PDA

View Full Version : Rankings the old A,B,C way


Indy Tennis
02-19-2007, 06:26 PM
A friend told me back in the day that the only level tournaments were rated as A, B or C level.

Does anyone from that era know what the NTRP equivalents of A, B and C were?

travlerajm
02-19-2007, 06:29 PM
A friend told me back in the day that the only level tournaments were rated as A, B or C level.

Does anyone from that era know what the NTRP equivalents of A, B and C were?

I'd say a rough guideline would be:

A = 4.0-5.0
B = 3.5-4.5
C = 2.5-4.0

Indy Tennis
02-19-2007, 06:31 PM
Intersting, so there was overlap.

I guess there was really no way to police players who played down in those days.

raiden031
02-20-2007, 06:05 AM
So most players would get bageled at a C level tournament. That doesn't sound very fun.

cak
02-20-2007, 06:08 AM
That's interesting, around us we have interclub, ranging from A1 to C, I was thinking the equivalents were:

C= 2.5
B2= 2.5-3.0
B1 = 3.0-3.5
A2 = 3.5-4.0
A1 = 4.0-4.5

(These are ladies morning leagues, so it's not all that surprising there aren't a ton of retired ladies available to play mornings at 5.0 and above, I'm guessing those ladies all know each other and don't need interclub.)

What I have seen is ladies scrambling to "play up" in interclub. Here's where I do think it's unfair. Here there are stacking rules, as the idea of interclub is to have as competitive a matches as possible. We are actually trying for matchups that go to three sets. You put a 3.0 into an A2 match and that's not happening. You put a 2.5 into a B1 match and that doesn't happen. You put a 3.5 in a B2 match and that doesn't happen. In general, when you see the 3.5s in B2 matches they are there as subs, and play nice. The players attempting to play up are trying their best, but unless the better players "play nice" the match is not even close. So by playing up players are taking away the better players chance to swing away and still get a close social match.

oldguysrule
02-20-2007, 07:18 AM
I'd say a rough guideline would be:

A = 4.0-5.0
B = 3.5-4.5
C = 2.5-4.0

I don't recall a tournament where you would have 4.0 level players playing in three different divisions. There was also usually an Open division at every tournament. I would equate the levels like this.

Open = 5.0+
A = 4.0-4.5
B = 3.0-3.5
C = 3.0 and below

jayserinos99
02-20-2007, 10:47 AM
I remember playing tournaments at the C level and they weren't 3.0 and below although that could have been the standard...but from what I remember,

C: 3.0-3.5
B: 3.5-4.0
A: 4.0-4.5
Open: 4.5+

GRANITECHIEF
02-20-2007, 12:56 PM
I don't recall a tournament where you would have 4.0 level players playing in three different divisions. There was also usually an Open division at every tournament. I would equate the levels like this.

Open = 5.0+
A = 4.0-4.5
B = 3.0-3.5
C = 3.0 and below

Spot on!! Completely agree!!

oldguysrule
02-20-2007, 02:14 PM
I remember playing tournaments at the C level and they weren't 3.0 and below although that could have been the standard...but from what I remember,

C: 3.0-3.5
B: 3.5-4.0
A: 4.0-4.5
Open: 4.5+

I wouldn't argue with this. However, if Granitechief agrees with me, that does carry some weight.

NoBadMojo
02-21-2007, 02:09 PM
A friend told me back in the day that the only level tournaments were rated as A, B or C level.

Does anyone from that era know what the NTRP equivalents of A, B and C were?

Think the equivalent varied based upon the mixture of players involved. ie; if there werent enough A players around , the better B's may be decalred as A's to get enough folks..think it was really dependent upon the talent pool and necessarily wasnt all that tied to ability.

The tourneys we had back then before USTA leagues and tourneys were Open, Open Sanctioned, and age handicapped events. Of course there was gender differentiation as well. i liked it better this way. seems like everyone i talk to involved in USTA league play complains about USTA league play.

I was a USTA rater for a whole back then, and am wondering if you folks think that with all the sandbagging going on, it should be restored? get an initial rating by a qualified rater, then go more by the record. This would also serve the purpose of pinning a skilset on someone so that when they are traveling, meeting new people to play, etc, it would be something more finite to go on. Lots of people play tennis but arent interested in USTA leagues. back then I proposed everyone who got rated would get a USTA card with their designated rating...kind of like how many golf clubs give you a handicap card...thoughts?

bruce nissenbaum
02-21-2007, 02:32 PM
I was a USTA rater for a whole back then, and am wondering if you folks think that with all the sandbagging going on, it should be restored? get an initial rating by a qualified rater, then go more by the record. This would also serve the purpose of pinning a skilset on someone so that when they are traveling, meeting new people to play, etc, it would be something more finite to go on. Lots of people play tennis but arent interested in USTA leagues. back then I proposed everyone who got rated would get a USTA card with their designated rating...kind of like how many golf clubs give you a handicap card...thoughts?

