I think companies should stop adversising soft pads

[Jonathon v]

Just me saying whats on my mind, but I think it is ridiculous people say soft pads are so you can cover up the puck. I have brains gnetik 3 pads, and after 8-9 months of pretty heavy use they are unbelievably soft compared to other pads. But I have never had a shot where the rebound died so much I was in covering range unless it is an absolute muffin, but even then the puck still kind of gets booted out. Does anyone else agree with me? I think only shots where the puck would die is a shot right at the very top of the thigh when in my butterfly, but even stiff pads will usually make the puck die with a shot there, the thigh will fold in when it hits

[bunnyman666]

Some pads, such as the TPS Icecap, had Brock tubes that made pucks die. Older pad designs had rebounds die with air holes in the jenpro.

I never heard of G-Netik 3’s being advertised as a pad so soft that rebounds fall at your feet. I missed that marketing; if they did say that and your experience was the exact opposite, I agree wholeheartedly.

Factory Mad says his pads will kill rebounds, but you can conceivably kick them wherever you want to. I have not experienced a Factory pad, just his catch and block. 

Even my Brian’s Zero G (a.k.a. Pooper GP #2 mk 1) can bounce crazy rebounds. I could try re-stuffing them with a softer core and use foam chips and put  a few holes in the face to calm rebounds. Or, I could try a more traditional pad. Of course if the shot is HARD enough, it will bounce back at nearly the speed it was shot.  

Read this thread. It may be of interest to you for soft rebounds. Get the mind going.

http://goaliestore.com/board/forum/equipment/equipment-forum/1980-stuffing-material-and-pad-disection

[kyledjean]

Also has to do with how you react and flex your legs when taking the shot. This actually used to be taught in the late 90’s early 2000’s in goalie camps. Was fairly effective at deadening the puck. Especially effective for standup. With “softer” pads you can actually deadened the puck with only your leg pads. It does take a lot of practice and timing though. With that being said the area that puck will kick out can still reach almost 5 feet. The tps Brock pads did infact deaden pucks significantly on their own. I remember when those were all the rage. 

[cwarnar]

No modern day pad will completely "kill" a rebound.  But if you compare 1S to an EF4, the "hot rebound" concept is night and day.  Due to the cores mostly being HD foam, all pads will still have the ability to kick the puck out. My GT pros are the same, but if I move to a G4, the rebounds are hotter.  I think when most companies talk stiff vs soft, they mean core and boot.

Look at Bauer... 2X is their "soft" or hybrid pad the rebound still fly off them.  

[Kirk3190]

I agree with @cwarnar.  We specifically have never marketed GT(2) vs. G4 as a softer pad or a rebound killer.  If the term "soft" was used it was directly pertaining to the unique torsional boot flex the pad provides in coordination with it's boot taper.  G4 also has a flexible boot, most goalies would say both lines have a "soft" boot because the range of motion is there for both lines but in two completely different ways.  In general, all goalies want harder faster rebounds now regardless of what type of goalie you classify yourself as.  I think it's still somewhat ingrained in goalies minds when they see knee rolls they assume the goal of the pad is to kill a rebound.  For Warrior, at least, that is not the case at all. 

[TheGoalNet]

agree with @Kirk3190 + @cwarnar 's assessment. The only brand I have heard talk about "soft" rebounds is CCM with the EFlex line. I referenced that in my video. For everyone else, I think it's traditional rebounds or hot rebounds.

[bunnyman666]

5 hours ago, Kirk3190 said:

I agree with @cwarnar.  We specifically have never marketed GT(2) vs. G4 as a softer pad or a rebound killer.  If the term "soft" was used it was directly pertaining to the unique torsional boot flex the pad provides in coordination with it's boot taper.  G4 also has a flexible boot, most goalies would say both lines have a "soft" boot because the range of motion is there for both lines but in two completely different ways.  In general, all goalies want harder faster rebounds now regardless of what type of goalie you classify yourself as.  I think it's still somewhat ingrained in goalies minds when they see knee rolls they assume the goal of the pad is to kill a rebound.  For Warrior, at least, that is not the case at all. 

Frankly, every modern pad with knee rolls I have played in, the rebounds were kinda crazy. 

Diving into the science of how current-ish pads are built, the biggest difference is how, in essence, the core of a pad is one piece. Add to that, a modern knee roll is usually not stuffed, but it also a single piece; put the roll and solid core together and that knee roll has a potential to bounce the puck into next week! I have never seen your pads marketed as anything other than a pad for the modern player. 

I have been dissecting the older pads. They will not become wallets, by the way. They are rolls that are sewn together. The padding is stuffed in. In essence, there is a fair bit of damping between the stuffed cushioning media and the independent rolls. 

Interestingly enough, I have some Miller Vorteks that have some batting sewn to the back of the face. There is also foam worms in the pad, too. They do damp rebounds, but not quite like a stuffed pad. One can buy a modern Miller pad and rebounds will die down with his latest offerings. But it is not made for the modern butterfly game. 

I always had predictable rebounds with every Warrior pad I have ever played in. I am actually looking at your pad for my next pad when my Poopers finally poop out. You have great offerings for a variety of goal tenders.