USTA rating system confusion

[GugaGuga]

I'm a bit confused by the USTA rating system. I find that many people call themselves 4.5 when the lose regularly to 4.0 players. Also, people who call themselves 5.0 sometimes lose to 4.5 and even 4.0 players.

It's a given that we all have our good and bad days, but to call yourself a certain rating, must you always beat the players rated below you?

Who is it that should give you the player rating in the first place? A teaching pro?

On my best days, I play some really tough tennis--my serve and even my backhand can stand out as weapons. However, I also can really blow it and lose to players well below me. I don't want to overrate myself out of ego, nor do I want to be unfair to other players and enter a tournament below my level and be the ringer.

Also, it seems that the line between 5.0 players and truly world-class players starts to get pretty blurry. Again, given that we all have on and off days. After all, even Brad Gilbert claims that 5 percent of the time a player is unbeatable, 5% of the time they cannot beat anyone, and the other 90% of the time is what makes you the tennis player that you are.

So what's the deal with all the rankings, and how am I to be sure that mine is accurate?

Thanks,

[OrangeOne]

Also, it seems that the line between 5.0 players and truly world-class players starts to get pretty blurry. Again, given that we all have on and off days. After all, even Brad Gilbert claims that 5 percent of the time a player is unbeatable, 5% of the time they cannot beat anyone, and the other 90% of the time is what makes you the tennis player that you are.

So what's the deal with all the rankings, and how am I to be sure that mine is accurate?

Have posted the below from http://www.usta.com/leagues/custom.sps?iType=931&icustompageid=1655 .

Seems that the difference between 5.0 & world-class is still significant, and *honestly without* wanting to start a "who would beat who by what" conversation, a true 5.0 would be comfortably beaten by a pro on their worst days, and bagled-to-golden-setted on a good day.

5.0
You have good shot anticipation and frequently have an outstanding shot or attribute around which a game may be structured. You can regularly hit winners or force errors off of short balls and can put away volleys. You can successfully execute lobs, drop shots, half volleys, overhead smashes, and have good depth and spin on most second serves.

5.5
You have mastered power and/or consistency as a major weapon. You can vary strategies and styles of play in a competitive situation and hit dependable shots in a stress situation.

6.0 to 7.0
You have had intensive training for national tournament competition at the junior and collegiate levels and have obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.

7.0
You are a world-class player.

[LowProfile]

There is a lot of wobbling (and what I mean by this is beating players ranked higher and losing to players ranked much lower) in the lower levels, especially below 4.0. At that level, the consistency to maintain a superior level of play is not there and there will be drops in concentration and the overall level of play.

As you go up the rankings, you see much less of this. The average 5.0 has no business losing to an average 4.5 player. If it happens, chances are that 5.0 player has been incorrectly ranked.

And as for the distinction, it's difficult to draw the line between a 5.0 player and a 5.5 player, but in a match, it becomes very obvious. I think the blurring happens most strongly between the 6.0-7.0 levels where the intangible factors like confidence and experience have pronounced effects.

[goober]

anybody can rate themselves whatever they want. It is not uncommon for people to overate themselves and then enter a tournament at that level and get demolished. Then there are some people who underate themselves for leagues and tourneys. If you play a lot of USTA tournaments and leagues your rating will eventually settle into the right level (unless you are one of those guys who actively tries to "game" the system so you can remain at a lower level).

If two people are correctly rated it is possible for a lower level person to beat a higher one especially if the lower player is a strong player for his rating. The scores should be close and if they two played 10 times the higher one should win nine of the ten times. If the lower level person is two levels below the other guy, the higher level player should almost never lose.

The best way to see if your rating is accurate is to play USTA tourneys and leagues and over time you will see where you stand.

[Mountainman]

USTA rating it's just a way to keep the same level players close together. They allowed self rating so it's not officially useful. Professionals do not fall under the USTA rating. Some people would aggree because professionals are beyond 5.0. That is why there are Open competitions. Some players would also overrate themselves when asked about their ratings but would register themselves in the lower ratings. Most foreign players do not use the USTA rating. haha. If I have all the time to see how good a player is, I would play with them. Rating is just convient.

[OrangeOne]

Professionals do not fall under the USTA rating. Some people would aggree because professionals are beyond 5.0.

I know i'm being picky, but:

7.0
You are a world-class player.


does cater for professionals - they do 'fall under the USTA ratings'.

They allowed self rating so it's not officially useful.

Still, it's a good guide. You and I could try and describe our play to one another, but not have a clue if we should enter roughly the same division at a tournament, or not have a clue if we should meet up when travelling and have a hit. With it, even if we both under-or-over-rated by a half point each, we'd still have a *much* better idea.

The system is a great starting point. Like any broad ranking system it has it's downsides, but I really think it's a good starting point. I'd be keen to see it adopted or understood in Aus, although I do know some clubs can equivalence-rate to it if required.

[Mountainman]

I know i'm being picky, but:

7.0
You are a world-class player.


does cater for professionals - they do 'fall under the USTA ratings'.



Still, it's a good guide. You and I could try and describe our play to one another, but not have a clue if we should enter roughly the same division at a tournament, or not have a clue if we should meet up when travelling and have a hit. With it, even if we both under-or-over-rated by a half point each, we'd still have a *much* better idea.

The system is a great starting point. Like any broad ranking system it has it's downsides, but I really think it's a good starting point. I'd be keen to see it adopted or understood in Aus, although I do know some clubs can equivalence-rate to it if required.

You would rate a world-class player? I can't really say that the top 10 is equivalent to the rest of top 100. If I would rate professionals, I would give them a new rating system. Like I said, USTA rating is convenient, not necessary good. The win-lose ratio to a division is the best rating in my opinion.

[OrangeOne]

You would rate a world-class player?

Mountainman, I was simply saying that the NTRP *does* rate world-class players - all as "7.0", I was quoting the definition of "7.0" from the USTA, which is "you are a world-class player". We're going around in circles here....

I can't really say that the top 10 is equivalent to the rest of top 100. If I would rate professionals, I would give them a new rating system.

Umm, isn't the existing tennis-rankings a rating system, and about the only style of system likely to be found useful at that 'level'?

The win-lose ratio to a division is the best rating in my opinion.

Well, this is roughly (in a round-about way) how the pro-rankings are done.

[chess9]

The USTA rating system is a complete waste of time and resources, except it gets people together to play. If you aren't concerned about winning and losing against supposedly similar opponents then the system is fine. For the other 99% of us, it sucks. :) I'd rather not have the mist sprayed in my eyes by the USTA before I play a guy.

Regarding Brad Gilbert's quote, it is the right idea, but it isn't even close, particularly for pros. Henman can play like God for 30 minutes a day and like Rickson for two hours. Anyway, people vary so widely, such generalities as Gilbert's are almost worthless. I've seen literally thousands of players and variance is extremely wide, IMHO.

Don't forget, the USTA worships at the same marketing altar as the racquet manufacturers-they just aren't as creative liars. :)

-Robert

[Bungalo Bill]

I'm a bit confused by the USTA rating system. I find that many people call themselves 4.5 when the lose regularly to 4.0 players. Also, people who call themselves 5.0 sometimes lose to 4.5 and even 4.0 players.

