roughly 2.0x fasterOh boy! Will these fail compression even faster than the current Fireflexes?
2 major upgrades vs the OG fireflex
1- new 360 technology ( new layering in the sweet spot zone to help maintain compression significantly longer) 40-60% longer
So instead of 200 swings, you get 280-320 swings. Sweet.
All I know is that at the USSSA major tourny here in CO a couple weeks ago there were MASSIVE amounts of Fireflexes failing. Many looked brand new too. I figure 90% of Fireflexes tested failed.
And the kick in the ass is those ****ers don't pay for their bats, it's the regular Joe that gets the shaft
...the amount of bats failing overall was like 60%.
Remember when utrip went with the thumbprint stamp and all new bats were supposed to spiral or crack before they exceeded the new standard? I guess that's all gone by the wayside.
USSSA needs to change something. They're allowing a dangerous situation to occur by passing new bats that surpass their bat standard so quickly. All well and good if everyone compression tested regularly, but we know that just doesn't happen. And the problem is compounded by allowing multiple types of balls.
In one part of the country you have people hitting .52's in hot, humid weather with a freshly tested bat. And in another area you have guys hitting Classic M's on a cool day with a bat that would fail miserably if it had been tested. Not even the same game.
Introducing the thumbprint stamp bats didn't make anything safer. If anything it made things worse. Now you have tons of bats that hover around 220 after 100 swings. And the bats don't crack or spiral when they hit 220 either.
When they introduced the stamp, the first wave of bats had issues with spiraling. I remember Mikens/Worths being the most notorious for it. Now they're leading the pack and you could argue that they started the trend towards bats that are hot quick and fail compression easily. Either they figured out how to sneak past the testing, or USSSA relaxed on their stance and gave in to pressure from manufacturers. Or both.
Does USSSA even compression test as part of their certification process? My understanding was that they just checked the BPF until breaking but not the compression of the bat. If they did compression test as part of the certification process, the Demarini Uflips would never have passed certification.
Had a 40 hit blueline fail in Utah state a few weeks ago. Im surprised Colorado State didnt test TWMccoy. Thats another story for another time.
I agree though, Classic + balls with these bats have to be the limit. Classic M's come off way too fast. At least with the 52s the infielders have a chance.
As far as making the pass/fail 300, no ones bats would pass right now. I had to go get a NIW blueline out of the car in Utah, it tested at 270. Utrip already make us buy new bats for the thumb print. Can you imagine if they upped the ante and made pass/fail 300? ASA might be relevant again in this area if that happened.
When the thumbprint stamp came out, nobody had heard of compression testing. It showed up a few years later so I'm pretty certain it was never part of the certification process.
The problem they should care about is legally I think their thinking is stupid and will not protect them in court. They only care about their own wallet. I assume they think that a park not compression testing will save them from a lawsuit, but I don't see it. It seems like it's only a matter of time before someone is killed by a new bat, and a lawsuit happens. Do they really think a judge in going to find it reasonable that they allow (silently endorse) $300 bats that fail that quickly? Easton can say, they approved the design. The association has a much higher responsibility imo than to just say, it passed at some point. They instituted these compression rules, but they don't require testing. I think that, plus how quickly these approved bats fail, would be enough to win a lawsuit against them.When the thumbprint stamp came out, nobody had heard of compression testing. It showed up a few years later so I'm pretty certain it was never part of the certification process.
The problem they should care about is legally I think their thinking is stupid and will not protect them in court. They only care about their own wallet. I assume they think that a park not compression testing will save them from a lawsuit, but I don't see it. It seems like it's only a matter of time before someone is killed by a new bat, and a lawsuit happens. Do they really think a judge in going to find it reasonable that they allow (silently endorse) $300 bats that fail that quickly? Easton can say, they approved the design. The association has a much higher responsibility imo than to just say, it passed at some point. They instituted these compression rules, but they don't require testing. I think that, plus how quickly these approved bats fail, would be enough to win a lawsuit against them.
That is all true, and would've been their easy way to avoid it in the past, but them days are over for some. Now that some bats are coming out of the wrapper below 250, they could make a three minute or less video where they buy five bats, put his on then test them, and show them failing.It wouldn't be ethical, but it would be easy to avoid a lawsuit.
The manufacturer can say that their bat was made to USSSA's standard, USSSA just has to show their testing results and approval process. Due diligence was done and the bat met standards when it was produced.
That bat that killed ol' Jimmy with a rocket linedrive to the throat? Well, you see, your honour.... that bat was used and we don't know what was done to it between the time it was made and the time Jimmy's wife was made a widow. Could've been beat against a tree or rolled down a hill. Or *gasp* used to hit non-approved balls.
I miss the old days. You could buy a USSSA bat (any brand) and count on putting 1000 BP swings on it with hard balls to get it going. Now you buy a Fireflex and its practically failing out of the wrapper.
USSSA bats were WAAAYYY stiffer a decade ago than they are now.
I didn't see any bat testing at CO state. At the major a few weeks ago all the bats got tested and probably 60% of in-state bats failed. Yeah, hitting anything harder than C+ balls with those bats is insanity. USSSA needs to take a hard look at bat/ball standards and make some changes. I think they base all their decisions based off playing conditions in FL. Let me just say that FL is a hot, humid place and things can be dramatically different in other parts of the country.