.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Editor’s note (2/4/25): We previously reported that Ronbus engaged with independent testing labs. After reviewing additional information, we have corrected this to reflect that Ronbus engaged directly with Element for accuracy and clarity.
USA Pickleball’s Media Day was less a carefully managed press event than an open-floor reckoning.
In a commendable and transparent move, USAP invited manufacturers, media, and creators to openly challenge its testing methods, enforcement policies, and recent controversies. In most industries, a media day would mean a scripted statement and careful deflection. USAP chose to take the heat.
The event arrived at a crucial moment for pickleball’s governing body. With the introduction of the PBCoR test, growing scrutiny over market enforcement, and the public debacles surrounding the Ripple delisting and the rapid removal and reinstatement of the Chorus Fire, trust in USAP’s oversight had begun to fray.
Manufacturers, some skeptical, others outright frustrated, pushed for answers: Why weren’t delistings communicated more transparently? How would compliance actually be enforced? Would USAP’s own testing keep pace with the innovation happening in paddle design?
Tensions rose, but the discussions were altogether productive. For the first time in years, a genuine dialogue emerged between USAP and those who feel the weight of its decisions.
While this article highlights the sharpest areas of contention—disputes over break-in thresholds, enforcement inconsistencies, the questions of whether manufacturers would self-police—one fact remains: the conversation itself was a step forward.
After a year of opacity and mounting frustration, this event helped bridge long-standing communication gaps, setting the stage for what might, finally, be a more transparent and accountable era for the sport.
What was the USAP media day?
USAP held a Media Day on January 31, 2025, at the Element US Space & Defense Lab in Maryland, inviting paddle manufacturers and media representatives, including YouTube reviewers and podcasters. Attendees toured the PBCoR demonstrations, previewed the upcoming spin rate test, and received a presentation on USAP’s operations. CTO Carl Schmits, Chief Engineer John Anderson, and CEO Mike Nealy led the event, which concluded with a Q&A session.
What is USAP’s relationship with Element US Space & Defense Lab?
Since 2015, USA Pickleball (USAP) has partnered with Element U.S. Space & Defense, an independent, accredited lab specializing in advanced testing. Element conducts equipment testing for USAP to ensure pickleball paddles and balls meet established standards.
What are USAP’s standards for equipment testing?
John Anderson, Chief Engineer Consultant for USA Pickleball, described USAP’s process for developing and enforcing equipment standards, drawing from his background in aerospace engineering.
Anderson explained that USA Pickleball follows a structured methodology: rules are translated into measurable requirements, which are then developed into testable equipment standards. This ensures that compliance can be objectively verified rather than left to interpretation.
The process begins with rules outlined in the USA Pickleball rulebook, which are then detailed in the Equipment Standards Manual. Anderson provided an example with surface roughness, where the rule states a paddle "can't be rough" but is further defined in the manual as "no greater than Rz 30", as measured by specific testing equipment.
Once requirements are defined, test plans are developed in partnership with Element US Space & Defense, detailing the equipment, calibration process, test parameters, and measurement procedures. The PBCoR test follows this same methodology, enforcing existing rules against flexible membranes, trampoline effects, and added power, with defined testing conditions ensuring consistent and verifiable results.
What tests are the USAP conducting right now?
PBCoR Test – Measures energy return to ensure paddles do not exceed performance thresholds.
Surface Roughness Test – Assesses paddle texture and its impact on spin.
Coefficient of Friction Test – Evaluates how much grip the paddle provides on the ball.
Deflection Test – Analyzes paddle flexibility and structural integrity; currently running parallel to other tests.
Size Testing – Ensures paddles do not exceed 17 inches in length or a combined length and width of 24 inches, including edge guard and butt cap.
Reflection Testing – Measures surface gloss, with a limit of ≤ 80 Gloss Units (GU), to prevent excessive glare during play.
The USAP has demonstrated plans to introduce spin testing in Q2 2025.
