practice match vids--are they 4.0?

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by goober

Having seen people play on video and then having played them IRL, my take is you can't be as certain as you seem to imply you can be with video especially at the 3.5-4.5 level. I would almost always take some one with a proven high winning percentage record over someone that doesn't play competitively regardless how they look on video ate the rec/club level. I have seen tons of people who look not that great on video, but are match tough, mentally strong and know how to win. I have also seen people who technically look good, but when it comes to a real match they lose to 3.5 players.

May be they are as you say and maybe they aren't. Too me the players in the OP are not obviously superior to 4.5 players. But I wouldn't bet on either one of them without seeing them play IRL and having match records of the players. If someone asked me to rate them on video alone. I would say their actual ratings could be anywhere from 3.5-4.5 but from what I am seeing the guy in black looks like a decent to strong 4.0 and the other guy looks like a 3.5.

I agree with most of your points. I've seen people who look bad to the untrained eye but know how to win as well. Those are also the kind of people who tend to get rated as 3.5 when they are capable of winning at 4.0 or sometimes 4.5. Those are the kind of people who look like the guy in white from the OP...who IMO is capable of winning at 4.0.
I never said the guys in the op are clearly superior to 4.5 players, but I am saying there is no way in hell they are 3.5, and I am saying that the guy in dark would be competitive at the 4.5 level.

Originally Posted by anubis

IMO the ppl in post #1 would get eaten alive by the 4.0's in my area. They are solid 3.5's.

Could you kindly post video of these 4.0's in your area ?? I have shown video of 4.0's AND 4.5's and none of them clearly show they would "eat alive" the guy in dark from the OP. Please feel free to come up with video of 4.0 players that you think are clearly superior to the ones in the OP. I won't hold my breath...

Originally Posted by droliver

These guy's are 3.5's to my eyes, which is the level I play at. They do not have the weapons to play 4.0 league tennis.

They do not have the weapons to play 4.0 tennis?? What weapons are they lacking if you don't mind me asking ?? They have the only 2 weapons they need to have winning percentages at 4.0...pretty good wheels and consistency. Also...the guy in dark has a forehand that is a weapon at any level except 5.0 +.
Again...please provide video of these 3.5's who play as well as the guys in the OP, or of the 4.0 "league tennis" that is clearly better than the level displayed in the OP.
Talk is cheap.

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by jmnk

Could you kindly post a video of any 4.0 player that smacks any serve return on a consistent basis? (while is playing for points).... I would prefer videos showing returns going back into the court if you don't mind...

Originally Posted by jmnk

Now - that is the video I really want to see.


And if you don't mind me asking - what other weapons beside those shown by player's in OP's video does one need to play at 4.0 level?

Thank you for your sanity. I was beginning to "lose hope in the human race" .

[Sky_Boy]

Originally Posted by goober

Having seen people play on video and then having played them IRL, my take is you can't be as certain as you seem to imply you can be with video especially at the 3.5-4.5 level. I would almost always take some one with a proven high winning percentage record over someone that doesn't play competitively regardless how they look on video ate the rec/club level. I have seen tons of people who look not that great on video, but are match tough, mentally strong and know how to win. I have also seen people who technically look good, but when it comes to a real match they lose to 3.5 players.

May be they are as you say and maybe they aren't. Too me the players in the OP are not obviously superior to 4.5 players. But I wouldn't bet on either one of them without seeing them play IRL and having match records of the players. If someone asked me to rate them on video alone. I would say their actual ratings could be anywhere from 3.5-4.5 but from what I am seeing the guy in black looks like a decent to strong 4.0 and the other guy looks like a 3.5.

Seems like the rating i gave them

[Sky_Boy]

Originally Posted by LeeD

I'd put my money on the Dallas boys with no serve.
Both seem to place the ball where they want (not up the middle), and are playing against another player who can move and hit near the sidelines.
Weak butt serves, but good placement on groundies.

As i said leed.. control is good However pace of rallies was slow-medium.. not that difficult to hit placements shots with slow-medium pace back.. there is a big difference between this and re-directing a medium-fast pace rally.

[Sky_Boy]

Originally Posted by 0d1n

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqi-4B7E6xc

Guy in white beats both these BENCHMARK 4.0 PLAYERS any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Guy in dark destroys them any day of the week with no more than 2-3 games lost per set ... when he's playing badly.
Now go learn something about how people look on video except from watching Djokovic vs Federer on HDTV.

odin.. r u trolling? r u even reading what i wrote.. does evryone have to agree with your opinions? and if we dun agree i guess we all have to watch djokovic vs federer , am i right..

i gave black guy a 4.0.. anyway that's not the issue i was bringing up with my post.. the issue was i know that he obviously can hit harder shots but refuse to do so.. playing like this is just going to limit his ability to play better.. if it's a tournament i can understand.. but i believe this is a friendly game.. BY NOT trying to hit harder serves ,BY NOT trying to hit harder groundstrokes when is he going to try?? when his 70? He may lose the match due to errors but hey at least he tried and by trying his also practising those shots..

And weapons means bigger shots.. if u dun even know the meaning of weapons it could only mean your knowledge is severly lacking..

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by Sky_Boy

odin.. r u trolling? r u even reading what i wrote.. does evryone have to agree with your opinions? and if we dun agree i guess we all have to watch djokovic vs federer , am i right..

i gave black guy a 4.0.. anyway that's not the issue i was bringing up with my post.. the issue was i know that he obviously can hit harder shots but refuse to do so.. playing like this is just going to limit his ability to play better.. if it's a tournament i can understand.. but i believe this is a friendly game.. BY NOT trying to hit harder serves ,BY NOT trying to hit harder groundstrokes when is he going to try?? when his 70? He may lose the match due to errors but hey at least he tried and by trying his also practising those shots..

And weapons means bigger shots.. if u dun even know the meaning of weapons it could only mean your knowledge is severly lacking..

The guy's forehand is a weapon for the skill levels we are talking about.
If you don't believe that (you are entitled to think differently), you are welcome to provide video counterexamples. Somehow I doubt you will do it...instead you will keep blabbering and going on in circles with your twisted logic which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Am I debating with a 12 year old???!? That's my impression anyway...and my knowledge may be severEly lacking...but so is your writing ability, that's for sure.
I don't care about convincing you (or anybody else) that I am right...I don't even care about BEING right, I'd be OK with being proven wrong.
What I do care about is the following :
- people who contradict my arguments, need to bring some sort of "argument/proof" of their own to the table...other than empty words (something like video would do).
"I'm playing 3.5 and these guys are definitely not better than me, or hitting harder than me...or whatever", is not an argument, it is just an idiotic statement from delusional 3.0's (at best). "4.0's in my area would absolutely destroy this guy" is not proof either. Come up with something better, and I'd be happy to be proven "wrong".

[Torres]

I've never understood why these threads provoke so much argument.

Isn't the issue here simply that you have a mixed bag of people at 3.5/4.0 level who all look wildly different? Given that players at the 3.5/4.0 level aren't the most consistent, who knows whether you're catching them a good day, bad day or whatever?

The guy in the black shirt has a pretty good if somewhat inconsistent forehand. That's alone is going to take him some way at the 3.5/4.0 levels. His movement isn't that great but he has a good sense of the spots on the court that he wants to hit with his FH. He has a huge hole on his backhand side though which is going to stop him progressing until he shores that up because any savvy opponent is going to hammer that BH. A bird with a broken wing simply doesn't fly very far.

The problem with the video is that he's playing a guy (white shirt) who's half a level lower than him and who doesn't put any pressure on the ball at all. Black shirt *could* be competitive at 4.0 but you never really know until you put a load of these players into a 4.0 league and see what their win/loss ratios are like. What worries about him is the fact that he haemorrhages alot of points when he doesn't need to - he seems to be a real mixed bag of the good, the bad and ugly. But then again looking at similar videos that seems to be what its like at low to mid 4.0. That said, who knows if he's even playing seriously? There's a huge difference between 'park play' and a ratings match with points on the line, people watching, ratings at stake etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxLy0cDygc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTJB3...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAnda...eature=related

[Rozroz]

err..
so that's suppose to be a 5.0?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeAYv...feature=relmfu
where are the differences?

[0d1n]

Don't worry...that guy's videos generated huge discussions as well (a couple of years ago) with him being rated anything from 3.5 to 4.0 before somebody found out his name and dug up his record.
Surprise surprise he was a computer rated 5.0 as far as I remember.
New heroes are now rating this other guy a 3.5, 4.0....luckily for them he's not in North America to have a real NTRP record proving them wrong. But that's OK...they are wrong anyway ).

[NTRPolice]

It was only a matter of time before hi10spro appears in this thread. lol.

[goober]

Originally Posted by 0d1n

Don't worry...that guy's videos generated huge discussions as well (a couple of years ago) with him being rated anything from 3.5 to 4.0 before somebody found out his name and dug up his record.
Surprise surprise he was a computer rated 5.0 as far as I remember.
New heroes are now rating this other guy a 3.5, 4.0....luckily for them he's not in North America to have a real NTRP record proving them wrong. But that's OK...they are wrong anyway ).

Just wanted to point out that his 5.0 rating was from a pretty long time ago. He played almost all doubles in Hawaii section with an ok record. His last singles USTA match was about 10 years ago. He doesn't have any competitive match play record in the last 5-6 years or so.

I would say it is safe to say that his current rating in Singles is probably not 5.0. He was one at one point. At the time he made the videos, I would have my doubts. If he entered an open tournament stateside that had a big draw (32+) I am not sure how well he would do.

I don't see what the big deal is- someone asked for an opinion on video ratings and what did you expect ? Everyone to agree? Like I said earlier that videos for rec players in the 3.5-4.5 range don't mean that much since their are so many other factors that go into winning than how you look on camera. We are all making a guess on limited information. Calling these players 3.5 and 4.0 is no more being a "hero" than calling them definite 4.5s or whatever is it?

[Rozroz]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

It was only a matter of time before hi10spro appears in this thread. lol.

ho, sorry. didn't know about this hi10spro business. i don't really get it..
they have many videos, don't they?.. so what should i make of them?
don't want to derail but i'll be glad to be told how to look for 'legit' ntrp video levels. this is very interesting.

anyway, what i DID see in the OP videos is mainly the things I MYSELF lack, which is strategy. i may have decent technique and good leg work, but i just cannot get myself to THINK about strategy. only when i control the match and i have 'time' to think about it. but mostly i'm too busy on producing deep effective shots, otherwise better players just eat me... maybe that's what 4.5+ levels are all about, not the 'looks' but the game plan?

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by goober

Just wanted to point out that his 5.0 rating was from a pretty long time ago. He played almost all doubles in Hawaii section with an ok record. His last singles USTA match was about 10 years ago. He doesn't have any competitive match play record in the last 5-6 years or so.

I would say it is safe to say that his current rating in Singles is probably not 5.0. He was one at one point. At the time he made the videos, I would have my doubts. If he entered an open tournament stateside that had a big draw (32+) I am not sure how well he would do.

I don't see what the big deal is- someone asked for an opinion on video ratings and what did you expect ? Everyone to agree? Like I said earlier that videos for rec players in the 3.5-4.5 range don't mean that much since their are so many other factors that go into winning than how you look on camera. We are all making a guess on limited information. Calling these players 3.5 and 4.0 is no more being a "hero" than calling them definite 4.5s or whatever is it?

There is no big deal. I really don't care what rating somebody gives some random men playing tennis on youtube.
My problem is with statements that are not supported by videos, arguments, or even something that can pass for "game analysis"/obvious tennis knowledge. My problem is with lack of logic.
NTRP rating threads seem to gather the kind of crowd that one usually finds in the general pro discussion section in Federer versus Nadal threads (i.e. kids with no critical thinking, or adults who know little about tennis but have strong opinions about everything tennis related, starting with how Murray sucks at playing tennis, and Nadal is a pusher...or vice-versa).

I repeat, "I would beat them and I'm a 3.5"...or "all the 4.0's in my area would destroy them" are not arguments...they are just stupid statements from people who don't know what they are actually seeing. On video OR in real life.
These are the same kind of people who think their buddy who plays 4.5 would take sets from Radwanska, who's top 5 in the WTA...while those same 4.5 buddies would probably be beaten by retired Martina Hingis, drunk and playing with her left hand.

Edit...

P.S. I agree that the hi10spro guy's current rating might very well be significantly below 5.0, but my point was that there was a debate about his rating a long time ago, statements were being made about him being a 3.5...etc (everything that one can see in this thread as well), and yet, it was proven with facts...that he did in fact play 5.0.
Yes...now...many years later he may not play competitively anymore...and he may not be a 5.0 anymore, but that's irrelevant to the heated discussions in the past that I was mentioning.

[Sky_Boy]

Originally Posted by 0d1n

The guy's forehand is a weapon for the skill levels we are talking about.
If you don't believe that (you are entitled to think differently), you are welcome to provide video counterexamples. Somehow I doubt you will do it...instead you will keep blabbering and going on in circles with your twisted logic which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Am I debating with a 12 year old???!? That's my impression anyway...and my knowledge may be severEly lacking...but so is your writing ability, that's for sure.
I don't care about convincing you (or anybody else) that I am right...I don't even care about BEING right, I'd be OK with being proven wrong.
What I do care about is the following :
- people who contradict my arguments, need to bring some sort of "argument/proof" of their own to the table...other than empty words (something like video would do).
"I'm playing 3.5 and these guys are definitely not better than me, or hitting harder than me...or whatever", is not an argument, it is just an idiotic statement from delusional 3.0's (at best). "4.0's in my area would absolutely destroy this guy" is not proof either. Come up with something better, and I'd be happy to be proven "wrong".

1) What twisted logic?
2) "I'm playing 3.5 and these guys are definitely not better than me, or hitting harder than me...or whatever", is not an argument, it is just an idiotic statement from delusional 3.0's (at best). "4.0's in my area would absolutely destroy this guy" is not proof either. Come up with something better, and I'd be happy to be proven "wrong".

I didn't even mention about this once in my posts.. r u kidding me really? And beside that is the judgement those posters made.. they r definately entitled to their opinions..have u seen 4.0s in their area? No? well they have, and to them that is the judegement.....PROOF? sure if u going to sponsor flying their 4.0s 3000 miles down to play, U ARE GOING TO GET ALL THE PROOF U WANT..

The whole issue is about NTRP rating something that is pretty subjective.. not everyone is going to agree on the exact same rating that is for certain.. the main thing that i brought up is with his playing style his limiting his ability to improve

You reacted badly and very agressive from posters that do not agree with your so called flawless ratings.. i going make the assumption that it's either your character or your **** at your life.. if it's the former , then goodluck having no-little friends.. if it's the latter, maybe u would want to get that in order first before making yourself sound stupid on a forum

[Sky_Boy]

Originally Posted by goober

Just wanted to point out that his 5.0 rating was from a pretty long time ago. He played almost all doubles in Hawaii section with an ok record. His last singles USTA match was about 10 years ago. He doesn't have any competitive match play record in the last 5-6 years or so.

I would say it is safe to say that his current rating in Singles is probably not 5.0. He was one at one point. At the time he made the videos, I would have my doubts. If he entered an open tournament stateside that had a big draw (32+) I am not sure how well he would do.

I don't see what the big deal is- someone asked for an opinion on video ratings and what did you expect ? Everyone to agree? Like I said earlier that videos for rec players in the 3.5-4.5 range don't mean that much since their are so many other factors that go into winning than how you look on camera. We are all making a guess on limited information. Calling these players 3.5 and 4.0 is no more being a "hero" than calling them definite 4.5s or whatever is it?

The reasons why hi10spro drew so much criticism is becuz all the matches that he posted was singles.. had he posted videos with that rating on doubles, i believe criticism would be lesser.. he maybe rated 5.0 once long time ago but due to age rating will never stay the same permanently.. he refused to lower his rating..

Same as odin.. over inflated ego and very aggressive replies to all that disagree with him over his rating

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by Sky_Boy

1) What twisted logic?
2) "I'm playing 3.5 and these guys are definitely not better than me, or hitting harder than me...or whatever", is not an argument, it is just an idiotic statement from delusional 3.0's (at best). "4.0's in my area would absolutely destroy this guy" is not proof either. Come up with something better, and I'd be happy to be proven "wrong".

I didn't even mention about this once in my posts.. r u kidding me really? And beside that is the judgement those posters made.. they r definately entitled to their opinions..have u seen 4.0s in their area? No? well they have, and to them that is the judegement.....PROOF? sure if u going to sponsor flying their 4.0s 3000 miles down to play, U ARE GOING TO GET ALL THE PROOF U WANT..

The whole issue is about NTRP rating something that is pretty subjective.. not everyone is going to agree on the exact same rating that is for certain.. the main thing that i brought up is with his playing style his limiting his ability to improve

You reacted badly and very agressive from posters that do not agree with your so called flawless ratings.. i going make the assumption that it's either your character or your **** at your life.. if it's the former , then goodluck having no-little friends.. if it's the latter, maybe u would want to get that in order first before making yourself sound stupid on a forum

Amigo, I didn't address just your remarks in that post, I addressed some other statements made by other people as well. If you read the thread you might even figure out who made those statements. I just couldn't be bothered to quote everybody and address every inane statement made in this thread individually.
The twisted logic remark was referring to your off topic assumptions about their potential for progress, when you didn't even provide proof (video?) for your ON TOPIC statements...i.e. their current rating.
Instead of debating endlessly ... come up with video of 4.0's and 4.5's and tell me why you think those 4.0's and 4.5's are clearly better than the guys in the op.
I did that. I provided video of 4.0's and said I think they would get beaten by both guys in the op, and also provided video of 4.5 play and said my opinion is that the guy in dark from the OP is every bit as good as those 4.5's, hence he would be competitive with them, hence he is a 4.5, and provided the reasoning behind my statements.
Goober at least addressed that even if he disagreed with my assumptions (which is fine). You on the other hand just keep on talking without backing up your talk.
Pretty please with sugar on top, can you kindly debate that instead of making assumptions about my character...my life...and the availability of friends around me ??
Your off-topic blabbering is getting worse with these statements you are making about me.
I may have sounded as an ego driven brat...who values his opinion about some irrelevant NTRP ratings on an internet forum more than he should...but if somebody "sounded stupid" between the two of us...it is not me. Perhaps you should review your posts in this thread...and then review mine, even you might change your opinion about who sounds stupid...me or you.
If you can't handle that level of critical thinking...get some outside help, or go back to school until you manage to "improve the rating" of your current self ).

[anubis]

Od1n:

This is an internet forum, not a "debate club". The burden of proof falls on no one and people here are free to use whatever means they wish to argue their point. Yelling at them and calling their statements "idiotic" and "stupid" will only make you unpopular, no matter how "correct" you are.

Yes, people here use logical fallacies all of the time. But so what? This is the internet. Have you been to 4chan or Reddit lately? This shouldn't be news to you.

You can "fight the good fight" all you want, but it's "better manners" to simply disagree with someone and leave it be. Say your piece and move on, but don't call their statements (for all intents and purposes) "worthless" just because they haven't offered the precise amount of proof that you are looking for. That borders on an ad hominem attack, and you probably know better than that. We are all entitled to our opinions here.

Earlier, I gave my opinion on what the OP's vids contained. I thought they weren't 4.0's. Am I wrong? Perhaps. But it's a logical fallacy on your part to assume that merely the simpleness of my sentence is equal to the amount of thought that went into it. Did you ever stop to consider that I actually used a bit of "critical thinking" to come up with my statement? Is it fair to assume that I used no logic at all? I don't think you can deduce that much simply by my statement alone. I think you need more evidence than that.

Thank you for your time.