Maybe we need to come to an understanding about ratings

[leroy_sunset]

http://youtu.be/Bg7xHsrw2Tw

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

In my dreams, man. In my dreams.

oh dear lord!

might be a translation issue here, lol, in this part of the world a 'bunny' is someone who is, well, crap at a sport, or at least an aspect

for example, in cricket, many of the best bowlers (think 'pitcher') are 'bunnies' with the bat. (ie, useless)

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/...-1226216032309

[North]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

oh dear lord!

might be a translation issue here, lol, in this part of the world a 'bunny' is someone who is, well, crap at a sport, or at least an aspect

for example, in cricket, many of the best bowlers (think 'pitcher') are 'bunnies' with the bat. (ie, useless)

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/...-1226216032309

There is a usage of "bunny" here in the States that sort of combines both aspects of the term. The "bunny hill" at a ski resort is where you go if you are just learning or if you never got past the beginner stage. It also has (more so in the past) the implication that you just like to wear cute ski outfits and are not particularly there for the skiing.

Also - I think separate Singles and Doubles ratings are a good idea as I am much better in singles than dubs. I can hold my own just fine in 4.0 singles but keep wondering why there are so many people around at those rare times I play doubles - lol.

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

..many of the best bowlers (think 'pitcher') are 'bunnies' with the bat. (ie, useless)

True. But nothing 'useless' about the woman in the picture CS supplied. She's a 9.875 at least - and we're not talking about NTRP anymore...

[Cindysphinx]

Yes, definitely a translation issue.

If I heard someone say a woman is a bunny, I would think was a frivolous plaything. As in Playboy bunny.

I need to find an opportunity to use Timbo's definition.

[Rjtennis]

I think USTA ratings are going to be worthless soon, now that you have 40 and over leagues. People are going to have higher ratings when they are playing 40 plus leagues.

[Mongolmike]

Originally Posted by Rjtennis

I think USTA ratings are going to be worthless soon, now that you have 40 and over leagues. People are going to have higher ratings when they are playing 40 plus leagues.

How so? Not saying I like the change, but there will be a degree more age parity, how will that raise ratings?

[goober]

Originally Posted by Mongolmike

How so? Not saying I like the change, but there will be a degree more age parity, how will that raise ratings?

I think the thought is that the 40+ crowd will be playing other 40+ players and it will be easier for them to win and therefore ratings will move up. I don't think this will be the case as most 40+ players are playing dubs anyways and they are in many cases tougher than the 20-30s crowd in dubs. Plus the whole reason to set this up was for the 40+ players to play in both the 18+ and 40+ leagues, which many of them are doing.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by goober

I think the thought is that the 40+ crowd will be playing other 40+ players and it will be easier for them to win and therefore ratings will move up. I don't think this will be the case as most 40+ players are playing dubs anyways and they are in many cases tougher than the 20-30s crowd in dubs. Plus the whole reason to set this up was for the 40+ players to play in both the 18+ and 40+ leagues, which many of them are doing.

Agreed.

Also, most women at 4.0 and below are over 40 anyway. Can't speak for the age distribution among the guys.

[Mongolmike]

Originally Posted by goober

I think the thought is that the 40+ crowd will be playing other 40+ players and it will be easier for them to win and therefore ratings will move up. I don't think this will be the case as most 40+ players are playing dubs anyways and they are in many cases tougher than the 20-30s crowd in dubs. Plus the whole reason to set this up was for the 40+ players to play in both the 18+ and 40+ leagues, which many of them are doing.

That's what I thought too. If anything, it might level things out. Most of the younger (under 40) group are either beginners or already at a higher level... the tough matches are against the grizzled veterans!

[schmke]

Originally Posted by Rjtennis

I think USTA ratings are going to be worthless soon, now that you have 40 and over leagues. People are going to have higher ratings when they are playing 40 plus leagues.

The flaw in your thinking is that if some players are winning, then some are losing too. So they'd move down and so there isn't a mass move up of ratings. The system more or less stays balanced.

Perhaps what the issue is that 40+ players tend to play more doubles and are relatively better at that, so a 4.0 "singles" player would easily beat one a 4.0 "doubles" player and there is the perception the 40+ doubles guy is overrated.

http://computerratings.blogspot.com/search/label/tennis

[Rjtennis]

Originally Posted by goober

I think the thought is that the 40+ crowd will be playing other 40+ players and it will be easier for them to win and therefore ratings will move up. I don't think this will be the case as most 40+ players are playing dubs anyways and they are in many cases tougher than the 20-30s crowd in dubs. Plus the whole reason to set this up was for the 40+ players to play in both the 18+ and 40+ leagues, which many of them are doing.

I am in the 20-30 crowd and agree with what your saying about doubles.

[Rjtennis]

[quote=schmke;6933033]The flaw in your thinking is that if some players are winning, then some are losing too. So they'd move down and so there isn't a mass move up of ratings. The system more or less stays balanced.

Perhaps what the issue is that 40+ players tend to play more doubles and are relatively better at that, so a 4.0 "singles" player would easily beat one a 4.0 "doubles" player and there is the perception the 40+ doubles guy is overrated.

http://computerratings.blogspot.com/search/label/tennis[/

I dont really care either way, but when you are only playing people in the 40+ league, it's not a true representation of all the players in the game as you are only competing against a select demographic. From what I have seen in my area all the better 40+ players are staying in the 18+ leagues as they want the extra competition. That probably further dilutes the level of tennis needed to win. As I see it people will start playing up a .5 level and will slowly increase their rating.

[schmke]

[quote=Rjtennis;6934507]

Originally Posted by schmke

The flaw in your thinking is that if some players are winning, then some are losing too. So they'd move down and so there isn't a mass move up of ratings. The system more or less stays balanced.

Perhaps what the issue is that 40+ players tend to play more doubles and are relatively better at that, so a 4.0 "singles" player would easily beat one a 4.0 "doubles" player and there is the perception the 40+ doubles guy is overrated.

http://computerratings.blogspot.com/search/label/tennis[/

I dont really care either way, but when you are only playing people in the 40+ league, it's not a true representation of all the players in the game as you are only competing against a select demographic. From what I have seen in my area all the better 40+ players are staying in the 18+ leagues as they want the extra competition. That probably further dilutes the level of tennis needed to win. As I see it people will start playing up a .5 level and will slowly increase their rating.

You are right that if those in the 40+ league only play in the 40+ league that you will end up lacking any connection between the leagues and you lose the ability to accurately compare their ratings. But as long as enough to play in both leagues they serve as the connection.