Someone please explain to me how this works: Stick technology is to the point of composite one-piece sticks. Carbon fiber, Kevlar, graphite, etc. For me and you, these sticks can cost up to $240. I'm sure most NHL players get theirs for free, and I'll assume major college programs include sticks in their budgets. AND YET THEY BLOW UP! You would think these things come with self destruct buttons. So how is it that with all this technology to create lightweight composite one-piece sticks, which generate greater torque, etc., they can't make them just a bit stronger and hold up to a slapper from the point? Is this some conspiracy by the manufacturers to sell more sticks?
Listen, I always liked wood over an aluminum shaft/wood blade. I never liked the flex or kick point of a 2-piece. I played with wood Flarrow sticks for years, and shot harder and more accurate than with any 2-piece, even the newer composite shafts. But I've made the switch to one-piece composite sticks, mainly because in the pickup hockey I play a composite 1-piece will last me a year or so, and I've received a few as gifts. And they are nice. But I'm not out there winding up taking slap shots left and right, wondering when my stick is going to snap in two and lead to a turn over. I understand why Gretzky has commented on not liking these things. You see way too many turnovers and players playing without a stick all because these sticks shatter much too frequently. I understand that players are bigger and stronger, and the loading on the shaft will continue to increase. Maybe wood sticks wouldn't be able to hold up to these increased strains either. But how is it that the technology is there to make these sticks light and "responsive", but not durable? Is it a fair trade off? Is the stick handling/passing/shooting that much better to justify the increased lost scoring chances? You tell me.