It's a given that we all have our good and bad days, but to call yourself a certain rating, must you always beat the players rated below you?

Who is it that should give you the player rating in the first place? A teaching pro?

On my best days, I play some really tough tennis--my serve and even my backhand can stand out as weapons. However, I also can really blow it and lose to players well below me. I don't want to overrate myself out of ego, nor do I want to be unfair to other players and enter a tournament below my level and be the ringer.

Also, it seems that the line between 5.0 players and truly world-class players starts to get pretty blurry. Again, given that we all have on and off days. After all, even Brad Gilbert claims that 5 percent of the time a player is unbeatable, 5% of the time they cannot beat anyone, and the other 90% of the time is what makes you the tennis player that you are.

So what's the deal with all the rankings, and how am I to be sure that mine is accurate?

Thanks,

You have a point, but dont forget the phrase that "anyone can be beat by anyone on a give day". I obviously know that this should be taken with consideration but we must not forget that even the best of pros lose to lesser players and exit a tournament early.

[OrangeOne]

The USTA rating system is a complete waste of time and resources, except it gets people together to play.

So by your own definition it's not a complete waste of time then? I don't see why people are so down on it, as I've said, I wish we had it here. It's like so many systems and services in life, easy to criticise, harder to come up with a realistic and practical alternative.

Regarding Brad Gilbert's quote, it is the right idea, but it isn't even close, particularly for pros. Henman can play like God for 30 minutes a day and like Rickson for two hours. Anyway, people vary so widely, such generalities as Gilbert's are almost worthless. I've seen literally thousands of players and variance is extremely wide, IMHO.

You've mis-read or mis-understood the quote or you're mis-applying it, or so it sounds. The quote said that "the other 90% of the time is what makes you the tennis player that you are". Sure - the variance is extremely wide, but that 90% of the time, you're playing like the player you are. I like the quote, and I think it works. Sure - one can't apply it to me & the pro-ranks, as on one of my best 5% days I'd still lose in golden-sets, but within a realistic band, it's true.

[GuyClinch]

On my best days, I play some really tough tennis--my serve and even my backhand can stand out as weapons. However, I also can really blow it and lose to players well below me. I don't want to overrate myself out of ego, nor do I want to be unfair to other players and enter a tournament below my level and be the ringer.

No offense but your probably not as streaky as you imagine - in that even on your best days your weapons can be completely neutralized by a superior player. I would just enter the tournament.

Also, it seems that the line between 5.0 players and truly world-class players starts to get pretty blurry. Again, given that we all have on and off days. After all, even Brad Gilbert claims that 5 percent of the time a player is unbeatable, 5% of the time they cannot beat anyone, and the other 90% of the time is what makes you the tennis player that you are.

Again a "world class" player would just destroy the 5.0 player. I don't think it's blurry at all. I think players a full NTRP above their opponent will always win. A legit 4.0 player would absolutely wipe the court with a 3.0 player - assuming that they have been rated via competitive play not self-rating. And not just 9 out of 10 times but 999 times out of 1000

Pete

[OrangeOne]

I think players a full NTRP above their opponent will always win. A legit 4.0 player would absolutely wipe the court with a 3.0 player - assuming that they have been rated via competitive play not self-rating. And not just 9 out of 10 times but 999 times out of 1000

Even if they both just self-rate honestly, I totally agree with your percentages. I've got a mate that I'd self-rate as being around 1 full point above, and we've played semi-regularly over the last many years. If I had the million $$, I'd bet it on the fact that on any given day I could beat him.

For a while there we had a system that if I won 6-0, the win was mine, 6-1 was a draw, and if he managed to get 2 or more games off me then he won. Most days it's a toss-up between the three 'results'.

[rasajadad]

The NTRP rating system and the ability to self rate for USTA tournaments is too subjective. It's better to aspire to win age group events. Then there's no much room for argument.

[chess9]

So by your own definition it's not a complete waste of time then? I don't see why people are so down on it, as I've said, I wish we had it here. It's like so many systems and services in life, easy to criticise, harder to come up with a realistic and practical alternative.



You've mis-read or mis-understood the quote or you're mis-applying it, or so it sounds. The quote said that "the other 90% of the time is what makes you the tennis player that you are". Sure - the variance is extremely wide, but that 90% of the time, you're playing like the player you are. I like the quote, and I think it works. Sure - one can't apply it to me & the pro-ranks, as on one of my best 5% days I'd still lose in golden-sets, but within a realistic band, it's true.

Before the NTRP rating system, we had tournaments. They worked just fine, except people did complain about always losing in the first round to stronger players as the pairings were set up to give stronger players fish to play the first couple of rounds. Now, people still lose in the first round, except they lose in an hour instead of 30-40 minutes. That's the main difference.

No evidence exists, to my knowledge, that NTRP has done anything spectacular for USTA membership numbers. Perhaps I'm wrong. I've heard most of the arguments, I think, in support of NTRP, but it's really just a marketing gimmick and little else. If you love tennis, you drive to Sheboygan to play. If not, you will stay home and watch WWF on the boob tube.

These are just my humble opinions. I am frequently wrong, and this may be yet another instance. :)

I love Brad Gilbert, but he is being charitable with the 90% figure. If one-third of the players are playing at their rating level one-third of the time, I'd be shocked. And, if Gilbert is right, Nadal has almost no chance at Wimby unless about 10 guys have heart attacks between now and then.

-Robert

[chess9]

No offense but your probably not as streaky as you imagine - in that even on your best days your weapons can be completely neutralized by a superior player. I would just enter the tournament.



Again a "world class" player would just destroy the 5.0 player. I don't think it's blurry at all. I think players a full NTRP above their opponent will always win. A legit 4.0 player would absolutely wipe the court with a 3.0 player - assuming that they have been rated via competitive play not self-rating. And not just 9 out of 10 times but 999 times out of 1000

Pete

I was a Division II player. I had the opportunity in Open Tournaments to play some strong Division I guys (Stanford, U of FL, USC, etc.) and they blew me away. One of the Division I guys I played regularly played one of the minor pro players from Argentina (a guy NO ONE here has heard of). He said he always was bagled. Though the differences at the higher levels can appear small, the results are HUGE.

-Robert

[rasajadad]

Before the NTRP rating system, we had tournaments. They worked just fine, except people did complain about always losing in the first round to stronger players as the pairings were set up to give stronger players fish to play the first couple of rounds. Now, people still lose in the first round, except they lose in an hour instead of 30-40 minutes. That's the main difference.

No evidence exists, to my knowledge, that NTRP has done anything spectacular for USTA membership numbers. Perhaps I'm wrong. I've heard most of the arguments, I think, in support of NTRP, but it's really just a marketing gimmick and little else. If you love tennis, you drive to Sheboygan to play. If not, you will stay home and watch WWF on the boob tube.

These are just my humble opinions. I am frequently wrong, and this may be yet another instance. :)

I love Brad Gilbert, but he is being charitable with the 90% figure. If one-third of the players are playing at their rating level one-third of the time, I'd be shocked. And, if Gilbert is right, Nadal has almost no chance at Wimby unless about 10 guys have heart attacks between now and then.

