.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Hi friends. It’s John. Before I attended USAP’s media day in Maryland, I visited Boca Raton to visit Pickle Pro Labs (PPL), who run the paddle testing program for the UPA-A. I sat down with Jason Aspes, the President of the UPA-A and Curtis Cruz, the Supervisory Engineer at PPL. You can watch my tours of both facilities in this video here. But today, I’m covering everything I learned from this interview.
1. What’s the relationship between PPL and UPA-A?
Pickle Pro Labs (PPL) is an independent, third-party lab contracted by the United Pickleball Association of America (UPA-A) to conduct paddle testing and certification. According to Curtis Cruz, Supervisory Engineer at PPL, the lab operates separately from UPA-A, treating them as a "client" while handling all testing, certification, and research.
Here’s a full rundown of the different organizational structures between the UPA-A and USAP.
Cruz considers his role to be a technical advisor, overseeing lab operations, certification testing, and paddle research. Jason Aspes, President of UPA-A, manages governance and regulations, working closely with PPL to set standards. Cruz’s background in baseball and softball bat testing, along with a Master’s in Mechanical Engineering from Washington State University, has shaped his expertise in sports equipment certification.
Before joining PPL, Cruz worked in sporting goods and medical product testing, focusing on helmets, bats, balls, and other performance-based equipment. His experience under Dr. Lloyd Smith, a leading expert in baseball bat testing, has informed PPL’s approach to paddle performance analysis and certification.
2. USAP’s PBCoR vs UPA-A’s PEF (Paddle Efficiency Factor)
UPA-A uses the term Paddle Efficiency Factor (PEF) instead of Paddle-Ball Coefficient of Restitution (PBCoR) to distinguish its testing methodology from USAP's.
Jason Aspes, President of UPA-A, explained the reasoning behind this decision: "I think it was more important to not have market confusion. We were both having our own version of PBCoR, but they were going to be very different outputs and numbers."
A key distinction between PPL and USAP’s testing methodologies is the impact speed and threshold values. PPL tests paddles at 50 mph, while USAP tests at 60 mph, affecting the final results. Additionally, PPL’s power threshold is set at 0.385, whereas USAP’s current limit is 0.44, with plans to reduce it to 0.43 in 2025.
Through extensive testing, PPL has observed a range of paddle power values. The lowest recorded value is around 0.30 for wood paddles, while the highest-performing paddles exceed 0.45. These findings have informed UPA-A’s decision to set 0.385 as the maximum allowable power limit to maintain balanced play.
3. PPL uses balls with holes, USAP doesn’t
PPL conducts paddle testing using the Vulcan ball with holes, rather than the Franklin X-40 without holes used by USAP.
PPL argues that a ball without holes behaves differently at various speeds, leading to inconsistencies when compared to real-world play. However, some engineers have suggested that using a solid ball provides a more controlled and repeatable test environment.
PPL tests at 50 mph, a speed they determined based on research into ball degradation rates. They claim that 60 mph, the speed USAP uses, wears down balls too quickly in a lab setting, making it an unrealistic standard. However, it's unclear whether a lower speed might also impact test accuracy, and why the degradation rates seen in the lab wouldn’t also apply in actual gameplay.
To account for potential inconsistencies, PPL considers ball orientation during testing, stating that impacts on the poles versus the equator yield different results.
The poles refer to the spots typically where the logos are placed, while the equator is the seam-like parting line created during the ball’s rotational molding process. Curtis Cruz explained, "when you test the COR of a ball on the poles versus on the equator, the performance is clearly different."
They also test across four quadrants to ensure repeatability and implement a ball qualification process, rejecting balls that don’t meet performance tolerances.
While this approach seems thorough, it raises the question of whether a more standardized ball type—such as one without holes—would reduce variability from the outset. Also, testing different ball brands may prove that some brands are more consistent than others, which could lead to a preferred brand to use for all testing.
4. PPL will measure break-in period and conduct degradation testing
UPA-A has introduced a temporary allowance for paddles to reach 0.405 PEF until March 2025, after which all paddles must remain at or below 0.385 PEF, even after break-in.
