Originally Posted by OrangePower
A guy at my club is in this situation and asked me. I didn't really know the answer so figured I'd ask the forum:
Five or six years ago he started playing USTA league after a long time away from tennis. Based on his answers to the self-rate questions he ended up as a 4.5S. But he was not competitive at 4.5, and got bumped down to a 4.0C at the end of his first year. He played his second and third years as a 4.0C with a middle of the road record and stayed at 4.0C at the end of both those years.
Then some life events caused him to stop playing again for several years.
He started playing again this year and had to self-rate again. He self-rated as a 4.0 since that was his last computer rating. He has a middle of the road record so far.
However someone has filed a grievance on him. The grievance asserts that based on the self-rating questions, he should have self-rated as a 4.5S. And this is true - he is still in the same age bracket as when he originally self-rated five or six years ago, and so answering the questions now as he did back then would still have him as a 4.5.
Should he be worried? Should he have self-rated as a 4.5 and then appealed down? Or was he correct in self rating at his last computer rating? His results bear out the legitimacy of his 4.0 rating, but does that even matter?
so someone paid 50 bucks to say he should be a 4.5 when he played 4.0 for a few seasons and was middle of the road.
what a waste of 50 bucks
* I seem to remember to file a grievance you have to pay a 50 check along with the filled out form with proof. if you're correct you get the 50 bucks back, if wrong the sections keeps it and cashes it and they all have a pizza party on you