PDA

View Full Version : tournamehnr


Noaler
11-02-2009, 02:47 PM
why does it say (Does not count towards total points) sometimes on rankings?

ive seen this for awhile but just asking now

GolfDad
11-02-2009, 04:08 PM
If they take top 8 scores for the ranking then all the other lower scores will be ignored.

Noaler
11-02-2009, 04:12 PM
wow thats dumb

tennismom42
11-02-2009, 04:24 PM
wow thats dumbwelcome to the USTA. It's designed to make you go to more tournaments, so the USTA can collect more fees, so the USTA can build more multi billion dollar facilities, so the USTA can focus on 20 kids.

ClarkC
11-02-2009, 05:02 PM
welcome to the USTA. It's designed to make you go to more tournaments, so the USTA can collect more fees, so the USTA can build more multi billion dollar facilities, so the USTA can focus on 20 kids.

What would you say if all tournaments counted? That would sound more like a system designed to get you to go to more tournaments. Someone who played 20 tournaments would have a big advantage over someone who played 12.

Right now, in age groups above the 12s, the top 5 singles and top 5 doubles results count in sectional rankings. Only 5. How does that make someone play tons of tournaments?

It seems the USTA is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

tennismom42
11-02-2009, 06:18 PM
What would you say if all tournaments counted? I would call it a ladder. I liked the old system, before points per round. Yes, it had it's own problems. The difference is that kids cared about their ranking back then. They looked, they talked about it. Now the kids don't care what last Wednesday's rankings were or what next Wednesday's rankings might be. Few know how the PPR section works, instead they just complain. Before it was competition & it made sense to move up a few positions because you beat someone higher ranked. Now, they have a good win and they're left with "it's a crap shoot if I moved up any."

I still can't multi quote. I even looked at your directions.

ClarkC
11-03-2009, 04:15 PM
I would call it a ladder.

You can challenge players on a ladder. Not in any USTA system.

I like the current system and think there is way too much whining about it on these boards, really.

ClarkC
11-03-2009, 04:17 PM
wow thats dumb

welcome to the USTA. It's designed to make you go to more tournaments, so the USTA can collect more fees, so the USTA can build more multi billion dollar facilities, so the USTA can focus on 20 kids.

Here is a multi-quote, done exactly as I said. First, I clicked on the quotation marks icon on Noaler's post. Then I clicked Quote on your post.

andfor
11-03-2009, 04:22 PM
You can challenge players on a ladder. Not in any USTA system.

I like the current system and think there is way too much whining about it on these boards, really.

The system overall is good. I would like to see more points awarded at local tournaments. The way the system is set up players must travel for the most part to get lots of ranking points. Not whining, just saying.

TennisNinja
11-03-2009, 04:53 PM
It makes sense so people can't just play as many tournaments as possible, racking up one or two wins each tourney and be ridiculously high ranked just because they entered a ton of tournaments.

tennismom42
11-03-2009, 05:52 PM
Here is a multi-quote, done exactly as I said. First, I clicked on the quotation marks icon on Noaler's post. Then I clicked Quote on your post.

Oh, but within one post can I multi-post? Typically I just delete out a lot of what I don't want from the original poster.

So, if I wanted to say something to two issues within their post, can I multi-post?

ClarkC
11-03-2009, 06:57 PM
Oh, but within one post can I multi-post? Typically I just delete out a lot of what I don't want from the original poster.

So, if I wanted to say something to two issues within their post, can I multi-post?

OK, that is different from multi-quoting.

To break up someone's post into chunks so I can respond a piece at a time, I have to edit the HTML tags directly. So if the quoted post starts out QUOTE=whoever, with square brackets around this, and ends with backslash QUOTE with square brackets around it, then I have to do some HTML tag editing to end up with: (square brackets omitted in all cases below)

QUOTE=whoever
whatever they said in their first paragraph
backslash QUOTE <=== I have to insert this

my response

QUOTE=whoever <=== I have to insert this
their second paragraph
backslash QUOTE

my second response

You have to be careful to match the QUOTE with the backslash QUOTE each time.

