PDA

View Full Version : Can you beat Chris Evert today?


Gundam
03-16-2007, 11:31 AM
First of all, it is not to start a heated debate. I am just curious.

There was an article I read in the Tennis Magazine that says Chris Evert still can beat 95% (or was it 99%?) of all the male tennis players in the world. Of course she wouldn't be able to win a match against any ATP players or College players. But what about very good players who used to play seriously?

I picked her because I always thought she was a kind of mystery (to me). Compared to Graf or Navratilova or even Austin, she didn't appear to be that athletic or strong. She was consistent, mentally tough, solid techniques-also, even though she didn't look superfast as Grat, it seemed she was always in a good position to hit probably due to her excellent strategy and anticipation.

What kind of strategy would you use to defeat Chris Evert today? Since I don't belong to that 5% of all the male players in the world, I don't think I have a chance, to be frank with you.

snapple
03-16-2007, 11:41 AM
Since I'm pretty sure I can't out rally her (I'm about a 5.0+), and my power would probably not phase her too much, I would just feed her a barrage of drop shots and then lob over her head (hopefully) eventually wearing her down.

raiden031
03-16-2007, 11:44 AM
According to USTA guidelines, since she is 52 years old, she would be a 5.0 player. That would equate to a 4.0-4.5 men's player. So maybe she could beat 80% of males, but probably not 95%.

But Navratilova is 50 and still playing WTA, so maybe its different for women. They can retain their rating older than men can. Who knows.

Moose Malloy
03-16-2007, 12:03 PM
According to USTA guidelines, since she is 52 years old, she would be a 5.0 player. That would equate to a 4.0-4.5 men's player.

so what would mcenroe be rated? he's 48. Former pros don't apply to any rating system.

raiden031
03-16-2007, 12:05 PM
so what would mcenroe be rated? he's 48. Pros don't apply to any rating system.

McEnroe is a 5.5 according to the guidelines.

Clintspin
03-16-2007, 12:17 PM
Chris Evert, in her prime, could not beat her brother a college level player.

tarheels2323
03-16-2007, 12:21 PM
McEnroe is a 5.5 according to the guidelines.

I can tell you that McEnroe is better than a 5.5. I saw him play in Boston last year and although he certainly wasn't up to top 10 standards, he was playing pretty damn well.

raiden031
03-16-2007, 12:41 PM
I can tell you that McEnroe is better than a 5.5. I saw him play in Boston last year and although he certainly wasn't up to top 10 standards, he was playing pretty damn well.

I think the guideline is meant to be taken as a minimum requirement. So McEnroe could not self-rate any less than 5.5 if he decided to play USTA. Although yeah he probably is above that, just like Evert is probably above 5.0.

But I disagree with the college guidelines where they say unranked D3 players are 4.5s, when in reality college players can be as low as 3.0-3.5 at some schools, but would be stuck self-rating at 4.5.

Rabbit
03-16-2007, 01:09 PM
McEnroe is a 5.5 according to the guidelines.


Wait, how in the world do you get McEnroe, John P. McEnroe, is a 5.5? The first thing the guidelines say is that they don't apply to professionals. The NTRP ratings are like handicaps in golf. McEnroe competed in two ATP doubles events last year winning one. This alone means he still has a 7.0+ rating which means that you don't need a rating.

Remember, the rating system is meant to insure that you are competitive among a group of players. That's why you can't play down.

raiden031
03-16-2007, 01:13 PM
Wait, how in the world do you get McEnroe, John P. McEnroe, is a 5.5? The first thing the guidelines say is that they don't apply to professionals. The NTRP ratings are like handicaps in golf. McEnroe competed in two ATP doubles events last year winning one. This alone means he still has a 7.0+ rating which means that you don't need a rating.

Remember, the rating system is meant to insure that you are competitive among a group of players. That's why you can't play down.

Look at the NTRP experienced player guidelines. There is a chart showing the downgrading of players as they age. I don't know if those numbers would actually be enforced if a former ATP tried to play USTA, but I'm just going by what it says. But like I said, its probably an absolute minimum for self-rating purposes, and is not necessarily accurate.

goober
03-16-2007, 01:24 PM
A lot would depend on whether or not Chris Evert has been playing actively. If she hadn't hit a ball in 10 years and is out of shape, she would not fare that well. But 95% of all male tennis players would actually probably mean 4.5 and below club players so that is not that far feteched. There are not that many 5.0+ players percentagewise in the total tennis playing population.








-

sureshs
03-16-2007, 01:48 PM
I think for sure a 5.0 male can beat her today. She still coaches at her academy and plays a little, but we don't know how good she is or whether she cares at all. The few times I have seen her at charities have been in doubles, and there was nothing exceptional about her play.

AndrewD
03-16-2007, 03:29 PM
I agree, a 5.0+ male would most likely beat her. HOWEVER, I'm guessing that genuine 5.0+ players make up only 5% or less of the total (that means everyone, not just everyone you know) male tennis-playing population in the world. So, in that regard, the claim isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. Of course, I do also imagine that the actual percentage was exaggerated and not intended to be taken as gospel.

Just a note: Athleticism isn't confined to the things we can see - muscles- or the showy display - obvious foot speed. Players like Evert, Rosewall or, to a degree, Hewitt, who don't appear obviously athletic are almost certainly in possession of physical traits that put them well above the average person. I'm not talking about hand-eye coordination but things like core/trunk and leg strength which is essential in hitting sports. Speed can also be overlooked when, like Evert or Rosewall, the player's anticipation is so good (not to mention, the way they orchestrate a point) they don't need to make so many of those last minute sprints.

Gundam
03-16-2007, 04:03 PM
Just a note: Athleticism isn't confined to the things we can see - muscles- or the showy display - obvious foot speed. Players like Evert, Rosewall or, to a degree, Hewitt, who don't appear obviously athletic

Speed can also be overlooked when, like Evert or Rosewall, the player's anticipation is so good (not to mention, the way they orchestrate a point) they don't need to make so many of those last minute sprints.

I haven't watched Rosewall playing but think Hewitt very athletic, isn't he? Regarding 'anticipation', when Evert played Navratilova, she could look less athletic because Navratilova, being Navratilova, could hit really crazy shots from time to time. I read somewhere, Martina scored 140+ when she played bowling for the first time and the person who was playing with her was simply blown away. On the contrary, Evert's play seemed boring or slow but I'd open amazed with her anticipation and positioning-even though she didn't look very fast like Graf, often she seemed she was 'waiting' to hit the ball.

BTW, we are discussing ratings and percentage, not how you would play Evert?:-(

drakulie
03-16-2007, 04:45 PM
I once saw an ex-pro play a few 5.0's. This guy was not ever a top ten player, or slam contender. He was in his mid to late 50's???.

He beat the living daylights out of a few 5.0's. One of the 5.0's was ranked top 5 in Florida.

After witnessing that, I would think Evert would have no problems with 5.0's.

Moose Malloy
03-16-2007, 04:50 PM
Kaptain Karl could beat her, since apparently he can beat Serena.;)

Pete.Sampras.
03-16-2007, 04:53 PM
I can tell you that McEnroe is better than a 5.5. I saw him play in Boston last year and although he certainly wasn't up to top 10 standards, he was playing pretty damn well.

I was about to say something similar. If McEnroe is a 5.5 then we're all just beginners :p

atatu
03-16-2007, 04:55 PM
There's no way a 5.0 could beat her. It's not like she's been sitting around doing nothing since she retired, she's on the court all the time hitting balls. A good 5.5 who can serve and volley would give her a close match...maybe.

Moose Malloy
03-16-2007, 05:20 PM
There was an article I read in the Tennis Magazine that says Chris Evert still can beat 95% (or was it 99%?) of all the male tennis players in the world.

what issue was it? what was the article about specifically? did she say this or did someone else? thanks

Voltron
03-16-2007, 05:22 PM
I can beat Evert anyday, as long as I don't actually have to prove it. ;)

Mick
03-16-2007, 05:46 PM
What kind of strategy would you use to defeat Chris Evert today?

I would hit 100% of my shots to her forehand because her two-handed backhand is too accurate and deadly.

But she would beat me 6-0, 6-0 in less than one hour.

35ft6
03-16-2007, 09:44 PM
There's no way a 5.0 could beat her. It's not like she's been sitting around doing nothing since she retired, she's on the court all the time hitting balls. A good 5.5 who can serve and volley would give her a close match...maybe. That's what I think pretty much. I hit with a woman who was around 100 in the world in the early 80's, and I don't think she lost to any of the 4.5 or 5.0 players at this club I would sometimes place at. She was chunky, but her preparation, technique, and footwork were still so much better than everybody else's that it didn't matter. Her shots weren't powerful but I was surprised by how much weight they had. This is something I always notice with high level players, is that their shots are just flat heavier and sometimes it's a complete mystery as to how or why. And she did something with EVERY ball. Even if she just barely got her racket on the ball, she would redirect it someplace. With her, it was a matter of if I played her a few times, I think I could have beaten her relatively easy. It was just new to play somebody who could hit with so much precision. But she was out of shape and hadn't played seriously in nearly two decades.

