I too have noticed the critics have assiduously avoided any mention of their own rating and any posting of match play.
But it boils down to 3 possibilities:
- Considerably stronger than MEP, in which case they'd destroy him like Scott did; useless, because we already knew this would happen
- Considerably weaker than MEP, in which case they'd be destroyed; also useless for the same reason as above
- Somewhat around the same level: this would be the only case of interest because then they'd have a chance to prove their hypotheses about how easy it is to beat MEP. It's also a chance to self-destruct
I'm waiting to see where things settle out. I find it hard to believe a 5.0+ would A) spend that much time on a tennis forum; and B) bother to criticize someone of lesser skill. The 5.0+ people I know are way more humble than that. More humble than many below them.
Ian: "Why do you think you trigger those people so much? What is it about them or you or tennis or a combination that draws out such a negative reaction from some people?"
Ben: [sighs] "I would say, to some small extent, there are some people out there who probably put a lot of money into lessons and getting better at tennis [Ian laughs] and didn't achieve that level for whatever reason and they're frustrated."
If I have no dog in the fight and I see someone succeeding with unconventional technique, I won't get triggered.
If I've achieved success [however that's defined] and see someone succeeding with unconventional technique, I'll probably not get triggered ["I already got mine so his achievement doesn't bother me"]
If I've poured a lot of heart, soul, blood, sweat, and tears into something and failed to reach my goals and I see someone who has achieved a lot more than I with apparently much less effort, I might very well get triggered. I'll have to construct some sort of defense mechanism for my ego:
- Sour grapes: "If that's what good tennis looks like, I don't want to play good tennis." [the grapes that are out of reach are undesirable because they probably would have been sour anyway]
- "Yeah, he may be winning at 4.5 but he's hit his ceiling already, whereas traditional players have a much higher ceiling [ignoring the practical fact that most of them never get there]."
- "He's not a good tennis player. He's just a good athlete."
- "That's not even 4.5; that's just a made-up number."
- "Wow, his region must be super weak. 4.0s in my area would crush him."
- "NTRP is just a number. His strokes look terrible."
- "I don't care what his rating is: I want to play 'proper' tennis. All he cares is about winning."
In fact, we've seen posts to this very effect about someone who has been taking lessons and practicing for years getting beaten by a friend who just picked up a racquet a month ago and who is now questioning whether all that effort was wasted.
I've been playing guitar for 30+ years on and off and I can't do a fraction of what more talented people pick up in one month. Does this drive me to smash my guitar and set it aflame? Does it mean I'm a terrible guitar player? Not at all. I'm an average guitar player, maybe a 3.5 in NTRP terms. I appreciate the more talented people but not only does it not negatively affect my enjoyment of the instrument, it positively affects me, just like watching high-level tennis.