HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Rink
The Rink For the not so ready for prime-time players, coaches, referees, and the people that have to live with them. Discuss experiences in local leagues, coaching tips, equipment, and training.

Tackla 9000 Pants: Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-18-2011, 10:11 AM
  #1
Guffaw
Registered User
 
Guffaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drexel Hill PA
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Tackla 9000 Pants: Questions

I posted a thread awhile back about bruising my hip bones in my Bauer One80's and people suggested the Tackla Air 9000 pants.

I'm 6'2" ~175lbs with very long legs. Waist is ~32-33" depending on where I measure. What size do you guys recommend? Where should I measure my waist? Hips or actual waist?

I was thinking a 48 or 50 tall. I'm currently wearing a Medium Tall in the Bauer's and they fit a little loose which makes sense as they fit a 32-36 waist.

Any feedback on the pants, sizing, and where to purchase is appreciated. Thanks

Guffaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 10:23 AM
  #2
thedonger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 820
vCash: 50
for comparison's sake, size 52 9000's fit similar to L in bauer one80's for me so i think a size 50 might work for you. also, and something i think will be an added bonus for you, while bauer's tall sizes are 1" longer than their regular sizes, tacklas tall sizes are 2" longer.

9000's are about as good as you get for hip protection, and very mobile when broken in.

thedonger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 02:23 PM
  #3
Guffaw
Registered User
 
Guffaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drexel Hill PA
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedonger View Post
for comparison's sake, size 52 9000's fit similar to L in bauer one80's for me so i think a size 50 might work for you. also, and something i think will be an added bonus for you, while bauer's tall sizes are 1" longer than their regular sizes, tacklas tall sizes are 2" longer.

9000's are about as good as you get for hip protection, and very mobile when broken in.
Thanks. I'm still debating 48 vs. 50. Like you said, with the 2" longer they should be long enough in either size. 9 out of 10 times when I buy a size it's too loose so I'm wondering if the 48's would work.

Guffaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2011, 06:52 AM
  #4
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,842
vCash: 500
Size down with Tacklas. I'm wearing size 50 9000's and my pant size is 36" give or take. Go 48's.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2011, 11:15 AM
  #5
TheRustyJet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 227
vCash: 500
Sounds like we are identical as far as body dimensions, I would go with the 48.

I bought 50's when I bought pants at the beginning of the year (all they had at the time) and they are a little loose for my liking. They are by no means too big but they aren't as snug as I would like so I wear suspenders.

TheRustyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2011, 06:41 PM
  #6
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
I have the exact same build (6'2"/172, 32-33 waist) and I wear a 50Long in the Tackla 951's. Great pant and they fit me perfectly. I think 48"s are going to be very tight on you if you are a solid 32-33 waist. They may also be a little shorter than you want.

Previously I tried to wear Tackla 5000X Pro's in a 50 regular and they were pretty tight and too short.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 06:16 AM
  #7
Guffaw
Registered User
 
Guffaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drexel Hill PA
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Thanks for all the help guys. Where should I measure my waist? Waist or where the belt of the pants will sit which is basically my hips.

Still torn between 48 or 50's.

Where can I buy these? Looks like they're hard to find.

Guffaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 08:32 AM
  #8
thedonger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 820
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guffaw View Post
Thanks for all the help guys. Where should I measure my waist? Waist or where the belt of the pants will sit which is basically my hips.

Still torn between 48 or 50's.

Where can I buy these? Looks like they're hard to find.
not sure if you're anywhere near philly, but i think delaware valley hockey supply carries tackla, and any tackla dealer should be able to put in a special order if they don't have the tall sizes in stock.

if that's not an option, then hockeygear.com, prohockeysupply.com and hockeymonkey i believe all have them.

thedonger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 09:31 AM
  #9
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guffaw View Post
Thanks for all the help guys. Where should I measure my waist? Waist or where the belt of the pants will sit which is basically my hips.

Still torn between 48 or 50's.

Where can I buy these? Looks like they're hard to find.
I really think you'd want 48's.

My belly is 40" around at the widest part...I'm a 36-38 dress pant and 34-36 jean size. Sounds like you're a solid 4+ inches slimmer than I am. Granted I'm probably pushing the 50's a little bit (last year 10 pounds lighter they fit perfect).

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 09:36 AM
  #10
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,842
vCash: 500
Hmm, it ate my reply.

I would go 48 talls. My 50's are a bit tight on me but I'm 5'8 pushing 190. My belly is 40" around and right now I'm in 38" dress pants and 36" jeans. Length is great, I like them a bit long, although I am 5'8 I have a little longer legs than your average short guy.

Last year I was about 10 pounds lighter, 36" dress pants and 34" jeans, pants fit better, and I could still probably wear them if I was another 10 pounds lighter.

