Crbn Fever – What is Going On With the Crbn?
Authored by: Gritty
It has been a rough weekend for the Crbn brand. Hereâs a bit of an abbreviated timeline of the sequence of events: (1) Thursday evening we start hearing rumblings about the Crbn being banned from US Open. (2) Friday morning, Today in Pickleball reports the Crbn is banned from the US Open for pro events. (3) Today in Pickleball provides further update on Friday that Crbn is no longer on USAP list of approved paddles. (4) US Open releases statement later on Friday that Crbn recalled their paddles on April 29, 2022 (Friday), asked their players not to use their paddles and the US Open requested all players not use the Crbn paddle. (5) PPA Tour releases statement Friday evening that Crbn will not be allowed at PPA events for all players and starting May 15, 2022 they will be doing âon-site paddle testing protocols for all professional divisionsâ. (6) USA Pickleball releases their statement on Saturday morning regarding Crbn paddle testing and timing.
Okay, did you get all of that?
So Iâm going to try to give a little more context, which we alluded to in our live blog, and put out our thoughts on everything that has happened. We are undoubtedly missing some facts here so Iâll also make clear where we are doing more speculating on things.
One big takeaway from what has happened is that everyone involved is at fault. This has been handled poorly at all levels. There is not much of an excuse for having a paddle that doesnât meet the required specifications and, by all accounts, Crbnâs grit level on the paddles were significantly higher than what is allowable. Today in Pickleball reported on March 15th that the Crbn was going to be banned by the PPA Tour. While the report did not turn out to be correct, clearly there has been some smoke around the legality of Crbn paddles and Crbn has not done anything over the past month and a half to resolve that. Thatâs on them.
On the other hand, none of this should have been a surprise for USA Pickleball either. To conduct an âin-field testâ at the US Open and to take steps to ban the paddle in the middle of a tournament is the wrong way to go about all of this. Their most recent statement emphasizes a level playing field but there is something to be said about disallowing the paddle part-way through arguably the most prestigious tournament of the year.
Neither the US Open nor USA Pickleball provided any sort of statement or announcement until after a lot of the information was out through other sources. Furthermore, given our knowledge of the situation, for the US Open to frame this as a Crbn recall appears to be misleading. If USA Pickleball does not take these steps to test the paddle in the way that they did, the Crbn is not recalling their paddles yesterday. Take these steps after the tournament, not right in the heart of it.
However, that still leaves one major question of the timing of all this. Why would on-site testing occur at the US Open when this was already a known concern from players and manufacturers? It has been evident that Crbn has been getting a lot of positive publicity that has led to Crbn getting a disproportionate share of the market in terms of sales of their paddles. In short, business has been very good for Crbn.
What we have heard is that Ben Johns and/or JOOLA have been the driving force behind the Crbn being tested/banned â this is apparently what led to the PPA looking into this. The motivating factor is not entirely clear, but part of it apparently comes down to JOOLA coming into the market with this big splash only to be outdone by Crbnâs organically generated publicity. They are not alone in this as other paddle manufacturers have been upset because of how good Crbnâs sales have been and other pro players have not been happy about having to play against it. Regardless of where exactly the pressure is coming from, the hastiness of the testing of the Crbn from USA Pickleball seems to have been the result of external pressure. Thatâs not confirmed but it sure looks that way.
The ironic thing about the pressure is that there are rumblings that there are JOOLA paddles that may have compliance issues. We had heard about there being a video of JOOLA paddles failing an informal grit test with official equipment, but we were not planning on reporting on it since we had not seen the video. This afternoon, this video has been shared online, including in our comments.
The video shows two different JOOLA paddles in that look like they read over the allowable grit 40.0 number. The testing in the video is being done by Donn Paben who is the Managing Director of Pro Player Relations and Equipment Compliance at USA Pickleball, who appears to turn a blind eye to what he determines to be non-compliant paddles. Although not an official test, as the kids say, not a good look.
(Update: We had someone reach out to note for is that there is a grace period USAP provides a paddle company before they deem a paddle âillegalâ as part of their bylaws.)
