G.A.I. Partners had acquired Hedstrom, the manufacturer of the Vittert ball, and the new corporate leader was a platform tennis enthusiast. The new owners had given Hedstrom the funds to provide the innovative leadership the game has requested to enhance ball performance. They hired new technical talent, implemented new manufacturing methods, and started a statistical process control and continuous improvement program. The main thrust of Vittert’s efforts was on improving the physical aspects, as the balls had been lopsided, were losing their flocking, and worst of all, wearing out very quickly.

Besides the composition of the ball itself, there were other contributing factors. Court surfaces had become more “severe,” as new methods were introduced to keep them rough. Screens, especially the newer and tighter ones, took a toll. Plus players were learning to use more “English” on balls to create a competitive edge. But ball durability was still, plain and simple, a problem. So Vittert was seeking solutions.

Vittert tested over a dozen new formulations, and sought insights from players on all those variations. As the new balls were put into play, the company solicited feedback, from both tournament players and the average Joe and Jane, who were the real backbones of the ball-buying market. One surprise in this research involved the bounce of balls, as one segment of the market leaned toward lower bouncing balls while another wanted higher bouncers. Vittert was making both, and considered adding a third type to round out its coverage of all the market niches.

Source: Platform Tennis News, Summer & Fall 1991

Advanced Recreation Design (ARD) introduced a new platform tennis ball to the sport during the 1991-1992 season, after a significant amount of research and development. Carly Swain explained the journey:

“One of the main points concerns the APTA specifications for approved baIls. Those specs include such factors as weight, diameter and rebound or bounce, with acceptable tolerances dictated for each measure. But the specifications do not take into account other factors, such as durability, playability, and color retention. Nor do they address the question of quality control in terms of how many balls are tested to meet the specifications.

We think we’ve successfully fulfilled all his demands. The final product, the new ARD ball, is currently for sale throughout the U.S. and Canada. It is APTA approved for play in sanctioned and ranking events. ARD is confident the effort put into the ball’s development has created a ball that will please platform players with its quality and consistency.”

Source: Platform Tennis News, Winter 1992 and APTA May 1990 BOD Meeting Minutes

Pete Mathews posed the global warming question based on his observations over time, and questioned ball specifications His comments appeared in the Spring 1991 edition of Platform Tennis News.

“Has ‘Global Warming’ really begun to affect the climate? I’m no expert, but I’ve noticed one thing for sure. Paddle seems to be played under much warmer conditions than I seem to remember in years past. How many photographs in PTN do you see where the pictured players are in either shorts or short sleeves? Furthermore, with the Nationals played later and later in March, the likelihood for warm conditions is greatly heightened for what is the culmination of our season and the supreme test of the game as played today.

Do they still make the ‘high bounce?’ From my perspective, the current ball almost qualifies as one. The benefits of the current ball however are not lost on me. Platform tennis elbow is, I suspect, less prevalent given the reduced shock effect of this ball and the ability to play with lighter racquets. In addition, it is easier for novices to learn and enjoy the screen-play aspects of the game. Now I may be a lonely dissenter on the issue of the ball, and maybe we will return to a period where I’m complaining more about the cold instead of the warm. As a Mid Atlantic player I’m sure I am prejudiced by my geographic location. So here’s one vote for the return of a ball which was: a) firmer, b) rounder, c) held up better, d) died on the racquet if fielded off the shoe tops, e) died in the corner when delicately placed with an overhead, and f) died behind the net when dropped from on top of it. Extended rallies are still an important part of the game, but let’s reward the really good shots and impose a little more of a penalty for poor ones. The old ball accomplished that.”

Source: Platform Tennis News, Spring 1991

The following lament had been heard all too often, this time emanating from Weezie Lambert in Princeton:

“The ‘official’ ball is a round puff which self destructs after one set or less, growing shaggy and virtually falling apart. Who has a new variation? Where is the competition? Everyone in league play is fed up with spending more per ball, knowing it may be lopsided to start. Wish I had a solution. Does someone out there?”

Both manufacturers and the APTA had been working on the problem. The association had contracted with the United States Testing Company to assess a sample of balls from three different manufactures to see if they met the specifications published in Appendix A of the Official Rules of Platform Tennis.

One of the three balls tested was the then approved Vittert V-30 ball, which was found to conform to the APTA standards and tolerances. The other two balls, both new entries that were submitted for APTA approval, were found, on average, to fall outside the ranges on rebound and/or weight. The actual test results, with comments, had been provided to the manufacturers with the expectation that adjustments could be made to bring these balls within the acceptable tolerances before APTA approval could be granted.

Source: Platform Tennis News, Winter 1991

Bob Brown, an ex-President of the APTA, was named Chair of a revitalized committee tasked with evaluating balls and rackets to see that they met standard specifications.

