PDA

View Full Version : USTA, abolish NTRP 2.5 please...


Kostas
08-30-2010, 01:30 PM
Seriously...just get rid of it.

No one just decides to play league tennis the day the pick up a racquet.

I've only been playing league for 3 years, but I play on mutliple teams every season and I have only seen a real2.5 one time....I've seen plenty of other players rated 2.5...but all but the one were clearly better than a beginning player.

The minimum rating should be 3.0 and just work up from there.

Cindysphinx
08-30-2010, 03:48 PM
The hell you say!!

I picked up a racket in Oct. 2004. I took miserable little clinics and hit my miserable little strokes for six months. Then I played in my first competitive match of any kind in April 2005 -- doubles as a self-rated 2.5. I lost.

Had 2.5 not existed, I would have been terrified to play 3.0. I was that bad. And my ten teammates were that bad or worse.

If anything, USTA should do more to expand 2.5 play. When I started, there were nine 2.5 ladies teams competing for a trip to Nationals. Now there are just two or three 2.5 teams each spring. That's a pity.

Oh, and I have exactly one tournament trophy to my name: Aurora Firecracker, Ladies Singles 2.5 Champion. It looks nice on my window sill, and people who don't know tennis assume it means I was a good player. :)

polski
08-30-2010, 03:49 PM
I think they should do away with the current system altogether & just go 1 thru 7. The half ratings can go away.

1 - Beginner/unathletic
2 - Beginner/athletic
3 - Intermediate / unathletic
4 - Intermediate / athletic
5 - Good club players
6 - Former college / Club pros
7 - Former Tour/High level college

OrangePower
08-30-2010, 04:23 PM
I think they should do away with the current system altogether & just go 1 thru 7. The half ratings can go away.

Doesn't that leave us pretty much where we are today?

1 - Beginner/unathletic = 2.5
2 - Beginner/athletic = 3.0
3 - Intermediate / unathletic = 3.5
4 - Intermediate / athletic = 4.0
5 - Good club players = 4.5
6 - Former college / Club pros = 5.0
7 - Former Tour/High level college = 5.5 and above

So I don't think it helps any.

I would have just 4 levels:

Beginner = 2.5 and 3.0
Intermediate 1 = 3.5 and part of 4.0
Intermediate 2 = the rest of 4.0 and 4.5
Advanced = 5.0 and up

nkbond
08-30-2010, 04:42 PM
OrangePower--

I would *love* your simplified system, *If* the USTA would enforce keeping elite players (mid-to-high-level college experience and/or teaching pros) out of Intermediate 2 level, cause they sure as hell are not keeping them out of 4.5...

OrangePower
08-30-2010, 05:10 PM
OrangePower--

I would *love* your simplified system, *If* the USTA would enforce keeping elite players (mid-to-high-level college experience and/or teaching pros) out of Intermediate 2 level, cause they sure as hell are not keeping them out of 4.5...

Agreed. Last year in my area there were many bump-ups from 4.0 to 4.5, but few from 4.5 to 5.0. So the gap between 'weak' 4.5 (the newly bumped 4.0s) and 'strong' 4.5 was pretty large. I'm hoping that this means a healthy amount of 4.5 -> 5.0 bump up this year. And then there will be enough 5.0s so that the 5.0s can actually get enough matches at that level and don't feel like their only option for meaningful league tennis is at 4.5.

dennis10is
08-30-2010, 05:32 PM
Seriously...just get rid of it.

No one just decides to play league tennis the day the pick up a racquet.

I've only been playing league for 3 years, but I play on mutliple teams every season and I have only seen a real2.5 one time....I've seen plenty of other players rated 2.5...but all but the one were clearly better than a beginning player.

The minimum rating should be 3.0 and just work up from there.

How dare you look down your noses at the rest of us. I've been playing tennis for 30 years and I'm still a 1.0. A rating of 2.5 is a dream for me. One that I know I will never achieve but I'm not giving up. I've lost my family, three divorces, both family fortunes trying to get bumped to 1.5 but I keep on plugging away.

So don't you dare tell me that 2.5 is nothing.

NoSkillzAndy
08-30-2010, 07:00 PM
OrangePower--

I would *love* your simplified system, *If* the USTA would enforce keeping elite players (mid-to-high-level college experience and/or teaching pros) out of Intermediate 2 level, cause they sure as hell are not keeping them out of 4.5...

I think you guys are onto something here. I wouldn't mind seeing a simplified version of the ratings system, and I agree that the upper tier 4.5 players should definitely be in the top division with all the 5.0's, college players, & teaching pros.

tennis tom
08-30-2010, 07:55 PM
How dare you look down your noses at the rest of us. I've been playing tennis for 30 years and I'm still a 1.0. A rating of 2.5 is a dream for me. One that I know I will never achieve but I'm not giving up. I've lost my family, three divorces, both family fortunes trying to get bumped to 1.5 but I keep on plugging away.

So don't you dare tell me that 2.5 is nothing.


I admire your determination and zeal Dennis10is. I'll play with you. But, I wouldn't take that as a complement, because I'm the self-appointed door mat practice/warm-up machine at my club. Just last week I did a hit with a dead racoon on the road to the club, using my balls and it didn't thank me for it either, sheesh.

Now that you have sacrificed and lost everything in your earthly house-holder life, your karmic tennis future will change. I see you at 3.5 before you rize to tennis Sahmadi.

Namaste'

tennis tom
08-30-2010, 08:05 PM
How 'bout A, B, C ?

I relate better to letters versus numbers.