-Robert

I agree with you regarding ratings at tournaments. The NTRP system is great for matching people up on vacation with strangers. NOT GOOD as the basis for tournaments. My contention is that the NTRP draws are full of cheaters (in the men's) and wishful thinkers (in the women's). Me (at 52) having to play two matches back to back against 20-25 year olds is not an accurate measure of my tennis and fitness levels. I'll gladly do it in my age group, though.

PS- That being said, my local club doesn't have any 50's tournaments but does host four 4.5 tourneys a year. So I got my ranking the last two years in 4.5 NOT 50's.

[goober]

The NTRP rating system and the ability to self rate for USTA tournaments is too subjective. It's better to aspire to win age group events. Then there's no much room for argument.


I agree, but there needs to be tournaments for beginners and low level players too. You can't have a 50 year old guy who has been playing one year go up against somebody who has been playing their whole life. That is why I am fine with just having beginner, intermediate and open level designations. Most people in the recreational group, which is by far the largest number of players, will never be good enough to compete in age group or open level tourneys.

[tennis-n-sc]

Well, I guess I'll be the lone supportor of the NTRP system. Where I am, it works very well. We have an occasional sandbagger self-rate, but usually they are caught by league coordinators or the computer moves them to their rightful place and years end. There is a wide range of talent at each level, but over time, a player's results will get them a proper rating. The alternative is no rating system and everyone plays open divisions. This would be a lot of fun for a 3.0 player and an opponent rated 4.5 or 5.0. It would be so much fun, in fact, that lower level players would disappear from tennis. Just my two cents. I do think there is room for improvement but it is a system with good intentions and a base to work from for improvements. I do think the state and sectional offices of USTA should monitor the system agressively as ours does here. We seldom have complaints.

[Ace]

Well, I guess I'll be the lone supportor of the NTRP system. Where I am, it works very well. We have an occasional sandbagger self-rate, but usually they are caught by league coordinators or the computer moves them to their rightful place and years end. There is a wide range of talent at each level, but over time, a player's results will get them a proper rating. The alternative is no rating system and everyone plays open divisions. This would be a lot of fun for a 3.0 player and an opponent rated 4.5 or 5.0. It would be so much fun, in fact, that lower level players would disappear from tennis. Just my two cents. I do think there is room for improvement but it is a system with good intentions and a base to work from for improvements. I do think the state and sectional offices of USTA should monitor the system agressively as ours does here. We seldom have complaints.

I agree. I think the system works ok. Theres some discrepencies here and there, but you have to have some kind of system to keep players of similar levels playing together. From what I've seen, you can't really trust people to rate themselves, people either think they are better than they are, or they want to sandbag so they can go to nationals.
Our section also only allows you to play 1 level up, so a 3.5 player can only play up to 4.0, which I think is good too. If a 4.0 player has the talent to be a 4.5, and wants to up thier rating, you can't do it if you have a bunch of 3.0's in your flight, even if you smoke everyone 6-0, 6-0, your rating is still based against a lower rating so it doesn't go up as much, even if you could have beat the other 4.0 and 4.5 players by a landslide.

[OrangeOne]

Well, I guess I'll be the lone supportor of the NTRP system.

Hey - I was championing the system / concept in earlier posts in this thread and we don't even have the system here! :)

[chess9]

Well, I guess I'll be the lone supportor of the NTRP system. Where I am, it works very well. We have an occasional sandbagger self-rate, but usually they are caught by league coordinators or the computer moves them to their rightful place and years end. There is a wide range of talent at each level, but over time, a player's results will get them a proper rating. The alternative is no rating system and everyone plays open divisions. This would be a lot of fun for a 3.0 player and an opponent rated 4.5 or 5.0. It would be so much fun, in fact, that lower level players would disappear from tennis. Just my two cents. I do think there is room for improvement but it is a system with good intentions and a base to work from for improvements. I do think the state and sectional offices of USTA should monitor the system agressively as ours does here. We seldom have complaints.

Yes, but you are in South Carolina. Genteel honesty is probably much more prevalent in the South, particularly in the smaller places like Greenville, no? :)

I spent quite a few years in the South, and though I'm not as politically conservative as many of my Southern friends, they taught me a lot about listening and politeness.

-Robert

[tennis-n-sc]

Yes, but you are in South Carolina. Genteel honesty is probably much more prevalent in the South, particularly in the smaller places like Greenville, no? :)

I spent quite a few years in the South, and though I'm not as politically conservative as many of my Southern friends, they taught me a lot about listening and politeness.

-Robert

Why, of course, suh. :) Yep, we are genteel honest in everything except politics, business, religion, morality in general and college football recruiting. ;) JK. I think being in a small state does have its advantages with regard to USTA administration. Georgia, the most populus state in the Southern section, tends to have more problems.

[ohplease]

Here's a fun game - look up your state boys' high school singles champions. Now try and find them on tennislink. Out of the last 20 years of champions, I found five - 2 self-rated at 5.0. 1 self-rated at 4.5. 2 self-rated at 4.0. The 4.5 was DQ'd, probably for being too young to self rate that low. The 4.0's weren't the oldest players, either.

chess9 is absolutely right - we should all self-rate at negative 2.0 and just be done with it.

[pushing_wins]

if you win a 4.0 tournament, are you a 4.0 player?

[jackson vile]

IMO the rating system sucks @$$, as you have stated yes you have very odd loses.

This is because they are not better than all, they are just able to win at this or that level.

For a very good portion of the competitive tennis population, you will find that it is easier for you to win at higher levels especially in rallies.


This is because it takes very high skill to be offensive with softly hit balls and extremely flat balls.

If you prefer a faster heavier ball to hit against, or like to stay at the basline ect then you may want to try 1-2 levels higher.

[jackson vile]

Have posted the below from http://www.usta.com/leagues/custom.sps?iType=931&icustompageid=1655 .

Seems that the difference between 5.0 & world-class is still significant, and *honestly without* wanting to start a "who would beat who by what" conversation, a true 5.0 would be comfortably beaten by a pro on their worst days, and bagled-to-golden-setted on a good day.

5.0
You have good shot anticipation and frequently have an outstanding shot or attribute around which a game may be structured. You can regularly hit winners or force errors off of short balls and can put away volleys. You can successfully execute lobs, drop shots, half volleys, overhead smashes, and have good depth and spin on most second serves.

5.5
You have mastered power and/or consistency as a major weapon. You can vary strategies and styles of play in a competitive situation and hit dependable shots in a stress situation.

6.0 to 7.0
You have had intensive training for national tournament competition at the junior and collegiate levels and have obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.

7.0
You are a world-class player.

This is where things get really really weird, because when you are saying 7.0/people on the tour they could be at a 5.0 level in a lot of shots.


It is a different ball game and other factors are far far more important.

Just look at some mens and womens games of the much lower ranked pros, you see a lot of missed volleys and overheads, slopy miss hits with people using just power.


You can even see some top pros that have really bad backhands, really slow serves ect.

