5.5 vs. 5.0 - Good stuff to take away.

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
I didn't say I wasn't trying, you did.
I didn't say I wasn't trying as hard, that was also you.
I didn't say I was tired, shocker, that was you again.

I did say that effort and results of said effort are two different things. Then I gave you a real world example, which you chose to ignore, just like you ignore everything else that doesn't support your obstinate position on this topic.
Word play. You vaguely said you did your business differently in non-rated matches. Anyone with half a brain can ascertain what that really means.

You gave the analogy with running the first mile faster than the second. You played multiple matches in a span of a few days. Geez, I was just spelling out your veiled excuses.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
You don't need so many misratings. But just a spread of wrong info on what a 3.0 really is or some other rating.
I believe @schmke already argued against your idea


and he has better knowledge of the workings of NTRP than anyone I know on this list.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
I believe @schmke already argued against your idea


and he has better knowledge of the workings of NTRP than anyone I know on this list.
He said there could be a diluting effect. But as we have been through this before ultimately the leagues names and results were based on initial self-ratings or coach rating assignments. With more and more players, dilution is the likely effect.

It's the only explanation for how a tapper can do well at 4.5. Not that he isn't winning matches and isn't a good player, but that the whole league is overrated since what you see is not on par with what was originally defined.
 

GSG

Rookie
Word play. You vaguely said you did your business differently in non-rated matches. Anyone with half a brain can ascertain what that really means.

You gave the analogy with running the first mile faster than the second. You played multiple matches in a span of a few days. Geez, I was just spelling out your veiled excuses.
I'll spell it out for you: doing business differently means I wouldn't play a rated USTA match as part of 4 matches in 3 days if I could help it because I want to maximize my chances of winning the USTA match for the reasons previously stated.

In rec situations I will almost always agree to playing more tennis vs less bc I enjoy playing, even if it means losing, more than not playing.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
I'll spell it out for you: doing business differently means I wouldn't play a rated USTA match as part of 4 matches in 3 days if I could help it because I want to maximize my chances of winning the USTA match for the reasons previously stated.

In rec situations I will almost always agree to playing more tennis vs less bc I enjoy playing, even if it means losing, more than not playing.
Why would playing 4 matches in 3 days reduce your chances??? Because you will get tired right? What else?
 

GSG

Rookie
Why would playing 4 matches in 3 days reduce your chances??? Because you will get tired right? What else?
Yeah I don't think I ever disputed that? Of course I was more tired by the 4th match than the first. That doesn't mean I gave any less effort as the matches went along, but it did affect the results of that effort imo.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
He said there could be a diluting effect. But as we have been through this before ultimately the leagues names and results were based on initial self-ratings or coach rating assignments. With more and more players, dilution is the likely effect.

It's the only explanation for how a tapper can do well at 4.5. Not that he isn't winning matches and isn't a good player, but that the whole league is overrated since what you see is not on par with what was originally defined.
His exact words were:

Of course, if there are no objective ratings based on matches played in this "4.5" league, there could be a diluting effect, or it could go the other way too. That is the whole reason to have ratings based on actual match results and not a subjective determination that someone "looks" like a 4.5 has checks the boxes for a 4.5 by someone's definition.
So he admitted the potential diluting effect but then followed it up with why the "ratings are based on actual match results", which you ignored.

It's clear no one is going to change your mind [and you're not going to change mine] so we'll continue using our preferred metrics.

BTW: you never answered my question of how you determine what level to play when entering tournaments/leagues? I simply pick "4.5" but it must be a lot more complicated for you. Are you getting competitive matches? I think the risk is greater for you to get uncompetitive matches.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Yeah I don't think I ever disputed that? Of course I was more tired by the 4th match than the first. That doesn't mean I gave any less effort as the matches went along, but it did affect the results of that effort imo.
Finally he admits he was tired! lol, took a while, but we got to it.

You already said the amount of effort you put is the same amount of effort in the 4 matches as you did for 1 USTA match. Ergo, that fixed amount of effort was divided amongst 4 matches, and so each match had less effort, therefore each match you tried less. Don't try to weasel your way out of it, that's the truth as I saw immediately after your first vague statements.

Your are making excuses with being tired after YOU were the one who wanted to play 4 matches and you are saying you tried less in them. Yes you didn't use those direct words, but that's the bottom line. As I said, anyone with half a brain can read through that.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Why would playing 4 matches in 3 days reduce your chances??? Because you will get tired right? What else?
He probably also wouldn't agree to play indoors with fast courts under perfect environmental conditions when he knows his edge lies with outdoor slower courts and the elements. But if he was playing just for fun, why not? That seems a credible entry under "doing business differently" to me.

Of course, it could just be naivete.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
His exact words were:



So he admitted the potential diluting effect but then followed it up with why the "ratings are based on actual match results", which you ignored.

It's clear no one is going to change your mind [and you're not going to change mine] so we'll continue using our preferred metrics.

BTW: you never answered my question of how you determine what level to play when entering tournaments/leagues? I simply pick "4.5" but it must be a lot more complicated for you. Are you getting competitive matches? I think the risk is greater for you to get uncompetitive matches.
The bottom line is he said there could be a diluting effect, which I agree with. It would be a good explanation for why a tapper can do well at 4.5. Then when he goes to a different region, promptly gets destroyed.

The level to play would be determined by a coach who can watch you and assess you.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
He probably also wouldn't agree to play indoors with fast courts under perfect environmental conditions when he knows his edge lies with outdoor slower courts and the elements. But if he was playing just for fun, why not? That seems a credible entry under "doing business differently" to me.

Of course, it could just be naivete.
Courts would have very little effect on a tapper, except for maybe clay where footing dramatically changes. Those who claim this are the same ones who at 3.0 are putting lead tape at 9 and 3 o'clock. Give me a break,.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Finally he admits he was tired! lol, took a while, but we got to it.

You already said the amount of effort you put in the same amount of effort in the 4 matches as you did for 1 USTA match. Ergo, that fixed amount of effort was divided amongst 4 matches, and so each match had less effort, therefore each match you tried less. Don't try to weasel your way out of it, that's the truth as I saw immediately after your first vague statements.

Your are making excuses with being tired after YOU were the one who wanted to play 4 matches and you are saying you tried less in them. Yes you didn't use those direct words, but that's the bottom line. As I said, anyone with half a brain can read through that.
Anyone with half a brain, some common sense, and no axe to grind could reasonably conclude he wasn't making excuses but simply analyzing what happened [there is a difference]. The other commentators intimated as much without being so direct and GSG agreed.

The excuse-makers tend to be people who get beaten by GSG-types:
- "He didn't beat me; I beat myself."
- "He's not even playing real tennis! How can I expect to play my [beautiful] strokes?"
- "He's just hitting junk."
- "He doesn't even have a TS BH." <same criticism leveled at Ian until recently>
- "My little sister could hit harder than that."

If I were in GSG's shoes, I probably wouldn't want to go to ET HQ and just play one match.

So I would likely try to line up multiple matches too [although maybe not as many as I doubt I'm in as good a shape as GSG].

Also, I've never played indoors before so, while my net-centric game would benefit from faster courts, it still would be a major adjustment process. I'm sure it would take me longer than 3 matches to acclimate.

We see what we want to see: "All lies and jest still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSG

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Courts would have very little effect on a tapper, except for maybe clay where footing dramatically changes. Those who claim this are the same ones who at 3.0 are putting lead tape at 9 and 3 o'clock. Give me a break,.
Court speed definitely impacts how quickly one must react. Just a quarter second late and you're hitting wide. And your so-called "no bias" self-description is contradicted by your continued use of the word "tapper".

So in your personal experience, you can shift among surfaces and conditions seamlessly?
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
And of course you know better than the guy who was, ya know, actually in that situation? :-D
Just common sense really. I've played on all sorts of courts. For tapping the ball back and forth, court speed has minimal effects.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Anyone with half a brain, some common sense, and no axe to grind could reasonably conclude he wasn't making excuses but simply analyzing what happened [there is a difference]. The other commentators intimated as much without being so direct and GSG agreed.

The excuse-makers tend to be people who get beaten by GSG-types:
- "He didn't beat me; I beat myself."
- "He's not even playing real tennis! How can I expect to play my [beautiful] strokes?"
- "He's just hitting junk."
- "He doesn't even have a TS BH." <same criticism leveled at Ian until recently>
- "My little sister could hit harder than that."

If I were in GSG's shoes, I probably wouldn't want to go to ET HQ and just play one match.

So I would likely try to line up multiple matches too [although maybe not as many as I doubt I'm in as good a shape as GSG].

Also, I've never played indoors before so, while my net-centric game would benefit from faster courts, it still would be a major adjustment process. I'm sure it would take me longer than 3 matches to acclimate.

We see what we want to see: "All lies and jest still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
This pretty much sums up the truth of how this guy communicates, not straightforward and full of obfuscation. Maybe you can learn something from it, but my guess is you will choose to live in a fantasy world.

I didn't say I was tired, shocker, that was you again.
Of course I was more tired
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Court speed definitely impacts how quickly one must react. Just a quarter second late and you're hitting wide. And your so-called "no bias" self-description is contradicted by your continued use of the word "tapper".

So in your personal experience, you can shift among surfaces and conditions seamlessly?
Yes, courts surface, indoors, outdoors, really not THAT different, mostly minor, ESPECIALLY if you're just tapping the ball over the net. Clay is the big difference where your footing is not so sure.
 

GSG

Rookie
This pretty much sums up the truth of how this guy communicates, not straightforward and full of obfuscation. Maybe you can learn something from it, but my guess is you will choose to live in a fantasy world.
It's only obfuscation to the obtuse reader incapable of grasping any sense of nuance or context.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, courts surface, indoors, outdoors, really not THAT different, mostly minor, ESPECIALLY if you're just tapping the ball over the net. Clay is the big difference where your footing is not so sure.
Clay for sure [I've never played on dirt either].

But court speed and environmental conditions are not minor, IMO. Someone accustomed to playing indoors never has to deal with sun, wind, temps, humidity, etc. Those alone could shift the outcome of a match. And someone who only plays outdoors [ie moi] would have to adjust to the ceiling vs sky for contrast, noise and echo, faster surface, and who knows what other factors.

I, for one, am not so confident I could adjust so quickly.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Clay for sure [I've never played on dirt either].

But court speed and environmental conditions are not minor, IMO. Someone accustomed to playing indoors never has to deal with sun, wind, temps, humidity, etc. Those alone could shift the outcome of a match. And someone who only plays outdoors [ie moi] would have to adjust to the ceiling vs sky for contrast, noise and echo, faster surface, and who knows what other factors.

I, for one, am not so confident I could adjust so quickly.
All of those elements mean less when you're not trying to hit topspin hitting with an open face and guiding the ball over the net, there happy? I didn't say tapper.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not even correct slice technique. I think my use of guiding the ball was generous.
First it was "true" 4.5; now it's "correct" slice technique. You have fairly inflexible notions of ratings and technique.

Could he use better technique? Sure. But you could say the same thing about many 4.5s. Does that make the technique "incorrect"? I wouldn't make that leap.

And if it's effective, that lessens the motivation to change.
 

GuyClinch

Legend
You deliberately didn't answer my question but I'll answer yours:

Then I'd say the competition was better than he was. It seems unlikely, given that he's already proven himself in NoVA and ATL, two regions not known for being weak. If he got destroyed in every region except somehow NoVA and ATL, I'd conclude that NoVA and ATL were the odd man out and that he wasn't a 4.5.

But since I doubt he'll be moving to WI anytime soon, we'll just have to go with our preferred metrics: me and the algorithm and you and the guidelines.

Tangent: since UTR didn't exist 30 years ago and there can't have been much slippage of standards, are you also saying he's not a true UTR 8?

The problem with that theory is that he got beaten by Wisconsin 4.0s. Is it not possible the NTRP is not consistent country wide? Is it also not possible that players who rely on stamina and fitness to win - can play up in hot regions but would play down in temperate conditions.

Certainly you have heard of players who are top 10 in the world on clay but in the top 100's or so on grass. This is a pretty big difference. GSG is just a guy who is a 4.5 in hot humid outdoor conditions but a 4.0 in good indoor cool conditions. The results don't lie.

You can hem and haw - whine and dance all you like. But we saw it on video.. In no way were Sean or Topher ringers or special 4.0s. We see thousands of 4.0s like that at our local club. And we know they can beat him on the right surface at the right temperature.

Let's put in this way - if GSG moved to Norcal - he would have to play 4.0. They only have a few 100 degree days a year - and it is very dry on those days.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
The problem with that theory is that he got beaten by Wisconsin 4.0s. Is it not possible the NTRP is not consistent country wide? Is it also not possible that players who rely on stamina and fitness to win - can play up in hot regions but would play down in temperate conditions.

Certainly you have heard of players who are top 10 in the world on clay but in the top 100's or so on grass. This is a pretty big difference. GSG is just a guy who is a 4.5 in hot humid outdoor conditions but a 4.0 in good indoor cool conditions. The results don't lie.
If you want to argue the "weak region" idea, the burden of proof is one you. Sure it's possible but doesn't seem likely in a large metro area with hundreds of peers.

And yes, I've been arguing all along that court conditions and environmental factors make a huge difference. I even stated that if the ET crew went down to ATL to play outdoors in the summer, the results would shift in favor of MEP. But I can't make any headway with @PilotPete, who insists such differences are "minor".

You can hem and haw - whine and dance all you like. But we saw it on video.. In no way were Sean or Topher ringers or special 4.0s. We see thousands of 4.0s like that at our local club. And we know they can beat him on the right surface at the right temperature.
I saw the match results. But given MEP's results in a much larger of matches, those would seem more significant.

The best test would be if he played a bunch of USTA matches in WI.

Absent that, you either make a judgment based on results or on interpretation of guidelines.

Let's put in this way - if GSG moved to Norcal - he would have to play 4.0. They only have a few 100 degree days a year - and it is very dry on those days.
He'd start out at 4.5 and his subsequent results would determine if he gets bumped down.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
The problem with that theory is that he got beaten by Wisconsin 4.0s. [...]

You can hem and haw - whine and dance all you like. But we saw it on video.. In no way were Sean or Topher ringers or special 4.0s. We see thousands of 4.0s like that at our local club. And we know they can beat him on the right surface at the right temperature.

[..]
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Sean being 4.0C?
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Topher's _singles_ results?
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Ian being 4.5C in last 3 years or so?
(It's been already confirmed that Scott is sort of 4.5 only due to an appeal. But even so - could you point me to an USTA page that shows Scott's _singles_ results in last 3years or so?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSG

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Sean being 4.0C?
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Topher's _singles_ results?
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Ian being 4.5C in last 3 years or so?
(It's been already confirmed that Scott is sort of 4.5 only due to an appeal down from 5.0. But even so - could you point me to an USTA page that shows Scott's _singles_ results in last 3years or so?)
Added my blurb in case it wasn't clear to people.
 
D

Deleted member 780836

Guest
@GSG I have no dog in this fight, but the only way to settle this is to call the ET guys to ATL asap! When's it happening?
 

GSG

Rookie
@GSG I have no dog in this fight, but the only way to settle this is to call the ET guys to ATL asap! When's it happening?
Last I heard the talk was September, after USTA summer season ends and there's been a bit of a break. We may be letting ET off the hook a bit weather-wise, but it should still be plenty warm here.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
You can hem and haw - whine and dance all you like. But we saw it on video.. In no way were Sean or Topher ringers or special 4.0s.
For Sean:

I didn't dig further to see whether he won or lost. But the point is that he is a 4.0 playing up at 4.5 and is competitive [he's not getting double bageled]. Would you say this agrees with the statement "In no way were Sean or Topher ringers or special 4.0s"?

Ian won 6-3 6-0. Not bad, 3 games for a non-special 4.0 against a 4.5. Doesn't definitively prove anything but I would think if he was a mid-level 4.0, he would have been closer to double-bageled.

We see thousands of 4.0s like that at our local club. And we know they can beat him on the right surface at the right temperature.
You must have a huge club.

They can win if they have patience and the ability to execute like Topher. Out of the thousands of 4.0s at your local club, what % would you say do?
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Hall of Fame
This is entertaining debate, I don't have much to add, but I have to comment on environment. It does not matter to a degree that would change the outcome of a match. Please do not hit me over the head with Nadal. Rec tennis players, if they are 4.0 or 4.5-5.0 have enough tennis talent to immediately adjust to changing environments to a degree that prevents the environment from causing a loss. Sure, maybe a 2.5 would freak out with wind, sum, indoors, whatever, but not people that know how to hit a ball. I have to ask how can someone have zero experience playing indoors, I've never really lived or been somewhere that doesn't have an indoor facility within 2 hours drive. If you live somewhere like this do you just not play when it rains? I mean indoor courts are available in most US areas. Besides that though, the game of rec tennis doss not change that much unless it is red clay or grass and even then it would not impact a win or loss that often.
 

AnyPUG

Professional
@GSG I have no dog in this fight, but the only way to settle this is to call the ET guys to ATL asap! When's it happening?
One way to settle? This is not going to be settled ever for some. Guy's primary point is that MEP dominates only in hot, humid weather and wins by turning the tennis contest into one of stamina.
He argues that MEP makes his opponents forget their tennis skill and makes them suffer in the battle of physical fitness.
It does not matter to him that the matches are played on a regular size tennis court and follow the exact same scoring and rules as any tennis match anywhere in the world.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
Do you mean learning them initially when he first started playing or now after years of playing?

If the former, that's the optimal case.

If the latter, it's supremely difficult to give up what works and start over in order to get incrementally better [if he's currently at the 95th pecentile, he could get to the 97th or 99th percentile: how much work would he [or anyone] be willing to put in to achieve that?]. It's easy for an observer to make that choice for someone else; it's another matter to actually do the work.



You could say the same thing about my game. I'm a mid-4.5: should I scrap my serve and FH and start over? At 55 years old? Is that really a good use of my time? Would someone criticize me if I opted out?

I've found a style that works for me [and is fun] but I'm definitely running into a ceiling, as upper 4.5s can usually dismantle my net game. But no one criticizes me for having chosen an inherently-limited style.

Maybe I'm biased towards GSG's style because I see parallels to my own game.



You write this as if it's as easy as checking a box with an online order at Tennis Warehouse. That would take a massive commitment of time and energy.

Also, it's not a simple mechanical operation: attempting to add those things will affect every other part of his game, not all positively in the short-term. It's the difference between rearranging the living room furniture and doing open heart surgery.



Does any player swing the bat one-handed? No.

Does any player have GSG's style? Yes



I predicted Ian winning 3&1, with the 3 in the first set being primarily due to him settling down. Once he did, I figured his net-centric game would rule the day.

But I don't see how that relates to ceilings; I think it relates to matchups. Ian plays a style that matches up almost perfectly against GSG's. If Ian played GSG's opponents on Tennis Troll, I don't think he'd do as well because I don't think the matchups would be as favorable.



Fair enough. I personally think it has a lot to do with sour grapes but that's just my opinion. People don't usually get this riled up unless they're defensive about something.
You’re missing the big picture. Forget the pros, are there even any D1 players that play like GSG? Maybe 1 or 2? Maybe none? It’s because his game is a dead end and would get crucified at that level. No coach anywhere in the world would teach a junior to play with his technique because it has a hard ceiling. And so when people come on this forum - tips and instruction - and they see a segment idolizing a play style that isn’t taught (for good reason) of course they’re going to react negatively. Now to the extent that you just want to win rec matches by playing endurance defense until you inevitably reach the players who can routinely brush that aside, sure, point taken, you can win alot of Rec matches like this.

And on top of all that - for many people the GSG style is not a particularly fun way to play the game even if you’re winning. For instance, I could go out and mini or full lob to my opponents BH every chance I get and probably win as much or more than I do now. But on top of my entire tennis circle never wanting to play with me again, I myself would have no interest in playing.
 
Last edited:

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
You’re missing the big picture.
No, I'm aware of what you're calling the big picture. But I'm looking at it differently than you.

Forget the pros, are there even any D1 players that play like GSG? Maybe 1 or 2? Maybe none?
None that I've seen.

It’s because his game is a dead end and would get crucified at that level. No coach anywhere in the world would teach a junior to play with his technique because it has a hard ceiling. And so when people come on this forum - tips and instruction - and they see a segment idolizing a play style that isn’t taught (for good reason) of course they’re going to react negatively. Now to the extent that you just want to win rec matches by playing endurance defense until you inevitably reach the players who can routinely brush that aside, sure, point taken, you can win Rec matches like this.
And I'm concerned about the rec level since that's what this forum is mainly about. I'm mid-4.5 and I still see MEP types. I haven't seen any at 5.0+.

A certain segment react negatively. And I can't speak for others but I don't idolize his style. I do recognize his strengths as opposed to dismissing his results as anomalies or the result of a weak region.

I think you don't give enough credit to how hard MEP had to work to get to where he is. "...just want to win rec matches by playing endurance defense" I don't think captures the difficulty.

My point that I don't think you're seeing is that every technique has a hard ceiling, not just MEP's. You can argue that traditional technique has a higher ceiling but not no ceiling.

The other point, which pretty much everyone missed, is that there are multiple ceilings: not only one imposed by technique but another by fitness, mental toughness, etc. The lowest of the ceilings [the bottleneck] will determine how high you rise. So your technical ceiling might be 5.5 but if your mental toughness ceiling is 4.0, that's where you'll plateau. So having a higher technique ceiling is no guarantee of actually achieving that level. And this is borne out by the stats that show only 3% make it to 5.0+.

MEP seems to have found a path that maximizes the various ceilings. Not saying this would work for everyone or that even is appropriate for everyone.

I'll repeat what I stated before: if I started with a beginner student, I'd advise taking the traditional path. I'm not anti-establishment; I just recognize strengths and weaknesses of various styles and I don't dismiss out-of-hand non-traditional styles.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
This is entertaining debate, I don't have much to add, but I have to comment on environment. It does not matter to a degree that would change the outcome of a match. Please do not hit me over the head with Nadal. Rec tennis players, if they are 4.0 or 4.5-5.0 have enough tennis talent to immediately adjust to changing environments to a degree that prevents the environment from causing a loss. Sure, maybe a 2.5 would freak out with wind, sum, indoors, whatever, but not people that know how to hit a ball.
I've never played indoors so I don't know how long it would take me to adjust. And if someone played only indoors moved to outdoors, would they immediately know how to handle serving into the sun? I know people who can't handle that even though they're lifelong outdoors players. Someone from indoors would be way more affected [at least initially].

I have played volleyball indoors on various surfaces and outdoors on grass and sand. And there is a huge adjustment when moving outdoors due to the sun: why do you think so many wear sunglasses? There's even a specific serve called a moonball used outdoors where you hit the ball as high up into the air as possible. Add in the wind and it gets even better [or worse, if you're the returner]. It's only used to target lower-level players; advanced players wouldn't bother.

And have you ever tried to sprint in sand let alone elevate for a spike? It's like moving in molasses. It takes a while to get one's sand legs unless one is supremely athletic [which I'm not].

I have to ask how can someone have zero experience playing indoors, I've never really lived or been somewhere that doesn't have an indoor facility within 2 hours drive. If you live somewhere like this do you just not play when it rains? I mean indoor courts are available in most US areas. Besides that though, the game of rec tennis doss not change that much unless it is red clay or grass and even then it would not impact a win or loss that often.
Where have you lived? In places with a lot of inclement weather?

I have no idea where an indoor court is in SoCal. I know of racquetball courts and bandminton facilities and table tennis but not tennis. I've been playing 20 years and have only played outdoors [and never on clay or grass; don't know where those are either and I've never bothered to find out].

When it rains, we don't play. But, as the song goes, "It never rains in Southern California [but when it pours, man it pours].".

Would you build indoor courts in a desert with mild temps and low rainfall?
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
I think only UTR. In USTA you can self rate.

I am not talking people who just say a rating based on anything. I mean actual C rated folks like GSG, which seems to always be under fire. If you have a 4.5C rating, you are in fact a 4.5. That is all I was referring to. The guys in the video you can look up current ratings, and that is their rating. The opinions of play are always interesting.

As far as the quality of points in the video and such, I guess many TT players have matches that every point is a massive grind and highlight show. I dunno. In most matches I watch there are lots of serve points, serve plus one, and short rallies compared to those. TT players seem to all be legends though and the most incredible players we will never get to see. I can only imagine.


EDIT: oh, and UTR with its' quick ranking decay has been discussed quite a lot as being less-than-optimal for rec in a lot of instances. Espcially with the C-vid stuff the last years where players don't have a lot of currnet matches, don't play often, or haven't played. Their UTR is sunk.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Hall of Fame
I've never played indoors so I don't know how long it would take me to adjust. And if someone played only indoors moved to outdoors, would they immediately know how to handle serving into the sun? I know people who can't handle that even though they're lifelong outdoors players. Someone from indoors would be way more affected [at least initially].

I have played volleyball indoors on various surfaces and outdoors on grass and sand. And there is a huge adjustment when moving outdoors due to the sun: why do you think so many wear sunglasses? There's even a specific serve called a moonball used outdoors where you hit the ball as high up into the air as possible. Add in the wind and it gets even better [or worse, if you're the returner]. It's only used to target lower-level players; advanced players wouldn't bother.

And have you ever tried to sprint in sand let alone elevate for a spike? It's like moving in molasses. It takes a while to get one's sand legs unless one is supremely athletic [which I'm not].



Where have you lived? In places with a lot of inclement weather?

I have no idea where an indoor court is in SoCal. I know of racquetball courts and bandminton facilities and table tennis but not tennis. I've been playing 20 years and have only played outdoors [and never on clay or grass; don't know where those are either and I've never bothered to find out].

When it rains, we don't play. But, as the song goes, "It never rains in Southern California [but when it pours, man it pours].".

Would you build indoor courts in a desert with mild temps and low rainfall?
Sun adjustment doesn't take long. Both players have to deal with it. Volleyball is fun, yes, and sand is different, but that is pretty far removed from playing tennis indoors or outdoors.
LA, San Diego, and San Fran all have indoor tennis that I've played at, I can't imagine those are the only California areas that have indoor courts.

20 years, you should try clay or grass for sure, make a vacation if you need to.
 

AnyPUG

Professional
No, I'm aware of what you're calling the big picture. But I'm looking at it differently than you.



None that I've seen.



And I'm concerned about the rec level since that's what this forum is mainly about. I'm mid-4.5 and I still see MEP types. I haven't seen any at 5.0+.

A certain segment react negatively. And I can't speak for others but I don't idolize his style. I do recognize his strengths as opposed to dismissing his results as anomalies or the result of a weak region.

I think you don't give enough credit to how hard MEP had to work to get to where he is. "...just want to win rec matches by playing endurance defense" I don't think captures the difficulty.

My point that I don't think you're seeing is that every technique has a hard ceiling, not just MEP's. You can argue that traditional technique has a higher ceiling but not no ceiling.

The other point, which pretty much everyone missed, is that there are multiple ceilings: not only one imposed by technique but another by fitness, mental toughness, etc. The lowest of the ceilings [the bottleneck] will determine how high you rise. So your technical ceiling might be 5.5 but if your mental toughness ceiling is 4.0, that's where you'll plateau. So having a higher technique ceiling is no guarantee of actually achieving that level. And this is borne out by the stats that show only 3% make it to 5.0+.

MEP seems to have found a path that maximizes the various ceilings. Not saying this would work for everyone or that even is appropriate for everyone.

I'll repeat what I stated before: if I started with a beginner student, I'd advise taking the traditional path. I'm not anti-establishment; I just recognize strengths and weaknesses of various styles and I don't dismiss out-of-hand non-traditional styles.
What about mental ability and its effect on the ceiling? Just like in any other field, the mental ability of quick judgement, intuition, "gut feeling", thinking on one's feet, creativity and intelligence etc (in addition to mental toughness, self-belief, confidence etc) play a huge role but we put everything down to technique and style. Why some compete better comes down to how smart the player is - it makes up for a significant gap in physical skill. While just being smart is no way sufficient, but it sure adds the extra dressing, spice, dessert etc needed to polish up the final delivery.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Sean being 4.0C?
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Topher's _singles_ results?
Could you point me to an USTA page that shows Ian being 4.5C in last 3 years or so?
(It's been already confirmed that Scott is sort of 4.5 only due to an appeal. But even so - could you point me to an USTA page that shows Scott's _singles_ results in last 3years or so?)

People's perception is always interesting. lol.


Mark's UTR is 9
Mike Treis is also a UTR 9
Ira is probably around an 8, but has on low data and shows two singles losses to an 8 and 9 respectively.
I belive Alex is UTR 7
Ian is UR.
Scott B's is low data (1 match dubs) 7
Cole is UTR 10

Andrey Smirnov is a UTR 10.8 (in the first video), and he is the lower rated player there.