For comparison's sake, a few years ago I was 165-ish, wearing 33-34" dress pants and 32" jean sizes. I tried a pair of 46 Tacklas I found used for $20, but they were a little small. 48 would have been perfect. My belly was probably 35-36" back then.

I also wore Bauer Mediums and they fit pretty good, a little short and lacking protection which is why I switched. They would be too small on me right now though.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 12:21 PM
  #11
Jive Time
Registered User
 
Jive Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 89
vCash: 500
Just for reference, I checked the Tackla Air 9000 sizing chart at HM (where I bought them). I swear it was different back then but here's what it says:

46 29" - 30" 74 - 77 X-Small
48 31" - 32" 78 - 81 Small
50 32" - 34" 81 - 86 Medium
52 34" - 36" 86 - 91 Large
54 36" - 38" 91 - 96 X-Large
56 38" - 40" 96 - 101 XX-Large
58 44" - 46" N/A XXX-Large
60 48" - 50" N/A XXXX-Large

Looking at this chart, and knowing that the sizing runs big, I would have gone with the 50 based on my metrics: 5.11 - 175 lb - 33" Waist. Not sure what I was thinking...

I ended up buying the 52s and in order to keep the pants high on my hips I have to crank the buckle and draws all the way in. If I were to do it again, I would drop down one size and get the 50s.

I'm guessing that the 48s will be on the snug side for you and the 50s will be on the loose side. So how much weight are you planning on gaining

Jive Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 01:59 PM
  #12
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Every site I've looked at for Tackla pants shows a 32" waist = size 50. Whatever you order, you can always exchange it if you don't like the fit.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 02:14 PM
  #13
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,842
vCash: 500
http://www.modsquadhockey.com/forums...sizing-advice/

Read through that thread...I'm telling you, 48

Also, for waist sizes I go by dress pants, not by jeans. Lower rise jeans or loose fitting jeans are misleading. You usually have to size up for dress pants.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 08:53 PM
  #14
Guffaw
Registered User
 
Guffaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drexel Hill PA
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedonger View Post
not sure if you're anywhere near philly, but i think delaware valley hockey supply carries tackla, and any tackla dealer should be able to put in a special order if they don't have the tall sizes in stock.

if that's not an option, then hockeygear.com, prohockeysupply.com and hockeymonkey i believe all have them.
Thanks man. There was a delval in my area, but that store closed. I'll look into them and see if they can help me out.

Guffaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 09:11 PM
  #15
Guffaw
Registered User
 
Guffaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drexel Hill PA
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
http://www.modsquadhockey.com/forums...sizing-advice/

Read through that thread...I'm telling you, 48

Also, for waist sizes I go by dress pants, not by jeans. Lower rise jeans or loose fitting jeans are misleading. You usually have to size up for dress pants.
Thanks for that link. I'm convinced after reading feedback from 10-15 guys that 48's are the way to go for a 32" waist. Sounds like they'll fit snug, but are supposed to.

The question now is will 48's Tall(+2") be long enough. I'm 6'2" with long legs.

Guffaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2011, 09:47 AM
  #16
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guffaw View Post
Thanks for that link. I'm convinced after reading feedback from 10-15 guys that 48's are the way to go for a 32" waist. Sounds like they'll fit snug, but are supposed to.

The question now is will 48's Tall(+2") be long enough. I'm 6'2" with long legs.
That's the problem with going down a size in the waist, it also affects the length. I'm 6'2" and wear a 50 and they are barely long enough. My advice is to order both pairs, try them on, and then send the one you don't like back.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2011, 03:48 PM
  #17
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,842
vCash: 500
Can you order them and return if they aren't long enough? Tacklas are already on the longer end of pants and the longs should add enough length to make up for it. By the same token I've played with lots of guys 6'2 and taller who don't wear special pants and do just fine.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2011, 10:59 PM
  #18
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Can you order them and return if they aren't long enough? Tacklas are already on the longer end of pants and the longs should add enough length to make up for it. By the same token I've played with lots of guys 6'2 and taller who don't wear special pants and do just fine.
But were they skinny or thick? I know lots of guys my height who wear a normal pant, but thats because they're in 54s, which are much longer than 48s. Also depends on where their height resides. If one has freakishly long femurs like some of us, nothing but a +2 works.

I have a pair of 5000X Pros in the garage in a 50 regular. They're very tight on my 32-33 waist and way too short for my 6'2" frame. Anyone want to buy a brand new pair of $200 Tackla 5000X's cheap? They're actually the most protective pant I've ever put on, but they just dont fit. Wish they did.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 06:31 AM
  #19
Guffaw
Registered User
 
Guffaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drexel Hill PA
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
That's the problem with going down a size in the waist, it also affects the length. I'm 6'2" and wear a 50 and they are barely long enough. My advice is to order both pairs, try them on, and then send the one you don't like back.
That's a good point. I called DelVal hockey, about an hour away, and they have the 9000's in a 48 and a 50 in stock so I'm going to drive out there and try both on to get the correct waist size. I'll just add +2" to the legs to get a feel for where each would come to on my knees and go with whatever is best overall. He said he can order the +2's and have them in 3-4 days. That will give me a chance to look at the protection as well in the hip bone area. I'm only buying them if they'll resolve my issue. I mean I can add padding to my Bauers as easy as the Tacklas so I'm not spending $150 to modify something.

