Getting to 5.0 is not easy.
- Thread starter crash1929
- Start date
IwishIwasbetter
Rookie
nine.......
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
My guess is around 13 or 14.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Probably, when he was 12 or 13.
Jay_The_Nomad
Professional
Between the ages 11-12.
He would have been a 6.0 at age 13-14
He would have been a 6.0 at age 13-14
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I highly doubt it. He probably wasn't a 6.0 until he was 15 or 16. Federer was still playing the juniors at 17 and the juniors are not 7.0 players and are not yet good enough to be competitive on the ATP Tour. Juniors would get killed in the main draw of an ATP event.
Also don't forget that Federer started playing tennis relatively late at age 8.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
I'd say it would probably be a bit younger than this. I've worked with a few players who were about a 5.0 level at this age. They will get to a high Div 1 level but probably not much higher than 6.0 at their peak.
35ft6
Legend
Agassi... 11 or 12? He was beating top 20 players by age 16, and the leap from 5.0 to 7.0 is pretty huge. I'm sure it didn't happen in just 2 or so years. The true greats are probably 5.0 very early on, maybe 11 or 12, maybe earlier. Nadal beat Cash in an exhibition on clay when he was 14. I remember hearing a story about a 12 year old McEnroe beating an older Peter Fleming at Port Washington. The very top, not just in the country but in the world, 12 year olds, can beat 5.0 players. They can hit the ball way better than a regular 5.0's, it's just a matter of growing up. These types of kids can compete with top pros on any given day by the time they're 14 or 15. Hewitt won the very first ATP tournament he ever played at 15. Agassi got to the qualies of an ATP even at 16, losing to Mac but beating world number 12 on the way. The kids can hit balls all day.
35ft6
Legend
He was world class pro by 16. Most of the really special pros are 7.0 by 16. Chang won a round in the US Open at age 15. Hewitt won an ATP event at 16. Nadal won his first ATP match at age 14 defeating Ramon Delgado. Gasquet took advantage of his wildcard into qualifying to get into the Monte Carlo Masters and to win a round at age 15. Yes yes yes this is incredible stuff. 6.0 players can't even win a match in ATP level qualifiers, let alone win a round in the main draw.
nfor304
Banned
Fed was the number 1 junior in the world and had played a few futures, and was ranked around 700 at 16. I would say that is 6.5-7.0 level.
He played the junior davis cup and defeated a 14 year old Hewitt at 14. I would say that is 5.5-6-0 level.
I would say he was around 12 when he was 5.0
He played the junior davis cup and defeated a 14 year old Hewitt at 14. I would say that is 5.5-6-0 level.
I would say he was around 12 when he was 5.0
Last edited:
autumn_leaf
Hall of Fame
i'm quite surprised that many people would say around 12. i think a major factor would be strength and speed to reach higher levels for kids since most haven't reached puberty yet at that age. i think around 14-15 is more realistic.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Seriously, as I said before, I've seen & worked with kids who were 5.0 by 13-14. One of them recently played Div 1 tennis at Stanford. I don't believe that he or any of the others will be able to turn pro. If a player doesn't reach a 5.0 until they are 14-15, it is highly unlikely that they'll ever be able to turn pro.
As others have mentioned, we've seen many players who were world class level by 16. I saw Chang win a a pro tournament in the SF Bay Area at 16. Later that year, a few months after turning 17, he won the French. (Note that Hingis, Graff and a few others on the WTA side were pros at 14 or earlier).
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Roger at 3 years old, playing at a 6.0 level:
Notice that he already had developed his "quiet eye" vision technique at this tender age.
.
Notice that he already had developed his "quiet eye" vision technique at this tender age.
.
7.0's are top 100 players right? because its hard to make a living lower..so to get there it should be when federer was around 20 years old? So he was a pro at 17..so thats when he was a 6.5. So when he was 15/16 he could have been a 6.0. He could have been a 5.0 when he was 12 or 13.
6.0 Has obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.
6.5 Has extensive satellite tournament experience.
7.0 Makes his living from tournament prize money.
6.0 Has obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.
6.5 Has extensive satellite tournament experience.
7.0 Makes his living from tournament prize money.
tribunal4555
Semi-Pro
Most pros become 5.0 in their early to mid teens, I would imagine.
Me personally, I turned 5.0 at 16, but I don't think I can get any farther than 5.5 or 6.0. The only reason I got here was because of athleticism from other sports, not any innate skill...
But hey, for me, tennis is for fun, so at least I can play some USTA tournaments, no?
Me personally, I turned 5.0 at 16, but I don't think I can get any farther than 5.5 or 6.0. The only reason I got here was because of athleticism from other sports, not any innate skill...
But hey, for me, tennis is for fun, so at least I can play some USTA tournaments, no?
tribunal4555
Semi-Pro
Roger at 3 years old, playing at a 6.0 level:
Notice that he already had developed his "quiet eye" vision technique at this tender age.
.
Lol this post made me crack up.
It's so true yet hilarious.
vinouspleasure
Rookie
We went to newk's two years ago and saw one of the top juniors in the country. I think he was 11 or 12 and he was already beating the teaching pros who to my eye, are strong 4.5s and 5.0s
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
Are you talking about Christian Harrison? I was there at Newks while he was about 8 or 9. He was already beating kids that were in U14's fairly easily. Not sure about the teaching pro's there being 4.5's, some when I was there were a lot worse and a few were very good when I first arrived there.
vinouspleasure
Rookie
yes, that sounds right. I'm sure sal is at least a 4.5.
35ft6
Legend
This is stuff I remembered.
No. But good question. I think it's probably more like top 300 or 500. I mean, do people agree that solid Futures level pros are 7.0?
The 12 year olds already hit the ball great. Their point construction isn't awesome but despite their size, they're hitting alone allows them to beat bigger stronger players. I remember a friend telling me about 12 yo Michael Russell just schooling in the 14's and 16's in Southeastern Michigan. The true tennis prodigies play up, remember, despite their smaller size, their superior tennis abilities allow them to compete with bigger players and they usually do very well. The people who go on to become top 10 pros, if not all time greats, strike the ball at a level we just can't understand. Even at the age of 12, their ball striking is unreal.
There was a kid who played near my place who was top 10 nationally in Boys 14, and he would absolutely smoke any 5.0's around. And he wasn't a true prodigy, just a very good national level junior.
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
Sal is a good guy, he's one of the main coaches of their adult program I believe now. Very good guitar player, 4.5 sounds about right for him I think.
crash1929
Hall of Fame
Systemic thanks for posting the pic of fed. This is exactly the picture I had in mind when starting this post. He keeps his friggin head right at the contact point even as a little kid. when ever i do this it means i've done a good job watching the ball and i've more likely hit tht sweet spon on my racquet resultinging in a deeper heavier ball. One of my big problems is picking my head up to see where the ball is going...Especially when i'm running to a ball!! I immediately pick my head up and then..poof into the net! lol. If I could just keep my head still....
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
I'd call #200 a 7.0 player as well. Not that it matters but this player make a pretty decent wage playing tennis as well. Number 300 might be a 6.5/7.0 (not sure). Here is the general characteristics from the USTA:
6.0 to 7.0
You have had intensive training for national tournament competition at the junior and collegiate levels and have obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.
7.0
You are a world-class player.
35ft6
Legend
To me if you can win a round in futures, you're world class. Even some top college players, and don't forget doubles specialists.
Last edited:
nfor304
Banned
I played a guy who was in the institute of sport (where all the best players in the nation train) in Australia and was also part of the south Australia state squad when he was 18.
When he was in those squads Lleyton Hewitt was also part of the squad, but Lleyton was 13 rather than 17-18. The guy I met said Hewitt was easily the best player there and could double bagel almost everyone every time.
Hewitt became the number 1 junior in Aus just after he turned 15, qualified for the Aus Open when he was 15 and won his debut ATP event at 16.
When he was in those squads Lleyton Hewitt was also part of the squad, but Lleyton was 13 rather than 17-18. The guy I met said Hewitt was easily the best player there and could double bagel almost everyone every time.
Hewitt became the number 1 junior in Aus just after he turned 15, qualified for the Aus Open when he was 15 and won his debut ATP event at 16.
There's a 14/15 year old kid at my club who is nationally ranked in the top 10 in his age group. I'm a pretty solid 4.5 and I would guess that he could beat me fairly easily (maybe 6-2 or 6-3, depending on how well I'm serving). He's probably a 5.0 player or better.
I would guess that the top pros were probably 5.0 by the time they were 12-13 years old.
I would guess that the top pros were probably 5.0 by the time they were 12-13 years old.
This sounds exactly like the kid that plays at my club, as I posted above.
However, I don't think he would smoke any 5.0s in the area. He would probably lose to a very good 5.0 or an average 5.5 player.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yeah, but the 12 year old kids don't have the match strategy nor the match experience of someone's who's 18 or older. They are also not physically strong enough to handle the heavy pounding from a bigger, older opponent for hours. They are also too short to blast 120mph serves and probably don't have an aggressive second serve. They don't have the reach at net and are easy to lob over.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No, he wasn't. Federer was still playing the junior circuit when he was 17. He won the Wimbledon juniors at 17 in 1998 and was the #1 ranked junior at the end of 1998.
35ft6
Legend
Go to ITF website. He was playing satellites as a 16 yo. He got to the semis of one. At age 17, he was also playing some ATP tennis, beating two top 50 pros in France. He finished 1991 ranked 66. To me, he was world class at 16 even if he wasn't playing a full ATP schedule.
There are certainly players who were doing better at that age than Federer. He had two much talent and flash, it took him a while to get his game together, but he was still a solid pro level player by 16 (if you agree getting to the semis of a satellite event is proof of that).
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Wait, Federer was ranked 66 in the world when he was only 10 years old?
LOLHe played no challengers nor ATP events at all when he was 16.
At 17, in 1998, the first year he turned pro, he played in 4 tournaments and lost in the first round of 3 of them (one was a challenger level event). I'd say he wasn't even a 6.5 at this point but maybe a strong 6.0. A top Div. I college player is about a 6.0, and could have done what Federer did at 17 in 1998.
Federer started playing tennis at 8 years old. I don't think he was 5.0 at 12. More like 13-14.
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
You guys gotta get over your NTRP ratings on here on the board. NTRP is for amateur players, club level players whatever you wanna call them. Go to a good junior tournament or a top open prize money event or especially a Futures tourney or higher and ask someone what their NTRP rating is and you'll look like the biggest noob. Why? because once you're playing at that level and playing that competitively NTRP basically doesn't exist. Its who you've played, what your score was, who you beat, what your results are, especially what your ranking is and so on.
There's a reason why the NTRP rating system is so vague when describing 6.0's and up
There's a reason why the NTRP rating system is so vague when describing 6.0's and up
crash1929
Hall of Fame
You guys gotta get over your NTRP ratings on here on the board. NTRP is for amateur players, club level players whatever you wanna call them. Go to a good junior tournament or a top open prize money event or especially a Futures tourney or higher and ask someone what their NTRP rating is and you'll look like the biggest noob. Why? because once you're playing at that level and playing that competitively NTRP basically doesn't exist. Its who you've played, what your score was, who you beat, what your results are, especially what your ranking is and so on.