ClarkC
11-03-2009, 07:01 PM
The system overall is good. I would like to see more points awarded at local tournaments. The way the system is set up players must travel for the most part to get lots of ranking points. Not whining, just saying.

You have to have a clear hierarchy of points so that top players NEED to show up at the same tournaments and play each other. If they could stay home and not meet each other in competition, that would not help their development.

As is often the case, when people criticize the USTA or TRN ranking systems, they have not really considered why they work the way they do and what the problems would be with the alternatives. That's why I call it whining. There is no perfect system, and the proposals are just as problematic as the current systems.

Maybe people should seek out levels of competition, and development of their games, rather than ranking points. The points will come.

andfor
11-03-2009, 08:11 PM
You have to have a clear hierarchy of points so that top players NEED to show up at the same tournaments and play each other. If they could stay home and not meet each other in competition, that would not help their development.

As is often the case, when people criticize the USTA or TRN ranking systems, they have not really considered why they work the way they do and what the problems would be with the alternatives. That's why I call it whining. There is no perfect system, and the proposals are just as problematic as the current systems.

Maybe people should seek out levels of competition, and development of their games, rather than ranking points. The points will come.

Understood. I did not elaborate much on my point. Many local tournaments (Level 5 here in the Southerns) are weak due to most of the stronger players choosing not to play them. Often its a case of players dodging other local players and or chasing points at the larger out of town tournaments. Of course going out of town to play better competition is another legit reason as well.

A possible solution may be having sections add more Level 3 and 4 tournaments spread across the section geographicically as evenly as possible may help. Some large cities here in the South don't even host a large sectional tournament i.e. Nashville, TN. Some cities such as Jackson, MS and Little Rock, AR have multiple large tournaments.

scraps234
11-04-2009, 11:11 AM
It makes sense so people can't just play as many tournaments as possible, racking up one or two wins each tourney and be ridiculously high ranked just because they entered a ton of tournaments.
or kids could play things called super set 1 day events and play the 3 times in the weekend... if they won all their matches they could have like 600 points depending on the ranking of the other player (just adding that onto the total)

Dave Mc
11-04-2009, 12:11 PM
I think the PPR system is better than the TRN system (the old STAR system). Years ago under the old system, our son played a major sectional tournament in January, with icicles hanging from the net, fence, lights (and his nose)... and he suffered a "bad loss" to a much lower ranked kid. This loss weighed his ranking down for one full year like a huge anchor. Under the old system, you should find yourself ranked somewhere between your best win and your worst loss. But this particular bad loss dropped him lower than his worst loss. After a couple of emails, I finally got the section office to admit that his ranking appeared wrong, but they couldn't do anything about it because the system was too complicated. The next January, we skipped that tournament, and his ranking shot way up to where we expected it to be all along.

When our section switched to PPR, his new ranking was not affected much... he and the kids ranked around him were pretty much where they were before under the old system, so we were happy. The PPR system is better because you can fearlessly enter all tournaments... bad losses will never hurt your ranking (unless you fail to defend important points from last year)... and good wins could potentially help your ranking (if opponent is on bonus points list).

chalkflewup
11-20-2009, 01:59 AM
The ranking systems as it is now -- works. Is it perfect? No. Are there flaws? Sure. Life isn't perfect.

AM95
12-13-2009, 10:41 AM
welcome to the USTA. It's designed to make you go to more tournaments, so the USTA can collect more fees, so the USTA can build more multi billion dollar facilities, so the USTA can focus on 20 kids.

i noticed that the kids in my section pretty much buy their ranking...im 32-10 ..and im ranked lower then i kid who is 10-14 because he played more lvl 1 tournaments, and has more points.... which is why i dont care about my ranking any more

the usta fails..