Since Evert was a WAAAAYYYYYY better player than this woman, and looks to have remained in better shape, and hits with world class juniors on a regular basis, I would think she could beat every male up to the 5.5 level. And on a good day, depending on the matchup, she could probably do beat a 5.5 player.

I know a guy who actually hit with Evert once. He played 3 singles for Western Michigan way back in the day, and for a while had the most wins in MAC history. He said that she hit a very heavy ball.

And McEnroe is still 7.0 when he's motivated. If it's just 1 set, he can still hang with top 50 players on fast courts. I've seen him absolutely raping a club pro in Queens, a guy who wins satellite tournaments in the area.

heycal
03-16-2007, 10:40 PM
And McEnroe is still 7.0 when he's motivated. If it's just 1 set, he can still hang with top 50 players on fast courts. I've seen him absolutely raping a club pro in Queens, a guy who wins satellite tournaments in the area.

Details, please. What club? When was it? What was the score? etc.

officerdibble
03-17-2007, 02:13 AM
I agree, McEnroe is still an awesome competitive force on a tennis court - he showed that when he played Rios in the Masters Tennis. However, having seen him with and without Hawk Eye, he's about 15% LESS effective WITH Hawk Eye in place. It was very entertaining seeing his hissy fits disappear because a 'definitive' answer existed. He really struggled to get to that angry place only he plays better from!

sureshs
03-17-2007, 07:44 AM
There's no way a 5.0 could beat her. It's not like she's been sitting around doing nothing since she retired, she's on the court all the time hitting balls. A good 5.5 who can serve and volley would give her a close match...maybe.

When you say hitting balls, is it mostly coaching or actual play with high level partners? If the former, I doubt a 5.0 would not be enough to beat her. Plus, those days serves weren't emphasized that much.

rjkardo
03-17-2007, 08:28 AM
I once saw an ex-pro play a few 5.0's. This guy was not ever a top ten player, or slam contender. He was in his mid to late 50's???.

He beat the living daylights out of a few 5.0's. One of the 5.0's was ranked top 5 in Florida.

After witnessing that, I would think Evert would have no problems with 5.0's.

A 50 year old ex pro male is not the same as ex pro Evert.
I have watched 5.0 players give top 10 females a run for their money, and Evert is no 10 ten player now. Evert could not beat college players when she was in her prime. Neither could Martina, by her own admission.

Zina Garrison and Lori McNeil used to practice with the mens Univ of Houston players, but they could not beat them. That is when they were top ten.

Rod

drakulie
03-17-2007, 08:49 AM
I have watched 5.0 players give top 10 females a run for their money, and Evert is no 10 ten player now.

No you haven't.

vudal
03-17-2007, 11:43 AM
There is no way in hell that Chris Everret can beat me. She prob wont even get 1 game off of me. I own all chicks... young or old. Women are weaklings except for the Williams.

Gundam
03-17-2007, 11:10 PM
what issue was it? what was the article about specifically? did she say this or did someone else? thanks

Moose,

I wish I still have that issue. I just checked Tennis.com and the issue seems to be fromn 2001-2 cause their past issues posting started in 2003. I remember seeing Hingis as well as Seles, Stevenson.

It was a instructional article (How to beat a man or something like that) and She was using PSC6.1 if I remember correctly. And at the end of the article, there was it - Former No.1. She can still beat 95% of ~. I might be wrong but Tennis magazine writers would do funny things from time to time. For example, "Cliff Drysdale has two sides, one forehand and one suicide" whatever it means. Maybe his backhand sucked?

Regarding 'heavy balls', I had a chance to hit with a college player from San Jose. I cannot explain exactly how he could do it but his balls were like a brick-so heavy. Just amazing.

ipodtennispro
03-18-2007, 12:25 AM
Wait, how in the world do you get McEnroe, John P. McEnroe, is a 5.5? The first thing the guidelines say is that they don't apply to professionals. The NTRP ratings are like handicaps in golf. McEnroe competed in two ATP doubles events last year winning one. This alone means he still has a 7.0+ rating which means that you don't need a rating.

Remember, the rating system is meant to insure that you are competitive among a group of players. That's why you can't play down.


What happens if they get fat and out of shape?

rjkardo
03-18-2007, 01:02 AM
No you haven't.

Really? And you know this because?

Rod

MrCLEAN
03-18-2007, 08:53 AM
I don't know about you guys, but she would kick my ***.

J011yroger
03-18-2007, 09:23 AM
Really? And you know this because?

Rod

Because your statement is so absolutely absurd that it can not be possible.

I have a feeling that Drakulie would call my bluff if I said that I pounded a red bull sprouted wings, and flew off of the tennis court aswell.

If a man beats a top 10 WTA player, he is not a 5.0, if a 5.0 man beats a woman, she is not top 10 WTA.

J

Rabbit
03-18-2007, 10:10 AM
Look at the NTRP experienced player guidelines. There is a chart showing the downgrading of players as they age. I don't know if those numbers would actually be enforced if a former ATP tried to play USTA, but I'm just going by what it says. But like I said, its probably an absolute minimum for self-rating purposes, and is not necessarily accurate.

But you're missing the single most important part of the NTRP ratings systems. They don't apply to world class players. McEnroe is still a world class player. So while the verbiage may fit some idea you have of McEnroe's abilities, reality is far from what you apply from the description.

What happens if they get fat and out of shape?

Now that may be an interesting question. I might be able to take a game or two off of 63-year old Billie Jean King, if I'm spot on.

I got the Wimbledon internet feed last year and watched some of the senior matches. While the guys lack movement (Nastase, Dent, Smith, Stockton, etc.) they can still hit the ball. And when I say they lack movement, they don't move like current ATP guys. They are, after all, in their 50s and have put on some....enjoyed their retirement. However, I harbor no illusions of giving these guys a match.

35ft6
03-18-2007, 11:38 AM
Details, please. What club? When was it? What was the score? etc.Tennissport in Queens, on an outside clay court, against the guy I think Spadea talks about in his book, Alex something... score was probably about 6-2... supposedly, the pro can sometimes beat Mac... I was having a hard time believing it but the guy who told me said it was simply a matter of the guy being 20 years younger, and sometimes Mac isn't motivated... This was probably the summer of 2000, it was shortly after Leconte had beaten him at Central Park.

patrick922
03-18-2007, 11:40 AM
i think that a former pro that is old would be at LEAST a 6.0. i mean they were pro at one point so they have to be good. even on the seniors tour, they hit pretty well. just because they havent been playing on the tour doesnt mean they suck. chris evert will probably beat a 5.0 player easily.

35ft6
03-18-2007, 11:55 AM
i think that a former pro that is old would be at LEAST a 6.0. i mean they were pro at one point so they have to be good. even on the seniors tour, they hit pretty well. just because they havent been playing on the tour doesnt mean they suck. chris evert will probably beat a 5.0 player easily. I would bet money on it. Even at her age, her timing, footwork, anticipation, preparation, depth, and precision more than make up for whatever advantage a man might have in strength, height, or speed. Yes, the men will have physical advantages, but in terms of skill Chris is in a completely different league. Maybe 5.0 guys would understand if they played Tony Roche, who is 62 yo. He will be very slow compared to every young 5.0 but I wouldn't be surprised if he could beat most or all of them. His precision alone would be too much for them. The pros, even former pros, really play a completely different game. A strong 6.0 is where it starts sort of resembling the tennis world class players play.

J011yroger
03-18-2007, 12:33 PM
I know one guy who is 60ish, and his game is nothing to look at, you would all rate him 3.0. But he played for princeton in his younger days, played in the USO when it was still amature, and everyone says he is VERY hard to beat. The fact is that he is so fiercely competitive, that he wins by sheer force of will.

J

NoBadMojo
03-18-2007, 12:40 PM
i think that a former pro that is old would be at LEAST a 6.0. i mean they were pro at one point so they have to be good. even on the seniors tour, they hit pretty well. just because they havent been playing on the tour doesnt mean they suck. chris evert will probably beat a 5.0 player easily.

