5.5 vs. 5.0 - Good stuff to take away.

AnyPUG

Professional
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.
What's even more surprising is that there are folks who should know better engage them in endless debates on a regular basis...
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I don’t think you understand your own logic
Thanks for the "No true Scotsman" article. I think I've run into it before, along with the "If it's not Scottish, it's crap." idea.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Which has morphed into

A: No 4.5 lacks in any of NTRP guideline skills
B: But MEP is a 4.5 and he lacks some of the NTRP guideline skills
A: But no true 4.5 lacks in any of NTRP guideline skills
 
Last edited:

GSG

Rookie
Didn't he sign up as a 5.0 maybe 7-8 years ago but then appealed down because he had a tough time finding sufficient competition?
That I don't know, I'm just going by what USTA currently has on its website. I'm sure @PilotPete can tell us what Ian's "true" rating is using his usual esoteric methodology. But does it even matter? Ratings are arbitrary social constructs with severe regional inconsistencies anyway, right? ;)
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
Better question is if you do.
Meaningless nonsense

I posted the link I did because I happened across this thread, noticed you prosecuting a very common logical fallacy, and thought you might like to educate yourself so you don’t make the same mistake in future

If not, no skin off my nose - ciao
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Meaningless nonsense

I posted the link I did because I happened across this thread, noticed you prosecuting a very common logical fallacy, and thought you might like to educate yourself so you don’t make the same mistake in future

If not, no skin off my nose - ciao
Don't think you understood what's happened in this thread then.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
I never said they weren't allowed to criticize. I said their credibility is lacking. If @MaxTennis, @J011yroger, @mad dog1, @Pickle9, et. al. give me criticism, they have cred because I've actually played with/against them. If any of the others who have posted video [@GSG, @Curious, @travlerajm, @tlm, @ChaelAZ, @Shroud, et. al.] give me criticism, I at least know where they are coming from skill-wise and so can judge even though I've never played them.

For everyone else, I can only infer credibility based on their posts, which can be tough to do. Plus, I'm biased towards people I've agreed with in the past and against those I've disagreed with; illogical but human nature. People who haven't posted their play and haven't revealed anything about their own skill or experience, are unknown quantities. I'm less likely to believe them than the other groups.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Evidence was provided to disqualify the counterexample. He wasn’t beaten by two 4.5s, he was destroyed. Wasn’t even close. By saying the sample size is too small it’s you who is then making a logical fallacy
In the above statements, the only thing we agree on was that he lost [he did get destroyed by Scott, a 4.5 who appealed down from 5.0 and he lost 0, 3, & 2, which I wouldn't call "destroyed", to Ian of whose NTRP I am unsure, probably high 4.5 or low 5.0].

I would consider a sample size of 2 to be too small but I guess you consider it sufficient.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
In the above statements, the only thing we agree on was that he lost [he did get destroyed by Scott, a 4.5 who appealed down from 5.0 and he lost 0, 3, & 2, which I wouldn't call "destroyed", to Ian of whose NTRP I am unsure, probably high 4.5 or low 5.0].

I would consider a sample size of 2 to be too small but I guess you consider it sufficient.
Ian can't even hit a proper forehand. Watch in slo mo.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
That I don't know, I'm just going by what USTA currently has on its website. I'm sure @PilotPete can tell us what Ian's "true" rating is using his usual esoteric methodology. But does it even matter? Ratings are arbitrary social constructs with severe regional inconsistencies anyway, right? ;)
I must have mis-spelled his name the first time; now I see the entry: 5.0 S.

Just as PP used the NTRP guidelines to prove you're not a true 4.5 [and maybe not a true Scotsman, either], so I guess he'll use them to prove Ian's not a true 5.0.

Not only do the ratings have regional inconsistencies, they're based on a seeding of initial really good players whose absence has diluted the pool since the 90s.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Ian can't even hit a proper forehand. Watch in slo mo.
And yet he managed to play on a D2 team that was in the top 20. If that's the result of not being able to hit a proper FH, I'd bet a lot of people would love to similarly hit an improper FH.

