PDA

View Full Version : USTA Ranking


Sovereignty
02-04-2009, 03:31 PM
Hey guys, lately I have seen a lot of people saying that they are a "4.0" player, or "4.5 level player." I was wondering how you find out what you are, like what the test is. If you have a link to info, or even how to find out what you are, that would be awesome!

oneguy21
02-04-2009, 03:43 PM
Google ntrp rankings, and you should find it.

LeeD
02-04-2009, 03:49 PM
Yeah, rankings can be decieving.
Lotsa peeps dink they're 4.0 or 4.5's.... including me :):)
What 4.5 constitutes is at least 20 odd tournaments, mostly B, 4.5 or above levels, going at least mid rounds in most, not all, can hit all the shots including low backhand volleys and backhand overheads, have real first and second serves, can return 120 mph serves if they can reach it, have strokes very similar to the pros, can pass on both sides, have forehand topspin lobs, crosscourt short tops, and down the line deep shots, have at least as reliable a backhand as forehand, and can put away EVERY overhead that lands 4' past the service line.
That's basic minimum skills for a real "4.5" level player.
Me, no gots, so I say I'm 4.0.

WildVolley
02-04-2009, 04:17 PM
It is hard to determine how the descriptions of the general player characteristics relate to the match results.

Many people on these boards will argue that the only thing that counts is a computer ranking from actual USTA tournaments. I believe these change over time. One of my hitting partners is a guy who is currently a computer ranked 4.5 in Southern California. When he was younger, he was a computer ranked 5.5 in California. He's definitely not the player he used to be, but there are always stories of former division 1 college players in the 4.5 matches in California.

I'm not sure the ratings don't vary based on location and date. Any rating system is more an art than a science.

Most people who self-rank based on the written descriptions of the levels place themselves too high.

Okazaki Fragment
02-04-2009, 04:54 PM
Most people who self-rank based on the written descriptions of the levels place themselves too high.

It's USTA's fault.

This player is capable of hitting dependable shots in stress situations; has
developed good anticipation; can pick up cues from such things as opponent’s
toss, body position, backswing, preparation; first and second serves
can be depended on in stress situations and can be hit offensively at any
time; can analyze and exploit opponent's weaknesses; can vary strategies
and style of play in a competitive situation.

What NTRP is this?

LeeD
02-04-2009, 05:00 PM
Tennis is a competitive event.
Depends if this individual can do all those things against a real 4.5 or 5 or higher level player.
Can't rate based on ONE player. Need to know the competition.
I can do most of those things against 2.0 players, but given a solid 4.5, my memory lapse's and my strokes tighten up :confused::confused:

julian
02-04-2009, 05:02 PM
Yeah, rankings can be decieving.
Lotsa peeps dink they're 4.0 or 4.5's.... including me :):)
What 4.5 constitutes is at least 20 odd tournaments, mostly B, 4.5 or above levels, going at least mid rounds in most, not all, can hit all the shots including low backhand volleys and backhand overheads, have real first and second serves, can return 120 mph serves if they can reach it, have strokes very similar to the pros, can pass on both sides, have forehand topspin lobs, crosscourt short tops, and down the line deep shots, have at least as reliable a backhand as forehand, and can put away EVERY overhead that lands 4' past the service line.
That's basic minimum skills for a real "4.5" level player.
Me, no gots, so I say I'm 4.0.

Just for the record "can return 120 mph serves " is NOT really a requirement

oneguy21
02-04-2009, 05:02 PM
It's USTA's fault.

This player is capable of hitting dependable shots in stress situations; has
developed good anticipation; can pick up cues from such things as opponent’s
toss, body position, backswing, preparation; first and second serves
can be depended on in stress situations and can be hit offensively at any
time; can analyze and exploit opponent's weaknesses; can vary strategies
and style of play in a competitive situation.

What NTRP is this?


4.0?

10 char

Okazaki Fragment
02-04-2009, 05:03 PM
4.0?