This isnt true. I had a hit with a guy who is 50 or so and played the main draw of Wimby back in the day...he and i were really even, but i was playing fairly often and he wasnt. i'm a 5.0

Evert is 50 herself and her serve is a lollipop that isnt going to hurt a 5.0. a 5.0 with a good serve could hurt her a lot however. from the backcourt, it's pretty tough against any wta player or former wta'er, so much would depend upon the style of play of the 5.0..a 5.0 baseliner likely would have no chance, but an allcourter would do pretty well i think

sureshs
03-18-2007, 03:26 PM
What about a 5.0 vs Vilas or Newk today? I have them both a couple of times on the TTC "Bragging Rights" program coaching recreational players. They are clearly out of shape with noticeable tummies. What would happen?

ollinger
03-18-2007, 03:47 PM
I've watched Vilas practice at the US Open the past two summers and don't imagine a 5.0 would pose much threat to him at all.

thejackal
03-18-2007, 03:49 PM
This isnt true. I had a hit with a guy who is 50 or so and played the main draw of Wimby back in the day...he and i were really even, but i was playing fairly often and he wasnt. i'm a 5.0

Evert is 50 herself and her serve is a lollipop that isnt going to hurt a 5.0. a 5.0 with a good serve could hurt her a lot however. from the backcourt, it's pretty tough against any wta player or former wta'er, so much would depend upon the style of play of the 5.0..a 5.0 baseliner likely would have no chance, but an allcourter would do pretty well i think

the key would be the serve. i'd think she would have trouble getting a racket on a good 5.0 first serve.

Rabbit
03-18-2007, 03:57 PM
Ok, so a 50-year old male 5.0 against a 53(?)-year old Evert. My money would be on Evert. A 30 year age difference in the combatants might make a serious difference however.

That's the one fallacy in the NTRP. In singles, a 20-something year old <insert level here> will pretty much beat a 50-something year old <insert same level here>. Of course, doubles is a different story because in doubles you don't have as much riding on mobility as you do in singles.

J011yroger
03-18-2007, 04:41 PM
What about a 5.0 vs Vilas or Newk today? I have them both a couple of times on the TTC "Bragging Rights" program coaching recreational players. They are clearly out of shape with noticeable tummies. What would happen?

The 5.0 would be lucky to win two games. I think he would get a steady diet of carbs, bagels and breadsticks that is.

J

J011yroger
03-18-2007, 04:45 PM
That's the one fallacy in the NTRP. In singles, a 20-something year old <insert level here> will pretty much beat a 50-something year old <insert same level here>. Of course, doubles is a different story because in doubles you don't have as much riding on mobility as you do in singles.

I dunno, maybe in the old days of ratings, when you were evaluated. But I mean you can either play 5.0 or you can't. A low, mid, or high 20 year old 5.0 plays even with a low, mid or high 50 year old 5.0.

Now they may play different styles, but the scores should be close, or somebody isn't a 5.0.

I could see if you said you knew a 50 year old guy who was a 5.0 dubs player, and a 4.5 singles player due to his mobility.

I myself am a vastly superior singles player compared to my doubles play.

J

sureshs
03-18-2007, 04:46 PM
The 5.0 would be lucky to win two games. I think he would get a steady diet of carbs, bagels and breadsticks that is.

J

But how would Vilas/Newk overcome their beer-belly fitness problem? Are you saying they would just hit great strokes and move very efficiently (i.e., less) and still dominate?

ipodtennispro
03-18-2007, 04:48 PM
Unfortunately, you picked a player who is in still great shape today. There are plenty of others you could have picked on that have let themselves go physically. I remember years ago reading an article about a ITF top ranked 45's women player who wanted to play at one of the grand slams because she was the world #1 and she complained that they wouldn't let her play. She used Rosie Casals as an example(Rosie had gotten out of shape and was still invited to play doubles) She didn't think is was fair.

So, the point was made that if a person WAS a world class player doesn't mean that they are 25 years later. Many people played the pro circuit.

J011yroger
03-18-2007, 04:51 PM
But how would Vilas/Newk overcome their beer-belly fitness problem? Are you saying they would just hit great strokes and move very efficiently (i.e., less) and still dominate?

I will let ya know if I ever play one, but I am fairly confidant that they would get it done. Despite all misconceptions by 3.X players 5.0s are not that good.

J

35ft6
03-18-2007, 04:55 PM
Vilas and Newk would probably crush them. Like a 3.0 player would crush Allen Iverson. Athleticism, speed, youth, all those physical things become the determining factor when the skill is close enough to allow them to be.

heycal
03-18-2007, 05:00 PM
Vilas and Newk would probably crush them. Like a 3.0 player would crush Allen Iverson. Athleticism, speed, youth, all those physical things become the determining factor when the skill is close enough to allow them to be.

My money would be on Allen Iverson over a 3.0. Maybe couldn't beat anyone higher though.

I'm unfamiliar with Newk's current fitness, but I'm not sure Vilas even has a "fitness problem" having seen him play doubles at the USO. Presumably he could dictate points easily and not move much at all if he didn't care to.

J011yroger
03-18-2007, 05:07 PM
I have seen some 5.0s that were not exactly at the apex of fitness too, and they werent even vilas or Newk when they were in their prime.

rjkardo
03-19-2007, 05:24 AM
Because your statement is so absolutely absurd that it can not be possible.

I have a feeling that Drakulie would call my bluff if I said that I pounded a red bull sprouted wings, and flew off of the tennis court aswell.

If a man beats a top 10 WTA player, he is not a 5.0, if a 5.0 man beats a woman, she is not top 10 WTA.

J

I did not say 'beat' but I did say 'gave her a run for her money'.
Chandra Rubin used to practice with the local men when she was home in Lafayette, La. Yes she would win. But they were close enough to give her a workout. Lori McNeil and Zina Garrison would play the Univ of Houston players when they were on the tour. They could not beat those guys.

goober
03-19-2007, 07:38 AM
My money would be on Allen Iverson over a 3.0. Maybe couldn't beat anyone higher though.


My money would be on Allen Iverson after at least month of playing tennis with some lessons. If he never picked up a raquet before he would lose to a 3.0. He would not be able to get a serve in and balls would be flying everywhere.

Rabbit
03-19-2007, 07:41 AM
I've been on court with one of Newcombe's contemporaries, Owen Davidson. "Crush a 5.0" is being kind. Anyone who has an NTRP has two chances of beating a former world class professional, slim and none.

heycal
03-19-2007, 08:54 AM
My money would be on Allen Iverson after at least month of playing tennis with some lessons. If he never picked up a raquet before he would lose to a 3.0. He would not be able to get a serve in and balls would be flying everywhere.

I think he might lose the first set if he'd never touched a racket before but figure it all out in time to win the match in three.;)

drakulie
03-19-2007, 09:53 AM
Because your statement is so absolutely absurd that it can not be possible.

I have a feeling that Drakulie would call my bluff if I said that I pounded a red bull sprouted wings, and flew off of the tennis court aswell.

If a man beats a top 10 WTA player, he is not a 5.0, if a 5.0 man beats a woman, she is not top 10 WTA.

J

This is true. Thanks for saying this for me during my absence.

35ft6
03-19-2007, 02:00 PM
My money would be on Allen Iverson after at least month of playing tennis with some lessons. If he never picked up a raquet before he would lose to a 3.0. He would not be able to get a serve in and balls would be flying everywhere. That's what I meant. Didn't mean Allen Iverson after he's been playing for a while.

J011yroger
03-19-2007, 02:41 PM
This is true. Thanks for saying this for me during my absence.

No worries, got your back bro.

J

guitarplayer
03-19-2007, 03:03 PM
I think it was in the spring of 2004 during the Doral my company had a meeting there in Miami and Chris put on a teaching clinic. Later in the day she played a club pro one set drawn from a hat. Big guy, about 6 foot 2 a serve and volley guy. Many of the club pro's felt he would kill her.

After the first few games, she caught on to his big serve and it was all over. Honestly he would rush the net and she would smoke passing shots by him. She won 6-3, he was worn out and she was just smiling. I don't think any of you would stand a chance. I was surprised at how hard she hit the ball. They were playing on HarTru courts.

FitzRoy
03-19-2007, 03:13 PM
But you're missing the single most important part of the NTRP ratings systems. They don't apply to world class players. McEnroe is still a world class player. So while the verbiage may fit some idea you have of McEnroe's abilities, reality is far from what you apply from the description.


Rabbit - the guidelines that he is referring to are, in fact, meant to apply to world class players. Have you seen chart in question? It's the one that gives the actual NTRP rating for currently ranked tour players (7.0 if ranked in the Top 400). This same chart gives a breakdown by age, and McEnroe, as a former 7.0, would indeed fall in the 5.5 category.

However, McEnroe is technically still a 7.0. This is because he had a Doubles ranking as high as 240 less than a year ago.

All rules have exceptions. Consider that anyone of the same age as McEnroe that was ever ranked in the Top 400 would fall into the "minimum 5.5" category, which is equivalent to unranked Division 1 college players. To me, considering the age factor, that's probably about right for many former pros Mac's age; I'm sure there are 50 year-old former pros whose rank peaked around 300 whose games have fallen to the 5.5 level. On the other hand, there are guys like Vilas who might own 5.5s. The 5.5 thing is a general minimum guideline. They can't self-rate below it, but this is not to say that one couldn't rate above it.

