TheGoalNet Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 @netminder - I am agreeing with you that Warrior pads are narrow. Somewhere on the board we have a few pics with tape measures. Some goalies don't care at all and some get annoyed with it. I wish Warrior would be more transparent about this topic myself. Bauer also had thin pads with the 1S. My understanding is that 1X is 11" wide, so I assume the 1S was an error with their tooling or production method. My point about "the meat" is that we are tying to build a community here. You a newer posted and we are happy you joined! However, crafting your posts a little bit differently might be more in the spirit of our community. I am not sure everyone full understood your initial post and there probably a lot of Warrior fans on this thread that might have been caught off guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaveByRichter35 Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 Its in the Optik thread. That's where the whole conversation started when Joz pointed out that the Optiks would be among the lightest on the market and at a true 11" width. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coopaloop1234 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 So is everyone's driveways salted up yet? Cool. @Kirk3190 Just curious to see when more information for the G4 will be available? Any chance to get some more details sooner instead of a few weeks before launch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwarnar Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share Posted January 19, 2018 Goalie Gear Nerd posted pics of the G4 line from the warrior catalog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coopaloop1234 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Dammit. Was a second too late. @cwarnar https://www.instagram.com/p/BeJNXBLjw56/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwarnar Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share Posted January 19, 2018 Lol. I wish @Kirk3190 would let me demo a set.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coopaloop1234 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 I've been barking up that tree for a while now. I even said he was a nice man too... Nothing. What a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayen Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Howl we may, howl we might. We can only wish. I wonder how that Active drop system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadlocked1 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I thought it was common knowledge that most intermediate pads were 10.5"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motowngoalie Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Dude, @netminder what's your issue here? Maximum size allowed under NHL spec is 11" wide, there's no rule saying you have to be at 11" width to be "SR." or "Pro" spec. From my own perspective, I've never a puck go by me and thought "damn, if only I had that 1/2" of extra width. Woulda stopped that one!". Just curious as to why this is an issue for some people, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunnyman666 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, motowngoalie said: Dude, @netminder what's your issue here? Maximum size allowed under NHL spec is 11" wide, there's no rule saying you have to be at 11" width to be "SR." or "Pro" spec. From my own perspective, I've never a puck go by me and thought "damn, if only I had that 1/2" of extra width. Woulda stopped that one!". Just curious as to why this is an issue for some people, that's all. The pads I had when I first started playing goal were nearly 13” wide depending on how they were measured. They were so clumsy, as was I. But smaller pads were an INSTANT improvement. Some people are hung up on that because they feel that it’s cheating saying “this is the world’s lightest pad” only to find out that the pad is under-sized. Something has to not be there for the weight to not be there. 1/4” by (in some cases) 40” of jenpro would be a couple of ounces. Take the foam into account for that, as well. Fractions of inches become yards, yards become rolls of fabric, and it saves money. Some people feel cheated using either rationale. Not saying it’s wrong or right. I have not measured my pads lately. I don’t need to. I bet my Brian’s Zero G lady pads are closer to 10.5” than 11”, and I don’t care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoalNet Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 @Kirk3190 - Is the new RVH roll a shape change at the boot flex joint or a thinner overall roll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coopaloop1234 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 10 hours ago, netminder said: Did they make another 10.25" wide intermediate pad and call it pro senior sizing again? I thought you were done dishing out salt? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoalNet Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 You may not like @netminder ‘s approach... But he does bring up a valid question and we’ve yet to get clearification on it. Why are Warrior pads under max size, was this on purpose, and is the G4 11”? I think it’s a safe assumption that everyone would pick 11” pads over 10.25” given the choice and them weighing the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreadlocked1 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 It's Intermediate vs Senior. Senior is always 11". Most manufacturer's Intermediate's are 10.5". From my previous experience on GSBB, netminder just likes to complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoalNet Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 @dreadlocked1 - I get he’s stirring the pot, but I still get back to the fact that it’s odd Warrior Sr Pro are not 11” If this was intentional to save weight, I fully understand. If this was error with tooling and the G4 was corrected, that makes sense as well. However, I’d love the facts on this case. Buaer had the same thing and moved to 11” with 1X. So it was clearly not something they wanted long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old but slow Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Pro specs (well NHL anyway) are a MAXIMUM width of 11", I don't believe there is a MINIMUM width. @netminder how is it "fraud" or not equal comparison to compare "pro spec "pads with "pro spec" pads. Warrior pads meet the criteria for "pro spec". @TheGoalNet, I too would like the facts. @Kirk3190, Any input? would love to know if it is intentional or a temporary issue? I love the idea of narrower pads, much better mobility with negligible reduction in coverage. My 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pauly35or00 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 The pad width decrease could honestly be the reason why Warrior doesn't have any NHLers. No one playing pro is going to sacrifice blocking surface at the expense of a few milligrams of weight reduction. Warrior should be much bigger in the pro ranks based purely on offering a very functional, cutting-edge pad. I don't see any AHL/ECHL guys in them either which could also be because of team brand deals. They should be more popular but at that level, a goalie needs all the help they can get and honestly when it comes to weight most brands are very comparable. This being said if I didn't learn this information from this website I would never have known about it and I've held this stuff multiple times and compared G3's side by side with other pads and not noticed. Warrior G3's/4's are at the top of my list for new gear if they are not as