10 char

I thought so too. USTA says it's 5.5!

obnoxious2
02-04-2009, 05:07 PM
Don't believe anyone's ranking of themselves on the boards. The general concensus is to subtract 2 points or more from whatever ranking people give themselves.

oneguy21
02-04-2009, 05:08 PM
I thought so too. USTA says it's 5.5!

Interesting. I haven't seen the guidebook in a long time. I remember seeing something much more fancy for 5.5.

LeeD
02-04-2009, 05:08 PM
Julian, sure it is....
By the time any of us get to the level "4.5", we've played over 100 different players, usually more than 10 lower level tournaments, and at least a few dozen servers who can easily exceed 120mph. If you can't return that speed, you are NOT 4.5, no way, no how, not yet, might never be......
I played guys in the C or 3.5 level who placed over 120 mph serves on the radar gun at GoldenGatePark SF fast serve contests. Not very many, mind you, but those guys were tall and strong, with good technique.
As a ranked B player, I was timed in 1977 at 129.4 fastest, with 3 others out of 7 tries over 128 mph.
Gotta return the fast serves, or you are NOT 4.5 level.

julian
02-04-2009, 07:00 PM
Julian, sure it is....
By the time any of us get to the level "4.5", we've played over 100 different players, usually more than 10 lower level tournaments, and at least a few dozen servers who can easily exceed 120mph. If you can't return that speed, you are NOT 4.5, no way, no how, not yet, might never be......
I played guys in the C or 3.5 level who placed over 120 mph serves on the radar gun at GoldenGatePark SF fast serve contests. Not very many, mind you, but those guys were tall and strong, with good technique.
As a ranked B player, I was timed in 1977 at 129.4 fastest, with 3 others out of 7 tries over 128 mph.
Gotta return the fast serves, or you are NOT 4.5 level.

Look from another angle.
Try to find via google a link to NTRP specification.
It avoids to the best of my knowledge numbers as much as possible.
If you cannot find it I will provide it in my next post.
www.usta.org has it somewhere.

Another angle:
a WTA player ranked 100-200 has problems returning 120 miles/hour serve even when serve close enough at their bodies.
Those women are ranked 6.5-7.0 NTRP.

The fastest Nadal's serve in Wimbledon is 130 miles/hour.
It can be checked via google.
My aim is NOT to be negative or
positive neither about you or women.
My credentials if needed are specified in my signature below
so I am an easy target :)

oneguy21
02-04-2009, 07:42 PM
I believe a well placed 120 mph serve may be difficult to return at any level.

Steady Eddy
02-04-2009, 08:10 PM
Maybe this will help. Tons of people are 3.5. I picked up tennis at age 23. Only took a few lessons. I usually play only on weekends, but sometimes I play almost every weekend. I've played for over 20 years, and I've been a 3.5 for years. It's not bad being a 3.5, because you can find so many people who play at your level. BTW, 3.5 is not a beginner. Beginners are surprised at how easily a 3.5 will bagel them.

5.5s and above are vanishingly small. You will only see them when you watch tournaments and college meets. Very rarely will a 5.5 be on the court where you're playing. And never, (it seems), will a 5.5 be the person you're hitting with. (Ratings below 3.5 don't seem to matter, 2.5s and 3.0s turn into 3.5s soon enough.)

GeoffB
02-04-2009, 09:10 PM
There's a pretty big gap between someone who says he's "around a 4.5 or so" and someone who has a computer-based 4.5 rating based on wins in league and tournament play. I agree that you can usually subtract one or even two points from a self-rated player, though a few people really do have a clue and self-rate properly.

I'd generally advise against self-rating 4.5 and above, and I'd show caution at 4.0. Almost all players at 4.5 and above have a tournament, junior, or college record.

Bud
02-04-2009, 10:45 PM
It's USTA's fault.

This player is capable of hitting dependable shots in stress situations; has
developed good anticipation; can pick up cues from such things as opponent’s
toss, body position, backswing, preparation; first and second serves
can be depended on in stress situations and can be hit offensively at any
time; can analyze and exploit opponent's weaknesses; can vary strategies
and style of play in a competitive situation.

