PDA

View Full Version : Rate this guy (video)


Big bag of squirrels
03-30-2008, 07:00 PM
Video of two of my buddies. What rating would you give the guy in the blue hat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2OOE6UN5wY

CantBeBeat2
03-30-2008, 07:04 PM
i would say a solid 4.0.

randomname
03-30-2008, 07:05 PM
3.5 for sure

tennisplayer1981
03-30-2008, 07:06 PM
4.5

I see a lot of moonshots, but it could be the way the video was shot, which begs to question: did you shoot this with fisheye lenses?

CAM178
03-30-2008, 07:07 PM
3.5-4.0. Guy in blue hat is much better player, so I'd put him at 4.0. Other guy is 3.5.

randomname
03-30-2008, 07:11 PM
lol, no way either are anywhere near 4.5, I saw a few serves that were about 4 feet short of the baseline by the second bounce, alot of very loopy shots with little pace or spin, some bad volleys and a few good forehands

montx
03-30-2008, 07:12 PM
If there was a 3.75, I would pin both players as 3.75.

I think they are established 3.5's improving to 4.0.

tennisplayer1981
03-30-2008, 07:13 PM
lol, no way either are anywhere near 4.5, I saw a few serves that were about 4 feet short of the baseline by the second bounce, alot of very loopy shots with little pace or spin, some bad volleys and a few good forehands

I'm in a good mood and being generous. :)

Zachol82
03-30-2008, 07:16 PM
I'd say 4.0 or 4.5

They don't even run...or can't for that matter. If they were in their 20's or 30's, that'd be a whole different story.

Sure, their shots are not flashy but I just LOVE how fluid it is. I'd also like to add that there's some good placement going on there as well. Not often do I get to see vids like these...most of them are just power, power, and more power. These guys really know when to speed the ball up, not just recklessly trying to hit winners on every shots.

TokyopunK
03-30-2008, 07:17 PM
7.0








Divided by 2

JRstriker12
03-30-2008, 07:17 PM
Where are they playing? - The Amazon Jungle? check out all the bird sounds in the background.

Gmedlo
03-30-2008, 07:43 PM
I'd say 4.0 or 4.5

They don't even run...or can't for that matter. If they were in their 20's or 30's, that'd be a whole different story.

Sure, their shots are not flashy but I just LOVE how fluid it is. I'd also like to add that there's some good placement going on there as well. Not often do I get to see vids like these...most of them are just power, power, and more power. These guys really know when to speed the ball up, not just recklessly trying to hit winners on every shots.

You make a good point, but you do see where their relaxed, fluid-looking shots are landing, right? Short. Almost every rally ball they hit lands around the service line. A decent 4.5 would capitalize on this and would dominate those sitters, or at least get a strong approach shot in.. This leads me to think they are closer to the 3.5-4.0 range, not close to 4.5.

zidane339
03-30-2008, 08:08 PM
Where are they playing? - The Amazon Jungle? check out all the bird sounds in the background.

haha i thought the same thing..plus the occasional man scremaing in the background.haha

but I think these guys are 3.5-4.0. Its hard to tell at times with the camera angle.

itsstephenyo
03-30-2008, 08:17 PM
I noticed a few things.

1) They played a lot of balls that were blatantly out.
2) A lot of shots landed really, really, really short in the court.
3) The guy in the gray has an odd one-hander.

3.5 just on how many short balls there were.

TENNIS_IS_FUN
03-30-2008, 08:19 PM
Um wow...no disrespect to the OP, but I'd rate these guys a solid 2.5. Maybe I just got alot better, but these guys are NOT 3.5-4.0 like many of the above posters have said. Nothing off the volleys, just tapping the ball over, technique needs help for both players on both wings...

ramseszerg
03-30-2008, 08:45 PM
Very placement oriented players. I like it. I don't know the NTRP but I would say higher than 2.5 for sure TENNIS_IS_FUN.

NicolasH
03-30-2008, 08:45 PM
I agree, 3.0 is tops for these guys.

Cheers,
n.

Vision84
03-30-2008, 08:49 PM
Hard to tell with the speeds on the camera. Everything seems slow motion. I would say 3.5-4.0. Technique isn't terrible and they can rip some nice winners with some solid touch at net though not really putting the ball away. As others have noted far to many short balls and a good 4.0 or 4.5 would attack these and come to the net. Consistency is rather poor to.

raiden031
03-30-2008, 08:51 PM
Um wow...no respect to the OP, but I'd rate these guys a solid 2.5. Maybe I just got alot better, but these guys are NOT 3.5-4.0 like many of the above posters have said. Nothing off the volleys, just tapping the ball over, technique needs help for both players on both wings...

2.5? Have you even seen a 2.5? A 2.5 wouldn't be as fluid as they are. They wouldn't be S&Ving. I would say these guys are an absolute minimum of 3.5. But probably 4.0.

BobFL
03-30-2008, 08:57 PM
3.5 max....

iamke55
03-30-2008, 08:59 PM
This is why you don't ask TT for NTRP ratings.

randomname
03-30-2008, 09:10 PM
no, you dont ask for ratings off of videos period, its too hard to tell

P-Town Tennis
03-30-2008, 09:12 PM
They look like 4.0s.

Passion4Tennis
03-30-2008, 09:34 PM
I wish the video quality was a little better and longer, but based on what I see, I think the guy with the cap is about a 4.0, and the other guy a 3.5. Giving them a 2.5 rating is ridiculous. A player with a rating that low wouldn't be able to vary their shots successfully the way these guys do. Most of their shots were struck with medium pace and decent spin, and the depth of their shots were appropriate for 3.5-4.0 players.

The guy with the cap nailed a few shots up the line, and it wasn't done with reckless abandon. His volleys were respectable, too.

Anyone that gives these guys a rating of 3.0 or less, needs to take a serious look at the NTRP ratings.

ohhgourami
03-30-2008, 10:35 PM
taths one very strange 1h bh. looks like hes trying to do a slice and a topspin drive simultaneously.

spiritdragon
03-30-2008, 10:45 PM
i'd say 3.5

krz
03-30-2008, 10:48 PM
I'd say 4.0. Topspin serves and they did have the ability to rally for a pretty good amount of time. And they were able to rip the ball when they wanted to. And they were consciously placing balls right and left.

They may look bad because of their strokes, but hey theres not many "older" people that look good while playing. The way to ball moves I would say 4.0.

superbooga
03-30-2008, 11:07 PM
4.0. These people are better than most of you think and would beat most people here. They are quite consistent and know how to play the game.

Do you realize how much power is overrated? 3.5 players often hit harder than 4.0 players -- the 4.0 players keep the ball in and attack when the opportunity arises.

JHBKLYN
03-31-2008, 02:26 AM
The view is distorted and the court looks smaller but these guys are at least 4.0's if not higher. The guy in the blue hat has touch, hits with power, and is ripping winners when he has the chance. I've play against USTA Eastern section rated 5.0 guys and they play similar to the guy in the blue hat and I wouldn't be surprise if he is a 5.0.

JHBKLYN
03-31-2008, 02:35 AM
Anyone that gives these guys a rating of 3.0 or less, needs to take a serious look at the NTRP ratings.

I think they need to go play some USTA tennis! If they are 3.5 players, get them on your team and you may win the Nationals 'cause they will crush any 3.5 player.

SalvadorVeiga
03-31-2008, 03:47 AM
3.5. There's no way they are 4.0 a lot of the slices they made just sky rocketed going like 4 meters above the net. There is some touch but other than that, I did like however the hat guy's serve it did have some nice spin in it and a good motion.

As for the volleys they didn't have much placement, all they did was come up to the net and pounch it back usually to the center.

As for groundstrokes, many times you seem them getting too tight or caught with no room for the stroke, not even to mention they shanked quite a few times.

jmverdugo
03-31-2008, 04:03 AM
I would say 4.0. I think that even though the ball land short sometimes it does have a decent amount of pace, it is hard to say from the video though.

J011yroger
03-31-2008, 04:49 AM
Um wow...no respect to the OP, but I'd rate these guys a solid 2.5. Maybe I just got alot better, but these guys are NOT 3.5-4.0 like many of the above posters have said. Nothing off the volleys, just tapping the ball over, technique needs help for both players on both wings...

I agree, 3.0 is tops for these guys.

Cheers,
n.

Serious question guys.

Nobody, I repeat, Nobody, who has the slightest bit of a clue about tennis could honestly believe that these guys were 3.0 or less.

So I ask, what are you trying to accomplish by saying that they are that low?

Do you think that by rating others lower, or saying bad things about them, people will think that you are good?

Do you think that you look better than them when you play, even though you lose to players of a certain level?

Does talking down about others just make you feel better?

I am not trying to bust on you guys, but I just honestly want to know what you are trying to accomplish, or what your reasoning is, when you rate others far below what they actually are.

J

smoothtennis
03-31-2008, 05:29 AM
Easily 4.0. As others said, fluid, good technique, knows WHEN to hit out, and when to play safe, and places the ball quite well.

The only thing I see, is the short balls, and yes, 4.5 players would come in and take advantage of those mid court slower shots. However, we are looking at ONE clip. If you had a vid of most 4.5's playing their worst, I am sure they would get a 3.0 rating too on TT as well.

Yeah, and I second Jolly's inquiry on why people are rating these guys at 2.5 and 3.0. I mean seriously, is that a joke or if you are serious, please expound with some logic.

circusmouse
03-31-2008, 08:23 AM
Great quality video. I wish there were more videos around like that. But the players look like strong 3.5 to me. Their technique is pretty smooth, although the hatless guy's backhand is a little jerky, but their consistent lack of depth would get them in trouble fast at 4.0. Neither of them seems to have any weapons except consistency, and even that falls apart when they try to be aggressive.

Zachol82
03-31-2008, 08:24 AM
You make a good point, but you do see where their relaxed, fluid-looking shots are landing, right? Short. Almost every rally ball they hit lands around the service line. A decent 4.5 would capitalize on this and would dominate those sitters, or at least get a strong approach shot in.. This leads me to think they are closer to the 3.5-4.0 range, not close to 4.5.

Yes, you are right on the short balls. It's not because they can't hit deep shots, you can apparently see that when they want to score, they DO hit it deep into the court where it's hard for the other person to return.

I'm just guessing that since they know each other's weaknesses, which is footwork (probably do to their physical limitations), they hit the ball short so that their opponent would be forced to run up and then they hit a deep one to get the point.

