PS MHP: 520 vs 1053 vs 7000

[twiztidwrista10 3]

Hey can anyone compare the fit, type of pant, protection, ect. between the pro stock Reebok/CCM MHP: 520, 1053 and 7000? I know the 520 is an old CCM model, and the 7000 is an old Jofa model. What is the 1053? For future questions, are there any other pro stock models out there that I'm forgetting? Thanks.

[flyers10 57]

Can't compare fit but there is the MHP620 also. Has a prominent padded belt on outside.

[jrhky36 1]

it should be 1052 not 1053. 520s and 1052s were built on the the boxy traditional fit. the 7000s i belive are built on the european fit. all should be 2 piece pants as well.

[twiztidwrista10 3]

Reebok pro return 1053?

http://www.cyclonetaylor.com/players/pants/pntreebok1053proreturnsr.html

I ordered some to replace my beat up pro stock Reebok 520's. I'll be sure to compare them to the 520's and the retail 9k's I own. I'm in the process of returning the 9k's to IW (thankfully I have 365 days), I was pretty kinda in them.

[ridiska99 1]

Reebok pro return 1053?

http://www.cyclonetaylor.com/players/pants/pntreebok1053proreturnsr.html

I ordered some to replace my beat up pro stock Reebok 520's. I'll be sure to compare them to the 520's and the retail 9k's I own. I'm in the process of returning the 9k's to IW (thankfully I have 365 days), I was pretty disappointed in them.

can I ask what's the problem? I was looking at ordering them.

The old 520 that you have , how was tailbone and back protection? Were u happy with pant? Fit?

I have tackla 5000x great pant EXCEPT not enough tail bone protection. Huge dissapointmet . I'm 5'10 195, started playing recently, and fall alot, so I'm looking for alot of tailbone and back protection, as tackla lacks it, as every fall is a painfull one, and with high end as 5000x it's not suppose to be so

[twiztidwrista10 3]

EDITED/CONDENSED. See below.

[stuie7 6]

Hey can anyone compare the fit, type of pant, protection, ect. between the pro stock Reebok/CCM MHP: 520, 1053 and 7000? I know the 520 is an old CCM model, and the 7000 is an old Jofa model. What is the 1053? For future questions, are there any other pro stock models out there that I'm forgetting? Thanks.

I've never worn the other two, but the 7000's are great pants. Here's a couple of real world photos of them.

Do you know of any online shops still selling them?

[twiztidwrista10 3]

can I ask what's the problem? I was looking at ordering them.

The old 520 that you have , how was tailbone and back protection? Were u happy with pant? Fit?

I have tackla 5000x great pant EXCEPT not enough tail bone protection. Huge dissapointmet . I'm 5'10 195, started playing recently, and fall alot, so I'm looking for alot of tailbone and back protection, as tackla lacks it, as every fall is a painfull one, and with high end as 5000x it's not suppose to be so

Well I'm on my second pair of 520's right now. The first were CCM, the second were Reebok, but they're the same thing. I ordered the 2010 9k's to replace my worn out Reebok 520's and like I said I was kinda disappointed.

EDIT: I did some more comparing between the 9k and the 520's. I still have the same opinion about the fit of the 9k but upon further review the kidney and spine protection (above the belt) appears to be on par with the 520's. In fact, the spine protection might even be better on the 9k due to the design/external plastic piece . The exact same can be said for the thigh protection, on par with the 520's once more. Where the 9k appears to be lacking is the hip and especially the tailbone protection. The plastic inserts seem a little thin on the hip area but exceptionally thin for the tail bone.

My other gripe was the fit. The 9k's fit me really good around the waist, almost better than the 520's (I wear a medium in both)... but the thigh opening was tiny. If you don't wear a fairly slender shin then the pant leg won't go over them effortlessly. Of course this is with the pant legs zipped up, I won't unzip my pant legs, it looks bender-ish in my opinion.

Anyway I'm kinda anal about my equipment and for some stuff, like pants, retail equipment just doesn't seem to compare to the protection, quality, and fit of pro stock... at least for Reeboks offerings. Overall my complaints about the 9k were: lacking tailbone protection, narrow thigh openings, no lace up front, flashy silver graphics on the hip/kidney area. Otherwise its a pretty solid pant.

Do you know of any online shops still selling them?

Dang those 7000's look great! Do they have a wave-shaped mesh (instead of nylon) insert around the hip area? My CCM 520's had this although they were an ECHL model, my Reebok 520's don't, but it kinda looks like your 7000's have a similar feature? I have yet to come across any 7000's on the internet unfortunately. The only places I've found black pro stock Reebok pants are THS (out of stock last time I checked) and just recently at CTS. I'll post some pictures when the Reebok 1053's arrive.

[ridiska99 1]

Well I'm on my second pair of 520's right now. The first were CCM, the second were Reebok, but they're the same thing. I ordered the 2010 9k's to replace my worn out Reebok 520's and like I said I was kinda disappointed.