What NTRP is this?

That is the description of a high NTRP :)

Bud
02-04-2009, 10:46 PM
4.0?

10 char

I thought so too. USTA says it's 5.5!

I really can't believe you two thought this was a 4.0 NTRP.

ssjkyle31
02-04-2009, 10:47 PM
I like to tell people I'm a 3.0 but they think otherwise once I started to hit or play a set with them. You can only tell your ranking when you play a league matches and/or tournaments.

Bud
02-04-2009, 10:50 PM
I like to tell people I'm a 3.0 but they think otherwise once I started to hit or play a set with them. You can only tell your ranking when you play a league matches and/or tournaments.

You can also tell when you play with others who are ranked and how you fair against them.

julian
02-05-2009, 05:16 AM
Please click
http://www.usta.com/USTA/Global/Active/Custom%20Pages/Leagues/1237_NTRP.aspx

see as well
http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/sitecore_usta/USTA/Document%20Assets/2008/02/14/doc_13_7372.pdf

Bottle Rocket
02-05-2009, 07:30 AM
Yeah, rankings can be decieving.
Lotsa peeps dink they're 4.0 or 4.5's.... including me :):)
What 4.5 constitutes is at least 20 odd tournaments, mostly B, 4.5 or above levels, going at least mid rounds in most, not all, can hit all the shots including low backhand volleys and backhand overheads, have real first and second serves, can return 120 mph serves if they can reach it, have strokes very similar to the pros, can pass on both sides, have forehand topspin lobs, crosscourt short tops, and down the line deep shots, have at least as reliable a backhand as forehand, and can put away EVERY overhead that lands 4' past the service line.
That's basic minimum skills for a real "4.5" level player.
Me, no gots, so I say I'm 4.0.

Uhhh... No. Are you kidding me?

What constitutes a 4.5 player is results. An example is someone who can routinely or occasionalyl beat players ranked as a 4.5 in a USTA tournament or a USTA leage (beating them IN a tournament or a league, that is). 4.5's are winning matches and tournaments all over the place and most of them lack a good deal of the skills you mention, hell, some lack all of them. That may be the most ridiculous definition I have ever seen.

If a 4.5 player has all these things, then a whole bunch of guys in the top 20 in the world have been decieving the crap out of me. Little did I know, they are actually 4.0's.

Put away every forehand that lands 4' past the service line? I bet Roddick would have something to say about this. Or, uhhh, the majority of 4.5 players I have ever played, and I am no Nadal.

Have "at least" as reliable backhand as a forehand? Yep, there definitely aren't any 4.5s that have stronger forehands than backahnds. The pro's, of course, have "at least" as reliable backhand as a forehand. In fact, once you get above 4.5, you'll find that everyone's backhand is actually better than their forehand.

You've got to be kidding me.

Slicendicer
02-05-2009, 07:35 AM
Hey guys, lately I have seen a lot of people saying that they are a "4.0" player, or "4.5 level player." I was wondering how you find out what you are, like what the test is. If you have a link to info, or even how to find out what you are, that would be awesome!

The best "gauge" is to play ranked players.

What you'll find is alot of players like to rate + 3.5, so they rate themselves higher.. like "I'm a low 4.0."

Inversely, alot of players like to win matches and rate themselves lower, like a true 4.5 playing 3.5 doubles. He thinks he is the greatest tennis player on the face of the tennis court. :)

LeeD
02-05-2009, 08:48 AM
Brian, you are dreaming. Harsh maybe, but reality can be harsh.
Brian, you read and comprehend like a 14 year old. No one said you gotta put away every forehand that lands 4' past the service line. YOU GET A D- for BAD COMPREHENSION !!:twisted::twisted:
Try reading my post again.
Didn't I say a 4.5 player PLAYS in multiple 4.5 and above tournaments? You get a C- for miscomprehension there.
Your second to last paragraph is a rambling mystery of assorted ideas and some facts. You get a D for that one. Try expousing ONE idea per paragraph, instead of rambling on and on about different subjects.
OK, sorry, I truly am. You ARE 14 years old!:shock::shock:

JavierLW
02-05-2009, 09:27 AM
Brian, you are dreaming. Harsh maybe, but reality can be harsh.
Brian, you read and comprehend like a 14 year old. No one said you gotta put away every forehand that lands 4' past the service line. YOU GET A D- for BAD COMPREHENSION !!:twisted::twisted:
Try reading my post again.
Didn't I say a 4.5 player PLAYS in multiple 4.5 and above tournaments? You get a C- for miscomprehension there.
Your second to last paragraph is a rambling mystery of assorted ideas and some facts. You get a D for that one. Try expousing ONE idea per paragraph, instead of rambling on and on about different subjects.
OK, sorry, I truly am. You ARE 14 years old!:shock::shock:

Or he could of just ignored your post like I did.

(it's just full of random ramblings, vague concepts, run-on sentences and it's all on it's usual single paragraph style, etc....)

I think it's a common concept on here that 4.5 is when the players "start to look" more like professionals, which does seperate it somewhat from 4.0. (it DOES not mean that they are anywhere close competitively, it just means to the layman their skills usually are solid enough that it's similar to watch versus 4.0 and below)

But like BR said, ultimately ratings are based on results, not vague generalitys about their skillset or their play.

If someone doesnt have any results, then it's just a guess of how they would do if they were placed in any given level. (which can vary from location to location because it's rarely as described on the NTRP chart)

LeeD
02-05-2009, 10:16 AM
Javier....
I was the FIRST to say a 4.5 player has to play in multiple 4.5 and above level tournaments, remember?
I might ramble, and you are free to ignore my posts.
Obviously, you chose not to read my original post.

Bottle Rocket
02-05-2009, 10:28 AM
I am not even going to comment on the majority of what you said because I just don't care. I do, however, wish I was 14 years old again.


Brian, you read and comprehend like a 14 year old. No one said you gotta put away every forehand that lands 4' past the service line. YOU GET A D- for BAD COMPREHENSION !!:twisted::twisted:
Try reading my post again.

When I went back and tried to read it again, I found the following:


What 4.5 constitutes is...at least as reliable a backhand as forehand, and can put away EVERY overhead that lands 4' past the service line.
That's basic minimum skills for a real "4.5" level player.

LeeD
02-05-2009, 10:34 AM
Yes, every OVERHEAD !!
You misquoted me and said forehand !
See, there is a difference between and overhead and a forehand. It starts with a difference in incoming ball heights. It ends with the actual stroke difference. An overhead is hit like a serve, OVERHEAD ! A forehand is hit like a forehand.... to your side.
That is the difference between an overhead and a forehand!:):)
Try reading your first reply to me again.
ps, I'm sorry, but that one was called for....

Bottle Rocket
02-05-2009, 10:37 AM
ps, I'm sorry, but that one was called for....

Ooops, maybe I am 14.

Either way, everything else stands, and I still believe most of what you said is ridiculous.

raiden031
02-05-2009, 10:43 AM
Or he could of just ignored your post like I did.

(it's just full of random ramblings, vague concepts, run-on sentences and it's all on it's usual single paragraph style, etc....)

I think it's a common concept on here that 4.5 is when the players "start to look" more like professionals, which does seperate it somewhat from 4.0. (it DOES not mean that they are anywhere close competitively, it just means to the layman their skills usually are solid enough that it's similar to watch versus 4.0 and below)

But like BR said, ultimately ratings are based on results, not vague generalitys about their skillset or their play.

If someone doesnt have any results, then it's just a guess of how they would do if they were placed in any given level. (which can vary from location to location because it's rarely as described on the NTRP chart)

I don't have alot of experience with 4.5 players, but I will say that the *typical* skills exhibited by 4.5 players do not impress me. I have seen 3.5 who have more "pro-looking" strokes. I have seen 4.5 players who look good, but I've also seen 4.5s that I swear I could beat (had I not known better). In the few times I have played against 4.5 players on the court, I have not noticed great differences between my skills and theirs. I know that they have more experience and can often make more sound strategic decisions and are also more consistent, but typically they would not blow me off the court with superior skills. (I'm a very low 4.0 within the computer system)

I would say 5.0 is where you separate the men from the boys. I have seen some 5.0 players that made me say "wow".

