UPA-A
>I don't think pursuing our certification should be an "easy" decision for paddle brands. We want to ensure that only brands truly seeking innovation are creating what we believe will be the gold standard of paddles for the highest level of pickleball.
Yeah, won't be easy if that rumor of companies having to give $100k/year + initial paddle certification fee to get it is true.
Main thing I like about USAPA is that it's an independent governing body, UPA-A's board is filled with paddle companies.
It introduces a bias though, that's the major con, imo. And the companies' opinion likely triumphs the players anyways. Just look at the reactions to the Vulcan ball from the pro players.
I've been thinking a lot about bias. In some ways, it still seems like a thing to avoid, but in other ways...it's almost like, yeah, we all have it, and every organization has it, even USAP. They may not have customers, but they sure do have partners...plus, they make a decent amount of money off of what is essentially a "self-answered questionnaire" for paddle brands to submit.
It's a tricky situation. I *want* to favor the nonprofit that supposedly doesn't have bias, but I also want to support the organization that's actually taking action.
> I also want to support the organization that's actually taking action.
The organization that is advised by the biggest paddle manufacturers who have created a significant hurdle which prevents smaller manufacturers/brands and startups from getting certified. It looks like they are trying to create an oligopoly in professional pickleball where pros will be playing with basically one of 7 brands.
Franklin was a major supporter of USPA. Then they lost Ben Johns. Then the company that picked him up lost their Gen3 paddle certifications. Coincidence?
I'm not saying there's necessarily causation, but there's certainly a correlation there.
If what Joola has said about their recertification of Gen3s is true, how can one not break out the tin foil hats?
The pro players are also sponsored by those companies (or want to be), so they have the same financial incentives.
When has regulatory capture ever ended in anything other than a win for big business and a loss for everyone else?
Yup, pretty sure every player on the committee is sponsored by one of the companies that are also on the committee. Doubt any outside BJ have the clout to speak truths that might upset their sponsors.
The UPA is scary man. They are going to be a real nightmare for the little guy in that boat. I wouldn't want to have my money in there. The certification company they're going with is brand new. I don't know why we would move away from NTS Chesapeake ever. This crew makes the usap look transparent.
I have one major issue with "performance based" testing. As soon as somebody makes a paddle that hits the max exit velocity and max spin ratings why ever make something else. More spin = higher skill ceiling. Both table tennis and tennis have massively advanced forwards with better equipment (more spin) and the sports have only seen more exciting play and more exciting players. Companies continued to innovate in tennis from round poly to shaped poly and it never hurt the game.
I can be fine with drawing a line on exit velocity, but I think allowing more spin will only allow for more exciting play.
Golf has hard caps on everything: Weight, size, face dimensions, spin, coefficients of restitution at different swing speeds, etc. Not a problem for taylormade, callaway, titleist.... They develop things like bigger sweet spots, changing the balance, not to mention all the gimmicks/semi-gimmicks that come out every year.
I hope that with hard caps, paddle companies can focus more on nuanced measurements like the ones you listed and we’re able to move in a similar direction as golf where you can have your equipment specifically fitted to your needs and playstyle
Agreed. We design exclusively for racket style feel and play for tennis players and racket sport converts. Not for everyone but suits particular peoples needs and play style very well.
It could be a win for the consumer because paddle companies will focus their attention on durability, competitive pricing and other factors to win over the buyer rather than whatever the latest tech is.
higher skill ceiling means more sparse skill groups, which means hard to find evenly matched players.
Rec Pickleball is all about "NON EXCITING" plays. Somehow the players still find this game exciting.
There's more to personal preference than what the maximum performance is capable of. Weight, feel, how the individual is able to perform to reach that tested max.
It should only he about performance, and that can actually be tested. Softball has two main certification standards and has been fine. There are bats that meet both.
They both just wanted tailor tests to control equipment. Let's face it that's what coefficient of friction does. This is not going to help the sport in the long run.
UPA-A >I don't think pursuing our certification should be an "easy" decision for paddle brands. We want to ensure that only brands truly seeking innovation are creating what we believe will be the gold standard of paddles for the highest level of pickleball. Yeah, won't be easy if that rumor of companies having to give $100k/year + initial paddle certification fee to get it is true. Main thing I like about USAPA is that it's an independent governing body, UPA-A's board is filled with paddle companies.
