Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:44:13.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Material Matters: Performance Standards Governing New Materials for Sports

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2013

J. Nadine Gelberg
Get access

Extract

“With a lighter but stiffer shaft and heavier clubhead the ball goes farther. Easier,” claims a 1975 advertisement for Shakespeare graphite irons. New materials such as graphite, boron, and titanium, have made sports equipment stronger yet lighter and thus more powerful. For athletes, sports have become, as the ad stated, easier. Serves over one hundred miles per hour are commonplace on the professional tennis tour, and athletes such as Tiger Woods are making par five golf holes obsolete. Sports organizations do not, however, always embrace these innovations that facilitate play. Major League Baseball retains its traditional mandate requiring only wood bats, the International Tennis Federation prohibited double strung tennis rackets, and the United States Golf Association banned asymmetrically dimpled golf balls. These technology regulations emerged to prevent the sport from becoming “easier,” protecting sport integrity.

Type
Materials For Sports
Information
MRS Bulletin , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , March 1998 , pp. 39 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Shakespeare Graphite Irons Advertisement, Golf World (April 18, 1975): 9.Google Scholar
2.Parsons, J., “Tennis Ready to Ace Big Hitters With New Rules,” Daily Telegraph, 24 March 1992, 31.Google Scholar
3.Fisher, M., “The Feel of Wood Growing Popularity of Wood Tennis Rackets,” The Atlantic Monthly 276(1) (July, 1995) 78.Google Scholar
4.Joansonne, J., “What a Racket: Graphite's Big Sweet Spot Sore Topic to Wood Backers as Controversy Festers,” Newsday, 3 September 1990, 47.Google Scholar
5.Braham, J., “Boom, Boom, Boom!” Machine Design 67(16) (September 14, 1995), 36.Google Scholar
6.Arace, M., “Power Not in Players' Hands; It's Built into Their Rackets,” Hartford Courant, 9 August 1991, 1 (F).Google Scholar
7.Hughes, T. P., Networks of Power. Electrification in Western Society 1880–1930 (Johns Hopkins University Press:Baltimore, 1983), 15–16.Google Scholar
8. Letter from Rufford Harrison, International Table Tennis Federation Equipment Committee Chairman, to Gelberg, J. Nadine. October 30, 1996, 1.Google Scholar
9.Reed, J.D., “A Weighty Matter of Spaghetti and Tennis Balls,” Sports Illustrated 48(15) (April 3, 1978), 36.Google Scholar
10. “Why They Banned the Spaghetti Racquet,” Tennis 13(8) (December 1977), 110.Google Scholar
11. “Proposal to Ban Racket Is Likely to Succeed,” The Times, 30 September 1977, 14.Google Scholar
12. “Temporary Ban on ‘Spaghetti’ Racket,” The Times, 3 October 1977, 10.Google Scholar
13.Amdur, N., “‘Spaghetti’ Tennis Racquet Faces a Ban,” New York Times, 29 September 1977, 21(B).Google Scholar
14. Harz v. USTA, 306.Google Scholar
15. Rules of tennis amendment ITF upheld July 13, 1978. In Extract from the President's Newsletter, July 31, 1978.Google Scholar
16. Telephone interview with Ted Bridenthal. NCAA Staff Liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee. January 20, 1997Google Scholar
17.Ashley, S., “High Tech Up at Bat,” Popular Science (May, 1992), 108–111; 122; 124.Google Scholar