It was also interesting to see Electrum with a very targeted Instagram post yesterday describing their paddle as the âroughest compliant paddle in the gameâ. The Electrum post is obviously a shot at Crbn, but is it also a shot at JOOLA or even other competitors that have not been tested? The PPA says they are going to do on-site testing but weâll be curious to see what this testing consists of. When does this testing get done? Is it random? Every paddle used by a pro? What happens when paddles are not compliant? Iâm sure weâll get a complete and transparent outline of the protocols from the PPA in due course.
Frankly, I get it from these paddle companies. I would be incredibly pissed if a non-complaint paddle was taking such a big market share of paddle sales. Believe me, I would be up in arms about this too. If I was a player, I wouldnât be happy either. Is it happenstance that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place menâs singles players all played with a Crbn paddle? We can never know for sure but it is notable.
As anyone who follows this paddle stuff likely knows, Electrum had a similar problem a couple of years. Eventually, Electrum quietly received sanctions from USA Picklball and worked with them to fix the issue. This has been a public debacle for Crbn though, particularly with the paddle getting removed from the USAP approved list. Again, this is really Crbnâs own doing at the end of the day. But the way in which it went down feels wrong.
Humor me for a minute. Since singles pro was already completed, there is not a single top 5 ranked or top 5 known player in the US Open that is a Crbn sponsored player. What are the chances that the Crbn gets banned in the middle of the US Open if Ben Johns or Tyson McGuffin is using a Crbn?
The paddle has to be banned. It is unquestionably illegal. No one disputes this. Itâs the fly by night approach of dealing with this. Even more concerning is the possibility that other paddles on the market are not compliant and that Crbn is getting an unfair shake in comparison with either more established and/or brands with more influence. In any event, the timing is not âunfortunateâ. It is flat out wrong. They made this choice. And if youâre going to do it in the middle of a tournament, then come out and own it right away.
There is still a lot more to shake out from all of this. All we can say now is that, from our vantage point, this is being managed terribly by everyone involved.
Agree or disagree? Let us know in the comments below or email us at nmlpickleball@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook too!
Ok so itâs banned ! Now what do we do with our banned paddles that we spent a lot of $$$ on?
This is a big problem for those amateurs that play tournaments and donât have a lot of $$ to keep buying paddles we thought were legal.
Hopefully Crbn can make it right
How long will it take for CRBN to be reapproved? Thereâs no way CRBN lays down and just quits. Obviously theyâll look to adjust the paddles to the specifications, but what is the timeline?
So if whenI purchased my Crbn paddle and they stated it was USAP approved – and it turns out itâs not – shouldnât I get a free âapprovedâ replacement or a full refund.
very fair point…..poorly handled…and the USPA fellow testing the Joola Ben Johns paddle saying it also failed (after I just went out and bought 2 to replace my now banned CRBN paddle) has me even more upset! What is going on here???
There is nothing illegal about Joola paddles at this time. That was not an official test as we noted in the post. So those paddles should be fine
For how long? Which way is the wind blowing tomorrow?
You obviously didn’t watch the video clip of a USAPA official testing multiple Ben Johns Joola paddles which showed they all failed miserably. This is completely unfair to CRBN Pickleball, and IMHO, the entire thing started when the Johns Bros got beat by DJ Young – a CRBN Team Pro – sent to the losers bracket, and subsequently withdrew? Talk about sour grapes on top of sour grapes. The bottom line through this whole ordeal is that the bigger paddles companies can’t stand that CRBN is whooping them in both sales and player interest. Who wouldn’t want to play the best spin rated paddles in the game? I saw similar fallout happening in the golf industry. Buckle up, because CRBN Pickleball isn’t going anywhere.
The other question is how does Selkirk get away with having a hole in the hitting surface. Pickleball is turning into a dumpster fire , with top pros that love to whine until what they don’t like or can’t handle is banned. To me this is not the way to move our sport forward. But what do I know đ¤
What a great look for USA Pickleball.. Let’s ban one manufacturer but turn a blind eye to another… WTF.. And their claim they had to ban the CRBN as soon as they were aware it didn’t pass, even in the middle of the biggest tournament of the year, to keep their credibility.. If this video is real and accurate they have zero credibility to protect.