This phased approach gives manufacturers time to adjust their designs while ensuring that long-term standards align with UPA-A’s goal of regulating paddle power. To enforce this, PPL is implementing an Accelerated Break-In (ABI) procedure, a method adapted from baseball and softball bat testing, where paddles undergo repeated impacts in a controlled environment to simulate extended use.
The ABI process continues until a paddle reaches one of three outcomes: physical breakdown, exceeding the power limit, or a measurable performance decline. UPA-A sees this as a necessary safeguard against paddles gaining illegal levels of power after approval, addressing concerns that some high-performance paddles can “heat up” with use.
However, this approach contrasts with USAP’s stance of paddles that "degrade to benefit", which puts the responsibility for break-in compliance primarily on manufacturers.
Carl Schmits of USAP has stated that manufacturers must confirm their paddles remain compliant over time. “Most manufacturers, in terms of delisting or the confidence that what’s tested is as is, part of that is on the manufacturers.”
He explained that manufacturers must attest under a delegation of authority that their paddles do not create a trampoline effect or increase in power beyond the PBCoR limit. While USAP relies on manufacturers’ self-reporting, UPA-A’s ABI method attempts to remove uncertainty by testing break-in effects directly.
PPL’s ABI will be rolled out in Miami in March at this year’s RacquetX conference.
5. UPA-A will rely less on deflection testing
PPL and UPA-A view deflection testing as a useful but limited method for regulating paddle performance, particularly in field testing.
Previously, deflection was the primary metric used to certify paddles, but with the introduction of PEF testing, its role has shifted. Jason Aspes noted that while deflection remains important, UPA-A is now “taking down the reliance on that” since they can measure power directly through PEF testing rather than relying on deflection as an indirect indicator.
Despite this, deflection testing still plays a role in on-site enforcement, particularly at tournaments where full lab testing isn’t feasible. PPL claims there is a clear correlation between deflection and paddle performance, but it varies depending on paddle construction.
For Gen 1 polypropylene-core paddles, the correlation is strong, but for Gen 3 “floating core” paddles with foam perimeters, the relationship is weaker, making enforcement more complex.
PPL has explored various methods for deflection testing, including edge-to-edge testing, but has opted to maintain a fixed six-inch span for consistency across different paddle shapes and constructions.
Curtis Cruz acknowledged the debate, stating, “The number of conversations we've had about how you can support the paddle—it's endless. You can argue [edge-to-edge testing] is a more aggressive way to do it and probably is. That would be the hardest possible test to pass if we supported everything in a custom way each time.”
UPA-A vs USAP: two approaches to the same challenge
UPA-A and USAP are taking two distinct approaches to paddle regulation, but both rely on the same PBCoR formula to measure power. UPA-A, through PPL, is focusing on lab-controlled, destructive testing, using a Vulcan ball with holes and an Accelerated Break-In (ABI) process to account for paddles that gain power over time.
Meanwhile, USAP uses a solid Franklin X-40 ball in its lab tests while relying on real-world monitoring and compliance enforcement, like a secret shopper program, to identify paddles that may exceed limits in competitive play. To clarify, the UPA-A is only interested in testing paddles for pro play (for now), while the USAP’s goal is to regulate both pro and amateur markets.
With the market moving so quickly, both organizations acknowledge that current standards and equipment are far from perfect. Paddles break too quickly, lose grit, and change in performance over time, creating challenges for both regulators and manufacturers.
The coming year will be a test of innovation, as brands work within the new power and spin parameters to develop more durable and consistent paddle designs. Something will eventually stick, and as the sport continues to evolve, the market will need to determine which approach leads to a more balanced and sustainable future for pickleball equipment.
And if you’d like to get the full rundown of every test PPL is conducting, you can check that out Pickle Pro Labs’ website here.
About the Author: John Kew
John Kew is a pickleball reviewer with a data-driven, analytical approach to paddle testing. With a Ph.D. in Anthropology and a background in research, he brings precision to every review, using radar charts, side-by-side comparisons, and innovative metrics like “firepower.” He even incorporates X-ray scans and a PBCoR score to analyze paddle composition, blending science with the sport.