Maybe we need to come to an understanding about ratings

[Cindysphinx]

I've kind of noticed a theme that runs through a lot of rating-related posts around here. Time and time again, we hear that someone says they are a 4.5 but couldn't get their serve in. Or they claim their opponent must be sandbagging because they lost badly. Even on these boards, we've seen instances where someone claimed to be a certain level, only to learn later that this was what their club pro told them or is based on some non-USTA computer.

I think we could use more clarity and consistency when folks refer to their ratings or those of their teammates, opponents, partners. The understanding should be:

*If it ain't a USTA computer rating, it ain't a rating.*

Having a USTA rating doesn't make someone the be all and end all, of course. It does, however, make their observations and opinions about their level a bit more legitimate.

Not only would such an understanding help our discussions at TT, perhaps it would help avoid the current problem of having every tennis social or event become awash with people who are pulling a rating straight out of their backsides. It's really misleading, and I don't see how it helps anyone to introduce more uncertainty into the task of matching up players based on ability.

Yes, yes, I know that those not in the U.S. have to guesstimate their rating. That's fine -- they're unlikely to turn up at my local tennis round robin claiming to be a 4.5 but unable to keep the ball in the court.

[TennisDawg]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I've kind of noticed a theme that runs through a lot of rating-related posts around here. Time and time again, we hear that someone says they are a 4.5 but couldn't get their serve in. Or they claim their opponent must be sandbagging because they lost badly. Even on these boards, we've seen instances where someone claimed to be a certain level, only to learn later that this was what their club pro told them or is based on some non-USTA computer.

I think we could use more clarity and consistency when folks refer to their ratings or those of their teammates, opponents, partners. The understanding should be:

*If it ain't a USTA computer rating, it ain't a rating.*

Having a USTA rating doesn't make someone the be all and end all, of course. It does, however, make their observations and opinions about their level a bit more legitimate.

Not only would such an understanding help our discussions at TT, perhaps it would help avoid the current problem of having every tennis social or event become awash with people who are pulling a rating straight out of their backsides. It's really misleading, and I don't see how it helps anyone to introduce more uncertainty into the task of matching up players based on ability.

Yes, yes, I know that those not in the U.S. have to guesstimate their rating. That's fine -- they're unlikely to turn up at my local tennis round robin claiming to be a 4.5 but unable to keep the ball in the court.

It's also a big headache. I'm old school when tennis levels were A (advanced), B (intermediate) and C (beginner) and then Open (5.0 and above). That method was used all through most of the tennis boom and seemed to be less confusing. Their wasn't all this talk, it was either yea he/she is really good or they just started playing.

The NTRP seemed to get stuck in the minutae and then someone decided if you want to compete, that you have to join the USTA and A, B, C and Open was abolished. Personally, I'm not a USTA member and I don't enter any USTA events, that require I join the USTA with the expensive tournament fee. There are plenty of less formal leagues and some non-sanctioned tournaments that you can join and still play/enjoy the game of tennis without all the USTA hangups So, if someone asks me at a social what level are you I just say "been playing about 35 years" I guess I'm 3.5 I don't know never been rated or pay attention to that" That's a fairly safe answer because I know that most recreational players are 3.5. Like, I say I'm old school and still play with my Wilson Pro Staff Classics 30 year old racquets"

Probably didn't contribute much to your post xcept we seem to talk NTRP ratings a whole lot. I agree with you though that most players are not as good as what they rate themselves.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

*If it ain't a USTA computer rating, it ain't a rating.*

That's all that needs to be said.
End of the day, all that matters in tennis is whether you win or lose. You can look great losing, or ugly winning, but your results are what define your level.

[TennisDawg]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

That's all that needs to be said.
End of the day, all that matters in tennis is whether you win or lose. You can look great losing, or ugly winning, but your results are what define your level.

Good point!

[TomT]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I've kind of noticed a theme that runs through a lot of rating-related posts around here. Time and time again, we hear that someone says they are a 4.5 but couldn't get their serve in. Or they claim their opponent must be sandbagging because they lost badly. Even on these boards, we've seen instances where someone claimed to be a certain level, only to learn later that this was what their club pro told them or is based on some non-USTA computer.

I think we could use more clarity and consistency when folks refer to their ratings or those of their teammates, opponents, partners. The understanding should be:

*If it ain't a USTA computer rating, it ain't a rating.*

Having a USTA rating doesn't make someone the be all and end all, of course. It does, however, make their observations and opinions about their level a bit more legitimate.

Not only would such an understanding help our discussions at TT, perhaps it would help avoid the current problem of having every tennis social or event become awash with people who are pulling a rating straight out of their backsides. It's really misleading, and I don't see how it helps anyone to introduce more uncertainty into the task of matching up players based on ability.

Yes, yes, I know that those not in the U.S. have to guesstimate their rating. That's fine -- they're unlikely to turn up at my local tennis round robin claiming to be a 4.5 but unable to keep the ball in the court.

I'm kind of new to this rating thing. I joined this tennis league network in Fort Lauderdale as I wanted to get more playing partners. They offered a partner program for almost nothing (couple bucks a month), and ladders and leagues for a few bucks more. So I joined. Part of the process was a sell-evaluation of one's playing strength based on NTRP guidelines but subject to change (by the league administrators) depending on one's performance in any particular season.

I guessed myself to be about a 3.0 when I started. Based on my performance against who I've played I'm guessing that they'll probably keep it at that.

I'm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As far as I know, there aren't any USTA leagues around here.

[TennisDawg]

Originally Posted by TomT

I'm kind of new to this rating thing. I joined this tennis league network in Fort Lauderdale as I wanted to get more playing partners. They offered a partner program for almost nothing (couple bucks a month), and ladders and leagues for a few bucks more. So I joined. Part of the process was a sell-evaluation of one's playing strength based on NTRP guidelines but subject to change (by the league administrators) depending on one's performance in any particular season.

I guessed myself to be about a 3.0 when I started. Based on my performance against who I've played I'm guessing that they'll probably keep it at that.

I'm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As far as I know, there aren't any USTA leagues around here.

Yes, I joined a similar non USTA singles league here where I live. We play at a city park once a week, I play 8 matches and then we start a new session. Works out pretty good.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by TennisDawg

Yes, I joined a similar non USTA singles league here where I live. We play at a city park once a week, I play 8 matches and then we start a new session. Works out pretty good.

Interesting. Where are you? I'm in Fort Lauderdale. What's the name of your league?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by TennisDawg

It's also a big headache. I'm old school when tennis levels were A (advanced), B (intermediate) and C (beginner) and then Open (5.0 and above). That method was used all through most of the tennis boom and seemed to be less confusing. Their wasn't all this talk, it was either yea he/she is really good or they just started playing.

I still get a kick whenever I see a club notice board posting about BB or AA women, if you know what I mean.

[LeeD]

yeah, the more structured, the better for the scientists and engineers....
I'd say around here, more than 3/4 of the players don't play any kind of organized tournaments. I guess they are the nobodies of Cindy's world.

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

But when setting up a match with someone I've never seen before, I want to have some reliable indicator of roughly how good they are, so that I know I am not going to be wasting their time or vice versa.

so dont play comps that allow self rates

everybody happy. problem solved. close thread

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by TeflonTom

so dont play comps that allow self rates

everybody happy. problem solved. close thread

I don't play comps as it is. But I do set up casual matches with other local players. Sometimes I come across people I don't know. It's useful in these cases to know their level - objective level that is.

I don't know why you find the concept of this objectionable.

[t135]

Originally Posted by TennisDawg

It's also a big headache. I'm old school when tennis levels were A (advanced), B (intermediate) and C (beginner) and then Open (5.0 and above). That method was used all through most of the tennis boom and seemed to be less confusing. Their wasn't all this talk, it was either yea he/she is really good or they just started playing.

The NTRP seemed to get stuck in the minutae and then someone decided if you want to compete, that you have to join the USTA and A, B, C and Open was abolished. Personally, I'm not a USTA member and I don't enter any USTA events, that require I join the USTA with the expensive tournament fee. There are plenty of less formal leagues and some non-sanctioned tournaments that you can join and still play/enjoy the game of tennis without all the USTA hangups So, if someone asks me at a social what level are you I just say "been playing about 35 years" I guess I'm 3.5 I don't know never been rated or pay attention to that" That's a fairly safe answer because I know that most recreational players are 3.5. Like, I say I'm old school and still play with my Wilson Pro Staff Classics 30 year old racquets"

Probably didn't contribute much to your post xcept we seem to talk NTRP ratings a whole lot. I agree with you though that most players are not as good as what they rate themselves.

Well for the record those levels still exist in Atlanta Georgia through ALTA competition. Only about 30,000 or so people participate in this though. So no big deal I guess.

You still have people playing and self rating out of level. ABC's don't stop that.

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

I don't play comps as it is. But I do set up casual matches with other local players. Sometimes I come across people I don't know. It's useful in these cases to know their level - objective level that is.

I don't know why you find the concept of this objectionable.

you aint ever gonna get an objective level from someone who aint computer rated

solution is fairly simple surely. if u are teeing up a match with someone, ask em if they r computer rated. if they aint, take their ratin with a grain o salt

hardly needs a massive whinge thread id have thought

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by TeflonTom

you aint ever gonna get an objective level from someone who aint computer rated

solution is fairly simple surely. if u are teeing up a match with someone, ask em if they r computer rated. if they aint, take their ratin with a grain o salt

hardly needs a massive whinge thread id have thought

I thought the bolded part was the OP was saying? So looks like we are all in agreement.

And as for needing a massive whinge thread... well, if the thread didn't exist, you'd have no place to post your several responses, now would you? Lighten up, it's all good entertainment

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

I thought the bolded part was the OP was saying? So looks like we are all in agreement.

well yeah

brb startin thread bout how sky is blue

[aurelius]

Originally Posted by TennisDawg

It's also a big headache. I'm old school when tennis levels were A (advanced), B (intermediate) and C (beginner) and then Open (5.0 and above). That method was used all through most of the tennis boom and seemed to be less confusing.

I think it's easier to think about it in terms of a broader rating too: Beginner (2.5-3.0); Intermediate (3.5-4.0); Advanced (4.5-5.0); Elite (5.5+).

Most people are intermediate with the smallest category being Elite (that don't care about this anyway).

[josofo]

to me cindy premise is that if you are at a level and play competative matches at that level then you belong at that level. but in order to figure that out you need to play a few matches at that level aka enough to get a computer rating.

i think we all agree that the usta self rating system has some holes. notable is rating d3 and jr college players because some d3 players are not even 4.0 and some can be 5.5.

[Power Player]

Cindy is super into usta rating. She mentions it in every thread she makes...lol.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

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.

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

It's just weird. I mean, there is a different rating system among the country clubs here. They use colors (red, blue, green, yellow) and letters (A, B, C). I sure don't go around telling people I am a RedB, so why do these ladies call themselves 4.0?

cos there is no point in u callin urself a red b

the usta ratings is a universal yardstick across the usa. look at this forum - its how every1 gauges the ability of players they aint seen before

its useful in that sense. even if some1 is self rated, if they tell me they r a 4.0 then i know somethin about them. i gotta take it with a grain of salt, but it is still more useful than them tryin 2 describe what type of player they r without a mutually understood scale

real problem seems 2 be that other ppl assume that a 4.0 is a 4.0. me - first question i ask if someone tells me their ratin is if they r computer rated. if u do that, then it aint a problem at all