$149 sound about right?

Guffaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 08:48 AM
  #20
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,842
vCash: 500
The 5000X are a different pant, might fit different. The 9000's for sure run big. I'd jump on cheap 5000X if I didn't already my Tacks

$150 is a decent price from a local shop.

I have no idea if the tall guys have long legs or not, but one guy is 6'5 and rail thin and wears regular pants (not sure if med or large though). Tacklas plus 2" will be longer than anything else on the market anyway, should work fine for a tall guy.

FWIW since I work my Tacks I've never felt anything on the legs/hips. They are awesome.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 10:17 AM
  #21
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
The 5000X are a different pant, might fit different. The 9000's for sure run big. I'd jump on cheap 5000X if I didn't already my Tacks

$150 is a decent price from a local shop.

I have no idea if the tall guys have long legs or not, but one guy is 6'5 and rail thin and wears regular pants (not sure if med or large though). Tacklas plus 2" will be longer than anything else on the market anyway, should work fine for a tall guy.

FWIW since I work my Tacks I've never felt anything on the legs/hips. They are awesome.
I agree about the Tacklas; awesome pants and I'll never wear anything else. The only other really long pant I was able to find in the States was the Easton S13 Long, but they're really light weight and the protection was lacking. My son is 12 and has the same problem with fit and I had to buy an Easton model out of Canada that they don't even sell here because I couldn't find anyone in the US that stocked youth longs.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 02:36 PM
  #22
Guffaw
Registered User
 
Guffaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drexel Hill PA
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Ok. After trying on the 48's and 50's about 3X each I went with the 50's.

It was a tough choice. The 48's fit better/tighter in the hips, but pretty tight up higher in the waist. I could not get the laces 1" apart like the instructions say. More like ~3-4" Also, the 48's in a +2 likely would have been long enough in the legs, but from the kidney pads to the groin the pant is too small IMO for someone that's 6'2".

The other thing is that the 50's have "bigger" hip pads inside as a result of being a bigger pant and so they wrap around farther toward the back where my problem area is (bruised hip bones) and extend down further.

I really wasn't sure on whether or not to get a +2". The regular 50's were at the top of my knee. I erred on the side of caution/protection and ordered the +2". Hopefully these will do the trick.

I realize without a custom pant it's always going to be a compromise when you are 6'2" with a 32" waist, but then again I'm used to it.

Thanks for all the help everyone

Guffaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 03:25 PM
  #23
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,842
vCash: 500
Funny that the same pair of pants roughly fits a 5'8 guy with a 36" waist and a 6'2 guy with a 32" waist! Good call on trying them on. I like the pants higher up on the waist so the 50's aren't too long for me. And yeah...mine are a few inches apart and the belly pad is askew. Gotta lose some LB's.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 04:07 PM
  #24
Guffaw
Registered User
 
Guffaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drexel Hill PA
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Funny that the same pair of pants roughly fits a 5'8 guy with a 36" waist and a 6'2 guy with a 32" waist! Good call on trying them on. I like the pants higher up on the waist so the 50's aren't too long for me. And yeah...mine are a few inches apart and the belly pad is askew. Gotta lose some LB's.
Right, but I got +2's. Figure the pants are roughly 1/3 of your overall height so that part makes sense. 2" x 3= 6". I'm 6" taller than you so the 50's in a +2 should be roughly the same length on me as a the 50 regulars are on you.

As to the waist size, they are a little tight on you (36") waist and a little loose on me (32") waist. A 49 +2" would have been perfect for me, but oh well. The pants look durable so maybe I'll have them for 10 years and be more of a 34" by then.

Thanks for all the help. Overall you were right. The 48's did actually fit more like the way they should. I just think the 50's are going to protect that hip a bit more

Guffaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2011, 12:53 AM
  #25
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guffaw View Post

It was a tough choice. The 48's fit better/tighter in the hips, but pretty tight up higher in the waist. I could not get the laces 1" apart like the instructions say. More like ~3-4" Also, the 48's in a +2 likely would have been long enough in the legs, but from the kidney pads to the groin the pant is too small IMO for someone that's 6'2".
You made the right choice. If the laces were 3-4 inches apart, those pants were too tight for you. Hockey pants should not fit you like a pair of tight jeans. They should fit close enough so that the padding stays in the right place and that's all. And I think you're gonna find that the +2's feel more comfortable than the regular length pants once you play in them.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.