Maybe, just maybe, what you consider to be a "proper" FH isn't terribly relevant to how well someone can play. Will he win Open tournaments with that FH? Probably not. But it's still enough to kick most people's butts.

I'm surprised you attacked his FH; everyone else starts by trashing his BH.

"True 4.5"; "correct slice"; "proper FH". You're entitled to your own opinion, of course. But it's not going to override most people's acceptance of match results.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
And yet he managed to play on a D2 team that was in the top 20. If that's the result of not being able to hit a proper FH, I'd bet a lot of people would love to similarly hit an improper FH.

Maybe, just maybe, what you consider to be a "proper" FH isn't terribly relevant to how well someone can play. Will he win Open tournaments with that FH? Probably not. But it's still enough to kick most people's butts.

I'm surprised you attacked his FH; everyone else starts by trashing his BH.

"True 4.5"; "correct slice"; "proper FH". You're entitled to your own opinion, of course. But it's not going to override most people's acceptance of match results.
Match results and technique will ultimately go hand in hand. When you improve technique, you will improve power and consistency, which will help you win more matches and improve your rating. When you tap the ball, there is no improvement in technique, and you will hit a hard ceiling at around 4.0 where pace and consistency have not yet been fully developed and you can beat people at that level by allowing them to beat themselves.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Match results and technique will ultimately go hand in hand. When you improve technique, you will improve power and consistency, which will help you win more matches and improve your rating. When you tap the ball, there is no improvement in technique, and you will hit a hard ceiling at around 4.0 where pace and consistency have not yet been fully developed and you can beat people at that level by allowing them to beat themselves.
What is your UTR?

J
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
I never said they weren't allowed to criticize. I said their credibility is lacking. If @MaxTennis, @J011yroger, @mad dog1, @Pickle9, et. al. give me criticism, they have cred because I've actually played with/against them. If any of the others who have posted video [@GSG, @Curious, @travlerajm, @tlm, @ChaelAZ, @Shroud, et. al.] give me criticism, I at least know where they are coming from skill-wise and so can judge even though I've never played them.

For everyone else, I can only infer credibility based on their posts, which can be tough to do. Plus, I'm biased towards people I've agreed with in the past and against those I've disagreed with; illogical but human nature. People who haven't posted their play and haven't revealed anything about their own skill or experience, are unknown quantities. I'm less likely to believe them than the other groups.
I like your game a lot.

Nothing to criticize.

J
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Match results and technique will ultimately go hand in hand.
This completely ignores all of the non-technique skills that determine match results like the 3 Fs [footwork, fitness, focus <mental toughness>, and spacing]. Someone could have ever improving technique on the practice court and be completely unable to utilize it in a match because of mental weakness, lack of fitness, poor footwork, etc.

You never acknowledge that these are factors, let alone critical ones.

Agassi said something along the lines of "When I thought about winning, I'd win about 50% of the time. When I didn't think about winning, I won about 90% of the time."

How can that be if his technique didn't change? The obvious change was his mental outlook. At least, that's how I interpret it.

When you improve technique, you will improve power and consistency, which will help you win more matches and improve your rating. When you tap the ball, there is no improvement in technique, and you will hit a hard ceiling at around 4.0 where pace and consistency have not yet been fully developed and you can beat people at that level by allowing them to beat themselves.
I thought you wrote that you weren't going use the "T" word anymore.

Anyways, I disagree that he's tapping; it looks a lot more purposeful and dangerous than that but that's just my opinion as someone who has faced opponents like these before...at 4.5, BTW so there is no hard ceiling at 4.0. I played a guy I'm sure you would also classify as a tapper and yet he could hit FH slice winners from the BL. That ain't tapping in my book.

I'm sure @GSG's technique has improved over the years as he has moved up the NTRP ladder, improvement you claim is impossible if he's a tapper.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
This completely ignores all of the non-technique skills that determine match results like the 3 Fs [footwork, fitness, focus <mental toughness>, and spacing]. Someone could have ever improving technique on the practice court and be completely unable to utilize it in a match because of mental weakness, lack of fitness, poor footwork, etc.