Moose Malloy
03-19-2007, 03:51 PM
It was a instructional article (How to beat a man or something like that) and She was using PSC6.1 if I remember correctly. And at the end of the article, there was it - Former No.1. She can still beat 95% of ~.

so this was just a writer's comment, evert didn't actually say it?

I was surprised at how hard she hit the ball.

I'm sure she hit harder than she did when she was winning slams. Its amazing that some think equipment hasn't changed the game & that guys/gals who played on the pro tour in the 70s/80s can only hit as hard now as they did then. how fast was the club pro serving? how old was he?

Saw Evert at Indian Wells, she looked in better shape now than when she was #1 in 1986. Bet she hasn't eaten a carb in 5 years(guess she was prepping for Greg Norman)

heycal
03-19-2007, 04:50 PM
Bet she hasn't eaten a carb in 5 years(guess she was prepping for Greg Norman)
:p .

35ft6
03-19-2007, 06:31 PM
I think it was in the spring of 2004 during the Doral my company had a meeting there in Miami and Chris put on a teaching clinic. Later in the day she played a club pro one set drawn from a hat. Big guy, about 6 foot 2 a serve and volley guy. Many of the club pro's felt he would kill her.

After the first few games, she caught on to his big serve and it was all over. Honestly he would rush the net and she would smoke passing shots by him. She won 6-3, he was worn out and she was just smiling. I don't think any of you would stand a chance. I was surprised at how hard she hit the ball. They were playing on HarTru courts. There you go. I've been waiting for somebody to post a story like this.

Rabbit
03-20-2007, 05:59 AM
Rabbit - the guidelines that he is referring to are, in fact, meant to apply to world class players. Have you seen chart in question? It's the one that gives the actual NTRP rating for currently ranked tour players (7.0 if ranked in the Top 400). This same chart gives a breakdown by age, and McEnroe, as a former 7.0, would indeed fall in the 5.5 category.

However, McEnroe is technically still a 7.0. This is because he had a Doubles ranking as high as 240 less than a year ago.

All rules have exceptions. Consider that anyone of the same age as McEnroe that was ever ranked in the Top 400 would fall into the "minimum 5.5" category, which is equivalent to unranked Division 1 college players. To me, considering the age factor, that's probably about right for many former pros Mac's age; I'm sure there are 50 year-old former pros whose rank peaked around 300 whose games have fallen to the 5.5 level. On the other hand, there are guys like Vilas who might own 5.5s. The 5.5 thing is a general minimum guideline. They can't self-rate below it, but this is not to say that one couldn't rate above it.

Have you ever seen the ratings guides?


1.5
You have limited experience and are working primarily on getting the ball in play.
2.0
You lack court experience and your strokes need developing. You are familiar with the basic positions for singles and doubles play.
2.5
You are learning to judge where the ball is going, although your court coverage is limited. You can sustain a short rally of slow pace with other players of the same ability.
3.0
You are fairly consistent when hitting medium-paced shots, but are not comfortable with all strokes and lack execution when trying for directional control, depth, or power. Your most common doubles formation is one-up, one-back.
3.5
You have achieved improved stroke dependability with directional control on moderate shots, but need to develop depth and variety. You exhibit more aggressive net play, have improved court coverage and are developing teamwork in doubles.
4.0
You have dependable strokes, including directional control and depth on both forehand and backhand sides on moderate-paced shots. You can use lobs, overheads, approach shots and volleys with some success and occasionally force errors when serving. Rallies may be lost due to impatience. Teamwork in doubles is evident.
4.5
You have developed your use of power and spin and can handle pace. You have sound footwork, can control depth of shots, and attempt to vary game plan according to your opponents. You can hit first serves with power and accuracy and place the second serve. You tend to overhit on difficult shots. Aggressive net play is common in doubles.
5.0
You have good shot anticipation and frequently have an outstanding shot or attribute around which a game may be structured. You can regularly hit winners or force errors off of short balls and can put away volleys. You can successfully execute lobs, drop shots, half volleys, overhead smashes, and have good depth and spin on most second serves.
5.5
You have mastered power and/or consistency as a major weapon. You can vary strategies and styles of play in a competitive situation and hit dependable shots in a stress situation.
6.0 to 7.0
You have had intensive training for national tournament competition at the junior and collegiate levels and have obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.

7.0
You are a world-class player.


PURPOSE
The primary goal of the program is to help all tennis players enjoy the game by providing a method of classifying skill levels for more compatible matches, group lessons, league play, tournaments and other programs.




and finally from the USTA handbook on NTRP ratings


6.0 - 7.0
These players will generally not need NTRP ratings. Rankings or past rankings will speak for themselves.
The 6.0 player typically has had intensive training for national tournament competition at the junior level
and collegiate levels and has obtained a sectional and/or national ranking. The 6.5 player has a reasonable
chance of succeeding at the 7.0 level and has extensive satellite tournament experience. The 7.0 is a worldclass
player who is committed to tournament competition on the international level and whose major
source of income is tournament prize winnings.


Professionals or Open players compete not based on NTRP level, but on pure competition. They do not need a handicapping system like the NTRP. I do not see anywhere in the ratings guides where being in the Top 400 is a qualification for being a 7.0 or world class player. There is 1000 times more difference between a world class player and a 5.0 than between a 5.0 and a 3.0.

The only reason for the NTRP is to guarantee competitive matches at level. Anyone with an NTRP rating would never, ever get a game off of a player who does this for a living.

Saying that McEnroe, who still competes/wins in world class professional level doubles is a 5.5 is laughable and indefensible.

NoBadMojo
03-20-2007, 06:58 AM
I think it was in the spring of 2004 during the Doral my company had a meeting there in Miami and Chris put on a teaching clinic. Later in the day she played a club pro one set drawn from a hat. Big guy, about 6 foot 2 a serve and volley guy. Many of the club pro's felt he would kill her.

After the first few games, she caught on to his big serve and it was all over. Honestly he would rush the net and she would smoke passing shots by him. She won 6-3, he was worn out and she was just smiling. I don't think any of you would stand a chance. I was surprised at how hard she hit the ball. They were playing on HarTru courts.

the club pro was probably a 4.0-4.5...club pros have skillsets all over the place. the fact he was a club pro means pretty much zero.

drakulie
03-20-2007, 10:13 AM
the club pro was probably a 4.0-4.5...club pros have skillsets all over the place. the fact he was a club pro means pretty much zero.

I agree being a "club pro", such as what you claim to be doesn't mean anything. As I have said before and you always dismiss my claims, most certified "pros" aren't very good players.

NoBadMojo
03-20-2007, 10:34 AM
I agree being a "club pro", such as what you claim to be doesn't mean anything. As I have said before and you always dismiss my claims, most certified "pros" aren't very good players.

i only tend to dismiss your ridiculous claims.....i agree with you that being a certified pro means almost nothing (that's what i posted earlier), so i've no clue wht you are bringing in the drama....any profession at which you can be certified to teach by spending only 2 days at a workshop, renders the certification non sequitor and extremely dilluted.. other than being able to say you are certified.

not that it matters, but i learned to teach over an extended period of time mentoring under a former all american from rice and a former coach of the naval academy..both were exceptional people and exceptional teaching professionals...i'll take training like that and the wisdom of teaching for a period of time over pretty much anything. now adays you see 'certified' teaching pros who can not only properly demonstrate some shots, but cant even properly execute them during their actual play..

heycal
03-20-2007, 10:44 AM
You guys both live in Florida, right? Could we arrange a grudge match between you guys? Who would win?

drakulie
03-20-2007, 10:58 AM
i only tend to dismiss your ridiculous claims.....i agree with you that being a certified pro means almost nothing (that's what i posted earlier), so i've no clue wht you are bringing in the drama....any profession at which you can be certified to teach by spending only 2 days at a workshop, renders the certification non sequitor and extremely dilluted.. other than being able to say you are certified.

Glad to see you finally caught on to my "ridiculous claims", as this wasn't your stance a few months back when I said the same thing you are saying here.

By the way, nobody asked about your "tennis" history. LMAO

onehandbh
03-20-2007, 11:12 AM
You guys both live in Florida, right? Could we arrange a grudge match between you guys? Who would win?

Yes! Are you guys willing to play each other? Winner takes all.

Mojo wins, and Drakulie must switch from his PS85/k90 to a 9 ounce
oversize Volkl strung with isolightspeed/LAclippers.

Drakulie wins, and Mojo must switch to the 20 ounce leaded-up PS85
with kevlar at 90 lbs.

NoBadMojo
03-20-2007, 11:28 AM
Glad to see you finally caught on to my "ridiculous claims", as this wasn't your stance a few months back when I said the same thing you are saying here.



patently untrue..another reason why i dont care to hang with you. you're just trying to stir up a bunch of crap <again>. excuse me if i dont wish to play. adios

FitzRoy
03-20-2007, 11:46 AM
Have you ever seen the ratings guides?



and finally from the USTA handbook on NTRP ratings



Professionals or Open players compete not based on NTRP level, but on pure competition. They do not need a handicapping system like the NTRP. I do not see anywhere in the ratings guides where being in the Top 400 is a qualification for being a 7.0 or world class player. There is 1000 times more difference between a world class player and a 5.0 than between a 5.0 and a 3.0.

