Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
caveman27

Warrior G5 blockers... going back to the past

Recommended Posts

The new G5 blockers have a lot less bend to the front board. Less bend equals more front surface blocking area. Back in the 80s and before, blockers were completely flat. Later on, manufacturers built the angle into it. Some even tried some funny shapes like a parallelogram at the top and bottom or curve. Those shapes are gone and I don't think they'll come back.

https://www.goaliemonkey.com/equipment/blockers/sr-goalie-blockers/warrior-goalie-blocker-ritual-g5-pro-sr.html

 

Brian's Optik 2 Pro, Bauer 2X/2S Pro, CCM Axis and Vaughn V9 still have a good amount of bend in the top area. 

Just an observation. Do you think other companies will follow in design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2020 at 1:02 PM, caveman27 said:

The new G5 blockers have a lot less bend to the front board. Less bend equals more front surface blocking area. Back in the 80s and before, blockers were completely flat. Later on, manufacturers built the angle into it. Some even tried some funny shapes like a parallelogram at the top and bottom or curve. Those shapes are gone and I don't think they'll come back.

https://www.goaliemonkey.com/equipment/blockers/sr-goalie-blockers/warrior-goalie-blocker-ritual-g5-pro-sr.html

 

Brian's Optik 2 Pro, Bauer 2X/2S Pro, CCM Axis and Vaughn V9 still have a good amount of bend in the top area. 

Just an observation. Do you think other companies will follow in design?

Optik 2 doesn't have a lot of bend.

The funny part of Warrior flattening the board for more surface area kind of goes against the "we stuck the gear out further to take of more surface area" since with the bend the top of the board would theoretically cut down the angle...

I like a big of the angle, I've had pucks ramp up and in off my blocker before so I can't see the straight one helping that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hills said:

Optik 2 doesn't have a lot of bend.

The funny part of Warrior flattening the board for more surface area kind of goes against the "we stuck the gear out further to take of more surface area" since with the bend the top of the board would theoretically cut down the angle...

I like a big of the angle, I've had pucks ramp up and in off my blocker before so I can't see the straight one helping that.

So, if you take a 15" by 8" flat piece of paper, that's 120 square inches. Now, if you put in a crease into the rectangular piece of paper, like a Vaughn blocker and you measured the top-down view, you have less than 120 square inches. The argument against it is part of that upper section is double-coverage as your forearm is behind the blocker. So, if the puck happens to go over that 1/4" inch shorter top, it's going to hit the upper arm anyway.  

Here's James Reimer in Bauer 2S Pro. To note, there's some people who want a rectangular leg pad outer roll for more blocking surface and the 2S has the triangular sloped outer roll but that's a whole other discussion.

florida-panthers-goalie-james-reimer-mak

You got some funny angle blocker saves like this, and maybe more top-edge length might help. This is Alex Stalock in an older photo with Vaughn Velocity V5.

d7c2f196a4e0db02543f6bfe7431ab7f.jpg

 

And here's an example of the angled top end helping the blocker to deflect the puck instead of it skipping over and into the goal. This is Henrik Lundqvist in Bauer Total One NXG. 

gettyimages-457335598.jpg

 

 

Maybe the question is, is a flatter blocker board better for blocking/defensive goalies or reactive/hybrid goalies? 

Edited by caveman27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hills said:

Optik 2 doesn't have a lot of bend.

The funny part of Warrior flattening the board for more surface area kind of goes against the "we stuck the gear out further to take of more surface area" since with the bend the top of the board would theoretically cut down the angle...

I like a big of the angle, I've had pucks ramp up and in off my blocker before so I can't see the straight one helping that.

No, it works alongside it.

It's all about the "aerial angle".  By pushing the entire blocker forward and angling it down, they created more coverage area.  Rather than just take that, they flattened out the curve.  The bottom of a G3/G4 blocker was really thick and almost curved up.  With the G5, that's what they flattened out moreso than the curve at the top.  So what you get is a blocker that covers the same amount above the hand, and a lot more below the hand.  The top of the blocker sits out about as far is it did before, but the bottom is flatter and angled down closer to the hand.  My biggest problem with the Warrior blockers was the lack of coverage low, down on the ice.  You could move the hand position, but then you lost coverage up top.  I always just kept it in the middle and kind of dealt with it.  This isn't a problem in my Optik blocker, or my Gnetik 3 blocker before the Warrior.  They are both pretty flat in the bottom of the board, just like the Bauer blockers and now the G5.  Vaughns and the older Warriors have more curve at the bottom, which gives them more curve overall.  I don't think Warrior came up with a new design that other companies will follow.  Rather they just did what a few others have been doing for a while.

Edited by psulion22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, psulion22 said:

No, it works alongside it.

It's all about the "aerial angle".  By pushing the entire blocker forward and angling it down, they created more coverage area.  Rather than just take that, they flattened out the curve.  The bottom of a G3/G4 blocker was really thick and almost curved up.  With the G5, that's what they flattened out moreso than the curve at the top.  So what you get is a blocker that covers the same amount above the hand, and a lot more below the hand.  The top of the blocker sits out about as far is it did before, but the bottom is flatter and angled down closer to the hand.  My biggest problem with the Warrior blockers was the lack of coverage low, down on the ice.  You could move the hand position, but then you lost coverage up top.  I always just kept it in the middle and kind of dealt with it.  This isn't a problem in my Optik blocker, or my Gnetik 3 blocker before the Warrior.  They are both pretty flat in the bottom of the board, just like the Bauer blockers and now the G5.  Vaughns and the older Warriors have more curve at the bottom, which gives them more curve overall.  I don't think Warrior came up with a new design that other companies will follow.  Rather they just did what a few others have been doing for a while.

