Originally Posted by Cindysphinx
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.
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.
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.
We know that a top tier player of a certain NTRP is well ahead of someone at the bottom of that same NTRP. Even the NTRP guidelines describe the results of a "high end" player vs. a "low end" player resulting in 0-0 type scores.
Why do you still think that once you factor age and gender into the mix that somehow things become more balanced?
You do realize that a lot of "nationals level" players play at multiple levels and attend multiple national championships in the same year right? You also realize that a lot of those players are in fact computer rated right?
I know people on this forum think that people of NTRP's below them are absolutely terrible, but you'd be surprised how good some of these players are especially at the highest level of play. Type of rating doesnt matter either. I looked at the Caribbean 3.0 team this year and all of their players are C rated.
I still dont see how you fail to understand that "mixed" is the most diverse league in USTA and of all leagues to "assume everyone is in the middle of their NTRP" is just absurd. If we were talking only about adult league sectionals then you'd make a little sense.
Regular season play of adult mixed literally has "everything" and "everyone" playing in it.