Combo league frustration

[NTRPolice]

right or wrong, it's just not worth it.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

While I do appreciate the compliment it is somewhat irrelevant. I'm trying to go back to the "3.0's cant serve 100 mph" which people were so hastily to agree with. I'm an NTRP 3.0 computer rated player, as i've explained before the account is legit. I do agree with you, my abilities are top tier 3.5 at least, or mid range 4.0 at this point. I have only lost twice in 7.0 mixed doubles playing with a 4.0 girl as a 3.0 guy.

After I made my Youtube channel available to the people of TT, they had to start playing other angles because its clear from the video that I have the potential to actually prove them wrong.

Then it was...

-I dont know what 100 mph looks like.
So I offered FPS speed measuring of a small clip of my serves. Wasnt good enough.

Then it was...

-That power is useless unless it goes in most of the time.
Which I agreed to, but already explained im building a solid second serve before I work on the hard flat one.

Then it was...

-110 outwide because I made a comment about how I dont doubt that on a good strike it can be 110.
They forgot all about the "stipulations"

And now its...

120 out wide, 70% of the time all the time or else its useless.



All I was trying to illustrate is we've come so far since...

"3.0's cant hit 100 mph"

No, we are still at "3.0s can't hit 100 mph". You're still using yourself as the example and you are under rated.

Relatively few 3.5s are going to nip 100mph on a gun. Maybe 10% of 4.0s can would be my guess and about 1/2 at 4.5 do from my experience.

My point is that a 100 mph serve is a weapon that moves people up the ranks...because lower level players have minimal chance of successfully returning it.

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

No, we are still at "3.0s can't hit 100 mph". You're still using yourself as the example and you are under rated.

Relatively few 3.5s are going to nip 100mph on a gun. Maybe 10% of 4.0s can would be my guess and about 1/2 at 4.5 do from my experience.

My point is that a 100 mph serve is a weapon that moves people up the ranks...because lower level players have minimal chance of successfully returning it.

If that's what you're saying, then I agree.

There are still people here who think I cant serve 100. Granted, I havnt exactly proven it, the fact that they're so sure I cant is becoming questionable because of the progression to the 120 mph out-wide on demand 70% of the time.

It started as "a 3.0 cant serve 100 mph" referring to me.

It is a fact that I am a 3.0, but if what you are saying is that "im out of level thats why I can possibly do it" then I wholly agree.

[Maui19]

             

[NTRPolice]

right or wrong, it's just not worth it.

[Maui19]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

I read what you originally wrote. I bet you're editing this now because you read the article that I linked in my other post.

While it is entirely possible that I do indeed have the wrong "Cindy" I have very strong evidence to show some obvious "coincidences" if its not.

So... I hope you agree that I do have the right "Cindy" and her record isnt even close to 40% win rate. She's barely at 25% as a 4.0 and just got a "B" rating because she won playing 3.5 (as a 4.0). Her record over the last 5 years isnt at all "decent" and she has only one year (2010) where she even has a winning record (50% or higher).

I deleted it because I decided perhaps Cindy didn't want all of this discussion of her personal life on a public forum. I know her name. I know where she lives. I think you have the wrong person. It's her personal life, and I am pretty uncomfortable discussing it in a public forum. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

[NTRPolice]

right or wrong, it's just not worth it.

[Maui19]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

While I do agree to some extent, she did post this article herself. All I did was look her up on tennislink.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...31&postcount=1

-I never posted her name.
-She posted an article that has her name on it.
-I just read the article and tennislinked her name to see if she was even a "good 4.0".

I do agree that it was a bit uncomfortable to repost that article, even she herself claimed she had a record similar to what you claimed (40%-50%). According to tennislink, that is just not at all true unless you count 3.5 wins, or just 2010.

You would make a terrible detective. Did you ever think about comparing location to the name?

[spot]

NTRPolice- I never said a 3.0 couldn't serve 100. I've known a guy who was a 3.0 who did- he was 6 foot 3 and 270 pounds former D1 football player and could just crush it though the serve would go in about 15% of the time. Since you tried to get into a MPH penis size contest with a 4.0 woman who plays Seniors I'm going to assume that you are under 5'9". I just laughed when you said that you personally could serve 110 since you have absolutely no reason to believe that you can. You don't have a coach saying you serve 110. You don't have a video showing you can serve 110. Playing 3.0 you almost certainly haven't faced anyone serving 110 in a league match where you think that your serve is just as strong. You are flat guessing but are so sure of yourself and that makes it very easy to laugh at you. I think you are simply delusional about your own level as you have shown time after time.

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by Maui19

You would make a terrible detective. Did you ever think about comparing location to the name?

You're right. I had the wrong person.

There were just so many striking similarities.

17W-26L for 2012 as a 4.0

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

I know you said that. I dont see that on your tennislink, however. According to your tennislink, in 2012, you have 1 "win" due to a default. All of the rest of your matches are losses...

When I look back a few years, you're only winning as a "3.5".

I am not seeing you playing "4.0" and winning.

I just assume then, you're talking about "wins" outside of USTA. If you think those count, fine. Your record according to tennislink as a 4.0 is mostly losses. lol.

You are looking at someone else's Tennislink record, clearly. If you see a default win for 2012, you aren't looking at my record.

And no, I don't count non-USTA wins. Indeed, I play very little tennis outside of USTA matches. And yes, I had some wins at 4.0 when I was a 3.5, but not very many.

You are correct, however, that my 2012 USTA record is "mostly losses." Winning 45% of matches is mostly losses, so no argument there.

That said, I am working diligently to get a winning record for 2013. The path, I think, is the ability to take the net against anyone and everyone. I could manipulate things by using my Captain Powers to play only with the strongest partners, but that would be taking shortcuts.

[edit: OK, I see you finally admitting you were wrong. It's kind of weird that you would try to call me out as a liar the way you did. Shoot first, aim later. I accept your apology.

Anyway, I don't see how my USTA win rate is very relevant here, but it does give us one useful bit of information: I know **way** more about how 3.5 and 4.0 women play in combo, mixed and adult than you do. Maybe you should listen.]

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

You are looking at someone else's Tennislink record, clearly. If you see a default win for 2012, you aren't looking at my record.

And no, I don't count non-USTA wins. Indeed, I play very little tennis outside of USTA matches. And yes, I had some wins at 4.0 when I was a 3.5, but not very many.

You are correct, however, that my 2012 USTA record is "mostly losses." Winning 45% of matches is mostly losses, so no argument there.

That said, I am working diligently to get a winning record for 2013. The path, I think, is the ability to take the net against anyone and everyone. I could manipulate things by using my Captain Powers to play only with the strongest partners, but that would be taking shortcuts.

And I apologize.

I have deleted my previous entries with the article since my only reason for posting that was to show how I got the name I used to search tennislink and nothing more. Since I was wrong, there is no reason to leave that article floating out there. I also didnt want to post your name so that you could always remove that article if you wish.

Again, I apologize.

I had the wrong Cindy. I was just too convinced by the 2011 "B" rating, being a 4.0, the name, and being on the east to check it twice.

[Cindysphinx]

NTRPolice, I have noticed a theme in your posts (well, a lot of them, actually). The theme I noticed is "I'm a legit 3.0C, but I really have the strokes of a 3.5 or a 4.0."

I have a TT cautionary tale for you.

A few years ago, we had a poster whose name I won't reveal. Nice guy, for sure. He played a season of 3.0S and wasn't bumped up. Then he worked on his game and demolished the field at 3.0 as a 3.0C. This included a run to nationals and a national title, IIRC. He felt it was a reasonable goal to get to 4.5.

He got a double-bump to 4.0. The last I heard was that he was struggling to win games at 4.0, let alone matches. I think he became overwhelmed with job and family and isn't playing USTA these days. Before he left TT, he was very candid about how wrong he had been about ascending to 4.5 and how his strokes weren't achieving much at 4.0.

I hope when (not if, when) this happens to you that you will come back here and commiserate. You won't be the first to dominate at a low level only to find the going quite difficult once the NTRP computer catches up to you.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

And I apologize.

I have deleted my previous entries with the article since my only reason for posting that was to show how I got the name I used to search tennislink and nothing more. Since I was wrong, there is no reason to leave that article floating out there. I also didnt want to post your name so that you could always remove that article if you wish.

Again, I apologize.

I had the wrong Cindy. I was just too convinced by the 2011 "B" rating, being a 4.0, the name, and being on the east to check it twice.

Apology accepted.

I do have to laugh. The lady you searched (thinking she was me) really has struggled, hasn't she?

[tennis_ocd]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

You are correct, however, that my 2012 USTA record is "mostly losses." Winning 45% of matches is mostly losses, so no argument there.

fwiw, I find it somewhat amazing that you can win 45% of matches after just getting bumped up. Congrats!

[tennis_ocd]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

Ooooo now I have to serve 120 out wide. That I dont know if I can do. Maybe on the Ad side.

I love how this started out with 110. Then it became 110 out wide. Then it became "all the time". Then it became 120 out wide.

I remember a point where I said I could serve 100+ and everyone was a doubter. After I posted my "bad" serve video its evolved to 120 out wide all the time.

Originally Posted by NTRPolice from 8/16/2012

If my serve happened to be going extremely well, we may have been able to win. By well I mean 110-120 on demand out-wides and zero doubles serving 75-80 minimum.

My serve is probably the strongest part of my game... but its also the weakest part at the same time. It's the "main gun" as I call it. If the main gun is dialed in, it's easy sailing. If the main gun is down... well... haha.

Forgot it was the 3.0 serving 120 out wide ON DEMAND

[tennis_ocd]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

If that's what you're saying, then I agree.

There are still people here who think I cant serve 100. Granted, I havnt exactly proven it, the fact that they're so sure I cant is becoming questionable because of the progression to the 120 mph out-wide on demand 70% of the time.

It started as "a 3.0 cant serve 100 mph" referring to me.

It is a fact that I am a 3.0, but if what you are saying is that "im out of level thats why I can possibly do it" then I wholly agree.

1. YOU were the first to claim this "120 out wide on demand" stuff
2. 3.0s don't serve 100 mph
3. From vids, you have a nice serve but it isn't near 100
4. Go clock yourself and get cred.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

NTRPolice, I have noticed a theme in your posts (well, a lot of them, actually). The theme I noticed is "I'm a legit 3.0C, but I really have the strokes of a 3.5 or a 4.0."

I have a TT cautionary tale for you.

A few years ago, we had a poster whose name I won't reveal. Nice guy, for sure. He played a season of 3.0S and wasn't bumped up. Then he worked on his game and demolished the field at 3.0 as a 3.0C. This included a run to nationals and a national title, IIRC. He felt it was a reasonable goal to get to 4.5.

He got a double-bump to 4.0. The last I heard was that he was struggling to win games at 4.0, let alone matches. I think he became overwhelmed with job and family and isn't playing USTA these days. Before he left TT, he was very candid about how wrong he had been about ascending to 4.5 and how his strokes weren't achieving much at 4.0.

I hope when (not if, when) this happens to you that you will come back here and commiserate. You won't be the first to dominate at a low level only to find the going quite difficult once the NTRP computer catches up to you.

Hey Cindy, don't know if you've wasted the 10 minutes of your life that you'll never get back like I did, but this kid has videos on YouTube. He's one of those former high school athletes that is picking up the game in his early-mid 20's. the type that is athletic and coordinated enough to rally with average 4.0 guys.

I would bet this kid will get bumped in December to 3.5 and be OK. He'll run into the backboards and junkballers there and have a few frustrating defeats, but for the most part he will win out of pure athleticism. Just like he did at 3.0, which he probably never belonged at.

4.0 will be another bag for him, as there will be plenty of folks there that are as athletic and technically sound. He won't fly through that level, but he'd have to be a total mental midget to get smoked. He likely will come to rest there for a while unless he plays up and gets some fluke wins.

4.5 is the level where I think he'd get it handed to him. Most guys at 4.5 have 20+ years on the court in one way or the other. I'm the type that played juniors and quit at 17 and then picked it up again 10 years ago in my late 20's. others picked it up after college and are now 40+. That level of experience is what will be the toughest to overcome for Police.

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Apology accepted.

I do have to laugh. The lady you searched (thinking she was me) really has struggled, hasn't she?

And her "experience" is extremely suspect. You can see why I laughed at "you" for supposedly having all this experience when "you" played 2 weekday leagues in a year.

When I got the right Cindy I can see you actually have a lot of experience. I play the maximum amount of leagues I can in a year and its quite possible you may actually play more. I play 6 USTA leagues a year, one year round doubles league and one other non-USTA league and you have to be about there as well. A far cry from two or three casual weekday leagues in a calender year.

Originally Posted by tennis_ocd

Forgot it was the 3.0 serving 120 out wide ON DEMAND

What is exceptional today will be the norm of tomorrow.

Originally Posted by tennis_ocd

1. YOU were the first to claim this "120 out wide on demand" stuff
2. 3.0s don't serve 100 mph
3. From vids, you have a nice serve but it isn't near 100
4. Go clock yourself and get cred.

110-120 out wide on demand when im serving exceptionally well. It did start with "no 3.0 can serve 100" and you're missing a lot of the things said in between. I dont use it all the time for many reasons, reasons which you didnt list.

I'm a bit over the whole serve speed stuff because its clear no matter what I produce you guys will still have some angle to play to discredit it. I'm fine with that. The reason for my Youtube channel has never been to prove claims on TT.

-You guys have not seen my big serve head on, only the second serve i've been working on.
-Even if I do "clock" it using the FPS method, I still wasnt given "80" on my second serve. There were people claiming that serve was going 65 mph, remember? By that reasoning ill have to serve 135+ before you guys nitpick something else.

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Hey Cindy, don't know if you've wasted the 10 minutes of your life that you'll never get back like I did, but this kid has videos on YouTube. He's one of those former high school athletes that is picking up the game in his early-mid 20's. the type that is athletic and coordinated enough to rally with average 4.0 guys.

I would bet this kid will get bumped in December to 3.5 and be OK. He'll run into the backboards and junkballers there and have a few frustrating defeats, but for the most part he will win out of pure athleticism. Just like he did at 3.0, which he probably never belonged at.

4.0 will be another bag for him, as there will be plenty of folks there that are as athletic and technically sound. He won't fly through that level, but he'd have to be a total mental midget to get smoked. He likely will come to rest there for a while unless he plays up and gets some fluke wins.

4.5 is the level where I think he'd get it handed to him. Most guys at 4.5 have 20+ years on the court in one way or the other. I'm the type that played juniors and quit at 17 and then picked it up again 10 years ago in my late 20's. others picked it up after college and are now 40+. That level of experience is what will be the toughest to overcome for Police.

I never played high school sports. I messed around with tennis but never took it seriously. I decided to randomly play a non-USTA league in 2010 and later joined USTA.

It's easy to say that someone will fail at 4.5 since most people will. I am very well aware that blowing through 3.0 and 3.5 will be much easier than getting though 4.0 and moving on to 4.5. What's your point? In my "tennis plan" I gave myself 3 years to move up from 3.0 to 4.0 and 5 years to move up from 4.0 to 4.5.

"Wasted your 10 mins of your life" lol.

You say that and you call me a "kid". lol. What is this? Halo? or Call of Duty?



And ive worked very hard to get this good in this amount of time. If you think im going to "play up" just to get "fluke wins" so I can be a 4.5 "C" you're an idiot. I didnt work his hard to (basically) self-rate up just to say im a 4.5. If I hit my goal ill hit 4.5 by the time im 35 which gives me 5 solid years to grind out 4.0 the right way. If I was all about "rating flexing" I could have just self-rated 4.0 from the start.

[floridatennisdude]

What's this thread supposed to be about?