Here's the side profile of the G5

warrior-goalie-blocker-ritual-g5-pro-sr-

 

This is the G4. So going by what you are saying, the center of gravity of the board is farther down, or the glove is placed higher up (depending on how you want to describe it)

17014268-pic02_1024x1024.jpg?v=157161168

 

CCM Premier II for comparison

116147

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, psulion22 said:

No, it works alongside it.

It's all about the "aerial angle".  By pushing the entire blocker forward and angling it down, they created more coverage area.  Rather than just take that, they flattened out the curve.  The bottom of a G3/G4 blocker was really thick and almost curved up.  With the G5, that's what they flattened out moreso than the curve at the top.  So what you get is a blocker that covers the same amount above the hand, and a lot more below the hand.  The top of the blocker sits out about as far is it did before, but the bottom is flatter and angled down closer to the hand.  My biggest problem with the Warrior blockers was the lack of coverage low, down on the ice.  You could move the hand position, but then you lost coverage up top.  I always just kept it in the middle and kind of dealt with it.  This isn't a problem in my Optik blocker, or my Gnetik 3 blocker before the Warrior.  They are both pretty flat in the bottom of the board, just like the Bauer blockers and now the G5.  Vaughns and the older Warriors have more curve at the bottom, which gives them more curve overall.  I don't think Warrior came up with a new design that other companies will follow.  Rather they just did what a few others have been doing for a while.

My point is you could've kept the angle at the top and made their other changes to get EVEN more coverage if you follow their logic with pieces sticking out more cuts off the angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, caveman27 said:

Here's the side profile of the G5

warrior-goalie-blocker-ritual-g5-pro-sr-

 

This is the G4. So going by what you are saying, the center of gravity of the board is farther down, or the glove is placed higher up (depending on how you want to describe it)

17014268-pic02_1024x1024.jpg?v=157161168

 

CCM Premier II for comparison

116147

Kind of.  What I think they did was rotate the blocker board on the hand and flatten the bottom.  They pulled the bottom edge of the board down closer to the fingers and pushed the top out a little more.  The best way of illustrating it would be to look at the angle of the bottom edge of the board in relation to the thumb in your pics.  On the G4, you can see how the bottom curves away from the thumb (as does the CCM).  The G5 has a much more narrow angle there.  The logos on the finger portion of the sideboard show it pretty well.  They're both parallel to the face angle of the bottom of the board.  Look at the difference in relation to the thumb graphic in both pics.  Then if you look at the angle of the back of the sideboard at the wrist, you can see how much more square the G5 is.  When they pull and straighten the bottom, it makes it longer in relation to the fingers, so it moves the board down in a way.  Remember, the hand position in the Ritual line is adjustable anyway.  I just threw the pics into the markup tool on my iPhone, which has a ruler that gives angles.  If you line the board up to 90*, the thumb on the G5 is at a 61* angle to the board, vs a 51* angle on the G4.

4 hours ago, Hills said:

My point is you could've kept the angle at the top and made their other changes to get EVEN more coverage if you follow their logic with pieces sticking out more cuts off the angle.

I think they actually did leave it the same, and stuck it out further giving it more coverage.  To me, the curve at the top of the G5 looks like it sticks out futher than the G4.  

Given it's pretty rough, I just measured the top angle on each pic in relation to the board, using markup on my iPhone.  If you make the thumb angle the same, the top angle is the same on both.  That means they flattened it down on the G5 given the hand position in relation to the board has changed by about 10*.  The angle of the bend to the face of the board is 58* on the G4 and 70* on the G5.

Edited by psulion22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, psulion22 said:

Kind of.  What I think they did was rotate the blocker board on the hand and flatten the bottom.  They pulled the bottom edge of the board down closer to the fingers and pushed the top out a little more.  The best way of illustrating it would be to look at the angle of the bottom edge of the board in relation to the thumb in your pics.  On the G4, you can see how the bottom curves away from the thumb (as does the CCM).  The G5 has a much more narrow angle there.  The logos on the finger portion of the sideboard show it pretty well.  They're both parallel to the face angle of the bottom of the board.  Look at the difference in relation to the thumb graphic in both pics.  Then if you look at the angle of the back of the sideboard at the wrist, you can see how much more square the G5 is.  When they pull and straighten the bottom, it makes it longer in relation to the fingers, so it moves the board down in a way.  Remember, the hand position in the Ritual line is adjustable anyway.  I just threw the pics into the markup tool on my iPhone, which has a ruler that gives angles.  If you line the board up to 90*, the thumb on the G5 is at a 61* angle to the board, vs a 51* angle on the G4.

Oh. 

Vaughn SLR 2 Pro Carbon looks like they moved the blocker pad lower. Pad depth appears thinner too, I guess there's a carbon fiber board inside.

 

vaughn-ventus-slr2-pro-carbon-sr-goalie-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...