[jackson vile]

(unless you are one of those guys who actively tries to "game" the system so you can remain at a lower level).

I see this a lot in the USTA leages, that is why I think the lower levels stink to play in. I recomend people not even bother with USTA unless you just started/are relatively new or are ready to compete at 4.5 level so you can play some real tennis and honest tennis.

[Bungalo Bill]

I see this a lot in the USTA leages, that is why I think the lower levels stink to play in. I recomend people not even bother with USTA unless you just started/are relatively new or are ready to compete at 4.5 level so you can play some real tennis and honest tennis.

People join the USTA for various reasons and pleasure. There is no such thing as a perfect organization. Dont you think Jackson you are being a little extreme?

What about wheel chari tennis? What about the people who like to compete but physically can't compete at the 4.5 level (knee injuries, etc.). What about the people that like to feel they are part of a team, enjoy the game, but dont have the time, money, or ability to get to the 4.5 level.

Geez, man, that is why they have the rating system so people can enjoy the game with other people at their level. If a lot of players come in and are clearly better then the rating they signed up for, things will adjust.

But to say that a player below 4.5 is not playing REAL tennis or HONEST tennis is a bit arrogant.

[jackson vile]

People join the USTA for various reasons and pleasure. There is no such thing as a perfect organization. Dont you think Jackson you are being a little extreme?

What about wheel chari tennis? What about the people who like to compete but physically can't compete at the 4.5 level (knee injuries, etc.). What about the people that like to feel they are part of a team, enjoy the game, but dont have the time, money, or ability to get to the 4.5 level.

Geez, man, that is why they have the rating system so people can enjoy the game with other people at their level. If a lot of players come in and are clearly better then the rating they signed up for, things will adjust.

But to say that a player below 4.5 is not playing REAL tennis or HONEST tennis is a bit arrogant.


I just said that IMO I hate it, you have a lot of old players that like to camp at a certain level even though they are 1-2+ above that level.

It is a form of cheating, and I really hate all that bunting BS, it is emberassing to watch.

No, not arrogant. Like I said bunting and blocking is not real tennis, throughing the ball into the service box is not a real serve.

The other thing is that these old people just sit there at a low level for years, and they allow that, that's not right.

Oh get this, in my area they put this college player at a 3.0 level, what a joke.

IMO when you are around 4.5 it keeps you above all the BS cheating and plays.

I have seen a lot of people calling balls out that still touched the line, they want to call eveything out because the are losing, what joke.


IMO that is why it is important to win on serve and serve return, less to dispute and cheat.








Just remembered that we had a had a team here that went to state, and guess what, they kept them at that level, what kinda BS is that? And these people had been playing for 10+ years at 3.0

[Bungalo Bill]

I just said that IMO I hate it, you have a lot of old players that like to camp at a certain level even though they are 1-2+ above that level.

Hmmmm...well sandbaggers will always exist. Got to get past them. But still it is REAL tennis - whether you can beat them or not.

eally hate all that bunting BS, it is emberassing to watch.

Sounds like you lost to some of them. I know that can be tough, but they do feed a person a lot of balls to hit. They also test one's mental toughness, ball control, and fitness. :)

arrogant. Like I said bunting and blocking is not real tennis, throughing the ball into the service box is not a real serve.

I think it is better to say you simply like to play advanced tennis. Tennis on the lower levels is all about keeping the ball in play. Many of them will not take full strokes to do so. Some can't due to surgeries, etc...

I do think it is arrogant to say "play my way or no way".

er thing is that these old people just sit there at a low level for years, and they allow that, that's not right.

Well maybe your folks don't really pressure people to move up. Is that the USTA's fault or the local people around you?

this, in my area they put this college player at a 3.0 level, what a joke.

Sometimes that happens. Sort of like sending a pro baseball player to the minor leagues. But the college player won't be down there very long.

n you are around 4.5 it keeps you above all the BS cheating and plays.

I have seen a lot of people calling balls out that still touched the line, they want to call eveything out because the are losing, what joke..

LOL, HARDLY! You don't think college players cheat? lol

t is why it is important to win on serve and serve return, less to dispute and cheat.

Well I guess that is a good strategy. Sounds like you lost your fair share of matches to these players. :)

[papa]

I just said that IMO I hate it, you have a lot of old players that like to camp at a certain level even though they are 1-2+ above that level.

It is a form of cheating, and I really hate all that bunting BS, it is emberassing to watch.

The other thing is that these old people just sit there at a low level for years, and they allow that, that's not right/

What exactly is an "old" player? I mean can you put numbers on it or is it just some arbitrary thing.

First of all, believe it or not, your going to be "old" some day and its going to happen whether you like it or not - its not an option that we check-off as we parade through life.

Second of all, many of you guys can really smack the ball but unfortunately, thats not what wins matches. Sure we can hit with people younger. Heck, I played (hit) with a kid who was fifty years younger than me for almost two hours the other day. Sure he had power but after the session (couple of hours) his mother (who is younger than my daughter) said he was absolutely wasted - quote "does this guy always hit that hard". Of course I felt it too but wasn't going to admit it. What I saw (and not the first or hopefully the last time) was that he was long or wide on many, many shots so the consistency was a little lacking but he hasn't yet played college ball.

Could I beat him? - probably not. Might get a few games every set but wouldn't expect much more.

The point of all this drible is give us a break, were not a bunch of cheaters using trick shots. We can play quite well, especially within or relative age groups - tough giving up twenty or thirty years out there but the thing you guys don't realize is that we don't give up - I think that factor frustrates many of you but tough, thats the way it is.

[North]

If you play a lot of USTA tournaments and leagues your rating will eventually settle into the right level (unless you are one of those guys who actively tries to "game" the system so you can remain at a lower level).

This may depend on where you live. In my area, there is a significant proportion of USTA league players each year who quit after only one or two years, so the ratings never really sort themselves out. The sandbaggers get fresh meat to play with every year - lol!

[tennis-n-sc]

[QUOTE=papa]What exactly is an "old" player? I mean can you put numbers on it or is it just some arbitrary thing.

I get the feeling that he referring to you.......and me.:)

Like BB said, I still have a lot of fun with my friends and team mates in league tennis, enjoy the competition, meet new folks, win a few and lose a few. For me, it is a game to be enjoyed, relished even, for as long as possible. It fulfills my needs. And us old geezers love whupping young butt every chance we get. I love a nice drop shot on a kid stationed 10 feet behind the baseline!!;)

[GuyClinch]

LOL, HARDLY! You don't think college players cheat? lol

In a college match other people will watch or sometimes you can get a line judge, right?

At low league level games that I have been to you don't have that. Quite honestly I have founding the cheating to be just awful. You might as well hit all your balls short purposely so that you can get some calls. I played one doubles match in which ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING near the back line was always called out - and any serves not well in the box was out.

It's pretty disappointing because when I have played practice matches with just random people I have found people to be very honest.

Pete

[Bungalo Bill]

In a college match other people will watch or sometimes you can get a line judge, right?

