One of the most well-known and well-respected pickleball paddle reviewers, John Kew Pickleball is pushing spin testing forward in his own garage moving away from guesswork and toward data that actually lines up with what performance on court.

Until recently, how much a paddle can spin the ball hasn’t been quantified beyond how “gritty” the paddle face is. Everyone talks about it, and everyone knows it matters, but actually quantifying it in a meaningful way has always been a challenge.

Thanks to paddle testing pioneers like John Kew, that’s starting to change. His approach isn’t just a ball cannon and a camera, it’s specifically targeting the best testing parameters that correlate to on court performance and translating all of that for the average player. This publicly available data is leading to a market shift in how spin is understood. Less reliance on perceived dip and how easy it is for your paddle to file your nails, and more focus on what’s actually happening at the moment of contact.

 

---

 

How We Got Here

The first attempts at measuring spin were simple: look at surface roughness.

Rougher face = more spin.
Smoother face = less spin.

That worked to a point and is still a good gatekeeper for extremely gritty paddles, but it doesn’t hold up when accounting for variables outside of surface roughness that also impact spin potential. Two paddles could have a similar surface feel and still behave very differently when the ball actually hits the face.

Manual RPM testing came next from early paddle reviewers like Pickleball Studio, Pickleball Effect, and John Kew Pickleball. and it was a big step forward for the players in determining which paddles actually did what they said they did when it came to spin. Using serves or drives with radar guns or high-speed cameras gave us real numbers—but not fully reliable ones that could be used to confidently rank paddles’ performance against one another.

As far as the scientific method goes, this approach was an effective general tool at comparing paddles’ spin performance, but there were just too many variables to get an accurate representation of the data.

John Kew’s Approach

Kew’s biggest change is straightforward; he removes the player from the equation.

His controlled setup includes:

• A ball cannon delivering consistent shots

• A paddle fixed at roughly a 30° angle

• A high-speed camera measuring spin

• Multiple shots per paddle, with outliers removed

Precise, simple (though not easy, or cheap), and repeatable.

He hasn’t stopped there, he’s continuing to refine the process. John is testing different inbound speeds, comparing cannon results to real swings, and using regression analysis to see what actually reflects on-court performance.

One of the more interesting early findings:

Lower inbound speeds (around 40 mph) may correlate more closely to real play—but the methodology is still evolving

That’s important as this isn’t a finished system: It’s actually being built in real time.

 

---

 

Relation to UPA-A

There’s overlap between Kew’s testing and what UPA-A is working toward.

Both rely on:

• Controlled impacts

• Fixed paddle positioning

• Measured spin output

But the intent is different.

UPA-A is focused on limits and certification while Kew is focused on performance and comparison.

He isn’t locked into a single test condition, and he’s constantly checking results against real play. That flexibility makes the data more useful—even if it’s still evolving.

 

---

 

What the Early Results Are Showing

Even at this stage, the data is already separating paddles in a meaningful way.

The biggest theme: durability.

Some of the newer “durable grit” paddles—like the 11Six24 Vapor Power 2 and Honolulu J2CR with Blue Crystal Grit—are showing almost no measurable spin loss under testing.

Traditional raw carbon fiber paddles are still showing:

• ~300–400 RPM loss

• ~15–20% spin reduction

That gap isn’t theoretical anymore, it’s showing up consistently, and it reinforces something players have felt for a while:

Some paddles don’t just play differently—they age differently, and now regular players can ask not just “how much spin does it have”, but “how long does that spin performance last”.

 

---

 

What’s Actually Driving Spin (And Why It Matters)

One of the more important insights from Kew’s work is that spin isn’t just about “grit”—it’s about how the ball interacts with the face. 

The difference shows up clearly in high-speed footage:

• High-spin paddles: the ball barely slides on contact (often less than an inch)

• Lower-spin paddles: the ball can slide 2–4 inches across the face before releasing

That slippage differential significantly impacts total RPM and launch angle.

More grip → less slippage → more “arc” and spin
More slippage → less spin → flatter ball

Kew’s modeling showed that even a small difference in launch angle—around 6°—can translate to 20+ inches of additional net clearance on a baseline shot. It also explains why “launch angle” has become such a common talking point—and what’s actually driving it.

---

 

Where This Is Going

Kew is still refining speeds, angles, and how to best align controlled testing with real-world play. But even now it’s doing something the industry hasn’t really had before. 

It’s giving players a way to compare paddles that isn’t based purely on feel or first impressions but real science led by players, for players. 

 

It’s worth recognizing the work John is doing here. This kind of testing doesn’t just add data—it pushes the entire conversation forward. The more we understand how paddles actually perform over time, the better decisions players can make.

If you want to explore the data yourself, you can dig into his full paddle database and see how different models stack up. And if you’re not already following his work, his channel, John Kew Pickleball, is one of the best places to stay up to date as this side of the game continues to evolve.