Is this DQ Ridiculous?

[Staidhup]

Bottom line, if you are a self rated player, no history, win at singles, split in doubles, your bound to be DQ'd. I used to play with a guy who wins over 80% of his doubles matches, doesn't play singles, plays on two teams, 4.0 and 3.5 and has never been moved up. The key is set score, games won and lost differential, not wins and loses. I asked him once what the deal was, he responded, did you have fun out there?

[atatu]

Yes, the DQ is ridiculous, I'm amazed that this guy got DQ'd but we've got former D1 and satellite level players in the 4.5 league in Texas who are ok because they are "computer rated." Let's say this poor guy plays 4.5 next year and he has to play someone like Sydney Jim who is playing 4.5 in Houston, what would the result be ?

[goober]

Originally Posted by atatu

Yes, the DQ is ridiculous, I'm amazed that this guy got DQ'd but we've got former D1 and satellite level players in the 4.5 league in Texas who are ok because they are "computer rated." Let's say this poor guy plays 4.5 next year and he has to play someone like Sydney Jim who is playing 4.5 in Houston, what would the result be ?

I am surprised that Sydney Jim has a 4.5 rating. It won't last long though. He has a 6-2, 6-2 win over a 5.5 player.

[J_R_B]

Originally Posted by goober

I am surprised that Sydney Jim has a 4.5 rating. It won't last long though. He has a 6-2, 6-2 win over a 5.5 player.

How did he get a 4.5C rating? He didn't play in the 2011 championship year, and his only matches in the 2011 calendar year were in the 4.5+ early start 2012 league where he beat a 4.5C 6-0 6-0 and a 5.5C 6-2 6-2. Somehow, that should not comopute to 4.5C.

[goober]

Originally Posted by J_R_B

How did he get a 4.5C rating? He didn't play in the 2011 championship year, and his only matches in the 2011 calendar year were in the 4.5+ early start 2012 league where he beat a 4.5C 6-0 6-0 and a 5.5C 6-2 6-2. Somehow, that should not comopute to 4.5C.

He also played 5 matches of doubles in a 4.5+ league and went 3-2. Most of the players were 4.5 in that league so that may have something to do with it although the win over the 5.5 player should have negated that. That win came late in the year (november) so it * may* have not counted in the final year end rating. I don't know but obviously a guys just playing futures a couple years ago and still his 20s should not have a 4.5C rating.

[psYcon]

Originally Posted by goober

I am surprised that Sydney Jim has a 4.5 rating. It won't last long though. He has a 6-2, 6-2 win over a 5.5 player.

That 5.5 player (Scott Bayer) is a self-rate. I checked his tennis link scores and he has lost to other 4.5 players. So that 6-2, 6-2 victory is more like a victory over a 4.5. Secondly Sydney Jim has won some closer matches against other 4.5s, with scores like 7-6 , 6-4 etc.

So in essence he's more like a very strong 4.5 at the moment.

[NLBwell]

It all depends who you played, so in that way, you were probably unlucky. If you have a really good day against a top 4.0 player who is having a bad day, you might win by a lot and get a strike against you. If you played great against a lower ranked guy and wiped him out, it probably wouldn't have affected you much.

[wrxinsc]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

It all depends who you played, so in that way, you were probably unlucky. If you have a really good day against a top 4.0 player who is having a bad day, you might win by a lot and get a strike against you. If you played great against a lower ranked guy and wiped him out, it probably wouldn't have affected you much.

Not exactly correct. The computer averages back when calculating the dynamic rating. So a strike occurs when a player strings several unexpected results together.

The rating obtained for each player is averaged with a maximum of their previous three dynamic ratings and that number becomes their new current dynamic rating. (Indirectly this connects the current dynamic to all previous matches but weights the four most recent matches more heavily.)

The reason for this averaging is to even out the ratings in cases where some unusual situation causes an atypical result.

[anubis]

Here's my psychological assessment of the situation with self-rated players:

I'd be willing to bet that most people who self-rate go at least one level below their assumed level, just to be safe. No one wants to go in all cocky only to get their ego bruised when they lose consistently. Its a gamble, but perhaps we want to have fun more often than not. Playing a level that's too high and getting beaten regularly isn't fun, so a lot of people avoid it when they can.

