Maybe we need to come to an understanding about ratings

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Avles

Here's NTRPolice's serve technique--decide for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-Sw6DRQpE

(The "Karlovic" comment is at 1:20)

Actually, that's not as bad as I thought it would be. Nice knee bend; back is too stiff though and the body rotation timing is off. Not a 110 mph serve, but like I said, better than I was expecting. Good for the 3.5 level and probably higher also (depending on control - could not see where the serves were landing).

[TomT]

Originally Posted by Mike Y

My first serve probably tops out at 90mph ...

Ok, that's a bit faster than my current best, and probably faster than most of the 3.5s I play.

Originally Posted by Mike Y

... but many times it is probably in the 80s.

Ok, that's the norm in my experience at my level in my local league. It can be very effective depending on placement, spin, etc.

Originally Posted by Mike Y

Nevertheless it can still ace people 4.0 or lower occasionally (even a 4.5 on a rare occasion).

Yes, I would suppose so. Depends on placement.

For example, in the recent Cincinnati match with Federer, Djokovic served some effective sub 80 mph (second) serves.

Originally Posted by Mike Y

Even though it is the weakest part of my game, I usually have a high first serve percentage and I place it well, so it does the job mostly, it is just not dominating.

First serve for me is just a shot to get me into the net. It doesn't have to be extremely fast. Just well placed. Witness, for example, the success of Ken Rosewall ... a world top ten dominant player for more than 20 years ... with a comparatively slow first, and second, serve.

Originally Posted by Mike Y

90mph is still a fast serve ...

I agree. It's fast enough to give almost all 3.0 and most 3.5 players problems. But that's just in my limited experience in the Tennis League Network.

Originally Posted by Mike Y

I think most people grossly overestimate the speed of their serves/hits if they don't have an accurate and properly used radar gun.

Agree. I would have thought that my practice serves were going about 80 + mph, until I actually calculated the speed via time stamps in videos and estimated distances and discovered that they were probably only about 75 mph or maybe less. Fairly large margin of error when doing it that way.

Originally Posted by Mike Y

A 110 mph serve that you get in 20% of the time is effectively useless, it will lose matches for you, and will hinder your progress on your serve if you keep trying it. You have to build up to that sort of serve.

I agree. But the thing is, if you can hit serves at 110 mph with 20% going in, then you can potentially hit those same serves with, say, 60% or 70% going in. Personally, I don't think I could even possibly hit a serve close to 90 mph with my current old man serving motion. But, as I get more fit, and practice, there is, I have to think, hope.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Actually, that's not as bad as I thought it would be. Nice knee bend; back is too stiff though and the body rotation timing is off. Not a 110 mph serve, but like I said, better than I was expecting. Good for the 3.5 level and probably higher also (depending on control - could not see where the serves were landing).

See, the kid has potential. Eh? I like his energy, movement, athleticism, and apparent willingness to take instruction.

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by TomT

I agree. But the thing is, if you can hit serves at 110 mph with 20% going in, then you can potentially hit those same serves with, say, 60% or 70% going in. Personally, I don't think I could even possibly hit a serve close to 90 mph with my current old man serving motion. But, as I get more fit, and practice, there is, I have to think, hope.

This is exactly it Tom. When I first started taking tennis seriously a few years ago one of the guys actually laughed at when I said "I want to try to be a 5.0" and now that same guy doesnt say anything when he sees me play.

That serve motion in my video isnt at all like how my serve motion is now and I only brought it up to show that im very capable of squaring that face up and getting extra pace if I need to.

In time, my flat serve will be consistent enough to be used as a legitimate first serve. Right now its too unreliable, so I dont use it. As far as "oh, im so good that I dont have to use it" that's really only half of it. People at this level can be seriously hurt if I play "my maximum" because they are not ready to be on the receiving end of a big serve, overhead, or return. I'm a pretty intense player and I want to win, but since this is rec level, im not going to bust someones ear drum, give them an eye abrasion, or blow out a nuttsack just to win a point. I will always try to avoid hitting the net player at this level, because this isnt 4.0. 4.0+ I just hit wherever I want.

The "Ivo Karlovic" serve did in fact go in, but it was very close to the "T". I remember it, because this video was from our very first lesson and I gave the flat serve a chance for fun.

As far as posting a video to prove everyone wrong, that's not going to happen. I guarantee you that there will be other videos up there of me soon, but because that channel is there just to gauge my improvement and not to prove anything to TT posters, if you really want to see me play, I wouldnt hold my breath.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

This is exactly it Tom. When I first started taking tennis seriously a few years ago one of the guys actually laughed at when I said "I want to try to be a 5.0" and now that same guy doesnt say anything when he sees me play.

That serve motion in my video isnt at all like how my serve motion is now and I only brought it up to show that im very capable of squaring that face up and getting extra pace if I need to.

In time, my flat serve will be consistent enough to be used as a legitimate first serve. Right now its too unreliable, so I dont use it. As far as "oh, im so good that I dont have to use it" that's really only half of it. People at this level can be seriously hurt if I play "my maximum" because they are not ready to be on the receiving end of a big serve, overhead, or return. I'm a pretty intense player and I want to win, but since this is rec level, im not going to bust someones ear drum, give them an eye abrasion, or blow out a nuttsack just to win a point. I will always try to avoid hitting the net player at this level, because this isnt 4.0. 4.0+ I just hit wherever I want.

The "Ivo Karlovic" serve did in fact go in, but it was very close to the "T". I remember it, because this video was from our very first lesson and I gave the flat serve a chance for fun.

As far as posting a video to prove everyone wrong, that's not going to happen. I guarantee you that there will be other videos up there of me soon, but because that channel is there just to gauge my improvement and not to prove anything to TT posters, if you really want to see me play, I wouldnt hold my breath.

It's not about proving anything, at least not for me. It's about tennis videos. I love tennis videos. And now that we have this ... connection, via this forum, then your videos will be that much more interesting.

I think you have great potential and am hoping you achieve your goals. Though I think you might have set them too low. I'm fairly confident that you could be a solid 4.5 player within a couple of years. I think it's just a matter of how important it is to you to make the necessary hours of quality practice on the court a priority.

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

Nooo, Cindy!! It only works on REAL ratings.

anywya, they go the other way, I think, he would be a Dutch level 7, but ONLY if he had a verifiable rating.

the flip side of this is where a USTA rated player moves overseas (it happens, really!) and wants to play in, say, Australia.

We can take his USTA rating and accurately grade him in to one our leagues, 'cos it works!

However, using your argument, the reverse would not be true, as only 'USTA computer ratings' apparently count for anything...

cindy's argument appears to be that we should cease using ntrp as an easily-understood yardstick to facilitate communication and discussion, simply because she can't be arsed asking a follow-up question about how someone has arrived at their rating if that rating becomes important

this is an utterly bizarre thread, really

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by TomT

See, the kid has potential. Eh? I like his energy, movement, athleticism, and apparent willingness to take instruction.

I've been saying there is potential. Even seeing the serve motion, I still have no doubt he isn't hitting 110. I doubt he is even over 100 in the swings on that video. He has a knee bend that isn't transferring up to his arm...too vertical.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

I've been saying there is potential. Even seeing the serve motion, I still have no doubt he isn't hitting 110. I doubt he is even over 100 in the swings on that video. He has a knee bend that isn't transferring up to his arm...too vertical.

Yes, I think I said somewhere back in the thread that I don't believe he's hitting close to 110 mph ... from what I've seen so far. Still, great potential, imho. He's sort of knee-jerk reacted to the sarcastic put downs of his claims. Which is probably the way I would react. I think he could probably beat most of his detractors or skeptics. That's why I excluded him from my challenge to USTA 3.0Cs.

Whatever mechanical problems you see, I think he is intelligent enough and motivated enough to improve upon.

So, I'm issuing a new challenge. I expect that by 2015 NTRPolice will be a bona fide, solid 4.5C USTA player.

[spot]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

And to the person who said "lols, even if you played a 5.0, he wouldnt use his real serve on you!" he did and that was the first time ive ever been served at like that. I played with a 4.0 girl and we lost 7-5 with him serving full speed at me. He served a little easier on my partner.

Just because he served easier to your partner does not mean that he was serving 110 to you.

In ALTA levels work differently where we can have wide range of players on our team- we have former D1 guys and 4.0 guys who practice together. The former D1 guys simply don't bring out their bombs when playing against 4.0 guys. They would probably just go to the bar early rather than facing a 3.5 guy. You may think that you got their biggest serve but in a pickup match I think that is exceedingly unlikely. Even then not all of our former D1 guys can still hit 110. I just don't think you realize what a massive serve 110 is.

Seems like the easiest thing to do would be to just ask your pro how hard he thinks you serve. I do not think you will like his answer.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by TeflonTom

cindy's argument appears to be that we should cease using ntrp as an easily-understood yardstick to facilitate communication and discussion, simply because she can't be arsed asking a follow-up question about how someone has arrived at their rating if that rating becomes important

this is an utterly bizarre thread, really

I do agree with you Teflon, but I think that somebody, like Cindy, has to say something off the wall now and then otherwise there wouldn't be any actual discussions.

Cindy has asserted a certain idea of hers, and it's resulted in a wonderfully entertaining thread as far as I'm concerned. In response to Cindy's claims, there's been a certain concentration on my claims, then a certain, and more extensive, concentration on NTRPolice's claims, and who knows what might be next.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

As far as "oh, im so good that I dont have to use it" that's really only half of it. People at this level can be seriously hurt if I play "my maximum" because they are not ready to be on the receiving end of a big serve, overhead, or return. I'm a pretty intense player and I want to win, but since this is rec level, im not going to bust someones ear drum, give them an eye abrasion, or blow out a nuttsack just to win a point. I will always try to avoid hitting the net player at this level, because this isnt 4.0. 4.0+ I just hit wherever I want.

This statement is also something i think you will find amusing in a few years.

In the meantime, you had probably better register your overhead, serve and return with the local authorities as Deadly Weapons.

[tennis tom]

That's a pretty big swing, it could be 110 at times. Not many of us carry around radar guns in our bags. I remember a guy at my club, about 20 years ago, who bought one and was generous enough to clock anyone who wanted to.

The BEST SERVE is not necessarily the fastest. Fed and Pete don't have the fastest serves on the planet but win a lot of free points. At their level it's getting into their opponent's head, hitting all the spots (down the T, wide, into the body) and having all the spins, (slice, top, flat), keeping the receiver off-guard, guessing, leaning the wrong way.

If you're young, athletic, motivated you can improve quickly. A freshly hatched beginner can go from 3.0 to 4.0 in a year if they work hard--if they forget about blasting the ball out of the park and keep it in the lines-- they can win a lot with gorilla tennis. He could become a 4.5 in a few years IF he gets really good coaching on all aspects of the game, technique, strategy and tactics (and he doesn't discover girls).

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by TomT

Yes, I think I said somewhere back in the thread that I don't believe he's hitting close to 110 mph ... from what I've seen so far. Still, great potential, imho. He's sort of knee-jerk reacted to the sarcastic put downs of his claims. Which is probably the way I would react. I think he could probably beat most of his detractors or skeptics. That's why I excluded him from my challenge to USTA 3.0Cs.

Whatever mechanical problems you see, I think he is intelligent enough and motivated enough to improve upon.

So, I'm issuing a new challenge. I expect that by 2015 NTRPolice will be a bona fide, solid 4.5C USTA player.

He certainly could end up a 4.5. I'll bet against 2015. That would mean 3 bumps up in 3 years. I havent seen someone accomplish that. I'd put the over-under on 2017...slightly ahead of his own prediction (by age 35 = 2019).

[Avles]

Originally Posted by TeflonTom

cindy's argument appears to be that we should cease using ntrp as an easily-understood yardstick to facilitate communication and discussion, simply because she can't be arsed asking a follow-up question about how someone has arrived at their rating if that rating becomes important

this is an utterly bizarre thread, really

It's especially odd since Cindy has recently said that, though she's a 4.0, she plays mostly doubles and would have trouble beating a (female) 3.5 in singles. So apparently follow-up questions will be necessary no matter what...

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by Avles

It's especially odd since Cindy has recently said that, though she's a 4.0, she plays mostly doubles and would have trouble beating a (female) 3.5 in singles. So apparently follow-up questions will be necessary no matter what...

There would be no need for follow up questions.

"Cindy, what's your level?"

"4.0. I suck at singles."

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

can of worms time.

is it worth considering different ratings for singles and doubles?

I have a national open singles ranking, but I'm rubbish at (high level) doubles, Cindy soundsl like an excellent doubles player but is a self confessed bunny on the singles court.

It is kind of like the Bryans vs Fed, both awesome, but they are almost different sports!

I guess my point is that an NTRP computer rating derived only from doubles has no meaning in terms of a singles tournament. Sure, a player MIGHT be equally good at both forms, but in reality few are.

just putting it out there.

[Surecatch]

Originally Posted by TomT

Do you guys start with NTRP self ratings, or preestablished USTA ratings? Just trying to get an idea what your 3.5 corresponds to wrt my experience.

I guess self ratings... I don't think they rely on any of that strict USTA stuff. I think it's a basic estimation of the level to expect in that division. The first time I played in it, the director sort of had me "try out" just so he could be sure he wasn't signing up someone who clearly didn't belong. The thread about the tryout is still deep in the long forgotten pages of TW...I think back in 2005, the year of my second re-embracing of the game. I'm on my fourth now. Haha. Life keeps getting in the way of my sustained progress.

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

can of worms time.

is it worth considering different ratings for singles and doubles?

I have a national open singles ranking, but I'm rubbish at (high level) doubles, Cindy soundsl like an excellent doubles player but is a self confessed bunny on the singles court.

It is kind of like the Bryans vs Fed, both awesome, but they are almost different sports!

I guess my point is that an NTRP computer rating derived only from doubles has no meaning in terms of a singles tournament. Sure, a player MIGHT be equally good at both forms, but in reality few are.

just putting it out there.

i dont think so. most ppl who are substantially poorer at one kind of tennis don't play enough of it to get an accurate rankin at it anyway

in that case, the best 'guesstimate' is still gunna be to use ur main rankin to work it out

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

He certainly could end up a 4.5. I'll bet against 2015. That would mean 3 bumps up in 3 years. I havent seen someone accomplish that. I'd put the over-under on 2017...slightly ahead of his own prediction (by age 35 = 2019).

There's no way id want to be a 4.5 by 2015, even if I could. I wanted to be a 4.0 in ability and rating by 2015. I wanted to be a 4.5 by 2020. My time is running out which is why im voluntarily playing up while not self rating up. I had a recent talk with my 7.0 team about this because they wanted to me to stay down because im obviously more valuable as a 3.0 than as a 3.5 or 4.0.

My theory is that I have to start now if I ever want to get there. I have the rest of my life to come down in ratings if thats what it has to be, even with the minimum changes to self rates and expired ratings.

Not everyone plays down like Cindy. Yeah, she may be a 4.0 B, but she's playing 3.5 ROFL because her record at 4.0 is terrible.

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

can of worms time.

is it worth considering different ratings for singles and doubles?

I have a national open singles ranking, but I'm rubbish at (high level) doubles, Cindy soundsl like an excellent doubles player but is a self confessed bunny on the singles court.

It is kind of like the Bryans vs Fed, both awesome, but they are almost different sports!

I guess my point is that an NTRP computer rating derived only from doubles has no meaning in terms of a singles tournament. Sure, a player MIGHT be equally good at both forms, but in reality few are.

just putting it out there.

There are many factors to NTRP. Singles vs. Doubles is one of them. You also have age and gender to take into consideration.

TBH, type of rating doesnt matter. Only time does in this aspect.

The only fair rating system is "open". Any "handicap" or "bracketing" system can be abused.

I watched the Pospisil/Raonic vs. Nadal/Djoker

That was an exciting match. I also believe its more common to have a wildcard advance in doubles as it is in singles.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

Cindy soundsl like an excellent doubles player but is a self confessed bunny on the singles court.

In my dreams, man. In my dreams.