What's the best way to handicap a match?

[heycal]

If players of different levels want to play a competitive match against each other, what's the best way to make it fair? Give the weaker player a few games lead, or give him like a 30-love lead in every game? I think I heard the latter method was the better one, but of course, there may be many other methods as well. (Though I don't love the idea of limiting the stronger player to one serve, or using the doubles lines.)

Ideas?

[thejackal]

30-0 or 15-0 handicaps.

[Bottle Rocket]

I am more interested in how you get someone to agree to be the weaker player... :confused:

But some things I have been involved with includes having the better player play the whole court, use a wooden racket, only be allowed one first serve, and not be allowed to volley inside of the service line.

If the gap is HUGE, you can use your other arm.

[shindemac]

This happens when u play someone just startin out. It's funny cause they think they can still beat u cause they got 2 points off u in one game. Yes, they were so close to turning the entire match. :)

I wouldn't give them a handicap. Try to bagel them and go for a golden set. They won't ever admit to being the weaker player and will come back for more. Now u have a regular hitting partner.

[looseswing]

A good way is playing the handicap depending on how far up you are, for example a love-15 handicap for every game you are up, so if you are up four games they get an automatic game, and for three games up they got 40-love starting off etc.

[tangoll]

I've not seen this, but I heard that a local HK based pro, used to play Davis Cup, would handicap himself by tying his right and left shoe laces together, so that he could only take small steps about a foot wide, and play students that he now teaches. And still whip the students easily.

[heycal]

Thanks for the suggestions. We went with the USTA-suggested points handicap per game style, in this case 30-love. (Meaning we began the match 0-0 in games, with the weaker player starting ahead 30-love or love-30 every game.) Worked out fairly well, with the stronger player winning the match 2-6,6-3,6-4.

[Phil]

If players of different levels want to play a competitive match against each other, what's the best way to make it fair? Give the weaker player a few games lead, or give him like a 30-love lead in every game? I think I heard the latter method was the better one, but of course, there may be many other methods as well. (Though I don't love the idea of limiting the stronger player to one serve, or using the doubles lines.)

Ideas?

You could make him wear a metal ball hopper around his left arm...we actually did this a few years ago...one guy in our weekly tennis group was just too good for the rest of us, and someone, as a joke, suggested that he wear it hanging on his shoulder. And he did. We still couldn't do much against him even with that awkward hopper dangling at his side. Some other less savory ideas to handicap the match:

-Blindfold the stronger opponent
-Chainsaw the stronger opponent
-Have your Cousin Vinny break one or both of his legs/arms
-Have your OTHER cousin, Fergus, "kneecap" him
-Knock him silly, and watch as he twirls around seeing stars
-Tie him down on a tricycle
-Or, tie him to a chair, in mid court.
-Have him sit on the court-side bench. Yeah, he just sits there-doesn't get up...while you win points in the his (empty) side of the court.

Less extreme:

-Have him play lefthanded (if he's righty) or visa versa.
-Have him play in a "bunny hop" burlap sack
-Have him play wearing a heavy ski parka
-Or, have him play naked, with no shoes, either.

Oh, the list can go on and on...

-

[newstone]

to limit the stronger player to only use backhand. Forhand only to drop slide

[skuludo]

Play with rollerblades. My hitting partner tried it before and it is possible to play on those. When my hitting partner moved in a circle (similar to what wheel chair people do) I would hit behind him. This is a great way to handicap yourself.

[jeebeesus]

play with one eye patch
play with wooden racket
limit him to hit to only inside the service boxes
or to one side of the court.

[skuludo]

One of my eye became blind once and I played tennis and I couldn't really hit the ball. BTW playing with rollerblades is the BEST way to handicap someone.

[maverick1]

If players of different levels want to play a competitive match against each other, what's the best way to make it fair? Give the weaker player a few games lead, or give him like a 30-love lead in every game? I think I heard the latter method was the better one, but of course, there may be many other methods as well. (Though I don't love the idea of limiting the stronger player to one serve, or using the doubles lines.)

Ideas?

Depends on your goal as the stronger player.

1. Ego.
If the goal is to feel better about yourself, give him 5-0 start, get an excuse to play all out, beat him 7-5 and crush his spirits. That is badder than a bagel because not only did you bagel him, but you let him know that you expected to bagel him. To a beginner a 5-0 set lead seems huge, but you know he will never be able to win a whole game.

2. Fairness
30-0 is better than a headstart in games.
Each game will be competitive, and the better player can never relax. It is also better for the weaker player's ego. He would probably win a few games and feel like he made the other guy work(and that would be true). But if they are playing regular games, he could start 5-0 but would still lose 5-7, and it will be too obvious that he got bageled in reality.

3. Help your own game.
Restrict the stronger player's options in one or more ways such as:
- must land shots(other than serves) beyond the service line.
- must land shots inside the service line(practice short angle shots)
- must come to the net for every shot except for serves, returns and retrieving lobs
- must not come to the net and cannot lob.
- must hit only cross court or only down the line

[kevhen]

Have them play normal sets and find out the typical difference in score. If 6-2 is the typical difference then start the score at 0-4 so the stronger player has to really focus and play hard to win the match.

Better to just play normal full sets though and have the weaker player just try to win as many games as possible but it can get frustrating to lose 6-1, 6-1 or worse.

[spot]

I think it helps to limit the stronger server to just one serve. The points are better because the weaker player doesn't get blown away by serves. The stronger player gets great practice on their second serve.

[Geezer Guy]

I read about this method in Tennis magazine quite awhile back. It goes like this:

The player that's ahead in set-score starts each game behind by that many points. For instance, start the set normally at 0-0. Set-score is tied, so it's a "normal" game. Next game the set-score is 1-0, so game-score starts out at 0-15. Next game, if the set-score is 2-0 the game starts at 0-30, but if the score is 1-1 you start the game at 0-0. etc.

If a player is ever ahead by 3 games, the next game would start at 0-40. If a player is ahead by 4 games, the player that's behind would automatically get a game! The next game would start with a player ahead by 3 games, so it would start out 0-40 (or 40-0, depending on who serves).

I've only played this way a couple of times (on both sides of the equation) and it does help keep the score closer than it would have been.

Sounds complicated, but it's really pretty easy.

[kevhen]

yeah, that sounds like a cool way of scoring, a point for each game behind. The stronger player will still almost always win but the game score will be much closer. When the weaker player catches up, then the score starts at love and he has no advantage even though his game is still at a disadvantage.

[maverick1]

Geezer Guy, I too think that is a cool way to score. You don't have to decide who is the "weaker" player. It guarantees close sets.

This would help with a guy I know. He is the only player better than me who will hit with me, but he avoids playing sets with me because (I am pretty sure of this though he doesn't say it) he doesn't want to lose to me. That is a shame for me because some tough sets against him could help me get to the next level.

[heycal]

I guess this topic is of some interest, and I appreciate all the suggestions that keep coming, both real and silly, even though we already played the match.

If it's true the USTA recommends the 30-0 (or 15-love, etc.) per game method of handicapping, I can see why. As Maverick1 points out in post number 13, subsection 2, it really is the fairest and most simple way to handicap a match. I think many of the other methods sound like a nightmare of rules and regulations: Must hit beyond the service line? Must hit only backhands? Can't volley from the deuce court? Can't hit a drop shot unless your shoes are untied? Good luck to either player trying to remember and enforce all that kind of stuff in the heat of the moment. Worse than that, it's not real tennis -- it becomes stunt tennis. May be good for practice and honing skills, but not for a fun and competitive match that feels like true tennis. The method originally suggested by looseswing but often credited to Geezer Guy sounds like it might be fair but also complicated. I could barely keep track of the constantly shifting handicap just while reading about it, let alone in a match.

30-love is really a good way to go, as the evidence from last night's match suggests, with the weaker player winning the first set before the stronger player came back to win the match, 2-6,6-3,6-4, and it was pretty close all the way with plenty of deuces and ads. The stronger player constantly had to be on his toes and play hard, but was free to go for any and all shots throughout the match. It was not only fun for both guys, but I think helpful to each of their games too.

The only other method Heycal presently endorses is the stronger player using the weaker hand, which is what we usually do, but last night the weaker hand was hurting too much from last week's match to do it.

[heycal]

Geezer Guy, I too think that is a cool way to score. You don't have to decide who is the "weaker" player. It guarantees close sets.

This would help with a guy I know. He is the only player better than me who will hit with me, but he avoids playing sets with me because (I am pretty sure of this though he doesn't say it) he doesn't want to lose to me. That is a shame for me because some tough sets against him could help me get to the next level.

Maverick, weren't you the guy who said in another thread: "If anyone doubts my 3.5 level I will fly to where you are to play you, and you pay for the airfare if I win!" I loved that... Any takers? Weren't you supposed to play some other poster in Queens, NY last weekend? Who was it? Who won?

I think I'm about a 3.5, so if you ever find yourself in the New York metro area, 20 miles north of the city to be precise, I'd be happy to take you on. My apartment complex boasts nine immaculate Har-tru courts. (Yes, I'm extremely lucky in this regard -- but also stupid, since I've lived here for ten years but I'm only started playing seriously a year ago. Such a waste...)

Loser pays for your gas money.

[maverick1]

Heycal,
I would disagree that "must hit beyond service line" is a "nightmare" or "stunt tennis" or hard to enforce in the "heat of the match".

I have played this rule with my friends; we apply it to both players.

It is just another line call, and it is very hard to forget. It is on both players' mind the whole time.
Hitting the ball deep is the opposite of "stunt tennis" - good fundamental Tennis.

Almost every player below 4.0(may be even 4.0s and above) lacks consistent depth and needs practice.
Pro matches between baseliners are played as if this rule were in force. Most balls land behind the service line, and when they land short, the point is lost 90% of the time.

[heycal]

Heycal,
I would disagree that "must hit beyond service line" is a "nightmare" or "stunt tennis" or hard to enforce in the "heat of the match".

I have played this rule with my friends; we apply it to both players.

It is just another line call, and it is very hard to forget. It is on both players' mind the whole time.
Hitting the ball deep is the opposite of "stunt tennis" - good fundamental Tennis.

Almost every player below 4.0(may be even 4.0s and above) lacks consistent depth and needs practice.
Pro matches between baseliners are played as if this rule were in force. Most balls land behind the service line, and when they land short, the point is lost 90% of the time.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Such modifications definitely are a form of stunt tennis, and also easy to forget to enforce. After playing years of tennis with traditional rules and boundaries, a player is supposed to easily adjust to playing with different rules, and not volley from inside the service line, and so on? And remember, since we are trying to handicap the match, these rules would only apply to one of the players on the court, not both, adding to the confusion. The last time I played a "stunt" match myself -- Canadian doubles -- both me and the two women I was playing against had occassional trouble remembering that I was allowed to hit to the doubles alleys while they had to hit to the singles court. (They stupidly kept hitting into the doubles alley... and I stupidly kept playing it thinking it was good. Nobody on the court won any MacArthur genius prizes that day...)

Like I said, such game modifications might be great for working on skills and discipline and improving certain aspects of one's game. But for a competive match? I, and apparently the USTA, endorse the proposal put forth by you yourself in post #13 subsection 2.

[maverick1]

Maverick, weren't you the guy who said in another thread: "If anyone doubts my 3.5 level I will fly to where you are to play you, and you pay for the airfare if I win!" I loved that... Any takers? Weren't you supposed to play some other poster in Queens, NY last weekend? Who was it? Who won?

I think I'm about a 3.5, so if you ever find yourself in the New York metro area, 20 miles north of the city to be precise, I'd be happy to take you on. My apartment complex boasts nine immaculate Har-tru courts. (Yes, I'm extremely lucky in this regard -- but also stupid, since I've lived here for ten years but I'm only started playing seriously a year ago. Such a waste...)

Loser pays for your gas money.

Yes I said something like that though not in the same words. That was meant for people who had in the past rated themselves(in TW boards) to be 3.5, and dispute my own rating of "good 3.5". If there were any serious challenges of that kind, I would have played one of them. I don't want to take a day and fly somewhere to play anyone simply because they want to play with me and willing to wager a little money; there is no upside for myself.
How about this - I would be happy to pay for your gas, tolls and indoor court time if you can travel to near Princeton, NJ. Alternatively I will drive any where in NJ. I just don't have the motivation to cross Manhattan. Send me an email if you want to play.

I haven't played anyone yet. A couple have been indefinitely postponed. I might play the Queens guy in Manhattan after work as we both work here, and he knows a club in Manhattan.

[Geezer Guy]

... The method originally suggested by looseswing but often credited to Geezer Guy sounds like it might be fair but also complicated. ...

looseswing, Sorry. I didn't see your post when I made mine. I wasn't trying to steal your thunder.

heycal, It's really not complicated

[heycal]

looseswing, Sorry. I didn't see your post when I made mine. I wasn't trying to steal your thunder.

heycal, It's really not complicated

It's certainly more complicated than 30-love every game, or a 4 game lead. In fact, I have some math whiz's from the local high school coming by tomorrow to talk me through the steps of your byzantine system.