How the Ripple delisting happened: USAP & Ronbus’ positions
1. Ronbus’ initial testing & certification assumptions
Ronbus stated that pre-production samples of the Ripple R1.14 PBCoR.43 were tested and confirmed to be under the 0.43 PBCoR threshold. The company claimed it received written confirmation that the paddle met compliance requirements. Based on these results, Ronbus proceeded with seeding the market, distributing paddles to testers, podcasters, and influencers with the expectation that certification was secured.
However, USAP disputed this claim, asserting that Ronbus engaged with Element independently to obtain PBCoR results but had not completed the official certification process. Carl claims “he put the cart before the horse and basically took a position that it had been approved. It had not.”
2. Market seeding before certification approval
According to USAP, Ronbus distributed paddles bearing the USAP logo, leading testers and reviewers to believe the paddle had passed full certification. “Many of the testers out there, the podcasters, received this with our logo on it as tested and with the claim that it had passed certification, which wasn’t the case.”
Ronbus later issued a retraction, acknowledging the need for additional testing, but maintained that their internal factory lab testing had previously shown compliance.
USAP emphasized the importance of clearly distinguishing pre-production paddles from certified products when providing them to reviewers. Carl stated, “If you're giving a paddle to a reviewer and it's not yet a product, mark it out. It’s a pre-production, cross it out.”
USAP suggested that manufacturers simply put a line through the USAP approval badge on pre-production models instead of requesting multiple shipments from suppliers. This ensures that reviewers and consumers do not mistakenly assume a paddle has passed full certification before it has been officially approved.
3. Last-minute retesting & certification failure
Shortly before the January 31, 2025 launch, USAP requested final production samples for official certification. Ronbus overnighted the paddles, which were tested at Element US Space & Defense Lab, where they failed the PBCoR test, measuring above 0.44.
USAP stated, “We did not sign off on it, and once we ran it through a full suite of tests, it did not pass.” The organization clarified that the perception that the paddle had been approved and was either breaking in too quickly or wildly over PBCoR was incorrect—it had simply never passed full certification.
Ronbus, however, has claimed to launch its own internal investigation, retesting the same paddles at its factory lab to determine the cause of the discrepancies between their results and USAP’s independent testing. The company reaffirmed its intent to work with USAP to resolve compliance issues and ultimately release an approved version of the Ripple paddle.
4. Disputed accountability & calls for transparency
USAP’s Position:
- Ronbus did not complete certification before distributing paddles.
- USAP stated that the paddle that initially passed testing was not the same as the production paddles later submitted for certification.
- The production models submitted for final testing failed independent PBCoR testing.
Ronbus’ Position:
- Early pre-production samples passed initial PBCoR testing with written confirmation.
- The company followed what it believed was standard practice but acknowledges that discrepancies in test results need further investigation.
- Ronbus remains committed to working with USAP to ensure a compliant version of the Ripple is released.
How the Chorus Fire was delisted
The Chorus Fire paddles were delisted and relisted within days, raising questions about USAP’s handling of the approval process. Carl acknowledged an internal mistake in the listing and subsequent delisting of the paddle.According to Carl, “there was essentially a dragnet that we put in place to test paddles that came in with alternate configurations or non-standard cores.”This included applying the PBCoR test, but “we were behind the curve on it.” The paddle was approved before the PBCoR test was conducted, and results came in later, revealing discrepancies.Carl admitted the process was not handled correctly, stating, “Now how that was handled wasn’t the process that we agreed we would use. And so it was a mistake on our side.” He further clarified, “We didn’t follow our own process, let me put it that way.” Both Carl and Chorus have indicated that they will provide further updates on the issue.
The state of PBCoR
USAP’s current implementation of the PBCoR test represents a step forward in standardizing paddle performance, but gaps remain in how the formula accounts for structural differences between pickleball paddles and the baseball and softball equipment it was originally designed for. While the testing process effectively measures collision characteristics, refinements may be necessary to ensure a more comprehensive assessment of paddle performance. However, the scientific processes needed to improve these methodologies are in place, and USAP is committed to refining its approach.