LeeD
02-05-2009, 10:44 AM
I'm glad you feel free to disagree !!
This is a forum, and as such, we're gonna have different ideas all the time.
My ramblings come from a 3rd year player who was ranked B's, never played any tournaments lower than A, and went 4 rounds the first year, 5 the second in the pro qualifier for the TransAmericaTournament in SanFrancisco.
My second year of tennis, first tourament ever, lost in finals of C's.
That second year, I hit and played with ArtLarsen, ChuckWhite (USF"s coach), PeanutLouie, CeciMartinez, and a few other pretty famous local A players.
Ho dat, you ask? Well hey, I was a handsome 26 year old with the biggest lefty serve around.:twisted::twisted: ok, the handsome part is a lie.:confused:

julian
02-05-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm glad you feel free to disagree !!
This is a forum, and as such, we're gonna have different ideas all the time.
My ramblings come from a 3rd year player who was ranked B's, never played any tournaments lower than A, and went 4 rounds the first year, 5 the second in the pro qualifier for the TransAmericaTournament in SanFrancisco.
My second year of tennis, first tourament ever, lost in finals of C's.
That second year, I hit and played with ArtLarsen, ChuckWhite (USF"s coach), PeanutLouie, CeciMartinez, and a few other pretty famous local A players.
Ho dat, you ask? Well hey, I was a handsome 26 year old with the biggest lefty serve around.:twisted::twisted: ok, the handsome part is a lie.:confused:
My post above #21 provides links to an USTA site.
4.5 is defined OVERTHERE in a very precise way and leaves a very little space to disagree

Okazaki Fragment
02-05-2009, 12:33 PM
I don't have alot of experience with 4.5 players, but I will say that the *typical* skills exhibited by 4.5 players do not impress me. I have seen 3.5 who have more "pro-looking" strokes. I have seen 4.5 players who look good, but I've also seen 4.5s that I swear I could beat (had I not known better). In the few times I have played against 4.5 players on the court, I have not noticed great differences between my skills and theirs. I know that they have more experience and can often make more sound strategic decisions and are also more consistent, but typically they would not blow me off the court with superior skills. (I'm a very low 4.0 within the computer system)

I would say 5.0 is where you separate the men from the boys. I have seen some 5.0 players that made me say "wow".

Weren't you the guy who won 3.0 nationals?

raiden031
02-05-2009, 01:13 PM
Weren't you the guy who won 3.0 nationals?

Yeah, why?

JavierLW
02-05-2009, 01:31 PM
Javier....
I was the FIRST to say a 4.5 player has to play in multiple 4.5 and above level tournaments, remember?
I might ramble, and you are free to ignore my posts.
Obviously, you chose not to read my original post.

Saying that sentence and saying what I said is not the same thing.

If you read it as you wrote it, it sounds like unless you play in multiple 4.5 and above tournaments you are not a 4.5???

In fact if you really want to nitpick it sounds like your saying that if someone doesnt get to the "mid-round" then they are not 4.5. That's one school of thought but I dont agree with that.

Within any given level ideally you'll have players who win all the time, players who have an average win rate, and also players who lose to everyone except for 4.0 players. That's why it's a skill rating and not a ranking.

If they are losing 6-0, 6-1 everytime, that's different but if they are actually in the matches and had a chance of winning then you cant necessarily say they are an entire level below them even if they just cant seem to get over the hump.

Also that statement as written does not make a ton of sense at face value because a person may be playing in just leagues (either USTA or renegade or club). Or they may be playing their friends that happen to be 4.5's but they just dont bother with tournaments. Etc...

Also if someone does go into those tournaments and does well right off the bat, then you would say they WERE 4.5 already.