Agree 100% Gary. And if Ben John was playing with the CRBN, it would still be approved and the Joola would be banned. There is zero difference in grit between the 2!
Gary and Lucy are spot on. Banning the CRBN in middle of tournament by results of field testing machine which produced a negative result on CRBN, and also produced negative result on Ben Johns paddle which was not banned is certainly favoritism. Further, banning all versions of CRBN even though prior versions (which I have) evidently passed the more rigorous lab test
Go with a Slam Master paddle – USAPA approved.
đđđ
Completely disagree with all the handwringing about timing. If it turns out that USPA had commercially available noncompliant paddles before this and did not do anything, then *maybe*. But the idea that they shouldn’t worry about paddle integrity because a tournament is happening is assbackwards… no more important time to worry about it.
I also don’t see why we should care who raised the concerns if they were correct about illegal paddles! It’d be one thing if USPA was causing unjustified problems and starting rumors because Ben said so. But in this case, the paddle *was* illegal, and they did exactly what I’d want a governing body to do.
Test the paddles before the tournament if you are worried, not during. Why would you wait if you cared about the integrity of the game? They waited until after people played. This is the issue you are missing.
Exactly!
I am a table tennis player and dont have issues in my sport because TT uses different spin on their rubbers. Also table tennis blades are now faster and the rubbers vary based on the spin it generates
I am a table tennis player and dont have issues in my sport because TT uses different spin on their rubbers. Also table tennis blades are now faster and the rubbers vary based on the spin it generates
I completely agree. Iâd expect them to have a process in place to quickly deal with these types of issues. It seems to have dragged on in this instance. So, that can be improved.
But, illegal paddles need to be removed from the market for everyoneâs benefit.
The problem is the why this came so fast. As Crbn has pointed out today and I wish I had fleshed out more in the article, other companies like Electrum were given a lot more leeway and it doesnât seemed like that has happened here. The rules need to be applied fairly across the board to all companies and it doesnât seem like that was done here
I also find the timing to be very suspicious. I noticed during the Singles matches at the APP SC tournament that a lot more players coming from a tennis background were now using CRBN. Adoption of the CRBN must have attracted other pro players and paddle mfr attention also. Why not plan out events to make a big stink at US Open, also knowing of the bad blood between US Open and USAP.
Here is something I’ve not seen mentioned in any post. The Onix Pure ball was banned as not meeting spec. This was several years ago and please correct anything I have wrong. The Pure ball bounced too high out of the box. But the box had instructions to use your thumbs to massage it. After a thumb-breaking period of time, the ball could then bounce low enough to meet spec. Eventually, USAPA said the ball was no longer approved. But get this. It could still be used for an entire year! No tournament play was impacted.
Eventually USAP tightened their specs on balls.
There’s been mention of an “even playing field”. What does this mean? All tournaments used to use Dura balls. The pros fought hard to keep it that way. Gradually, some tournaments had the pro matches using Duras and the non-pros using Onix or Franklin. The pros who were fighting hard for the Duras thought the Onix Pure/Fuse or Franklin gave their opponents an advantage – they could win fire fights they would not normally win with a Dura. Eventually tournaments chose one ball or the other for all players.
Now we have paddles with grit imparting spin. I personally don’t think it is the grit that matters as much as the overall paddle design. But does spin really make that much of a difference? I guess USAP thinks it does since Zane’s spin serve was banned. But if it is to be an “even playing field” then it sounds like we need exactly 1 paddle and 1 ball. Otherwise there will always be a paddle out there that makes a great player play even better.
I love meaningful specs. And with specs, there needs to be testing to be in compliance. I’m glad to hear PPA will be testing paddles because it makes them look professional IF they are transparent about the process. I’d love them to have neutral witnesses at the testing.
I think there are certain parties who hope to greatly benefit from all of this.
Thank you for posting this information. It’s interesting. IMO, the PPA will do what’s best for the PPA, nobody else. They, IMO, won’t be upfront or in public view of whatever they do. Unless it benefits them.