The timeline for further advancements remains unclear, as USA Pickleball’s equipment certification has followed a deliberate “crawl, walk, run” approach.“Our team wanted to ensure our process was timely, affordable, implementable, and had input from manufacturers so we could respond appropriately to equipment developments in the industry. We’re excited to announce we’ve now entered the ‘run’ phase,” said Carl.
However, this statement does not seem entirely congruent with the current state of the PBCoR test, which is still facing fundamental questions about its accuracy, implementation, and applicability to pickleball paddles. While significant progress has been made, the system remains a work in progress, raising concerns about whether it has truly reached a stage where it can be considered the run phase.
What is the PBCoR?
USAP stated that the PBCoR formula is based on commercially available off-the-shelf technology originally developed for baseball and softball testing. The test equipment measures collision characteristics the same way regardless of the object being tested. “The cannon doesn’t know that there’s not a baseball bat in there,” Anderson explained, emphasizing that the system simply measures impact physics. Some adjustments have been made for pickleball-specific mass properties, replacing a softball and bat with a pickleball and paddle. However, USAP did not expand on the differences between a bat and a pickleball paddle or how these structural variations might affect the testing process.
The PBCoR test is designed to assess paddle power and ball response more accurately than previous static methods. Modeled after high-speed bat performance tests used in baseball and softball, the process involves firing a ball from an air cannon at approximately 60 mph toward a clamped paddle.
When asked how the paddle is secured to the cannon, Anderson responded, “We just clamp the shit out of it.” High-speed cameras and sensors capture the inbound and outbound speeds of the ball, allowing for a calculation of the paddle’s coefficient of restitution. PBCoR is the ratio of the rebound speed to the incident speed of two colliding objects.
This is often used to measure exit velocity and, in this case, quantify the power of a paddle. USAP stated that clamping the paddle is necessary to prevent energy loss from movement during testing but acknowledged that they have not conducted a formal study to determine the optimal clamping force, even though different handle materials may impact measurement.
They secure the paddle by removing grips and end caps and ensuring a firm hold, but have not defined specific torque values such as 10 or 20 foot-pounds. Anderson noted, “We haven’t done a full science project on it,” but emphasized that the paddle must be held firmly to prevent unintended energy absorption. While they believe the current method is effective, they are open to further refinements to ensure consistency in testing.
Why doesn’t the USAP publish PBCoR numbers?
USAP’s stance on publishing PBCoR numbers is that manufacturers will have access to their own paddle data but not to the test results of other companies’ paddles. When asked about making PBCoR test results publicly available, a USAP representative clarified, “Your paddles. You could get your data. Not anybody else’s paddles.”
USAP’s firm stance on destructive testing
USAP’s testing policy and enforcement mechanisms place the responsibility of maintaining compliance on manufacturers throughout a paddle’s lifecycle. They actively pull certifications for paddles found to be non-compliant and uses its Market Compliance Program to capture real-world performance discrepancies.
Which paddles are chosen for further testing?
The “10% Club” subjects paddles performing within 10% of the maximum allowable specification to additional screening, including a teardown inspections to verify whether the internal core matches the originally certified version. Carl reinforced USAP’s “trust but verify” approach, stating, “You’d be shocked at the number that aren’t.”
A growing concern is how USAP will handle paddles that "break in" and increase performance over time, as there is ongoing debate about whether manufacturers should be penalized for paddles that degrade to benefit players.
USAP insists that the responsibility for break-in lies in the hands of the manufacturer.
Carl noted that while USAP oversees testing, manufacturers must attest to compliance requirements upon submission. “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 confirm under a delegation of authority that their paddle does not produce a trampoline effect or increase in power beyond the PBCoR limit. “In the form, they attest to the fact that it doesn’t deliver a trampoline effect,” he said, noting that this requirement predates the introduction of more advanced testing methods.
Manufacturers agree but call for more enforcement
Manufacturers repeatedly questioned how USAP would enforce compliance over a paddle’s lifespan, particularly regarding paddles that “degrade to benefit.” While some paddles have already been delisted, concerns remain that without continuous monitoring, manufacturers could exploit gaps in enforcement. One manufacturer pressed USAP on whether a formal process exists to track performance changes over time, emphasizing the need for proactive oversight.Skepticism also arose over the reliance on ethical compliance, with manufacturers questioning whether USAP had penalties beyond delisting.