AM95
12-13-2009, 10:45 AM
The ranking systems as it is now -- works. Is it perfect? No. Are there flaws? Sure. Life isn't perfect.

but people shouldnt be able to buy their own ranking though? or standings..whatever the usta wants to call them.

if i had any position in the usta i'd make the system like the ATP system. have a set number of tournaments, have players register/qualify (qualifiers receive points per each match they win), then have the winner defend his or her title and if they dont..they lose points.

by playing more tournaments, and winning matches in tournaments with a higher point value then another tournament, your pretty much buying your ranking. this way it would be 30 times better for the players, and the competition would be alot greater, as rivalries would develop..

and the 45 dollar registration fee is ridiculous.. for 45 damned dollars, i deserve goddamn umpire on my court.

tennismom42
12-13-2009, 07:29 PM
but people shouldnt be able to buy their own ranking though? or standings..whatever the usta wants to call them.

if i had any position in the usta i'd make the system like the ATP system. have a set number of tournaments, have players register/qualify (qualifiers receive points per each match they win), then have the winner defend his or her title and if they dont..they lose points.

by playing more tournaments, and winning matches in tournaments with a higher point value then another tournament, your pretty much buying your ranking. this way it would be 30 times better for the players, and the competition would be alot greater, as rivalries would develop..

and the 45 dollar registration fee is ridiculous.. for 45 damned dollars, i deserve goddamn umpire on my court.The current USTA system is very, very similar to the ATP system that you described. What you don't understand is that only there is a maximum number of tournaments that count into the ranking. So you just can't buy endlessly. I am too lazy to look right now but I think that the max is the top 9 tournaments.

You're complaining about a $45 tournament fee? Try $81, $92 or $102. That's the cost of the level 1s and level 2s. plus the travel costs. Sometimes rankings will get someone qulified to enter a higher tournament, but sometimes it doesn't. Most sections require sectional endorsement in order to get into the level 1 and level 2 tournaments. If you screw up & fail to meet your sections' endorsement rules, you don't get to go on to the higher level, unless you get a wild card.

chalkflewup
12-14-2009, 02:41 AM
In my opinion, the system is fine the way it is except for doubles. The current ranking system doesn't entice kids to play doubles which is really a shame. I'd rather see a big doubles only tournament once a month or every two months instead of the current method. In Florida, they combine doubles with the single elimination Super Series (singles). So as soon as junior loses in singles, many parents take off because they don't want to hang around until Saturday night or Sunday for doubles.

Rankings are important from the standpoint of getting a kid into a tournament -- and that's about it. A much larger problem looms with parents wanting coaches to coach and show immediate results in the rankings instead of teaching kids how to play tennis properly.

momtogrif
12-14-2009, 06:14 AM
You have to have a clear hierarchy of points so that top players NEED to show up at the same tournaments and play each other. If they could stay home and not meet each other in competition, that would not help their development.

As is often the case, when people criticize the USTA or TRN ranking systems, they have not really considered why they work the way they do and what the problems would be with the alternatives. That's why I call it whining. There is no perfect system, and the proposals are just as problematic as the current systems.

Maybe people should seek out levels of competition, and development of their games, rather than ranking points. The points will come.

So true and it's what I keep telling my 11 year old. He is obsessed with the rankings in the Southwest. I did notice that the last Level 6 local tournament he played in, he did not get ranking points for it but I don't have the time to research the reason for it.

I have noticed that the kids at the top of the rankings are the ones who play national tournaments and who travel, etc. We haven't gotten to that level of competition yet so I'm trying to stress to my son that he needs to focus on playing the ball, playing HIS game that his coach instructs him to do, and on having fun. I figured in a few years this all may change anyway, we're seeing kids drop out of tennis to focus on basketball, gymnastics, etc. so things can change from month to month on those ranking lists.
And, vice versa, we're seeing brand new kids come to tennis as a change from soccer or baseball, etc. I figure as long as my kid stays active, I don't care what sport he chooses....for now, it's tennis.

tennismom42
12-14-2009, 07:52 AM
In my opinion, the system is fine the way it is except for doubles. The current ranking system doesn't entice kids to play doubles which is really a shame. I'd rather see a big doubles only tournament once a month or every two months instead of the current method. In Florida, they combine doubles with the single elimination Super Series (singles). So as soon as junior loses in singles, many parents take off because they don't want to hang around until Saturday night or Sunday for doubles.

