Originally Posted by ohplease
Skill ratings mean just that - a complete separation from results, including games. Even allowing the input of games, score differentials, or my precious winning percentage - ALL are results based metrics.
Skill rating would be everybody against a ball machine, radar gun, and targets. Crunch some numbers - hey look - you're a 4.0. Now let's see how people with similar "skills" do against one another.
In fact, the USTA has already abandoned the traditional skills test (in the form of visual verification) for a results based metric - only the results based metric they chose are wrong. Roll the consequence into the incentive, and you'll force the people who want to win to take the part they don't want (being bumped up), too.
The visual verification was really only done for self rating and for play in the playoffs. Unless you are talking about how it may of been before the 90's (I didnt play back then).
Of course you cant go purely by skill ratings, that is impossible, but you would have to admit that games are better than whole matches, wouldnt you???
It's generally accepted that if you lose to someone 6-0, 6-0 that means you are a lot worse than if you are losing 7-6, 7-6 to them.
I have a friend that Ive probally lost 70 match to but the far majority of them are very very close, it certainly doesnt mean he's a whole diffrent level then I am. (we both do about the same in League play and I do better against certain types of opponents)
So it sounds like you agree with me. If you are going to claim that going by games (which is really how it was ALWAYS done in the core rating scheme anyway) is somehow wrong, then you cant somehow claim that whole matches is somehow better.