Tackla 9000 sizing advice.

[][ncognito 0]

I searched around the boards for tackla threads but didn't see one quite answerer my scenario.

I've been using a pair of Warrior Hustlers, size S. They're nice, but I don't find them as comfortable as I would like. I read a lot of positive reviews of the Tackla's as well as being aware of the tackla name being known as one of the premier pants companies.

Background: I'd been using an old pair of CCM Tacks prior to the Warriors, also size small. They felt a little tight and restrictive so I wanted to get a medium pant. The Hustlers are well known to run a little big so I went with the S instead.

Back to now. I went to the LHS today to get a feel for the 9000 as well as other possibilities. I feel like the 9000's were my preferred choice, but I was torn between the 48 and 50 sizes. I'm 5'9"/5'10" and about 165. Waist is about a 32. Generally this seems to put me into the 50's. When I was trying on the pants, I liked the somewhat snug fit of the 48's. I had to give the belt on the 50's a decent pull to tighten them up, whereas the 48's only took a little bit of pulling to get them tight. From what I've read the hips are meant to be tighter fit when putting them on and then fit snug over the hips once on. That's how they should be according to:

Based on the description there it seems like the 48 was closer to the description. I like the snug fit on the hips of the 48's, but I liked the mobility of the 50's. My only concern is that most sites list the 48 like a size Small which I'm worried might end up too small and be a little restrictive. The size 50's I tried on slipped on much easier than the 48's. I'm just looking to get the proper fit and I'm unsure which would be a beter choice. Thanks for any help MSH'ers.

[Too Old 1]

I wear a size 50 in Tackla (and Graf) and am a 34" waist size.

[Leafsrule16 5]

Most of my jeans are from size 34-36 and a 50 fits me fine. I went with the smaller size because of the slightly shorter legs but there not bad on the waist at all. There pretty adjustable as well so going with the 50 would be a good option, they should fit fine.

[cptjeff 0]

I have a 30" waist, have a small (48), and it's a little looser then it should be. I would go with the 48.

[SirJW 207]

I have 48 Tacklas and bought them when I was a 29, my waist is now a 32 and they still fit fine.

[HattrickSwayze 3]

If I were you I'd go with the 48's. I'm probably about a 32/33 waist, and my size 50 9000's don't really go tight enough with the belt itself. I put a hockey lace around the waist so I can tighten it farther. I think the 48's would be a better fit in the waist and also the length.

[][ncognito 0]

Thanks everyone, I think I've got the info I need now. :)

[Ivan 1]

I searched around the boards for tackla threads but didn't see one quite answerer my scenario.

I've been using a pair of Warrior Hustlers, size S. They're nice, but I don't find them as comfortable as I would like. I read a lot of positive reviews of the Tackla's as well as being aware of the tackla name being known as one of the premier pants companies.

Background: I'd been using an old pair of CCM Tacks prior to the Warriors, also size small. They felt a little tight and restrictive so I wanted to get a medium pant. The Hustlers are well known to run a little big so I went with the S instead.

Back to now. I went to the LHS today to get a feel for the 9000 as well as other possibilities. I feel like the 9000's were my preferred choice, but I was torn between the 48 and 50 sizes. I'm 5'9"/5'10" and about 165. Waist is about a 32. Generally this seems to put me into the 50's. When I was trying on the pants, I liked the somewhat snug fit of the 48's. I had to give the belt on the 50's a decent pull to tighten them up, whereas the 48's only took a little bit of pulling to get them tight. From what I've read the hips are meant to be tighter fit when putting them on and then fit snug over the hips once on. That's how they should be according to:

Based on the description there it seems like the 48 was closer to the description. I like the snug fit on the hips of the 48's, but I liked the mobility of the 50's. My only concern is that most sites list the 48 like a size Small which I'm worried might end up too small and be a little restrictive. The size 50's I tried on slipped on much easier than the 48's. I'm just looking to get the proper fit and I'm unsure which would be a beter choice. Thanks for any help MSH'ers.

When Tackla used to have a website it said there that putting a properly fitted new Tackla pants would require a few pulls to get them on. If they go free over your hips when you put them on, then the're going to be big for you. Tackla is a European fitting pant. That's pretty much what it said.

Per my experience, same goes for Eagle, and Protex (the latter's sizing differs slightly)

[][ncognito 0]

Well I skated in my new Tackla's for the first time yesterday. 48's were definitely the way to go, they felt great out on the ice. Thanks to all for the advice. :)

[epstud74 24]

Yea, they're a snug fitting pant around the hips, but I like them that way. I rarely use a belt since I use suspenders.