CAM178
03-31-2008, 08:24 AM
Um wow...no respect to the OP, but I'd rate these guys a solid 2.5. Maybe I just got alot better, but these guys are NOT 3.5-4.0 like many of the above posters have said. Nothing off the volleys, just tapping the ball over, technique needs help for both players on both wings...
Uhhh. . . .what?? You do realize that a 2.5 player can not maintain a rally, has violently erratic strokes, would double fault consistenly, and could not do 1/4 of what these guys can do, right? You might want to read the NTRP chart again, as a 2.5 player is a beginner. These guys in this vid are not beginners.

randomname
03-31-2008, 09:52 AM
this is the first time i've seen TT over rate someone on a video, apparently I'm much closer to a 4.0 than I thought if I can get away with serves that dont even come close to the baseline on the second bounce, all sorts of floaters that land on the service line, and pitiful volleys

WBF
03-31-2008, 10:13 AM
'wow I must be NTRP X' posts never cease to amuse me. The amusing thing is, it's always the lower level people saying this. I wonder if there's some sort of connection :roll:

JRstriker12
03-31-2008, 10:19 AM
It's really tough to tell from the video, but I'm betting the guy with the cap is prob at least a 4.0 - 4.5 if not higher. He has good volleys and hit several clear winners down the line. He's making the other guy move and the other guy without the cap looks hurried.

I'm thinking the other guy is a strong 3.5 - 4.0. He can play, but he's having problems forcing the issue with the other guy.

My guess is more like a shot in the dark.

Oh and those birds must be 6.0's - listen to those songs and calls - this match either happened in Brazil or at the tennis courts in the middle of the Disney Jungle Book ride.

IMHO - The problem with TT posters rating people is most people really don't KNOW what they look like when they are playing. I know in my mind, and some other poster's minds, we think our strokes look like Fed's, but a few video sessions reveal the VERY, VERY UGLY truth.

Looking at the pros on the practice courts, their strokes and play look deceptively simple - that were you get these guys coming out of the wood work claiming that a 4.0 player could beat Venus or Sharapova. The real is that it's not even close.

Sometimes I wonder if these 3.5 and 4.0 players have ever seen a 5.0, 6.0, or pro player up close.

Vision84
03-31-2008, 10:55 AM
Watched the video again carefully a couple times and my initial rating was to low. Blue hat strong 4.5 or weak 5.0, Other guy 4.0-4.5 but probably a weakish 4.5.

The consistency isn't bad. The guy in the blue hat is clearly more comfortable coming to the net and can rip his forehand with solid mechanics. backhand appears to be solid to. The other guy doesn't place his shots as well, not appearing to have much strategy and doesn't move his feet so well which puts him out of position but he still has solid strokes. He has a nice kick serve to. The guy in the blue ripped a forehand winner off his kick serve which not many 4.5s could do consistently.

Anyone rating any of these guys below 3.5 really need to watch themselves on camera, maybe even people rating them 3.5s. You will be surprised by how much worse you look on camera. This is nothing against you as virtually all of us will look worse on camera than how we will we are.

To give you some sort of reference this is a strong 3.5 video which has been posted before. One thing to take special notice of is return of serve. COmpare the 2 videos and notice how much worse this video is for return of serves.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XCRV9sfPxoQ&feature=related

Passion4Tennis
03-31-2008, 11:01 AM
Oh and those birds must be 6.0's - listen to those songs and calls - this match either happened in Brazil or at the tennis courts in the middle of the Disney Jungle Book ride.
.

LOL...That was great.

I know several players at the local park by me that play in USTA Men's 4.0 Leagues. They often construct points that are interesting to watch. Their shot-making abilities look very similar to the guys on this video.

saram
03-31-2008, 11:12 AM
One cannot truly assess a ranking off of a two minute video. Results are what count in someone's ranking. If one were to break down the strokes of Santoro, they would probably not consider him a professional tennis player. Yet, he too Blake three sets the other day and five sets at the US Open.

And, for someone to say these guys are 2.5's is just *****enine.

Bundey
03-31-2008, 11:13 AM
3.5, probably a 3.75 if it existed, not 4.0.

TennisDawg
03-31-2008, 11:16 AM
It's really tough to tell from the video, but I'm betting the guy with the cap is prob at least a 4.0 - 4.5 if not higher. He has good volleys and hit several clear winners down the line. He's making the other guy move and the other guy without the cap looks hurried.

I'm thinking the other guy is a strong 3.5 - 4.0. He can play, but he's having problems forcing the issue with the other guy.

My guess is more like a shot in the dark.

Oh and those birds must be 6.0's - listen to those songs and calls - this match either happened in Brazil or at the tennis courts in the middle of the Disney Jungle Book ride.

IMHO - The problem with TT posters rating people is most people really don't KNOW what they look like when they are playing. I know in my mind, and some other poster's minds, we think our strokes look like Fed's, but a few video sessions reveal the VERY, VERY UGLY truth.

Looking at the pros on the practice courts, their strokes and play look deceptively simple - that were you get these guys coming out of the wood work claiming that a 4.0 player could beat Venus or Sharapova. The real is that it's not even close.

Sometimes I wonder if these 3.5 and 4.0 players have ever seen a 5.0, 6.0, or pro player up close.


Good Point JR

These guys are 4.0 at least. The guy in the blue cap is around 4.2-4.5. Don't think he's above 4.5. The other is 3.5 to 4.0.

The other TW posters need to go review the NTRP rating criteria. The blue cap guy meets all the skills of a 4.0, even shows 4.5 skills with shot and serve and volley placement. He shows patience and plays within his abilities. The other guy is not bad either, I see some weaknesses with his volleys. If the blue cap guy had someone pressuring him a the net he may not look so fluid, but he has is hitting solid shots.
Yes, I've never been recorded but I'm sure I would be a humbling experience.

WBF
03-31-2008, 11:19 AM
One cannot truly assess a ranking off of a two minute video. Results are what count in someone's ranking. If one were to break down the strokes of Santoro, they would probably not consider him a professional tennis player. Yet, he too Blake three sets the other day and five sets at the US Open.

And, for someone to say these guys are 2.5's is just *****enine.

You can't assess a level, but you can get a pretty good idea and make an educated guess.

Your Santoro comment is false, although the lesson that results are more important than other factors is a good one.

saram
03-31-2008, 11:28 AM
You can't assess a level, but you can get a pretty good idea and make an educated guess.

Your Santoro comment is false, although the lesson that results are more important than other factors is a good one.

Really? Does Santoro come over every ball? Does he always hit deep penetrating shots? Does he hit groundstrokes that are within the service line? My point in saying what I said was that from two pages of posts on here--they were breaking down the strokes for pace/depth, etc. Santoro does not have the shots of Roger--yet they are truly effective shots.

These guys may not hit the ball like pro's--but they may be deceptive and have amazing point construction and chew up 4.0-4.5's. Or, they may appear like 4.0-4.5's and have horrible match performances. Either way, my point is that we can't truly assess their levels based off of this vid and breaking down their strokes.

They are solid players that I am sure could rally for hours and hours. If their match performances are solid and they understand the workings of a point in tennis--then they could easily play 4.5 tennis.

WBF
03-31-2008, 11:50 AM
Yes, but they saw two minutes of these strokes. If you saw two minutes of Santoro and didn't know he was a pro or a *damn* good player, it would just be a demonstration of someone not knowing what they were talking about.

I do agree that you can't fully determine a rating based on a few minutes of video, but you can usually generate an educated guess (a range which they might reasonably fall within).

circusmouse
03-31-2008, 11:56 AM
Really? Does Santoro come over every ball? Does he always hit deep penetrating shots? Does he hit groundstrokes that are within the service line? My point in saying what I said was that from two pages of posts on here--they were breaking down the strokes for pace/depth, etc. Santoro does not have the shots of Roger--yet they are truly effective shots.

These guys may not hit the ball like pro's--but they may be deceptive and have amazing point construction and chew up 4.0-4.5's. Or, they may appear like 4.0-4.5's and have horrible match performances. Either way, my point is that we can't truly assess their levels based off of this vid and breaking down their strokes.

They are solid players that I am sure could rally for hours and hours. If their match performances are solid and they understand the workings of a point in tennis--then they could easily play 4.5 tennis.

I agree that they could be overachievers, but even if they have great "intangibles" (point construction, mental fortitude) these guys would lose badly to 4.5 players. Their serves are marshmallows, their groundstrokes are mostly around the service line, they struggle to put easy balls away, and they're slow. I do understand that video makes people look bad, but what are you seeing that makes you think these people could hang with 4.5 players? I play with a guy in his sixties who looks mediocre but is in fact a good 4.0 singles player, but he at least hits with consistency, depth, and placement. I'm not seeing it with these guys.

TennisDawg
03-31-2008, 12:19 PM
I agree that they could be overachievers, but even if they have great "intangibles" (point construction, mental fortitude) these guys would lose badly to 4.5 players. Their serves are marshmallows, their groundstrokes are mostly around the service line, they struggle to put easy balls away, and they're slow. I do understand that video makes people look bad, but what are you seeing that makes you think these people could hang with 4.5 players? I play with a guy in his sixties who looks mediocre but is in fact a good 4.0 singles player, but he at least hits with consistency, depth, and placement. I'm not seeing it with these guys.

Circus mouse, maybe the 60 year old guy is a better 4.0 player. I just found the guidelines for NTRP rating and both of these guys display characteristics of 4.0 to 4.5 players. A 4.0 player, like the 60 year old guy would look mediocore. 4.0 is not supposed to look awesome. The blue cap guy in this video is consistent, places the ball and hits with depth at times. A 4.0 player has that style. I also read the description on 3.0 to 3.5 and these guys look better than that. Don't evaluate the players using a instruction book standard of correct tennis strokes, but what the NTRP guidelines use. How many times when we play recreational tennis do we hit some awkward shot and don't really think of how we actually look to others watching. More than we care to admit, I'm sure!!

TennisDawg
03-31-2008, 12:28 PM
Those two guys are at least this good!

Characteristics of a 4.0 Player

Forehand: Dependable; hits with depth and control on moderate shots; may try to hit too good a placement on a difficult shot

Backhand: Player can direct the ball with consistency and depth on moderate shots; developing spin

Serve/Return: Places both first and second serves; frequent power on first serve; uses spin; dependable return of serve; can return with depth in singles and mix returns in doubles

Volley: Depth and control on forehand volley; can direct backhand volleys but usually lacks depth; developing wide and low volleys on both sides of the body



Special Shots: Can put away easy overheads; can poach in doubles; follows aggresive shots to the net; beginning to finish points off; can hit to opponent’s weaknesses; able to lob defensively on difficult shots and offensively on setups; dependable return of serve

Playing Style: Dependable ground strokes with directional control and depth demonstrated on moderate shots; not yet playing good percentage tennis; teamwork in doubles is evident; rallies may be lost due to impatience

tfm1973
03-31-2008, 01:00 PM
both play well within themselves. they don't make errors because they are trying to crush the ball unnecessarily. i'd say 3.5 to 4.0 range. is it just me but it looks like they are playing out balls in this "match".

i don't think they are better than solid 4.0 however. (at least in my region) 4.5's hit more consistently, harder and with more spin these these guys.

circusmouse
03-31-2008, 01:15 PM
Those two guys are at least this good!