You never acknowledge that these are factors, let alone critical ones.

Agassi said something along the lines of "When I thought about winning, I'd win about 50% of the time. When I didn't think about winning, I won about 90% of the time."

How can that be if his technique didn't change? The obvious change was his mental outlook. At least, that's how I interpret it.



I thought you wrote that you weren't going use the "T" word anymore.

Anyways, I disagree that he's tapping; it looks a lot more purposeful and dangerous than that but that's just my opinion as someone who has faced opponents like these before...at 4.5, BTW so there is no hard ceiling at 4.0. I played a guy I'm sure you would also classify as a tapper and yet he could hit FH slice winners from the BL. That ain't tapping in my book.

I'm sure @GSG's technique has improved over the years as he has moved up the NTRP ladder, improvement you claim is impossible if he's a tapper.
Technique would include footwork of course.
 
D

Deleted member 780836

Guest
I never said they weren't allowed to criticize. I said their credibility is lacking. If @MaxTennis, @J011yroger, @mad dog1, @Pickle9, et. al. give me criticism, they have cred because I've actually played with/against them. If any of the others who have posted video [@GSG, @Curious, @travlerajm, @tlm, @ChaelAZ, @Shroud, et. al.] give me criticism, I at least know where they are coming from skill-wise and so can judge even though I've never played them.

For everyone else, I can only infer credibility based on their posts, which can be tough to do. Plus, I'm biased towards people I've agreed with in the past and against those I've disagreed with; illogical but human nature. People who haven't posted their play and haven't revealed anything about their own skill or experience, are unknown quantities. I'm less likely to believe them than the other groups.
Fair opinion, though I disagree.
I'm biased towards people I've agreed with in the past and against those I've disagreed with; illogical but human nature.
A better approach might be to evaluate opinions/posts independently, without the bias, just my opinion again. Eg- you post a lot of stuff that I find useful and learn from, but if I go in with our previous disagreements in mind, it's just not a smart way to go about things imo.
I like your game a lot.

Nothing to criticize.

J
Even my sitter lob return that Pickle slammed at your feet? :p
I love jolly's posts about rackets/strings, but this is what happens, friends/known people don't look at each other critically enough, and this is a pattern I've observed repeatedly on this forum and in real life as well. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this topic, hopefully it's something worth thinking about, doing away with the stranger I disagreed with=automatically go in with a negative mindset.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Fair opinion, though I disagree.
With what do you disagree? Do give equal credibility to all posters, for example?

A better approach might be to evaluate opinions/posts independently, without the bias, just my opinion again. Eg- you post a lot of stuff that I find useful and learn from, but if I go in with our previous disagreements in mind, it's just not a smart way to go about things imo.
If I was a robot, I could do that. But since I'm human, I have biases. I pre-judge the accuracy of a post by looking at the poster: certain posters have a track record of posting things I almost always agree with and others have the opposite track record. I can't help being biased by this.

Some posters have credibility because they've shown they can do the things they're discussing or at least have experience with them. Others have demonstrated neither. Rightly or wrongly, I do not give their opinions the same weight. I think it makes sense, all the way down to the evolutionary survival level.

I love jolly's posts about rackets/strings, but this is what happens, friends/known people don't look at each other critically enough, and this is a pattern I've observed repeatedly on this forum and in real life as well. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this topic, hopefully it's something worth thinking about, doing away with the stranger I disagreed with=automatically go in with a negative mindset.
No argument there. We all choose to whom we listen.
 
D

Deleted member 780836

Guest
With what do you disagree?
Going in with a bias based on your history with posters.
Do give equal credibility to all posters, for example?
Yes, I try my best to treat each post with an open mind without going in with a pre-bias.
If I was a robot, I could do that. But since I'm human, I have biases.
You don't need to be a robot, just willing to have your worldview questioned and willing to change, only if you want to of course. Try reading posts more objectively, it's a lot more enjoyable that way imo, you don't have to keep track of who you are supposed to agree with and who you are supposed to disagree with :-D
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Going in with a bias based on your history with posters.

