What Are the Differences Between 3.5/4.0/4.5's respectively?

[TennisDawg]

Originally Posted by tenniscasey

This is totally fair and reasonable. Thanks for providing the extra insight.

I'm a 3.0 playing up in a 3.5 league right now, and I'm finding I play against the 3.5 guys better than the 3.0s for some weird reason. So I find the moving-up dilemma an interesting one.

Okay, thanks, The only thing I try is do an honest assessment of my game, it removes a lot of baggage if you just admit you're not yet ready to play at that level. Players often mislead themselves when they hit a great 4.0, 4.5, or even 5.0 shot every 1 in 100 shots and then think they have what it takes to move on to the next level. That's why playing 2 or 3 rounds in a tournament is very telling.

[TennisDawg]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Movement makes a singles player. I know a few other guys who play mostly doubles, can stay right in with 4.5's, but lose to every 4.0 in singles, making them about the same as us.

Well at age 63, movement is pretty fair, but not what it used to be. So what you say is very true.

[DeShaun]

3.5s in seattle can keep a rally ball going at no less than fifty mph for five maybe ten shots before someone bails from the rally by trying for a winner. 4.0s can definitely sustain such for longer than ten strokes and 4.0s can hold better if not by serving bigger then through being smarter and knowing their games better. 4.0s are fitter too and can play better defense for longer, but this may have to do with their superior anticipation. 3.5s around here can look sloppy or experimental at times, whereas the 4.0s game seems more aware of it's own limits. i haven't played any 4.5s.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by jc4.0

I've beaten 4.5 players on several occasions. I think there are different "levels" of each rating, and that sometimes a 4.5 having an "off" day is ripe to be beaten by a relatively strong 4.0 like me. I love the challenge of playing someone who is better than me, on paper - and not "scared" of this opportunity at all. I tend to play better, when playing better opponents; and I always learn things.

I once beat a 4.5 player one-and-zero, hitting consistently from the baseline - and she hasn't spoken to me since. It was awesome!

My experience as a captain is that 4.0 players hardly ever beat 4.5s, and if they do it is by a whisker. If a 4.0 dominates a 4.5, you know one thing for certain: One of them is lying about her level, and it is probably the 4.5.

If you are talking about something other than USTA computer-rated ratings, then of course anything is possible.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by DeShaun

3.5s in seattle can keep a rally ball going at no less than fifty mph for five maybe ten shots before someone bails from the rally by trying for a winner. 4.0s can definitely sustain such for longer than ten strokes and 4.0s can hold better if not by serving bigger then through being smarter and knowing their games better. 4.0s are fitter too and can play better defense for longer, but this may have to do with their superior anticipation. 3.5s around here can look sloppy or experimental at times, whereas the 4.0s game seems more aware of it's own limits. i haven't played any 4.5s.

Yes. I don't play singles, but I watch my teammates. The big difference between the 3.5s and the 4.0s is that the 4.0s don't do stupid things. They don't go for winners from impossible positions, yet they recognize true offensive opportunities.

4.0s also have a very good understanding of their own game. If they don't own a drop shot, they don't play a drop shot.

[TennisDawg]

Originally Posted by jc4.0

I've beaten 4.5 players on several occasions. I think there are different "levels" of each rating, and that sometimes a 4.5 having an "off" day is ripe to be beaten by a relatively strong 4.0 like me. I love the challenge of playing someone who is better than me, on paper - and not "scared" of this opportunity at all. I tend to play better, when playing better opponents; and I always learn things.

I once beat a 4.5 player one-and-zero, hitting consistently from the baseline - and she hasn't spoken to me since. It was awesome!

Yea, isn't it great, I love beating 4.5s. Who would of thought that me being just a 3.5. After the match I like to tell them that "it was the best I've ever seen them play" My next match, think I'll take on a 5.0 and do it in straight sets.

[TennisDawg]

So, I'm learning their are different levels of 4.5, you can actually be a 4.0 and be rated 4.5, interesting!

[LeeD]

And you know you can be rated 4.5, after a career that includes GrandSlam wins in doubles and singles rankings as high as 30.

[escii_35]

Originally Posted by TennisDawg

So, I'm learning their are different levels of 4.5, you can actually be a 4.0 and be rated 4.5, interesting!

Until doubles and singles become a split rating it will happen.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by winstonplum

This seems to be a huge grey area where I play in Southern Cal. I know what the USTA website says; I was just interested in what some of my fellow TT tennis junkies thought.

My experience is only with self-rated non-USTA players. The two 4.0s I've played are just simply more consistent than the 3.5s. The 3.5s are more consistent than the 3.0s. And so on. I'm only a 3.0 regarding current performance, although I suppose that my strokes are actually better than most 4.0s. But I'm 65, and the 4.0s I'm playing are in their late 30s and early 40s. And I really don't care at this point whether I win or lose. I just want to look really good once in a while. Which I think I do. Sometimes even the 3.0 guys surprise me with their shotmaking, but mostly if I just keep the ball in play with a bit of pace I can count on them to miss shots that they really shouldn't miss.

[winstonplum]

Interesting.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Movement makes a singles player.

I agree, to a certain extent. Given reasonably good strokes and good court temperament, then movement (anticipation, quickness, footwork, preparation) makes all the difference.

But considering, say, 3.0 to 4.5 levels of play then I would have to say that players (within relatively limited age ranges) are separated by their stroke consistency moreso than movement capabilities.

