You are viewing as a Guest.

Welcome to skatingforums - over 10 years of figure skating discussions for skaters, coaches, judges and parents!

Please register to be able to access all features of this message board.

Author Topic: MK Galaxy Blades  (Read 337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FigureSpins

  • CER-A, CER-C
  • Asynchronous Skating Team Leader
  • ********
  • Joined: Aug 2010
  • Location: Center Ice: Bullseye of the Deranged
  • Posts: 5,351
  • Total GOE: 141
MK Galaxy Blades
« on: February 26, 2017, 03:34:57 PM »
MK's promoting their new MK Galaxy blade - a $99 USD all-purpose blade, a step down from the MK Double Star.

MK Galaxy - $99 msrp
Parallel blade
Cross-cut toe rake
Rocker Radius: 8 ft  (seems too big for a beginner, to me - opinions?)
ROH: 7/16"
Size range: 8"-12"

For reference:

MK Double Star - $160 msrp
Parallel blade
Cross-cut toe rake
Rocker Radius: 7 ft  (same as Coronation Ace and MK Pro)
ROH: 7/16"
Size range: 8"-12"

Despite the $60-higher price, I'd recommend the MK Double Star because of the rocker radius.  I think the shorter rocker radius helps skaters to master spins easier.

While I put my kids in MK Double Stars initially, I recommend the JW Coronation Ace or MK Professionals for my freestyle skaters.  Hmmmm...I guess for tiny, growing kids, the Galaxy makes sense since the families save $60 up front.  Growth spurts will require them to replace boots and blades quickly.  The next progression would be MK Double Stars or JW Majestic blades.  (Or clones)
"If you still look good after skating practice, you didn't work hard enough."

Year-Round Skating Discussions for Figure Skaters - www.skatingforums.com

Offline skategeek

  • Custom Skates
  • *****
  • Joined: Aug 2013
  • Posts: 1,810
  • Total GOE: 230
  • Gender: Female
  • or is that geekyskater?
Re: MK Galaxy Blades
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2017, 04:26:42 PM »
The Jackson lower level blades have an 8' radius.  I have the Ultima Mirage; came stock with my Jackson Elles.  I've wondered whether I would be better off moving to a 7' blade or whether I should stick with 8' since it's what I'm used to.  But since I haven't compared them I don't know that I can say which one is better for beginning skaters.  Very curious to hear what other people think.  (I suspect that rocker radius is the least of my problems, really.)

Offline FigureSpins

  • CER-A, CER-C
  • Asynchronous Skating Team Leader
  • ********
  • Joined: Aug 2010
  • Location: Center Ice: Bullseye of the Deranged
  • Posts: 5,351
  • Total GOE: 141
Re: MK Galaxy Blades
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2017, 04:38:02 PM »
I switched from JW Gold Seals (8' rocker) to Ultima Mirage for a short time (about a year.)  The Gold Seals were much easier for spinning and edge jumps.  Just mho.
"If you still look good after skating practice, you didn't work hard enough."

Year-Round Skating Discussions for Figure Skaters - www.skatingforums.com

Offline tstop4me

  • Divot Maker
  • ***
  • Joined: Oct 2015
  • Location: USA
  • Posts: 407
  • Total GOE: 136
  • Conserve Angular Momentum
Re: MK Galaxy Blades
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2017, 05:43:46 PM »
Question to coaches:  Why the shift to 8' rockers for bottom line blades (at least as far as MK and Wilson are concerned)?  The two current bottom line MK models (Galaxy and Flight) are both 8' rockers, while all their other models [the better-grade entry (Double Star), intermediate, and advanced models] remain at 7'.  I think (not certain) that previous bottom line MK models (such as Single Star, my very first blade) were 7'.

The new Wilson entry line is even more bizarre.  Their bottom line used to be Mercurio (advertised as a 6' rocker) then replaced by Jubilee (advertised as a 7' rocker) [not sure whether there were other models between Mercurio and Jubilee].  Their better-grade entry (Majestic) and intermediate (with the exception of Comet, 8.5') models are all 7' rockers, and their advanced models are 8' rockers.  But their new bottom line model is the Arrow, an 8' rocker.  If a skater were to progress with the current Wilson line, he would start with 8', switch to 7', and then switch back to 8' [in the old, old days, he would go from 6' to 7' to 8']. 

Anyone know the rationale for this? 

Offline riley876

  • BladeLock
  • AOSS Member
  • ***
  • Joined: Dec 2014
  • Location: NZ
  • Posts: 788
  • Total GOE: 25
Re: MK Galaxy Blades
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2017, 06:00:29 PM »
I get the feeling that the 6' 7' 8' numbers are completely meaningless anyway.   After all you don't spin or (forward) turn on that part of the rocker anyway - you spin on the front bit with an approx 12"-18" radius.   So what difference does it all make what slight differences exist on the back half of that blade?

