There have been videos in the past where the player was supposed to be of a certain a rating but I've never seen any where the player was an actual USTA benchmark player. In particular, I'd be interested in seeing a 3.0, 4.0 and 4.5 level doubles match. So, if anyone knows of any decent length footage that exists (at least 5+ minutes), could you let me know where I'll find it. Thanks.
Can anyone show me what a 'benchmark' 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 look like?
- Thread starter AndrewD
- Start date
Topaz
Legend
What a benchmark at any level looks like will vary greatly...benchmark just means that you've made it to post-season (championship) play...the styles of players that get there are just as varied as you will find in the league. There is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to ratings...you won't be able to find a video and say 'yes, *that* is a benchmark 3.0', because while that person might be one, the next person might be one as well but look and play quite differently.
JoelDali
Talk Tennis Guru
Fedace
Banned
I seen enough. these guys are 3.5's USTA. they will probably get 1 game off me if they are lucky.,
I thought that some players were nominated as benchmarks because they fit precisely the skill set expected at that level?
Regardless, wouldn't those players who get to the post-season be a fair enough measure of what is required to play at that level (or at the top)?
I'm not interested in their style just how they hit the ball, how effective it is, how they move, etc.
I am a Benchmark 4.0 in the USTA system and I can hardly win a match. I think that my individual skills and results do display what USTA intended for a 4.0 players, however I'm rated at the borderline between 3.5 and 4.0 so I lose most of the time. It was precisely 3.60 at the end of last year which is very close to borderline 3.5 (I found this through the old appeal system/email hack last year).
I woulda thought you'd understand how the NTRP leagues work after 5 years on this board.
Raiden,
Can you recommend a clip that shows me what you'd consider is typical 3.5/4.0/4.5 play (in particular, doubles). There was one I used to see on YouTube but no-one could agree whether the players were of that standard or not.
Topaz
Legend
Benchmark means you've played post season championship. Raiden got his benchmark because he went to Nationals the previous season. He will *not* get it next year because he did not advance to post-season play this season. I will get a benchmark rating next season because I went to districts this past season.
That's all it means. It does not mean one player is automatically better than another. There is no 'nomination'...no clue where you got that from.
That's all it means. It does not mean one player is automatically better than another. There is no 'nomination'...no clue where you got that from.
I don't really keep track of the youtube clips. Although what I notice is that when someone posts a video from a legitimate usta match, all the commenters always think the players look too sucky to be at that level. The truth is though that players often look worse on video than they really are. Players can look bad in person as well and then when you play against them you realize they are better than you thought. I've experienced this numerous times. Sorry can't help with the videos though.
I'll give you three guesses where I got it from (and if you say anything other than 'here on the message board' you need a swift kick).
Okay then, does the USTA have any video of the winning teams at Nationals?
Why would you want video of players who won Nationals? Chances are they are sandbagging at a lower level than they belong.
I'm not expecting ANYONE below a 5.0 or 5.5 level to really look 'good'. I've also played club tennis for long enough to know that what we do is fun but it isn't pretty. I just wanted to see what the levels were so I could try to put myself and the other people I play with into context.
All of them ?
If they won Nationals, then most of the team is 1 or possibly 2 levels higher than the rating in which they are playing. Not a good sample for what a rating level looks like.
Get on youtube and search for "usta X.X" (replace X.X with ntrp level) and you should find some video clips from various NTRP levels.
Topaz
Legend
Well, then, that just goes to show that you need to read with a 'grain of salt'. Some people here actually play USTA leagues and many, many others don't play but believe they are experts in the area.
If you check the UTSA website, I know they used to do pictures and write-ups from Nationals, not sure about videos (but I haven't checked it myself yet this year....most Nationals have wrapped up by now).
The best way to figure out where you would 'stack up' is to play someone who has a computer NTRP...anybody like that at your club?
Some of us are just trusting souls.