The only reason for the NTRP is to guarantee competitive matches at level. Anyone with an NTRP rating would never, ever get a game off of a player who does this for a living.

Saying that McEnroe, who still competes/wins in world class professional level doubles is a 5.5 is laughable and indefensible.

If you recall, I didn't ever say Mac was a 5.5. I said that he's a current 7.0.

And yes, I have seen the guidelines you refer to. And I've also seen this, which, perhaps, you haven't:

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_7373.pdf?12/16/04%204:15:22%20PM

The guy who administered my test to become a USPTA pro showed me this document as a guideline for giving ratings to former college players looking to compete in USTA events. This is the USTA Elite Player guideline, check the third page. It gives a rating scale that includes former 7.0 players, and this is what raidhen was referring to, and I was referring to, not the USTA self-rating guideline that you've quoted at me.

drakulie
03-20-2007, 01:06 PM
patently untrue..another reason why i dont care to hang with you. you're just trying to stir up a bunch of crap <again>. excuse me if i dont wish to play. adios

Usually people who are liars (YOU) don't like to hang with people who call them on it (ME).

By the way, you "don't wish to play"? Come on NBMJ! Please play tennis with me! PLEASE!!

drakulie
03-20-2007, 01:07 PM
You guys both live in Florida, right? Could we arrange a grudge match between you guys? Who would win?

I already did. NBMJ forfeited.

Rabbit
03-20-2007, 01:11 PM
If you recall, I didn't ever say Mac was a 5.5. I said that he's a current 7.0.



Rabbit - the guidelines that he is referring to are, in fact, meant to apply to world class players. Have you seen chart in question? It's the one that gives the actual NTRP rating for currently ranked tour players (7.0 if ranked in the Top 400). This same chart gives a breakdown by age, and McEnroe, as a former 7.0, would indeed fall in the 5.5 category.

However, McEnroe is technically still a 7.0. This is because he had a Doubles ranking as high as 240 less than a year ago.



I'm sorry, did you not post that bolded selection above? You qualify that statement afterward by saying "techincally still a 7.0" but the clear implication here is that McEnroe is a 5.5. I can only infer from that statement that prior to McEnroe's endeavor in doubles, you consider him a 5.5 because he didn't have a world ranking of 400 or better. This is legalistic jargonism at its worst. Do you really think just because he hadn't played the anyone in their right mind would allow John McEnroe to self-rate 5.5 for play in the NTRP system?

To put it more simply, do you think that Jim Courier, Todd Martin, Pat Cash, Aaron Krickstein, Wayne Ferriera, Mats Wilander, and Magnus Larsson are eligible to play 5.5 tennis?

Again, I say that the NTRP system is for amateur players who need some way for skill matching. It is simply a more refined system than the old "A", "B", "C", Lemon Flight system that preceded it. Any attempt to quantify the abilities of a professional on this system is flawed because they don't need handicaps to determine who plays who. The professional system is pure Darwinism, the fittest survive and the ones who don't win do something else.

jamumafa
03-20-2007, 01:21 PM
Going back to the fat belly argument for the men, what about Kafelnikov? I know he only just retired, and would still kill a lot of the players here, but how well d'ya think he'd move?

FitzRoy
03-20-2007, 01:21 PM
I'm sorry, did you not post that bolded selection above? You qualify that statement afterward by saying "techincally still a 7.0" but the clear implication here is that McEnroe is a 5.5.


This was not the implication that I meant, though I can see where it could come off as such.

The implication that I meant was what I said: that 5.5 is the bare minimum that a player of his age, as a former 7.0, could rate; I also said that many players would actually be better. I understood then and still understand that McEnroe is much better than a 5.5. I was merely pointing out that even in a technical sense he's still a 7.0 because of his current ranking, and I do feel that his skill level is at the 7.0 level.

My initial reason for posting was to clear up the fact that there is indeed a USTA document that has rating levels meant for world class players. The intent of USTA's rating system is to include anyone who uses a tennis racquet, from absolute beginner to world class. Obviously world class players like McEnroe don't need USTA numbers, but they do, in fact, exist for them: 7.0 for current, with a scaling chart that decreases this minimum number with age.

Did you read the rest of my last post, or look at the chart? The chart exists as a minimum rating guideline for all past and present elite players.

Just to clarify: I am not saying that McEnroe is really a 5.5 player. I am not trying to imply that he is a 5.5 player. I agree that his competition level is much higher than this, and have indeed pointed out that he is a current 7.0 player.

atatu
03-20-2007, 01:38 PM
Ok, well here's another story for you. About five years ago one of the local teaching pros here who was about 50 was serving as a volunteer coach for the University of Texas and he invited a group of us to scrimmage against the women. I had a 5.0 computer rating at the time. I played the #2 player and she killed me 61,61. But that's not the point of the story, the teaching pro/coach was easily a 5.5, ranked #2 in Texas in the 50's he was not some 4.0/4.5 teaching pro. He went three sets with the #1 player and barely won. I can guarantee that Evert is a lot better than the woman he played that day. The one thing I learned that day is not to stay on the baseline against college level women....

heycal
03-20-2007, 01:46 PM
The one thing I learned that day is not to stay on the baseline against college level women....

I know little about tennis, but I would think engaging in baseline rallies with women of similar ability is rarely a good idea for men, whether it be at the 5.5 level or 2.5 level. Dem broads can be annoyingly consistent, so we must be aggressive and dominate the net and overwhelm them with testosterone!!

That's the way I roll when playing a skirt.

Rabbit
03-20-2007, 05:49 PM
Just to clarify: I am not saying that McEnroe is really a 5.5 player. I am not trying to imply that he is a 5.5 player. I agree that his competition level is much higher than this, and have indeed pointed out that he is a current 7.0 player.

OK, my point being, same as it as in my first post and others, you can't apply NTRP ratings to anyone who makes or made a living playing tennis. Even Jimmy Connors and John Lloyd who've both had joint replacements are probably still hands down better players than those of us who PAY to play. Again, saying that <insert pro name here> fits the bill for an NTRP level just ain't right.

Gundam
03-22-2007, 03:11 AM
Yes! Are you guys willing to play each other? Winner takes all.

Mojo wins, and Drakulie must switch from his PS85/k90 to a 9 ounce
oversize Volkl strung with isolightspeed/LAclippers.

Drakulie wins, and Mojo must switch to the 20 ounce leaded-up PS85
with kevlar at 90 lbs.

Ehe he he :grin:
Anyway, thank you all for the comments~.
Hmm, I am not sure whether it was her saying or editor's though (beating 95% of males on the planet).

BounceHitBounceHit
03-23-2007, 07:05 PM
Ok, well here's another story for you. About five years ago one of the local teaching pros here who was about 50 was serving as a volunteer coach for the University of Texas and he invited a group of us to scrimmage against the women. I had a 5.0 computer rating at the time. I played the #2 player and she killed me 61,61. But that's not the point of the story, the teaching pro/coach was easily a 5.5, ranked #2 in Texas in the 50's he was not some 4.0/4.5 teaching pro. He went three sets with the #1 player and barely won. I can guarantee that Evert is a lot better than the woman he played that day. The one thing I learned that day is not to stay on the baseline against college level women....


Amen. Get yee to net or get you THUMPED. ;) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
03-23-2007, 07:08 PM
Ehe he he :grin:
Anyway, thank you all for the comments~.
Hmm, I am not sure whether it was her saying or editor's though (beating 95% of males on the planet).


I am hoping to make my way down Amelia Island way this summer and have a hit with the Mojo-Nator. What are you guys willing to pay if I bring along my Sony HD Handy-Cam and post it on YouTube.com?? ;) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
03-23-2007, 08:19 PM
Oh, and by the way, no you can't beat Chris Evert now. CC

grizzly4life
03-23-2007, 10:08 PM
i think chris evert TODAY would kill most 5.0's i know.

i think allen iverson (how did he get in here?) or stephen marbury would be very competitive with 4.0's with a month's hard training (from beginnner status).... i've seen high school point guards around here pick up the game very, very fast..... my ratings are basically club ratings (a little inflated), not your city-wide sand-bagging 4.0 tournament.

Steven87
04-16-2007, 05:01 PM
I think I could actually out-rally Chris Evert. My fitness>hers

Ronaldo
04-16-2007, 05:21 PM
i think chris evert TODAY would kill most 5.0's i know.

i think allen iverson (how did he get in here?) or stephen marbury would be very competitive with 4.0's with a month's hard training (from beginnner status).... i've seen high school point guards around here pick up the game very, very fast..... my ratings are basically club ratings (a little inflated), not your city-wide sand-bagging 4.0 tournament.

