Reply To: Equipment: Wood vs Composite Sticks

[hockeygod]

Ah Dave… you had to get me going on this, didn't you!

I too am a cheap ba$tard! I use wood sticks. I buy them for myself (at Canadian Tire for under $30 each… or I go to Sport Chek where a friend works, so I can get the same Sherwood 5030 for $18 with staff discount!) Companies give me composite sticks, I politely accept as I then have a supply of gifts – this helps minimize my Christmas shopping! (Like I said, I am cheap!)

I have used wood (the red Titan TPM 3020's were my absolute favourite! When I played in Finland, I went to the stick factory and brought back a dozen with me!); then I tried aluminum shafts with wood blades coming up in junior, but switched back to wood. The aluminum sticks were too stiff and vibrated like Hell when I did a slapshot or received a hard pass. They also broke in half quite regularly. Hmmm… kind of like today's composites?! How many times do we see them break during NHL games? LOTS! And it isn't always from the shooting – a slash can shatter them. Anecdotally, I don't think the wood sticks seemed to break as often from incidental contact.

I tried composite sticks again recently (last year) for two months to be fair to the process (didn't allow myself to use my Sherwood), try the new technology, etc. to give them an honest chance. I didn't think I could shoot that much harder but I couldn't couldn't handle the puck as well; nor could I pass and receive as well. I tried different flexes, brands, etc. but never found that same 'feel' as I do with wood. It was a happy day when I parked the composite and dusted off the Sherwood!

When I did some development work for the Coyotes Amateur Hockey Association in the early 2000's, I spoke with Pat Conacher, who was an A/C with the Coyotes at the time. Patty played in the league and knows his stuff. In his estimation, he felt that each NHL team had 1-2 players AT MOST who benefited from composite sticks. They were pure "shooters" of the highest order (I.E. goal scorers) – BUT they also had unreal hands, so they could pass and receive without any apparent negative consequences. The rest of the players were fooling themselves… falling into the marketing machine trap and / or seduced by sponsorship $.

Yes, composites can help some people to shoot slightly harder. BUT 99% of ALL NHL PLAYERS CANNOT PROPERLY GIVE AND RECEIVE THE PUCK properly or as well as they could with wood. They suffer a loss in 'touch' due to the stiffness of the material. Today I watched the Calgary Flames practice, then the Washington Capitals, then the Calgary Hitmen. I was amazed at how badly the players beat the puck up. It bounces off the blade moreso than wood. The technique kids use today is to let the puck smack the stick and bounce ahead and then they skate into it / collect it. When I played, it was to provide a target such that you could absorb / cushion the puck.

Or to put it another way, 99% of all NHL players would benefit more by using a wood stick. Players give and receive way more passes in a game / practice contrasted to the number of shots they take (check the stats)… so if I am not an elite NHL'er (top 1%), it would be more helpful to me to use wood. Better to be able to give and receive a pass to put me into a scoring area (even if I can't shoot as hard… but I am more accurate)… then have it bounce off my stick and never even get a chance to shoot!

So why do our junior, college and minor hockey players use them? Because the public blindly follows whatever the 'experts' say and what their favourite player uses / endorses. At junior, the stick suppliers dictate which models they will supply based on the league deals. Also, the marketing info put out makes it seem like if you AREN'T using them, you are giving up some degree of advantage to those that do. Many advertisers use fear as part of their ad campaign if you think about it… insurance companies, tire companies, etc.

I believe it's bunk. Just because some talking head says it's true, doesn't mean it is.

Red Deer College did a study with their men's and women's hockey team in the early 2000's and allegedly found that the composite sticks might have made for a very slight increase in velocity (1-2%) in some of the guys, but they didn't help the women (the sticks didn't have enough flex for the women.) In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the women actually shot slower with composite. And, the accuracy was off in both genders by a significant amount; which means some people can shoot the puck harder, but they can't control the placement. Which means you can't pick the corner / spot as well, which means you don't score… you might even miss the net more often, thus less secondary scoring chances generated! This lack of control showed up in the passing and receiving results too… players (both genders) were less accurate in passing; plus they couldn't control the puck as well when receiving. So now you can't even advance the puck into a scoring chance… thanks for that, composite stick manufacturers!

I am a professional coach who is in the skill development business. In my line of work, I am on the ice every day and I make a lot of passes. I pass far more than I shoot; and when I do, it isn't to score – it's to dump a puck in, or to create rebounds, or to warm up a goalie. I usually get THREE+ YEARS out of ONE WOOD STICK – so long as I take care of the tape and wax it regularly. I don't play hockey anymore, so I basically need a twig to prop me up on the ice and to gather pucks. In my professional opinion, parents (and beer league players) are throwing their money away to 'keep up with the Joneses!' My own kids will never have them unless (1) they waste their own money on them; (2) nobody makes wood sticks any more. Unfortunately, it looks like (2) is starting to become a reality.

I encourage everyone I work with to only buy wood sticks – especially minor hockey players.

Dean
M.Ed (Coaching)
Ch.P.C. (Chartered Professional Coach)
Game Intelligence Training
"Great education depends on great teaching."