Salming G1 Stick – It’s Orange, It’s light, is it good?
Written: Dec 30 '04 (Updated Dec 30 '04)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Excellent feel in puck handling, nice finish, light
Cons: Ultra stiff even at a 90 flex, poor curve selection
The Bottom Line: Point snipers might find this a good stick, but those who work in close and rely on wristers will struggle
|
|
|
| puckmugger's Full Review: Salming Sports G1 Hockey Stick |
Yet another Freebie
This is the third installment in my reviews of the free samples that I received from the Salming distributor. Any doubt that I can remain objective in light of freebies should be erased here. This was the one item that I just didn’t like. Still, as always, I will try to give you the good with the bad. I do know that there are some players who simply rave on this stick, a few who even proclaim it the best one-piece they’ve ever used. I am simply not among them.
First Impression
The G1 is a good-looking stick. It is similar in construction to the CCM Vector in which the Kevlar is in a sheet form rather than a woven material. How this is accomplished exactly is a mystery to me, but it does give the stick a very smooth outer texture rather than the slightly bumpy finish that often accompanies woven composite sticks. This type of construction generally results in a much more durable stick as well.
The color is bright orange and the graphics are not bad. A nice fingers peace sign and thumbs up are among the interesting tidbits on the stick. The peace sign fingers on the blade made me reluctant to tape the entire thing.
A few years ago I might have found day glow orange a little . . . hmm, gaudy. However, brightly colored sticks are what all the big guns in the hockey industry have been putting out since 2002. Why? It is pretty simple. When you see a bright orange stick on television you know that your favorite pro is using an Easton Synergy Sicore. At least that was the theory behind the practice originally. Now it’s almost impossible to tell since all the sticks are in neon colors - not to mention that your favorite pro is sitting in some bar drinking away his woes at holding out for a better deal. I suppose I could write a whole review on what the NHLPA was thinking as well as the owners, so I better get back to the subject here before I digress much further.
The feel of the stick is downright buttery (that’s a good kind of buttery - smooth, not greasy). It has an excellent finish and slightly concave sides that make it feel very nice on the hands. The girth of the shaft is a little thinner than that of the Easton Z-Bubble that I have been using.
The curves are a little understated I think. Salming offers two models, both of which are rather flat on the loft. They might be a great curve for guys who fire sniper shots from the point, but that isn’t my style and neither curve suited me too well. I guess the heel curve would compare pretty closely to an Easton Modano, and the mid curve is similar to their Sakic. However, while the curves of the sticks are close, the loft seems to be off a tad.
The weight of the stick comes in at a mere 500 grams. This is a very competitive weight in the industry. There are only a few sticks that are under this weight with Easton’s $200+ Stealth leading the way at 395 grams. 500 grams puts the Salming G1 toe to toe with the industry standard Easton Synergy for weight.
On the Ice
I was pretty excited to get on the ice and let some shots rip with the G1. I took a few laps in warm up and found the stick to have excellent feel in puck handling. Feel is a common problem with one-piece sticks. They are so light and have such hard blades that they take an adjustment period to get used to. I was pretty pleased with this aspect of the G1. The light weight made moving the puck around pretty easy and there was enough feel to keep it on the stick as well.
Shooting was where the G1 fell short for me. I am primarily a wrist shot, snap shot player. In fact I almost never try to slap one. It just isn’t part of my arsenal (I am a goalie, remember). The 90 flex G1 was far stiffer than either of the sticks that I’ve been using lately and simply didn’t give me much help on the wristers. Compared to my 100 flex Z-Bubble and 110 flex Excel shaft, there just wasn't any give in the G1. All of the blade speed had to be generated by my arms which is simply too much to ask of a mediocre shooter like myself. I would put the G1 90 flex in the ballpark of a 110 Easton for stiffness.
The curve was also a detriment to me. I generally use a Lidstrom blade. This has a big heel curve and a huge pitching wedge style loft on it. The adjustment to a 1 degree driver style blade was too much for me.
Second Opinions
I asked three big shooters I knew to give the stick a try. Here was the feedback that I got from them:
Big Shooter #1 – Normally uses a two-piece stick with a wood blade. He liked the stick for wrist shots (interesting). However, he too felt that the shaft was too stiff for a good slapper. He took a couple rips and both shots stayed on the ice. He also commented that he liked the weight and feel of the stick.
Big Shooter #2 – Normally uses a wood stick. He used the stick for one shift and attempted a single shot. His too stayed on the ice. He threw a hissy fit and broke it over his knee (OK, just kidding about that part). Again, commented that the stick was too stiff for him. He had no other real feedback.
Big Shooter #3 – The last guy also plays with wood sticks normally. He played a very long shift with the stick (the bench was very short, so he took a good five minutes on the ice). His only complaint was the thin feel of the shaft. He is a very big guy and prefers a heavy shaft similar to a 2 by 4 in size. He took a couple of decent shots in his shift, but was denied by the goalie on both rising pucks. He did like the feel even from a wood stick he had no problems handling the puck.
Final Analysis
The physics of shooting a hockey puck revolve around not only the speed that the blade is moving, but how long the shooter can keep the puck on the blade. The longer the puck is on the blade - the more energy is transferred to the puck - the faster the shot travels. It seems to me that there were a combination of two problems causing the G1 from being highly effective at doing this for me.
First, the curve of the stick is too flat, resulting in the puck sliding off too quickly. Second, the stiffness of the shaft is too high and minimizes stored energy transferred from the player’s wrists to the stick and in turn the puck.
The stick does come in an 80 flex, 90 flex, 100 flex and 110 flex. I suspect that the 80 flex might have served me a little better. However the curve was still an issue and with both patterns having such a low level of loft, it would not have made a substantial difference.
While shot power and accuracy are major factors in determining the quality of a stick, there are other factors of feel and weight as well. The shooting ability was the only thing that I found lacking in the G1.
I was very pleased with the texture of the stick, which had just the right level of stickiness to stay put, yet allowed my hands to slide freely when needed as well. I felt confident while handling the puck or receiving passes. The light weight made for very quick poke checks as well.
The G1 is competitively priced, a bit cheaper than the Synergy. I suspect that it measures up fairly well to most of the sticks in the under $150 price range.
With a little adjustment to the flex of the stick and the patterns, Salming would have a serious competitor in the one-piece market with the G1. But for now, I am awarding them 3 stars out of five for their stick.
A few of my other reivews that you might find helpful:
Hockey Stick Buying Guide
CCM Vector Stick
Easton Synergy Grip Stick
Easton Z-Bubble
Recommended:
No
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
puckmugger
|
 in Sports & Outdoors |
 - Top 50 |
|
Location: wandering the fringes of the goal crease
Reviews written: 488
Trusted by: 246 members
About Me:
My book is now available in major bookstores or by order from my profile page.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.