How about Joachim Noah? 7 ft self-rated 3.5 player.

carrwash13
04-16-2007, 05:52 PM
I played (just hit with) Tom Gullikson once and he was still amazing at 56 years old. A little slower in the feet but the touch was there and that's all that mattered. I have a feeling Evert would be the same way. I'm saying she'd beat a 5.0.....but no way a 5.5 since they are college level

tiptopperoo
04-16-2007, 09:57 PM
I would chop Newk. The guy can barely walk, he has either already had or is due for a knee reco. Now if he got to the ball i would be in trouble, but i dont think he would get to it. Hell I could beat Federer if someone kneecapped him first, but I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

BTW being an Aussie I have no idea what a '5' is.

zapvor
04-17-2007, 08:17 AM
How about Joachim Noah? 7 ft self-rated 3.5 player.

Noah plays tennis??

we should call her up and set up a match and see! or just have her post a reply. someone go challenege her at the academy and bring a cam. i personally think shes not motivated enough to win. didnt she used to say after retirement'what?i can do whatever i want to do today?"

Ronaldo
04-17-2007, 10:06 AM
I would chop Newk. The guy can barely walk, he has either already had or is due for a knee reco. Now if he got to the ball i would be in trouble, but i dont think he would get to it. Hell I could beat Federer if someone kneecapped him first, but I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

BTW being an Aussie I have no idea what a '5' is.

Tip, we'll send Shane Stant to whack Fed before your match. Lead pipe cinch he can get the job done.

onehandbh
04-17-2007, 10:11 AM
I think I could actually out-rally Chris Evert. My fitness>hers

...but her experience / match toughness / groundstrokes / serves / volleys /
overheads / anticipation+footwork (=court coverage) / hand-eye coordination /
touch / placement / strategy >>>> yours:)

drakulie
04-17-2007, 10:20 AM
^^^^LOL. Don't forget she use to be a party animal too!

CEvertFan
04-17-2007, 10:27 AM
No you could not beat Chris Evert today. Come back and try again when she is 80.

tennus
04-17-2007, 04:21 PM
...but her experience / match toughness / groundstrokes / serves / volleys /
overheads / anticipation+footwork (=court coverage) / hand-eye coordination /
touch / placement / strategy >>>> yours:)

Hahahahaha ! Steven 87 you are 29 years old in your details ? A freshman in high school ? A self rated 4.0 ? This person does not know who he is let alone beat a legend of the game:

#1
Steven87
Rookie


Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 294 Rate my hitting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4M9P...=groundstrokes

07-20-2006, 05:01 AM #1
Steven87
Rookie


Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 294 You guys are weird.....(pushers)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a 4.0 player(that video wasnt me, surprise surprise) and I LOVE pushers. Its like free practice for my groundstrokes. True pushers shots are usually semi-high and long or at the service lines, thats an EASY ball to just put away. It's even pretty fun because the rallies are always in your control Or if you can put it away, just brush it up when it's in the air. Simple lob back with some topspin which should put you in favor. And dont forget, if the pusher's footwork is better than your's, maybe you should re-think about being mad at them instead of yourselves.
05-03-2006, 03:29 PM #1
Steven87
Rookie


Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 294 Ok, here we go

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi. I started tennis this year, and have been taking lessons since late summer last year. I play for my high school team and I am a freshman. I'm JV unfortunately. Now, I've improved a WHOLE lot, if I must admit myself. I used to not know how to hit the ball, but i'm getting technical now. Here are some questions I have that i'm hoping you fine gentlemen can answer. I am about 5'5" so I am considered pretty short. I use a Wilson nSix One 95 I got just not too long ago. I refuse to use a loop on my forehands because it's caused numerous problems in the past. Now here are my questions.

1. A moderately fast and high topspin forehand is the shot to cause errors on the oppenent at my level, correct?

2. I mess up with a Semi-Wester grip, why? I can get it mostly these days, but the shots are not consistent as my natural eastern grip I originally used. I use this as my topspin grip, and can get it sometimes, but it is very inconsistent. And when I use it to hit for baseline rallies, it always just goes for the net or goes WAY to high and out. My eastern forehand isn't THE most consistent either, although it works for me at good rates.

3. You all say brush the ball up from high to low. I play with kids who hit the ball high(again, i'm JV). When it's too high, how am I supposed to go from the bottom to up? I'm too short and it seems complicated for me.

4. My backhand is ok and I use a 2 hander. I hit VERY consistently with it. Although I wish I could use a BH slice, any help? I just slice but it NEVER goes over.

5. Is it true a semi-wide leg spread in your stance is the best way for you to hit and use your footwork?

6. What can I do to improve my game? NOTE: My net game is THE weakest probably, but my baseline game makes up partly. I wish I could be more consistent in my forehands/serves/volleys/and footwork/shots in general, any suggestions?

Thanks for your time and future help. I hope to learn much from this place

EDIT: Oh and yes....I WANT to be a pusher, because at my level, I think that could work. As I said before, I NEED consistency

PDJ
11-06-2013, 12:16 AM
No you could not beat Chris Evert today. Come back and try again when she is 80.

This made me laugh!
I don't understand the American rating system, but saw Evert hitting (on a documentary) with national juniors (around 18 years old) and she looked to be hitting pretty crisply with exceptional timing. She'd certainly take the best players at my club - not that she'd want to!
Given the average standard across the planet, its not too much of a stretch to say she's better than at least 90% of active players, given that many are still playing in their 70s and beyond - there's a 90 year old who still plays at my club and many in their late 70s/mid 80s. Hell, its like cocoon on the courts mid-week! And fair play to them.

heftylefty
11-06-2013, 10:48 AM
How about Joachim Noah? 7 ft self-rated 3.5 player.

Wow, if Chrissie hooks with young Noah she completes the Marriage Slam!

Ironwood
11-06-2013, 11:11 AM
Chris Evert, in her prime, could not beat her brother a college level player.

Yes, when Chris was #1, I recall it being said she could not beat her brother John who was then playing for Auburn. Don't know whether it was a brother/sister thing, or if indeed the #1 woman at the time could not beat a top level college male, let alone any males on the tour.

vandre
11-06-2013, 11:23 AM
No you could not beat Chris Evert today. Come back and try again when she is 80.

...or maybe 100.

we went to a resort and my wife was paired up with a young lady of 93 years. her name escapes me but she used to play international exhibitions (most notably against the Aussies). she schooled my wife, would have schooled me and most other players at the club level. even at 93, she was still hitting insanely crisp strokes and while i'm sure she didn't move like she was hitting strokes that make it difficult to hit drop shots or move the ball around.

i'm sure chrissie would be on another level or two beyond this still.

hrstrat57
11-06-2013, 12:09 PM
Found this on youtube....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmBDrcYqrKw

tennis playa
11-06-2013, 02:58 PM
First of all, it is not to start a heated debate. I am just curious.

There was an article I read in the Tennis Magazine that says Chris Evert still can beat 95% (or was it 99%?) of all the male tennis players in the world. Of course she wouldn't be able to win a match against any ATP players or College players. But what about very good players who used to play seriously?

I picked her because I always thought she was a kind of mystery (to me). Compared to Graf or Navratilova or even Austin, she didn't appear to be that athletic or strong. She was consistent, mentally tough, solid techniques-also, even though she didn't look superfast as Grat, it seemed she was always in a good position to hit probably due to her excellent strategy and anticipation.

What kind of strategy would you use to defeat Chris Evert today? Since I don't belong to that 5% of all the male players in the world, I don't think I have a chance, to be frank with you.

I don't know about Chris Evert beating 95% of guys but a former british WTA pro Sam Smith who had a high 45 ( I think) she lost to a guy called Tony Hawks, who is an author ( he wrote a book about playing the entire Moldavian soccer team at tennis), comedian and t.v. personality, he's described as an avid player who plays more than 3 times per week and apparently he beat her quite easily. This guy wasn't a former collegiate or pro at any level just a guy who grew up playing tennis. So the point i'm trying to make is that a guy who is proficient with no back ground at the highest level could most likely beat Chris Evert

ctoth666
11-06-2013, 03:12 PM
I would have to believe that I could overpower her. How well does she move? I feel like I have too many advantages. The gap between men and women is quite large.

BTURNER
11-06-2013, 03:39 PM
LOL, Evert 'moves' just fine. She just isn't as showy about how she gets there, as Navratilova or some others. I think most of guys here who think they are going to 'overpower' Evert or muscle her off the court with big serves and volleys, aren't likely to do much better than the guys who are trading groundies. Somehow, mysteriously she will always be where your approach shot lands, in just enough time to do her thing. Those bombing serves, well, she'll have trouble for your first service game, maybe the second. then they will all come back over the net, heading just where she wants them to go.

Its a myth that she had more trouble beating s/ers than baseliners. Soon enough you'd be pressing too much and she'll be snacking on your UE. In the end, she just be smiling sweetly just as an earlier poster said.

Chris Evert ALWAYS looked deceptively easy to beat from the time she was 16 years old.

LeeD
11-06-2013, 03:55 PM
Cool vid..:)
Can ChrisEverts, a former No.1 WTA 7.0 level player, who's practiced against men's 5.5's all her life, beat a 3.0 man?

rajah84
11-06-2013, 04:27 PM
First of all, it is not to start a heated debate. I am just curious.

There was an article I read in the Tennis Magazine that says Chris Evert still can beat 95% (or was it 99%?) of all the male tennis players in the world. Of course she wouldn't be able to win a match against any ATP players or College players. But what about very good players who used to play seriously?





What kind of strategy would you use to defeat Chris Evert today? Since I don't belong to that 5% of all the male players in the world, I don't think I have a chance, to be frank with you.

eh, nevermind. Who knows.

suwanee4712
11-06-2013, 06:28 PM
No but I'd sure like to try. I wouldn't mind falling victim to the patented Evert forehand drop shot!

BHBeguile
11-06-2013, 06:33 PM
Cool vid..:)
Can ChrisEverts, a former No.1 WTA 7.0 level player, who's practiced against men's 5.5's all her life, beat a 3.0 man?

If he's a 3.0 then I'm a 4. And I ain't no 4.

LeeD
11-06-2013, 06:38 PM
2.5 is never played beginner.
That guy has played a week or so, so he's a 3.0.

PDJ
11-06-2013, 11:59 PM
I don't know about Chris Evert beating 95% of guys but a former british WTA pro Sam Smith who had a high 45 ( I think) she lost to a guy called Tony Hawks, who is an author ( he wrote a book about playing the entire Moldavian soccer team at tennis), comedian and t.v. personality, he's described as an avid player who plays more than 3 times per week and apparently he beat her quite easily. This guy wasn't a former collegiate or pro at any level just a guy who grew up playing tennis. So the point i'm trying to make is that a guy who is proficient with no back ground at the highest level could most likely beat Chris Evert
With respect, I think you'd have to take this result with a pinch of salt. Admittedly I'm commenting without having seen the match. Firstly, I don't think Smith would have taken this too seriously as it was no doubt for charity/media event.
Secondly, I've seen them both play, & I would hazard to say that I'm definitely better than Hawks, but not even close to Smith.
As an aside, Sam Smith is now an exceptional commentator with great insight of the game. Also, she's not afraid to criticise where others fear to tread. Given that her playing record was mediocre at best, its refreshing that she doesn't get bumped from the commentary box by 'bigger' names. Testament to her ability.
Re Evert, I think Brian Turner has it spot on. But I generally do.

tennis playa
11-07-2013, 07:01 AM
With respect, I think you'd have to take this result with a pinch of salt. Admittedly I'm commenting without having seen the match. Firstly, I don't think Smith would have taken this too seriously as it was no doubt for charity/media event.
Secondly, I've seen them both play, & I would hazard to say that I'm definitely better than Hawks, but not even close to Smith.
As an aside, Sam Smith is now an exceptional commentator with great insight of the game. Also, she's not afraid to criticise where others fear to tread. Given that her playing record was mediocre at best, its refreshing that she doesn't get bumped from the commentary box by 'bigger' names. Testament to her ability.
Re Evert, I think Brian Turner has it spot on. But I generally do.
I hear what you're saying and even though I haven't seen Tony Hawks play, sam smith seemed to be impressed with his game, she actually said forget the argument about a woman being able to beat a guy, the discrepancy in power was too great not to be a deciding factor. It would be interesting to see a county standard player take on a former top 10 WTA pro

J_R_B
11-07-2013, 07:34 AM
I can tell you that McEnroe is better than a 5.5. I saw him play in Boston last year and although he certainly wasn't up to top 10 standards, he was playing pretty damn well.

The guidelines are for former top 400 pros self-rating for USTA league play (which is kind of a silly concept anyway). If the average top 400 pro is a 5.5 level rec player when he is 50, then I would think a former #1 slam champion should be higher than that since that player was also much better during their pro career.

slice bh compliment
11-07-2013, 07:38 AM
So, guys, this match between me and, uhm, Chrissie....

My money would be on Allen Iverson...

Are we talking about practice?

My money would be on Allen Iverson...
We talkin' 'bout practice.

...Allen Iverson...

We talkinbout practice. Not a game. Not a game. Not a game.
... allen iverson (how did he get in here?)......
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d29VsG35DQM

we talknbout practice, man.

Okay, we talkin' about a weird, interesting matchup. I just think it is funny that we apply the ntrp as a basis of comparison, then we base other examples (mac) on that basis.

We talkin'bout practice?

Edit:
Sorry if that seemed off topic. I am not in fact, Allen Iverson. But that was a quality rant from about ten years ago. The guy was as funny as he was skilled.

Now, back on topic....Chris has aged, but she looks fairly fit and still hits a decent passing shot, so she would have a chance against a 5.0 with poor volleys. i would be surprised if her mental game was intact after all these years of being a dedicated wife and mother....and a really forgettable commentator and editor.

jhick
11-07-2013, 07:44 AM
Cool vid..:)
Can ChrisEverts, a former No.1 WTA 7.0 level player, who's practiced against men's 5.5's all her life, beat a 3.0 man?

Depends on whether he's a rising or falling 3.0. :wink:

goran_ace
11-07-2013, 07:46 AM
The guidelines are for former top 400 pros self-rating for USTA league play (which is kind of a silly concept anyway). If the average top 400 pro is a 5.5 level rec player when he is 50, then I would think a former #1 slam champion should be higher than that since that player was also much better during their pro career.

Those are guidelines for minimum self-ratings, they do not define the levels - meaning if you don't have a rating in the system that is the lowest you could self rate. Once you play enough matches you establish a computer rating.

Anything above 5.0 is moot anyway because at that point you just play open.

goran_ace
11-07-2013, 07:48 AM
I hear what you're saying and even though I haven't seen Tony Hawks play, sam smith seemed to be impressed with his game, she actually said forget the argument about a woman being able to beat a guy, the discrepancy in power was too great not to be a deciding factor. It would be interesting to see a county standard player take on a former top 10 WTA pro

Before they get a shot at a former #1 or top 10 they should first have to prove they wouldn't be embarrassed by a former top 100.

tennis playa
11-07-2013, 08:25 AM
Before they get a shot at a former #1 or top 10 they should first have to prove they wouldn't be embarrassed by a former top 100.

Just as a matter of interest; how do you think a male player ranked top ten in his state/county of say 35 y/o would fare playing a former pro like Mary Joe Fernandez for example?

tennis playa
11-07-2013, 08:39 AM
LOL, Evert 'moves' just fine. She just isn't as showy about how she gets there, as Navratilova or some others. I think most of guys here who think they are going to 'overpower' Evert or muscle her off the court with big serves and volleys, aren't likely to do much better than the guys who are trading groundies. Somehow, mysteriously she will always be where your approach shot lands, in just enough time to do her thing. Those bombing serves, well, she'll have trouble for your first service game, maybe the second. then they will all come back over the net, heading just where she wants them to go.

Its a myth that she had more trouble beating s/ers than baseliners. Soon enough you'd be pressing too much and she'll be snacking on your UE. In the end, she just be smiling sweetly just as an earlier poster said.

Chris Evert ALWAYS looked deceptively easy to beat from the time she was 16 years old.

I agree with what you say but don't you think a male player ranked in the top 10 statewide who was say 35-40 years old would have a chance at beating Evert? I mean lets be clear, Evert has to be a bit over 60 now and I'm pretty sure a guy 20 plus years younger, is a 5.0 will have more than a good chance of winning and I'm not talking about 'overpowering' her with 'big serves' either, tennis is about skill as much as power and Ive watched a lot of her matches and absolutely loved her consistency but it doesn't mean that she has the same type of consistency now as she did then. You make good salient points but I think a 5.0 would beat her.

comeback
11-07-2013, 08:47 AM
I don't think any rating system applies to former pros. For example Mcenroe has kept his pro level while a guy like Vilas has not and could probably lose to a good 5.0. As you get older your body does not cooperate and each pro is different. Some have continued playing, some have not. It appears Chris Evert is in decent shape and has continued hitting with juniors and celebrity events. But there is a world of difference in "real match" play and even more of a difference in real tournament play and having to play consecutive days. Could Chris Evert win a match against a good 5.0?..possibly on clay. But i seriously doubt she would win a national USTA tournament against men in her age group.

tennis playa
11-07-2013, 09:05 AM
I don't think any rating system applies to former pros. For example Mcenroe has kept his pro level while a guy like Vilas has not and could probably lose to a good 5.0. As you get older your body does not cooperate and each pro is different. Some have continued playing, some have not. It appears Chris Evert is in decent shape and has continued hitting with juniors and celebrity events. But there is a world of difference in "real match" play and even more of a difference in real tournament play and having to play consecutive days. Could Chris Evert win a match against a good 5.0?..possibly on clay. But i seriously doubt she would win a national USTA tournament against men in her age group.

well said and rational, of course this is just our opinion but I think its a valid opinion.

tennis_ocd
11-07-2013, 10:08 AM
Saw her up close at some charity event last year. She looked much older than I recalled (don't we all) but once she was on the court it was obvious no pace or serve was going to bother her. Movement wasn't all that great; a consistent 4.5 guy with good placement might give her trouble.

Fantastic volley skills.

hrstrat57
11-07-2013, 10:24 AM
For sake of clarity the video I posted was 2 yr ago when C E was 56.

There are 3 or 4 posted on YouTube from the same session.

One think for sure she still has a lot of fun on the tennis court..... No different from most of us.

PDJ
11-07-2013, 10:35 AM
I hear what you're saying and even though I haven't seen Tony Hawks play, sam smith seemed to be impressed with his game, she actually said forget the argument about a woman being able to beat a guy, the discrepancy in power was too great not to be a deciding factor. It would be interesting to see a county standard player take on a former top 10 WTA pro

Thats interesting re Smith's comments about power.
Re county standard- depends on the county!:)

PDJ
11-07-2013, 10:40 AM
For sake of clarity the video I posted was 2 yr ago when C E was 56.

There are 3 or 4 posted on YouTube from the same session.

One think for sure she still has a lot of fun on the tennis court..... No different from most of us.
It's so strange to see Evert's attitude on court now given how incredibly focused she was as a professional. I think her attitude to playing now reflects how she regards her playing career- she often gets her own achievents wrong- to her own detriment. Clearly very relaxed now. And good luck to her. Def one of the greats regardless of what % of chaps feel they can beat her.

hawk eye
11-07-2013, 10:54 AM
You can see in the vid she has a problem with putting away half court balls. That's gonna cost her against a decent 3.5.

goran_ace
11-07-2013, 11:06 AM
Just as a matter of interest; how do you think a male player ranked top ten in his state/county of say 35 y/o would fare playing a former pro like Mary Joe Fernandez for example?

MJ Fernandez would destroy him. If he's playing 35s or 40s age division he's still likely a 4.0-4.5 player. Check out your district and sectional rankings on tennislink. There may not be enough players to have a top ten. The bottom guys might have a losing record and are probably computer rated 4.0s.

I've participated in local pro-ams for charity and we brought in some girls who back in the day were All Big Ten in college but nowhere near the pro tour. They stayed in shape but don't really play much tennis anymore. These girls owned any and all of the 'ams' - sure some of the better guys could hit harder but it really didn't bother them at all. They were just too steady. Now these girls would probably get beat by the male 'pros' (mostly teaching pros and some known former college players) but it wouldn't be a slaughter, we'd have to work for it.

goran_ace
11-07-2013, 11:15 AM
That said, adult rankings can be tricky because there are nowhere near the number of competitors as you see in juniors. Back when I played 16s you could says count on a full 32 or 64 draw. In adults often divisions are cancelled or merged because you only have 4 or 5 guys sign up and you never know what you get. The topo seed is pretty much who played the most tournaments recently and the best guy might be unranked/unseeded.

JAY1
11-07-2013, 11:39 AM
I played the British No 2 when she was ranked in the top 50 in the world and she reached a career high WTA ranking of 33.
I was a good county/state player when I played her in a practice match, I beat her 6-1, 6-1.
We chatted afterwards and she said I would beat all the women ranked outside the worlds top 10/20 This was 1988/89...
Serena Williams wouldn't beat a top college player let alone any man with a world ranking. It's not sexist it's just a fact!

PDJ
11-07-2013, 12:04 PM
You can see in the vid she has a problem with putting away half court balls. That's gonna cost her against a decent 3.5.

Which video are you talking about? Where she's hitting with the big guy? Cheers

hawk eye
11-07-2013, 01:43 PM
Which video are you talking about? Where she's hitting with the big guy? Cheers

Yeah The guy in he red shirt is pretty big now that you mention it..Cheers.

PDJ
11-07-2013, 01:48 PM
Yeah The guy in he red shirt is pretty big now that you mention it..Cheers.
I shd have said tall rather than big.
The reason evert isn't putting mid court balls away is because she's clearly hitting the ball back so he can hit it. There's a clear difference in their respective levels although both seem to be having fun.

hawk eye
11-07-2013, 01:58 PM
I shd have said tall rather than big.
The reason evert isn't putting mid court balls away is because she's clearly hitting the ball back so he can hit it. There's a clear difference in their respective levels although both seem to be having fun.

Well i'm not too fond of excessive smiley use, but in this case i could have put one in i suppose :)

tennis playa
11-07-2013, 02:46 PM
MJ Fernandez would destroy him. If he's playing 35s or 40s age division he's still likely a 4.0-4.5 player. Check out your district and sectional rankings on tennislink. There may not be enough players to have a top ten. The bottom guys might have a losing record and are probably computer rated 4.0s.

I've participated in local pro-ams for charity and we brought in some girls who back in the day were All Big Ten in college but nowhere near the pro tour. They stayed in shape but don't really play much tennis anymore. These girls owned any and all of the 'ams' - sure some of the better guys could hit harder but it really didn't bother them at all. They were just too steady. Now these girls would probably get beat by the male 'pros' (mostly teaching pros and some known former college players) but it wouldn't be a slaughter, we'd have to work for it.

Ok, i'm not sure if she would 'destroy' a 5.0 but I guess we'll never know, one thing I do know is that former pros don't put much time and effort into maintaining fitness as much as some amateur players so I'm guessing that a 5.0 who was in good shape and was a sound match player would have more than a shot, the issue with most guys is when they play a woman they try to win with power, they hit her off the court, they hit harder than they would against another guy. It seems as if power is the way to win as opposed to figuring out the player and winning with skill... just an opinion.

LeeD
11-07-2013, 03:00 PM
You can beat ChrisEverts if you play at the top of 5.0 levels, and have some big shots.
If you're just a 5.0 with no strengths besides tenacity, better plan on a long day of running and changing directions.
Smart's accounts for something.
She's got smarts.

jrepac
11-08-2013, 02:41 PM
You can beat ChrisEverts if you play at the top of 5.0 levels, and have some big shots.
If you're just a 5.0 with no strengths besides tenacity, better plan on a long day of running and changing directions.
Smart's accounts for something.
She's got smarts.

Perhaps the steadiest, most consistent and most mentally tough of the all time greats. incredible ability to use all of the court, all of the time. Yes, this dude will be very, very tired.

chandler bing
11-11-2013, 05:58 PM
Chrissie is nearly 60 years old. Just drop-shot her to death.

LeeD
11-11-2013, 06:21 PM
Only a 5.0 and better player can drop shot her.
Her depth of placement coupled with weirdo slight topspin would throw any player less than 5.0 off his game.
And she can put away any drop shot deeper than mid service line/net.

ttwarrior1
11-11-2013, 10:01 PM
90 percent of the people on here wouldn't have a clue what to do with off pace shots, drop shots and some of those wide shots

BTURNER
11-11-2013, 10:23 PM
Chrissie is nearly 60 years old. Just drop-shot her to death.


By all accounts, the woman is in superb physical shape even if she isn't remotely match tough. I'd be worrying more on how you were going to retrieve her drop shot than how she was going to retrieve yours. The woman is used to this tactic, can anticipate a dropper better than probably anyone you ever met, and knows what to do with one.



I swear this thread is full of stereotypes based on age, and cliche ridden superficial understanding of Evert's game .

rufus_smith
11-12-2013, 11:04 AM
Don't miss this 15 second part where coach Chris Evert shows the dangers of teaching a beginner to serve!
http://youtu.be/448jPxkSr6s?t=25s

jean pierre
11-12-2013, 11:15 AM
Would you beat Bahrami or Noah today ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYaqpQh9xvI

slice bh compliment
11-12-2013, 06:30 PM
Would you beat Bahrami or Noah today ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYaqpQh9xvI

Those guys are still so good into their fifties. That was really fun to watch. Thanks for posting. From belgium this past summer, right?

comeback
11-12-2013, 07:58 PM
They are World Class players with obvious professional volleying and ball placement skills. The only thing they can possibly improve on is singles fitness conditioning.

AngieB
11-14-2013, 09:01 PM
Just a couple of points.

First, Chris was clearly not playing competitively in the provided video. She was powder-puffing the ball so her opponent could practice hitting balls.

Secondly, Chris Evert would most assuredly beat most men 4.0 and below today.

Watching that video brought back vivid memories of how technically superb Chris was with her groundstrokes. Balanced and fluid. While Chris might downplay her overall accomplishments in tennis, she is without a doubt one of the best that ever played the sport.

#ChrisNation #ChrissyConnors #ChrisReynolds

AngieB