If we were to see spin rocker radii in the sales documentation it would be a ton more useful.

Offline FigureSpins

  • CER-A, CER-C
  • Asynchronous Skating Team Leader
  • ********
  • Joined: Aug 2010
  • Location: Center Ice: Bullseye of the Deranged
  • Posts: 5,351
  • Total GOE: 141
Re: MK Galaxy Blades
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2017, 07:44:28 PM »
Question to coaches:  Why the shift to 8' rockers for bottom line blades (at least as far as MK and Wilson are concerned)?  The two current bottom line MK models (Galaxy and Flight) are both 8' rockers, while all their other models [the better-grade entry (Double Star), intermediate, and advanced models] remain at 7'.  I think (not certain) that previous bottom line MK models (such as Single Star, my very first blade) were 7'.

The new Wilson entry line is even more bizarre.  Their bottom line used to be Mercurio (advertised as a 6' rocker) then replaced by Jubilee (advertised as a 7' rocker) [not sure whether there were other models between Mercurio and Jubilee].  Their better-grade entry (Majestic) and intermediate (with the exception of Comet, 8.5') models are all 7' rockers, and their advanced models are 8' rockers.  But their new bottom line model is the Arrow, an 8' rocker.  If a skater were to progress with the current Wilson line, he would start with 8', switch to 7', and then switch back to 8' [in the old, old days, he would go from 6' to 7' to 8']. 

Anyone know the rationale for this?

I agree with you - it doesn't make sense to have lower-level skaters on the larger rockers, nor to have them switch up and down.  I did ask Ultima once why all their blades were 8' rockers and the reply was that they were more stable for jump landings. (So, in my mind, those are higher-level skaters, right?) When I asked how they could replicate the effect of a 7' rocker blade (like the JW CorAce) using an 8' radius, I won on "Stump the Chump."  The salesperson couldn't explain it to me.  To me, a clone should be identical.

I can definitely feel the difference in edge jump takeoffs and spins, less so in turns.  It's like I can "roll up" to the toepick or sweet spot more easily.  I prefer the 8' rocker, but I've switched skaters from 8' to 7' (first pair of separates) and seen quicker takeoffs and more-centered spins so I don't think it's just my feeling.  I've had skaters do a camel on JW CorAces and tell me "I love these blades."

Ultimas have always been 8' but some of the Eclipse (Riedell) blades have 7' rockers. 
"If you still look good after skating practice, you didn't work hard enough."

Year-Round Skating Discussions for Figure Skaters - www.skatingforums.com

Offline tstop4me

  • Divot Maker
  • ***
  • Joined: Oct 2015
  • Location: USA
  • Posts: 407
  • Total GOE: 136
  • Conserve Angular Momentum
Re: MK Galaxy Blades
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2017, 07:54:39 PM »
I get the feeling that the 6' 7' 8' numbers are completely meaningless anyway.   After all you don't spin or (forward) turn on that part of the rocker anyway - you spin on the front bit with an approx 12"-18" radius.   So what difference does it all make what slight differences exist on the back half of that blade?

If we were to see spin rocker radii in the sales documentation it would be a ton more useful.

What you say is true.  But there remains the issue of what effect the main rocker has on straight glides, moderate edges, and backward maneuvers.  Never seen any comprehensive studies.  Besides which, blade lengths are very short with respect to a rocker radius in the range of 6 to 8', and it's very difficult to accurately determine the actual rocker radius on a production unit [AgnesNitt had a previous attempt to use a ruler on tracings, but Bill_S did proper measurements with a travelling stage, dial indicator, and curve-fitting software].

Given all that, though, why are MK and Wilson screwing around with the rockers on their bottom line models?  Their intermediate and advanced models have been virtually unchanged for many decades [except for different pick options, and the different chassis mounts for the Revolution line (which keeps the same pick options and profiles as the Traditional line)], but they seem to find justification in changing their bottom line models.

Offline riley876

  • BladeLock
  • AOSS Member
  • ***
  • Joined: Dec 2014
  • Location: NZ
  • Posts: 788
  • Total GOE: 25
Re: MK Galaxy Blades
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2017, 09:05:42 PM »
Given all that, though, why are MK and Wilson screwing around with the rockers on their bottom line models?  Their intermediate and advanced models have been virtually unchanged for many decades [except for different pick options, and the different chassis mounts for the Revolution line (which keeps the same pick options and profiles as the Traditional line)], but they seem to find justification in changing their bottom line models.

The cynical side of me wonders if they're deliberately making their beginners blades profiles bad in order to upsell later.

Offline Mirabelka

  • Wearing Rental Skates
  • *
  • Joined: Jan 2017
  • Posts: 2
  • Total GOE: 0
Re: MK Galaxy Blades
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2017, 01:07:51 PM »
I have MK Galaxy blades. These are my very first nonrecreational blades so I can't say much about them yet. They are much more flat than my previous blades and I don't really like it (but already got used to it).