Yes, I try my best to treat each post with an open mind without going in with a pre-bias.

You don't need to be a robot, just willing to have your worldview questioned and willing to change, only if you want to of course. Try reading posts more objectively, it's a lot more enjoyable that way imo, you don't have to keep track of who you are supposed to agree with and who you are supposed to disagree with :-D
That's like the Monty Python skit where John Cleese says "Today we're going to learn how to play the flute: you blow on this end and move your fingers around on the other end."

I understand the theory of what you're saying. Eliminating bias, OTOH, is supremely difficult. Maybe you're very good at it but I struggle. At least I'm aware of my bias, though.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Going in with a bias based on your history with posters.

Yes, I try my best to treat each post with an open mind without going in with a pre-bias.

You don't need to be a robot, just willing to have your worldview questioned and willing to change, only if you want to of course. Try reading posts more objectively, it's a lot more enjoyable that way imo, you don't have to keep track of who you are supposed to agree with and who you are supposed to disagree with :-D
So you didn't answer my question: if you don't have bias, how do you judge the credibility of the post? Only based on the content?

It's not hard to track who I almost always agree with and who I almost always disagree with. The pattern repeats over and over.

You do this too in real life: I doubt you'd be just as likely to lend money to someone with a proven track record of non-repayment as someone who pays you back on time every time. In fact, that's the whole premise on which FICO is based. If there was no bias or memory, someone with terrible credit could get terms just as favorable as someone with stellar credit.
 
D

Deleted member 780836

Guest
So you didn't answer my question: if you don't have bias, how do you judge the credibility of the post? Only based on the content?
Yes based on content. Everyone posts hot garbage and great content, many post both, by going in with a pre-bias, I miss out on a lot the great content.
You do this too in real life: I doubt you'd be just as likely to lend money to someone with a proven track record of non-repayment as someone who pays you back on time every time. In fact, that's the whole premise on which FICO is based. If there was no bias or memory, someone with terrible credit could get terms just as favorable as someone with stellar credit.
Well, the world isn't black and white, in some places a certain type of bias is useful and in many places it isn't. What you did is the literal definition of a strawman and stop doing it over and over, stick to what we are discussing. Otherwise you might want to consider changing your name to strawman-not_dead_yet :-D :-D
 

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].

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

I have no idea where an indoor court is in SoCal.
I still have to know, how can you have never played indoors and don't know where there are indoor courts in So-Cal? I'm worried about you. There are many indoor courts in S-Cali. Do you stick to one city or one set of courts, such as maybe you've played at fewer than 20 locations or just avoid tennis clubs?
 

socallefty

Legend
I still have to know, how can you have never played indoors and don't know where there are indoor courts in So-Cal? I'm worried about you. There are many indoor courts in S-Cali. Do you stick to one city or one set of courts, such as maybe you've played at fewer than 20 locations or just avoid tennis clubs?
I’ve lived in Orange County in SoCal for 20 years and don’t know of a single indoor court. It rains here less than 10-15 days a year and it never gets so cold (below 40 degree in the daytime/evenings) that you can’t play outdoor tennis even in the middle of winter. Why would anyone build any indoor courts? Can you name some locations in Orange County as I would like to play on an indoor court just for the experience?
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
Indoor clubs are so expensive to run that you really need to be in a location with a lot of inclement weather for them to be viable.

Nobody around here would pay triple the court fees to access indoor courts when even in winter the coldest day tends to be 8-18 degrees Celcius.
 

pencilcheck

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the "No true Scotsman" article. I think I've run into it before, along with the "If it's not Scottish, it's crap." idea.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Which has morphed into

A: No 4.5 lacks in any of NTRP guideline skills
B: But MEP is a 4.5 and he lacks some of the NTRP guideline skills
A: But no true 4.5 lacks in any of NTRP guideline skills
Interesting, never heard of this scotsman article.

This is basically what Ian has been talking about those people who are idealist. It is like in politics, people can accuse people for not being the ideal concept that the words implied but being two faced when that definition is suddenly redirected onto them.

