I think you are right...we were comparing appples to oranges re the ratings...
Tennis is about Match Ups As Opposed To Ratings
- Thread starter Aurellian
- Start date
I think you are right...we were comparing appples to oranges re the ratings...
No 4.5 level player is going to have a pro level serve. Sorry, they just don't. If you think that, you've never stepped on court to face a pro level serve.
Again. There is no such thing as pro rated ratings anymore. No ifs and or buts.
A pro may rate players for local club leagues to slot players, but that has nothing to do with USTA ratings. If there is no C or B letter next to your name on tennis link, you do NOT have a USTA rating. PERIOD.
We have threads like this popping up because people ignore this simple rule.
A pro may rate players for local club leagues to slot players, but that has nothing to do with USTA ratings. If there is no C or B letter next to your name on tennis link, you do NOT have a USTA rating. PERIOD.
We have threads like this popping up because people ignore this simple rule.
When did they stop doing this? use your imagination for a spell:
could a 3.0 beat a 4.0 if the same pro rated both players according to the universal criteria?
Try learning Central Asian tongue for five hours a day for 90 days...
shazbot
Semi-Pro
The universal criteria is matches won/loss in USTA. So not sure what you actually mean here.
Your local pro may rate some guy a 4.0 based on how he did in a clinic. But then put that guy in a match situation and he plain sucks. Hense why you get a USTA rating by actually PLAYING matches. Not some local pro giving you a rating.
Sure a 3.0 rated by a pro could beat a 4.0 rated by a pro. The pro rated 4.0 just looks good in a clinic but sucks in matches. In the end, he isn't really a 4.0 then so the pro's rating is useless.
Well, he is is 4.0...just not a USTA C rated 4.0...
Allow me to posit another scenario: There was a guy who allegedly hacked someone to a pulp in Florida but somehow was found not guilty and you found your 4.5 rated self up against this violent man in a USTA tournament. The rumors are abound that this guy violently beat another man very bad...if you found yourself playing him I would venture to say that you would make a lot of errors....thus this 3.5 guy beats, or rather is victorious in matches, against higher ranked players because they are terrified of him.
The guy never smiles and stairs at you very intensely but breaks no rules so your complaints to the powers that be fall on deaf ears...
Last edited:
Well, he is is 4.0...just not a USTA C rated pro...
Allow me to posit another scenario: There was a guy who allegedly hacked someone to a pulp in Florida but somehow was found not guilty and you found your 4.5 rated self up against this violent man in a USTA tournament. The rumors are abound that this guy violently beat another man very bad...if you found yourself playing him I would venture to say that you would make a lot of errors....thus this 3.5 guy beats, or rather is victorious in matches, against higher ranked players because they are terrified of him.
The guy never smiles and stairs at you very intensely but breaks no rules so your complaints to the powers that be fall on deaf ears...
Now you're just reaching.
If you're not talking about USTA computer ratings, no point to ask here, since most of the knowledgeable members basis of expertise is the computer rankings.
You might do better finding a forum called ProRatingsTennis.com, if such a forum exists.
Well, he is is 4.0...just not a USTA C rated 4.0...
Allow me to posit another scenario: There was a guy who allegedly hacked someone to a pulp in Florida but somehow was found not guilty and you found your 4.5 rated self up against this violent man in a USTA tournament. The rumors are abound that this guy violently beat another man very bad...if you found yourself playing him I would venture to say that you would make a lot of errors....thus this 3.5 guy beats, or rather is victorious in matches, against higher ranked players because they are terrified of him.
The guy never smiles and stairs at you very intensely but breaks no rules so your complaints to the powers that be fall on deaf ears...
Your argument keeps getting dumber, but let's take it to it's logical conclsion. If a guy can beat 4.5 rated players by taking a machete on court and staring them down into submission, then guess what? This guy is a 4.5 rated tennis player even if he couldn't hit a tennis ball if he tried. Again, NTRP is results-based. Beat 4.5s => you are a 4.5.
Loose Cannon
Rookie
This is like a humble-brag thread
I on my worst day ever, would NEVERcome close to losing to a 3.0.....as a 4.0
I don't care how consistent you are....you are going to get bludgeoned......and yo'yo'd from one side of the court to the other
I on my worst day ever, would NEVERcome close to losing to a 3.0.....as a 4.0
I don't care how consistent you are....you are going to get bludgeoned......and yo'yo'd from one side of the court to the other
I have been amused. I am sorry you were not.