At low league level games that I have been to you don't have that. Quite honestly I have founding the cheating to be just awful. You might as well hit all your balls short purposely so that you can get some calls. I played one doubles match in which ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING near the back line was always called out - and any serves not well in the box was out.

It's pretty disappointing because when I have played practice matches with just random people I have found people to be very honest.

Pete

Yes, you can get someone to call the game. It exists! If the pros didnt have umps and linesmans, who knows what would happen. Believe me they would cheat. lol Mac would have been one of them!

[tennis-n-sc]

In a college match other people will watch or sometimes you can get a line judge, right?

At low league level games that I have been to you don't have that. Quite honestly I have founding the cheating to be just awful. You might as well hit all your balls short purposely so that you can get some calls. I played one doubles match in which ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING near the back line was always called out - and any serves not well in the box was out.

It's pretty disappointing because when I have played practice matches with just random people I have found people to be very honest.

Pete

Having officiated college matches at DI level, I can tell you emphatically that cheating is ever present, even encouraged. There are no line judges in college. Players make their own calls. If an official happens to be at court, a player may ask the official about the call. There are far fewer bad calls made at the super senior USTA league matches, where hardly any of the players can see or hear.;)

[chess9]

This is where things get really really weird, because when you are saying 7.0/people on the tour they could be at a 5.0 level in a lot of shots.


It is a different ball game and other factors are far far more important.

Just look at some mens and womens games of the much lower ranked pros, you see a lot of missed volleys and overheads, slopy miss hits with people using just power.


You can even see some top pros that have really bad backhands, really slow serves ect.

You mean like Roddick's volleys? Maybe Connors will teach him the forehand volley. :)

-Robert

[chess9]

Having officiated college matches at DI level, I can tell you emphatically that cheating is ever present, even encouraged. There are no line judges in college. Players make their own calls. If an official happens to be at court, a player may ask the official about the call. There are far fewer bad calls made at the super senior USTA league matches, where hardly any of the players can see or hear.;)

YES! I was playing a club doubles ladder match on Sunday and I called a ball out and my partner said out and the other side said NO it was in, and so, we just gave them the point. Life's too short. Plus, it helped that we knew we'd beat them. :) I will sometimes just concede a point if it's going to be a cause of friction. I'd rather have friends than a high winning percentage. Although, it's a close call! :) j/k

-Robert

[jackson vile]

Hmmmm...well sandbaggers will always exist. Got to get past them. But still it is REAL tennis - whether you can beat them or not.



Sounds like you lost to some of them. I know that can be tough, but they do feed a person a lot of balls to hit. They also test one's mental toughness, ball control, and fitness. :)



I think it is better to say you simply like to play advanced tennis. Tennis on the lower levels is all about keeping the ball in play. Many of them will not take full strokes to do so. Some can't due to surgeries, etc...

I do think it is arrogant to say "play my way or no way".



Well maybe your folks don't really pressure people to move up. Is that the USTA's fault or the local people around you?



Sometimes that happens. Sort of like sending a pro baseball player to the minor leagues. But the college player won't be down there very long.



LOL, HARDLY! You don't think college players cheat? lol



Well I guess that is a good strategy. Sounds like you lost your fair share of matches to these players. :)


You are 100% right that you need to be able to beat everyone at every level, this low tennis is good for training, ie percentage, finish, serve, return. Keeps the basics really strong, mostly serve.

As for me no I am not playing USTA, I will not play league as I think it stinks, however I will play Tournament next year.

I do not want to play tennis competitively until I have some real consistance that I can fall back on that will last all the way into a 5 setter.

I am a advanced or nothing person, either I hit like the big boys or I'm not allowing my self to play.

I'm attempting to jump to or above my wife's level, so far it is working.

[jackson vile]

You mean like Roddick's volleys? Maybe Connors will teach him the forehand volley. :)

-Robert


Yes, or how about Sharapova (sp) not being able to finish over heads. There are tennis players that could knock the socks off a lot of the top 25 pros. But they could never last on the tour, that is IMO what sets tennis apart from all other sports.

[papa]

[QUOTE=papa]What exactly is an "old" player? I mean can you put numbers on it or is it just some arbitrary thing.

I get the feeling that he referring to you.......and me.:)

Like BB said, I still have a lot of fun with my friends and team mates in league tennis, enjoy the competition, meet new folks, win a few and lose a few. For me, it is a game to be enjoyed, relished even, for as long as possible. It fulfills my needs. And us old geezers love whupping young butt every chance we get. I love a nice drop shot on a kid stationed 10 feet behind the baseline!!;)

Good post - feel the same way.

[papa]

In a college match other people will watch or sometimes you can get a line judge, right?

At low league level games that I have been to you don't have that. Quite honestly I have founding the cheating to be just awful. You might as well hit all your balls short purposely so that you can get some calls. I played one doubles match in which ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING near the back line was always called out - and any serves not well in the box was out.

It's pretty disappointing because when I have played practice matches with just random people I have found people to be very honest.

Pete

Well, this can/does happen at all levels and contrary to what some think, with ALL age levels.

Some will call a ball out before its even landed.

I think its something you have to get used to and when you think/know you got a rotten call say something like - "you do know that if a ball hits a line its in", "both of you agree with that call", "certainly looked good to me, sure you got a good look at it", circle the mark so we can take a look at it when we change", etc.

If these don't work, you revert to the "how can you possibly call that ball out", "you might get upset if we made calls like that", "did you actually see the ball or were you just guessing", "just because you can't get to the ball doesn't mean its out", "how come every close call goes your way", etc.

I won't play or hit with players that either cheat or want to argue about everything. Some want to challenge every dam- thing that goes on and I just prefer not to have to deal with it. Does that make me an SOB - yes, but its only a couple of players where ever you go.

[papa]

YES! I was playing a club doubles ladder match on Sunday and I called a ball out and my partner said out and the other side said NO it was in, and so, we just gave them the point. Life's too short. Plus, it helped that we knew we'd beat them. :) I will sometimes just concede a point if it's going to be a cause of friction. I'd rather have friends than a high winning percentage. Although, it's a close call! :) j/k

-Robert

I don't think its a matter of having friends or not. You call the ball on your side, they call it on their side - just the way it is. If you question the call you made, sure ask the opponents but be prepared to accept what call they make.

[GugaGuga]

There certainly is some interesting feedback in these replies, and this topic produced a lot more discussion than I thought it would.

I do think it is a bit hard to pin down this level thing. It's a great idea in general, but it certainly has flaws.

For example, to be a higher-level player, the USTA claims that you have to be able to hit all the different types of shots. However, I think it's curious that even the great Roger Federer pubicly admits that he can't hit drop shots, and he never attempts them in competition. Would this mean that he is not a 7.0 player? Obviously not.

And I fully agree about watching the pros foibles. It's always interesting to watch a pro with an obvious weakness in his/her game.

I think, at a certain point, it comes down to match wins/tournament wins. A player who can hide his faults and win despite them would generally be considered a better player than one who seemingly has all the shots but "beats himself" in match play.