So they fill out the self-rating questionnaire through USTA. The end says "Joe, you're a 4.0 player." And Joe signs up for a 3.5 league because he's rusty, hasn't played in years, and his racquet has 5 year old strings on it. He didn't bet on the fact that he'd "get his sea legs back" quicker than expected and is handily wiping the floor with his opponents.

As they say, boom goes the dynamite: he gets DQed and is miserable. I'm sure this happens all the time, all across the country.

[ProPlayer]

Originally Posted by anubis

Here's my psychological assessment of the situation with self-rated players:

I'd be willing to bet that most people who self-rate go at least one level below their assumed level, just to be safe. No one wants to go in all cocky only to get their ego bruised when they lose consistently. Its a gamble, but perhaps we want to have fun more often than not. Playing a level that's too high and getting beaten regularly isn't fun, so a lot of people avoid it when they can.

So they fill out the self-rating questionnaire through USTA. The end says "Joe, you're a 4.0 player." And Joe signs up for a 3.5 league because he's rusty, hasn't played in years, and his racquet has 5 year old strings on it. He didn't bet on the fact that he'd "get his sea legs back" quicker than expected and is handily wiping the floor with his opponents.

As they say, boom goes the dynamite: he gets DQed and is miserable. I'm sure this happens all the time, all across the country.

WRONG, its quite the other way around, WAY too many people playing up!!!
so because the FUSTA bumps all these people then they get beat, the one who beats them gets DQed???

with that moronic logic.... 3.0s should sign up at 5.0 then when they 5.0s cream them, the 5.0s get DQed...

um...how is the FUSTA still in business??? "the donald young, business model"!

[J_R_B]

Originally Posted by anubis

Here's my psychological assessment of the situation with self-rated players:

I'd be willing to bet that most people who self-rate go at least one level below their assumed level, just to be safe. No one wants to go in all cocky only to get their ego bruised when they lose consistently. Its a gamble, but perhaps we want to have fun more often than not. Playing a level that's too high and getting beaten regularly isn't fun, so a lot of people avoid it when they can.

So they fill out the self-rating questionnaire through USTA. The end says "Joe, you're a 4.0 player." And Joe signs up for a 3.5 league because he's rusty, hasn't played in years, and his racquet has 5 year old strings on it. He didn't bet on the fact that he'd "get his sea legs back" quicker than expected and is handily wiping the floor with his opponents.

As they say, boom goes the dynamite: he gets DQed and is miserable. I'm sure this happens all the time, all across the country.

You can't do that. You fill out the questionnaire, and it doesn't say "Joe, you're a 4.0 player", it says "Joe, your minimum rating is 4.0". If it says your minimum is 4.0, you can't sign up for 3.5. The problem is when it says "your minimum is 3.5" when you know you are a 4.5 and there is a 4.0 captain waiting to take you on...

[JLyon]

Sydney Jim cheated the system a few years back by self-rating as a 4.5 to play 9.0 MXD. Obviously he did not put he played at Rice or won some matches on the futures level. It is a joke rating and not sure how anyone can defend him.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by psYcon

oh please. no you would not be going to sectionals. It's a team effort, not a frickin' one man show.

Puh.

I moved up to 4.0 in Nov. 2011. In 2011 as a 3.5, I went to sectionals on two teams and nationals on one. If I were still a 3.5, I would be very sought after.

Say I were allowed to play as a 3.5 for 2012. It would be easy to get on a team going to sectionals. The way you do it is you simply don't join any 3.5 teams, but you let the best captains know you are alive. As the season progresses, you see which teams emerge as the winners. Then you join as many of those teams that have a slot, play two matches to qualify for Districts, and then try to get to sectionals.

If you make sure you get on the top DC team, you know you will always go straight to sectionals because there are no Districts. Smart captains keep 1-2 empty roster positions open just to capture top players who kept their options open.

Gotta know how to play the system, sonny.

[floridatennisdude]

^^^that is pretty slick

[goober]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Puh.

I moved up to 4.0 in Nov. 2011. In 2011 as a 3.5, I went to sectionals on two teams and nationals on one. If I were still a 3.5, I would be very sought after.

Say I were allowed to play as a 3.5 for 2012. It would be easy to get on a team going to sectionals. The way you do it is you simply don't join any 3.5 teams, but you let the best captains know you are alive. As the season progresses, you see which teams emerge as the winners. Then you join as many of those teams that have a slot, play two matches to qualify for Districts, and then try to get to sectionals.