However, bringing a weapon on to the court is violation of USTA rules thus the person would not have many USTA victories
Have a blessed day.
hi, I assume you mean a USTA C rated 4.0 would never loose to a USTA C rated 3.0?
I think that this is generally holds true.
roman40
Rookie
There should be a different rating for doubles and singles, since I know some top 3.0 sandbaggers (somehow avoided a bump) who can beat a weak 4.0 doubles players. Obviously 3.0 singles player wouldn't stand any chance against 4.0 singles player, unless luck and injury was involved.
dizzlmcwizzl
Hall of Fame
??????????????????
There have been 70 posts on this thread in one day to finally get to this.
Unsubscribe!
Actually, the underlying premise of this thread is certainly food for thought regardless if most of the posters got distracted by the chaff.
The point to ponder is: would a novice with an overall game that is underdeveloped but with certain relatively rare (around his/her level) traits be able to best players with greater experience, a higher rating, and a much more developed overall game.
That's it...don't get tripped up by the extraneous...S, C, D, pro rated, no such thing as pro rated....immaterial to the larger point, gents...
Generally. Not always.
Depends on the level gap. If it's a full 1.0 computer rated gap? 1 time out of 10000? And it has to be the perfect storm.
That's the answer you'll get from anyone here.
Not sure why the question is being asked over and over again as I think this is the 3rd time this answer has been given.
The answer is no.
Velvet Ga el
Rookie
Ah yes, theoretical exercises where we turn the average 3.0 into a guy with Roger Federer's serve.
The correct, and only, answer is no. What the 3.0 terms as "rare" probably isn't rare at all. By the time a player hits 4.0, he or she has seen it all. Big flat serves, big kick serves, big forehands, big backhands, net rushers, slicers and dicers, baseline rabbits, etc. What he or she hasnt seen is all of those things in one player or else the 4.0 would probably be playing at 5.0+.
The 4.0 will be good enough to take away that one "rare" attribute and make the lesser player rely on the other, normal attributes. And if the 3.0 has more than one "rare" attribute, he or she isn't a 3.0 to begin with and this whole discussion is pointless.
dizzlmcwizzl
Hall of Fame
The key idea here is that is it possible to have the perfect combination such that an inexperienced player with a weapon could beat a much more developed player. The answer to questions like these is "yes it could happen" .... but very rarely would happen.
For example: Roger Federer could be matched up against my gradmother ... he could have a really "bad day" and double fault every single serve and wiff on any serve my grandma gets in. Yes I suppose it is possible but adds no meaningful value to any discussion on tennis.
The fact of the matter is that people do not develop in a vacuum. A player will not develop a superhuman serve without ever working on a the return or volley. Because of this, no player that could be considered a 3.0 would have a 4.5 serve .... as soon as they developed that serve they would no longer be a 3.0.
In fact when I was visually rated 10 years ago I had a very good serve and very little else that would be considered dependable. The pro rated me as a 4.0 at that time because I had a weapon. My entire game was a marginal 3.0/3.5 with a cannon for a serve .... I played 4.0 where I managed to win a couple of times on the season but usually lost. I then became a 3.5 based on my results.
This is how computer ratings work ... your results place you in a ratings band. If your results indicate you belong at 3.0 and another player's results indicate they belong in 4.0 then the 4.0 will win an overwhelming majority of the time against the 3.0. Will the 4.0 win every time, of course not .... but so overwhelmingly so that it adds very little meaning to this discussion to discuss the outliers.
OrangePower
Legend
Good example, and I have a friend who is similar:
He is a legit computer rated 3.5. His overall game is at low to medium 3.5 level, except that he has a 4.5+ serve. That serve is literally as good as anyone on my 4.5 team.
Problem is, the his serve can 'go away' for a few points here and there when he will DF. And then if the 3.5 opponent can somehow return it, it's at best 50/50 for the point. On return games, my friend struggles.
Typical match scores vs other 3.5s are 6-4, 7-6. Basically, if the opposing 3.5 can break him even once, which often happens on a game with a couple of DFs thrown in, then that's probably enough to take the set. And in a TB, my friend does not cope well with the pressure.
He actually doesn't do much worse at 4.0, since his serve is still enough to get a few games per set. But he has never beaten a 4.0 that I'm aware of. Typical scores are like 6-3, 6-3.
Because I have found this not to be true. I despise proffering anecdotal evidence, but it certainly makes for a lively discussion:
I am not a very good player...a 3.0, but I hit the ball (relatively)very hard and can serve hard. I don't like the term pace. I just hit it hard. The former touring pro that I play with and the near touring pro that I hit with in two different states also use the term hard as opposed to pace.
I can't volley and can't really hit anything but forehands...a very bad tennis player by all accounts.
I play with a former touring pro twice a week and and I play with a kid in Vegas who wins open tournaments when there. I hit the ball hard at these people--more the former than the latter-that at least five times a set I hit the ball so hard at them straight on that it hits their racket and putters off. That's not skill, that's just a 280 pound bench swinging a tennis racket. I don't use my trunk either, just my upper body.
They each have told me that I hit the ball very hard..as in no one really hits the ball that hard at the country club.
Hitting hard does not make one a good tennis player. I also alternate between pusher..more like lolly tapper...and hard hitter so I can screw with opponents' rhythms....thus I can beat much better players than I am off quasi cheap points...I see more over hits against my sorry self than when I watch others play...one serve comes at you 100+ the other a dink that a six year old school girl would be displeased with...
It's not a coincidence: it' s because I am screwing with their timing and rythym and likely their heads. I know exactly what i am doing...I'm not a better tennis player than they are... it works often, against new yorkers and older women it does not as i am laughed off the court.
Again, It's not hard enough to break people's rackets, so it's not uber hard, but it's a 280 pound bench driving a ball at you...not many dudes around the Courts at Chevy Chase are pushing up 280.
We can have the functional/translation argument re strength later.
I played with a Samoan in BKK that played Challengers or whatever they have in Australia who would bust balls on the court. That's hard. He was 5.9 and benched 345 and squatted over 500. He now plays pro or semi pro Rugby. He was a head case and I feared assault after I dinked and dunked him one lesson.
Is it plausible that bad tennis player that hits hard can beat more skilled players if he can move well.
Last edited:
Read my post above.
That kid I played from the Middle West who you offered to hit with. he's very good: 6'2 ish, good strength, moves better than most of the players I have seen around, and has a crazy left serve.
I still have not played with you so I can't say who is better, but he could play 4.5 on a good day. He was off when I played him...I won't take credit where non was deserved... he is superior tennis player to me but I prevailed in a tie breaker.
Luck? A few days before I did the same to similar type player in Cambridge and the song is the same: I go up 3 or 4 to 0 and then drop all of the remaining sets until the tiebreaker where I eek it out.
I am not a better tennis player than these men were; I just move and can hit it hard..good enough on that day.
I know when you saw me play my game is not like my keyboard persona. I am pusher in tournaments and proud of it. But I play the polar opposite when not playing for a trophy...
Why don't we have a hit, boss?
Last edited:
Good post. I too was visually rated but likely have outgrown that rating.
I think we may, ostensibly, be similar type players. In my case I was likely rated lower than I should have been while you were rated a bit higher.
In time it all evens out though...
Remember that aberrations do occur though..
In the field of probability there is nothing that is impossible.
Just very very unlikely.
I have a statistical chance of beating Rafael Nadal in a best of 5 on clay.
It may be 1 in a trillion, but I do have that chance.
You are asking to discuss a situation where no scale of measurement is allowed (NTPR C Ratings), so sure your 2.0 player from scale 1 can beat your 7.0 player from scale 2.
Since the scales are arbitrary is a inherently useless discussion.
Once you apply a standardized scale (NTPR) you end up with my first scenario, sure everybody can beat everybody, its just highly unlikely, or infinitesimally likely if you will.
Just very very unlikely.
I have a statistical chance of beating Rafael Nadal in a best of 5 on clay.
It may be 1 in a trillion, but I do have that chance.
You are asking to discuss a situation where no scale of measurement is allowed (NTPR C Ratings), so sure your 2.0 player from scale 1 can beat your 7.0 player from scale 2.
Since the scales are arbitrary is a inherently useless discussion.
Once you apply a standardized scale (NTPR) you end up with my first scenario, sure everybody can beat everybody, its just highly unlikely, or infinitesimally likely if you will.
No... Just no.
We have already established that you are not a legit 3.0 player. We don't know what you are, so everything you state here is a moot point.
Once you establish a real rating, then enter a tourney with 4.0's and when you beat a 4.0, you can come back and we can discuss it.
Until then we are basically discussing whether or not unicorns exist. This is not "a lively discussion", it is knowledgeable people bashing their head against the wall in frustration. Get us the body of the unicorn first.
Last edited:
Velvet Ga el
Rookie
Here are the problems with this post. First, you're not a 3.0 when it comes to playing ability. Of course, you've self-rated at 3.0 this year, but on movement alone, you're a low 3.5. Your actual playing record backs this up. Your league loss was to another self-rate who should be playing at low level 3.5 (and, as I predicted, he got worked by Larry Ladd). Your 3.0 tournament results, with the exception of the Colorado tournament, back up the idea that you should be rated at 3.5. I suspect had you played more than 2 USTA league matches, you would have been at risk of being DQ'ed and bumped up to 3.5 during the season.
Second, the Talk Tennis player you played is not a 4.5, and again, his playing results back that up (to be fair, he's likely much better than I am, so this shouldn't be construed as a shot at him; rather I want a discussion based in reality rather than subjective assessment). I couldn't find any league results for him, but he does have five tournament results in the last year. In 4.0 singles, he's 1-5. In 4.0 doubles, he's 3-2. In 4.5 singles, he's 0-2 (with three bagels in four sets). In Open singles, he's 0-1 (with one game won in two sets), and in Open doubles, he's 0-1 (with one game won in two sets). Nothing about those results say 4.5 singles player, though his 4.0 singles results show he's probably a mid-level 4.0 singles player (he rarely gets blown out and has lost some very competitive matches, so he might also be a higher than average 4.0).
So the matchup between you and him was a low 3.5 player and a mid-level 4.0 player. If you played a full best-of-three match, where players have time to adjust and compensate for that day's form, I'd have my money on him. If you played a single set, where "good" days and "bad" days can be magnified, I can see you taking the set off of him. As of yet, you have yet to tell us whether you beat him in a full match or some truncated version. I've seen plenty of matches where the lower ranked player hangs in for a set and then gets trounced in the next two, so I place little value in results that don't mimic a typical USTA league format.
And this is why people ITT continue to ask you for USTA-based evidence of both your rating and those of the people you best. The system, because of its foundation in actual match results, does a pretty damn good job of predicting match outcomes. Is it perfect? Not really, and especially so for new players who self-rate or those without a robust history of matches. You are an example of the former, and the system won't catch up to you until January 1st, when USTA Nevada gives you a 3.5 computer rating based on your tournament results.
storypeddler
Semi-Pro
Exceptions and outliers...
I think it would be extremely unlikely that a player would beat another player who is legitimately a full level above him---but it does happen on occasion. As a 4.0 rated player I once played in the Open division of a USTA tournament against a computer-rated 5.0 player and won. I certainly don't believe it happens very frequently, but it is possible. In my case it was, indeed, a matter of style differences that the stronger player simply couldn't sort out that day.
I have to point out, though, that a number of people on this thread speak as though it is not possible for a rated player to ever play any more than, perhaps, .5 below his rating. That is, I hear people arguing that a 4.0 player, on his worst day, would be, maybe, a 3.5. I see absolutely no evidence to support that contention. A player can, on occasion, play well above his rating, and it is not at all difficult to have a bad day and play far worse. Besides that, in spite of what the USTA would like to believe---that a 4.0 is a 4.0 is a 4.0---it just isn't the case. Ratings are based on a player's performance against rated opponents, and familiarity with an opponent's game can certainly allow you to play him closer. And some styles simply match up badly against certain other styles. Ratings try to predict the skill level at which you will play based on how you have performed in the past, But does no one else see the ethereal nature of such predictions? They may be perfectly valid assumptions, but to treat them as gospel is ridiculous. Yes, a 5.0 can play pretty much like a 4.0 on some given day. There are days when nothing is working for you. We have all had them. To deny these exceptions to the rule is to be willingly ignorant.
There are so many variables involved that these absolute claims are simply not supportable. One of the biggest examples: a 4.0 player who is 20 years old plays a 5.0 player who is 55 years old. If the younger player is in excellent shape and the match is on a day when the heat and humidity are intense, I can absolutely envision a scenario where the conditions favor the younger, stronger player enough to allow him to win. I have seen this happen. If a 5.0 player relies on his shot-making and little to not at all on his conditioning, then the 4.0 player staying in points long enough for heat and conditioning to become a major factor could definitely create an unexpected result. People can believe whatever they choose. I, too, have seen it happen, and on more than one occasion.
I am not suggesting it happens a lot---just that it is not as unheard of or as impossible as some on here would want to argue.
I think it would be extremely unlikely that a player would beat another player who is legitimately a full level above him---but it does happen on occasion. As a 4.0 rated player I once played in the Open division of a USTA tournament against a computer-rated 5.0 player and won. I certainly don't believe it happens very frequently, but it is possible. In my case it was, indeed, a matter of style differences that the stronger player simply couldn't sort out that day.
I have to point out, though, that a number of people on this thread speak as though it is not possible for a rated player to ever play any more than, perhaps, .5 below his rating. That is, I hear people arguing that a 4.0 player, on his worst day, would be, maybe, a 3.5. I see absolutely no evidence to support that contention. A player can, on occasion, play well above his rating, and it is not at all difficult to have a bad day and play far worse. Besides that, in spite of what the USTA would like to believe---that a 4.0 is a 4.0 is a 4.0---it just isn't the case. Ratings are based on a player's performance against rated opponents, and familiarity with an opponent's game can certainly allow you to play him closer. And some styles simply match up badly against certain other styles. Ratings try to predict the skill level at which you will play based on how you have performed in the past, But does no one else see the ethereal nature of such predictions? They may be perfectly valid assumptions, but to treat them as gospel is ridiculous. Yes, a 5.0 can play pretty much like a 4.0 on some given day. There are days when nothing is working for you. We have all had them. To deny these exceptions to the rule is to be willingly ignorant.
There are so many variables involved that these absolute claims are simply not supportable. One of the biggest examples: a 4.0 player who is 20 years old plays a 5.0 player who is 55 years old. If the younger player is in excellent shape and the match is on a day when the heat and humidity are intense, I can absolutely envision a scenario where the conditions favor the younger, stronger player enough to allow him to win. I have seen this happen. If a 5.0 player relies on his shot-making and little to not at all on his conditioning, then the 4.0 player staying in points long enough for heat and conditioning to become a major factor could definitely create an unexpected result. People can believe whatever they choose. I, too, have seen it happen, and on more than one occasion.
I am not suggesting it happens a lot---just that it is not as unheard of or as impossible as some on here would want to argue.
Last edited:
Sir, you are addressing the topic that you wish to address; you are not responding to the scenario which I have posted.
It's like saying that the only way to rate a restaurant is to utilize Michelin's rubric..or, an ever better analogy would be to only use their Star rating.
In no way did I say USTA C rating in my post. This is not the rubric which I use. This may be the rubric which you are most familiar with, but it is clearly not the one which i am using.
Understand?
Your are answering a question which was not asked by the OP. Of course, you are free to write what you wish and I encourage you to do so, but the validity of your comments are troublesome.
Was the tile of my post can a USTA Computer rated X beat a +1X?
It is abundantly clear that it was not.
You can be as cute as you want, but I am sure a man of your knowledge of tennis knows that there is a systems of drills which one may complete which indicates ratings that mimic the USTA C ratings( 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 etc) Again, you may feel that this rating system is not as accurate as your preferred one but it is a rubric...and one that was employed at one time somewhat frequently....
Are you with me?
However is there no merit in a skill based assessment instead of a results based assessment? Some may argue that a true indication of skill level is demonstrated by a skill based assessment and not a results based assessment.
Argue as you wish, not my point.
Now you must read and comprehend my friend: Is it possible that a person who rates a lower level on a skills based assessment could prevail over a person with a higher skills based assessment rating?
That's the question.
I have told you--ughh, ancedotal evidence---that the OP is not a good tennis player (ie, lacks technical tennis skill) but has some novel attributes which make up for the paucity of his tennis skill. I believe they are upper quintile (I am assuming) upper body strength and upper decile -20% movement.
Stripped of euphemism: can a lesser skilled guy who hits hard and runs fast beat an opponent with a higher level of technical tennis skill.
That's it.
That's the question, man.
Last edited:
beernutz
Hall of Fame
Good post. I like the way you use evidence to support your thesis.
Your knowledge of tennis is also exemplar as you correctly predicted that someone with OP's skillset (i use that term lightly) and attributes could prevail in the first set but likely would be overcome by technical limitations and knowledge based adjustments in later sets.
Normally, the efficacy of novelty decreases with time: kamikazi attacks in WWII, Mike Vick type Qbs behind center, etc...
Ok. I agree!!!
That's what you are discussing. what i have posited is can player who hits hard and runs fast beat a player with greater skill?
hence, it's about the match up...
OrangePower
Legend
The OP has convinced me.
Definitive proof:
I am a NTRP computer rated 4.5.
My wife's friend saw Nadal play during the FO, and assigned him a 3.0 OPWFTRS* rating.
I would hazard a guess that Nadal would beat me, although we've never actually played.
So there you have it: Despite a lower rating, Nadal beats me because the matchup is in his favor.
* OrangePower's Wife's Friend Tennis Ranking System (TM)
Definitive proof:
I am a NTRP computer rated 4.5.
My wife's friend saw Nadal play during the FO, and assigned him a 3.0 OPWFTRS* rating.
I would hazard a guess that Nadal would beat me, although we've never actually played.
So there you have it: Despite a lower rating, Nadal beats me because the matchup is in his favor.
* OrangePower's Wife's Friend Tennis Ranking System (TM)
schmke
Legend
But now you are mixing systems! You know you can only do that between OPWFTRS and AFTRS*. Now, I'm guessing you are probably even higher, a 5.0 on either of those systems so your argument still holds, but lets make sure we are only comparing apples to oranges, not apples to cumquats.
* Aurellian's Fantasy Tennis Rating System (TM)
* Aurellian's Fantasy Tennis Rating System (TM)
You are being flippant, my friend. Disregard rating--since many people just can't get beyond it--and grapple with the last sentence or two in my post above.
Focus on attributes and not rating...no more rating...
The OP is not mixing systems.
What's confusing to you I presume is the the same term is used in both rating systems. Both can be valid and both can can standardized....The rating system bases upon a standardized skill assessment test and the USTA C rating system.
Two systems one name...I know confusing.
No, the OP ranks himself a 3.0 in skill. I have always denigrated my game.
Don;t worry about the term rating. It's really confusing for many of you...focus on the certain novel attributes vs tennis skill....it will be easier for you to process.
When I become bored with a thread I just find another one that excites me.
It's like saying: It really stinks in here and then taking a big doggie sized sniff..again and again...
OrangePower
Legend
Well strictly speaking OPWFTRS works only for left-handed Spaniards, so I don't have an official OPWTFRS rating. But a reliable source predicted that I'd be somewhere between a 4.0 and a 16.25 on the AFTRS. And anyway, cumquats are good but not as yummy as loquats.
No, my point is if someone of LOWER technical skill can prevail over someone with Higher technical skill if they have certain rare attributes at the club level?
Like if a dude who thinks well, hits hard, and moves fast can beat a player of greater skill.
Definitely happens all the time.
In fact I know a guy that has a 20-10 record against a technically superior player by using speed and grit.
If you are a frequent visitor, you already know that there are PLENTY of people who cannot beat a "technically inferior" player (ie. pusher). This is not new. It happens ALL THE TIME.
What you original posted was taking it to another level saying a 3.0 can beat a 4.0. That does not happen.
What you original posted was taking it to another level saying a 3.0 can beat a 4.0. That does not happen.
not likely, but possible say 1 out of 20
yes its possible but unlikely.
the more technically sound player match in match out will be the likely winner. and as far as the ratings go there is a large gap between the average 3.0 and average 4.0.
when i started playing again last year i still retained my old serve. think 3.0 game with a 4.0 serve. yes i could "hang" in a game sense but that was only a technicality, i stood no real chance in a rally. sure i can run but my movement and serve can't make up for my lack of technical skill. and after trying to win matches like that i blew out my back and shoulder to boot.
day in day out its just not likely, every body has freak days so its possible but i wouldn't bet on it.
equating to pros, Hewitt came along when everyone was bemoaning how the game was all big serves, Hewitt didn't have a big serve or big stokes, but he was tenacious and better technically over all so he couldn't be beat most days by those guys who had just a big serve and forehand, and there there is less difference between those guys and a 4.0 versus 3.0. if they are true computer rankings it is taking into affect multiple matches over multiple days, making it a good normal distribution curve of skill comparisons
yes its possible but unlikely.
the more technically sound player match in match out will be the likely winner. and as far as the ratings go there is a large gap between the average 3.0 and average 4.0.
when i started playing again last year i still retained my old serve. think 3.0 game with a 4.0 serve. yes i could "hang" in a game sense but that was only a technicality, i stood no real chance in a rally. sure i can run but my movement and serve can't make up for my lack of technical skill. and after trying to win matches like that i blew out my back and shoulder to boot.
day in day out its just not likely, every body has freak days so its possible but i wouldn't bet on it.
equating to pros, Hewitt came along when everyone was bemoaning how the game was all big serves, Hewitt didn't have a big serve or big stokes, but he was tenacious and better technically over all so he couldn't be beat most days by those guys who had just a big serve and forehand, and there there is less difference between those guys and a 4.0 versus 3.0. if they are true computer rankings it is taking into affect multiple matches over multiple days, making it a good normal distribution curve of skill comparisons
