated. Thanks in advance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shayno 1 Report post Posted January 4, 2011 I'm assuming you are going to order online, and not be able to try them on? Go with your instinct, obviously you have done a bit of research, and know hockey and equipt.....get the 9ks...which will fit....because we all know the obvious answer here........Whatever fits better, are the better pants! Good luck, and sorry I cant offer any real info, I'm in Vapor XXXX pants...and Warrior before that...Cheers! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twiztidwrista10 3 Report post Posted January 4, 2011 Most likely yes unless my LHS will order them for me. We only have one LHS here in town, and the selection is limited at best. I actually did try on both the pants in question, briefly, this past weekend while I was in Denver, but its hard to make an official decision without putting shins on and what not. My current MHP 520's are beat, missing some padding, and I constantly catch myself thinking they're running on the short side, length wise. I tend to wear them a slightly lower making up for this, but I gotta be sacrificing some kidney/spine protection by doing so. Thanks for the help so far tho. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tjl_48 0 Report post Posted January 5, 2011 I had the exact problem you did till I sprung for the 9k's a couple weeks back. I am about 6 3 and 185ish. I had been in the vapor xxxx girdle. I was doing the same thing wearing them low to try get the right length. I love my 9k's. They are a heavily padded pant. I would say go for the 9k's. I had gone through a few pairs of pants looking for some long enough. Id rather have it and not need it then getting fed up with short pants and spending more on another new pair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shayno 1 Report post Posted January 5, 2011 This quote was from "Best and worst bang for your buck" Worst: Rbk 7k pants. I love them, but god I've only used them for 5 months and they're torn up like crazy. Gonna have to get some replacements. Tackla's perhaps?? Go with the 9ks, they look wicked, couple of Oilers are in them!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jrhky36 1 Report post Posted January 5, 2011 i'm 6'4" and just returned a pair of 7k's(decided to repair the zippers in my 420's). the length was fine for me. i like my pants high and these came about 1" long on hte knee. what i liked: the padding heavely padded, simple griphics, and lace up front. what i disliked as apart of why i'm returning them: the zippers are not open the the inside, the waist padding allowed my fat gut to hang over and felt uncomfortable when sitting, the legs were very narrow- i thing because of the material behind the zipper. i even tried replacing the thigh pads for my 420's and they were only slightly better. i would not buy these pants again due to the dislikes i stated above, would require to many mod to work for me. did you ever consider the 2009 9k's? i'm seeing them on ebay for around the same price as the 2010 9k's, also i have seen some 520's aswell. good luck Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarick 5 Report post Posted January 5, 2011 2010 9k's were my second choice for pants (I ended up springing for Tacklas). I really liked the protection, including the tailbone piece that hugs the spine. The 7k's look similar but without the adjustable length, so I'd pay a little more for the 9k's in your situation. I didn't like the 2009 9k's at all with the two-piece pant. Heavy, bulky, and a huge pain to put on. I had the older 8k's (very similar) for about a week before returning them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JGraz15 53 Report post Posted January 5, 2011 Well, I am a shorter guy, but I have the 2010 9K pants and love them. They are light weight, have a good amount of protection, and the pant seems to be much better built than prior RBK pants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twiztidwrista10 3 Report post Posted January 18, 2011 The 9K's arrived today. I ordered a size medium. Overall it seems like a great pant, very light weight and mobile when compared to my Reebok MHP520's. Although, I'm not sure I'm going to keep them. One of my complaints is that the plastic tailbone insert on the 9K doesn't seem half as thick as the tailbone insert on the MHP520. Also, the leg opening on the 9K seems TINY compared to the MHP520, especially for someone like myself who wears the "not so slender" Jofa 9090 shin pads. The 9K's fit about perfect around the waist for me, where as the 520's take a gentle tug or two to get over my hips when putting them on. After the extra 1" is unzipped on the 9K's they're about the perfect length as well, where the 520's were a little short. I'm just really bugged by the slenderness of the leg opening on the 9K. I guess the pant search for a somewhat skinny tall guy continues... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Funk 6 Report post Posted January 18, 2011 I had sort of a similar issue back when I was in the market for new pants, coming from an MHP520 as well. I'm around 6'2", but admittedly am a bit less svelte than you, twiztid. I always had the feeling that my pants weren't quite long enough; they barely brushed the tops of my shinguards during play, leaving exposed quite a gap over my distal thigh.I tried on a ton of different models (9k, the two high-end Bauers, the big-boy CCM, etc.), and settled on the Warrior Hustler. They run pretty large, so I'm rolling in a size L (I'm around 215 pounds, with the above-listed height). For reference, I'm a 54 in Tackla 9900 Pro and 5000X Pro, which I also own and wear quite frequently. The leg opening is plenty wide, albeit not as so as either Tackla model. You can custom-order the Hustler with a longer length if you require. The standard-length Warriors are a bit longer than either of my Tacklas.FYI, I have the 2010 model; I believe that a few minor modifications were made to the upcoming 2011 pant. Not certain, however, if the fit has been tweaked at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyers10 57 Report post Posted January 18, 2011 I know a guy that recently got the 11k pants. Seemed pretty heavy duty for protection, had the +1 extension and I believe they had a leg zipper to increase the opening. He's a pretty big guy (6'2 / 240-250) and leg opening seemed good for him. Try emailing IW and see if they can go compare the 9k vs 11k leg opening for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
