An interesting story about ratings

[Winning Ugly]

Originally Posted by bobbything

Personally, I'd rather have competitive matches and win than have lopsided matches and lose.

I agree, but in my experience (maybe because I was at a lower, more populous level) being at the top of my band meant a lot of uncompetitive wins and a few competitive ones, with maybe one loss per season. I could not get bumped up until a couple higher-level captains gave me a break and let me play on their teams. Playing up, I won about 1/3 at lower courts and got dusted when I was a sacrificial lamb at court 1. Still much more fun to get beat at the higher level, even 2 and 2, than winning 0 and 1 at my level. Thankfully, playing up convinced the computer to throw me a bone.

If it weren't so complicated, I wish they could have .25 gradations, at least for 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0. That would ensure mostly competitive matches all the time...

[storypeddler]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Presumably he is estatic, since now he is more likely to be bumped and get to play challenging tennis and better quality tennis, no?

Or is he upset since he may no longer get to beat up on weaker players? (by definition if he is close to 4.5 boundary, then he is stronger than the vast majority of 4.0s)

It doesn't matter that he is close to the 4.5 boundary. If he is legally a 4.0 player then he has every right in the world to play at the 4.0 level and I would expect him to do his bext to win every match he plays. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any way. He has done nothing wrong. And to suggest he has is rude and arrogant.

[storypeddler]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Not counter intuitive; people who like to be challenged and want to improve will welcome the bump. Good for your partner.

Many people though are more ego-driven and would rather be best of the worst than worst of the best.

So to be honest I assumed the latter but am happy I was wrong.

I know extremely few tennis players who, given those two options, would choose to be the worst of the best. Slowly improving while getting your doors blown off week after week, year after year may sound noble to you, but almost nobody would want or choose that. Frankly, given the chance, I don't for a minute believe you would either.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by storypeddler

I know extremely few tennis players who, given those two options, would choose to be the worst of the best. Slowly improving while getting your doors blown off week after week, year after year may sound noble to you, but almost nobody would want or choose that. Frankly, given the chance, I don't for a minute believe you would either.

If you were bumped up (correctly) you might very rarely win, but you shouldn't be getting your doors blown off.

[Winning Ugly]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

If you were bumped up (correctly) you might very rarely win, but you shouldn't be getting your doors blown off.

I agree -- you will get dusted if you have to play the best at your new level, but the difference between say a 3.51 and a 3.61 (both 4.0's) is minor and the 3.51 will steal a win now and then. Now, put that 3.51 at court 1 against 3.9's week after week and they'll rarely get a game...when I played 3.01's that's the way it was -- the "spread" in USTA levels really is too great...