It is too bad that the little guy here got screwed… Again. All those players who bought CRBN paddles. But of course, nobody really cares about them. The only way CRBN can make it right is to offer refunds or exchanges. The future will tell.
As far as banning in the middle of a tournament, what a joke. If they didn’t do their job before… Was it political, again, hopefully, we find out, but most likely we won’t. It’ll be a hush-hush behind closed doors situation. I have ZERO faith in big businesses. For the JOOLA, hopefully, we find out what’s going on. If it was illegal, does Ben Johns have to forfeit his earnings, etc? But of course, it will be too late. Is this like professional athletes having to give back their trophies and losing their winning status if found they were found doping? Think Lance Armstrong.
But after typing all this. I really don’t care. It’s way over my paygrade. I can’t do anything about it. Nobody really cares about my opinion (except Gritty and Slim of course). Big business will do what is best for THEM. Hardly anyone anymore takes responsibility for their actions. Can’t lose that big bucks job. Can’t lose that prestigious position. Can’t look like I did a crap job for years. We just don’t teach honor in America anymore and haven’t for many decades.
Thank you for your time.
Data talks. Statistics counts. I have seen neither (yet? ever?)
I am an engineer. I live by valid data, that which has statistical confidence. This is simply how good science and engineering works.
In my job I have used various roughness measuring tools, including profilometers and atomic force microscopes.
It seems everyone is assuming the paddle surface roughness test is a statistically valid test traceably calibrated to known verified standards. I havenât seen one word about the calibration of the roughness instrument. An uncalibrated instrument could (likely!) have offset errors and/or under- or over-sensitivity errors. Was the tool calibrated at the time of measurement? With valid traceable standards? Are there statistical control charts being maintained on instrument calibration? Are out of calibration instruments âlocked outâ until they are repaired and certified recalibrated? I havenât heard.
On roughness measurement of the paddles, was the data set statistically valid? How many paddles were measured? (2 ?!). Are the number of paddles tested enough to be representative of all crbn paddles manufactured in the last four months including multiple batches? What is the statistical variation from paddle to paddle? From lot to lot? Are just *2* paddles sufficient to cover the natural range of variation?
Usually we engineers apply statistical tests to verify within 95% data confidence limits that paddles lie outside the roughness specification in order to have a strong enough certainty to make an impactful recommendation. Such as banning crbn paddles. With measuring just two paddles, one of each model (presumably), to me it seems unlikely the size of the data set behind the decision to ban crbn paddles was sufficient to support a statistically valid conclusion. (Assuming the instruments were properly calibrated to a valid traceable standard).
*boogle*
Totally agree PBP, unfortunately the people making these decisions are generally not paid much, so thereâs little to no competition for these positions. With no sense of, âI might lose my job if I donât do a good job,â thereâs no incentive to put that level of analysis and discipline into these decisions. Iâd imagine a lot of these people working at the USAPA are volunteers above the age of 60. Theyâre probably being pushed around by Joola or other companies. As pickleball grows, maybe there will be more competent people in charge.
Great information PBP. I wonder how many engineers USAPA has on their staff? I wonder if they really know how to properly work the equipment? As with many businesses today, most of them do a half-ass job of whatever they are supposed to do. An SOP? IMO most companies have no idea what that is, and when they do, are too lazy to create them. Have a good week.
Of course, we all remember Deflategate, an incident where the offender was suspended from play and fined millions of $ on the basis of readings from a $5 tire gauge. It got better. The league commissioned an expensive report which relied on high precision, NIST traceable instruments in a lab environment to prove the player cheated and that the penalties were justified.
The Open, PPA and USA Pickleball seem to be doing the right thing with CRBN. But itâs now more than a rumor that Joola is at the upper limits of roughness, perhaps over. Ok it was a jerry-rigged test, but an important official was the person who took the measurements. And there are other paddles, including Selkirk Project 2 and Electrum, which are marketed for their roughness and are apparently producing very high spin rates in the range of CRBN.
When this gets resolved the equipment and the game will be better for it. Until then, some soap opera drama and lots of wild speculation. Canât wait until itâs over.
