The USTA rating system is BS!!! My story

[Gut Reaction]

Originally Posted by fuzz nation

Write the USTA and don't be shy! Opinions are good things to share in this case and when we join up, they are working for us. At least they can't claim ignorance if the organization goes down the drain, but with minimal effort I think the system can be substantially improved.

I did exactly that. In fact my whole team did. The USTA does nothing. In fact they are the problem.

and jack....again, a former top 100 player in the world joined our protest and said in his opinion there was no way in hell that this teaching pro was a 4.0. (I don't want to give out his name because i do not want to hurt anyones reputation).

[cak]

Originally Posted by oldguysrule

I may have implied that, but not exactly. It really means their rating (whatever it is) is supposedly "more accurate" because of the number and quality of matches.

A weak 3.5 on a good team could go to the playoffs and still be a benchmark rating.

That makes much more sense. In the recent NTRP end of the year ratings one of our club members was rated a benchmark 3.5 from her play in Senior 3.0 at sectionals. (Not a National benchmark.) Apparently both NorCal and National had adjusted all players off the benchmarks up to make up for our National results. This meant the benchmark part of the ratings was adjusted up twice. When NorCal figured this out they took out their adjustments. On the NorCal website she now shows up as a 3.0 again, meaning she was a low 3.5 benchmark. (And this is all a shame for her. She worked real hard to get back up to 3.5, and is playing fabulously. Club rules say to be on a club team playing up you need to be on the team at your level also. From her play I'd say she's ready to leave 3.0 behind...)

What's weirder is now that NorCal readjusted all these folks they show up in tennislink with a higher rating than they show up in NorCal. So when the NorCal teams show up at Nationals it would be quite possible for entire 3.0 teams to show up in tennislink as 3.5. (and so on for every level, now it is quite apparent who is at the top of their level...) Maybe it just takes awhile for adjustments to move back to tennislink?

[federermcenroeagassi]

Originally Posted by Gut Reaction

I did exactly that. In fact my whole team did. The USTA does nothing. In fact they are the problem.

and jack....again, a former top 100 player in the world joined our protest and said in his opinion there was no way in hell that this teaching pro was a 4.0. (I don't want to give out his name because i do not want to hurt anyones reputation).

scores? just wondering, ill take it you lost, but did you give him a good fight? and umm, definitely find a new coach

[heycal]

Originally Posted by cak

In the recent NTRP end of the year ratings one of our club members was rated a benchmark 3.5 from her play in Senior 3.0 at sectionals. (Not a National benchmark.) Apparently both NorCal and National had adjusted all players off the benchmarks up to make up for our National results. This meant the benchmark part of the ratings was adjusted up twice. When NorCal figured this out they took out their adjustments. On the NorCal website she now shows up as a 3.0 again, meaning she was a low 3.5 benchmark. (And this is all a shame for her. She worked real hard to get back up to 3.5, and is playing fabulously. Club rules say to be on a club team playing up you need to be on the team at your level also. From her play I'd say she's ready to leave 3.0 behind...)

Reading this post is like reading a calculus textbook. Man, this USTA stuff you guys are involved in seems extremely complex and hard to follow, with all sorts of math involved and arcane rules and intimidating language like "dynamic disqualification" and so on. Way over my head.

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by Jack the Hack

John Arvesen: Ranked #298 nationally in the 2004 Boy's 18 & Under category, and was a two-time Texas 4A State Doubles finalist

http://tournaments.usta.com/tourname....aspx?id=93326

http://www.uil.utexas.edu/athletics/...A_bracket.html

http://www.midwayisd.org/athletics/t...ate%202004.htm

Hector Hernandez: Ranked 1320 in the world in the Boy's 18 & Under category in 2004.

http://www.itftennis.com/juniors/pla...ayer=100022915

Atul Shah: Some say he was the best, and most outrageously, over-level player at the 4.0 nationals this year... but his team did not make it out of the round robin play at nationals, so there wasn't as much protest. At the sectional level, every team he played filed a grievance, but the USTA was unable to adequately prove his background because he is from India. However, here are a couple professional tournament results to consider:

http://www.nationaudio.com/News/Dail...s/Sports1.html

http://www.nationaudio.com/News/Dail.../Sports13.html

According to the USTA's own self rating guidelines, none of these guys were eligible to self rate at 4.0, but the not only did the USTA allow them to play... but it even crowned one of them with a national 4.0 team title. Here is what the USTA Guidelines say:

"NAIA, Division 2 & 3 unranked college team player - program with no scholarships (not much stronger than high school tennis); junior college player; former juniors that had national (foreign or domestic) rankings but did not tour or play in college; Age 35 & Under = 4.5, Age 36 & Over = 4.0."

