Originally Posted by NTRPolice
The only thing I can say is that people seem to forget how dynamic NTRP ranges are especially under the 4.0 level. Once you get to 4.0/8.0 players start to more or less even out. It's the sub-4.0 level play that has a broad dynamic of players and/or abilities.
Honestly, I don't see why you would say that.
Yes, there are more male and female players at 3.5 and below than at 4.0 and above. But my experience at 2.5-4.0 has been that there is a broad ranger of abilities within each rating level. I would not agree at all that players "start to even out" at 4.0. There are still lots of wonky strokes and jacked up mechanics at 4.0, yet players have learned to compensate. And if you take a player at the top of 4.0 against a player at the bottom of 4.0, the weaker player will struggle to win any games.
So I am not sure what your point is and why.
The topic of this conversation is hitting at the net player in doubles and now we've taken a tangent and are now assuming that the weaker player is at the net and that the stronger player is hitting at the weaker player.
We're also talking about adult mixed doubles.
Yes, you took us on a tangent with the wildly inaccurate statement that a 2.5 guy is lightyears ahead of a 3.5 woman.
When everyone laughed at this assertion, you tried to prop it up by saying that the 2.5 guy has to be of nationals caliber while the 3.5 woman has to be decrepit and elderly, thereby not comparing apples to apples.
You probably would do better just to admit you were wrong.
You arnt going to see a 3.5 super senior at nationals, but this player will be playing during the regular season and maybe may make a playoff occasionally. During the regular season this person could very well be up against a person half their age with twice their power and ability.
At the national level skills will tend to be closer, obviously, but during the regular season these players will have to play each other. During the regular season, it is "apples to apples" if I say that a nationals level player will play against a "never made a playoff". If both these players are the same NTRP, its even "red" apples to "red" apples.
No, that is silly.
When we talk about how this type of player (say, a 3.5 guy) will do against another type of player (say, a 4.0 guy), we find it most useful to compare players who are similar. We might choose in our hypothetical guys who are in the middle of their rating level and are computer rated. Then we can draw some meaningful conclusions (say, we might agree that the 3.5 guy should get double-bageled in singles).
If you start comparing players who are not in fact similar (say, a nationals-bound 4.0 male singles player against a 3.5 senior female doubles specialist), then you can't draw any general conclusions.
So maybe if you are going to make sweeping statements about who is lightyears ahead of whom, you should stick with discussing computer-rated league players who are similar in some way.