.43 is a Lie.

.43 is a Lie.

Written by: Brian Laposa

|

|

|

Time to read 2 min

The notion of a trampoline effect implies that the paddle, akin to a trampoline, imparts additional energy to the ball upon impact, thereby increasing the ball's velocity. However, empirical evidence supporting this effect as an intrinsic property of the paddle's material and construction is lacking. Current testing protocols, such as those outlined by PPL, focus on the PBCOR, which measures the combined performance of the paddle and ball. This approach conflates the properties of the paddle with those of the ball, making it difficult to isolate and attribute any observed performance enhancements to the paddle alone.

**Misrepresentation of Paddle Performance**

Testing the paddle-ball system as a single unit inherently misrepresents the paddle's performance. The PBCOR value, while useful for understanding the overall dynamics of the system, does not accurately reflect the paddle's contribution to the energy transfer. The ball's material properties, such as its elasticity and mass, play a significant role in the measured PBCOR value. Consequently, any observed "trampoline effect" could be predominantly a function of the ball's characteristics rather than the paddle's.

**Overrepresentation of the Ball's Influence**

By testing the paddle-ball system together, the current methodology overrepresents the ball's influence on the overall performance. The ball's impact on the PBCOR value can overshadow subtle differences in paddle construction, such as variations in core material and thickness, which are critical to understanding the paddle's true performance. This overrepresentation can lead to misguided conclusions about the effectiveness of different paddle designs and materials in enhancing player performance.

**Recommendations for Improved Testing Protocols**

To address these concerns, we recommend that future testing protocols focus on isolating the paddle's performance from that of the ball. This could involve developing tests that measure the paddle's response to impact without the ball's influence, such as using standardized impactors or other controlled testing methods. By doing so, we can gain a clearer understanding of whether the paddle itself exhibits any trampoline effect and how different construction techniques affect performance.

Additionally, it is essential to engage with manufacturers and other industry stakeholders to refine these testing protocols. Collaborative efforts can help ensure that the standards developed are both scientifically robust and practically applicable, fostering a more transparent and equitable environment for all involved in the pickleball industry.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, while the PBCOR standard has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of paddle performance, it is imperative to critically assess its underlying assumptions. The lack of evidence for an inherent trampoline effect in paddles, coupled with the misrepresentation and overrepresentation of the ball's influence in current testing methodologies, necessitates a reevaluation of how we approach paddle performance standards. By advocating for more precise and isolated testing protocols, we can ensure that the standards reflect the true capabilities of paddle designs and contribute to the sport's continued growth and integrity.

To be absolutely crystal clear our opinion is that this test is a grift. We are less concerned with the fact that the test is a grift as we know it's a grift then that it is a grift that very many people seem to be willingly falling for. As a Paddle Company we want the sport to go on and his players we'd like to have people to play with.

Leave a comment