210 replies to this topic

[Hockeypunk24]

I've read that the Sherwood RM9 are the same as the 520's. true?  image.jpg   43.98KB   17 downloads

[Owen]

As has already been noted in this thread, there seems to be a degree of confusion regarding the CCM/Reebok MHP7000SP and MHP520SP pants. I recently ordered 2 pairs from Hockeymonkey: size Medium Reebok MHP7000SP and size Medium CCM MHP520SP. I am 5´9´ 162 pounds. Both pairs of pants fit me well, but the CCM 520s fit better. They are snugger, bulkier and more protective than the 7000s, not the other way around.

 

The Reebok 7000s are a simpler, more generous fitting pant all around. This is instantly noticable compared to the 520s: when you fall on your hip in the 7000s, you might land on your bone, not padding, because the extra material in the butt area of the pant shell allows the tailbone pad and the hip pad to separate a good 3 inches. It doesn´t help that the bottom of the tailbone pad doesn´t flare out like it does in the 520s. In contrast, the 520s are a much tighter fitting pant. This is true from the kidneys, where the pants really hug your body--especially if you tighten the extra strap provided up top--, through the waist area and into the thighs. Since the 7000s have all that extra material in the shell, which allows the thigh guards complete freedom to ride up your leg, you´re much less restricted in the 7000s. This is especially noticable in the thigh and butt region: the pants feel snug in the waist and below that they sort of hang like a loose skirt, not making much contact with your legs at all. In contrast, the 520s feel like a tight pair of snow pants: there´s not much air flow and I leave the zippers open on the thighs to feel less restricted in my stride. The 520s are more adjustable than the 7000s (you can leave them loose or high up top and the extra lacing allows for more customization of fit). The tradeoff is that the forward lean is somewhat compromised, as they lace up higher. After a few skates the sensation of wearing 1980s/early 1990s jeans that cut you in the stomach when you were seated decreases: the pants really take a bit of breaking in, unlike the 7000s which felt good to go right out of the box. 

 

In terms of protection, the 520s seem beefier than the 7000s and there are no gaps anywhere. The kidneys come up higher (possibly too high for my taste), as does the spine protection, which really hugs you and follows you as you lean forward, especially if you do up that top strap. The 7000s have thicker kidney protection, though. They also have denser foam around the crotch/hip flexor area and a thicker hip cap. Actually, overall the foam on the 7000s is denser (harder) compared to the 520s. But the 520s have thicker, higher thigh guards (about an inch or two higher than the 7000s) and, as mentioned above, offer cushier butt protection, which is really why I wanted pro stock pants in the first place: I have fallen on my hip a few times. 

 

The closest comparison I can think of is that the 7000s fit much like the Tackla Advantage 951s, but with more complete coverage in the upper legs and much better kidney protection. 

 

[Owen]

Still not sure which pant I prefer, though...

[JTully317]

Great comparison. I myself like the 520s better, however I wish the uppers came up about half as much as they do.

[Grizzly]

the pants really take a bit of breaking in, unlike the 7000s which felt good to go right out of the box.

 
Very accurate observations there. Nice job! This is the only thing I disagree with. When I bought my new pair of 7000s from HM, they were stiffer than a board compared to the 520s I have which felt like they had much more mobility brand new.

Great comparison. I myself like the 520s better, however I wish the uppers came up about half as much as they do.

That's where ECHLs come in!

[Hyuen88]

The closest comparison I can think of is that the 7000s fit much like the Tackla Advantage 951s, but with more complete coverage in the upper legs and much better kidney protection. 

 

 

 Great review between the two! Although the 951's fit similar, I found that the 7000's fit more like the Tackla 5000's or now the Eagle PPF pro. Tacklas are all very similar with slight differences though.

[modny123]

I love my medium 520s

[stevenm]

different type of reebok pro stock pant comparison:

 

which group is bigger: beer league players wearing RPSP or NHL players wearing RPSP?

 

just wondering

[modny123]

Rpsp?
Return pro stock pants?

Huh

[stevenm]

Reebok Pro Stock Pants = RPSP, was just too lazy to write it out, now I had to

[jamielov]

different type of reebok pro stock pant comparison:

which group is bigger: beer league players wearing RPSP or NHL players wearing RPSP?

just wondering

im betting there are a lot more beer league players in the world, so...

[stevenm]

got my Sabres 7000s today (Logo will be replaced though).

 

6'0 175 lbs -medium +1 and they fit perfect (length is to the upper third of my knee).

 

First impressions: feel lighter than my one90s, legs do indeed hang like a skirt. Really comfortable right out of the box. Great protection. Love the look, never liked Bauers patchwork of 300 different types of nylon and mesh and whatnot (resulting in a lot of stitching to open up).

 

 

Might do the mod that was suggested somewhere trimming the uppers where they interfere with the thigh pad to enhance mobility.

 

 

P.S. Trade Burns to Edmonton or Pittsburgh, please!

[akaSmall_Kitten]

Do it Steve ...... No over lapping , it's already pre-stitched so it won't run.
Bug difference

[modny123]

i might have to look into this too

[stevenm]

have to correct myself, not sure anymore if the medium 7000s have the right fit for me (6'0 175 lbs), might need small ones. They stay in place even if they are not tied up but I figured:

 

even if I cut off the part of the hip protection it would still not be very mobile due to the fact that it is my thigh that interferes with the "oversized" hip pad and not the thigh pad.

 

If anyone here has the same experience, does this change once they are broken in?

[akaSmall_Kitten]

No idea what you're saying but if you feel size small pants will suit your 6ft , 175 pound frame ....go right ahead.

[Sort of Irish]

have to correct myself, not sure anymore if the medium 7000s have the right fit for me (6'0 175 lbs), might need small ones. They stay in place even if they are not tied up but I figured:

 

even if I cut off the part of the hip protection it would still not be very mobile due to the fact that it is my thigh that interferes with the "oversized" hip pad and not the thigh pad.

 

If anyone here has the same experience, does this change once they are broken in?

 

That doesn't sound right. I'm 6'1 175 and M+1 are perfect, I can also fit into a large if I yank the belt. A small would be a squeeze to say the least and probably too short in the inseam.

 

 

[modny123]

Yea if I was any taller I'd have to get + length for sure

[stevenm]

Could someone post a picture of a pair of 7000s next to a pair of 520s (preferably ECHL) in the same size?

 

I'm interested in the "bulk" difference.

 

Thanks!

[Owen]

 520back.jpg   10.38KB   216 downloads  520front.jpg   19.03KB   280 downloads  7000.jpg   70.53KB   256 downloads  7000back.jpg   66.91KB   200 downloads  7000side.jpg   63.04KB   130 downloads