The great thighrise debate

[spidergoalie]

Not wanting to further highjack the gear sitings thread into a debate on thighrises, I thought I would start a new thread on this topic.
Yes it has been discussed before, and yes I searched through some old threads, but I think given rule changes that have occured since most of those threads, and the recently annointed goalie god who wears HUGE thighrises, I thought it might be appropriate to have a new thread.

On the debate regarding one size fits all pad rules, versus X number of inches above the knee..... I will say I have mixed feelings on the topic.

On the one hand, I'm not sure I could support a rule that says one goalie is allowed to wear bigger equipment than another goalie, purely by virtue of the fact the first goalie already covers more net. On some level that seems illogical and unfair.

On the other hand, according to the rules, the pads are for protection not net coverage, and as such those ridiculous thighrises are absolutely a violation of the spirit of the rule.

No one here seems to be arguing that they need +4 because dangerous areas of the leg are exposed otherwise, but rather because they want to seal up the 5 hole. As such, to use a GSBB phrase, they are a contrivance.

I have to wonder what exactly was accomplished when the NHL banned thighboards, which have a legitimate protection based purpose, but they allow this sort of thighrise with absolutely no legitimate protection purpose.

For the record I sort of tried a set of lundqvist spec pads this summer. My knee fit perfectly, but the thighrise was at my waist, above my crotch, and this was standing upright. Trying to BF in these would have given me an instant groin pull I think!!!!(Granted I’m only 5'9) For those who argue Lundqvist doesn't have a huge thighrise, that is is an optical illusion...sorry, but it aint so.


Lundqvist seems to be getting a free ride on this bb. As a Giguere fan I have read sooo many (mostly ill-informed) posts about his supposedly oversized equipment (btw,..he has always worn 36"...2" shorter than Lundqvists) in fact Giguere along with Snow are mentioned on this bb more for alleged equipment faux pas, than their play, yet Lundqvist has been declared a God here

All that said, I think at this point, if the rules are purely about protection and not net coverage, I now land on the side of x number of inches above the knee. I have argued the equal coverage side in the past, but between seeing Lundqvists pads, and many of the members of this BB's waist high pads, my opinion has changed.

Just for fun, here is a picture of a goalie in the process of setting the all time best save percentage for a season..

[Sprawl]

playing the other side of the fense here


why should someone who's 6'4" be able to wear 38" pads that cover that much more net than someone who's 5'8"?

because he's taller gives him the right for bigger blocking surfaces? as a short guy i find that really insulting

if the all goaltenders are supposed to be treated equally for equipment you can't limit their size based on the players size. it would be akin to telling that every player can only use a 30" stick. no longer, no shorter

[Faint]

I bet you lundqvists pads dont go all the way up to his waist.

[M-Dub]

Well Being short would be a disadvantage then as it would be in other sports. I understand where you are coming from but the trend is definetly for larger guys. I think it goes the same for most of the positions all getting bigger and faster and stronger.

I think the rule should be based on player size and proper fiting equipment.

Give them a certain lenth above the knee. Maybe allow thigh boards of a limited size for knee protection.

would be nice too if the manufactuers would be standard too as the RBK 36 is a very tall 36. compared to some other 36s..

[spidergoalie]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

playing the other side of the fense here


why should someone who's 6'4" be able to wear 38" pads that cover that much more net than someone who's 5'8"?

because he's taller gives him the right for bigger blocking surfaces? as a short guy i find that really insulting

if the all goaltenders are supposed to be treated equally for equipment you can't limit their size based on the players size. it would be akin to telling that every player can only use a 30" stick. no longer, no shorter

Because the rules are not about net coverage, but protection. A shorter goalie does not need as big a pad to protect him from injury.

I totally get and have in the past argued the same point you make. The funadamental issue is the purpose of the rule...protection or coverage?

[OldDawg]

There definitely should be a limit on the height of thighrises. It's getting ridiculous how 'tall' the pads are getting and all that extra height is NOT for protection.

If the NHL wants even more scoring maybe they should make all goalies wear the Ron Hextall thighrise; -3 instead of +3.

[Chester]

Spider: Good idea on the thread.

Ive said alot and yes it should be here now, the gear sitings should be for gear.

On the Lundy "god" topic. Interesting how a guy with only one year under his belt is a "god". If he's still in the league 10 years from now, then i'll take a look at him.

Originally Posted by M-Dub

would be nice too if the manufactuers would be standard too as the RBK 36 is a very tall 36. compared to some other 36s..

36" is 36". A straight ruler is longer than a bent 36" piece of metal. Its all in how much the pad bends or flexes that determines its height.


Chester

[Oddzilla51]

Originally Posted by spidergoalie

Just for fun, here is a picture of a goalie in the process of setting the all time best save percentage for a season..

That can't be. He isn't butterflying.



Yes, I agree. Enormous thigh rises are a contrivance.

While I don't really have much problem with someone getting +1 added (let's face it, some of us aren't as young or flexible anymore and if it makes them feel better or think they can play better, so be it; I wear ODB's because it helps my knees and lower back pain but I also can't do all that crazy stuff you suppossedly are able to do with them), but there has to be a limit.

And Lunny IS getting a free ride. But playing well means acceptance to alot of people. Garth Snow hasn't had much success lately so it's easy for people to pick his gear apart.

Taller goalies, by the use of common sense, should have taller pads, but it should be proportional to the goalie.

Knees should be in the center of the knee area (or the middle knee roll for those of us who have and remember what a knee roll is ) and the thigh rise should come up no more than (at max) halfway between the thigh and crotch or hip. That may even be too much. But let's face it, not al of us have the exact same measurement from knee to hip. Some will be taller, some will be shorter.

