Warrior 63 inch sticks

[JAY4114 6]

Does cutting the extension off warrior sticks increase flex? Bauer claims that it doesn't for theirs but I don't know if that is the case for all brands.

[BenBreeg 493]

This topic comes up all the time.  It's not all that complicated.  It's going to be harder to bend something with the same physical properties if you cut it shorter.  The "flex rating" of the object doesn't change if they are measuring from set points, but you aren't holding the stick at set points.  You are holding it at the butt end and the other point is the blade on the ice.  If you cut it, the two points are closer together.

[OzziesDad 89]

Just to piggyback off the previous post, I'm not a giant (6'2"), but do generally prefer my stick on the shorter side in comparison to most players of the same height. 

I'd say with the couple 63" Warrior sticks I've had, I've cut them down to around 59". 

When cut, there is no discernable difference in how they feel in terms of flex when compared to other sticks I have cut to the same height and with the same flex rating from other brands (there's always a bit of a difference no matter what, but it's no more noticeable than comparing those brands at the same height/flex).

Which would lead me to believe that Warrior may rate these sticks flex at or around the 60" mark and not the 63" mark. I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me can chime in on that though.

[birky 24]

1 hour ago, BenBreeg said:

This topic comes up all the time.  It's not all that complicated.  It's going to be harder to bend something with the same physical properties if you cut it shorter.  The "flex rating" of the object doesn't change if they are measuring from set points, but you aren't holding the stick at set points.  You are holding it at the butt end and the other point is the blade on the ice.  If you cut it, the two points are closer together.

Yep. Although my understanding is that the flex rating for extended sticks is based on the retail height (60"). So if you lop off the extra 4" off a 64" stick, the stick will have the same stiffness as a retail 60" stick. It's only if you continue cutting down the stick where the apparent stiffness will change.

Edited October 19, 2022 by birky

[BenBreeg 493]

Yeah, the rating might stay the same because they have a standardized testing protocol that tests within the length of the stick.  But cutting it down changes the actual flex performance.

[puckpilot 312]

Here's a video that will help you understand what flex is. The short of it is the flex rating is a property of the material that the stick is made from. That doesn't change. What changes when you cut the stick is the amount of leverage you have to flex the stick. It's like taking a chopstick and breaking it in half. The wood of the chopstick didn't change, but smaller pieces are more difficult to break with your hands because you don't have as much leverage.

 

[start_today 770]

The problem for me with that video is that while all the jargon is true, that’s not people think about sticks flexing, and not how hockey players have discussed flex in real world terms in the history of hockey sticks. 

When we as hockey players say “75 flex” or “95 flex” we are taking about the general feel in the bend of the shaft for how much force we are putting on it, and how the feel of that force relates to each other. 

That True video is needlessly adding all this complicated discussion of materials so they can say “well technically the flex doesn’t change.” But we all know damn well from experience it does.  

It’s needlessly complicated and just creates confusion. It’s some heavy breathing neckbeard nerd shit meant to mislead people. 

Maybe we should have been using the term “leverage” for the past 40 years to discuss flex instead of the word “flex.” But, we didn’t, and no reason to try to mess with it now. Shut up, True. 

[Hills 712]

48 minutes ago, start_today said:

The problem for me with that video is that while all the jargon is true, that’s not people think about sticks flexing, and not how hockey players have discussed flex in real world terms in the history of hockey sticks. 

When we as hockey players say “75 flex” or “95 flex” we are taking about the general feel in the bend of the shaft for how much force we are putting on it, and how the feel of that force relates to each other. 

That True video is needlessly adding all this complicated discussion of materials so they can say “well technically the flex doesn’t change.” But we all know damn well from experience it does.  

It’s needlessly complicated and just creates confusion. It’s some heavy breathing neckbeard nerd shit meant to mislead people. 

Maybe we should have been using the term “leverage” for the past 40 years to discuss flex instead of the word “flex.” But, we didn’t, and no reason to try to mess with it now. Shut up, True. 

This is completely correct. If you have a 75 flex and have someone flex it as a reference, then hand them a 75 cut down they aren't going to say it flexes like a 75.

I totally understand what they are saying, but now you also have no reference of what flex someone wants and likes.

[stick9 891]

3 hours ago, start_today said:

The problem for me with that video is that while all the jargon is true, that’s not people think about sticks flexing, and not how hockey players have discussed flex in real world terms in the history of hockey sticks. 

When we as hockey players say “75 flex” or “95 flex” we are taking about the general feel in the bend of the shaft for how much force we are putting on it, and how the feel of that force relates to each other. 

That True video is needlessly adding all this complicated discussion of materials so they can say “well technically the flex doesn’t change.” But we all know damn well from experience it does.  