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta...204:12:22%20PM

Jack, thanks for this. I'll remember these when I decide whether or not to pick
up the phone on the 26th and pay for next year's USTA membership.

In the USTA's defense there's no way to have a perfect system unless you're
going to administer lie detector tests to all playing members. You would think they could take care of the egregious scams highlighted in this thread.

[Eviscerator]

Originally Posted by Gut Reaction

Anyway when I got to the match guess who my opponent was on the other side of the net..........MY TEACHER!!!

Do you guys have any horror stories? I would like to send this string to the USTA.

I have not read the responses to your thread, but let me just say this in case it hasn't been covered already. There are all sorts of teaching pros. They come in many different shapes, sizes and skill levels. I actually know a guy who teaches very well, but he is probably only a 3.5 player. In other words he teaches much better than he plays. You need look no farther than the Williams sisters dad, or Mark Philippoussis's dad. Even the famous Nick Bollettieri is a much better teacher than he is a player. Of course this can be true in many other professions as well.

[Ronaldo]

I remember the pros at our club. You know, we have a saying, uh, that those who can't play teach, and those who can't teach, teach seniors. And, uh, those who can't do anything, are pros at our club.

[Gut Reaction]

Originally Posted by Eviscerator

I have not read the responses to your thread, but let me just say this in case it hasn't been covered already. There are all sorts of teaching pros. They come in many different shapes, sizes and skill levels. I actually know a guy who teaches very well, but he is probably only a 3.5 player. In other words he teaches much better than he plays. You need look no farther than the Williams sisters dad, or Mark Philippoussis's dad. Even the famous Nick Bollettieri is a much better teacher than he is a player. Of course this can be true in many other professions as well.

Well that was nit the case here. This guy was actually quite succesful as a satellite player.

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by Ronaldo

I remember the pros at our club. You know, we have a saying, uh, that those who can't play teach, and those who can't teach, teach seniors. And, uh, those who can't do anything, are pros at our club.

You left out US public high school tennis coaches. They hold valid drivers licenses and know the way to the away matches...

[GeorgiaRoyal]

As a public high school tennis coach, I resent that I coach in a region of Georgia where tennis is an afterthought. I'm going to have roughly 18-20 boys on my team this year, and they are all basically beginners. I've got two or three with a couple of years of experience, but they haven't developed very fast (this is the first year of this particular school, so this will be my first time working with these guys). I've done a lot of studying about how to teach the technical aspect of the game and how to combine that with the tactical aspect.

Studying how to teach the game has improved my game a lot. I started playing tennis when I was about 13 and am now 30 (but, somehow, I am just a 3.5 player). I've got the strokes, but now, I'm learning the strategy and such to up my game to maybe the 4.0 or 4.5 level. My goal for 2007, is to up my rating to 4.0.

[Ronaldo]

3.5 You have achieved incredible stroke dependability with legendary directional control on difficult shots, but need to develop a 6-pack and killer pecs. You exhibit the most aggressive net play, have awesome court coverage , and exhibit HoF teamwork in doubles. Cannot wait to see what 4.0 must mean.

[johnkidd]

Back in '04 when I was plaing both 4.5 & 4.0 there was a team that had two current DI players playing 4.5, one of which was all conference and very highly ranked in Open singles in our district.

[cmartin]

That happened to me a couple years ago. I was a 4.5 but got asked to captain a 5.0 team because there were not many teams at that level. We were about half 4.5 and half 5.0 players. We win the local league (due to great captain work-haha) and go to the states. Everybody got bumped to 5.0. It really discourages playing up.