That is, wrt, say, 3.5 and 4.0 players of the same limited age range and similar movement capabilities, then what separates them is that the 4.0 guys just don't make as many unforced errors. Maybe that's just a mental thing wrt players who seem to have adequate and similar stroking abilities. I don't know.

Just a thought. My current two cents. Interesting OP question, I think. Clearly, I haven't thought that much about it, and don't really know how to answer it at this time.

[wrxinsc]

Originally Posted by winstonplum

This seems to be a huge grey area where I play in Southern Cal. I know what the USTA website says; I was just interested in what some of my fellow TT tennis junkies thought.

A 3.5 with good strokes probably doesn't understand what do consistently in singles play vs. doubles play. A 3.5 that does understand probably can't execute constantly because of physical limitations.

A 4.0 with good strokes and an understanding is probably rising to 4.5. A 4.0 that has solid strokes and cares about tennis and improving will likely end up a 4.5 unless age catches up with them. This analysis of 4.0 is contrary to statistical evidence because most folks end up in the 4.0 pool. Many stay there even if they play often for years. But the reality is that they could improve with physical effort or strategical understanding of the game or pushing their consistency to new levels.

A 4.5 can hit with situational control with solid stokes more often than not. But can be beat by superior athletic ability and quickness. Otherwise the consistently heavy ball hit by a 4.5 will dominate other recreational play.

A 5.0 is either falling from being a Div. 1 scholarship player aging, or a rising athletic player that can dictate play under most all conditions (other than a 5.5 player).

That is the picture.

You paint your own.

[SlapShot]

In my experience, the difference between 3.5/4.0/4.5 comes down to one thing overwhelmingly - consistency. The consistency comes from all areas - more consistently playing the right shot and more consistently executing that shot properly. Yes, the pace from 3.5 to 4 to 4.5 increases, but not as significantly as one might expect from the numbers of people who never make it to 4.5.

My biggest adjustment from 3.5 to 4.0 was getting used to balls that I would have expected would have ended the point began coming back. The same thing happened when I started playing 4.5, especially on serve returns. My biggest improvement came from being able to expect these balls to come back and move to get myself into that position - that makes the movement come into play.

[TennisCJC]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Don't know about that, as I"ve seldom hit with 4.5 women, but maybe one total.
3rd year of tennis, I got to hit with 5.5 thru 7.0 women. At least 5 different females. They didn't hit nearly as hard as you seem to think.
In fact, one who won the CanadianOpen around mid late '70's didn't hit any harder than I did. Her sister, who won it couple 3 years later, did hit harder, but didn't run ever.

I saw a lady win the Georgia Hard Court OPEN Championships at the open level in the early 80s and she hit all underspin shots. Crisp shots and well placed but not very hard at all. She was quick as a rabbit and never missed too.

On the other hand, my mixed partner is a pretty serious tennis player - rated 4.5 and she occassionally goes to Bolliterri for week long camps. She can knock the hell of it on occasion and is steady too. Joy to play with.

[catfish]

Originally Posted by JoelDali

3.5s suck bad.

4.0s suck.

4.5s suck a little less than a 4.0 but believe they are world champions and when they play on center court they think everyone is watching them and embracing their GOATworthy suckiness and admiring their cosmic tennis talents but in reality they suck really bad. This is the group I fall under. I am a sucky 4.5 but I am a 6.5 GOAT when I watch tennis on TV criticizing Ryan Harrison's sucky play.

This the funniest post I've read in a long time. I was thinking along the same lines, but didn't want to post my thoughts for fear of being misunderstood.

[LeeD]

TCJC, there's probably a little difference in level between a lady winning a StateOpen to a couple of women who won PRO WTA events.
I know several guys who consistently place in the top 3 NorCal A's, and got destroyed in the FIRST round of a small ATP tourney.

[LeeD]

Oh, in 1977, a top 5 NorCal A open woman hit exclusively slice and/or sidespin on her groundies.

[floridatennisdude]

Over the last decade, I progressed from 3.5 to 4.0

3.5 - I was 40 lbs over weight, had a decent first serve, decent forehand, good overhead, but weak backhand and sissy volleys. Lost 40 lbs and got bumped

4.0 - I was now fitter and faster. Fixed the backhand and the volleys became less of a liability. Got bumped to 4.5

4.5 - stroke wise, I'm decent all around. If I keep my fitness up, I win more. If I get gassed, I'm in trouble because most guys I play are in good shape. My weaknesses are more tactical than fundamentals. If I am to go higher, I would need to be both fit and a little mentally tougher. I can hit with a 5.0, but I can't beat them.

[LeeD]

I figured I"m going the other way.
Maybe 25 years ago, I was a real B or 4.5, have more wins than losses in A/Open in NorCal, more wins than losses in 2 local Q's.
Quit tennis for 15 odd years, accumlated two more leg breaks, 4 collarbone breaks, countless shoulder separates, 2 dislocates of the hitting shoulder, and aged some.
Coming back to tennis, weakest 4.5 to solid 4.0.
Now, upon losing to a couple of tourney winning 3.5's, heading right down to that level.
I can still hit even with 5.5's, if I have another good hitter on my side of the court, who takes half the shots.
I cannot seem to hit with a good 4.0, one on one.
My court coverage seems to include only a narrow 10' stripe down the middle.