USTA Rating

[Ace]

Do most the people who read this actually play on a USTA Tennis League at the levels you say you are? Or are you just reading the definition of the USTA level and saying..."I can do that, I'm a 4.0".

I was just curious, I play USTA leagues 3.0 and 3.5 and when I go to some club mixers, there are people who are putting down 4.0 and 4.5 who are way worse than me.

If I just read the USTA characteristics, sure I could say I'm a 4.0, but if I tried to play USTA 4.0, I would get whooped.

[cak]

I've only played USTA for a year, but my take on this is there are some regions of the country where the definitions fit the levels better than others, and within a region everyone is leveled, but their level may or may not match the definitions. When I came into USTA I was told by our pro I should be a 3.0, but maybe play some 2.5 warmups and see how I do. Well, it turns out the year before our region, NORCAL, didn't do all that well in adult womens at Nationals, so they thought those that played weren't quite at level using the formula determining how much they lost by. Since everyone's ratings hinge on everyone elses, the net result was a huge number of folks getting bumped down. The 2.5 ladies had tough first serves, could place their second, and usually played both at net. I fit in well with the 2.5 league that year, and in no level did the definitions fit. Well, lo and behold, NORCAL did well in nationals last season. Net result, I haven't found anyone that got bumped down, and from the number that got bumped up, it looks like everyone gained about .25 from the trickle down of matches played at Nationals. Some 2.5 women got bumped to 3.5, including much of some whole teams. This year I'm betting the 3.0 level will be less strong than last year, and be closer to matching the definitions.

On vacation I played social tennis with ladies from all over the US. We were playing somewhat even. USTA ratings ranged from 3.0 to 4.5. In social tennis some play easier than others, so higher level folks are often playing down to your level. Also, ratings from several years ago may no longer mesh with their athletic ability or the level of the region, as that too fluxuates.

[Ace]

I would like to know if the Message Board participants are taking their ratings from the USTA Rating Guidelines, or are actually playing USTA League Tennis at that level?

[d wayne]

I take my rating from league tennis and comparison to other players I know. Going strictly by the guidelines, I am a 4.5. However, I used to play with a guy who was rated a 4.0 when they still held rating clinics- we were comparable players. I played 4.0 league last summer for the first time- only lost to 2 players (twice each) who both got bumped to 4.5. They were much better than 4.0 level. My other matches(wins) were competitive, except for 1(beat a 3.5 player who played up pretty easily). It seems that most players actually rate a level below the written guidelines- not to sandbag(for most) but based on the level of the competition.

[Cypo]

My 4.0 is BS, but there are no rated tournaments where I live, so what to do ?

Hey BS got through !

[Steve Huff]

I play on a USTA team, although last year, I had a big surgery the week before the season started, so I didn't play.

[tennis-n-sc]

If you play USTA or USA, as they call it now, you will get a computer rating. Your computer rating is based on who you played during the season and how you did. It also compares who you played with everyone they played, etc, etc. Some tournament play counts toward your computer rating as well. If you well enough you will get moved up by the computer analysis. I don't know how the majority of folks on this board determine their rating or level. If you have a computer rating, tha's the level. I always question the response " I'm playing at a 4.0 or 4.5 level". None of my business, though.

I have found that the talent level for any rating is very, very broad and can cause some doubt as to the validity ot the system. All in all, it seems to work most of the time.

If there are no USTA leagues in your area, start one. Or find out where the nearest one is to you and get involved.

[Cypo]

Don't know how the OeTV ( the Austrian Tennis Association) would feel about my organising USTA tournaments here - I'd probably get the nickname 'W'

Actually, if the USTA will allow it I'm hoping to play in a USTA tournament this summer in RI. I'm just afraid that becomming a USTA (honorary) member with an overseas address might prove difficult. But I wrote them and we'll see what they say.

[vin]

I self rated into USTA 3.5 and it worked out to be pretty accurate, although I'm hoping for 4.0 by November when the ratings are re-calculated.

According to the guidelines, I'd consider myself a 4.5.

I bet sandbagging has something to do with the actual ratings being skewed from the guidelines.

Vin

[Tom Rohrbacher]

I used to be a Verifier for the NTRP (usta) We are out of business now....no more rating clinics here in Ventura County,CA. It's a self rating system that is adjusted by the computer according to how you do. So everybody can rate themselves now

I've played USTA league tennis in the Mid-Atlantic section for about 5 years now. I was initially visually verified at a ratings clinic (twice) as a 4.0 but after playing a year got moved down and have been a 3.5 ever since. I agree that the range of skills within each level is very broad and clearly there are guys playing at the top of the 3.5 bracket that could hold their own at 4.0. Mid Atlantic did very well at Nationals this past year and I had the same observation as cak - lots of players got moved up this year and very few got moved down.