I just merely stated that it's a guess up until that point. Someone can make a really good guess and put someone at the right level (usually your local tennis pro should help you out with that), but not always.

As far as nitpicking the rest of what you said in your first post, I didnt bother because you're guess is as good as anyone's. It's not that you said anything wrong, it's just that they are generalized to point as to be almost meaningless.

Okazaki Fragment
02-05-2009, 02:40 PM
Yeah, why?

I'm just amazed that you can hang with 4.5's now. It's a huge jump from 3.0 to 4.5 in less than 3 years.

raiden031
02-05-2009, 03:11 PM
I'm just amazed that you can hang with 4.5's now. It's a huge jump from 3.0 to 4.5 in less than 3 years.

I think you misunderstood me. I said I'm a low 4.0 (3.60) in the computer system (double-bumped), which is a very accurate representation of my rating IMO. I even admit that I don't have *alot* of experience with 4.5s, but have played a few, but watched many more. I don't notice any big jumps in actual skill like power, spin, serves, groundstrokes, etc. I do see smarter shot selection and more consistency, but I can easily see myself playing at their level with more experience and practice down the road.

LeeD
02-05-2009, 04:18 PM
Javier....
You KNOW I claim to be 4.0 now, and that my previous ranking was 4.5.
I won 4 rounds in qualifying for the 1979 TransAmericaPRO tournament in SanFrancisco. That DOES NOT qualify me as a 6.0 or whatever player! Not even A player.
Just because you enter UP from your level doesn't mean you belong there...in this case, we're talking about ME ME ME ME.
Yes, I won a few rounds. Maybe luck, maybe the other's got sick, drove all night, didn't have their "A" set of rackets, didn't like playing late at nights,.... whatever.
You ARE 4.5 when you belong there. To me, it's going a few or more rounds every tournament, not getting blasted by anyone of your ranking, handling most of the balls coming your way, ....in the 4.5 level !
Lucky abberations do not count. You gotta go thru the ranks.

JavierLW
02-05-2009, 05:34 PM
Javier....
You KNOW I claim to be 4.0 now, and that my previous ranking was 4.5.
I won 4 rounds in qualifying for the 1979 TransAmericaPRO tournament in SanFrancisco. That DOES NOT qualify me as a 6.0 or whatever player! Not even A player.
Just because you enter UP from your level doesn't mean you belong there...in this case, we're talking about ME ME ME ME.
Yes, I won a few rounds. Maybe luck, maybe the other's got sick, drove all night, didn't have their "A" set of rackets, didn't like playing late at nights,.... whatever.
You ARE 4.5 when you belong there. To me, it's going a few or more rounds every tournament, not getting blasted by anyone of your ranking, handling most of the balls coming your way, ....in the 4.5 level !
Lucky abberations do not count. You gotta go thru the ranks.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. You are right that you are merely talking about yourself.

And 4.0 and 4.5 is a RATING, not a ranking.

Your suggestions do not relate strictly to the topic because RATINGS are used for other things besides tournaments. Maybe you want to compare it with your A, B, C leagues (whatever those are) but they are not the same thing.

Again, those are SKILL levels, not RANKINGS.

I disagree with your assessment because there are a lot of people who clobber everyone at one level (again, it's a SKILL level), yet they use their shortcomings as an argument as to why they dont belong in the next level. (ie... they are only winning a few rounds now, not the whole entire thing or close to it so they must not belong there!!!)

LeeD
02-05-2009, 05:42 PM
Ringers play down to collect trophies.
Some players play up to improve their games and get better!
Rankings, ratings, whatever.... only YOU care.

JavierLW
02-05-2009, 05:59 PM
Ringers play down to collect trophies.
Some players play up to improve their games and get better!
Rankings, ratings, whatever.... only YOU care.

And you dont? Then why are you even responding to this thread?

You fail to realize that you dont know the difference between a rating and a ranking. A common mistake.

If you are out giving grades for comprehension the least you can do is get the terms right.

