View Single Post
Old 07-30-2012, 06:13 AM   #19
dizzlmcwizzl
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DE
Posts: 2,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cindysphinx View Post
Maybe USTA should do away with the descriptions they provide. It seems to give folks the idea that it is OK to look at those descriptions and pick one. Given that the descriptions are way, way off, they are doing more harm than good.
What I find interesting is that the guidelines that they give are getting better as I improve. What I mean by that is before I had played much tennis (1 year maybe) I looked at the guidelines and thought myself to be a 4.5 player ... which amazed me because I was at that time I was barely a 3.5 player.

Now that I have played for almost 10 years I find that the descriptions they provide are much more accurate. As an outsider looking back on my game I can now tell I had 3.0 and 3.5 aspects to my game. Occasionally I would hit a 4.5 caliber shot but 1 out of a 100 don't make you a 4.5. I think when I looked at those ratings 10 years ago, all I thought about was the 1 in 100 shot.

Overall, I think the guidelines are pretty accurate if they are assessed by someone who has played a good bit of higher level tennis of another payer while in match play. On paper to a novice who is self rating they are not very helpful.
__________________
"You should be playing linebacker, not singles."
dizzlmcwizzl is offline   Reply With Quote