It’s needlessly complicated and just creates confusion. It’s some heavy breathing neckbeard nerd shit meant to mislead people. 

Maybe we should have been using the term “leverage” for the past 40 years to discuss flex instead of the word “flex.” But, we didn’t, and no reason to try to mess with it now. Shut up, True. 

The industry as a whole has been brutal at this sort of thing. Flex ratings should be a standard that all brands follow. A 75 flex warrior should feel roughly the same as a 75 flex Bauer. I know there are other factors at play like kick point but it should be relatively close.

[Larry54 243]

4 hours ago, Hills said:

This is completely correct. If you have a 75 flex and have someone flex it as a reference, then hand them a 75 cut down they aren't going to say it flexes like a 75.

I totally understand what they are saying, but now you also have no reference of what flex someone wants and likes.

That's because the person flexing it isn't holding the upper hand at the same distance from the heel of both sticks, because they don't know any better. I know that my sticks are cut right under my chin when wearing shoes, so when I test stick flex in a store, no matter the stick length, I place my upper hand at that position on the shaft. So a 63" stick will feel the same as a 58" stick if both are 75 flex. Maybe we just need an idiot-proof way to educate the user. 🤔

[Hills 712]

43 minutes ago, Larry54 said:

That's because the person flexing it isn't holding the upper hand at the same distance from the heel of both sticks, because they don't know any better. I know that my sticks are cut right under my chin when wearing shoes, so when I test stick flex in a store, no matter the stick length, I place my upper hand at that position on the shaft. So a 63" stick will feel the same as a 58" stick if both are 75 flex. Maybe we just need an idiot-proof way to educate the user. 🤔

Or... and hear me out... stop trying to change what people already talk about to sound smarter than everyone else and continue putting the little "+ 5 flex" marks on the top of the sticks that people have done for years.

[puckpilot 312]

7 hours ago, start_today said:

Maybe we should have been using the term “leverage” for the past 40 years to discuss flex instead of the word “flex.” But, we didn’t, and no reason to try to mess with it now. Shut up, True. 

 

1 hour ago, Hills said:

Or... and hear me out... stop trying to change what people already talk about to sound smarter than everyone else and continue putting the little "+ 5 flex" marks on the top of the sticks that people have done for years.

Sticking with the wrong way of thinking just because it's always been that way is silly. It's like saying I know the Earth goes around the Sun, but we'll just keep saying it's the other way around because it's easier for me to comprehend.

You know what's really confusing if you don't know any better? Seeing two Vapor sticks, both 85flex, but one is 3 inches taller. By the old way of thinking, if I cut three inches off the longer stick, it's 100 flex compared to the shorter one that remains 85flex. Imagine buying a stick based on that way of thinking? Oh this is a 100 flex, why is it so whippy?

True makes 65 senior sticks now. Imagine trying to compare a senior 65 flex at 60 inches tall to a 70 flex intermediate that's 57 inches tall. By the old way of thinking, If I cut three inches off that senior stick, it's an 80 flex. So if I normally us a 70 flex at 57 inches and want to try an 80 flex stick, I should by that senior 65 flex and simply cut, right? And gosh forbid, what if they they change the stock height of a stick line I like? If I normally cut three inches off, but now it's only one or two, does that mean the new sticks might too whippy for me? Should I go up in flex?

That's the kind of crap people have to deal with when thinking that way. And I bet companies like Bauer and CCM love it, because the confusion means more errors when choosing a stick. More errors in purchases means more sales, because there's no returns once you cut and play with the stick.

Knowing flex is an absolute number and simply thinking of length as leverage, means less variables to worry about, and it makes all that confusion above go away. if cut a stick my preferred height I lose leverage, so I have to choose a flex that allows me to bend the stick. Simple as that. No need to do math to get a pseudo flex rating. No need to worry about all the different lengths from all the different brands. No need to deal with the change in stock heights of sticks changing the calculated flex rating.

[start_today 770]

15 hours ago, puckpilot said:

Knowing flex is an absolute number and simply thinking of length as leverage, means less variables to worry about, and it makes all that confusion above go away. if cut a stick my preferred height I lose leverage, so I have to choose a flex that allows me to bend the stick. Simple as that. No need to do math to get a pseudo flex rating. No need to worry about all the different lengths from all the different brands. No need to deal with the change in stock heights of sticks changing the calculated flex rating.

This is all semantics. You’re just stopping the word flex and inserting the word leverage. You’re not solving any problems. 

It doesn’t matter what you call it. Flex, leverage, whatever. I have a stick with a bizzapapa rating of 75, and I cut 2” inches off and it now has a different, more resistant or “stiffer” bizzapapa feel. Put whatever word you want there.