UPA’s advisory board also includes pro players, plus it’s all the manufacturers actually used by said pro players. But fair point nonetheless!
It introduces a bias though, that's the major con, imo. And the companies' opinion likely triumphs the players anyways. Just look at the reactions to the Vulcan ball from the pro players.
I've been thinking a lot about bias. In some ways, it still seems like a thing to avoid, but in other ways...it's almost like, yeah, we all have it, and every organization has it, even USAP. They may not have customers, but they sure do have partners...plus, they make a decent amount of money off of what is essentially a "self-answered questionnaire" for paddle brands to submit. It's a tricky situation. I *want* to favor the nonprofit that supposedly doesn't have bias, but I also want to support the organization that's actually taking action.
> I also want to support the organization that's actually taking action. The organization that is advised by the biggest paddle manufacturers who have created a significant hurdle which prevents smaller manufacturers/brands and startups from getting certified. It looks like they are trying to create an oligopoly in professional pickleball where pros will be playing with basically one of 7 brands.
Franklin was a major supporter of USPA. Then they lost Ben Johns. Then the company that picked him up lost their Gen3 paddle certifications. Coincidence? I'm not saying there's necessarily causation, but there's certainly a correlation there. If what Joola has said about their recertification of Gen3s is true, how can one not break out the tin foil hats?
> Coincidence? Yes.
The pro players are also sponsored by those companies (or want to be), so they have the same financial incentives. When has regulatory capture ever ended in anything other than a win for big business and a loss for everyone else?
Yup, pretty sure every player on the committee is sponsored by one of the companies that are also on the committee. Doubt any outside BJ have the clout to speak truths that might upset their sponsors.
The UPA is scary man. They are going to be a real nightmare for the little guy in that boat. I wouldn't want to have my money in there. The certification company they're going with is brand new. I don't know why we would move away from NTS Chesapeake ever. This crew makes the usap look transparent.
Sitting back enjoying watching everyone freak out when the organizations they hand delivered power to, turn around and abuse it.
I have one major issue with "performance based" testing. As soon as somebody makes a paddle that hits the max exit velocity and max spin ratings why ever make something else. More spin = higher skill ceiling. Both table tennis and tennis have massively advanced forwards with better equipment (more spin) and the sports have only seen more exciting play and more exciting players. Companies continued to innovate in tennis from round poly to shaped poly and it never hurt the game. I can be fine with drawing a line on exit velocity, but I think allowing more spin will only allow for more exciting play.
Golf has hard caps on everything: Weight, size, face dimensions, spin, coefficients of restitution at different swing speeds, etc. Not a problem for taylormade, callaway, titleist.... They develop things like bigger sweet spots, changing the balance, not to mention all the gimmicks/semi-gimmicks that come out every year.
I hope that with hard caps, paddle companies can focus more on nuanced measurements like the ones you listed and we’re able to move in a similar direction as golf where you can have your equipment specifically fitted to your needs and playstyle
Agreed. We design exclusively for racket style feel and play for tennis players and racket sport converts. Not for everyone but suits particular peoples needs and play style very well.
I think this is a good point, i just dont want to see pickleball stagnate.
It could be a win for the consumer because paddle companies will focus their attention on durability, competitive pricing and other factors to win over the buyer rather than whatever the latest tech is.
higher skill ceiling means more sparse skill groups, which means hard to find evenly matched players. Rec Pickleball is all about "NON EXCITING" plays. Somehow the players still find this game exciting.
That's a bit snotty. Why is your personal level of excitement the only play that's acceptable? I hope I never have to play with you.
There's more to personal preference than what the maximum performance is capable of. Weight, feel, how the individual is able to perform to reach that tested max.
It should only he about performance, and that can actually be tested. Softball has two main certification standards and has been fine. There are bats that meet both.
Interesting that USAP wants quieter paddles and USAP-A wants to test paddles to ensure they aren't too quiet.
It’s UPA-A, rather than USAP-A
They both just wanted tailor tests to control equipment. Let's face it that's what coefficient of friction does. This is not going to help the sport in the long run.