The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 08, 2006, 10:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,107
i hate 'low profile' masks. i used one a few times as a catcher and used one once when i was like 15 as an umpire (it was a cheapo rawlings one). i didnt feel there was an advantage and it just felt weird using a mask that looked like it was run over by a truck
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 10, 2006, 09:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 192
Low Pro Chrome Moliben vs Honig's Double Bar

I have both. I think the weight is similar but the Moliben (whatever the $%@* that is) does let you see better, in my opinion. Especially on low pitches. Just my two cents. I got it with black doeskin and just got the black amara suede pads from Gerry Davis Sports last week. Done about three games with the suede on the Moliben. Not too hot yet but I feel the difference. Really nice. I have been getting several positive comments on my strike zone and I really think it is mostly the mask combined with a couple of tweaks to my stance (GDS) and early lock in. I have taken several (five or six) balls off the mask and no dents just scratches and nicks. No headaches or jaw probs, etc. One of them was the first scrimmage in Mid-March with a pitcher throwing low 90's. Lots of foul balls that day. I only caught two of them-shin and facemask. I recommend the Moliben. Oh yeah, I only paid $49 for it as it wasn't in the seller's database yet on my date of purchase and they went ahead and sold it to me as the Wilson dynalite. Lucky, lucky me.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 11, 2006, 11:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 301
How Dare you talk about better vision. They can see just fine with the Traditional Masks, even if a traditional mask is imporved, vision is NOT important. If you bring that up again you could get banned. LOL
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 11, 2006, 01:55pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorDave
I have both. I think the weight is similar but the Moliben (whatever the $%@* that is) does let you see better, in my opinion.
Chrome Molybdenum is the correct designation. It is an alloy containing Chromium and Molybdenum which is used in the manufacture of racing wheels, golf clubs, and now apparently umpire/catcher masks. Better known as Chrome Moly.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 12:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 192
Moliben + Molybdenum?

Thanks SDS for the science lesson. I remember Molybdenum as being on the periodic table of elements from my HS/College science class days but I have never seen or dealt with it. I wonder how they got the shortened name as noted above from the original element name? Anyway, back to the point. I think it is a pretty good mask. It is my number one and I only keep the Honig's as a back up.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 12:57pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
I think that they figured that Chrome Moly would be associated with car wheels so they used a different shortened name.......Moliben. Who'd a guessed?

Or I could be totally off base here (and subject to being tagged out) and maybe Moliben is a new alloy of which I am unfamiliar. Someone with superior intellect, such as JRutledge perhaps , may have the definitive answer.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 01:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,107
It is also known as 4130 steel, and is composed of 0.28 to 0.33% carbon, 0.4 to 0.6% manganese, 0.8 to 1.1% chromium, 0.15 to 0.25% molybdenum, 0.04% phosphorus, 0.04% sulfur, and 0.2 to 0.35% silicon, in addition to iron.

ok im not that smart, i took it from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_moly
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2006, 04:32pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
You could have wowed us all if you hadn't copped to looking it up!!!!
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Light weight Plate Shoe whiskers_ump Softball 10 Mon Apr 19, 2004 02:58pm
Weight a whoa! mick Basketball 23 Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:06am
weight and height tallref Basketball 2 Wed Feb 27, 2002 04:38pm
ULTRA LIGHT WEIGHT MASKS umpire General / Off-Topic 1 Wed Jul 25, 2001 11:28am
FED Bat weight TB Baseball 24 Sat May 05, 2001 08:14am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1