Can't share your confidence in the initial visual rating system.

I was part of a group of 8 when I went for my 1st rating; the rater asked each of us to read the NTRP guidelines and decide what rating we think we should be. He then put us through a few drills, a few minutes of doubles play and, lo and behold, all 8 in the group received the rating they 'asked for.'

The year before the visual ratings were done away with my wife attended a mass visual rating 'clinic' involving some 30+ participants (seeking their first NTRP ratings) and 4 raters. After a 1 hour 'clinic' EVERYONE received the rating they had 'asked for!'

I am also aware of, though did not attend, other similar rating 'sessions' that resulted in players receiving the rating they wrote on their sign up sheet. I'm sure there were cases where players were rated above or below, but in my small universe I hadn't heard of anyone getting rated above or below what they signed up for. The standard comment was 'pays your 10 bucks, gets your rating!'

heycal
02-21-2007, 03:01 PM
I was a USTA rater for a whole back then, and am wondering if you folks think that with all the sandbagging going on, it should be restored? get an initial rating by a qualified rater, then go more by the record. This would also serve the purpose of pinning a skilset on someone so that when they are traveling, meeting new people to play, etc, it would be something more finite to go on. Lots of people play tennis but arent interested in USTA leagues. back then I proposed everyone who got rated would get a USTA card with their designated rating...kind of like how many golf clubs give you a handicap card...thoughts?

I like the idea, provided the problems Bruce mentioned could be avoided somehow. I like the idea of getting a little card with a rating on it too... I don't play USTA leagues, but it sure sounds like it's a nightmare from everything I read here at Talk Tennis.

NoBadMojo
02-21-2007, 03:03 PM
Can't share your confidence in the initial visual rating system.

I was part of a group of 8 when I went for my 1st rating; the rater asked each of us to read the NTRP guidelines and decide what rating we think we should be. He then put us through a few drills, a few minutes of doubles play and, lo and behold, all 8 in the group received the rating they 'asked for.'

The year before the visual ratings were done away with my wife attended a mass visual rating 'clinic' involving some 30+ participants (seeking their first NTRP ratings) and 4 raters. After a 1 hour 'clinic' EVERYONE received the rating they had 'asked for!'

I am also aware of, though did not attend, other similar rating 'sessions' that resulted in players receiving the rating they wrote on their sign up sheet. I'm sure there were cases where players were rated above or below, but in my small universe I hadn't heard of anyone getting rated above or below what they signed up for. The standard comment was 'pays your 10 bucks, gets your rating!'

That's not the way I did it..not even close.

CrocodileRock
02-21-2007, 03:07 PM
Can't share your confidence in the initial visual rating system.

I agree with you Bruce, but for other reasons. One is that the verifiers in our town didn't agree on a dividing point between levels. I don't know that any two people do for that matter. But anyway, if there was a disagreement, then the higher rating won out, and some people didn't get or want to play anymore. Also, there were scheduling issues. If someone couldn't come to the mass rating clinics, then they had to try to arrange private sessions with the verifiers. If that didn't work, then sorry, try again next year.

Regardless of the flaws in the NTRP system, I still believe that most of the matches are pretty close, although there are plenty of exceptions. It doesn't seem right to fault the verifiers when they have no clear nationally accepted boundaries to work with.

NoBadMojo
02-21-2007, 03:14 PM
i never did a mass rating clinic....everything was individual, so i cant relate to any of this. also makes sense that two quality raters may differ .5 on some of the levels, but some they wouldnt..i think the problem is there are too many levels..take away the half increments and then you've got something..there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned beat down from time to time..happens even amongst the pros..all this stuff about trying to make everyone even is junk in my opinion...

Raiden.Kaminari
02-22-2007, 04:45 PM
Here's what I remember

Open = Anyone, but prefer 5.0+
A = (high) 4.5 to (low) 5.0
B = (high) 4.0 to (mid) 4.5
C = (mid) 3.5 to (mid) 4.0
D = 2.5 to (low) 3.5

The NTRP rating doesn't really match the old A, B, C, D, Open levels though.