Should Dynamic Ratings be Available On-line?

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by travlerajm, Feb 15, 2007.


Should Dynamic NTRP ratings be available?

  1. Yes

    9 vote(s)
  2. No

    15 vote(s)
  1. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Mar 14, 2006
    Actually, the more I think about it, it would make much more sense to make dynamic ratings available. There is a lot of upside and very little downside.

    On the upside:
    1) It would make it easy to ensure more competitive league matches, court positions could be assigned according to dynamic rating.
    2) It would allow people to quantititively measure their progress as they improve. (Hey, I improved from a 3.42 at the beginning of the year to a 4.19 at season's end - sweet!).
    3) The system could even allow for separate ratings for singles and doubles. (Hey, I'm a 5.1 mixed doubles player, but I'm only a 4.7 singles this year!).
    4) You would be able to know how tough your opponent is going into every match.

    1) Easier to cheat (I'll make sure I stay at 4.499999.)
    Personally, I think this a stupid reason to keep dynamic ratings secret.

    What do you think?
  2. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Mar 16, 2004
    I am against seeing them published. #1 for the reason you mentioned, the temptation to tank matches is to great. #2 Many teams would recruit by rankings only thus leaving out lower ranked players.
  3. oldguysrule

    oldguysrule Semi-Pro

    May 2, 2005
    I think people obsess over their ranking under the current system. Think what it would be like with this. I don't think there are any real problems that it solves, and it creates more problems.
  4. Cruzer

    Cruzer Professional

    Feb 26, 2004
    Leafs Nation
    It's not a question of whether or not dynamic ratings should be available online. The fact is they never will be. There is no good reason for doing it and plenty of good reasons for not doing it. One basic fact is that within any rating level there can be a big range of ability. A 3.5 could lose a singles match 6-2, 6-1 and then whine that their opponent is a cheating sandbagger when in reality the loser is a "weak" 3.5 with a full rating of 3.08 and is opponent is a "strong" 3.5 with a full rating of 3.48. This type of thing happens all the time and gives rise to many discussions about cheaters and people playing to deliberately keep their rating low.
  5. MordredSJT

    MordredSJT Rookie

    May 10, 2006
    "This is horrible, this idea..."

    Do you have any idea the amount of straight up cheating this would enable? The lengths I've seen people go to and the depths they have sunk to just to win locally or at state competitions around here is frightening to me. I can't imagine what would happen if they had this kind of information.
  6. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Mar 14, 2006
    Well, I've never been part of a USTA match where I thought an opponent was tanking. Do you really think there are that many cheaters out there? IMO, the vast majority of people are above that. Why spoil it for everyone else just because there are a few rotten apples out there. I want to see where I stand.

    I want to be able to know how many matches I need to win before I get bumped, not because I want to sandbag to preserve my computer rating, but because I would feel a sense of accomplishment by winning enough matches to be computer rated at the next level.
  7. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Mar 14, 2006
    I just added a poll to this thread. This should be interesting.
  8. Islandtennis

    Islandtennis Rookie

    Dec 20, 2006
    "Do you really think there are that many cheaters out there? "

    I respect your racquet opinions travler, but the answer to that is yes. People would be working the system worse than they are now. I have been privy to some some dynamic ratings carried out to the hundredths. If you think that there are some inaccuracies now, you should see the complaints if the actual DR was posted. While I would love to know my new dynamic after each match, in the overall scheme of things, it would create more problems than it would solve.

    I do agree that there should be a different doubles and singles rating. A person could easily be a 4.5 in doubles or a 4.0 or even 3.5 in singles ability.
  9. stutennis

    stutennis Guest

    Who cares whether someone is sandbagging their rating? You play the player that is across the net from you. You learn from their style and their ability. Ratings don't matter, just what you do and what the other player does. And if someone is sandbagging their rating, the chance is equal that they will play poorly against you to sandbag (remember, they are trying to sandbag their rating) as that they will whip you because they are underrated.
  10. Geezer Guy

    Geezer Guy Hall of Fame

    Feb 17, 2005
    Big Canoe, GA
    I think it would be great to see my rating rise and fall over time, but I'm afraid it would lead to great abuse by players that want to "manage" their rating to a particular number.
  11. cak

    cak Professional

    Feb 23, 2004
    A few years back in NorCal they had a TPI system that you needed to belong to for your club/association to field a combo team. It consisted of a database that when a club joined all their member's DNTRP were dumped into the system. You could see match by match how your DNTRP would change. If you entered social or challenge matches your DNTRP would also change, but those matches counted less, so it would change less.

    It was an unmitigated disaster. People were complaining about their DNTRP. You know how you sometime run across people now, and think "how come that guy's a 4.0, and that guy's a 4.5?" Well, now the numbers go out two more digits, and those questions came up in spades. Ladies were extremely embarrassed that they thought they were a strong 3.0, but turns out they weren't. The drama on the tennis courts was extreme. On the cheating side, people were entering fake scores to change their ratings. There were guys that were laid up in bed entering scores for matches it look like they played. Teams dropped out of combo season in droves, with the remaining team 30% of what they were the year before. Areas were combined. Some seasons were changed to a single weekend. It was extremely ugly.
  12. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Mar 14, 2006
    Hmm, it seems like the majority opinion is that the cheaters are too numerous to warrant making the DNTRP ratings available. Maybe there are a lot of cheaters, but I would like to see tennis become more like golf:

    In golf, everyone has a handicap. Sure there are sandbaggers, but it seems to me that the handicap system is one of the things that attracts people to the game. People can brag about their handicap, and it gives hard-workers something to strive for. Also, golf has the sports equivalent of an honor code - if you line your club up next to your ball and accidentally touch it, you're expected to add a stroke, even though nobody else saw it.

    I'm sure many people cheat by adding strokes to their practice rounds. But does that really spoil it for the others? I think not.

    Disclaimer on the analogy: In my junior high years, when I dallied with the game of golf, I generally preferred not to keep my score.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2007
  13. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Nov 21, 2006
    I have to completely agree with andfor. We already see captains being too selective if they want a competitive team. Another problem is there aren't enough captains for experience teams. And can you imagine being the captain of either an experience or competitive team, and being asked, "why am I not being played? My DNTRP is better than so-and-so."

    My friends in NorCal told me about how they tried to implement something called Tennis Player Index, which initially showed the dynamic ratings in the hundreds. You won't believe how low some computer rated players tried to get their ESR ratings for TPI. A total failure also according to the NorCal discussion board, since Combo doubles participation shrunk during that time. [edit: whoopsie! just noticed cak posted the same thing. I need to post faster, and not take a break in between ;)]
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2007

Share This Page