Others challenged the effectiveness of financial consequences, with one noting, “If you’re going to fine me $2,500, but yet if I break it, I make $10 million… that math is easy.” The concern was clear: without stronger deterrents, manufacturers may see non-compliance as a calculated business decision.
Beyond enforcement, manufacturers warned of compliance discrepancies creating an uneven playing field. One pointed out that if a company stays within limits while others exceed them over time, those paddles will gain an unfair performance advantage. Another emphasized the need to account for how paddles evolve through use, arguing that understanding break-in characteristics relative to a global performance maximum is essential for maintaining fairness in competition.
USAP addresses slow communication regarding delistings
Beyond compliance concerns, USAP was also questioned for delayed public communication regarding the Ripple delisting. Attendees pointed out that while Ripple issued its own press release, USAP did not provide immediate updates on its media relations page, even on the day of the planned release. Some argued that by failing to lead the communication, USAP allowed misinformation and speculation to spread, making it seem as though it had disrupted Ripple’s launch rather than enforcing compliance.
One speaker suggested that USAP should issue a holding statement to acknowledge ongoing investigations without speculating or assigning blame prematurely. USAP responded that legal processes must be followed before making such statements, but manufacturers argued that proactive communication could prevent misunderstandings and reinforce trust in the certification process.
Moving forward, there was a strong call for USAP to improve public transparency and ensure that any future delistings are clearly explained in a timely manner.Moving forward, USAP committed to improving public transparency and ensuring that any future delistings are clearly explained in a timely manner.
How will USAP identify non-compliant paddles in the market?
Carl outlined their Market Compliance Program, which identifies potential compliance issues through various sources, including paddle reviewers, manufacturers testing competitors’ products, and direct consumer feedback. The program monitors irregularities, often triggered by reports of paddles performing differently than their certified versions. When a concern is raised, USAP conducts an initial screening, followed by lab testing to verify the issue. If a failure is confirmed, manufacturers receive a Notice of Escape to determine whether the problem is isolated or widespread.
How will USAP enforce the rules?
Despite USAP’s monitoring efforts, some manufacturers expressed concerns over the lack of clear enforcement mechanisms beyond initial certification. One manufacturer likened the situation to having a speed limit without law enforcement, questioning how USAP ensures compliance beyond the lab. Others pointed out that identifying non-compliant paddles has been largely ad hoc, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement.
CEO Mike Nealy acknowledged these concerns and confirmed that field testing will be expanded to provide more robust oversight, stating, “There’s going to be more enforcement. Absolutely, yes.” However, manufacturers pushed for additional clarity on how field testing will be conducted and how USAP intends to protect compliant brands from competitors that may exploit loopholes.
USAP asserts its leadership but emphasizes the need for community support and communication
USAP reaffirmed its role as the nonprofit governing body overseeing pickleball’s equipment regulations and compliance, emphasizing its commitment to fairness, safety, and integrity. They acknowledged that past confidentiality has caused consumer confusion, particularly regarding paddle compliance and delistings.
According to Carl Schmits, in April 2024, he met with the future president of UPA to discuss USAP’s testing development process. A month later, that individual was announced as UPA’s leader, setting the stage for a competing certification framework. Schmits noted that UPA initially planned to roll out its own PBCoR test in early 2025, but the timeline has since slipped—from April to now September. He framed the delays as evidence of the challenge in executing meaningful policy, contrasting it with USAP’s own launch of PBCoR standards in November 2024.
Throughout the discussions, one thing became clear: USAP’s intentions are inherently positive. Their mission to uphold fairness, integrity, and scientific rigor in pickleball is not in question, nor is their commitment to developing objective, data-driven standards. But ambition alone isn’t enough. The challenge now lies in execution—scaling their enforcement efforts, refining their testing methodologies, and ensuring that their oversight keeps pace with the rapid evolution of paddle technology. If USAP is to maintain credibility as the sport’s governing body, its processes must not only be well-intentioned but also precise and enforceable at scale.