They are creating more confusion by talking about the flex of the materials in the stick, and not the flex of the stick itself. As it is now, it’s not wrong. They aren’t correcting an error, they are creating a semantic argument about the definition of “flex.”

Full copyright on bizzapapa terminology and tech. Bauer, hit me up, let’s talk. 

[marka 526]

2 hours ago, start_today said:

This is all semantics. You’re just stopping the word flex and inserting the word leverage. You’re not solving any problems. 

It doesn’t matter what you call it. Flex, leverage, whatever. I have a stick with a bizzapapa rating of 75, and I cut 2” inches off and it now has a different, more resistant or “stiffer” bizzapapa feel. Put whatever word you want there.

They are creating more confusion by talking about the flex of the materials in the stick, and not the flex of the stick itself. As it is now, it’s not wrong. They aren’t correcting an error, they are creating a semantic argument about the definition of “flex.”

Full copyright on bizzapapa terminology and tech. Bauer, hit me up, let’s talk. 

Howdy,

I'm with @puckpilot.  When you conflate stick length and flex together you end up with weird crap like folks not understanding that a 75 flex stick that had an uncut length of 63" and a 75 flex stick that had an uncut length of 60" _will feel the same when they are both cut to the same length_ (all else, equal, blah blah).

That's an important misconception to correct.  And using "flex" to represent the stiffness of the stick and "leverage" to represent what that means when its in your hands makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than expecting people to magically understand that this time you're using "flex" to mean "what the stick feels like" and that next time you're using "flex" to mean "the stiffness of the shaft over a set length".

Mark

[birky 24]

I think it's fair to say that the current nomenclature is wrong and in the case of extended sticks misleading, but the alternative of trying to discuss flex and leverage as separate but related concepts is probably just as confusing for the average stick buyer. We need some new ideas for how to explain this in a simple way. But for the time being keeping the markings on the bottom of retail sticks is maybe the best bad option.

Edited October 27, 2022 by birky

[VegasHockey 1280]

2 hours ago, birky said:

I think it's fair to say that the current nomenclature is wrong and in the case of extended sticks misleading, but the alternative of trying to discuss flex and leverage as separate but related concepts is probably just as confusing for the average stick buyer. We need some new ideas for how to explain this in a simple way. But for the time being keeping the markings on the bottom of retail sticks is maybe the best bad option.

Throw in the discussion of swing weight and you can really blow a customer's mind. 

[puckpilot 312]

7 hours ago, start_today said:

This is all semantics. You’re just stopping the word flex and inserting the word leverage. You’re not solving any problems. 

They are creating more confusion by talking about the flex of the materials in the stick, and not the flex of the stick itself. As it is now, it’s not wrong. They aren’t correcting an error, they are creating a semantic argument about the definition of “flex.”

Semantics matter. If your using the word flex when you mean leverage and using the two interchangeably, that causes way more issues than simply clarifying what something specifically means. In casual conversation people use the word "couple" as meaning more than one. I got a couple things from the store. That's fine. But when you use the word casually, in a context where the exact meaning matters, you cause misunderstanding. Your wife asks you how long you're going to be out, because she needs you back to watch the kids. You say you'll be back in a couple of hours and stay out for five. That matters because it's going to have consequences.  

All that video is doing is explaining what the flex rating is, it's exact meaning. By the industry, this how flex is defined. This what that flex number means. They're not creating an argument, because there isn't an argument. What is causing an argument is trying to insist, in a context where specifics matter, that the casual usage of a word and the exact definition can be used interchangeably without confusion.

I gave clear examples of how thinking of flex as changing when you cut a stick can cause confusion, and how understanding that flex doesn't change simplifies the stick selection process. If this is something that you don't find useful, then fine. But don't tell me that explaining the facts is somehow wrong or confusing. Facts clarify. Misinformation confuses.   

[VegasHockey 1280]

Remember back in the day when sticks only had ratings of soft, regular, stiff, and x-stiff.

[218hockey 50]

On 10/19/2022 at 8:46 AM, JAY4114 said:

Does cutting the extension off warrior sticks increase flex? Bauer claims that it doesn't for theirs but I don't know if that is the case for all brands.

Are you talking about taking 2 inches off of a Warrior Senior stick? Is that where you're getting 63"? Sorry if I don't follow.

[start_today 770]

At this point, we need Virginia Tech to do an arbitrary study of stick length and flex and we can all disagree on everything.  

[Buzz_LightBeer 969]

On 10/27/2022 at 9:56 PM, 218hockey said:

Are you talking about taking 2 inches off of a Warrior Senior stick? Is that where you're getting 63"? Sorry if I don't follow.

By Warrior measurements, 60" is stock retail, 63" is 3" taller than stock