Anyway, the posts were helpful. I don't think I'm going to worry about my rating. I think I will just try to win matches and other people can call me whatever rating they want to

Later all

[Andres]

For example, to be a higher-level player, the USTA claims that you have to be able to hit all the different types of shots. However, I think it's curious that even the great Roger Federer pubicly admits that he can't hit drop shots, and he never attempts them in competition. Would this mean that he is not a 7.0 player? Obviously not.
He can't, or he doesn't like to?
Big difference there, my friend :)

Let's make a friendly bet. I'll show you a video with Roger hitting 100 dropshots, and you'll buy me a new racquet, deal? :D

[GuyClinch]

For example, to be a higher-level player, the USTA claims that you have to be able to hit all the different types of shots. However, I think it's curious that even the great Roger Federer pubicly admits that he can't hit drop shots, and he never attempts them in competition. Would this mean that he is not a 7.0 player? Obviously not.

I don't think thats a great intepretation of what Roger means..
When he says he can't hit a drop shot it actually means "I can't hit a quality drop shot off a pro paced forehand or backhand."

If your just hitting around with him I am sure he can hit a wicked drop shot. It's the same thing with Roddick who "can't volley" or Dementivia who "can't serve." These guys don't peform this at the highest level but they can still hit those shots with considerable skill.

I don't know if your a basketball fan but it's the same thing. People will say Shaq "can't dribble" and he sure can't handle the ball like a PG but he can dribble some.

Pete

[Andres]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woDlxN8aJAk&search=federer%20

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

I don't think it's blurry at all. I think players a full NTRP above their opponent will always win.
PeteHaha. Last weekend I played a guy well below my level. The guy saw me blasting serves (And yes they were in, 90% of them. And yes, my 1st serve percentage was that high, usually being that way "in practice".) yet he still was not hesitant to ask me to play! :D

I mean, when he asked, I was saying to myself in my head: "Come again?".

I then asked him aloud: "You want to 'practice'"?

He said, "No, play a match".

I happily replied, "Why sure." :)

The guy was cool. He obviously knew that I was a better player, but he that did make him shy away. Well, anyways, long story short, I creamed him in straight sets, easily, holding all serves, acing him with even my 2nd serves (my 2nds are probably about 90MPH on average, since with flat balls, they reach the fence after the first bounce), and breaking him all games but 4 (we played best of 3 sets).

It's good that people aren't embarassed to challenge better players. It's actually a great idea, that way, they can learn things faster. Playing against better people (when I mean better, I don't mean 1/2 a level etc., I mean someone who would just dominate you) is like a reality check, letting you know exactly some of the things that are out there.

Imagine getting the chance to play against real pros? You'd get whooped right (asumming that you are a non-pro)? . . . but just think about how fast you would learn things about what you lack, what you need to do to "truly" improve. Besides that, it's also motivating (at least for me it is) to see "the better" in action, first hand.

Anyways, I don't discriminate. I'm not a snob who only hits with other "good" people (except when I am on a tight schedule, needing to prepare for a serious tourney).

[Andres]

The guy was cool. He obviously knew that I was a better player, but he that did make him shy away. Well, anyways, long story short, I creamed him in straight sets, easily, holding all serves, acing him with even my 2nd serves (my 2nds are probably about 90MPH on average, since with flat balls, they reach the fence after the first bounce), and breaking him all games but 4 (we played best of 3 sets).
Wow! You must have a huuuge 2nd serve!
Ljubicic is averaging 100 mph on his 2nd serve. Sampras and Ivanisevic as well. Karlovic and Roddick are around 107-112 ... You must be a huge server...

... Not...

Cut the crap, G.O.A.T... those numbers aren't real ;)

[DXS]

Haha. Last weekend I played a guy well below my level. The guy saw me blasting serves (And yes they were in, 90% of them. And yes, my 1st serve percentage was that high, usually being that way "in practice".) yet he still was not hesitant to ask me to play! :D

I mean, when he asked, I was saying to myself in my head: "Come again?".

I then asked him aloud: "You want to 'practice'"?

He said, "No, play a match".

I happily replied, "Why sure." :)

The guy was cool. He obviously knew that I was a better player, but he that did make him shy away. Well, anyways, long story short, I creamed him in straight sets, easily, holding all serves, acing him with even my 2nd serves (my 2nds are probably about 90MPH on average, since with flat balls, they reach the fence after the first bounce), and breaking him all games but 4 (we played best of 3 sets).

It's good that people aren't embarassed to challenge better players. It's actually a great idea, that way, they can learn things faster. Playing against better people (when I mean better, I don't mean 1/2 a level etc., I mean someone who would just dominate you) is like a reality check, letting you know exactly some of the things that are out there.

Imagine getting the chance to play against real pros? You'd get whooped right (asumming that you are a non-pro)? . . . but just think about how fast you would learn things about what you lack, what you need to do to "truly" improve. Besides that, it's also motivating (at least for me it is) to see "the better" in action, first hand.

Anyways, I don't discriminate. I'm not a snob who only hits with other "good" people (except when I am on a tight schedule, needing to prepare for a serious tourney).

Nice post. I agree whole heartedly. We have guys that play 4.0 that only lose 1 or two matches all year. They have been playing that level for 5+ years. They don't improve because they don't move themselves up. You've got to play better people.

[pushing_wins]

Haha. Last weekend I played a guy well below my level. The guy saw me blasting serves (And yes they were in, 90% of them. And yes, my 1st serve percentage was that high, usually being that way "in practice".) yet he still was not hesitant to ask me to play! :D

I mean, when he asked, I was saying to myself in my head: "Come again?".

I then asked him aloud: "You want to 'practice'"?

He said, "No, play a match".

I happily replied, "Why sure." :)

The guy was cool. He obviously knew that I was a better player, but he that did make him shy away. Well, anyways, long story short, I creamed him in straight sets, easily, holding all serves, acing him with even my 2nd serves (my 2nds are probably about 90MPH on average, since with flat balls, they reach the fence after the first bounce), and breaking him all games but 4 (we played best of 3 sets).

It's good that people aren't embarassed to challenge better players. It's actually a great idea, that way, they can learn things faster. Playing against better people (when I mean better, I don't mean 1/2 a level etc., I mean someone who would just dominate you) is like a reality check, letting you know exactly some of the things that are out there.

Imagine getting the chance to play against real pros? You'd get whooped right (asumming that you are a non-pro)? . . . but just think about how fast you would learn things about what you lack, what you need to do to "truly" improve. Besides that, it's also motivating (at least for me it is) to see "the better" in action, first hand.

Anyways, I don't discriminate. I'm not a snob who only hits with other "good" people (except when I am on a tight schedule, needing to prepare for a serious tourney).

most players are afraid of losing to lesser players, which is why they won't play them

[tennis-n-sc]

Wow! You must have a huuuge 2nd serve!
Ljubicic is averaging 100 mph on his 2nd serve. Sampras and Ivanisevic as well. Karlovic and Roddick are around 107-112 ... You must be a huge server...

... Not...

Cut the crap, G.O.A.T... those numbers aren't real ;)

LOL. We recently had a party for all the league captains and one of the little games we played was fastest serve. I held the radar and the serve had to be in. The ratings ranged from 3.0 to 4.5. Fastest serve was 90 MPH by a 4.0. The next fastest was 86 by a 3.0. These guys were bombing, no second serves here. I'd love to have a 90 MPH first serve. Most people have no idea how slow their serves actually are.