The funny thing about tennis scoring and keeping track of things is that even in a traditional game, people seem to have problems. How often do people either forget the score or head to the deuce court when they should be in the ad court? Plenty of times. And in a tie-breaker, all hell breaks loose often, and dogs are lining up next to cats and doubles partners are serving to each other and calling out scores like "90-50!"

Someone posted a clip here once of Safin lining up to serve in the wrong court against Federer. Funny stuff.

[looseswing]

looseswing, Sorry. I didn't see your post when I made mine. I wasn't trying to steal your thunder.

heycal, It's really not complicated

You actually explained much better than I did, thanks for that!

[OrangeOne]

It's been forever since I've done this, but it seems to have merit. Instead of starting games at POSITIVE handicaps, why not start them at NEGATIVE handicaps. We did this as juniors once, and at least you get sets that take a little longer than normal, not a little shorter than normal! So the stronger player starts at minus 30, and has to work their way back to love....

[heycal]

Yes I said something like that though not in the same words. That was meant for people who had in the past rated themselves(in TW boards) to be 3.5, and dispute my own rating of "good 3.5". If there were any serious challenges of that kind, I would have played one of them. I don't want to take a day and fly somewhere to play anyone simply because they want to play with me and willing to wager a little money; there is no upside for myself.
How about this - I would be happy to pay for your gas, tolls and indoor court time if you can travel to near Princeton, NJ. Alternatively I will drive any where in NJ. I just don't have the motivation to cross Manhattan. Send me an email if you want to play.

I haven't played anyone yet. A couple have been indefinitely postponed. I might play the Queens guy in Manhattan after work as we both work here, and he knows a club in Manhattan.

It appears we have a stalemate, since I don't have the motivation to travel to New Jersey. It appears placing a court on a barge in the Hudson River may be the fairest and easiest option for us to solve our venue problem.

I sometimes play in the city, but either in the Bronx at Stadium Racquet Club next to Yankee Stadium, or in Queens at the US Open courts. But I only play later at night, from 10pm to midnight, both because it's cheaper at that hour and for childcare reasons. The only indoor courts I know in Manhattan are way too expensive for me, and often close too early as well.

So if you're ever up for a late night battle in the Bronx or Queens, or if you ever get off your ass and build us a court on a barge in the river, I'm game.

[heycal]

It's been forever since I've done this, but it seems to have merit. Instead of starting games at POSITIVE handicaps, why not start them at NEGATIVE handicaps. We did this as juniors once, and at least you get sets that take a little longer than normal, not a little shorter than normal! So the stronger player starts at minus 30, and has to work their way back to love....

I'll ask the math whiz's to talk me through this one as well... As for the Looseswing-cum-Geezer Guy method, what happens if the weaker player actually plays better than the stronger one and gets way ahead? Does the handicap then start going the other way in the stronger guy's favor?

[OrangeOne]

I'll ask the math whiz's to talk me through this one as well... As for the Looseswing-cum-Geezer Guy method, what happens if the weaker player actually plays better than the stronger one and gets way ahead? Does the handicap then start going the other way in the stronger guy's favor?

Nope. I'm not a fan of the ever-changing handicap, it sounds too much like the "catchup" method in videogames (mostly driving-type ones), where you never really pull away from an opponent. It's not consistently fair, and it's actually in some ways to your advantage to never get too far ahead, just maintain a safe gap....

Personally, I feel that setting a fixed handicap (positive or negative), and then making both players play to it.... is the fairest way. It simulates a normal match, sometimes between players of even standard, one does get away! It happens, and in a handicapped situation...just because it's the stronger or weaker player, doesn't make it wrong. Now - if it happens repeatedly, it would seem the handicap needs some work....

[looseswing]

Well if the math is too hard for you try Orange's his is pretty simple. Also, if you want to put some more pressure on you but not too much, you could try starting out with Orange's method, but only using it on your serve.

[pcpshortbus]

idk if someone said it already but half-court

[heycal]

Also, if you want to put some more pressure on you but not too much, you could try starting out with Orange's method, but only using it on your serve.