For the record, Iâm a Giants fan. Phil Simms and Eli Manning are the GOATs and Tom Brady cheated his way to all of those rings. But tire gauges?
A little medium grit sandpaper glued to a non approved Walmart paddle = CRBN paddle? And only $30.
The Crbn issue seems to indicate that it is not too early for pickleball governing agencies to investigate the feasibility of funding an independent paddle testing lab with testing and approval protocols that are accepted by all agencies.
I feel like if PPA or anyone is conducting on-site paddle testing for CRBN then they should be doing so for ALL paddles. That way everyone is held to the same level of accountability, as well as have a control to measure against.
Also you only measured 2 paddles and that was enough to ban all others? Seriously?
Update: We had someone reach out to note for is that there is a grace period USAP provides a paddle company before they deem a paddle âillegalâ as part of their bylaws.)
CRBN: Hugh? thanks for the “grace period”.
Probably should have wrote there is supposed to be a grace periodâŚ
Link to CRBNâs official statement regarding this situation
https://www.facebook.com/104249981968648/posts/166829015710744/?d=n
The CBS feed last weekend had a commentator mention that there are now over 100 (!) paddle manufacturers selling paddles. I wouldn’t be shocked if it’s even more than that. If one reads the actual rules on paddle compliance, they’d realize that the specs are extremely limiting to how much tech can really influence performance. They’re made that way on purpose. No rougher than about 320 grit and no trampoline effect (deflection) so the claims of “Softer” or “more powerful” or “more spin” or “more touch” are ALL dubious. But the money pouring in from manufacturers etc claiming the next best things must have some pull. I mean, how often does ESPN discuss the RACKET being used by top tennis players? Almost never. You can play a drinking game listening to a PPA or APP event livestream – The announcers nearly trip over themselves mentioning Paddle X or new sponsorship by Brand Y. It’s painful sometimes really. NML (I think) made the call that this will eventually settle down to where a manufacturer puts out a reasonably priced paddle with SCIENCE to show they’ve maxed the grip etc within the rules and its snake oil to claim anything else. Sell it for $80 and sell the hell out of them. I have OEM samples from several factories that are the SAME as Franklin, Electrum, CRBN, Diadem etc. Max cost was $33…
Franklin is kind of doing this already but it seems some big company will come in to sell a super affordable paddle that is just as good, thereby undercutting the entire market that only seems to be going up
That seems about right… this list shows 1,318 approved paddles (!), and apart from the big guys like Selkirk, Prolite, etc. who have ~50, the median manufacturer seems to have 5-10, so >100 manufacturers defintely a possibility.
https://equipment.usapickleball.org/paddle-list/
I looked up this list when someone upthread claimed that USPA should have retested all the paddles before the tournament. All 1,318, I guess?
Pingback: Minto US Open – 5 Takeaways – A Real Rivalry? – NML Pickleball
Take a look at these surface images from 4 paddles. If CRBN is that close to the bleeding edge of surface roughness the others can’t be far off…
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GN3Lah1m6qWfe3feA
One takeaway from this is that if USAP can and will suddenly de-list your paddle it will hurt innovation. For example, would you want to create a paddle that is on the edge of compliance in fear that suddenly USAP will out of nowhere ban your paddle and then you’re stuck with the financial issue of replacing tons of paddles? For small companies the answer is probably not. I know of one company that is asking this question (and others) now before they will release their paddle that rivals CRBN in spin.
Pingback: APP Tour St. Louis and PPA Tour North Carolina – 5 Takeaways – To the Summit – NML Pickleball
Pingback: PPA Tour Orange County Cup – 5 Takeaways – Parrisâ In-Seine Weekend – NML Pickleball
Pingback: USA Pickleball Nationals – 5 Takeaways – Catherine Parenteau and the Partnership Triangle – NML Pickleball
Pingback: Paddle Modifications for Top Pros is the Latest Issue in Pickleballâs Paddle Mess – NML Pickleball
Pingback: CRBN Gate 2.0 – More News With Pickleballâs Most Controversial Paddle – NML Pickleball