[SydneyJim]

haha just because he's a teaching pro doesn't mean he's good in tennis

Jack the Hack

The professional tennis tournaments where u see my name, by the way is not me. This is my first year in U.S. & my first ever tennis competetion. You guys are just creating a huge issue about this by talking unneccassary things about players. Henceforth try to confirm & have proof as to what u are goin to write.

[Jack the Hack]

Originally Posted by Don of Tennis

Jack the Hack

The professional tennis tournaments where u see my name, by the way is not me. This is my first year in U.S. & my first ever tennis competetion. You guys are just creating a huge issue about this by talking unneccassary things about players. Henceforth try to confirm & have proof as to what u are goin to write.

Atul (aka "Don of Tennis"),

The cases of John Arveson and Hector Hernadez are very straightforward - the USTA guidelines clearly show that their playing backgrounds should not have allowed them to self-rate at the 4.0 level. Unfortunately, the USTA does not have the guts to enforce their own standards.

As for you, if you say that the player listed in the professional tennis results is not you... fine. I can't prove it, and neither could the USTA during the grievance process. However, for you to say that the league was your "first ever tennis competition" is disingenuous. According to the USTA investigation of the sectional appeals, we were told that you admitted to playing college tennis in India but claimed that it was no higher than junior college level in the US. The USTA official we spoke to said that she was researching it, but had no way to verify how the level you played in India corresponded with college tennis in the US. Our reply was that even junior college tennis varies in the US and some programs are equal with top Division I NCAA teams. Instead, we asked that you be rated via visual verification instead since every team you played at sectionals filed a grievance against you for being clearly over level... and by watching you play, it was obvious that you were not a 4.0. (In reply, we were told that only the computer could strike you out and that the USTA no longer did visual disqualifications.)

Furthermore, similar to the cases with Arveson and Hernadez, the USTA self rating guidelines say this:

"NAIA, Division 2 & 3 unranked college team player - program with no scholarships (not much stronger than high school tennis); junior college player; former juniors that had national (foreign or domestic) rankings but did not tour or play in college; Age 35 & Under = Self Rate at 4.5, Age 36 & Over = Self Rate at 4.0."

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta...204:12:22%20PM

Therefore, if you truly had college playing experience in India (irregardless to what level it corresponds to in the US) and are under 35 (which I believe you are) by USTA standards, you should have self rated at 4.5. (The USTA obviously ignored this, as they also did with Arveson and Hernandez.)

In addition, here is a quote from another thread on this forum from somebody who claims to have been in Hawaii for the national tournament:

Originally Posted by hawkeye39

If I am reading the chart correctly and the player is under 30 they should be a 5.5 if they are in the top 20 the next player down shouldn't drop to a 4.0. This requires some common sense and good faith by the local districts which seems to be lacking in this case. A number 40 ranked player could be 5.0 or 4.5 depending how strong the district. I would find it hard to place someone all the way down to a 4.0. I think if you look at John's results you'll clearly see he was out of level. He was 15-0 with only 2 sets lost one of them a tie breaker. I try to make sure all of my self rates are below my computer rated players just as a personal test.

The funny thing about this is I don't think John was the best player at Nationals I think Atul Shah from PNW and Hector (world ranking of 1030 in 2004) were better players and further out of level

Maybe "hawkeye39" is full of BS, but if he truly was in Hawaii and thought that you were further out of level than John Arveson, what does that mean in terms of you self rating at 4.0?

Seriously, I've seen you play and you would do well at the 5.0+ level. You are a young guy that seems to be in very good shape, and there wasn't a stroke you couldn't hit extremely well. I was especially impressed with your precision and racquet head control... so much so, that it did not seem unreasonable that you had some professional experience in ITF Futures or ATP satellite tournaments in your past. Given that, how could you honestly justify self rating yourself at the 4.0 level?

If we give you the benefit of doubt that you were ignorant of USTA levels and the league process, it still seems like you should have been self aware enough to realize that you were much better than everybody you played in 4.0. You won all of your matches easily, and your team advanced to nationals. At the very minimum, it would seem that your team captain knew that you were an over-level ringer and set you up to be their meal ticket to Hawaii. Obviously, your captain wouldn't be the first to do this... and considering the cases of Arveson and Hernandez (and the success they had at nationals), it looks like cheating the system is the best way to win. However, that still doesn't make it right! Surely you understand this, correct?