Only using it on my serve? Are you out of your mind?!? It would take a team of experts from MIT to keep track of that match.

[OrangeOne]

Only using it on my serve? Are you out of your mind?!? It would take a team of experts from MIT to keep track of that match.

Umm, err, my method was just to start games from Minus-Something. Very, very easy to apply to just one player's serve.

(For the record, I don't see how my method is mathematically challenging in any way. The player on the minus - let's say minus 30 - for example, has to win 6 points to win the game in a non-deuce scenario. They have to win 5 points to get to deuce, should deuce occur).

[looseswing]

Only using it on my serve? Are you out of your mind?!? It would take a team of experts from MIT to keep track of that match.

Uh, not really. But if it is that hard for you start your serve with the score love-30, and then play return games with regular scoring.

[OrangeOne]

Well if the math is too hard for you try Orange's his is pretty simple. Also, if you want to put some more pressure on you but not too much, you could try starting out with Orange's method, but only using it on your serve.

For the record, we were playing the 'minus' method as 11 or 13 or 15 year old kids at coaching, so it indeed can't be at all mathematically challenging....

[heycal]

Umm, err, my method was just to start games from Minus-Something. Very, very easy to apply to just one player's serve.

(For the record, I don't see how my method is mathematically challenging in any way. The player on the minus - let's say minus 30 - for example, has to win 6 points to win the game in a non-deuce scenario. They have to win 5 points to get to deuce, should deuce occur).

You lost me at "non-deuce scenario"... And if you think me or the fellow morons I play with can handle correctly calling out scores like "Negative 15 to positive 30, Bill!" you give us way too much credit.

[heycal]

For the record, we were playing the 'minus' method as 11 or 13 or 15 year old kids at coaching, so it indeed can't be at all mathematically challenging....


You guys also don't seem to have any problems driving on the wrong side of the road either, but me and the rest of us live in the real world.

[looseswing]

You guys also don't seem to have any problems driving on the wrong side of the road either, but me and the rest of us live in the real world.

Are you trying to purposely create trouble? If its to challenging just use something else and lets end this stupid discussion.

[OrangeOne]

You guys also don't seem to have any problems driving on the wrong side of the road either, but me and the rest of us live in the real world.

Me and the rest of us? You have to be joking (and that's ignoring the grammatical issues).

I honestly feel like I should just quit this thread here and now, but for some reason I'll hang around and learn you some things...

The Minus-Handicap Method

Player A is the better player.
Player B is the not-as-good player.

Player A is assigned a handicap of MINUS 30.

Score: A (-30), B (Love)
B wins point
Score: A (-30), B (15)
A wins point
Score: A (-15), B (15)
B wins point
Score: A (-15), B (30)
A wins point
Score: A (Love), B (30)

Now, surely you people who, admittedly, drive on the right side of the road, can get how things would proceed from here?

It's fairly simple (or so we found), and as I said before, it actually lengthens games a little, which is a good challenge (for fitness, if nothing else) for all concerned.

[heycal]

Me and the rest of us? You have to be joking (and that's ignoring the grammatical issues).

I honestly feel like I should just quit this thread here and now, but for some reason I'll hang around and learn you some things...

The Minus-Handicap Method

Player A is the better player.
Player B is the not-as-good player.

Player A is assigned a handicap of MINUS 30.

Score: A (-30), B (Love)
B wins point
Score: A (-30), B (15)
A wins point
Score: A (-15), B (15)
B wins point
Score: A (-15), B (30)
A wins point
Score: A (Love), B (30)

Now, surely you people who, admittedly, drive on the right side of the road, can get how things would proceed from here?

It's fairly simple (or so we found), and as I said before, it actually lengthens games a little, which is a good challenge (for fitness, if nothing else) for all concerned.

I'm seeing a chart with a bunch of numbers and letters on it and I'm getting dizzy so I quit reading after "player A"... As for lengthening games, why does that matter? The shorter games with traditional handicapping just allows you to play more sets. Me and my friend had the court for 90 minutes last night, and we were going to play 90 minutes of tennis regardless of the score. (We managed to get in three sets when we usually only have time for two under regular scoring.) Also, one could argue that the shorter games allow you to gain more experience playing more crucial high pressure points like "ad-in" or "ad-out". I would think it would be hard to get all that excited when the score is "negative 15 to positive Zero" or similar non-real world scores.

