fortissimo
New User
Hey all,
I found an interesting article from 2007 that tests various ball types according to the specifications laid out by ITF and USTA for legal balls. These are the ITF official specifications:
Note that the last three categories assume dropping a ball from 100 inches at a temperature of 69 degrees farenheit.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any data about various high altitude balls. Is there any data out there? I am at 4500 feet altitude (3500 feet is the threshold for when one should switch to high altitude balls), and a fellow player loves to bring high altitude Dunlop ATP balls to his matches. He says that these balls are more "legal" than the regular (non-high-altitude) balls that everyone else always wants to use here. However, I can hardly describe how low these Dunlop high altitude balls bounce. I can hardly get the ball to come back up to my hand when bouncing before my first or second serve. They feel exactly like super dead balls. Not just normal dead balls that are still usable, but the kind of balls where you just want to hit them over the fence after you bounce them just one time. I find it nearly impossible to believe that this is what USTA/ITF has in mind when they advocate for high altitude balls.
Keep in mind I lived at 1,370 feet (elevation) for several years (until about 6 months ago) and played with regular balls that entire time (100-150 matches per year), so I feel like I have a good idea of how a ball should bounce. Quite honestly, I really can't tell much difference between how regular balls bounce at 4500 feet vs 1370 feet (I noticed a difference when I first moved but quickly adjusted within my second match), but I swear that the high altitude balls bounce much lower at 4500 feet than the regular balls bounce at 1370 feet. (I've played 3 matches with those Dunlop balls and I don't think I will EVER be used to them.)
Here is fun article to read (USTA Colorado) that also advocates against high-altitude balls, but for a different reason: high-altitude balls also happen to feel like heavy rocks when playing with them. So the author suggests using pressureless balls.
Here is a CNN broadcast that goes over how balls are tested. The whole thing is interesting, but pay special attention to the very end when the news guy asks the pro about his preferences. The pro had just won the Davis Cup (junior). The video is from 2011, and I looked up the 2011 Davis Cup - it was held in a place in Mexico that is elevation over 6000 feet. The news guy asked the pro if he prefers high elevation balls [in Mexico], or regular balls "down here," and without hesitation the pro said he prefers playing "down here" because he got "quite frustrated" playing in Mexico.
Advocates for high-altitude balls might dismiss that by saying it's all a matter of what you're used to, but that's completely missing the point. The whole point of having high-altitude balls in the first place is precisely to make the game of tennis more uniform, so it doesn't change so much based on elevation. So if using them effectively at high elevations relies on "getting used to them," obviously they're not doing their job. While regular balls may bounce higher and sail longer at high altitudes, I wonder if the adjustment people have to make in getting used to that is less drastic than the adjustment one has to make in playing with high altitude balls at ANY elevation. This guy won the freaking Junior Davis Cup, and he did so when the need to use high altitude balls was extreme according to USTA's definition.
I found an interesting article from 2007 that tests various ball types according to the specifications laid out by ITF and USTA for legal balls. These are the ITF official specifications:
| Mass | 1.975-2.095 oz | 56-59.4 g |
| Size | 2.575-2.700 in | 6.541-6.858 cm |
| Bounce | 53-58 in | 135-147 cm |
| Forward deformation | 0.220-0.290 in | 0.559-0.737 cm |
| Return deformation | 0.315-0.425 in | 0.800-1.080 cm |
Note that the last three categories assume dropping a ball from 100 inches at a temperature of 69 degrees farenheit.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any data about various high altitude balls. Is there any data out there? I am at 4500 feet altitude (3500 feet is the threshold for when one should switch to high altitude balls), and a fellow player loves to bring high altitude Dunlop ATP balls to his matches. He says that these balls are more "legal" than the regular (non-high-altitude) balls that everyone else always wants to use here. However, I can hardly describe how low these Dunlop high altitude balls bounce. I can hardly get the ball to come back up to my hand when bouncing before my first or second serve. They feel exactly like super dead balls. Not just normal dead balls that are still usable, but the kind of balls where you just want to hit them over the fence after you bounce them just one time. I find it nearly impossible to believe that this is what USTA/ITF has in mind when they advocate for high altitude balls.
Keep in mind I lived at 1,370 feet (elevation) for several years (until about 6 months ago) and played with regular balls that entire time (100-150 matches per year), so I feel like I have a good idea of how a ball should bounce. Quite honestly, I really can't tell much difference between how regular balls bounce at 4500 feet vs 1370 feet (I noticed a difference when I first moved but quickly adjusted within my second match), but I swear that the high altitude balls bounce much lower at 4500 feet than the regular balls bounce at 1370 feet. (I've played 3 matches with those Dunlop balls and I don't think I will EVER be used to them.)
Here is fun article to read (USTA Colorado) that also advocates against high-altitude balls, but for a different reason: high-altitude balls also happen to feel like heavy rocks when playing with them. So the author suggests using pressureless balls.
Here is a CNN broadcast that goes over how balls are tested. The whole thing is interesting, but pay special attention to the very end when the news guy asks the pro about his preferences. The pro had just won the Davis Cup (junior). The video is from 2011, and I looked up the 2011 Davis Cup - it was held in a place in Mexico that is elevation over 6000 feet. The news guy asked the pro if he prefers high elevation balls [in Mexico], or regular balls "down here," and without hesitation the pro said he prefers playing "down here" because he got "quite frustrated" playing in Mexico.
Advocates for high-altitude balls might dismiss that by saying it's all a matter of what you're used to, but that's completely missing the point. The whole point of having high-altitude balls in the first place is precisely to make the game of tennis more uniform, so it doesn't change so much based on elevation. So if using them effectively at high elevations relies on "getting used to them," obviously they're not doing their job. While regular balls may bounce higher and sail longer at high altitudes, I wonder if the adjustment people have to make in getting used to that is less drastic than the adjustment one has to make in playing with high altitude balls at ANY elevation. This guy won the freaking Junior Davis Cup, and he did so when the need to use high altitude balls was extreme according to USTA's definition.
Last edited:
