No. J_R_B had posts in the past that alluded to cheating so my conclusion was sound.
It's just refreshing for him to so openly admit to cheating that even a poster such as yourself can't deny it now.
For those who play both USTA Singles and Doubles...
- Thread starter S&V-not_dead_yet
- Start date
No. J_R_B had posts in the past that alluded to cheating so my conclusion was sound.
It's just refreshing for him to so openly admit to cheating that even a poster such as yourself can't deny it now.
Quite the straw man there.
anubis
Hall of Fame
Right, my first concern is not to avoid cheating, it is because I enjoy playing 4.0 more than 3.5, so I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get bumped down. I do enjoy playing singles, though, I just stink at it.
I try to play 60/40: 60% doubles, 40% singles. I try not to play singles in USTA though, I don't want to let my team down. I play a lot of tournaments though. Usually 4.0 singles and doubles. I try to play at least one open tournament as well, since that's the only way I can get a 5.0 guy to play me
OrangePower
Legend
Right, my first concern is not to avoid cheating, it is because I enjoy playing 4.0 more than 3.5, so I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get bumped down. I do enjoy playing singles, though, I just stink at it.
I try to play 60/40: 60% doubles, 40% singles. I try not to play singles in USTA though, I don't want to let my team down. I play a lot of tournaments though. Usually 4.0 singles and doubles. I try to play at least one open tournament as well, since that's the only way I can get a 5.0 guy to play me
In some sections, tournaments actually do count towards NTRP. Not in mine (Norcal), but I think they count in Intermountain, and maybe others as well.
If you happen to live in one of these sections, then even playing singles at tournaments will get you labeled as a ratings-manipulator cheater by some of the more dogmatic amongst us ;-)
norcal
Legend
Our local league (SATA) has singles and doubles ratings which is nice. There are definitely guys on my team who are a level above in dubs but not really any guys who are a level higher in singles - they get booted when their singles rank rises above 4.1 (league cap for dubs is 4.5, singles 4.1). With an 8.2 limit for dubs you can have a 4.5 teamed with a 3.7 which is almost like playing mixed lol. The format is six singles followed by 3 doubles so usually you can play both during the same tie which is nice.
In my limited USTA experience I have only played singles, I wish the matches weren't all played at once so I could play both.
Played one guy at #1 singles (usta 4.0) who was terrible so I hit everything to his forehand and practiced my s&v, won 2-2 when I guess I would have won 0-0 if I had been cutthroat. According to that one rating predicting site I am 3.99 so maybe my artificially losing 4 games to the scrub kept me from getting bumped to 4.5...which makes me a CHEATER!!!111
In my limited USTA experience I have only played singles, I wish the matches weren't all played at once so I could play both.
Played one guy at #1 singles (usta 4.0) who was terrible so I hit everything to his forehand and practiced my s&v, won 2-2 when I guess I would have won 0-0 if I had been cutthroat. According to that one rating predicting site I am 3.99 so maybe my artificially losing 4 games to the scrub kept me from getting bumped to 4.5...which makes me a CHEATER!!!111
OrangePower
Legend
SATA is a Sacramento thing, right? A buddy of mine was telling me about it. Format seems really nice. Wish we had something similar in the Bay Area. Alas, all we have is USTA.
norcal
Legend
Yes, Sacramento area. Format is great, you can get a lot of tennis in. Only down side is really good players get booted - our best player can only play dubs and has to play on a USTA team in Sac to be able to play singles (we are in Davis). If Davis doesn't field a USTA team I won't play it. Not gonna travel for a home match to only play 2 sets of tennis (I really dislike the super tiebreaker, I always play out 3rd sets in SATA singles).
loosegroove
Hall of Fame
I would say my singles and dubs games are pretty equal, but I play way more doubles. Though the college ringers I've seen at districts brought in for singles could slaughter me (yet their doubles games tend not to be up to par with their singles games), and I don't feel like I've really encountered any players on the doubles court who were a full level up from me like that. So I guess factoring in the ringers, and that I don't play as often on the singles courts, the true answer is probably I'm a better doubles player.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
In one sentence you manage to make 2 errors: that J_R_B admitted to cheating [I think he argued with you, just as I did, about what constitutes cheating, not that he actually cheated] and that you can judge what I can or can't deny.
So far, 31% have responded that one skill is significantly better than the other and yet no one save anubis has said they avoid the lesser-skilled activity to avoid artificially suppressing their rating and gaining an unfair advantage [and even anubis said he doesn't avoid singles to avoid cheating but for other, equally valid reasons].
So, apart from your own view on the topic, I don't see much agreement in the TT universe [certainly not among the people you've accused of cheating]. Maybe I missed a few others who "liked" your posts. Far from having a universally accepted definition of cheating, you appear to be in the definite minority.
Deuce; the ball is in your court.
Are the poll results surprising if you have posters who cheat taking it?
It's akin to asking prisoners if they are guilty or innocent. Then arguing, "90% of prisoners answered they are innocent therefore the justice system has wrongly convicted 90% of prisoners."
If we are at the point where you honestly don't believe intentionally lowering your rating is cheating, then absolutely nothing can be cheating.
It's sad you don't see that. At this point I have to believe you're intentionally making a disingenuous argument.
J_R_B often argues that they cheat in Texas by intentionally losing matches in fall leagues to lower their ratings. Do you think he's wrong?
Now I know you are "quoting" other posts incorrectly to "prove" your hypothesis (again I say hypothesis, because you can not prove anything). First of all, I've never seen a post from @J_R_B say the above statement. Secondly, I PLAY IN TEXAS and our fall USPTA league does not count toward USTA ratings. Only if we play a USTA sanctioned tournament. Schemke has already proved that Texas PER CAPITA does not cheat more than any other state so move along. Go troll somewhere else please.
I'll accept your apology Ed.
For the record I don't think Texas cheats anymore than anyone else. I just find it funny JRB thinks he isn't cheating but thinks Texas players are for doing the same thing.
My apologies to @Startzel !!! I could have swore that you were one of the people in another thread bashing TX for "the whole state cheating", but I guess I was incorrect. Now I just think you're a little of a troll.
Again, I'll admit when I'm wrong and again I'm sorry. To @J_R_B , seeing you live in PA and MIGHT see Texas players once a year in Nationals, how do you know it systematically happens in TX? I'm FROM TEXAS, my teams have never made it to state, but yet you don't see me on here crying about everyone cheating in TX. Why, because it doesn't happen anywhere I play. Ever thought maybe your team just got beat by a better team? And you all are not as good as you think you are? Just go hit the ball and have fun!
What are you talking about?!? I have never thrown a match or dumped a game or even a single point. That's TX's ways.
How do you know Texas has thrown a match or dumped games?
Again, tell me how you know this is "TX's way" since you live in PA???
Precisely. Somehow he knows Texas systematically cheats but they're probably just doing what he's doing by intentionally avoiding DQs.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
To you it's tautological: you're right and so anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. QED.
So you've doubled down. Not only are you accusing the original poster of cheating, you're accusing everyone who answered a certain way in the poll of cheating also. At least you're consistent.
Under that logic, someone could accuse you of cheating and, when you protested your innocence, the reply would be "well, of course that's what a cheater would say." It's a no-win situation. Which is why I don't impose those requirements on someone. I try to come up with evidence.
I would use a different analogy: in olden days they threw suspected witches into the lake. If they drowned, there were innocent ["sorry about that!"]. If they floated, that somehow proved they were witches and they were burned at the stake. Talk about "no win".
"We have found a witch! May we burn her?"
"How do you know she is a witch?"
"Well, she turned me into a newt!"
"A newt??"
[awkward pause]
"It got better."
You're putting people in the same box: if they say they're not cheating, you say "that's what a cheater would say". If they say they are cheating [not that anyone has], you say "See, I told you they were cheaters!"
I don't know what point you're at. I'm at the same point as at the beginning of the original thread about having to cheat to win Nationals where I don't believe people are playing the lesser-skilled game to intentionally lower their rating. I believe they are doing it because they enjoy both S & D [and they have said so] and aren't going to give up playing one just because there is a skill disparity.
If you really want to get nitpicky, you could extend the criteria to which side you play in doubles. If you're a Deuce court player paired with someone who is very weak on the Ad court and you let him play Deuce and you take Ad, are you intentionally lowering your rating because you're playing in a non-optimal configuration? I'd say no; that's life. You might say otherwise.
Plenty of things are cheating: calling in balls out, calling the score wrong in your favor, not calling a double bounce, not calling a net touch, making up rules and trying to enforce them by force of personality, etc. You've got a single-minded view that if I don't agree with you on this particular aspect of cheating, I must therefore believe there is no such thing. I've never stated that. It's what you want to believe.
I admit I'm stubborn. But I'm not trying to be disingenuous. I truly interpret the evidence [or lack thereof] differently than you do. So do a bunch of other people.
I lack evidence to come to a conclusion. If someone could write some Hadoop code to analyze the results to highlight the questionable results, at least there would be some data upon which to base a hypothesis.
You put a lot of effort into these posts but you make simple reasoning errors that end up making an extreme when one doesn't exist.
Where in, "Are the poll results surprising if you have cheaters taking it" do I claim every person taking the poll is cheating?
See that's a misinterpretation on your part. It's hard to have a conversation when you're not able to comprehend what's being said.
As for your cheating comment. Fair enough, I'll rephrase. You just don't believe any cheating exists in regards to ratings. You are unwilling to acknowledge anyone has ever thrown games or intentionally lowered their rating.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I put a lot of effort into most things I do. I'm a careful person. I also don't accuse people of cheating without ample evidence and consideration.
According to your viewpoint they are simple reasoning errors because my conclusions don't agree with yours. That's not proof of my reasoning being faulty.
And yes, I have been accused of taking things to an extreme. So I have to cognizant of that. Whether I've been doing that here is up for debate.
You donn't. But it's a straw man question because you know I never made that claim. You never said that every person taking the poll is cheating. And I never claimed that you said that. What you did say is:
"Are the poll results surprising if you have posters who cheat taking it?
It's akin to asking prisoners if they are guilty or innocent. Then arguing, "90% of prisoners answered they are innocent therefore the justice system has wrongly convicted 90% of prisoners."
My interpretation of this, possibly incorrect, is that the prisoners are analogous to your identified group of cheaters. When either protest their innocence, you dismiss it saying "of course that's what guilty people/cheaters would say".
Possibly. But while it may be hard to have a conversation with me based on my lack of comprehension, it's impossible to have one with you due to your definitions and refusal to accept any other explanation. You created A definition for cheating and assumed it's THE definition for cheating that's universally accepted. You've set the rules up so that it's unwinnable for anyone who disagrees with you. The only way out is to pull a "Kobayashi Maru".
Wrong again [although at least now you're wrong in a way that's identifiable and addressable rather than in the vague, amorphous way prior]: if you review my posts, you'll see that I actually agreed with you [possibly on more than one occasion] that such cheating occurred. I never debated that. What I debated was whether it was occurring in one particular case. I argued repeatedly and consistently that I lacked evidence [the whole "reasonable doubt" tangent] and therefore couldn't conclude cheating. You argued repeatedly and consistently that you didn't need such evidence; that it was a "safe assumption" based on a few lines in one post that she was cheating. When I contradicted you about cheating in this one instance, you somehow conflated that with me thinking that no cheating ever occurred.
I say you ought to publicly and forcefully apologize to Topaz whom you've repeatedly accused of cheating rather than burying your admission and hoping no one notices.
But that isn't my argument. I'm not arguing your viewpoint consists of reasoning errors because they disagree with me. Your reasoning errors exist because they're actual reasoning errors. Did you ever take a logic course in college? It really seems like you don't understand how logic works.
You're wrong because my post clearly did not state that everyone who answered the poll in a certain way was a cheater. So when you argue that I did, you're clearly wrong.
Now you're wrong a second time because you're arguing that I only think you're wrong because we disagree.
I'm wrong because Topaz gave us wrong information?
It's akin to arguing that a police officer is wrong for detaining someone who came into the police station and admitted to murdering someone. Why would the police officer be wrong for making a valid conclusion based on what we find out later is bad information from the detainee?
I'm not going to apologize for making a logical and reasonable assumption.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I still don't see where Topaz gave wrong information. Please point it out.
We actually agree in that I don't mind someone coming to a conclusion that turns out to be wrong if he made a good faith effort to utilize all of the information available at the time. But you obviously did not do that: you took a few sentences, leapt to a conclusion, and refused to consider alternative explanations until schmke entered the picture.
I'd imagine they may detain him long enough to try and ascertain the validity of his claim. In other words, they would pursue corroborating evidence. That's why police withhold certain information from the press, to weed out the fakes.
Whether your assumption was logical or reasonable is in the eye of the beholder [or perhaps the eye of the accused]. Maybe if you were the target of such an accusation you might change your tune.
Can you provide me with the last couple year's of Topaz's results?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
This is a rhetorical question but I'll answer it anyway: no. Because I don't know who Topaz is. You asked the same question of schmke.
I'm not sure what the point of the question was: to illustrate that you had wrong information? But that's not it: you had no information [other than Topaz's statements]. The very fact that you didn't have her record, at least to me, means you lack foundation for your conclusion.
To illustrate you're telling me i'm wrong without any data to support it. You feel safe to make a conclusion that she didn't cheat without any data to support it.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Hmm: you look at cheating in a different light than I do. I assume Topaz [and everyone else] is innocent until proven guilty/not cheating until proven a cheater. You assume that Topaz [and everyone?] is guilty until proven innocent/cheater until proven not cheating.
It's parsing phrases to say I concluded she wasn't cheating. What I did was fail to conclude she was cheating for lack of evidence. The baseline for me is not cheating. I don't know what your baseline is but it appears to be cheating. IMO, the burden of proof is on you, the accuser.
That's not an answer to the question. It's funny that you accuse anyone and everyone of cheating, most of which is embarrassingly ridiculous, but then you just excuse the actual cheating that is going on. Your troll act here is really tiresome.
People on here from TX accept it as a fait accompli, like it's completely ingrained in the USTA culture there. Mind you, these are people on here who are NOT part of the systematic cheating that allows the same three people to dominate every year, but they have just accepted that "that's what it takes to win here".
Combine that with results that are statistically completely implausible without overt manipulation of results (like, for example, a 5.5+ level D1 athlete losing every match in straight sets to 4.5 level players to get a 4.0 C rating, while at the same time winning Open tournaments against 5.0 competition...), and it's pretty clear how things are there. It's really sad.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
Definitely lost interest in this thread now.
And who are these people on here FROM TX that say it happens systematically THROUGHOUT TX??? Again, Schemke already showed stats that TX does not lead in this category. What evidence do you have? Again, I live here and do not see it in NETX.
Angle Queen
Professional
I can relate. First page of comments were insightful.
Lemme see if I can get us back on track.
@ 3.5 I was about equal at singles and doubles.
@ 4.0, there's a clear edge to my doubles play (mostly because I think I'm good at net play & partner strategy)
But I'll admit to not having played USTA in a few years.
Could I go back (if bumped down) to being a strong singles players, 5+ years later and now over the half-century mark? Not sure, but I'd like my and my team's chances. I like S&V and can still catch some 3.5 ladies asleep at the wheel (I get to play them occasionally in a non-USTA league). That style of play also serves me
well at the 4.0 level, but only in doubles. The 4.0 singles ladies, regardless of their age, are wiser/more skilled to my ways and it's a battle I usually lose. In my younger days, I had stamina (S&V requires more than you think and staying back, without a big stroke weapon, required footwork and perseverance which, admittedly has declined with age). Now, not so much.A few years ago, I had been looking forward to aging into 'seniors' @50. But with the age now dropped to 40, almost every captain I spoke with wanted me to exclusively play singles. And while I'm a good 4.0 doubles player, I'm not a great one, not one good enough to insist on mostly playing doubles. Nor is that my style. I'm a team player above all else and, having made a commitment to a captain/team, I know I'd do what was asked of me. And while I've never shied away from being the team's sacrificial lamb, I don't want to do it every week. If we had to play in order of strength, I might consider it but with stacking more than permissible, no, thank you.
Besides, it's my observation that most of the 18+ and 40+ team are the same around here. It'd be interesting to see a numeric analysis of the 3.5/4.0 ladies who play USTA...those who only play 18+ (because they're 'young') and those who play both...and what their doubles 'worth' is or might be.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I can relate. First page of comments were insightful.
Lemme see if I can get us back on track.
@ 3.5 I was about equal at singles and doubles.
@ 4.0, there's a clear edge to my doubles play (mostly because I think I'm good at net play & partner strategy)
But I'll admit to not having played USTA in a few years.
Could I go back (if bumped down) to being a strong singles players, 5+ years later and now over the half-century mark? Not sure, but I'd like my and my team's chances. I like S&V and can still catch some 3.5 ladies asleep at the wheel (I get to play them occasionally in a non-USTA league). That style of play also serves me
A few years ago, I had been looking forward to aging into 'seniors' @50. But with the age now dropped to 40, almost every captain I spoke with wanted me to exclusively play singles. And while I'm a good 4.0 doubles player, I'm not a great one, not one good enough to insist on mostly playing doubles. Nor is that my style. I'm a team player above all else and, having made a commitment to a captain/team, I know I'd do what was asked of me. And while I've never shied away from being the team's sacrificial lamb, I don't want to do it every week. If we had to play in order of strength, I might consider it but with stacking more than permissible, no, thank you.
The topic being discussed [OK; argued incessantly] is, if you're a significantly better doubles than singles player and you play USTA singles, you are doing so only to intentionally lower your rating [there is no other "reasonable" or "valid" explanation] so you can play at a lower level of doubles than you'd otherwise be. Therefore, you are sandbagging and thus cheating. Your captain will also probably be accused of "aiding and abetting" since there's no competitive reason for putting you in singles [that was sarcasm, for anyone that might have missed it].
This is my understanding [possibly flawed] of Startzel's accusation against Topaz. My counter-argument was that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude cheating as there are plenty of other reasons to play USTA singles [ie one enjoys it] and therefore I refrain from concluding anything. If you feel compelled to and have some time to kill, you can read the entire thread "Is it possible to win USTA nationals without cheating?" in all its gory detail and draw your own conclusions.
In the situation Topaz originally described there is no justifiable reason why a captain would play someone at singles in a competitive match if they were two levels worse at singles than they are at doubles.
It just wouldn't happen.
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
The problem is the system, not the players playing in it.
That's the reason the pros have a singles and doubles ranking... vs. USTA has a single NTRP without distinguishing dbls v sgls.
"Don't hate the playa, hate the game..."
That's the reason the pros have a singles and doubles ranking... vs. USTA has a single NTRP without distinguishing dbls v sgls.
"Don't hate the playa, hate the game..."
This is true. The USTA bears the responsibility.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
Exactly. People say Djokovic is the #1 player in the world, but the guy doesn't play doubles, you know? How can they say that when he doesn't even participate in a vital part of the game? I mean, maybe Leander Peas is really the GOAT.
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
In my book Leander is GOAT, representing us middle-aged men worldwide
OrangePower
Legend
You clearly have never captained a team. So really you should refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about.
Sometimes a captain doesn't have that many options. Some weeks people are not available and it's a struggle to get a lineup, sometimes people drop out of the lineup at the last moment due to injury/illness, and not all players are ready to step out of their doubles comfort zone and play singles (especially in 40+ and other age-based leagues). So captains sometimes end up with a less than ideal lineup, even on competitive teams and for competitive matches, because the alternative is to default a line and that's even worse. I have on several occasions seen somebody put in at singles as a 'sacrificial lamb', only to find that the opposing team ended up doing the same thing resulting in a competitive matchup.
Ironically I have a captains meeting to attend this evening. So yes, I am a captain.
You're telling me you would sacrifice your best doubles player knowing they had no shot to win the singles point unless the other team sent out a sacrificial lamb?
OrangePower
Legend
Who said anything about best dubs player? Where did you see that said? Now you're making it up as you go. For all we know, the team is loaded with good dubs players but is horribly short on singles players. That's pretty common especially in age-based leagues.
What I would do is very dependent on the specific circumstances at hand. What I would not do is make a blanket statement like "It just wouldn't happen."
In the scenario we've been discussing the player has a doubles rating that would put her well into the next level up. i.e. A 4.5 playing 4.0 tennis.
vandre
Hall of Fame
when i play singles, i know exactly what i want to do and i execute. sometimes it works, sometimes it ends in a flaming wreck! i have an easier time sizing up a singles opponent than i do a doubles team. doubles makes me do things i don't typically like (play the net). i also think that the spots you need to hit to are much smaller on a doubles court (i.e. you have to keep it away from the net player or you need to hit your serve wide with a short angle to draw a sitter for you partner to put away).
if you give me a chance to pick which, i will take singles 12 times out of 8 (how's that for math!) but since there are typically only 2 singles matches per meet, it's very likely that i'll be pressed into service on the doubles court.
if you give me a chance to pick which, i will take singles 12 times out of 8 (how's that for math!) but since there are typically only 2 singles matches per meet, it's very likely that i'll be pressed into service on the doubles court.
OrangePower
Legend
Of course it's already been established that this is NOT the case here, but even if it were, it's quite likely that a competitive team would have multiple doubles players that are playing at the next-higher level... that's what makes them competitive! Willing and able singles players on the other hand are much harder to come by in the age-based leagues. However you spin it, your blanket statements are out of place and just make you look ignorant.
Not sure anymore...my serves suck and my volleys are pathetic, so I always assumed I'm better at singles than at doubles. But in the three years I've been at 4.0, I think I've had just two singles wins. I'm back at 3.5 now, and barely won my first singles match (in a tiebreak). Still have not played doubles at 3.5 (played solely singles my only prior year at 3.5), but planning to do so this season and will have a better sense of my relative skill at singles vs. doubles.
Mongolmike
Hall of Fame
Just out of curiousity, I went back and checked my USTA record... although they must've changed something, because I could not go back to get 2012 when I started USTA. Anyway... last year playing all doubles with a knee I had replaced in Oct I went 4-4 :-( , but including all league, playoffs and tourneys, my lifetime USTA is:
6-2 singles 75%
42-23 doubles 65%
8-10 mixed 44%
I would like to play more singles this year since my new knee is so much better... but I probably won't because it may not be a smart thing to do... and I quit playing mixed... not because of the drama, but because I hate not ever getting to hit the ball. Most of the time the other team hits 80% to the girl... and that drives me crazy and I start to try to poach shots I shouldn't be going for.
6-2 singles 75%
42-23 doubles 65%
8-10 mixed 44%
I would like to play more singles this year since my new knee is so much better... but I probably won't because it may not be a smart thing to do... and I quit playing mixed... not because of the drama, but because I hate not ever getting to hit the ball. Most of the time the other team hits 80% to the girl... and that drives me crazy and I start to try to poach shots I shouldn't be going for.
OrangePower
Legend
Your post made me curious also
84 singles matches (52%) to 78 doubles matches (48%)
50-34 singles 60%
36-42 doubles 46%
Overall 86-76 52%
Which all makes perfect sense, I've always thought I'm slightly better than average (at my level) in singles, and slightly worse than average in dubs.
And overall, a perfectly average 4.5
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
how are you guys getting these stats? Individually counting matches?
too bad it doesn't go past 2012
too bad it doesn't go past 2012
Last edited by a moderator:
OrangePower
Legend
I have match results going all the way back to 2007. Then again in Norcal we have our own web site (don't use tennislink).
And yup, counted matches individually. Didn't bother counting combo and mixed though, since I don't consider those real tennis ;-)
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
Gah, I don't want to know that badly to scrape all that info from tennislink... (Norcal website for sure is better organized!)
and tennislink doesn't have stats back to 2000
and tennislink doesn't have stats back to 2000
Similar threads