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

Wow! You must have a huuuge 2nd serve!
Ljubicic is averaging 100 mph on his 2nd serve. Sampras and Ivanisevic as well. Karlovic and Roddick are around 107-112 ... You must be a huge server...

... Not...

Cut the crap, G.O.A.T... those numbers aren't real ;)Dude, whatever. You don't know, so STFU. You act as though you have a bomb serve, with your comment, when others have asked you, in the past, about your serve speed. You replied (paraphrased): "Umm, I don't want to tell you guys how fast I can serve, cuz you all would think I am lying".

What you said in the past is in itself a way of saying: "Yes I am that good, but I will not go into detail because we all know that there really aren't too many people in that class."

Well let me tell you something, buddy boy, I am in the rare class (not necesssarily elite world class pro) of powerhouse servers. And BTW, having a tremendous serve like I do isn't saying that I can beat the top pros . . . not in any way is that what it's saying.

Anyways, you and your BS "wink wink" sarcasm: STFU if you have nothing good to say. And why am "I" posting in this tone? Because you act as if you know me. You don't so STFU.

BTW, I am a top D1 tennis player. Have you ever played D1? Yeah you've played in your silly tourneys, but the competition level of that compared to mine, with 5.0 - 6.5 players??? I am not a wannabe weekend warrior such as yourself, lad. :rolleyes:

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

Nice post. I agree whole heartedly. We have guys that play 4.0 that only lose 1 or two matches all year. They have been playing that level for 5+ years. They don't improve because they don't move themselves up. You've got to play better people.Thanks. I was only sharing my strory, since this thread topic made me recall it.


most players are afraid of losing to lesser players, which is why they won't play themThat's true. The lesser players have nothing to lose. When I am clearly the better player, I still am not hesitant to play against weaker players, cause I approach people with a humble attitude anyways, not acting like I am all that, therefore IF I were to lose, there wouldn't really be much to be embarassed about.

People, even naturally angry people, don't get too pissed off when palying against me in matches, since they realize that I have manners and am very fair. They see that sometimes when they hit serves out, but close to the lines, that I call it "in" anyways, since I give them the benefit of the doubt, even though they "clearly confirm" that they themself faulted.

Little things like that brings out the niceness in others. In other words, the way I treat my opponents, it's hard for any of them to hate me.

[Ace]

Little things like that brings out the niceness in others. In other words, the way I treat my opponents, it's hard for any of them to hate me.

Until they read your post on TW and realize how you really feel about them.

[GuyClinch]

Well let me tell you something, buddy boy, I am in the rare class (not necesssarily elite world class pro) of powerhouse servers. And BTW, having a tremendous serve like I do isn't saying that I can beat the top pros . . . not in any way is that what it's saying.

I don't know why the idea of someone hitting 90+ second serve is so shocking.. I think quite a few guys who teach tennis can probably manage that - as well as a bunch of div. I guys and such.

Either way I am hitting with this guy who says he is a 4.0. I don't think he is anywhere close to that really but he is better then me. It's fun. I swear just playing this guy once improved my return of serve. I think the return of serve is the one shot that's really impossible to improve without playing someone better then you (Or at least someone with a good serve).

It's hard to find people willing to do that. Everyone wants to hit with someone better then they are.

Pete

[GugaGuga]

I don't think thats a great intepretation of what Roger means..
When he says he can't hit a drop shot it actually means "I can't hit a quality drop shot off a pro paced forehand or backhand."

If your just hitting around with him I am sure he can hit a wicked drop shot. It's the same thing with Roddick who "can't volley" or Dementivia who "can't serve." These guys don't peform this at the highest level but they can still hit those shots with considerable skill.

I don't know if your a basketball fan but it's the same thing. People will say Shaq "can't dribble" and he sure can't handle the ball like a PG but he can dribble some.

Pete

Yes and no.

I agree that Roger can probably drop shot his heart out in practice, but he made the statement--not me. I heard him say it in an interview, so I guess a could begin a search to find the exact moment in time if necessary. Maybe he was being a bit facetious, but he is still admitting a gap in his game.

I have also personally witnessed Jan-Michael Gambil practicing his volleys, and on that pro's stroke, I might very well wager you that racquet. ;)

I've also seen Dementieva's second serve. Again, such a wager might be in order. :rolleyes:

The point remains, pros have some rather blatent weaknesses to match their strengths. Brad Gilbert's book "winning ugly" describes some interesting examples of this phenomenon. In fact, the whole premise of that book is that the best players are not the ones with the best strokes. Rather, they are the ones who most effectively hide their weaknesses and play their strengths, and that is the point I am trying to make. I am saying that these people are just that...human. They aren't the gods that some people on this board make them out to be. And I'm old enough to have witnessed some pretty darn good players crash out to much lesser players (at all levels of the game).

Enough of this theorizing however, I'm off to play...

L,
GG

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

Until they read your post on TW and realize how you really feel about them.Why don't you tell me . . . how is it that I "really" feel about them? YOU would happen to know such a thing?

I tell it like it is. I give people the benefit of the doubt. If I see close line shots, I let them have the advantage.

My motto is NOT: "When in doubt, call it out." That's not me at all.

So are my manners and way of doing things supposedly "cynical", by me treating my opponents kindly?

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

I don't know why the idea of someone hitting 90+ second serve is so shocking.. Good point. I don't know how either. Even for an average second serve, I do not see how it is shocking.

Yeah sure many talented non-pros can hit 90+ second serves, BUT probably most of them could not hit them consistently enough (especially in a real match) to attain the desirable 99+ percentage range (of course the ideal percentage will vary from player to player, and pressure situations could have a huge impact on one's confidence on any given day).

Solution: Keep practicing those 2nd serves with more pace and eventually you will become accustomed to it. If you have the skills, it will be the norm for you. That's how I became consistent with it. It's not like I just picked up a racquet one day and suddenly started averaging 90 MPH second serves!

I think quite a few guys who teach tennis can probably manage that - as well as a bunch of div. I guys and such.Well, from my experience, with most of the teaching pros that I know, the D1 guys are more likely to hit it than the teachers. That's because the teachers that I come across are from all walks of life.

But for the most part, yeah, those teachers could probably hit 90MPH serves, but "on average", I wouldn't think that they could "consistently" hit 90MPH 2nds, within the 99+ percentage range.

I think that D2 men on average are more likely to do it than the teachers, on average.

Either way I am hitting with this guy who says he is a 4.0. I don't think he is anywhere close to that really but he is better then me. It's fun. I swear just playing this guy once improved my return of serve. I think the return of serve is the one shot that's really impossible to improve without playing someone better then you (Or at least someone with a good serve).

It's hard to find people willing to do that. Everyone wants to hit with someone better then they are.

PeteYeah, I feel that the return game is crucial. Working on killer serves and returns is my strongest focus right now. Break and hold. Control points, games, sets, and match. :)

[OrangeOne]

I think the return of serve is the one shot that's really impossible to improve without playing someone better then you (Or at least someone with a good serve).

I know where you are coming from, and in some ways it's true. It's hard to know what it's like to play a massive kick serve if everyone you know serves flat/slice, for example. But within certain limits, I think it's possible to do some work on your returns against almost anyone - you just have to get creative. Here's some ways I've tried in the past:

a. The easiest - if you want to similuate playing against someone with a bigger serve - take a step in, or more if required! Sure, it's not an exact simulation (bounce angles and the like) but it's going to teach you to pick the ball early & use compact swings, all valuable againt bigger servers.

b. Want to work on your backhand return - take a step towards your forehand, force yourself to take more returns on the backhand. Sounds silly, can work!

c. Pre-determine your return spot. Tell yourself no matter where the serve lands, it's going in the back left corner (for example). Some of the time it will force you to play a "much more difficult" return than you otherwise would have had to....

[Andres]

Edited post...

[GuyClinch]

a. The easiest - if you want to similuate playing against someone with a bigger serve - take a step in, or more if required! Sure, it's not an exact simulation (bounce angles and the like) but it's going to teach you to pick the ball early & use compact swings, all valuable againt bigger servers.

b. Want to work on your backhand return - take a step towards your forehand, force yourself to take more returns on the backhand. Sounds silly, can work!

c. Pre-determine your return spot. Tell yourself no matter where the serve lands, it's going in the back left corner (for example). Some of the time it will force you to play a "much more difficult" return than you otherwise would have had to....

Sounds like good advice. But like you said player with a good server is the best way to improve your return of serve. The other players I hit with can serve 'bigger" but so rarely get it in that it doesn't really matter. But this new guy hit big nearly every time (he is 6'6" or so) and I found that helped my return game more then all the times I have played your normal "flat bomb" and "dink" guys you get at my low level.

It's one of those things in life I wish wasn't true..but sadly it seems to be. I hate it when I come to those conclusions. :P It almost forces you to "take advantage" of some good player so you can get better yourself.

Pete

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

Sounds like good advice. But like you said player with a good server is the best way to improve your return of serve. The other players I hit with can serve 'bigger" but so rarely get it in that it doesn't really matter. But this new guy hit big nearly every time (he is 6'6" or so) and I found that helped my return game more then all the times I have played your normal "flat bomb" and "dink" guys you get at my low level.
It's one of those things in life I wish wasn't true..but sadly it seems to be. I hate it when I come to those conclusions. :P It almost forces you to "take advantage" of some good player so you can get better yourself.

PeteLOL The "bomb & dink" people! :) Yeah, those guys are funny. They go all out, gung ho with their first, but then when (and usually in most cases) it doesn't land in, you see them stoop way down, resorting to a sissy dink ball second serve!

First you see a furocious 1st, and then a complete polar opposite, a cute little gimme! :mrgreen: Funny guys.

[pushing_wins]

top 100 player in a metro area of 4 million

what is your ntrp?

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

^ Who are you talking to?

[Bungalo Bill]

LOL The "bomb & dink" people! :) Yeah, those guys are funny. They go all out, gung ho with their first, but then when (and usually in most case) it doesn't land in, you see them stoop way down, resorting to a sissy dink ball second serve!

First you see a furocious 1st, and then a complete polar opposite, a cute little gimme! :mrgreen: Funny guys.

I know, it is like "what is up with that?"

They hit there serve like their is no tommorrow and then turn into Mary Poppin's for the rest of their game.

[omktid]

(my 2nds are probably about 90MPH on average, since with flat balls, they reach the fence after the first bounce),

Sorry for digressing....

Without a radar set up, is the above a good way of estimating speed?
I hit serves which hit the fence at good height and the serve is valid,
would such a serve be 80+mph? I have no idea how fast my serve is, but
my guess in the past was 70-80 mph, since pro's serve ~110-120MPH.

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

Sorry for digressing....

Without a radar set up, is the above a good way of estimating speed?
I hit serves which hit the fence at good height and the serve is valid,
would such a serve be 80+mph? I have no idea how fast my serve is, but
my guess in the past was 70-80 mph, since pro's serve ~110-120MPH.I couldn't give you an accurate answer. As to how I know that my average 2nd is at least 90MPH: My 2nd has more pace and pop than my teammate's, who had his clocked in the 80MPH range. Also, reaching the back fence (this alone isn't that precise, since the distance of the fence varies, the type of ball bounce trajectory etc.) with "flat" balls allowed me to gauge the pace on my serves compared to my teammate's.

If you wanted to just determine a figure, blindly (with nothing to compare to, like how I had my teammate's average clocked serve speed to gauge by) then I would not rely too much on the accuracy of the results. Some people use stop watches etc., but I wouldn't base anything in stone, relying on that calculation alone.

There was a recent thread about serve speed guesstimations. There was a lot of excellent info in it by Midlife Crisis and others.

If I can find it, I'll provide the link.

[tennis-n-sc]

I couldn't give you an accurate answer. As to how I know that my average 2nd is at least 90MPH: My 2nd has more pace and pop than my teammate's, who had his clocked in the 80MPH range. Also, reaching the back fence (this alone isn't that precise, since the distance of the fence varies, the type of ball bounce trajectory etc.) with "flat" balls allowed me to gauge the pace on my serves compared to my teammate's.

If you wanted to just determine a figure, blindly (with nothing to compare to, like how I had my teammate's average clocked serve speed to gauge by) then I would not rely too much on the accuracy of the results. Some people use stop watches etc., but I wouldn't base anything in stone, relying on that calculation alone.

There was a recent thread about serve speed guesstimations. There was a lot of excellent info in it by Midlife Crisis and others.

If I can find it, I'll provide the link.

Please, have your serves checked by radar. By all means, do not bet any money on your serve speeds until you do.

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

Please, have your serves checked by radar. By all means, do not bet any money on your serve speeds until you do.Hadn't planned on betting anything.

ll I was saying was that you can tell when your serve exceeds another's serve speed. On average, my 2nds happened to significantly outpace a fellow's 80mph average serves (I can see by eye, others confirm, you can hear it, his could't reach the fence -- even with fresh balls, mine easily made it to the fence -- even with dead balls (we're talking mildew-looking dead ball!) etc.).

I confidently guestimated my minimal average range (which is not even that extraordinary compared to some professional powerhouse servers!).

And yes, I do plan on getting the actual speed measured.

[simi]

Most pro tournaments, in the vendor exhibit areas, will have at least one vendor where you can test your serve speed with a radar gun. The one I saw at this year's Indian Wells wasn't set up on a court, but in a little corner of the vendor area. (I didn't check my speed because I didn't want to embarass myself in public.)

[Federer The G.O.A.T.!]

Most pro tournaments, in the vendor exhibit areas, will have at least one vendor where you can test your serve speed with a radar gun. The one I saw at this year's Indian Wells wasn't set up on a court, but in a little corner of the vendor area. (I didn't check my speed because I didn't want to embarass myself in public.)I'd like to have serves measured with that type of equipment. I'm guessing that they use the same stuff that they use in official matches.