If you make sure you get on the top DC team, you know you will always go straight to sectionals because there are no Districts. Smart captains keep 1-2 empty roster positions open just to capture top players who kept their options open.

Gotta know how to play the system, sonny.

Sure I guess if your whole point in league tennis is to be mercenary and join teams that are going to sectionals. I am still trying to figure out why people so ruthlessly go after meaningless accomplisments in rec level tennis. Nobody really cares about if a person goes to 3.5 sectionals except the individual concerned and maybe their team. After while they will wonder why they cared so much about it as well.

[gameboy]

Originally Posted by goober

I am still trying to figure out why people so ruthlessly go after meaningless accomplisments in rec level tennis. Nobody really cares about if a person goes to 3.5 sectionals except the individual concerned and maybe their team. After while they will wonder why they cared so much about it as well.

They lead an utterlessly hopeless empty life?

[cknobman]

Originally Posted by goober

Sure I guess if your whole point in league tennis is to be mercenary and join teams that are going to sectionals. I am still trying to figure out why people so ruthlessly go after meaningless accomplisments in rec level tennis. Nobody really cares about if a person goes to 3.5 sectionals except the individual concerned and maybe their team. After while they will wonder why they cared so much about it as well.

I agree with this, I mean what is going on in peoples lives to have to be this way?

Dont get me wrong I want to go to sectionals (I have several times) and would love to make it to nationals but I am not trying to game the system or running some elaborate recruiting system trying to put together a "ringer" team that will "go all the way".

I play on my usual USTA teams that I have been playing on for years and even been co-captain of. A core group of us always stay together as we have become friends. Each season we may loose a person or two and then pick up a person or two. Of course when picking up new players we dont just take anybody but on the flip side we dont intentionally try to pick up a "ringer".

This year we have gone 9-2 in league play and are going to playoffs. Our team is ecstatic and feel we have a very good chance of winning city playoffs for a shot at sectionals.

[schmke]

Like others have said, it isn't your record that determines DQs, nor is it your average across all your matches. Instead, it is the scores (game differential), the opponent, and whether or not 3 individual matches are scored as strikes.

Were you told which matches were strikes? I believe that is normally supposed to be done. In your case, it appears there were 2 clear well above threshold strikes, those being:

- second singles win, 6-3, 6-0 win over a fairly high rated 4.0
- last doubles win, 6-2, 6-1 win over two very good 4.0s playing with a good 4.0

I'd be curious what the other strike was.

[clutch21]

Originally Posted by schmke

Like others have said, it isn't your record that determines DQs, nor is it your average across all your matches. Instead, it is the scores (game differential), the opponent, and whether or not 3 individual matches are scored as strikes.

Were you told which matches were strikes? I believe that is normally supposed to be done. In your case, it appears there were 2 clear well above threshold strikes, those being:

- second singles win, 6-3, 6-0 win over a fairly high rated 4.0
- last doubles win, 6-2, 6-1 win over two very good 4.0s playing with a good 4.0

I'd be curious what the other strike was.

Yes I did find out what the strikes were from. I already mentioned one in an earlier post, the 6-2, 6-1 doubles victory against some pretty low 4.0s (one had a 1-8, and one a 1-1 record) with my partner who is a very good doubles player (9-0 this season). The 6-3, 6-0 singles win was a strike and it deserved to be. The other strike was actually from doubles. It was the 6-2, 6-2 win. My opponents had a losing record for the season (not sure how bad).

[F L O B B E R]

I'm confused over your DQ... after taking a few years off I am playing once again as a 4.0s and after a slow start in which I went 2-2 I won my last 4 matches by scores of 0 & 1, 2 & 1, 0 & 0, 0 & 0... the last double bagel coming against a player with an overall winning record, INCLUDING a victory over someone that whipped me in the 1st match of the year.

I was terrified I was going to be DQ'd (not wanting to see my team get hurt), but so far I haven't heard a word. (The last match I played was nearly 2 weeks ago). Could it be that even though I had to self-rate because of my time off, my actual history (5 seasons as a confirmed 4.0) saved me? Or is the hammer still likely to fall, it just hasn't hit me yet?