Right now it is very one sided, because the one proposing this idea isn't the one being tested. If somehow the video is out and is not MEP and is the other guy I have a feeling the argument will be very different. Something akin to
1. I just had a bad day
2. They got lucky
3. The Wisconsin 4.0 is actually a sandbagger
4. etc

If we do the same argument with the same reasoning that that guy is not a 4.5, their counter arguments I imagine would be
1. They are cheating, they only give me junk balls. I can't hit with my beautiful 4.5 strokes
2. They have court advantage. I am not used to the fast court and no true 4.5 would play in those courts
3. etc

Anyway I know this thread talk more about this but just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Fair opinion, though I disagree.

A better approach might be to evaluate opinions/posts independently, without the bias, just my opinion again. Eg- you post a lot of stuff that I find useful and learn from, but if I go in with our previous disagreements in mind, it's just not a smart way to go about things imo.


I love jolly's posts about rackets/strings, but this is what happens, friends/known people don't look at each other critically enough, and this is a pattern I've observed repeatedly on this forum and in real life as well. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this topic, hopefully it's something worth thinking about, doing away with the stranger I disagreed with=automatically go in with a negative mindset.
Why should I look at my friends critically?

He isn't asking me to coach him, dude plays tennis, has fun.

Isn't that the idea?

J
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
That I don't know, I'm just going by what USTA currently has on its website. I'm sure @PilotPete can tell us what Ian's "true" rating is using his usual esoteric methodology. But does it even matter? Ratings are arbitrary social constructs with severe regional inconsistencies anyway, right? ;)

Meh, not that it matters overall. I posted UTRs of the ET group earlier in this thread and the range is within norms for the USTA equivs. Ian is UR on UTR because he hasn't played official matches recently, so whatever hold over rating he has for USTA is probably a bit higher than where he is, and that is by his own recounting of having dropped in level and just since last year working to try and get back up. That said, given his match stats against other rated ET folks he falls squarely in a 4.5 range most likely. I don't think it is arbitrary for those wanting to have competitive matches where general leveling is a good indicator. But really, for those rec folks who just like to get out and play with anyone (within reason) then yeah, a good time can be had on court hitting around with most folks.

Interestingly, again going back to the video in my first post, Andrey was a very good college player, as well as the opponent here, so 5.0/5.5 is in line with that. BUT...if you were to look up recent stats you might be surprised. Not that they couldn't compete at the higher level, but they are not where they were in college, and USTA continues to promote if you played Dx college level you automatically equate to NTRP 5+ level, which isn't always true. A great example is Karue Sells again, who peaked at 15+UTR, which is solid ATP pro level, but currently is 12.5ish, so a considerable drop. And let's not even through out that age factor.

As far as valuing opinions, criticisms, etc, I appreciate people being considerate enough to take time and comment. I think there can be value from anyone, but also listen a bit more intently to those I have seen play and have a better understanding where they are coming from. Obviously high level players allow me to gain from their insights to playing in ways I haven't experienced yet, so again I might listen more intently. But I don't summarily dismiss anyone. Well, except maybe TTPS, though I did have some wicked good conversations a few items with him, so long as he wasn't just trolling or asking a statement instead of a question.

Anyway...cheers.

EDIT: lol. Too funny, Ian just did a video a few hours ago on having to SR because his hold over rating expired. So pretty much what I guessed earlier and said again above.

 
Last edited:

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
to prove Ian's not a true 5.0.
Ian self-rates at 4.5. We will see how he does. Most of his 5.0 USTA rating came from doubles. I believe he played one singles match at 5.0 and was defeated handily. Ian wrote according to current USTA guidelines, he may be 4.0
 
Last edited:

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I still have to know, how can you have never played indoors and don't know where there are indoor courts in So-Cal? I'm worried about you. There are many indoor courts in S-Cali. Do you stick to one city or one set of courts, such as maybe you've played at fewer than 20 locations or just avoid tennis clubs?
Thanks for your concern: if climate change makes playing outdoors untenable, I will definitely be seeking out those indoor courts.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes based on content. Everyone posts hot garbage and great content, many post both, by going in with a pre-bias, I miss out on a lot the great content.
That's possible. Even more likely is the poster of hot garbage will continue posting hot garbage and the posters of insightful info will continue. I certainly run the risk of missing out on great content and that's the price I pay for saving time and attention.