Like I said, you genius's can play like that if you want, but simpletons like myself prefer something a little less complicated.

[heycal]

Me and the rest of us? You have to be joking (and that's ignoring the grammatical issues).

I honestly feel like I should just quit this thread here and now, but for some reason I'll hang around and learn you some things...



If I didn't have a B.A. in English and a master's in journalism from an Ivy league school, I might be insulted that you were making fun of my grammar in a friggin' internet posting, wisenheimer...

[looseswing]

If I didn't have a B.A. in English and a master's in journalism from an Ivy league school, I might be insulted that you were making fun of my grammar in a friggin' internet posting, wisenheimer...

If you truly did go to an Ivy league I am sure you would be able to figure out how to keep score....

[OrangeOne]

If you truly did go to an Ivy league I am sure you would be able to figure out how to keep score....

I couldn't have said it better myself :).

[heycal]

If you truly did go to an Ivy league I am sure you would be able to figure out how to keep score....

I didn't say I got a degree in math, kid....

Maybe I'm too old to learn new things, but I'm telling ya, this "negative zero serving positive 15" sounds like a pain in the arse. ("Oh, and what's the game score, Bob?"... "Minus 3 to plus 4, Jim! Can't you remember anything?")

As I mentioned before, haven't you guys noticed how hard it is for many people to remember what the score is in a traditional game and how often people head to the wrong court to serve/receive, and how they practically spontaneously combust when trying to keep track of court position and serving order in a tie-breaker? Heck, they even occasionally lose track of the score at the US Open and Wimbledon, and they have umpires and scoreboards in use.

And we want to go and complicate matters further? Not on my watch!

[serveitup911]

Give the weaker player a number of free points that he can use at any time during the match. As an example, if he gets 10 points, he might choose to use them all at once and go up 2-0 30 love. He might choose to use them if he manages to get to deuce or gets a point or two in a game on his own. This way, the stronger player can never relax.

Another way is to say that the stronger player can't hit any winners.

[heycal]

Give the weaker player a number of free points that he can use at any time during the match. As an example, if he gets 10 points, he might choose to use them all at once and go up 2-0 30 love. He might choose to use them if he manages to get to deuce or gets a point or two in a game on his own. This way, the stronger player can never relax.

Another way is to say that the stronger player can't hit any winners.

Oh, Jeez... Maybe I just should have entitled this thread "Anyone know any creative and bizarre ways to handicap a match?"

[looseswing]

I didn't say I got a degree in math, kid....

Maybe I'm too old to learn new things, but I'm telling ya, this "negative zero serving positive 15" sounds like a pain in the arse. ("Oh, and what's the game score, Bob?"... "Minus 3 to plus 4, Jim! Can't you remember anything?")

As I mentioned before, haven't you guys noticed how hard it is for many people to remember what the score is in a traditional game and how often people head to the wrong court to serve/receive, and how they practically spontaneously combust when trying to keep track of court position and serving order in a tie-breaker? Heck, they even occasionally lose track of the score at the US Open and Wimbledon, and they have umpires and scoreboards in use.

And we want to go and complicate matters further? Not on my watch!

First of all, I'm sure it won't be that big of a difference to you if someone starts from positive thirty instead then. I'm sure your brain can handle it.

BTW, most intro level college math courses at ivies are calc bc, so I'm pretty sure with even such a basic course you could probably figure out these posts.

[heycal]

First of all, I'm sure it won't be that big of a difference to you if someone starts from positive thirty instead then. I'm sure your brain can handle it.

BTW, most intro level college math courses at ivies are calc bc, so I'm pretty sure with even such a basic course you could probably figure out these posts.

You seem quite fixated on my Ivy League background for some reason. You doubting I have a master's from an Ivy like I mentioned?

Anyway, you can talk about the ease of adjusting to various handicap methods and the simple mathematics involved in these methods all you want -- but first tell me why a lot of people have trouble keeping track of the score or what side to be on even during traditional games despite using the same system all their lives? Why do even Safin, other pros, and umpires sometimes lose track of the score? You guys keep avoiding this aspect of the issue.

On the surface, keeping score of a tennis game and which side to be on seems incredibly simple. Yet for some reason the human brain often struggles with this in the real world. Given that fact, wouldn't you want to avoid adding another layer of complication into the mix?