And short or tall, it shouldn't matter. Short goalies shouldn't say that it's unfair that taller goalies get taller pads. It's not the tall goalie's fault your shorter than them. A taller goalie shouldn't have to wear shorter pads anymore than a shorter goalie should be able to wear taller pads.

Gear should be for protection. Like I said in the other thread, goalies like Lunny WILL get rules changed again at some point because of things like that. He's not playing by the rules, he's taking advantage of them. WHile not a bad thing because it CAN and DOES happen, it will be a cause of changes.

And yes, I've been the route of big gear. It hurt my game. I got back to smaller gear and started concentrating on ability. I'm a better goalie now (which isn't saying much) BECAUSE of normal or smaller sized gear.

Learn to play, not rely.

[adavis]

The rule is what it is. I really don't they'll ever parcel it down to individual sizing for each goalie, it seems unnecessary. Their are very few goalies who can even pull off a pad size like that, it's not like Snow or Kidd were setting the world on fire with goaltending. I think if you're wearing gear that fits into the rules, it's irrelevant.

With that said, aren't we the same group of people who were having a collective **** fit over gear being made smaller a year ago?

[Oddzilla51]

Originally Posted by adavis

With that said, aren't we the same group of people who were having a collective **** fit over gear being made smaller a year ago?

Not me. I've always been for it.

[greatsave31]

my two cents: (1) I use a +2 thigh rise.. My pads are bauer supreme pro 34" then the +2. I personally was against all thigh rise's untill I tried it and found the perfect size that works for me. Though the lundy pads are quite nice to look at and extremely tempting to use being that they are about +4, or +5; you also have to take into account that, that is the pad that works for him
(2) simple physics, "every action has an equal but opposite re-action". That being said, if you have a bigger thigh rise... You will be GREAT on straight, angle, or screen shots for the most part. Everything would be covered down low. The RE-ACTION it makes it that much harder for lateral movements. You side to side movements will be dramatically decreased and moving out of the net to play the puck, and even simple skating will suffer greatly. I mean look at someone like Giggy, (with the exception of some questionable goals this past year) he was solid on straight shots. The thing that beats Giggy is the "back-door-play".
(3) Now I'm playing both sides of the fence, those with any thigh rise +3 or above I think will have a harder time with the side to side movements and they are almost limiting themselves right there so there is no need to limit the gear (I hope you understand where I'm coming from there). Those smaller guys like myself do not have the longer legs that could get away with a higher thigh rise, just not enough real estate on our legs and everything is condensed... so it would be somewhat stupid to have a huge thigh rise.

sorry for the length it was more like 50 cents

[WI_stinger39]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

playing the other side of the fense here


why should someone who's 6'4" be able to wear 38" pads that cover that much more net than someone who's 5'8"?

because he's taller gives him the right for bigger blocking surfaces? as a short guy i find that really insulting

this is absolutely ridiculous, if you standardize equipement size based on position rather than player size you're going to ruin tons of goalies, so theoretically a 6'4" goalie needs longer arms on his c/a, does that mean you need a c/a with longer arms? how about pants, longer pants as well? have you ever tried skating in pads, pants and a c/a that are way too big for you? mobility is much more important than coverage.

you stay square to the shooter and have mobility and you'll make the save.

if the all goaltenders are supposed to be treated equally for equipment you can't limit their size based on the players size. it would be akin to telling that every player can only use a 30" stick. no longer, no shorter

actually it's the opposite.... saying every goalie HAS to wear 36" pads is like saying every goalie can use a 30" stick (kinda short), telling goaltenders to use what is comfortable but limit the overall size is like telling a player to use the size of stick he wants except limiting the curve.

[Alec M]

All of you guys talk about being "fair" and about the rule saying equipment is only for protection. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to see hockey become all about the "big player". How fair will it be when every 14 year old kid who isn't already 6'0" or taller isn't even looked at by scouts or high level teams because of his height. "This kid can wear bigger pads, so we're going to take him". This sort of thing is already a big problem in the goaltending world, and tagging equipment size to the goalie's body size will only make it worse. You will never see another goalie under 6' in the NHL again.

I like watching a sport that has players who are normal human sizes, goalies included. I like knowing that an NHL goalie is the same size as me, but that he is just THAT much better. How about all of those kids who are late bloomers? Maybe they end up taller when they're 22 or 23 years old, but when they were a teenager, when the high level training was available to them and the decisions on their hockey futures are being made, they're the shortest goalie on the ice? They'd be finished.

I don't want to see that. A global limit on pad size, 38", is the only way to ensure an even playing field among all goaltenders in terms of available blocking surface. No one is forcing shorter goalies to wear tall pads. They risk trading mobility to do so, and that is their choice. Tall, big goalies are always going to be preferred, but at least today, the little guy still has a fighting chance.

[Hounsy]

For the sake of enforcement I feel having a set length limit for all is for the best and fair enough to all. You need a system that is pretty cut and dry, because if it's not goalies will find the loopholes.

[WI_stinger39]

Originally Posted by Alec M

I like watching a sport that has players who are normal human sizes, goalies included. I like knowing that an NHL goalie is the same size as me, but that he is just THAT much better. How about all of those kids who are late bloomers? Maybe they end up taller when their 22 or 23 years old, but when they were a teenager, when the high level training was available to them and the decisions on their hockey futures are being made, they're the shortest goalie on the ice? They'd be finished.

one of my ex's was finishing his masters at mcgill in sports therapy and essentially they're program also volunteered them to work for the canadiens and the alouettes (cfl) doing the basic physical testing, she tested all the bulldogs players and almost every player wanted their height and weight "altered".

although it is true that the nhl is now basing on size, but then again the stats are almost all biased, most of the players are probably between 5'9" and 6'2" which isn't really out of the ordinary