Here in Australia we don't use the NTRP (we have an 'ITN'), that's why I was asking about videos.
goober
Legend
Well I am sure you have seen the ITN NTRP conversion chart. ITN 5 = NTRP 4.5
At any given NTRP level there is a fairly wide range of playing styles and abilities. There are a ton of ex-college players and teaching pros in their 30s-50s that play at 4.5. Then there are those that started as adults and worked their way up but don't have as good form, but are still able to win a lot of matches against 4.0s. I really don't think videos would help you out that much. You could watch vids of 2 different legit 4.5 players and say- wow that guy is pretty good, or wow that guy has ugly form but somehow he keeps winning points.
I can't see these people being 5.0 I would not think they are much more than 3.0
This was hard to watch, I had to stop after 3 minutes and I like watching people play tennis.
goober
Legend
Uh JoelDali was making a joke. At 2:23 the "5.0" player hits an awesome forehand...
into the ground.
I would like think that these players should be playing at least 5.0 if not higher, most of the people I played with would compete and win at 4.5 and at least be competitive at 5.0 and none of us had formal training. I would expect a lot more from ex-college players and teaching pro's. One our group did get a scholarship to a university for tennis and returned a much better player, he plays in the Open category and has some limited success. I have no dellusions about beating him but if I play smart I do get a few games.
Any ex-college player or teaching pro should have enough skill and knowledge of the game to easy handle a 4.5 player even at the age of 50. I am just coming back in to the game after 15 years (I am 50), after only playing for about 2 months mostly with players at the 2.0 level I am having a pretty easy time beating 4.0 level players.
I find there is quite a difference between levels with consistancy and quality of shot making even if strategy is not taken into account. Which is why I say these quality players should easily be ranked at least at 5.0
awwwwwwwwwwww... well in that case you should have posted it as "these players are at about 3.0"
JoelDali
Talk Tennis Guru
No, it wasn't a joke these guys are solid 5.0 NTRP in San Diego.
My buddy has lost to them so many times, countless grievences have been filed with no action taken.
Steneven & Morgan of San Diego (Attorneys at Law) are in the process of filing lawsuits on plantiff's behalf for falsified NTRP ratings. The local DA is looking into civil action proceedings as well and possible monetary judgements.
These guys are closer to 5.5 and need a post count bump asap.
goober
Legend
I think you vastly over rate the ability of many ex-college players and teaching pros. Many played at small colleges and were only 4.0-4.5s in college in their youth. Some were 5.0-5.5 when they were 20, but come back to the game 15-20 years later and when they are 50 really are not better than 4.5 or even 4.0 in some cases. Teaching pros can be all over the place in playing ability- from 4.0-6.0 from what I have seen.
goober
Legend
No, it wasn't a joke these guys are solid 5.0 NTRP in San Diego.
My buddy has lost to them so many times, countless grievences have been filed with no action taken.
Steneven & Morgan of San Diego (Attorneys at Law) are in the process of filing lawsuits on plantiff's behalf for falsified NTRP ratings. The local DA is looking into civil action proceedings as well and possible monetary judgements.
These guys are closer to 5.5 and need a post count bump asap.
Too bad the guy in the vid plays in Hawaii and not in San Diego.
goober
Legend
BTW the Asian dude in the video actually does have a 5.0 rating. :shock: He last played USTA in 2007 and played mostly dubs it appears.
http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/...2A90A019FA01F6FA49D8BF4E8D4CB3D2D0&CYear=2007
http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/...2A90A019FA01F6FA49D8BF4E8D4CB3D2D0&CYear=2007
JoelDali
Talk Tennis Guru
Just sayin' if yer gonna say you're a 5.0 on an international web site...
I know hes in HI. I was just messen with my SD friends. Shaking in their boots.
It all goes to show that NTRP is quite warped but for the most part its pretty accurate in tournaments. League is another story. Self rating, out the fuchen window.
JoelDali
Talk Tennis Guru
Was that a joke? I watched the first minute (so don't come out and say I didn't watch it entirely), and even I am slightly better than them.
Your request can be found here.
That is a pulsar. Or is it a quasar. I forget these things.
Maybe how the people are rated in you area doesn't reflect the rest of the country. In the area where I play, there is probably 1 player in their mid-40's or older that is a 5.0. All of the other college players or coaches are either 4.5 or lower. A friend has been ranked nationally (played D1 in college) in the top 100 in the over 45's for the past few years and he does Ok at 4.5. Does pretty well at doubles but is probably around .500 in singles. I have many other friends who also played D1 in this same age bracket and none of them are in the 5.0 range. They are good 4.5 and 4.0's but do not dominate. Just guessing from playing nationals, I would say there are less than 150 players in the country who are 5.0 and 50 or over. There are many others who at one time were 5.0 but are not now. Age can do a lot to your game.
Once you get to be in your mid-40's, it is extremely difficult to play at the high levels. Age starts to catch up. You may have the good strokes but you can't cover the court like someone in their 20's. Court coverage can make up for a lot of deficiencies in strokes. Instead of barely getting there when you are older, a younger player can get there, set-up, and have a better chance of hitting an offensive shot. Another part of age is arm strength. I noticed playing people who are 10 years or more younger and having a long match, the arm starts to get tired late in the match and it is difficult to generate pace unlike a younger player who still appears to have his arm strength. Also, these top players have played so much tennis that by the time they get in their late 40's, their bodies may have given out. I play with players who had a great game when they are younger but they have slipped back due to shoulder, knee, ankle, hip, and the thickening of their waists.
Last edited:
And I would like to see whether or not that reflects the way things really are or the way they're ideally meant to be.
I'd prefer to be the judge of that.
Topaz
Legend
But what form of reference would you be using to judge, if you aren't in the US and aren't familiar with USTA leagues and levels? Goober is, and is trying to explain that a certain level doesn't have just one look.
So, you don't believe that you could watch footage of someone and compare the way they moved around the court, executed their shots, played out points to the way you do those things?
Regardless, I don't think there's any reason for you to be so antagonistic. I asked a very simple, very civil question and you're choosing to not read it the way it was written.
Topaz
Legend
I don't believe I was being antagonistic at all. Merely asking some questions. A few of us with USTA experience have all given you the same answer, but you don't want to believe us. *shrug* My fault for trying to help I guess.
In short, the answer to your questions is 'no'. You can't get a video of what a benchmark level looks like because...they all look different. Not sure why you don't want to understand this...you didn't even know what benchmark really meant until we explained it to you.
I think such a comparison can be made. It is possible to reasonably gauge someone's NTRP level based on what they do on video. However this requires a skill that most tennis players, and certainly most on this board probably do not have. We often look at the wrong things and we don't always take into account how the opponent on the other side of the net can make us look worse than we are by putting pressure on our game.
Most opinions on NTRP level from people on this board are way off, so take every opinion with a grain of salt.
No, your responses were becoming quite clearly antagonistic. I'm sure you don't think they were but, as the recipient, I can tell you that's exactly how they read.
No,the problem is that, despite it requiring the most basic levels of reading comprehension you weren't able to understand the most simple of requests. You were able to correct me in regards a 'benchmark' player but then seemed to think I was expecting that designation to be representative of the way every player at that level would look. I most certainly didn't and at no time did I ever give the slightest indication that I was expecting it. However, that's how you misinterpreted what I wrote and THAT is the problem and THAT is your fault.
Raiden,
Of course it can or, at least, it should be. I really do think that someone who has played for long enough and over a few different levels should be able to draw a simple comparison (assuming they're being fair and don't have any agenda). At the end of the day, I was only looking for a general idea not anything definitive.
The reason I asked for a 'benchmark' player was because I thought it'd mean I was looking at someone whose ranking wasn't so open for debate. Perhaps that was wrong, perhaps not.
Have you posted a video somewhere to showcase your skills? What is your NTRP level? Please provide a link at your convenience. Thanks!
mtommer
Hall of Fame
If it can't be, then how exactly can one "tell" that they're this level or that level? Because a bunch of people call themselves something and you have to beat them to be a part of the "club"? Of course there's a benchmark, if there weren't the USTA wouldn't have guideline "abilities" associated with a level. Some posters here seem to forget this little bit of "duh". I bet a 4.0 moves a little better, hits a little harder and is a bit more consistent than a 3.5. I bet one could video this and it would be fairly obvious that one player is better than another. Sure, there's no "exact" level but the higher you go the better you're able to do everything.
Hey Andrew,
Im also from Aus and have often pondered the what NTRP would I be question.
Youtube have a few computer rated 5.0 videos posted. One guy hi10spro has quite a few sets up and although his form looks a little odd at times he is apparently a legit 5.0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_YGjMI_z8&feature=channel
I dont play tournies but we have a pretty active fixtures and vets comp up here in Qld where we come across some pretty high level players whose strokes and strategies look as good as any 5.5 videos Ive seen.
One of the local clubs just signed former ATP pro Mark Kratzmann as coach. Might have to take a few lessons to see if I can win a rally and then claim I can hang in there with the pros.:twisted:
Im also from Aus and have often pondered the what NTRP would I be question.
Youtube have a few computer rated 5.0 videos posted. One guy hi10spro has quite a few sets up and although his form looks a little odd at times he is apparently a legit 5.0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_YGjMI_z8&feature=channel
I dont play tournies but we have a pretty active fixtures and vets comp up here in Qld where we come across some pretty high level players whose strokes and strategies look as good as any 5.5 videos Ive seen.
One of the local clubs just signed former ATP pro Mark Kratzmann as coach. Might have to take a few lessons to see if I can win a rally and then claim I can hang in there with the pros.:twisted:
Falloutjr
Banned
3.0-3.5 is pretty much a low high school player. JV or maybe 2nd doubles. 3.5-4.0 is usually your 1st doubles or 3rd singles player. 4.0-4.5 is generally a 2nd singles caliber player and 1st singles is 4.5-5.0
Div III/NAIA is roughly 5.0-5.5
Div II is roughly 5.5-6.0
DI is roughly 6.0-6.5
TOP DI players are roughly 6.5-7.0
Of course this can vary, but, generally, you can compare players to each other on that scale. If you were to go to SoCal, the scale would be higher, and if you were to go to Wyoming, it would be much smaller, so it's not foolproof, but it's a decent way to reference one player to another.
Div III/NAIA is roughly 5.0-5.5
Div II is roughly 5.5-6.0
DI is roughly 6.0-6.5
TOP DI players are roughly 6.5-7.0
Of course this can vary, but, generally, you can compare players to each other on that scale. If you were to go to SoCal, the scale would be higher, and if you were to go to Wyoming, it would be much smaller, so it's not foolproof, but it's a decent way to reference one player to another.
Ken Honecker
Rookie
Let me preface this with the statement that I've never seen anyone with an actual rating playing since back in the 70's and early 80's when I was in my prime I don't think they had such a beast. I am looking into getting on a USTA team this winter so by next year I'll know more. That said if you read over on the side it says the players are self rated at 4.5 and 5.0 which really means they have never played in USTA leagues which makes them rec players. They don't seem bad and they do have pretty good coverage but in my book they hit way too many balls long or into the net for a 5.0 player. I charted the video and on the shots I could see I judged 9 points as having been earned and 11 the result of miss hits. That isn't consistance tennis in my book and consistancy is really what the higher levels are all about. Just guessing I'd say these guys were 4.0-4.5.
NTRP is nothing more than a fixed set of levels with arbitrary boundaries that span between beginner and touring pro. It was designed with the intention that a player from one level will soundly beat a player of the next level down. So basically USTA believes there are like 10 steps between beginner and pro.
Its true that there are commonalities among players at say 4.0, but because NTRP is completely 100% based on results, its not that easy to watch two different players and know for sure that one is better than the other without them playing each other. Sure its easy to tell that a 5.0 is better than a 3.0, but there are times where someone who is a 4.5 might be legitimately mistaken for a 3.5. What matters a lot is the style of play and individual strengths and weaknesses.
Someone who is a 4.0 after 2 years and took lessons with conventional strokes might look better than someone who reached 4.5 after 10 years with unorthodox strokes but developed good shot tolerance. So the 4.0 player will still lose to the 4.5 player because their big shots don't bother the 4.5 player, so the 4.5 player wins just by consistency.
There are 3.5's that play on weak DIII teams, plenty of 4.5's in DII and 5.0's in DI. I went to a DI school with a top 5 tennis team. There is a local 5.0 who has tried to walk on and he's split sets with their weakest player a few times. It's hard to judge someones rating after 5.0, but I would guess the top 6 singles players on their roster are weak 5.5 - 6.5ish.