The Mid-Winter edition of Platform Tennis News gave the background to this new initiative:

“One problem has surfaced: Rackets with holes larger than the mandated 3/8-inch diameter. Some come that way accidentally from the manufacturer. Rumor is that some players have made them wider at home. Bigger holes afford an illegal competitive advantage, giving more spin and better control to the user. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. If you bought one by accident (just get a 3/ 8 inch dowel to check), take it back to the person you bought it from and get another. Nobody should use illegal rackets at any time, whether it’s a pick-up match or the National finals. If a racket is found illegal at an APTA sponsored event, it will be disallowed from that tournament. If you get caught using it a second time at such an event, YOU will be disallowed from the tournament.”

Note: At the May 1990 BOD Meeting the racquet specifications where adjusted as follows: total length is 18 1/16″; thickness is expanded to 9/16″; and, the paddle face is predominantly one color, excluding yellow.

Source: Platform Tennis News, Mid Winter 1990 and APTA May 1990 BOD Meeting Minutes

NOTE: For the history of the paddle from the early days through early 1990s: Jim Tate’s article The Paddle Itself has a History Too!

Vasoll penned an article for the Winter edition of PTN covering an informal conversation he had had with Robert Brown, former APTA President and the President of Region I, who had suggested that platform tennis take the lead in the elimination of the “let” on the serve. No changes were being proposed, but APTA membership was encouraged to provide opinions.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, racquets became more responsive, balls became livelier, and there was a general trend toward tighter screen tension. All these changes facilitated learning the sport and increased enjoyment for the recreational player.

The average player could now sustain extended rallies and balls wouldn’t simply die on the screens. At the highest levels of the game, however, long points and tight screens pushed the physical threshold of players further than ever.

Probably the worst match Paul Molloy ever worked was at Rye, between Herb Fitz Gibbon and Hank Irvine against Gordon Gray and Doug Russell that went to 18-16 in the fifth set on a Super Bowl Sunday. After the match, Molloy met with the rules committee and got them to agree to play tiebreakers all the way.

APTA President Chuck Vasoll reported on progress in the Mid-Winter edition of PTN.

We received several responses to our ad for a “Rubber Chemist” to aid us in our search for improvements to “The Ball.”

We will be following up on them with the hope that it will be fruitful in bringing us an improved product for our game. Speaking of the “ball,” I recently delivered a supply to the captain of one our women’s teams. As I was descending the steps at the rear of her house, I could not believe my eyes. There growing in the garden were “Platform Tennis Balls.” Closer inspection, however, showed them to be yellow gourds. Unfortunately, this picture in black and white is not as striking as the color original, but you can visualize it. When I mentioned this finding and put up the picture on our warm-up hut bulletin board, I was told that it was a great idea to grow the balls, except the cost of the seed was $6.50 for a sleeve of three.”

Source: Platform Tennis News, Mid-Winter 1988

Walt Peckinpaugh, Region IV President and Board Member led an effort to address issues with the ball – how true it bounces, how long it lasts and how much it cost.

The following report was contained in the Fall edition of Platform Tennis News:

Late in May, Walt brought our concerns about the ball to our primary supplier, the Hedstrom Corporation, maker of Vittert platform tennis balls. In their conversation, several matters were discussed and plans to implement improvements were on the agenda of the June meeting of the APTA Board.

First and foremost, Hedstrom will continue to supply Vittert balls to the market at a competitive price. This is vital because we have no game without a proper ball. We are told, however, that there may be a substantial price increase because the costs of raw material used in the ball have more than doubled since last year. This is due to the demand for rubber for other products

Second, it is necessary to recognize that we are a very small market for a specialized product. Hedstrom does not see us as having “growth” potential. It cannot compensate for a small profit margin by large volume or an anticipated increase in future orders.

Finally, there is a need for research in the composition of the ball. Hedstrom has been providing Walt Peckinpaugh with samples for testing of different formulas of rubber and flocking. The company has indicated, however, that it does not have the funds or expertise to pursue this area any further. Management suggested that the APTA investigate the availability of a “rubber chemist” to assist in this research. Thus the “HELP WANTED” ad printed on this page. “

We are hoping our members can direct us to such a person or, better yet, have such specialized knowledge themselves. The goal of this research effort would be to find a rubber composition that will maintain or lower costs while standardizing the quality of the ball. Meanwhile, the APTA will continue to work with the Hedstrom Corporation to produce a product that will be priced so as not to be a deterrent to the further growth and enjoyment of the game and to maintain quality levels that are acceptable.

Source: Platform Tennis News, Fall 1988, and Mid-Winter 1988