Well, the world isn't black and white, in some places a certain type of bias is useful and in many places it isn't. What you did is the literal definition of a strawman and stop doing it over and over, stick to what we are discussing. Otherwise you might want to consider changing your name to strawman-not_dead_yet :-D :-D
The fact that you use the phrase "doing it over and over" indicates a reliance on past posts, which of course means you are biased by them [and rightly so].

You interpret every analogy as a strawman, either because you can't see the relevance or don't want to admit any relevance.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Ian wrote according to current USTA guidelines, he may be 4.0
Source please?

I could see him saying that A) during rehab from his injury; B) as he was learning his TS BH and was prevented from using slice; or C) was forced to stay on the BL.

You're correct about the singles v doubles idea.

So if Ian is a 4.0 and he crushed MEP, you're inferring that MEP is a 3.5?
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Source please?

I could see him saying that A) during rehab from his injury; B) as he was learning his TS BH and was prevented from using slice; or C) was forced to stay on the BL.

You're correct about the singles v doubles idea.

So if Ian is a 4.0 and he crushed MEP, you're inferring that MEP is a 3.5?
Source is the video posted above. I'm not saying MEP is 3.5. His strokes are 3.5, but his athleticism AND the inability of 3.5s to be consistent, puts him at 4.0. Watch the video above, you could even get the sense that Ian thinks MEP is really 4.0 (he didn't say it directly, so don't get your panties in a bunch about that).
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Source is the video posted above. I'm not saying MEP is 3.5. His strokes are 3.5, but his athleticism AND the inability of 3.5s to be consistent, puts him at 4.0. Watch the video above, you could even get the sense that Ian thinks MEP is really 4.0 (he didn't say it directly, so don't get your panties in a bunch about that).
I think if you didn't look at his strokes but simply looked at the effect they were having on his opponents, you would not conclude he had 3.5 strokes. You're fixated on the aesthetic of the stroke and ignoring the results of those strokes. The difference is trying to assign a rating by looking at guidelines vs outcomes. The guidelines are supposed to be a starting point, not necessarily the end result.


“But you start to see the complications here…it’s so difficult on paper and I’ve seen the chart, right? Where it has all of the different ratings and qualifications: consistency, weapons, offense, yadda, yadda, yadda…And sure, that’s one way of looking at it. But at the end of the day, it’s all about the wins and losses. It’s about the head-to-head matchups and results.

“I get asked all of the time: ‘what rating am I?’ and my answer is ‘I don’t know; go play. What happens when you play a 4.5? What happens when you play a 3.0? What happens when you play a 3.5?’ You have to start experiencing tennis and narrowing it down for yourself.”


 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
I already said he’s more than 3.5 because his fitness allows him to have a big effect on I consistent players hence he is probably 4.0. But that doesn’t change the fact that his strokes are technically weak and will put a hard ceiling for him at around 4.0
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I already said he’s more than 3.5 because his fitness allows him to have a big effect on I consistent players hence he is probably 4.0. But that doesn’t change the fact that his strokes are technically weak and will put a hard ceiling for him at around 4.0
Yeah, but I wasn't even considering fitness, only the effect that his stroke has on the opponent. The fact that he's fit allows him to do it a lot longer than someone who is unfit which affects quality of execution later on. But early on, before fitness even enters the equation, I'd argue he's > 3.5 and > 4.0.

Of course, I have his match results to boost my confidence.
 
Last edited:

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Yeah, but I wasn't even considering fitness, only the effect that his stroke has on the opponent. The fact that he's fit allows him to do it a lot longer than someone who is unfit which affects quality of execution late on. But early on, before fitness even enters the equation, I'd argue he's > 3.5 and > 4.0.

Of course, I have his match results to boost my confidence.
His strokes will have effects on players below 4.5. We saw what happens when he faces 4.5 players - bagels galore
 
Top