The weight difference really helps, especially over time. If you carry around that piece of lumber for an hour, you're going to get slower with your stick handling much faster than a composite stick. I'm older too so my wrist or shoulder may ache a little more by the end of the game. Price really isn't much of an issue either because I'd go through a wood stick in a month and a half where the heel would start splitting. That cost me $50. A composite stick will last me at least 6-8 months. At $250, it works out to be really close. I can slap with a wood stick about as hard as a composite, just takes time to get used to the difference in feel. So in the end, the biggest thing really is the weight.
I recently played for over an hour with a graphite stick for the first time ever. Then I went immediately back to the wood stick and I couldn't believe how heavy it was! I'm finally a convert.
lol what an awful 'experiment'. No radar gun, so they just conclude that both sticks fired the puck the same speed because he completed his shot at the same time? The composite in this case clearly flexes more, which creates a sling-like effect when the stick releases. Additionally, the composite has a much more consistent flex profile. Wood tends to twist quite a bit when shooting (which you actually see on the slo-mo). The result is an insistent, relatively slower shot with wooden sticks versus composite.
composite sticks are shit my bro went through tree in one tourney then bought a wood stick and still has it today and that was ten years ago so composites being more durable no wayy!!
Lol anyone that says wood is any good at all has never played a high level hockey. Stick handling with a composite stick is on a whole different level. It's not even close.
This is not a fair comparison. The emphasis in this demonstration is on shooting, not stickhandling. Composite sticks do give a harder, faster shot, and (more arguably) a more accurate shot. They are inferior when it comes to stickhandling, and one only has to compare a modern game with a game played back in wooden stick days to see the decline in stickhandling skills in the game. Unlike the NHL, ML Baseball had the sense to stick with wooden bats, as part of what baseball is all about.
@Gregory Shoemake lmao his comment his from 7 years ago... Regardless, players are definitely better stick handlers these days. Idk what that guys smoking but composite sticks definitely make stick handling easier.
What they don't mention is composite sticks break way easier from shots, passes and slashes..
I think I'm the only kid who still plays with a wood stick, I'm surprised they didn't break any composite sticks making this video...
The weight difference really helps, especially over time. If you carry around that piece of lumber for an hour, you're going to get slower with your stick handling much faster than a composite stick. I'm older too so my wrist or shoulder may ache a little more by the end of the game. Price really isn't much of an issue either because I'd go through a wood stick in a month and a half where the heel would start splitting. That cost me $50. A composite stick will last me at least 6-8 months. At $250, it works out to be really close. I can slap with a wood stick about as hard as a composite, just takes time to get used to the difference in feel. So in the end, the biggest thing really is the weight.
I recently played for over an hour with a graphite stick for the first time ever. Then I went immediately back to the wood stick and I couldn't believe how heavy it was! I'm finally a convert.
Ugh hate when they pus the pads in the wrong legs, drives goalies crazy.....
lol what an awful 'experiment'. No radar gun, so they just conclude that both sticks fired the puck the same speed because he completed his shot at the same time? The composite in this case clearly flexes more, which creates a sling-like effect when the stick releases. Additionally, the composite has a much more consistent flex profile. Wood tends to twist quite a bit when shooting (which you actually see on the slo-mo). The result is an insistent, relatively slower shot with wooden sticks versus composite.
im sad hes gone from boston
HELLO?
no contest. wood is superior because it's cheaper and lasts longer.
paper...
Filip Cernak really really really really really really really reallllllllllllllllllllllllololololollllllllllllllllllly thick and strong paper
TheArcadeProductions nice joke
the wood one has a HUGE shockwave when it makes contest
composite sticks are shit my bro went through tree in one tourney then bought a wood stick and still has it today and that was ten years ago so composites being more durable no wayy!!
Shawn's a grinder not an enforcer because he can actually play the game and contribute to a shift unlike straight up goons like Boogaard (RIP)
Even tough he is a enforcer like scal he is still great at the sport he pro in
the goalie has the pads on backwards..
Haha Thornts is the best but what would he know abou scoring? ha go B's
Lol anyone that says wood is any good at all has never played a high level hockey. Stick handling with a composite stick is on a whole different level. It's not even close.
Yeah nobody in the NHL ever used Wood...
This is not a fair comparison. The emphasis in this demonstration is on shooting, not stickhandling. Composite sticks do give a harder, faster shot, and (more arguably) a more accurate shot. They are inferior when it comes to stickhandling, and one only has to compare a modern game with a game played back in wooden stick days to see the decline in stickhandling skills in the game. Unlike the NHL, ML Baseball had the sense to stick with wooden bats, as part of what baseball is all about.
@Gregory Shoemake lmao his comment his from 7 years ago... Regardless, players are definitely better stick handlers these days. Idk what that guys smoking but composite sticks definitely make stick handling easier.
You know your a bender when you say (come-pause-it)
Devin cc.