Rankings are important from the standpoint of getting a kid into a tournament -- and that's about it. A much larger problem looms with parents wanting coaches to coach and show immediate results in the rankings instead of teaching kids how to play tennis properly.Statistics & research is showing that the new PPR system has been effective at getting players to compete in doubles. This is a huge improvement compared to the old "ladder" system.

A portion of their doubles points counts towards their singles rankings. So they would be stupid to not play doubles. If they lost in singles, they can make it up in doubles.

The USTA and tournament directors are sick & tired of those that bow out of the tournament, because they lost singles. Some players are notorious for this. Very bad form. The USTA is really cracking down on this. They have to provide medical proof or other proof.

ClarkC
12-14-2009, 02:11 PM
So true and it's what I keep telling my 11 year old. He is obsessed with the rankings in the Southwest. I did notice that the last Level 6 local tournament he played in, he did not get ranking points for it but I don't have the time to research the reason for it.

In the Mid-Atlantic Section, a Level 6 tournament is considered a novice tournament. I think you have to win the tournament to get any points at all.


I have noticed that the kids at the top of the rankings are the ones who play national tournaments and who travel, etc. We haven't gotten to that level of competition yet so I'm trying to stress to my son that he needs to focus on playing the ball, playing HIS game that his coach instructs him to do, and on having fun.

Here's something that worked for my son at that age: Each tournament has just one goal. In the early years, it was usually a mental goal. For example, when you lose a frustrating point, go back to the back fence, take a deep breath or two, tell yourself "OK, that was frustrating, but it is over; time for the next point." Then turn around and get ready for the next point.

If this goal is met (90% of the time; no kid is perfect) and the kid can honestly say after each match that the previous point was not costing him the next point due to emotions, then the tournament was declared to be successful, regardless of match results.

With that new mental habit, the next tournament would have a goal of not rushing the second serve, which was causing a lot of double faults. Once the proper mental patience was there for second serves, then the next tournament would have a new goal. Sometimes it took 2-3 tournaments to master a goal.

I told my son that tennis excellence requires a hundred little pieces to be assembled, one at a time. If you see the pieces being added to your game, then your progress is tangible and it encourages you.

He took it to heart and kept getting better, but he was still a little frustrated that he was not able to win a tournament. Then he went on a tear of winning 3 out of 4 tournaments and has been confident ever since. Everything eventually fell into place, because enough pieces had been added one at a time (including particular stroke work from his coach, some fitness work, and the mental work).

Making progress on strokes, the mental/emotional aspect, and fitness simultaneously is another key to success. He was working on ONE mental habit, ONE stroke improvement, and ONE fitness aspect at a time. Not overwhelming to a young player, but it adds up to a lot of progress.

ClarkC
12-14-2009, 02:14 PM
In my opinion, the system is fine the way it is except for doubles. The current ranking system doesn't entice kids to play doubles which is really a shame. I'd rather see a big doubles only tournament once a month or every two months instead of the current method.

In the Mid-Atlantic section, that IS the current method. The level 1 (Championships) sectional tourneys are either singles only or doubles only, and there are about as many doubles only tournaments as singles only (I think 4 of each per year). You get to count your top 5 singles tournaments and top 5 doubles results, so the top players also need to play more than Level 1 tourneys. That helps the Level 2 (Challenger) tourneys, which are singles and doubles at one event, get top entrants.

chalkflewup
12-14-2009, 02:46 PM
Doubles only tournaments? I wish we had 4 of those per year in Florida. Generally speaking (which I hate to do), juniors need to be introduced to this thing called "the net."