Characteristics of a 4.0 Player

Forehand: Dependable; hits with depth and control on moderate shots; may try to hit too good a placement on a difficult shot

Backhand: Player can direct the ball with consistency and depth on moderate shots; developing spin

Serve/Return: Places both first and second serves; frequent power on first serve; uses spin; dependable return of serve; can return with depth in singles and mix returns in doubles

Volley: Depth and control on forehand volley; can direct backhand volleys but usually lacks depth; developing wide and low volleys on both sides of the body



Special Shots: Can put away easy overheads; can poach in doubles; follows aggresive shots to the net; beginning to finish points off; can hit to opponent’s weaknesses; able to lob defensively on difficult shots and offensively on setups; dependable return of serve

Playing Style: Dependable ground strokes with directional control and depth demonstrated on moderate shots; not yet playing good percentage tennis; teamwork in doubles is evident; rallies may be lost due to impatience

This is all a moot point because the ratings are really defined by results rather than appearances, but even according to the NTRP guidelines, I don't think they're 4.0. They don't hit with depth or placement off of medium shots, when they did try for depth they often hit long (yes, as someone just mentioned, they did play some out balls) they didn't hit with pace on any serves, and they didn't return with depth. I don't want to cut and paste it, but I think they fit the NTRP description of 3.5 better. Honestly, I don't care about this debate at all, but I can say that as a 4.0 player, I would feel very confident going into a match against these guys. Their serves alone would be a huge liability. I've played against mediocre 3.5 players that looked about like these guys. I'll stop posting on this thread now. I try not to get involved in these debates.

FedererISBetter
03-31-2008, 01:21 PM
I see ugly footwork : / Point construction a bit shaky... vollys.. is mixed between really good and just okay and to being lazy. Theres a mix of strenghs and mix of weaks so its very hard for me to predict besides playing them. Who knows,,, I say great 3.5s.

Moz
03-31-2008, 01:22 PM
For what my opinion is worth....

The guy without the cap has terrible footwork which prevents him from having any time on the ball - he moves like a beginner when he gets a deep shot hit at him. This doesn't appear to be because of the overwhelming skill of the other player. Even allowing for necessary video inflation I don't see how he can be rated any higher than a 4.0 - and not a particularly strong one at that. If you said 3.5 I wouldn't be surprised if you said 4.5 I'd be a little shocked.

The guy with the blue cap seems to have made a good decision on the hitting partner so he can look pretty good. He doesn't move, bend or hit like a strong player so I would say a weakish 4.5 (if we are talking 4.5 league, singles players - not 4.5 doubles leaguers forced to play singles). If you said 4.0 I wouldn't be surprised if you said 5.0 I'd be a little shocked.

circusmouse
03-31-2008, 01:41 PM
Ok, against my own better judgment, one last post in this thread. Although it's hard to be sure judging from a dozen cherry picked points against a weaker opponent, the guy in the cap is probably a 4.0 but not higher. After rewatching the video and paying more attention to who is doing what, I can see that he is far better than his opponent.

ZPTennis
03-31-2008, 02:15 PM
They look like average 4.0's to me.

rbq4h4
03-31-2008, 02:44 PM
guy in the hat look good. great forhand at 55 and 1;45! also nice touch the shot at 1;35.

35ft6
03-31-2008, 03:03 PM
Guy in blue, strong 4.0? The other guy a weak 4.0?

Rickson
03-31-2008, 04:28 PM
Video of two of my buddies. What rating would you give the guy in the blue hat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2OOE6UN5wY

It looks like both guys prefer the topspin serve over the flat serve. I'd say your buddy in the blue hat is a 4.0 player.

dozu
03-31-2008, 04:42 PM
both are around strong 4.0, weak 4.5..... serves are ok, footworks are so so... ground stroke power is weak.... both have quite bad backhands. topspin hits too late, with weird motion... backhand slice has no bite.... a standard 4.5 will simply outlast both of them. a standard 5.0 will have much bigger serves and ground strokes, and should blow them off the court.

rbq4h4
03-31-2008, 07:21 PM
lots of noise in background?

Hot Sauce
03-31-2008, 07:43 PM
4.0, but the guy in the hat is better.

Djokovicfan4life
03-31-2008, 07:48 PM
It looks like both guys prefer the topspin serve over the flat serve. I'd say your buddy in the blue hat is a 4.0 player.

Those topspin serves seemed really slow for some reason, must have been the camera.

TennisDawg
03-31-2008, 08:50 PM
This is all a moot point because the ratings are really defined by results rather than appearances, but even according to the NTRP guidelines, I don't think they're 4.0. They don't hit with depth or placement off of medium shots, when they did try for depth they often hit long (yes, as someone just mentioned, they did play some out balls) they didn't hit with pace on any serves, and they didn't return with depth. I don't want to cut and paste it, but I think they fit the NTRP description of 3.5 better. Honestly, I don't care about this debate at all, but I can say that as a 4.0 player, I would feel very confident going into a match against these guys. Their serves alone would be a huge liability. I've played against mediocre 3.5 players that looked about like these guys. I'll stop posting on this thread now. I try not to get involved in these debates.

The NTRP has been the standard now for some 25 years so I don't see where I'm making a moot point. Again using the NTRP guidelines they don't/won't hit every shot with depth or placement, in fact NTRP states they will still tend to overhit and make errors. Also, 4.0 players don't have big strong serves.

K-LEG
03-31-2008, 09:19 PM
Definitely a 4.0, I don't think any players at the 3.5 level can hit with that sort of placement and pace, for example at 23 seconds into the video when he hits a down the line forehand winner. Both were decent tennis players although it's pretty obvious that the man with the blue hat is at a higher level then his friend.

baek57
03-31-2008, 09:21 PM
blue hat guy easily 4.0. his serve looks too fluffy to me for 4.5. other guy low 4.0 or 3.5... clearly worse than blue hat guy.

mdjenders
03-31-2008, 11:49 PM
blue hat would be a solid 4.0, IMO. his strokes are nice and smooth. lack of pace on the serve and lack of depth on groundstrokes would be punished by 4.5 players. 3.5 players dont hit authoritative winners from behind the baseline like blue hat.

TENNIS_IS_FUN
04-01-2008, 09:34 PM
Maybe you guys are right...maybe rating these guys at a 2.5 is a bit harsh. But! I think im paying too much attention to how their form looks like, instead of looking at the debth and spin of the ball....Do me a favor and just look at their form, not where the ball travels, and see if your mind changes....

vince916
04-01-2008, 10:33 PM
At 1:50 the guy with the gray hit a decent serve and got a very short ball. Then he proceeded to push the ball gently over the net directly to the guys forehand.

I think he's a little to passive.

split-step
04-01-2008, 11:00 PM
Can't tell rating based on a 2 min video.

What I can say is guy in blue hat is playing against a lower quality opponent so he is not being forced or pushed at all. Makes him look better than he really is.
He does not split step at all. He is flat footed and is still able to get to the shot on time and hit semi aggressive shots. Flat footed on return of serve yet can still hit a winner off it.

Best way to tell rating is show video of unrated guy playing against a rated person. Then we can name it.
I hereby trademark this system "Relative rating" :).

aimr75
04-02-2008, 12:01 AM
I hereby trademark this system "Relative rating" :).

NTRRP

.....
________
Honda OSM (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_OSM)

JMS
04-02-2008, 05:17 AM
I would say 4.0

Loco4Tennis
04-02-2008, 05:33 AM
i agree with most, they seem at least a 4.0 maybe 5.0, i saw some point strategy being developed, not just hitting, but also setting up of points on both sides, not a common thing in 4.0 players, depth control was also there
also the chip and charge and rushig the net, thats advanced tactic for a 4.0 player
i guess i should say that these tactics can be developed earlier by some, but its not common on 4.0 or below players

Love2AceYou
04-02-2008, 06:55 AM
i say he should go pro

MIGHTY MANFRED THE WONDER
04-02-2008, 07:07 AM
I'm sorry, 3.0- very tops, for members of the knee, elbow and ankle brace (and aspercream) crowd.

What would happen if they ACTUALLY played a real competitive, younger 4.0?
Bring those serves and one hand backhand along, with some mayo... 'cause you should enjoy eating them for lunch. Those net charges- what happens when an opponent lobs over these two consistantly? Break out the air bottles- quick.

I think the bird sounds are transplanted residents they can't get out of the building.

raiden031
04-02-2008, 07:46 AM
Also, 4.0 players don't have big strong serves.

Relative to what? If I'm playing against a weaker player, my 3.5 serve might seem big and strong and I'll hit a couple aces even, but against a very solid player it would be a liability.

3.5 players dont hit authoritative winners from behind the baseline like blue hat.

Definitely a 4.0, I don't think any players at the 3.5 level can hit with that sort of placement and pace, for example at 23 seconds into the video when he hits a down the line forehand winner.

I don't know how people can make a statement that says a 3.5 can do this or can't do this. I think a more accurate statement would be that a 3.5 cannot do this AT WILL. I have hit some amazing winners that would impress even a 5.0 but I'm sure it is not nearly as frequent as a 5.0 hits them. A 3.5 may or may not have the ability to blast some amazing shots, but because someone hit one or two great shots on video, doesn't mean they are automatically at a higher level.

But with that being said, I'm not saying they are 3.5 players, but from what I saw I would rate them between a strong 3.5 to low 4.5, which I think is fair. But there is no way in hell they are 3.0s, that I would bet some large cash on.

MIGHTY MANFRED THE WONDER
04-02-2008, 11:00 AM
I will defer to others in trying to assign ratings, and maybe I am too critical of abilities to make accurate opinion.
I was thinking more "long run" instead of clips, as well- Like "tournament tested" over very specific flashes of ability.
Two matches in 90-95 degree heat, single elimination.

I was thinking to be rated a "low" 4.5 You have to have an all- around consistent court "apperance"
A backhand cross court and down the line, maybe just slightly less than your forehand.
A crushing forehand on demand (in the middle of a LONG match)- Where opponents just look at it.
A lob that lands on the base line every time.
A selection of 1st serves (depending on your opponent) mixing them up at will- A second that is not a liability, but just a consistent continuation of the first; No double faults, ever, and certainly not under pressure.

And finally a punishing mental game- no prisoners if necessary; With great sportsmanship after the win.
Maybe that is too high a bar.

WBF
04-02-2008, 11:32 AM
I will defer to others in trying to assign ratings, and maybe I am too critical of abilities to make accurate opinion.
I was thinking more "long run" instead of clips, as well- Like "tournament tested" over very specific flashes of ability.
Two matches in 90-95 degree heat, single elimination.

I was thinking to be rated a "low" 4.5 You have to have an all- around consistent court "apperance"
A backhand cross court and down the line, maybe just slightly less than your forehand.
A crushing forehand on demand (in the middle of a LONG match)- Where opponents just look at it.
A lob that lands on the base line every time.
A selection of 1st serves (depending on your opponent) mixing them up at will- A second that is not a liability, but just a consistent continuation of the first; No double faults, ever, and certainly not under pressure.

And finally a punishing mental game- no prisoners if necessary; With great sportsmanship after the win.
Maybe that is too high a bar.

You know what's amusing? I toy with 4.5's all the time and haven't dropped a set to one in a long time, but your description outclasses *me*. I lack the lob (I'll probably hit 3 successful lobs to every 2 that end up short putaways or out. Every time? What a joke. You would dominate with that control...). Hell, the strongest part of my game is my serve, but my second serve is not the most consistent, and I do rack up double faults (occasionally several times a game)... I don't know if these guys are 4.5's, but your thoughts on a 4.5 are very, very off. Or you are leaving out the fact that all of this might break down against a 4.5 or better player, and that there are many exceptions and variations in the descriptions you offer.

5263
04-02-2008, 11:37 AM
Both are 3.5 players.

rbq4h4
04-02-2008, 11:51 AM
weird video angle. court look realy long and thin. player near the camera look like a giant. does this make everything look "slowed down?

MIGHTY MANFRED THE WONDER
04-02-2008, 11:54 AM
Sorry, WBF
Your reply is exactly why I prefaced my post by offering up my shortcomings in evaluating adults, (and why the greatest number of posts on this board are breaking out the crying towels concerning this VERY rating system, arbitrary assignments up or down).

I admit there are a million circumstances and variations that would affect ratings.
I guess my perceptions have been effected- become too demanding/exacting from watching top Juniors (B16s-18s) duke it out year round in the desert, and not paying as much attention to the "Sweet and low" set to make a good judgement.
Again, my appologies and I will leave those estimates to those more familiar with the "brace crowd".

Big bag of squirrels
04-02-2008, 12:21 PM
Good commentary. Little more info on these guys. Blue hat is a former D1 college player (early/mid 90's). Hasn't really played any competitive tennis for the past several years. As noted, other guy is much less experienced, been playing for about two years.

Thanks for all the responses.

5263
04-02-2008, 01:19 PM
One of 3 things then:

1. blue hat was really holding bk on his friend
2. He was on the roster, but got no playing time
3. He played for the weakest team in D1

because former D1 players within the decade don't play like that.

I'd say he was a nice guy, playing some social tennis with someone he likes. We all do it some of the time.

Djokovicfan4life
04-02-2008, 01:22 PM
Good commentary. Little more info on these guys. Blue hat is a former D1 college player (early/mid 90's). Hasn't really played any competitive tennis for the past several years. As noted, other guy is much less experienced, been playing for about two years.

Thanks for all the responses.

Ha, that just goes to show you what some people on here know about tennis, apparently 2.5's are capable of playing D1 tennis! :shock:

Learn something new every day, I guess.

5263
04-02-2008, 01:28 PM
there are DIII teams that will beat some DI schools in tennis 7-0, so without knowing the school and if he actually held a spot, D1 tells us little to nothing.

Many DI schools are nice to carry a local player or 2 as walkon, even though they are not in the same class as the ********.

Bungalo Bill
04-02-2008, 01:43 PM
Video of two of my buddies. What rating would you give the guy in the blue hat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2OOE6UN5wY

I would rate him a 3.0 - 3.5 no higher. I would recommend starting at 3.0 to see how he does.

His footwork is horrible, the serve is weak, his backhand needs help, and the forehand is okay.

Pushmaster
04-02-2008, 02:48 PM
^^ I'm with BB on this one, 3.5 at best. I don't believe the guy in the blue played D1, or even D3 for that matter. There's no way he would lose that much of his skills even if he took 20 years off from the game.

raiden031
04-02-2008, 03:15 PM
I would rate him a 3.0 - 3.5 no higher. I would recommend starting at 3.0 to see how he does.

His footwork is horrible, the serve is weak, his backhand needs help, and the forehand is okay.

Unfortunately due to the USTA experienced player guidelines, I think he must self-rate at a minimum of like 5.0. Sucks to be him. :razz:

WBF
04-02-2008, 04:52 PM
Sorry, WBF
Your reply is exactly why I prefaced my post by offering up my shortcomings in evaluating adults, (and why the greatest number of posts on this board are breaking out the crying towels concerning this VERY rating system, arbitrary assignments up or down).

I admit there are a million circumstances and variations that would affect ratings.
I guess my perceptions have been effected- become too demanding/exacting from watching top Juniors (B16s-18s) duke it out year round in the desert, and not paying as much attention to the "Sweet and low" set to make a good judgement.
Again, my appologies and I will leave those estimates to those more familiar with the "brace crowd".


No problem!

Just to give you a heads up: Many of these top juniors could be taken out by old guys with funny looking strokes, that one might see receiving 3.0's on the TT forums (obviously not actual 3.0s!). It is quite amusing watching a big time college player look quite miffed when his coach has him go up against some geezer, only to see him struggle in a close (or not so close) loss.

Bungalo Bill
04-02-2008, 05:42 PM
Unfortunately due to the USTA experienced player guidelines, I think he must self-rate at a minimum of like 5.0. Sucks to be him. :razz:

Can't even see the person was a 5.0 at one time. Just can't, sorry.

split-step
04-02-2008, 08:15 PM
Good commentary. Little more info on these guys. Blue hat is a former D1 college player (early/mid 90's).

For what college? Sorry but I play a decade removed Div II player who got a shoulder injury that never fully went away and the difference between him and your blue hat guy is night and day.

Even when you're holding back, your form is still there. This guy's footwork alone belies a Div 1 past.

split-step
04-02-2008, 08:22 PM
One of 3 things then:

1. blue hat was really holding bk on his friend
2. He was on the roster, but got no playing time
3. He played for the weakest team in D1

because former D1 players within the decade don't play like that.

This post pretty much says it all.

hyperwarrior
04-02-2008, 09:16 PM
I would rate him a 3.0 - 3.5 no higher. I would recommend starting at 3.0 to see how he does.

His footwork is horrible, the serve is weak, his backhand needs help, and the forehand is okay.

I'll take Bungalo Bill's words for that. He is working for www.tennisplayer.net so I'm pretty sure he's pretty reliable when it comes to the rating.

So guys, listen to Bungalo Bill!!

THSBOI
04-02-2008, 09:22 PM
3.5 or maybe 4.0 inbetween there

crazytennis
04-02-2008, 09:59 PM
My regular hitting partner and friend can kill balls from most part of the court and my school coach rated him strong 3.5 to 4.0 at most. I mostly try finishing the point at the net and he'd kill me if I approached with shots like that.

Although I must say that the guy in blue cap can rip forehands. I watched the video couple of times and there are times when he rips one for the winner. He could just be playing easy for the other guy. Other than that, their shots are so inside in the baseline, no depth, not much pace(could be camera), easy and tentative returns. I'm sorry but I don't think they're really 4.0s.

Rickson
04-02-2008, 10:15 PM
Isn't 3.0 a little harsh, BB?

Lendl and Federer Fan
04-02-2008, 10:33 PM
max 3.25 :oops:

[K]aotic
04-02-2008, 11:24 PM
i would say guy int he blue hat is a strong 4.0 and the other guy is a solid 3.5. If these guys improved their footwork then they would go up half a point.

Vision84
04-02-2008, 11:32 PM
^^ I'm with BB on this one, 3.5 at best. I don't believe the guy in the blue played D1, or even D3 for that matter. There's no way he would lose that much of his skills even if he took 20 years off from the game.

You should see some of the teams my college has had to play in D3 this year. Some of the bottom players wouldn't have even made my high school JV team. Our number 6 played someone last week who couldn't even get more than 2 or 3 serves in in an entire 2 set match. I haven't seen so many double faults for as long as I can remember. His groundstrokes were weak to and he couldn't even get a ball in play and when he did it was a maximum of twice a point. Our number 6 doesn't hit particularly hard and he hits it pretty flat so it is not a case of him making him look bad.


Yeah the guy's footwork is really lazy but he could probably get it back soon. He played some great shots off both wings and his technique apart from incorporating more from his legs into his shots was pretty good. If he did this and moved his feet quicker and increased intensity then I think he could be pretty good.

J011yroger
04-03-2008, 03:11 AM
I'll take Bungalo Bill's words for that. He is working for www.tennisplayer.net so I'm pretty sure he's pretty reliable when it comes to the rating.

So guys, listen to Bungalo Bill!!

BB also rated Andy Lake 4.0.

J

Bungalo Bill
04-03-2008, 06:15 AM
too many clicks

Bungalo Bill
04-03-2008, 06:16 AM
Isn't 3.0 a little harsh, BB?


I dont think so. I think at the 3.0 level he would face a lot of pushers and would have trouble with them. Based on his movement, his technique, he would have problems. Plus, his serve can be just blocked back it isn't very much.

Perhaps after one year, 3.5 would be the trick.

Bungalo Bill
04-03-2008, 06:17 AM
BB also rated Andy Lake 4.0.

J

Yeah, but I was right about your ego, its at least a 10.0

BillH
04-03-2008, 06:28 AM
I just watched the video again and believe, like other viewers, that the camera angle may be making things look a little slow. Nevertheless, these guys look very much like the kind of guys I play regularly in local USTA tournaments and leagues at the 3.5 and 4.0 level. I know I can serve and hit groundstrokes harder than these guys but the one in the blue hat does seem to be fairly consistent and I expect to play someone like him everytime I play a tournament.

WBF
04-03-2008, 06:51 AM
BB, I'm confused, what video did you watch? You really think the guy in the blue hat wouldn't be higher than a 3.5, and might have trouble at the 3.0 level? Impressive analysis!

I do agree that the player looks a bit odd for having played D1 (if this is true... a D1 player typically would have solid foundations that wouldn't leave after 25 years of not playing... this is just odd...).

Bungalo Bill
04-03-2008, 07:35 AM
BB, I'm confused, what video did you watch? You really think the guy in the blue hat wouldn't be higher than a 3.5, and might have trouble at the 3.0 level? Impressive analysis!

I do agree that the player looks a bit odd for having played D1 (if this is true... a D1 player typically would have solid foundations that wouldn't leave after 25 years of not playing... this is just odd...).

Okay, this will be the last time. 3.0 to 3.5 maximum.

The guy has no feet. He moves slow. I think a pusher would eat him alive. His volleys are not great at all and he leaves backcourt balls short. His serve is slow but this may be his area (along with his forehand) that will bump him up to 3.5.

I am not saying he doesn't have potential. I am saying that if I had to rate him based on this video, it would bein the 3.0 to 3.5 range. I would suggest he beat the 3.0 level and move up to 3.5.

He needs to work mainly on his:

1. Footwork

2. Backhand

3. Volleys

4. Serve

If he is rated 4.0, then the area he is in is padding and blowing smoke. He would get killed at the 4.0 level in So. Cal. No not killed, murdered.

And please, give me a break on D1.

MIGHTY MANFRED THE WONDER
04-03-2008, 07:38 AM
WBF
Note that BBill and I hit the same estimate(mine was pure luck, a "backed into" guess, but I'll take it).
I have noticed younger players seem to be more self-depreciating in a group than rated players. Why do tennis players talk themselves up as a HIGHER rating, then when the USTA concurs, then that is the complaint? This happens in golf all the time, is it wishful thinking or what?

Bungalo Bill
04-03-2008, 07:53 AM
WBF
Note that BBill and I hit the same estimate(mine was pure luck, a "backed into" guess, but I'll take it).
I have noticed younger players seem to be more self-depreciating in a group than rated players. Why do tennis players talk themselves up as a HIGHER rating, then when the USTA concurs, then that is the complaint? This happens in golf all the time, is it wishful thinking or what?

My family (kids) got me hooked on American Idol. I also have a music background so I have a good ear on pitch etc...

Nearly everytime, Simon and I are in sync, not all the time but a lot of the times. I would also say exactly what he would say. Just the hard truth.

Most players do not want to be rated lower then they think they are or their friends think they are. Most people rate themselves a level above or half level above.

I say, have the player enter a tournament and prove it. :)

smoothtennis
04-03-2008, 08:14 AM
Good commentary. Little more info on these guys. Blue hat is a former D1 college player (early/mid 90's). Hasn't really played any competitive tennis for the past several years. As noted, other guy is much less experienced, been playing for about two years.

Thanks for all the responses.

Ok, so what is his rating now? D1 doesn't tell us much. Was anybody here close in your mind, to what your buddies are actually rated?

I can see on some of the soft hit shots, that he is hitting soft on purpose, sure. Just compare that to his harder strokes - easy enough to see he is doing it on purpose, not becase he has some power deficiency.

PS.
The only thing I see that really sticks out that makes me question his D1 credibility, is that he doesn't check step before recieving serve. I don't think a guy can just decide not to check step on a service return, that's so ingrained it's automatic. A D1 player would do this in his sleep, as they have seen hundreds and hundreds of serves at 100+ mph.

Vision84
04-03-2008, 09:33 AM
Yeah the lack of check step is a little odd. It is natural for me to keep check stepping at the net and for return of serve. I think it is also worth taking into account that he isn't really being challenged much by the other guy and may not be putting as much effort in due to this.

TennisDawg
04-03-2008, 09:41 AM
Okay,

I'm gonna chime in, again. Watched the video again last night. Blue cap is being nice to the other guy. Blue cap is hitting a lot of shots back to the other guy. He may be just toying with him. Every now and then he hits a winner, but most of the time he just keeps the ball in play. You can keep the points closer, if you just hit everything down the middle and occasionally placing a winner. Whe blue cap decides to rip a winner he does it with authority. I think Blue cap is at least 4.0 just playing around with his opponent.

Bungalo Bill
04-03-2008, 10:05 AM
Okay,

I'm gonna chime in, again. Watched the video again last night. Blue cap is being nice to the other guy. Blue cap is hitting a lot of shots back to the other guy. He may be just toying with him. Every now and then he hits a winner, but most of the time he just keeps the ball in play. You can keep the points closer, if you just hit everything down the middle and occasionally placing a winner. Whe blue cap decides to rip a winner he does it with authority. I think Blue cap is at least 4.0 just playing around with his opponent.

So now we are putting more into the clip then there is actually known.

Well then after looking at it again. I was completely wrong. This guys backhand resembles a well coached D1 player that has the chance to go pro. And I mean right now. He has an amazing capability to lineup properly and rifle a winner at a moments notice.

His footwork, especially in the split-step area is unprecedented. Outstanding footwork was displayed and moving to the ball was nothing short of spectacular.

His serve, well, he was just holding back.

I am surprised a player of this caliber would resort to playing someone like this.

Ridiculous sounding isn't it?

TennisDawg
04-03-2008, 10:14 AM
So now we are putting more into the clip then there is actually known.

Well then after looking at it again. I was completely wrong. This guys backhand resembles a well coached D1 player that has the chance to go pro. And I mean right now. He has an amazing capability to lineup properly and rifle a winner at a moments notice.

His footwork, especially in the split-step area is unprecedented. Outstanding footwork was displayed and moving to the ball was nothing short of spectacular.

His serve, well, he was just holding back.

I am surprised a player of this caliber would resort to playing someone like this.

Ridiculous sounding isn't it?

These guys suck. With McEnroe like touch and Boris Becker serves/volley, a NTRP rated 4.0 player would demolish these guys. A 4.0 guy with Stephan Edberg cat like movement would not even waste his time playing these guys.

Ridiculous sounding isn't it?

Pleepers
04-03-2008, 10:18 AM
3.5


But if they started to move and hit the ball with some pace...maybe 4.0

Bungalo Bill
04-03-2008, 10:22 AM
These guys suck. With McEnroe like touch and Boris Becker serves/volley, a NTRP rated 4.0 player would demolish these guys. A 4.0 guy with Stephan Edberg cat like movement would not even waste his time playing these guys.

Ridiculous sounding isn't it?

Yeah, it is which means YOU sound ridiculous. Let me see if I got you down. "Now that I look at it again, he is just holding back."

Nevermind overlooking all the poor positioning on his bakchand and his lousey footwork that he learned at the D1 level. LOL!

just out
04-03-2008, 10:29 AM
So now we are putting more into the clip then there is actually known.

Well then after looking at it again. I was completely wrong. This guys backhand resembles a well coached D1 player that has the chance to go pro. And I mean right now. He has an amazing capability to lineup properly and rifle a winner at a moments notice.

His footwork, especially in the split-step area is unprecedented. Outstanding footwork was displayed and moving to the ball was nothing short of spectacular.

His serve, well, he was just holding back.

I am surprised a player of this caliber would resort to playing someone like this.

Ridiculous sounding isn't it?

BB great stuff. These discussions about ratings are a fun read. After watching this and seeing ratings on these guys as high as possibly 4.5 (wow!) I feel much better about my own game these days. The one thing that struck me about this video is it looked liked slow motion except for a few hard groundstrokes. I used to hit and play with some former D1 and D2 players years ago and they all seemed to play considerably better and hit harder than this (expecially serves and returns). Maybe all the time off really took its toll.

What is often forgotten about the 3.5-4.5 level is that parts of a person's game at these levels often appear more than 1 point apart because of inconsistency, one weak side (usually bh), lack of movement, weak or great serve, etc. Solid 4.5 and above players have a more well rounded game, fewer weaknesses and therefore are easier to catagorize.

ohplease
04-03-2008, 10:30 AM
BB also rated Andy Lake 4.0.

J

Hilarious.

You can't mix a subjective skills rating with actual results. You just can't. This is why people get this wrong so consistently. Either you can play, and more importantly, get your share of wins at a particular level - or you can't.

Just as people look great but can't win, there are plenty of players out there whose results are much better than they look. I've said it before, but until tennis is judged like figure skating, you really can't tell anything from video. Not like you can with someone's USTA record.

Historical results are AT LEAST an order of magnitude more informative. Which would you rather have - scouting video of every player on the team you're playing this week, or their tennislink records?

Thud and blunder
04-03-2008, 10:36 AM
BB great stuff. These discussions about ratings are a fun read. After watching this and seeing ratings on these guys as high as possibly 4.5 (wow!) I feel much better about my own game these days.

Really? Your game is just as good or bad as it was before you started reading this thread, so no reason to feel any different about it.

WBF
04-03-2008, 10:40 AM
Hilarious.

You can't mix a subjective skills rating with actual results. You just can't. This is why people get this wrong so consistently. Either you can play, and more importantly, get your share of wins at a particular level - or you can't.

Just as people look great but can't win, there are plenty of players out there whose results are much better than they look. I've said it before, but until tennis is judged like figure skating, you really can't tell anything from video. Not like you can with someone's USTA record.

Historical results are AT LEAST an order of magnitude more informative. Which would you rather have - scouting video of every player on the team you're playing this week, or their tennislink records?

I agree that results are far, far, more reliable in rating a player, but many posters consistently rate players appropriately, while others fall short to varying degrees. Making an educated guess off of a video shouldn't be too difficult, particularly for someone with much experience in the field.

Statements like 'He would get killed at the 4.0 level in So. Cal. No not killed, murdered' and '3.0 to 3.5 maximum' when viewing a video are indicative of someone who is being very hard-headed and not very objective. You obviously can't give a hard limit from such a short video, particularly when there is so much room for interpretation.

Also: As I've said before... Saying 'player x would be killed in region y' is obnoxious. Certain areas might have more *depth*, but the overall level of play is similar.

TennisDawg
04-03-2008, 10:43 AM
Yeah, it is which means YOU sound ridiculous. Let me see if I got you down. "Now that I look at it again, he is just holding back."

Nevermind overlooking all the poor positioning on his bakchand and his lousey footwork that he learned at the D1 level. LOL!

Liighten up Bungalo

We're lookin at a guy and disputing whether he shoudl be rated 4.0 in recretional tennis. Somebody said he was a former D1. The big disagreement as I read these posts is whether blue cap is a 4.0, not whether he played D1 tennis.

raiden031
04-03-2008, 10:56 AM
Hilarious.

You can't mix a subjective skills rating with actual results. You just can't. This is why people get this wrong so consistently. Either you can play, and more importantly, get your share of wins at a particular level - or you can't.

Just as people look great but can't win, there are plenty of players out there whose results are much better than they look. I've said it before, but until tennis is judged like figure skating, you really can't tell anything from video. Not like you can with someone's USTA record.

Historical results are AT LEAST an order of magnitude more informative. Which would you rather have - scouting video of every player on the team you're playing this week, or their tennislink records?

What I think is funny is when a video is posted and it is established that the players in the video are N rated players in a USTA league, yet posters continue saying they are not at the level in which they actually play.

Its no secret that alot of adult league players have ugly and unorthodox strokes, mainly because they never worked with a teaching pro and have been playing for decades so they slowly raised their NTRP rating by experience alone. I think some people need to accept that tennis isn't always flashy. I'm wondering if alot of these posters are teens who have been instructed on good technique and just ignorantly assume anyone with poor technique must be below them NTRP-wise.

just out
04-03-2008, 10:56 AM
Really? Your game is just as good or bad as it was before you started reading this thread, so no reason to feel any different about it.

Yes, really! I figure if a former D1 player who is probably about my age plays like this then I'm really not deteriorating nearly as fast as I thought I was. So this makes me feel better, may not be a good reason but it is a reason :oops:

hyogen
04-03-2008, 10:57 AM
I would say 4.0 given their consistency. I bet they could hit harder if they wanted. looks like they were going for high percentage shots. I would agree the blue hat guy slightly better. I've seen a lot worse "3.5s"

although I've been "rated" a 4.0 by some people including a teaching pro, I could see myself losing to either of these guys...even though my game has more weapons and more "flashiness"...my bad footwork due to lack of fitness which leads to inconsistency would possibly result in a loss to either player :(

neither of the players' serves seemed to be bad at all... they were safely spinning the ball in most of the time but the form looked pretty good.

Thud and blunder
04-03-2008, 12:37 PM
My family (kids) got me hooked on American Idol. I also have a music background so I have a good ear on pitch etc...

Nearly everytime, Simon and I are in sync, not all the time but a lot of the times. I would also say exactly what he would say. Just the hard truth.

Most players do not want to be rated lower then they think they are or their friends think they are. Most people rate themselves a level above or half level above.

I say, have the player enter a tournament and prove it. :)

Well, Simon acts like an obnoxious git because he gets paid to play a role. What's your excuse?

Pushmaster
04-03-2008, 12:55 PM
First thing I look at when sizing up an opponent is his footwork. Forget the strokes, I've been beaten by guys that have ugly strokes before, but never by a guy that doesn't move his feet. I know guys in their 70's that would beat this bum, at least the old guys know how to split-step.

Bungalo Bill
04-03-2008, 02:13 PM
Well, Simon acts like an obnoxious git because he gets paid to play a role. What's your excuse?

My excuse is I try t help nuts like you for nothing.

Thud and blunder
04-04-2008, 03:20 AM
BB wrote:
My family (kids) got me hooked on American Idol. I also have a music background so I have a good ear on pitch etc...

Nearly everytime, Simon and I are in sync, not all the time but a lot of the times. I would also say exactly what he would say. Just the hard truth.

So you see yourself as the Simon Cowell of TTW, the sardonic scourge of mediocrity and inflated egos.
That's all well and good, but I'd say you're rather blurring the distinction between reality TV and reality. Trying to emulate someone playing a pantomime role on TV isn't particularly big or clever.

justsomeguy
04-04-2008, 03:56 AM
What I think is funny is when a video is posted and it is established that the players in the video are N rated players in a USTA league, yet posters continue saying they are not at the level in which they actually play.

Its no secret that alot of adult league players have ugly and unorthodox strokes, mainly because they never worked with a teaching pro and have been playing for decades so they slowly raised their NTRP rating by experience alone. I think some people need to accept that tennis isn't always flashy. I'm wondering if alot of these posters are teens who have been instructed on good technique and just ignorantly assume anyone with poor technique must be below them NTRP-wise.

Thanks for the voice of reason. How many vids get posted out here of ball machine heroes with pretty strokes who couldn't win a match? Probably the same amount that are posted of people with ugly strokes who win at their level.

Your strokes don't define your rating.

Again: Your strokes don't define your rating.

Having Fed-like strokes matters not if you don't know how to use them to win games. Your package defines your rating. Your whole package. Watching a practice hit will never give a true idea of someone's level.

WBF
04-04-2008, 04:41 AM
justsomeguy: Usually just seeing a few strokes can give you a decent ballpark figure. Hell, with two serves alone it was easy enough to see that A. Lake was a very good player.

I haven't met many people who have awesome looking strokes but a poor game. Of course, I think some of the instances you might be thinking of are more along the lines of the same sort of people who rate A. Lake giving ratings to people they *think* have nice strokes.

Anyhow, NTRP is far too subjective. As has been pointed out many times, results are the only thing that matter, and even then, things can be deceptive.

blackfrido
04-04-2008, 04:45 AM
2.78 just an opinion

justsomeguy
04-04-2008, 05:55 AM
justsomeguy: Usually just seeing a few strokes can give you a decent ballpark figure. Hell, with two serves alone it was easy enough to see that A. Lake was a very good player.

I haven't met many people who have awesome looking strokes but a poor game. Of course, I think some of the instances you might be thinking of are more along the lines of the same sort of people who rate A. Lake giving ratings to people they *think* have nice strokes.

Anyhow, NTRP is far too subjective. As has been pointed out many times, results are the only thing that matter, and even then, things can be deceptive.

Never heard of A. Lake. I do agree with you, though. Sometimes a few strokes give the big picture.

It's always the same song with these videos. Everyone is an expert. I am not. I cannot see a few minutes of casual hitting and give an NTRP. I just don't understand why so many think they can. Maybe they can, I don't know.

Some of the people who think they are "experts" at this are often proven wrong when the real NTRP is revealed. Sometimes quite wrong. We have all seen it out here. Someone puts up a vid of a high level player not looking too good. The "experts" deem them 3.0 or whatever and then find out it's Ivanisevic. Pretty embarrassing. It won't stop them from doing it again and again.

baek57
04-04-2008, 06:02 AM
this is because they are rating what they see in the video... not what they don't see.

justsomeguy
04-04-2008, 06:17 AM
this is because they are rating what they see in the video... not what they don't see.

Agreed. And I feel you need to see it all to give an accurate rating of someone. The NTRP is about your whole game and the level you can compete against.

Obviously people cannot do this off of some practice footage. If they could, there would be much less argument about these online ratings.

There's the guy that plays open tournies that one of these experts said was 4.0.

Or the guy that plays D1 (currently) that can't be more than 4.0. Well, maybe 4.5 if the expert is feeling generous.

Isn't there a dude that is playing Futures that got bashed to hell and back for his sorry game?

And these were guys that posted their own videos. Not like they got caught playing crapping and someone put it out here. It just doesn't jive.

Bungalo Bill
04-04-2008, 06:29 AM
Liighten up Bungalo

We're lookin at a guy and disputing whether he shoudl be rated 4.0 in recretional tennis. Somebody said he was a former D1. The big disagreement as I read these posts is whether blue cap is a 4.0, not whether he played D1 tennis.

Lighten up? Didnt you provide a comeback as well? So would you say you need tolighten up too.

Plus, you need to read every post. The question is encompassing ALL of it. Geeez, man wake up.

Bungalo Bill
04-04-2008, 06:39 AM
The NTRP has been the standard now for some 25 years so I don't see where I'm making a moot point. Again using the NTRP guidelines they don't/won't hit every shot with depth or placement, in fact NTRP states they will still tend to overhit and make errors. Also, 4.0 players don't have big strong serves.

In actuality circusmouse, is correct. The initial rating from oberservation has an error factor in it compared to how they will fair in competition. So it is a bit moot.

A rating by an observer is many times done from a quick analysis. Much like the ratings are given here. There is no way you can provide a "REAL" rating based on a 30 second video clip with someone rallying or using a ball machine.

The ratings given here should be preliminary ratings and these ratings could easily changes based on how well they do in competition.

so it is moot, because it is competition that will determine where the person is in the ratings. People can even self-rate themselves but it is competition that will uncover the competitive rating.

35ft6
04-04-2008, 12:37 PM
Never heard of A. Lake. I do agree with you, though. Sometimes a few strokes give the big picture.

It's always the same song with these videos. Everyone is an expert. I am not. I cannot see a few minutes of casual hitting and give an NTRP. I just don't understand why so many think they can. Maybe they can, I don't know.Maybe they're not 100% always right, but yes, some people can do it. It's probably similar to seeing a nice jump shot or golf swing or seeing a guy shadow box. If I saw a video of Roy Jones Jr. shadow boxing for 5 seconds, I'd feel sure this guy is a very good boxer. You can get an idea, but recognizing the physical cues takes experience. In other sports, there are professional scouts, who are handsomely paid to evaluate a player's prospects in a relatively short amount of time. They might have a bad game but they might still rate a player high because of his size or throwing mechanics. It's not all BS.

35ft6
04-04-2008, 12:39 PM
What I think is funny is when a video is posted and it is established that the players in the video are N rated players in a USTA league, yet posters continue saying they are not at the level in which they actually play..Myself, when I just saw the serve, I guessed at least 5.5 or 6.0. The second link, where he's warming up groundstroke, didn't look as impressive. But clearly, based on results, the guy is 6.0 at least.

psYcon
04-04-2008, 05:01 PM
Um wow...no disrespect to the OP, but I'd rate these guys a solid 2.5. Maybe I just got alot better, but these guys are NOT 3.5-4.0 like many of the above posters have said. Nothing off the volleys, just tapping the ball over, technique needs help for both players on both wings...

Is there even such a thing as a solid 2.5?

iamke55
04-04-2008, 05:17 PM
The ease with which the guy in the blue hat generates pace should alone tell you this is 5.0 or higher.

J011yroger
04-04-2008, 05:52 PM
Myself, when I just saw the serve, I guessed at least 5.5 or 6.0. The second link, where he's warming up groundstroke, didn't look as impressive. But clearly, based on results, the guy is 6.0 at least.

Wrong thread. This is the other one, not the Andy Lake one.

J

CAM178
04-05-2008, 01:19 AM
Wrong thread. This is the other one, not the Andy Lake one.
J
Ha ha. . .I hope you know that 35's post is dripping with sarcasm.

J011yroger
04-05-2008, 06:17 AM
Ha ha. . .I hope you know that 35's post is dripping with sarcasm.

I think he genuinely messed up, there is only one link in this thread, and the lake one is the one with the first one warming up the serve, and the 2nd with the groundies.

J

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 06:36 AM
I think he genuinely messed up, there is only one link in this thread, and the lake one is the one with the first one warming up the serve, and the 2nd with the groundies.

J

He didnt mess up. You are the one that twisted my words into something you wanted it to mean.

There was no mistake on my part or anyones part. The bottom-line is the NTRP rating will get dtermined when competitive play starts. A rating from a video is just an estimate with a margin of error.

A rating from a video can happen because of HOW the person is playing. The person could be a 10.0 but on the video he is playing like a 5.0 taking balls lazily, not really hitting out. You rate based on what is provided. Period.

Why dont you stick your neck out so I can take a shot at you.

J011yroger
04-05-2008, 06:50 AM
He didnt mess up. You are the one that twisted my words into something you wanted it to mean.

There was no mistake on my part or anyones part. The bottom-line is the NTRP rating will get dtermined when competitive play starts. A rating from a video is just an estimate with a margin of error.

A rating from a video can happen because of HOW the person is playing. The person could be a 10.0 but on the video he is playing like a 5.0 taking balls lazily, not really hitting out. You rate based on what is provided. Period.

Why dont you stick your neck out so I can take a shot at you.

You are confused too. Go back and look at the video on the first page of this thread. It is not the one you are thinking of.

I never said a word to you in this thread.

I will post more vids by the end of the month since it is starting to warm up here, and I only have one tourney in April. Very excited actually to get a chance to look at them myself, and of course will share them with the boards for those who want to see.

J

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 07:04 AM
You are confused too. Go back and look at the video on the first page of this thread. It is not the one you are thinking of.

I never said a word to you in this thread.

I will post more vids by the end of the month since it is starting to warm up here, and I only have one tourney in April. Very excited actually to get a chance to look at them myself, and of course will share them with the boards for those who want to see.

J

It doesnt matter. You brought up something that you twisted whether it was in this post or another. I plan on seeing you through on it.

I would like you to start coaching providing tips and ratings. I want to be able to sit back and twsit your words. In other words, I didnt accept your apoligy.

ohplease
04-05-2008, 07:07 AM
Let's revisit ancient board history here:

I no longer want to destroy people with personal attacks. I saw the ugliness of the thread and it goes nowhere and is so meaningless that it is something I no longer want to participate in. I think it is useless, highly unprofessional, and I apoligize to you for any rude and personal remarks I made to you. I want to change and I am going to. It is time for me to grow-up in this area as I am realizing I might be back out on the courts again teaching and want people to believe I have an honest character and try hard ot help someone.

There is already much hate and anger in this world that I no longer want to be a part of it. I am going back to church and realizing the stupid things I did in the past and think it is trash. It is not good for me nor my family and I want to teach my children to be good people. But I have to set the example in all that I do.

That's BB - circa 2005 (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=38641). The fact of the matter is that while BB is certainly free to judge video from others in any way he sees fit ("my rating is my rating") - we're just as free to judge his conduct here, either by our standards, or his own - as stated.

And from here, that judgment is BB needs to check himself. This is THREE YEARS later, and frankly the worst club level hacker has made more progress in his game in that time than BB has in his personal conduct here.

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 07:09 AM
Let's revisit ancient board history here:



That's BB - circa 2005 (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=38641). The fact of the matter is that while BB is certainly free to judge video from others in any way he sees fit ("my rating is my rating") - we're just as free to judge his conduct here, either by our standards, or his own - as stated.

And from here, that judgment is BB needs to check himself. This is THREE YEARS later, and frankly the worst club level hacker has made more progress in his game in that time than BB has in his personal conduct here.

Geeez, dude, I gave that up a long time ago. Find the post where I said the GLOVES ARE OFF.

However, I think two can play that game. Any post you put up will be critqued. You have no chance.

J011yroger
04-05-2008, 07:10 AM
It doesnt matter. You brought up something that you twisted whether it was in this post or another. I plan on seeing you through on it.

I would like you to start coaching providing tips and ratings. I want to be able to sit back and twsit your words. In other words, I didnt accept your apoligy.

Well, here is the link for the thread where we were speaking before, if you would like to pick up where we left off.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=179773&page=9

I believe the last post by me to you was 139, stating "If you are mad I will stop"

Would be best to contain this to one thread, so the mods only delete that one.

I do provide coaching tips when I know what I am talking about, but not so much anymore since my wrist is better and I am back to gym/playing, and don't have as much time on the boards.

I only give out ratings when I am pretty sure that I am correct. Otherwise I just say "I don't know."

J

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 07:15 AM
Just as people look great but can't win, there are plenty of players out there whose results are much better than they look. I've said it before, but until tennis is judged like figure skating, you really can't tell anything from video. Not like you can with someone's USTA record.

This is so much crap it is ridiculous. Of course, you can see a player and how they do against the references the NTRP provides. It is dumb to think otherwise.

In league play, the adjustments are made for so many other reasons. A ton of people play DOWN to their talents. And therfore, the reference system gets readjusted. Even still, just because player loses at their level doesn tmean they shouldnt be at that level. If they are competitive and tthe sandbagging is kept in control, they should remain at that level and compete.

Your post is a bunch nonsense.

Historical results are AT LEAST an order of magnitude more informative. Which would you rather have - scouting video of every player on the team you're playing this week, or their tennislink records?

Of course they are. Wow, you my new Einstein. However, when a player wants to get rated initially, there is no HISTORICAL RESULTS! LOL!!!!!

So a video or other means of "getting an idea" is appropriate. It is just an estimate Einstein it isnt meant to be written in stone. GEt a clue.

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 07:19 AM
I only give out ratings when I am pretty sure that I am correct. Otherwise I just say "I don't know."

J

LOL, anyone who has played for a long time can get an idea of ratings. This isn't rocket science. Everyone has a margin for error as the rating is just a startig point or estimate. A rating is given based on what is provided. The rating will be sorted out in competitive play.

You use the NTRP definitions and make the rating. That is all it is. However, for you to pick apart an estimated rating is ridiculous. Especially, when you twist words. My ratings are not 100% accurate, but I am not afraid to provide a rating if asked. If the player doesnt agree, so what? It is just a frickin rating.

ohplease
04-05-2008, 07:23 AM
Geeez, dude, I gave that up a long time ago. Find the post where I said the GLOVES ARE OFF.

However, I think two can play that game. Any post you put up will be critqued. You have no chance.

C-R-I-T-I-Q-U-E-D.

Do you honestly think you're helping people? Near as I can tell you don't give a flying fig about helping ANYONE. All you seem to want is to be big man on campus and prove others wrong. Other knowledgeable teachers happen to have joined the boards recently. They bring a positive energy that you don't. Maybe your alpha dog instinct is to get all jealous and try to re-establish the proper pecking order (in your mind).

If being this vindictive and petty gets you off, I honestly feel sorry for you. The fact of the matter is certain recent additions to the boards have done more to help other board members in their short times here than you have in YEARS. Are you proud?

Gloves are off. On an internet message board. What are you going to do? Misspell me to death?

J011yroger
04-05-2008, 07:24 AM
LOL, anyone who has played for a long time can get an idea of ratings. This isn't rocket science. Everyone has a margin for error as the rating is just a startig point or estimate. A rating is given based on what is provided. The rating will be sorted out in competitive play.

You use the NTRP definitions and make the rating. That is all it is. However, for you to pick apart an estimated rating is ridiculous. Especially, when you twist words. My ratings are not 100% accurate, but I am not afraid to provide a rating if asked. If the player doesnt agree, so what? It is just a frickin rating.

Sorry Double B, I am off to the courts. If you wish to continue our conversation in the other thread, I will continue to reply in a calm civilized professional manner, stating my feelings and observations, mixing in my witty banter as necessary.

Until such time as we can restart our prior conversation, I regret that I must bid you adieu.

J

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 07:26 AM
Sorry Double B, I am off to the courts. If you wish to continue our conversation in the other thread, I will continue to reply in a calm civilized professional manner, stating my feelings and observations, mixing in my witty banter as necessary.

Until such time as we can restart our prior conversation, I regret that I must bid you adieu.

J


LOL, yeah, just what I thought. A calm civilized professional manner doesnt start the figtht with twisted words. You started it, so finish it. But I guess you already told me everything, you are afraid to give ratings, however, you are one to sit back and use them against others.

J011yroger
04-05-2008, 07:26 AM
Gloves are off. On an internet message board. What are you going to do? Misspell me to death?


Hey man, be careful! I almost spit my coffee out!

That was great. Gonna have to add that into my repertoire.

J

J011yroger
04-05-2008, 07:26 AM
LOL, yeah, just what I thought.

I love you too Double B.

J

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 07:28 AM
I love you too Double B.

J

LOL, run along now. See you when you get back.

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 07:33 AM
C-R-I-T-I-Q-U-E-D.

Do you honestly think you're helping people?

Oh no, havent helped a soul. Tell me what have you done in tennis? Except search for tips for your miserable game? Do you actually think you are going to change anything by posting a challenge as well? Do you think that doing a search on only one person on these boards makes you any different then what you are trying to get at?

Near as I can tell you don't give a flying fig about helping ANYONE.

Well obviously that is your lame opinion. Because if you searched through this site, you ain't gonna be right! LOL

All you seem to want is to be big man on campus and prove others wrong. Other knowledgeable teachers happen to have joined the boards recently. They bring a positive energy that you don't. Maybe your alpha dog instinct is to get all jealous and try to re-establish the proper pecking order (in your mind).

Really, and you?

If being this vindictive and petty gets you off, I honestly feel sorry for you. The fact of the matter is certain recent additions to the boards have done more to help other board members in their short times here than you have in YEARS. Are you proud?

LOL, well I know that isnt true. Where are you making up this stuff? Are you still hurt because I said your tips were lousey? LOL Are you? Are you vindictive?

Gloves are off. On an internet message board. What are you going to do? Misspell me to death?

You betcha.

shojun25
04-05-2008, 11:00 AM
If that video was a competitive match, then they are 4.0 ntrp. I've been playing a lot of 4.5 level guys lately, and I can tell that they are not at that level yet.

I could be wrong because the video editor seems to cut some parts of the videos. It seems like the person was only showing the highlights of the game.

TennisDawg
04-05-2008, 11:35 AM
Uhh, Tennis Anyone??

J011yroger
04-05-2008, 06:52 PM
LOL, run along now. See you when you get back.

Im back.

Long day, but you remember what it was like to be young and stupid, and play and train all day.

J

blubber
04-05-2008, 07:12 PM
C-R-I-T-I-Q-U-E-D.

Do you honestly think you're helping people? Near as I can tell you don't give a flying fig about helping ANYONE.

I've got lots of BB's tips saved somewhere on my computer.

Whenever I have a question about something I rarely make a post. I just type the search term, e.g. topspin forehand, and search for posts by BB, Yandell, or Tennismastery. I also like whamilton among the new guys.

BB doesn't need anyone to defend him. He has his own style and, believe it or not, some people like it. No bs, right to the point and in your face.

There are pages and pages of good info posted by BB. He is a great asset to the boards.

Leelord337
04-05-2008, 07:28 PM
Um wow...no disrespect to the OP, but I'd rate these guys a solid 2.5. Maybe I just got alot better, but these guys are NOT 3.5-4.0 like many of the above posters have said. Nothing off the volleys, just tapping the ball over, technique needs help for both players on both wings...

Agreed, i would have to go with 3.0 max. that one handed backhand needs some work. they look like they are playin in outerspace they moonball so much. :)

WBF
04-05-2008, 07:56 PM
While I understand that some people are conservative, I just can't comprehend why people use limiting phrases like 'max' or 'no higher', rather than more open statements allowing for error. Especially considering the fact that this isn't an exact science, and the input is quite limited.

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 08:31 PM
While I understand that some people are conservative, I just can't comprehend why people use limiting phrases like 'max' or 'no higher', rather than more open statements allowing for error. Especially considering the fact that this isn't an exact science, and the input is quite limited.

Now we are splitting hairs and expecting everyone to be crystal clear on a bulletin board.

If someone says "max" it is his best maximum guess. It still has to play out in competition. If the poster doesn't agree it should be no sweat off of anyone's back.

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2008, 08:34 PM
Im back.

Long day, but you remember what it was like to be young and stupid, and play and train all day.

J

LOL, Well I do remember I was young, but stupid? That is a crown that belongs on your head. Mr. "I want to be professional about things".HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

CAM178
04-06-2008, 12:53 PM
Who is this Bunghole Bill character? He seems to be about 11 yrs old, and is most certainly f'ing up the vibe in here.

Bungalo Bill
04-06-2008, 01:02 PM
Who is this Bunghole Bill character? He seems to be about 11 yrs old, and is most certainly f'ing up the vibe in here.

lol Do you know anything? Or are you missing parts too?

Geeez, I searched your posts for any intelligence in them and it was a joke. You have added nothing to this site. Nothing! You dont offer tips, help, insight, nothing! ROFLMAO!

I cant even comment on anything they are so empty. You're not even worth my time. LOL

tennispro11
04-06-2008, 03:11 PM
C-R-I-T-I-Q-U-E-D.

Do you honestly think you're helping people? Near as I can tell you don't give a flying fig about helping ANYONE. All you seem to want is to be big man on campus and prove others wrong. Other knowledgeable teachers happen to have joined the boards recently. They bring a positive energy that you don't. Maybe your alpha dog instinct is to get all jealous and try to re-establish the proper pecking order (in your mind).

If being this vindictive and petty gets you off, I honestly feel sorry for you. The fact of the matter is certain recent additions to the boards have done more to help other board members in their short times here than you have in YEARS. Are you proud?

Gloves are off. On an internet message board. What are you going to do? Misspell me to death?

So awesome! Keep it coming!

T

Bungalo Bill
04-06-2008, 03:14 PM
So awesome! Keep it coming!

T

LOL, poor little boy. Are you still hurt?

tennispro11
04-06-2008, 03:16 PM
LOL, run along now. See you when you get back.

Well at least he is playing tennis. Maybe you should go try that instead of telling everybody how good you were and what an awesome instructor you were. You know I especially liked your line about not believing in how much you were charging for lessons. LOL! You can go to any public court and give a lesson for free or charge whatever you like. That is the biggest load of bull ever.

T

tennispro11
04-06-2008, 03:17 PM
LOL, poor little boy. Are you still hurt?

Not at all. Just amused how you can keep making a bigger and bigger @ss of yourself everyday. You keep me entertained.

T

Bungalo Bill
04-06-2008, 03:19 PM
Well at least he is playing tennis. Maybe you should go try that instead of telling everybody how good you were and what an awesome instructor you were. You know I especially liked your line about not believing in how much you were charging for lessons. LOL! You can go to any public court and give a lesson for free or charge whatever you like. That is the biggest load of bull ever.

T

So what, what do you care. I am doing pretty darn good here. And you? Havent seen any tips coming from you. I already know you cant instruct.

You know what is funny? The very people that dont want antagonistic comments made, make them.

See you next post. LOL

Bungalo Bill
04-06-2008, 03:20 PM
Not at all. Just amused how you can keep making a bigger and bigger @ss of yourself everyday. You keep me entertained.

T

Oh gee, swear words now. Lots of hatred and hypocracy.

You know what is funny? The very people that dont want antagonistic comments made, make them.

tennispro11
04-06-2008, 03:25 PM
So what, what do you care. I am doing pretty darn good here. And you? Havent seen any tips coming from you. I already know you cant instruct.

You know what is funny? The very people that dont want antagonistic comments made, make them.

See you next post. LOL

Doing pretty darn good on a message board? :confused: I tend to not even care about the tips/instruction part of this board simply for the reason that I do it all day everyday. I don't get on here to help out a poor lost soul. That isn't what I do. I get on the internet to entertain myself and relax. You help make that possible.

T

tennispro11
04-06-2008, 03:26 PM
Oh gee, swear words now. Lots of hatred and hypocracy.

You know what is funny? The very people that dont want antagonistic comments made, make them.

I just like to antagonize you. You can dish it out but methinks you can't take it very well.

T

Bungalo Bill
04-06-2008, 03:31 PM
I just like to antagonize you. You can dish it out but methinks you can't take it very well.

T

Yeah, but it doesnt work. It only makes you madder. I just keep on giving advice after advice.

Plus, I am looking forward to read your advice. Or are your too stupid or scared to give it? ROFLMAO!!!!!!

tennispro11
04-06-2008, 03:33 PM
Yeah, but it doesnt work. It only makes you madder. I just keep on giving advice after advice.

Plus, I am looking forward to read your advice. Or are your too stupid or scared to give it? ROFLMAO!!!!!!

I don't have to give advice on here. You seem to do it all for me. You can keep your reign of tennis tips king. I don't really care. I am not mad at all. The guys that I work with all get a big kick out of you too. :)

T

Bungalo Bill
04-06-2008, 03:37 PM
I don't have to give advice on here. You seem to do it all for me.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! You mean I do it and you can't. You cant write or explain anything. You cant do it and you know I will read it and nail it. You are afraid. lol


You can keep your reign of tennis tips king. I don't really care. I am not mad at all. The guys that I work with all get a big kick out of you too. :)

LOL, another little meaingless jab of insults. Youre getting pretty good at the very thing you are trying to stop.

You bet I will continue to give tips and instruction.

dakels
04-06-2008, 03:37 PM
Hmm... I haven't posted in a while but in my past experience, Bungalo Bill usually has had a lot of solid input and helpful comments. Enough so that I would comment about it. While this thread doesn't paint a great picture, and I may not have seen recent posts, I know he has proven to be a valuable and knowledgeable poster in the past.

Bungalo Bill
04-06-2008, 03:40 PM
Hmm... I haven't posted in a while but in my past experience, Bungalo Bill usually has had a lot of solid input and helpful comments. Enough so that I would comment about it. While this thread doesn't paint a great picture, and I may not have seen recent posts, I know he has proven to be a valuable and knowledgeable poster in the past.

Thanks! But he knows that. He just doesnt want to admit it. He reads the posts and uses them. I have many recent posts that he cant comment on. He is just a little hurt that's all. The problem is, I won't bend one bit and that is what frustrates him.

He is just mad because I didnt give him a good rating. His footwork was slow and he needs work.

But I think you are going to make him madder because he is trying to enlist his "few good men" to do the very thing he is trying to not get me to do.

blubber
04-06-2008, 04:00 PM
Hmm... I haven't posted in a while

This is one of the things I like about BB's postings. It seems that whenever he's around he brings back a lot of the good posters who haven't been active for some time. That being said, he also brings out the inactive crazy posters too. ;)

JC
04-06-2008, 04:00 PM
Do you honestly think you're helping people? Near as I can tell you don't give a flying fig about helping ANYONE. All you seem to want is to be big man on campus and prove others wrong. Other knowledgeable teachers happen to have joined the boards recently. They bring a positive energy that you don't. Maybe your alpha dog instinct is to get all jealous and try to re-establish the proper pecking order (in your mind).

I have read bb's comments in many posts currently and for years. They are solid. Not even the best players on this section can match how he writes and the depth of his tennis knowledge and the research he provides. Sure he gets in heated conversations with people who are stubborn and BB is a bit stubborn himself, but the poster that is debating with him is just as bad. Sounds like you are a bit envious of his knowledge and his dedication which has been unwavering for years.

Bungalo Bill
04-06-2008, 04:05 PM
This is one of the things I like about BB's postings. It seems that whenever he's around he brings back a lot of the good posters who haven't been active for some time. That being said, he also brings out the inactive crazy posters too. ;)

:) I was just thinking this. Very good!

beernutz
04-06-2008, 06:42 PM
3.5 to 4.0 max.

Anyone saying 4.5 or 2.5 is on crack.

beernutz
04-06-2008, 06:48 PM
C-R-I-T-I-Q-U-E-D.

Do you honestly think you're helping people? Near as I can tell you don't give a flying fig about helping ANYONE. All you seem to want is to be big man on campus and prove others wrong. Other knowledgeable teachers happen to have joined the boards recently. They bring a positive energy that you don't. Maybe your alpha dog instinct is to get all jealous and try to re-establish the proper pecking order (in your mind).

If being this vindictive and petty gets you off, I honestly feel sorry for you. The fact of the matter is certain recent additions to the boards have done more to help other board members in their short times here than you have in YEARS. Are you proud?

Gloves are off. On an internet message board. What are you going to do? Misspell me to death?

LOL. I think you owe me one keyboard. This one has Coke Zero all over it.

sharpilistik
04-09-2008, 06:16 PM
3.5^^...........

Tennisman912
04-11-2008, 08:03 PM
As others have said a two minute video is not enough of to give a definitive rating. That said here is my assessment. We can certainly draw some conclusions based off the strokes shown.
Anyone who thinks they are 4.5 or above has never played a real 4.5 or above. They would be smoked by a 4.5 or a good 4.0 in my opinion. The 2.5 or below is also a little low in my opinion.

They both had weak serves, could not put volleys away with authority, did not move very well and had way to many short balls. They didn’t return particularly well either. A 4.5 will punish anything that lands near the service line with as little pace as was displayed on the video. A 5.0 would have them crying in the corner.
The guy in the cap did hit a few solid forehands but had some really bad BH volleys. His approaches were generally pretty short and with little pace or spin. He might hang with the weakest of 4.0s in my area but all around I would rate him 3.6-3.8 because of the volleys and serve (and movement). His FH was decent. His BH was ok but not strong enough for 4.0 tennis in my opinion.

The other guy was much worse and is no better than an avg 3.5. He played many out balls (way out), had a lolly pop serve, a weak backhand and no volleys at even the 4.0 level. He would get killed by even a good 4.0 in my area (not a tennis hot bed either).

People always seem to overestimate the abilities of themselves and those around them. I think I my assessment would be shared by most of the advanced players I know. That said, they seem like average adult players in the middle of the bell curve to me (I think I read that 65% of all tennis players are rated at 3.0 or 3.5). No offense to them or anyone else who disagrees with my assessment. We all need improvement somewhere.

Good Tennis To All.

TM