wide as other brands then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old but slow Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 @Pauly35or00- NHL fees may also play a part in the lack of exposure. But honestly, when pad max widths were reduced from 12" to 11", mobility increased and save percentages went up. I doubt at the NHL level that anyone would notice the difference of less than the thickness of a puck to the blocking surface. But I'm an old, slow, never was so what do I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunnyman666 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 @Pauly35or00 Fees are probably the chief reason why they are not exposed in the NHL at this point. I see more than a few unbranded Ritual Pro blockers and gloves go through the pro return sites, so some circulation is happening. The Warrior goalie product is popular in the Euro leagues from what I have seen. All it is going to take is a hot up and comer who was born and bred into Warrior and will not be influenced by the relationship a Pro team has with the other major brands to get Warrior to pony up the dosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoalNet Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 @Pauly35or00 - I had made in Canada 1S pro returns and they were too were narrow. My guess is that no one in the NHL bothers to measure their own gear. Gear passes NHL inspection and they move on. The reality of the NHL gear? Nearly ever pro has some form of gear contract. Some of them big and some of them small. It's a major business decision to get your gear into the NHL. You have to pay NHL fees and player contracts. If anyone thinks someone like Vaughn is getting away without gear contracts in 2018, you are very naive. They may not pay every goalie in their stuff, but they do for a lot and it reaches as deep as the CHL. At the pro level, it is also very easy to build a clone and then pay someone to wear your product. Think about about the crazy gloves floating around that 580, 590 or 5500 clones from all different companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruckus007 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 On 1/21/2018 at 9:09 AM, TheGoalNet said: @Pauly35or00 - I had made in Canada 1S pro returns and they were too were narrow. My guess is that no one in the NHL bothers to measure their own gear. Gear passes NHL inspection and they move on. The reality of the NHL gear? Nearly ever pro has some form of gear contract. Some of them big and some of them small. It's a major business decision to get your gear into the NHL. You have to pay NHL fees and player contracts. If anyone thinks someone like Vaughn is getting away without gear contracts in 2018, you are very naive. They may not pay every goalie in their stuff, but they do for a lot and it reaches as deep as the CHL. At the pro level, it is also very easy to build a clone and then pay someone to wear your product. Think about about the crazy gloves floating around that 580, 590 or 5500 clones from all different companies. Not to mention legacy models like the Vision, V3, etc etc. Warrior a long time ago indicated that they will no longer focus their goalie gear development in the NHL as it was overhauled by Pete Smith and still in its infancy. This from a business standpoint I think is very smart as the NHL licensing and mask fees are just cash grabbers. I feel the same way with HECC and CSA masks (I don't see how a Bauer NME3 can or should be CSA/HECC cerified). Warrior gear is huge in Europe and the rest of the world, which is a much MUCH larger market for them to attack, without the nosebleed fees attached to it. It IS sad though the way gear is here in N. America because there's a kid working at the local hockey shop I go to and he HATES warrior gear. To the point where he trashes my love for them but he hasn't even TOUCHED the gear. He's been brainwashed into thinking that only Bauer and CCM is the best and I find that just sad (however, that's EXACTLY how they want him to be). Kids with warrior gear in minor hockey also get chirped, insulted and laughed at. This kind of misinformation and behaviour I think holds BACK innovation, and makes these large companies less accountable when they release sub-part garbage (if you don't believe me, look at the leg channel material of the E-Flex 3 - it's made with the same paper-based fabric they use in the back of COUCHES). I know there are CCM and Bauer fans on here that may argue differently, however, I believe both companies release under-engineered products that have SHIT quality. They used to be good. They used to come out with cool things. Nowadays, I see corner cutting EVERYWHERE. I study gear as a hobby, and use them as well. It's been disappointing to say the least. Why isn't Brian's on here? Well...I didn't see any couch-liners on their Optiks when I was demo-ing them..... If I had to compare: Bauer = old GM - bunch of stuff that's poorly built (even when it was by JRZ), gimmicky and full of WTF design areas. CCM = Old Honda - Selling re-badged products based on the reputation of a stellar example long ago but forgot to update themselves and started to go cheap on the trim/fixings as a band-aid solution to catch up. I held a Canadian made Peremier 2 yesterday. I had about 20 minutes to poke and prod at it. It felt just like an offshore model. Pretty much the same thing really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoalNet Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 @ruckus007 - I agree with 90% of your post above. Very well said. I commend @Kirk3190 and his team for daring to do things differently that are responsible business decisions. The sheep nature of people is where our forum can help the great goalie world! However... I have to challenge your car analogy. Bauer did something different with the 1S line and changed a lot of the trend. I can’t think of anyone in Detroit being that innovative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruckus007 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 4 hours ago, TheGoalNet said: @ruckus007 - I agree with 90% of your post above. Very well said. I commend @Kirk3190 and his team for daring to do things differently that are responsible business decisions. The sheep nature of people is where our forum can help the great goalie world! However... I have to challenge your car analogy. Bauer did something different with the 1S line and changed a lot of the trend. I can’t think of anyone in Detroit being that innovative :LOL I noticed no objection to the CCM part of the analogy. I kid. I kid. Up until the 1S, Bauer really didn't have anything great. I was more prodding at that section of their history. There were a lot of "gadgets" but none which were great or thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunnyman666 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 I don’t buy the Bauer did anything great with the OD1N pad. I just saw a pair in a PIAS up close. They wanted $800 for a pad that looked like it was falling apart! That is NOT innovation. Sure- it might slide from goal line to goal line, but that pad looked like it was going to implode! And it does not look like you can really do much repair. The innovation? To make a pad that is replaced once per season! A Brian’s of the same age looked nearly new with a bunch of puck marks. And Warriors? The pads of similar age look as good as Brian’s, if not a teeny bit better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![THE GOAL[ie] NET[work]](http://content.invisioncic.com/r274873/monthly_2018_03/logo-02.png.d6f61971ea123d3bfb039f976a1ffe77.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.