Dichotomy (noun), dī-́ʹkä-tə-mē – A division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or parts.
In common pickleball parlance, paddles are classified according to the amount of power or control they exhibit when striking a ball. These classifications may be overly simplistic because they imply that paddle power and control are mutually exclusive. That is, it is widely believed that “power” paddles will lack control, and “control” paddles will lack power. “Hybrid” paddles fall somewhere in between, having a moderate amount of power and control.
The selection of a paddle based on its “power” and “control” rating is confusing because it is not well understood how the paddle’s design affects its power and control. A review of several articles on the internet finds numerous opinions on how a paddle’s shape, thickness, face sheet material, core material, handle length, weight, etc. determines a paddle’s power or control capabilities. Are paddle design characteristics a reliable predictor of paddle power or control? Probably not. For example, manufacturers state that thinner paddles will have more power than thicker paddles, or wide body paddles will have more control than elongated paddles. Experience suggests that this may not always the case.
What really determines the amount of power or control that a pickleball paddle can generate? Is it accurate (or fair) to classify paddles as “either-or” power vs control? In this article, we are going to discuss some of the major misconceptions behind the dichotomy of power and control paddles and propose an alternative way of categorizing paddles. First, let’s quickly review paddle dynamics.
Review of Paddle Dynamics
In a previous article, we developed an analytical model of a pickleball paddle in an attempt to predict its diving board and trampoline modes. This analytical model assumed that the pickleball paddle behaved like a tennis racquet, where its throat stiffness could be measured relative to its handle and its face stiffness could be measured relative to its edges. We next performed dynamic tests to validate the analytical model and found large discrepancies between the test data and the analytical predictions.
These results indicate that pickleball paddles do not behave like tennis racquets, but like baseball bats. Rather than measuring the paddle static stiffness relative to the handle and edges, we must measure the paddle dynamic stiffness relative to the paddle center of mass. This seemingly innocuous shift has a profound effect on how we might classify paddles into the “power”, “hybrid”, and “control” categories.
The Origin of Paddle Power and Control
From baseball, we know that traditional wood bats do not exhibit a trampoline effect, but will bend like a diving board about the handle. These diving board vibration modes occur at low frequencies and are not efficient in returning energy to the ball on rebound. Hollow aluminum bats, on the other hand, exhibit a trampoline effect which is a result of high frequency “hoop modes” that are more efficient at returning energy to the ball on rebound. Furthermore, handles of hollow aluminum bats are stiffer, increasing the frequency and lowering the amplitude of diving board modes that may dissipate energy. The hollow aluminum bats are therefore “hotter” than traditional wood bats.
Based on our dynamic tests of more than 70 paddles (to be published in a future article), we determined that the paddle diving board modes occur at low frequencies. These modes are characterized by bending at the throat and tend to store energy which is not returned to the ball on rebound. If the frequency of these modes is too low, too much energy will be absorbed, making the paddle feel “dead”. The compliance at the throat also causes excessive deformation, which may also reduce control and accuracy. In any case, you should select a paddle with a high frequency diving board mode to reduce energy losses and increase control and accuracy.
The paddle trampoline modes, characterized by bending of the paddle face, occur at higher frequencies that are more efficient in returning energy to the ball. As we discussed in a previous article, there are different trampoline deformation shapes (such as the “taco”, “potato chip”, and “basket” bending modes), some of which are more efficient than others (Figure 1). We have found that if the paddle trampoline vibration frequency is too low, it might not pass the USAP PBCoR test because it will have too much power. If the trampoline mode occurs at too high of a frequency, the paddle will feel too stiff and not return energy to the ball.
The Power vs Control Dichotomy
As discussed above, we normally think that paddles are classified according to a one-dimensional (1-D) spectrum, where paddles with high reactivity are considered “power” paddles, and at the other end of the spectrum, paddles with low reactivity are considered “control” paddles (Figure 2).
Figure 2 indicates that “control” and “power” are mutually exclusive. Certainly, high power paddles can also have high control, and low power paddles can have low control. How do we resolve the apparent dichotomy of the power vs control spectrum in Figure 2?
From our paddle dynamic tests, we determined that the frequency of the paddle diving board mode is an indicator of accuracy or control, and the frequency of the paddle trampoline mode is an indicator of paddle “pop” or power. From this, we developed the criteria shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Power vs Control Criteria
This table is interpreted as follows: a high accuracy / high control paddle will have a diving board frequency of greater than 400 Hz. Similarly, a high power / high velocity paddle will have a trampoline frequency in the 500 – 650 Hz range. Can a paddle have both high power and high control? Yes, if its diving board frequency is greater than 400 Hz and its trampoline frequency falls in the range of 500 – 650 Hz. If the trampoline frequency is less than 500 Hz (and to a lesser extent, if the diving board frequency is less than 300 Hz) the paddle will likely not pass the USAP PBCoR test.
Alternative Way of Categorizing Paddles
We have resolved the apparent dichotomy between power and control by plotting the frequency results on a two-dimensional (2-D) plot as shown in Figure 3. Here, the paddle trampoline frequency is plotted along the vertical axis and the diving board frequency is plotted along the horizontal axis.
This shows that it is highly desirable for the combination of diving board and trampoline modes to fall into the upper right quadrant, where the paddle will exhibit high power and high control. On the other hand, it is highly un-desirable for these paddle modes to fall into the lower left quadrant, as the paddle will exhibit low power and low control. Paddles with modes that fall into the upper left and lower right quadrants follow the conventional power vs control dichotomy of high power/low control and low power/high control. Paddles with trampoline and diving board frequencies that fall onto the center of the 2-D spectrum are categorized as hybrid paddles. Paddles with trampoline mode frequencies less than 500 Hz are non-compliant with respect to the USAP PBCoR test because they will have too much reactivity.
Summary & Conclusions
In this article we showed how the 1-D Power vs Control spectrum might not be an appropriate means of categorizing paddles since it assumes that paddle power and control are mutually exclusive. We therefore developed a 2-D Power / Control spectrum that considers power to be independent of control based on the frequencies of the trampoline and diving board vibration modes. This enables us to determine the control characteristics of power paddles, and vice versa. In our next article, we will provide dynamic test data for several paddles and plot the results on the 2-D Power / Control Spectrum to demonstrate the validity of this approach.
