^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My teacher is a very well known teacher in the area. He used to play on 5.0. The word is that he would intentionally lose matches to keep his 4.0 rating.
I am a VERY strong 4.0 player. If there were a rating for 4.2 that would fit me. I am undefeated in doubles and I do VERY well in the #1 & #2 singles spots as well. I am not saying this to brag but rather to point out that I have never gotten more than 2 games off this pro.
Finally the director of the club is a former ATP player who shall remain nameless. He was shocked that this teacher was playing 4.0 tennis. In his opinion the teacher was at the least a 5.0 player.
If the guy isn't older (like the pro I mentioned) or really does throw matches in order to deflate his rating, then I could see where you are coming from. However, to play devil's advocate, just because he played 5.0 at one point doesn't mean he still has that level of game now.
How old is this pro?
What is his playing background (did he play in college or have a sectional/national ranking)?
How many matches does he play each year (is he playing 4.0 tournaments as well as league)?
How good of shape is he in?
What kind of game does he have? Is there a defined weapon in his strokes?
I'm also curious as to what his motivation to play at 4.0 might be. Most teaching pros want to maintain ratings or rankings as high as possible in order to maintain a superior perceived level of skill for their students.
Therefore, is the 4.0 team that he is on very good?
Most of the teaching pros at the facility I play at are rated 4.5 or 5.0 and play USTA League tennis at those levels. However, when the 2007 ratings came out a couple weeks ago, one of the guys dropped from 4.5 to 4.0... and it kind of makes sense because he is in his early 50s and lost most of his matches in 4.5 doubles (and I know he didn't throw them because their team was trying to make it to sectionals and his losses cost them). If he plays on a 4.0 team, I'm sure that he will win most of his matches and people will complain, but it was a legitimate drop from the computer.
By the way, your comment that "if there were a rating for 4.2, that would fit me" was curious and seems to indicate that you are not fully aware of how the rating system works. The USTA TennisLink computer system actually rates players out to the hundredth of a point. For instance, if a player is rated 4.0, that actually means that they are somewhere between 3.51 and 4.00 in the system, 4.5s would be anywhere from 4.01 and 4.50, etc. Therefore, if you were a 4.20, you would actually be rated 4.5 in the published ratings. The thing is that this actual rating out to the hundredth decimal point is never published, so it is impossible to know exactly where you stand in that range. Every league and sanctioned tournament match you play is calculated in the system, and there is a formula that takes into account the score and the relative actual ratings between two players to make dynamic adjustments. The USTA algorithm is secret, but from what most have figured out, there are some general rules. For instance, wins and losses do not matter as much as how many games you win in each set you play. Players that are at the higher end of the spectrum (like 3.90+) are expected to beat the players at the lower end of the spectrum (like 3.60-) by an average score of 6-2, 6-2. If a lower rated player gets more games than that, their rating will rise and the higher player's will drop. Also, the system seems to have a way of catching unusual scores (like a lower rated player beating a higher 6-0, 6-0, which indicates a possible intentional tank) and throwing those out. Players that self rate are usually put at the high end of the rating scale, and it is easier for them (theoretically) to strike out because of this (although, dishonest team captains will "hide" the sandbagging self rated players by having them play the minimum amount of matches to qualify for the playoffs or have them throw games in doubles).
Anyway, you mentioned that you were going to send this information off to the USTA. If so, you may want to familiarize yourself with the rating system as much as possible and read information in the appeal/grievance procedures. Supposedly, the ratings administrators do not care about anecdotal information like "my pro says he is really a 5.0" or "I'm really good but I can't win more than a couple games from this guy, so he must be under-rated." Rather, real evidence of cheating or over-level background is needed. Given that, you might want to ask the USTA to tell you why the following players were allowed to self rate at 4.0 and play at the national team championships this year:
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/tournaments/rankings/rankinglists.aspx?id=93326
http://www.uil.utexas.edu/athletics/archives/tennis/04_05/4A_bracket.html
http://www.midwayisd.org/athletics/tennis/State 2004.htm
Hector Hernandez: Ranked 1320 in the world in the Boy's 18 & Under category in 2004.
http://www.itftennis.com/juniors/players/player.asp?player=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/DailyNation/1998/120898/Sports/Sports1.html
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/09092001/Sports/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/doc/content/doc_13_7372.pdf?12/6/2004 4:12:22 PM
We have teaching pros in our area rated 4.0 that are very good at their jobs. The ratings, as have been said, reflect their age and physical condition as well as USTA match results.