There's a reason why the NTRP rating system is so vague when describing 6.0's and up
tennis balla. i think we are just trying to get a grip on how these pro players develop.
you bring up an interesting point. this guy from greece who had one of the biggests games i've seen at the club was toying with this 5.0. i asked him what are you like a 6.0? and he looked at me funny and just said "i don't know".
st
nfor304
Banned
Wait, Federer was ranked 66 in the world when he was only 10 years old?
He played no challengers nor ATP events at all when he was 16.
At 17, in 1998, the first year he turned pro, he played in 4 tournaments and lost in the first round of 3 of them (one was a challenger level event). I'd say he wasn't even a 6.5 at this point but maybe a strong 6.0. A top Div. I college player is about a 6.0, and could have done what Federer did at 17 in 1998.
Federer started playing tennis at 8 years old. I don't think he was 5.0 at 12. More like 13-14.
Federer defeated Hewitt in junior Davis Cup in 1996 just a couple of months after he turned 15, Hewitt went on to qualify for the Aus Open 4 months later.
Federer was 16 when he won junior Wimbledon, almost 17, but had already captured the number 1 ranking after his Wimbledon and Euro championship win, so he was 16 when he was the number 1 junior.
Federer was also posting solid wins in 1997 on the itf tour as a 16 year old.
In 1997 at 16 Fed finished the year ranked 700, in 1998 at 17 he finished ranked 300, in 1999 at 18 he finished ranked 65.
I would say he was 6.5 when he was ranked in the 700's, and 7.0 when he was was in the 300's.
I would then say as a junior in 1996 he was 6.0, and im guessing from that timeline 5.5 in 1995, 5.0 in 1994, so 13.
Last edited:
35ft6
Legend
^ Yeah, he was playing satellites at 16. He beat two top 50 players in 1998.
I wish some top level coaches or people from academies posted here to put this to rest. I think some people are seriously underestimating how good the elite pros were at ages 10 and 11. All of their physical limitations from being young doesn't matter, their skills are just too superior.
Meant 1999.Wait, Federer was ranked 66 in the world when he was only 10 years old?
I wish some top level coaches or people from academies posted here to put this to rest. I think some people are seriously underestimating how good the elite pros were at ages 10 and 11. All of their physical limitations from being young doesn't matter, their skills are just too superior.
Last edited:
Roger at 3 years old, playing at a 6.0 level:
Notice that he already had developed his "quiet eye" vision technique at this tender age.
.
LMAO. funny because its true
Bud
Bionic Poster
Rafa won his first Futures tournament at 16yrs. 1 month and went on to win 6 Futures and 2 Challengers (plus runner up in 4 more Challengers) before 17... so I'd say probably a bit earlier.
It sounds like Rafa was a 7.0 at 15-16... so, Federer was probably the same. That would probably translate to a 5.0 at age 11-12
"In April 2001, at 14 years and 10 months, the World No. 762 Nadal won his first ATP match, defeating Ramón Delgado, and became the ninth player in the open era to do so before the age of 16. The following year, Nadal won two Challenger titles and finished the year in the top 50."
Last edited:
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
That's not really the definition of a 7.0 player. But I'll play along.
Mr #200, Yuri Schukin, has made about 1/2 million dollars in prize money in just over 10 years. Sure, a chunk of that gets eaten up in travel expenses. Donald Young, currently #197, had made $67k so far this year and has already earned more than half a mil in prize monsy since turning pro in 2004.
http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/sitecore_usta/USTA/Document Assets/2008/02/14/doc_13_7372.pdf
K i guess you're right..here it says 7.0 are world class players and they're the top 400. I remember reading something about 7.0's are players who can live off their tournament wins...
K i guess you're right..here it says 7.0 are world class players and they're the top 400. I remember reading something about 7.0's are players who can live off their tournament wins...
Karlovic's Sunglasses
Banned
Federer? 35.
Nadal was 80 until he could get the hang of his second serve.
So yeah, Federer is much more developed.
Nadal was 80 until he could get the hang of his second serve.
So yeah, Federer is much more developed.