[junior 1]

I had the same issue as you. I'm 5'6 155lbs with 33 inch waist (depending on whats for dinner). According to the charts I should be wearing a size 50 but I opted for the 48 because I truly felt it fit better. A little more snug and less belt adjustment was needed. If they feel better, don't be shy to get the 48's.

[Chadd 916]

I had the same issue as you. I'm 5'6 155lbs with 33 inch waist (depending on whats for dinner). According to the charts I should be wearing a size 50 but I opted for the 48 because I truly felt it fit better. A little more snug and less belt adjustment was needed. If they feel better, don't be shy to get the 48's.

Most people should opt for the smaller size with tackla if there is any question about their sizing.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

Dont want to make a new thread for this, so I'm gonna bump an old one.

After reading this, I seem to fit fine in a size 48 for my waist, but what would the length be like? I'm 5'6" and I like my pants right around the knee cap, maybe a little below. I wear NBH XXXX pants in a small right now, and the length is perfect on those. Would the 48 be smaller than those?

[Shayno 1]

I wear a size 50 in Tackla (and Graf) and am a 34" waist size.

If you don't mind...what it your aprox weight? I too am 34 waist, but I am 5' 10", and about 175lbs. I had Tackla's back in the day and loved em.....just cant remember what size I wore?

What do you guys think? I have Bauer One90's right now, and Senior Med feels a little tight, restrictive. I was thinking 52 Tackla's? Any help would be appreciated!!

Thanks alot!!

[vek 0]

If you don't mind...what it your aprox weight? I too am 34 waist, but I am 5' 10", and about 175lbs. I had Tackla's back in the day and loved em.....just cant remember what size I wore?

What do you guys think? I have Bauer One90's right now, and Senior Med feels a little tight, restrictive. I was thinking 52 Tackla's? Any help would be appreciated!!

Thanks alot!!

Hmmm, I just bought a pair of Tackla 951s, and got a 52, and I'm pushing about 210.

If I was 175 (dare to dream), I'd be swimming in them.

[Shayno 1]

50 then?

[vek 0]

50 then?

Most people should opt for the smaller size with tackla if there is any question about their sizing.

[raoul_duke2k 0]

You should go with 50 - I'm a 32 waist at around 165 and the 48 are perfect for me.

I wish I could find a pair of the 9000's with the leg zippers though. Does anybody know what's up with Tackla? - a lot of places don't seem to be carrying them or are just selling off old stock, ie - hockeymonkey. Are they still going to have distribution in North Am?

[hockeyfreak7 0]

You should go with 50 - I'm a 32 waist at around 165 and the 48 are perfect for me.

I wish I could find a pair of the 9000's with the leg zippers though. Does anybody know what's up with Tackla? - a lot of places don't seem to be carrying them or are just selling off old stock, ie - hockeymonkey. Are they still going to have distribution in North Am?

How's the length on the 48s? How far down your leg does it go?

[raoul_duke2k 0]

The 48's are 25" at the highest point to the bottom of the leg - I'm 5'8 and they cover about 1/3rd of my knee on the shin guard, maybe a little more. I also tend to wear them so they hang on my hips and not really up on my waist, so they go a little lower.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

Okay, thanks. Looks like a 48 should be a good fit.

Has anyone ordered from prohockeyequipment.com before? They seem to have every size of Tacklas imaginable...do they really?

[nystromshairstylist 14]

If you don't mind...what it your aprox weight? I too am 34 waist, but I am 5' 10", and about 175lbs. I had Tackla's back in the day and loved em.....just cant remember what size I wore?

What do you guys think? I have Bauer One90's right now, and Senior Med feels a little tight, restrictive. I was thinking 52 Tackla's? Any help would be appreciated!!

Thanks alot!!

I'm 5-10 1/2, 185 lbs, and have a 38" waist (gasp!) - my tacklas are a 52, and bit loose - so I would recommend you getting the 50.

[Shayno 1]

Just to update....I am thinking of going with Eagle X72 pants, 34-36.......Eagle pretty much fit the same as Tackla?

Thanks guys!

[Jarick 5]

Two questions,

Do Warrior pants fit like Tacklas (skinny waist, longer legs)?

For a guy who's 5'8 175, 34-36" waist, wears pants up high, what size Tacklas would you go between 48 and 50? FWIW, the Bauer Vapor XXV is kind of big in the waist but short in the legs.

[raoul_duke2k 0]

Not sure how the Warrior pants fit.

I think you could easily go with the 50 Tacklas. Technically, I could go with 50 as well since I'm a 32 waist, but found that the 48's were a perfect fit everywhere else - comfortable but not too much bulk. I think the legs on the Tacklas tend to be very roomy, compared to like a CCM Vector for instance, so you don't want to go too high.

Actually, I took my advice from this board and they were spot on about going one size down.