I've seen that video and if I used that as tool for rating myself I would be way off. I have a 4.0 Benchmark rating and consider myself to be weak to average for my level. If I wasn't rated and had to guess my rating using that video I would think I'm at least at their level. I guarantee that anyone who has rated themselves based on a video of some guys hitting is no where close to accurate.
Maurice,
I'm also up in Qld, playing out at the UQ centre. I was playing fixtures last season (we won Pennant Reserve on Sat) but had too many injuries this year. Perhaps we've played with or against the same people? I know that there's quite a few guys at UQ who are of an extremely high standard and I've had the 'pleasure' of being thumped by them in singles, doubles and mixed LOL.
Vets is something I'd like to get started with. I was going to play the 40's at this year's University Open but was injured. No way in the world I'd beat the two finalists (probably not even the semi-finalists) but it'd be enjoyable. I know both have world rankings and think they might be top 10 in Aus for their age group. You might know Mike Russell and Max Bates?
I've seen a couple of the clips you mentioned but as to whether or not he's really competing at that level or just another person who assigns himself a rating, I don't know. From what I've seen he (the short bloke) looks quite capable and knows how to play a point but is very sloppy. Of course, that could be due to playing people at a lower standard (I've never seen him play against anyone of similar standard to himself).
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Put it this way.
Say I walk into a tennis bubble in the middle of a USTA ladies match. Three doubles, two singles, all players computer-rated. I watch for one hour. Could I tell you the level of the players (including identifying any computer-rated players who are playing up)?
Nope. Despite my 5 years of USTA experience, there is a good chance I would get it wrong.
The line between 3.5 and 4.0 in particular seems very fuzzy to me. The reason is that some of the tell-tale technical markers of 3.0/3.5 start to disappear. The main difference between 3.5 and 4.0 seems to be consistency, and that is hard to gauge from just watching part of a match.
I can also tell you that when my teammates and I come across a match in progress and watch for a bit before our match, we always think the players are rated lower than they are.
Also, when I was at Combo districts, I thought some of the 7.5 men's teams were 6.5, even though these players were presumably the strongest combo teams around.
Looks can be very deceiving.
Say I walk into a tennis bubble in the middle of a USTA ladies match. Three doubles, two singles, all players computer-rated. I watch for one hour. Could I tell you the level of the players (including identifying any computer-rated players who are playing up)?
Nope. Despite my 5 years of USTA experience, there is a good chance I would get it wrong.
The line between 3.5 and 4.0 in particular seems very fuzzy to me. The reason is that some of the tell-tale technical markers of 3.0/3.5 start to disappear. The main difference between 3.5 and 4.0 seems to be consistency, and that is hard to gauge from just watching part of a match.
I can also tell you that when my teammates and I come across a match in progress and watch for a bit before our match, we always think the players are rated lower than they are.
Also, when I was at Combo districts, I thought some of the 7.5 men's teams were 6.5, even though these players were presumably the strongest combo teams around.
Looks can be very deceiving.
CrocodileRock
Rookie
I don't think you would get it wrong Cindy, simply because there is no such thing as "wrong" when forming an opinion on something as subjective as NTRP levels. Show me 100 experienced tennis players, and I'll show you 100 different opinions on where to draw the boundaries between levels, none of which is also "wrong." NTRP exists to promote fairly competitive matches between people who are not talented enough to play open or age divisions, and maybe most of the time it works, but there are so many exceptions. For instance I have beaten several guys who are rated higher than me, and I know I would lose (or have lost) to many who are rated lower.
The point is, there are no clear-cut boundaries between levels, nor can there be in a sport like tennis, So the answer to the OP's question is "no."
The point is, there are no clear-cut boundaries between levels, nor can there be in a sport like tennis, So the answer to the OP's question is "no."
Topaz
Legend
They can tell by their match results at a certain level. Which we've told you, over and over again.
A 'benchmark' designation as it applies to NTRP ratings means one thing and one thing only...that that player advanced to post-season championship play (ie districts, sectionals, nationals) the previous season. That is all it means.
Similar threads