[Cruzer]

If everyone who follows these boards were to read the the USTA rating guidelines they would put themselves no lower than 3.5 and probably in the 4.0-4.5 range. Over the past couple of years USTA ratings are going down in my section. This is influenced to some extent by how teams from our section fare at the National playoffs. The result has been a steady dropping of ratings at all levels. At my club which has over 220 players their are no 4.5 rated women players any more and so few 4.0 rated women that they don't have enough players for a USTA team. There are only a couple of 4.5 men. IMO ratings have been pushed down too far. A pro at another club in my area is now rated 4.5 which is a joke. I am not sure what the USTA is trying to achieve by lowering ratings but I know many people, myself included, who believe the ratings are almost meaningless in terms of evaluating someone's tennis skills

[@wright]

I just laugh my butt off at some of the ratings people on here give themselves. It's like you KNOW these people aren't nearly as good as they say they are and if they would watch their game on tape, they would probably to embarassed to play anymore. It's a far cry from the Agassi and Sampras like strokes everyone who plays tennis thinks they have. Personally, I'm a 7.0...

[peter]

Originally Posted by @wright

I just laugh my butt off at some of the ratings people on here give themselves. It's like you KNOW these people aren't nearly as good as they say they are and if they would watch their game on tape, they would probably to embarassed to play anymore. It's a far cry from the Agassi and Sampras like strokes everyone who plays tennis thinks they have. Personally, I'm a 7.0...

Then I must be a, eh, 8.0! - especially since I'm participating
in the Swedish Championships for veterans this week!
(First round on Thursday)

So - I must be very good. Yup. No doubt about it.
[What? You read some other note I wrote some time ago
claiming to be a 3.5-4.0? Na, that wasn't me. Must have
been someone else].

[Cypo]

I find the ratings very difficult to interpret. I think what is missing is some evaluation of consistency and/or unforced errors. Something along the lines of at the 3.0 level unforced errors should account for no more than 25 (?) % of the shots you hit.

Do people who know the ratings have a feeling for this - I'd love to hear it if you do.

[cak]

Cypo has a good point. I've found 2.5 players that can do all the stuff it claims 4.0 players can do, but not very consistently. The only way I can figure how the descriptions work with the ratings is the description of the 2.5 is how a 2.5 player plays on their worst day, so they at least play that good.

[NoBadMojo]

the USTA rating system in its original format was based strictly on stroke production. which shots you could reliably hit. some people play great in warm-ups and have lots of shots, but just dont play well in the pressure of a match so it is a rough guideline. being a teaching pro for a long time, i still use the basic 'deduct one full level rule' and that often works out especially w. the men. if they come in to me looking for a match and say they are a 5.0, i figure them for a 4.0 tops unless they quantify it by saying they have won open tourneys or something like that. i think they system does work pretty well for league tennis though although there is a large disparity within specific districts and regions. I dont have it anymore, but the usta levels w. descriptions are published and pretty accesible. Ed

[peter]

Originally Posted by peter

Then I must be a, eh, 8.0! - especially since I'm participating
in the Swedish Championships for veterans this week!
(First round on Thursday)

So - I must be very good. Yup. No doubt about it.
[What? You read some other note I wrote some time ago
claiming to be a 3.5-4.0? Na, that wasn't me. Must have
been someone else].

Umpf. Now I've played my match. I guess I'm not a 8.0 after all.
More likely a 3.0 or something.Lost 1-6, 0-6. Ah well..

I atleast acheived my goal - I got one game (and I almost got
one in the second set)!

[Morpheus]

The more you play the better feel you have for your level. I view the ratings as "broad bands." Some 4.0s are really good and should be able to beat low end 4.5s at times, while other 4.0s are still competitive with high end 3.5s. Just pick a number that makes you competitive in the league you are in.

For me, I was rated back when you had to go to a clinic--you couldn't self rate like you can today. I wanted a 4.0 rating, but got a 4.5 and, consequently, couldn't play in the league I wanted and had to go into a 5.0+ league. It just wasn't as much fun.

I once met a guy who said he "played" but didn't have a rating. I took this to mean he was probably a 3.5 or 4.0. Turns out, he won the state high school championship (10 years earlier) and had beaten McEnroe as a junior. He didn't have a rating because he was too good to have a rating. Similarly, my father (thirty years ago) once was hitting alone and this fat guy with loafers asked if he could hit with him. This guy proceeded to beat my dad 6-0, 6-0 in street shoes using a borrowed racket. Turns out he was captain of his team at Stanford and had "gained a few pounds." You never know what you are running into. My point is that despite its flaws, the ranking system at least gives a reference point.

[peter]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

The more you play the better feel you have for your level. I view the ratings as "broad bands." Some 4.0s are really good and should be able to beat low end 4.5s at times, while other 4.0s are still competitive with high end 3.5s. Just pick a number that makes you competitive in the league you are in.

Yeah - I normally play in a league more suitable for my capabilities.
[I normally lose, but I can atleast put up a fight ]

Anyway, I just couldn't miss the opportunity to participate in the
(veterans) national championships now that it was arranged
here in "my" town.

[And based on what I saw on the other courts - I would have had
a pretty good chance to advance into the second round if I had
have a little better luck with the draw (instead of being drawn to play
one of the top-seeded players .