Fire is hot. Ice cubes are cold. (it's about as relevant as your response)

Maybe if you werent so self centered you could try to figure out where others are coming from and make a decent argument. (or admit that you are wrong)

Bottle Rocket
02-05-2009, 06:52 PM
I'm just amazed that you can hang with 4.5's now. It's a huge jump from 3.0 to 4.5 in less than 3 years.

If he won nationals at 3.0, I think he was better than a 3.0 3 years ago.

It is has never made sense to me, initially (winning nationals at a certain level, since it seems obvious you're not at that level - if you win nationals!), but then when I think about it, I realize that someone has to win it all. So then things start making slightly more sense. But it's still messed up and I'll never understand the appeal of running through everyone at a tournament.

Okazaki Fragment
02-05-2009, 07:26 PM
If he won nationals at 3.0, I think he was better than a 3.0 3 years ago.

It is has never made sense to me, initially (winning nationals at a certain level, since it seems obvious you're not at that level), but then when I think about it, I realize that someone has to win it all. So then things start making slightly more sense. But it's still messed up and I'll never understand the appeal of running through everyone at a tournament.

If I remember correctly (which I may not), he said he started playing tennis about a year or two before he won 3.0 nationals.

raiden031
02-06-2009, 03:29 AM
If I remember correctly (which I may not), he said he started playing tennis about a year or two before he won 3.0 nationals.

I've been playing tennis since 2000. I've been playing *competitive* tennis for 2 years. In that 2 years I had the skills to be a 4.0, but I did not have the competitive experience nor the consistency to do it. But you said that I was saying I can hang with 4.5s, but I didn't say that. Even though a 4.5 will beat me soundly scorewise, I don't think the actual skills they have are that much greater. But I also realize that the higher your level, the more effort it takes to improve even marginally. So when I look at 4.5 I don't think to myself that I'm watching an impressive player. Its not until I see a 5.0 that I start becoming impressed.

raiden031
02-06-2009, 03:32 AM
If he won nationals at 3.0, I think he was better than a 3.0 3 years ago.

It is has never made sense to me, initially (winning nationals at a certain level, since it seems obvious you're not at that level - if you win nationals!), but then when I think about it, I realize that someone has to win it all. So then things start making slightly more sense. But it's still messed up and I'll never understand the appeal of running through everyone at a tournament.

To put it in perspective. All of our team members got moved up to 3.5 after the win, except for 2 of us who got moved to 4.0. Our 2 captains did not get moved up because they suck though! Good minds but not good players. We had a couple self-rates and appeal players which you can say might invalidate our accomplishment, but at least I had a legit computer rating at the time that was earned 100% in good faith.

Topaz
02-06-2009, 03:41 AM
The only way to determine your NTRP *rating* with any accuracy is to play USTA leagues and/or USTA sanctioned tournaments. RESULTS is what determines a true NTRP level.

And, yes, ratings and rankings are two completely different things. The way the two words are being thrown around here will just lead to more confusion. Javier had it spot on...NTRP is a skill level rating. A ranking is something you get when you play a sanctioned USTA tournament and get at least one win (in something like open or age group or even NTRP levels)...then you may get a *ranking* at whatever particular level you played.

JHBKLYN
02-07-2009, 09:13 PM
It is has never made sense to me, initially (winning nationals at a certain level, since it seems obvious you're not at that level - if you win nationals!), but then when I think about it, I realize that someone has to win it all. So then things start making slightly more sense. But it's still messed up and I'll never understand the appeal of running through everyone at a tournament.

3.0 Nationals are won with 3.5 players. 3.5 Nationals are won with 4.0 players, etc. etc. etc. When I was a 3.0, my team went to Sectionals like 3 times and our team was filled with more legitimate 3.0 players than 3.5 players. But every time we went to Sectionals, we were always beaten by teams with more 3.5's than us. They were younger, stronger, and faster. Nothing but a bunch of cheaters!!! But when some of our sandbagging .. I mean 3.0 players got bumped up to 3.5, the party was over and it was the other team with 3.5 players rated at 3.0 that went to sectionals. Of course, they got their butts kicked by players who weren't really 3.0s. Those were the days! :)