EDIT: I did some more comparing between the 9k and the 520's. I still have the same opinion about the fit of the 9k but upon further review the kidney and spine protection (above the belt) appears to be on par with the 520's. In fact, the spine protection might even be better on the 9k due to the design/external plastic piece . The exact same can be said for the thigh protection, on par with the 520's once more. Where the 9k appears to be lacking is the hip and especially the tailbone protection. The plastic inserts seem a little thin on the hip area but exceptionally thin for the tail bone.

My other gripe was the fit. The 9k's fit me really good around the waist, almost better than the 520's (I wear a medium in both)... but the thigh opening was tiny. If you don't wear a fairly slender shin then the pant leg won't go over them effortlessly. Of course this is with the pant legs zipped up, I won't unzip my pant legs, it looks bender-ish in my opinion.

Anyway I'm kinda anal about my equipment and for some stuff, like pants, retail equipment just doesn't seem to compare to the protection, quality, and fit of pro stock... at least for Reeboks offerings. Overall my complaints about the 9k were: lacking tailbone protection, narrow thigh openings, no lace up front, flashy silver graphics on the hip/kidney area. Otherwise its a pretty solid pant.

Dang those 7000's look great! Do they have a wave-shaped mesh (instead of nylon) insert around the hip area? My CCM 520's had this although they were an ECHL model, my Reebok 520's don't, but it kinda looks like your 7000's have a similar feature? I have yet to come across any 7000's on the internet unfortunately. The only places I've found black pro stock Reebok pants are THS (out of stock last time I checked) and just recently at CTS. I'll post some pictures when the Reebok 1053's arrive.

can you tell me if the tailbone protection is the same on ccm 520 and rbk 520? what about jofa 7000? how the tail bone protection on them?

I've never worn the other two, but the 7000's are great pants. Here's a couple of real world photos of them.

Do you know of any online shops still selling them?

im confused, are these rbk 520? rbk 7000? or jofa 7000?

can you comment on the back, spine and tailbone protection on these pants? preferably in comparison to other you tried

[stuie7 6]

Dang those 7000's look great! Do they have a wave-shaped mesh (instead of nylon) insert around the hip area? My CCM 520's had this although they were an ECHL model, my Reebok 520's don't, but it kinda looks like your 7000's have a similar feature?

It's like a thick mesh, but it's still nylon you can't see through it though. It's definitely different to the rest of the pants.

im confused, are these rbk 520? rbk 7000? or jofa 7000?

can you comment on the back, spine and tailbone protection on these pants? preferably in comparison to other you tried

They're to Rbk 7000 pro pant, however it is a JOFA design so I like to call them RBK/JOFA 7000's.

Currently I rotate between these and a pair of Nike (Bauer) Sweden pro pants, I used to have some Mission and Easton retails but I cant really remember what they were like. Between the two they're pretty equal and pretty similar, I would however say that because the Bauers are tighter in the hip I feel they offer more hip protection. For tail bone protection they're both sweet, I've landed on my rear a number of times no problems and the "back pad" for spine protection is meaty.

Like I say I cant remember my retail pants too specifically, but I remember thinking that the pro ones were a massive step up in terms of all round protection, I should note that they are however more bulky but you get used to it.

[twiztidwrista10 3]

can you tell me if the tailbone protection is the same on ccm 520 and rbk 520? what about jofa 7000? how the tail bone protection on them?

I sold the CCM's I had but as far as I remember they were 99% the same as the Reebok's. The CCM 520's were an ECHL model, the Reebok's were not, so there were a few small features that were different. So yes, the protection was the same on both the 520's. I however can't comment on the 7000's as I've never owned a pair let alone seen a pair.

im confused, are these rbk 520? rbk 7000? or jofa 7000?

can you comment on the back, spine and tailbone protection on these pants? preferably in comparison to other you tried

Just like Stuie said, the 7000 was originally made as a Jofa pant years ago. Now that Jofa doesn't really exist per say, the pant is made pro-only with Rbk/Reebok branding. Somewhat similar situation with the 520.

[ridiska99 1]

It's like a thick mesh, but it's still nylon you can't see through it though. It's definitely different to the rest of the pants.

They're to Rbk 7000 pro pant, however it is a JOFA design so I like to call them RBK/JOFA 7000's.

Currently I rotate between these and a pair of Nike (Bauer) Sweden pro pants, I used to have some Mission and Easton retails but I cant really remember what they were like. Between the two they're pretty equal and pretty similar, I would however say that because the Bauers are tighter in the hip I feel they offer more hip protection. For tail bone protection they're both sweet, I've landed on my rear a number of times no problems and the "back pad" for spine protection is meaty.

Like I say I cant remember my retail pants too specifically, but I remember thinking that the pro ones were a massive step up in terms of all round protection, I should note that they are however more bulky but you get used to it.

hey guys i have a question about ccm 520. i have a chance to buy it in size L(Large).

can some one tell me about the fit? im size 34, they say ccm 520 Large is 34-36, but do these ccm 520 run big? small? tight? loose?

hopefully someone who had them can reply, as i dont like buying without trying but i dont have a choice.

please help. hear great things about them, on protection, quality, but how about fit? pls compare to bauer pants sizing or tackla sizing if possible(ie... bauer (L) is a ccm(M) etc.. or something like that, so that i can understand the sizing/fit)

thanks all in advance

[twiztidwrista10 3]

I wear a 31"-32" in all my street pants and shorts (not baggy) and wear a medium in Reebok's retail 9k (32-36), pro stock 520 (32-34), and pro return 1053 (32-34). The 9k and 1053 fit about the same around the waist, the 520 were a little snugger. I used to own/wear a pair of large CCM 520, obviously they were a little big around the waist. I haven't measured my natural waist in a little while but I think it's about 33-34". I think you should be fine in the large CCM 520's. I've never owned any Bauer or Tackla pants. I hope this helps.

[flyers10 57]

I have the 520's in Large and I wear a 33" or 34" waist in jeans/pants. They fit me perfect. Have to give a little tug to get them on.

[twiztidwrista10 3]

1053 VS 520 comparison. 1053 on the left, 520 on the right.

[th6252 25]

1053 VS 520 comparison. 1053 on the left, 520 on the right.

is it me or do the 1053's seem to be a bit shorter in the upper/kidney protection as well as overall pant length? also, is there a curtain behind the leg zippers or are they completely open like the 520's?

[twiztidwrista10 3]

is it me or do the 1053's seem to be a bit shorter in the upper/kidney protection as well as overall pant length? also, is there a curtain behind the leg zippers or are they completely open like the 520's?

Yea it does appear the upper/kidney protection is a little shorter on the 1053's compared to the 520's. Although, the overall pant length is at least the same, if not longer on the 1053's. The upper/kidney protection seems to come up as far on my hips/spine as well, I'm guessing it just sits a little higher on the waist. When wearing the 1053's they come down a little longer which is perfect for my tall/slender frame. After skating in the 1053's a few time I'm really liking them, very happy with my purchase.

[ridiska99 1]

1053 VS 520 comparison. 1053 on the left, 520 on the right.

what has the best tailbone protection out of these 2? can you take some pics of inside padding?

so whats the word guys? if i wear 33-34 size jeans, should i be ok in ccm 520 in large or it will be a bit big?

is ccm 520 and rbk 520 fit same way exactly?

is ccm 520 guaranteed to be pro stock issue or they had a watered down retail model that i should watch out for ? like "tackla 5000x pro" that they sell which is not really pro

thanks guys in advance, i dont mean to be a pain and chewing on the same subject endlessly, im just looking for a hockey pant that has the best tailbone and back protection. got tackla 5000x and they suck in back and tail protection unfortunately. every fall is a very painful one. and i dont think it should be that way in a $150 pant.

5'10

200 lb

[twiztidwrista10 3]

Although the pictures would make some assume differently, the 520's and 1053's are nearly identical pants. Both have superb tailbone protection, and kidney, spine, hip, thigh, ect for that matter. The CCM 520's that I used to own were labeled "MHP520 ECHL" and had a more similar design to my current Reebok 1053's to be honest, further illustrating how similar the 520's and 1053's are. As far as I know, the 520 is pro stock only right now. I don't know about any of CCM's retail offerings, but the retail Reebok 9k's I ordered (and returned) failed in comparison to both the 520 and 1053 in terms of fit, and protection especially in the tailbone area. I'm 6'1"+ and roughly 175 lbs. Reebok 520's (M) were slightly snug around the waist, Reebok 9k (M) & Reebok 1053 (M) are about perfect around the waist, if not slightly roomy. Obviously the CCM 520's (L) were way to big around the waist for me. I think you might be better off in a large, it's really hard to say. Maybe get the large and return 'em if they're to big. The two sizes hardly very in length from my experiences. Hope this helps.

[ridiska99 1]

What size jeans u wear?

[twiztidwrista10 3]

What size jeans u wear?

My HCo and A&F jeans are mostly 31", I work at HCo. Have some Buckle jeans from when I worked there too, mostly 31" as well. So anywhere from 31"-32".

[ridiska99 1]

So if I'm 33-34 waist, ccm 520 in large should prob be ok?

[twiztidwrista10 3]

So if I'm 33-34 waist, ccm 520 in large should prob be ok?

I'd say so. I'd rather error on the side of slightly to big than, slightly to small.

[ridiska99 1]

Got ya. Thanks for ur input.

Any pant u like better mhp7000 or mhp520? Just have a chance to buy either one and sort of between the 2. What has best tailbone and back protection? Fit differnce?

[twiztidwrista10 3]

Got ya. Thanks for ur input.

Any pant u like better mhp7000 or mhp520? Just have a chance to buy either one and sort of between the 2. What has best tailbone and back protection? Fit differnce?

No problem. Well I've never owned any mhp7000's, so I can't really speak on them. As far as protection goes I think you'll be getting top of the line with any of the pro stock pants previously discussed (520/7000/1053). I've found the protection in all the CCM/Reebok pro stock pants I've owned to be very similar and very high quality.