1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a new type of hockey puck for practicing various skills required in the sport of ice hockey. The principal feature is the user's ability to easily vary the weight from less than half to over twice the weight of a standard 6-ounce hockey puck.
2. Description of Prior Art
Training in the sport of ice hockey involves individual and team practice to master numerous skills, including skating, passing, shooting, stick-handling, checking, and positional play. With the major objective of the game being to score more goals into the opponent's net, one of the more important aspects of the game is shooting and stick-handling (i.e., the controlling of the puck with the stick). And being a team sport, passing is equally important. Development of these skills requires repetition, either in the form of team drills during hockey practice, or individual training on one's own time (usually on a sheet of linoleum in a basement or garage, thus simulating a slick ice surface). Most often, a standard 6-ounce hockey puck is all that is available for these drills. This is a disadvantage for less-experienced players who have not yet developed the proper "feeling" of the coordinated snap of the wrists and the shifting of body weight required to master these skills. This large group includes younger, weaker players who can barely yet "raise" or flip the puck off the surface of the ice (or floor). These players need a lighter puck with which to practice.
Yet, the limitations of a standard 170-gram (6-ounce) puck also restrict the development and improvement of players who already have the strength and/or experience to "raise" a standard puck. Those more-experienced players would benefit from a more intense and strenuous practice session. These players need a heavier puck with which to practice.
The control of a hockey puck on a player's hockey stick involves a refined rolling of the wrists to allow the puck to move smoothly along the blade of the stick, from the heel to the toe. There are no devices that are in the prior art that allow a player or coach to analyze the movement and rotational velocity (i.e., spin) of the puck while on the player's stick and after he has shot the puck.
Prior art includes the following. U.S. Pat. No. 3,704,891, Chiarelli, issued 05 Dec. 1972, shows plans for a heavy puck that uses the vulcanization process to embed heavy weights within a puck body. The major feature of this invention and embodiments was the different ways of distributing the weights within the puck. The disadvantage is that the puck is always limited to a single weight. The player is thus constrained to what the manufacturer has determined to be the "right" weight to use. It would not be useful for the vast majority of the players who do not yet have a perfect "feel" for a heavier puck. Also, Chiarelli shows no visual guideline to analyze a puck's spin, as an aid in improving stick skills.
Other hockey pucks have been designed for road hockey use. Under U.S. Pat. No. 4,793,769, Dolan, issued 03 Mar. 1988, a puck with ball bearings allows simulation of a slippery ice surface but does not provide the user any ability to change the weight of the puck for training benefits. It also does not have a visual guideline to analyze a puck's spin, as an aid in improving stick skills.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,078,801, White Sr., issued 14 Mar. 1978, is an impact safety puck with foam between two flat plastic disks. In two embodiments of his invention, White provides a cavity allowing insertion of particulate matter. The disadvantage of those designs is again the limitation to a single weight. Once the cavity is filled, the design necessitates that it be permanently sealed, else the material may escape during play. A related disadvantage is that the material used to fill the cavity is limited to particulate matter. Other disadvantages are that a player cannot increase the weight beyond a normal puck for training purposes. Stronger players have no additional training benefit over a standard puck because the weight stays the same. It cannot be made easier or more difficult to control. Finally, the foam rubber exterior does not simulate the feeling of an official puck. It also does not have a visual guideline to analyze a puck's spin, as an aid in improving stick skills.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,111,419, Pellegrino, issued 05 Sep. 1978, shows a puck that is attached to an elastic cord which is attached to a hockey stick, the purpose being that the player can practice shooting skills without having to chase after the puck. This does not allow the user to change the weight of the training puck, nor does it provide a visual guideline to analyze the puck's spin, as an aid in improving stick skills like shooting.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,878,023, Decepoli, issued 17 Mar. 1959, describes a shuffleboard weight and U.S. Pat. No. 3,613,523, Rass, issued Oct. 1987, describes a curling stone. Both of these units are slid at slow controlled speeds in their respective games, and neither are suitable for the sport of ice hockey.
Also, three hockey pucks (U.S. Pat. No. 3,675,928, Gentile, issued 9 Sep. 1970, and U.S. Pat. No. 3,887,188, Beauchamp, issued Nov. 1972, and U.S. Pat. No. 3,512,763, Holm, issued Oct. 1986) have been designed with safety as the purpose, each having a soft impact surface. Beauchamp's puck is made of felt, Gentile's puck has an air-filled, tube-like, rubber circumference, and Holm has a soft outer covering. Practicing ice hockey with safety pucks does not allow a player to reap the maximum benefits from the increased (weight) resistance of my heavy puck. Again, the disadvantage is that these pucks only provide a single weight with which to practice. Also, the highly resilient exterior necessitated by the safety feature does not simulate the feeling of an official puck. Also, none of the pucks have a visual guideline to analyze their puck's spin, as an aid in improving stick skills.
Gentile's puck recites colorful markings for greater visibility and appeal; however, this does not satisfy my hockey puck's purpose of analyzing rotational velocity. No other prior art addresses or solves this particular problem.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds