A friend was telling me about something that happened to him at a tournament. He plays 3.0M. He has an interesting game, he has about a 4.0 forehand, bigger than any in the 3.0's I'd say, about a 2.5 backhand. 3.0 serve and return, and pretty bad volleys. He was playing a guy who was setting him up w/ sitters at the T, and he was tagging them for winners pretty much w/ ease apparently. His opponent sort of backhandedly called him a sandbagger, which didnt sit well w/ him. If you just look at the forehand, you could say, yeah sure. But the rest of his game is at best a 3.0. He's never won a tournament, and is about .500 in his tournament record (he LOST the match to the guy accusing him of being a sandbagger too, lol). Anyway, my question is, do you rate yourself based on your best shot or 2, or your game as a whole. I've always thought the latter, but it got me thinking because I've played him, and you DO NOT want to be on the other end of one of his forehands if you gave him a sitter. I don't know how he ended up w/ such a disparity between the FH and BH, but there it is. Any thoughts?