Here is point to point of a solid UTR 8 vs. UTR 9.



Karue Sell who played D1 is UTR 12.5
 

pencilcheck

Hall of Fame
If you have neither UTR nor NTRP and want to enter a UTR tourney, what bracket do you enter? You [possibly with other people's help] will have to "self-rate" in order to come up with the most appropriate bracket.

UTR is definitely more responsive as after that first match, you'll have a UTR.

Also, one stays self-rated only for a short time so it doesn't affect the big picture.
I thought the question was only asking about if the system and rating allows self rate and denote so. And only USTA had this C, S, etc next to their rating to denote that but not in UTR.

At least for flex league, it seems like it depends on the host actually. If the host thinks you can compete at higher bracket, they will let you do it. It all mostly depends on you, they don't really care about bracket as long as you pay. Of course you need to convince them first that you want to. But this process is not self rate.

You can't self-rate in UTR, the system is not designed to let people self-rate. I don't recall putting my own UTR when I created an account in myutr etc. They only update UTR based on your win and loss according to your opponent's UTR. If that's not the case, then why does UTR brag about how accurate their ratings are?
 

pencilcheck

Hall of Fame
I am not talking people who just say a rating based on anything. I mean actual C rated folks like GSG, which seems to always be under fire. If you have a 4.5C rating, you are in fact a 4.5. That is all I was referring to. The guys in the video you can look up current ratings, and that is their rating. The opinions of play are always interesting.

As far as the quality of points in the video and such, I guess many TT players have matches that every point is a massive grind and highlight show. I dunno. In most matches I watch there are lots of serve points, serve plus one, and short rallies compared to those. TT players seem to all be legends though and the most incredible players we will never get to see. I can only imagine.


EDIT: oh, and UTR with its' quick ranking decay has been discussed quite a lot as being less-than-optimal for rec in a lot of instances. Espcially with the C-vid stuff the last years where players don't have a lot of currnet matches, don't play often, or haven't played. Their UTR is sunk.
Gotcha. I don't really know what algorithm computer rated used to really works but I see what you mean. You can also self appeal down often. A lot of people I know do that.

I think UTR don't let you appeal down, it is controlled 100% by their algorithm it seems.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I am not talking people who just say a rating based on anything. I mean actual C rated folks like GSG, which seems to always be under fire. If you have a 4.5C rating, you are in fact a 4.5.
Not according to some who say that if the player doesn't meet the guidelines, they aren't a "true" 4.5 but a beneficiary of skill dilution and weak regions that have somehow persisted over decades and geography.

As far as the quality of points in the video and such, I guess many TT players have matches that every point is a massive grind and highlight show. I dunno. In most matches I watch there are lots of serve points, serve plus one, and short rallies compared to those. TT players seem to all be legends though and the most incredible players we will never get to see. I can only imagine.
Some of the loudest critics of MEP's play are the same ones who never post their own. They go on and on, criticizing every aspect of his play without ever exposing themselves to the same potential criticism. Not only is their logic bad, their credibility is lacking.
 

pencilcheck

Hall of Fame
Not according to some who say that if the player doesn't meet the guidelines, they aren't a "true" 4.5 but a beneficiary of skill dilution and weak regions that have somehow persisted over decades and geography.



Some of the loudest critics of MEP's play are the same ones who never post their own. They go on and on, criticizing every aspect of his play without ever exposing themselves to the same potential criticism. Not only is their logic bad, their credibility is lacking.
The way you phrased it sound so geographically elitist
 
D

Deleted member 780836

Guest
Some of the loudest critics of MEP's play are the same ones who never post their own. They go on and on, criticizing every aspect of his play without ever exposing themselves to the same potential criticism. Not only is their logic bad, their credibility is lacking.
I really don't see the problem, are only people who post their videos and ratings allowed to criticize? That's a very flawed line of thinking imo.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
I think if a player has the attributes currently defined for a 4.5, they won't lose to a very fit tapper. Scott has those attributes, we saw what happened. Ian has some of the attributes, we saw what happened. By definition, the guys that GSG is beating won't have the currently defined 4.5 attributes (don't even need to see them). Hence my argument about arbitrary '4.5' label. By definition if they did have 4.5 attributes as in the guidelines, then that player wouldn't lose to GSG.
 
Top