NLBwell
08-30-2010, 08:33 PM
Oh, and I have exactly one tournament trophy to my name: Aurora Firecracker, Ladies Singles 2.5 Champion. It looks nice on my window sill, and people who don't know tennis assume it means I was a good player. :)

Cindy, You're in Colorado?

polski
08-31-2010, 01:13 AM
Doesn't that leave us pretty much where we are today?

1 - Beginner/unathletic = 2.5
2 - Beginner/athletic = 3.0
3 - Intermediate / unathletic = 3.5
4 - Intermediate / athletic = 4.0
5 - Good club players = 4.5
6 - Former college / Club pros = 5.0
7 - Former Tour/High level college = 5.5 and above

So I don't think it helps any.

I would have just 4 levels:

Beginner = 2.5 and 3.0
Intermediate 1 = 3.5 and part of 4.0
Intermediate 2 = the rest of 4.0 and 4.5
Advanced = 5.0 and up

NTRP currently goes 1.0-7.0 with .5 ratings all the way through (13 total ratings). The irrelevant ratings are 1.0 - 2.0 as well as 5.5 & above since there are rarely competitive leagues in those ratings.

My version cuts that nearly in half. Yours takes 13 classifications & slices it to 4...that would be extreme in my view, making sandbagging much more likely. However, you basically nailed the current ratings and how they would fit into my system.

Cindysphinx
08-31-2010, 03:39 AM
Cindy, You're in Colorado?

No. But I spent a year traveling on the WTA 2.5 tour.

Good times.

HitItHarder
08-31-2010, 06:07 AM
Seriously...just get rid of it.

No one just decides to play league tennis the day the pick up a racquet.

I've only been playing league for 3 years, but I play on mutliple teams every season and I have only seen a real2.5 one time....I've seen plenty of other players rated 2.5...but all but the one were clearly better than a beginning player.

The minimum rating should be 3.0 and just work up from there.


I have mixed feelings about this as well. I think there really is a place for a 2.5 level in USTA for legitimate beginners. People that have never played tennis before and need an introduction to USTA league. In our area, there are typically only two or so 2.5 men's teams each year. However there are ususally 4 or 5 women's teams and most of these players are legit. I don't have a problem with it because the 3.0 level here is competitive enough that these beginning players would likely not have a lot of fun and may get discouraged playing at that level as a true beginner.

However, the place I see it abused with the 2.5 level is in Combo league. It is common here to have the same group of people sign up to play Combo every year as a 2.5 or even 2.0 (never playing adult league so a computer rating is achieved) to play with 4.0s and 4.5s in 6.5 Combo. The point is to try and create ringer pairings on teams trying to reach the State championships. Since there is no limit on level differentials, these pairings are allowed. It gets a little tiresome seeing the same people play as 2.5s year after year.

However, I don't think you can have one without the other. So I am willing to put up with the Combo shenanigans. The most humorous ones are actually at the higher levels where we see 3.0s and 3.5s signed up with 5.0s and 5.5s to play 8.5 Combo. Since this is about the only way I will ever get to play against a 5.0 or higher player - I say game on.

Cindysphinx
08-31-2010, 06:30 AM
Funny story.

Of the 11 people on my 2.5 team, only two were bumped up to 3.0.

Of those 11 women, only three played USTA the following year. I think I am the only one who still plays USTA league today.

tennisdad65
08-31-2010, 06:31 AM
I think they should do away with the current system altogether & just go 1 thru 7. The half ratings can go away.

1 - Beginner/unathletic
2 - Beginner/athletic
3 - Intermediate / unathletic
4 - Intermediate / athletic
5 - Good club players
6 - Former college / Club pros
7 - Former Tour/High level college

I like your system. 7 levels is enough. It would be easier to arrange tournaments that have bigger draws per level.

namartens
08-31-2010, 06:31 AM
The system in the Netherlands is very good and fun imo.

It's a dynamic rating system: the rating is the relative norm of the tennis ability of a tennis player in relation to the tennis ability of all other tennis players of the same sex. The basic idea is that you have a dynamic rating, which (can) change(s) after every official match result. It's somewhat similar to a ladder, because your rating improves if you beat players that have a better rating or similar rating (or someone with a rating that is slightly lower than yours). Beating a player that you are supposed to beat (someone that has a rating that is a lot worse than yours) doesn't result in a better rating obviously.

The most important part is that your rating is based quantitatively, on your real results, instead of just looking at someone playing and judging his rating.

cknobman
08-31-2010, 08:04 AM
Check this new rating system out http://www.tencaptennis.com/

Completely awesome and it would be nice to see the USTA adopt it(or a variant of it).

Panic492
08-31-2010, 08:35 PM
I enjoyed watching a 6.5 combo match Sunday where the self rated 2.5 players were far better than the 4.o's.

tennis tom
08-31-2010, 11:15 PM
I enjoyed watching a 6.5 combo match Sunday where the self rated 2.5 players were far better than the 4.o's.

Were those 2.5's named Pete Sampras and Roger Federer by chance? They are both such modest guys I could see them self-rating so low. Actually, I've never met a 2.5. didn't know they existed except on paper.

Who were the 4.0's they partnered with, Blake and Roddick?

Fay
09-07-2010, 03:53 PM
How 'bout A, B, C ?

I relate better to letters versus numbers.

Didn't they used to do that for clubs?

Bedrock
09-08-2010, 09:10 AM
I think they should do away with the current system altogether & just go 1 thru 7. The half ratings can go away.

1 - Beginner/unathletic
2 - Beginner/athletic
3 - Intermediate / unathletic
4 - Intermediate / athletic
5 - Good club players
6 - Former college / Club pros
7 - Former Tour/High level college

This is a great joke.

polski
09-08-2010, 09:19 AM
why is that?^^^