[pinky42]

Has anyone mentioned alcohol yet? Weaker player takes a shot of beer for every game he wins. Stronger player drinks vodka. Adjust strength of respective drinks depending on the difference in ability. The beauty is that if you pick the drinks sufficiently strong, nobody cares/remembers who won.

[kevhen]

10 free points in a match is interesting. I would guess a player would save then until the score was 30 all and then use 2 for a guaranteed game. Then late in the match go ahead and use them more liberally to get some game wins like use 4 points when down 0-30. Once your opponent gets to 40 it might not be as smart to use these free points (you would need 5 points to win that game), better to use them when he only has 30 (you only need 4 points to win the game).

[kevhen]

I am thinking that 10 free points per set would be a good handicap for two players of one full NTRP level difference in abilities. 5 points might work for players that are about a half point apart. 20 points might be needed for players of 2 full levels so that the weaker player could just start up 5-0 if he wanted to but would be wise to save points. If he won 4/12 points he would win 6-0 but if he won 2/10 points (very likely against a player 2 ratings higher) he could be up 5-0 and 30-love but would be out of freebies and now the stronger player would have his chance to rally!

[heycal]

duplicate post.

[Geezer Guy]

Give the weaker player a number of free points that he can use at any time during the match. As an example, if he gets 10 points, he might choose to use them all at once and go up 2-0 30 love. He might choose to use them if he manages to get to deuce or gets a point or two in a game on his own. This way, the stronger player can never relax.

I've never played in a "10-CAP" league, but it's my understanding that when weaker players are pitted against stronger players, they get a certain number of free points they can use at any time (just as described above). "10-CAP" means that no matter how far apart the players are, the MOST free points that the weaker player can get is 10.

I've also heard that although this is how 10-CAP leagues are set up, usually everyone just plays straight up.

[heycal]

10 free points in a match is interesting. I would guess a player would save then until the score was 30 all and then use 2 for a guaranteed game. Then late in the match go ahead and use them more liberally to get some game wins like use 4 points when down 0-30. Once your opponent gets to 40 it might not be as smart to use these free points (you would need 5 points to win that game), better to use them when he only has 30 (you only need 4 points to win the game).

To me, this falls into the "creative" category for how to handicap a match, not a simple and effective way. Suddenly it would become less about tennis and more about "what's the best time and way for me to use my free points?"

[Geezer Guy]

I'll ask the math whiz's to talk me through this one as well... As for the Looseswing-cum-Geezer Guy method, what happens if the weaker player actually plays better than the stronger one and gets way ahead? Does the handicap then start going the other way in the stronger guy's favor?

Unlike the other systems, the players are not designated as "stronger" and "weaker". All that matters is which one happens to be ahead in games at the momemt, and how far. If they're even in games, they use normal scoring. When either one is ahead in the set-score, the other player starts the next game-score ahead.

So, to answer your question, if the "weaker" player were to get ahead, then the "stronger" player would get the advantage. The whole point is to try to even out the match so that it's competitive, despite the fact that the players do not have the same skill level.

I'm not saying that this way is better than any of the other method's that have been proposed. I'm just saying it's another option to consider. If the combatants can't figure it out, it's not the best one for them.

[heycal]

I tried to find some info. on the USTA site on how they recommend handicapping a match, but couldn't locate it. (Do they not have a search feature?) I'd heard somewhere that they recommend the 0-15 or 0-30 per game method, but couldn't find anything about this. Anyone know where this info. might be, if it exists?

[OrangeOne]

I tried to find some info. on the USTA site on how they recommend handicapping a match, but couldn't locate it. (Do they not have a search feature?) I'd heard somewhere that they recommend the 0-15 or 0-30 per game method, but couldn't find anything about this. Anyone know where this info. might be, if it exists?

From what I've seen, my mates and I have enough trouble scoring as it is, and thus would not be capable of using any such system at all, it's all too complex.

In fact, we weren't able to play tennis at all until companies started making slip-on tennis shoes.

[heycal]

From what I've seen, my mates and I have enough trouble scoring as it is

Yes, that can be a problem with many people. But if one MUST handicap, this method seems the least difficult way.

In any case, anyone got a link or info. on what the USTA says about this? I could have sworn they had written something about it somewhere...

[equinox]

When I used to play singles against my ex 3.5 mixed partner. I gave her the doubles ally, 15-0 start and gave myself one serve.

Apart from a few more ugly df's, it didn't seem to make any difference in the scorelines.