Can anyone show me what a 'benchmark' 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 look like?

[Topaz]

No, your responses were becoming quite clearly antagonistic. I'm sure you don't think they were but, as the recipient, I can tell you that's exactly how they read.



No,the problem is that, despite it requiring the most basic levels of reading comprehension you weren't able to understand the most simple of requests. You were able to correct me in regards a 'benchmark' player but then seemed to think I was expecting that designation to be representative of the way every player at that level would look. I most certainly didn't and at no time did I ever give the slightest indication that I was expecting it. However, that's how you misinterpreted what I wrote and THAT is the problem and THAT is your fault.

I answered the question you asked based on my knowledge and experience of captaining and playing USTA leagues and tournaments for the past 5+ years, ranging from 3.0 to 4.0 levels, open, and age group levels as well as post season championship play.

But next time...I'll just post silly pictures and not take your question seriously, like some others...since I'm the one you've chosen to be rude toward...I guess you appreciated that response much more.

It was certainly my fault for trying to explain how USTA levels and ratings work. I'll know better next time!!!

 

[mtommer]

They can tell by their match results at a certain level. Which we've told you, over and over again.

A 'benchmark' designation as it applies to NTRP ratings means one thing and one thing only...that that player advanced to post-season championship play (ie districts, sectionals, nationals) the previous season. That is all it means.

Excuse me miss, I'm supposed to be on your ignore list. It would be nice if you kept to what you say.

-------------------------------

AndrewD,

Unfortunately the NTRP ratings are proving to be way to ambiguous to mean much of anything. A 3.5 can beat a 4.5 and it means nothing to be rated this or that. There's to many sandbaggers and to much of a disparity between play and locations etc. All I can say is just look at videos of said level of player and try and figure out it you can beat them or not and then just take that rating level if you think you can. I had the benefit of growing up in a town with two universities, with K College hosting the Boy's 18's & 16's National Championships. You can pretty much tell who's better by watching the players practice. Sure enough, of course there can be exceptions, it works out as it "should". One caveat about video though, the pace doesn't come through very well. Part of this is the skips from frame to frame creating a ball that stutters which we interpret as "slow" and some is do to inaccurate depth perception as video just doesn't show distances how we see it.

 

[Ripper014]

These guys couldn't more than a 4.0 or 4.5 I agree with one of the early polsters.

 

[Falloutjr]

There are 3.5's that play on weak DIII teams, plenty of 4.5's in DII and 5.0's in DI. I went to a DI school with a top 5 tennis team. There is a local 5.0 who has tried to walk on and he's split sets with their weakest player a few times. It's hard to judge someones rating after 5.0, but I would guess the top 6 singles players on their roster are weak 5.5 - 6.5ish.



I've seen that video and if I used that as tool for rating myself I would be way off. I have a 4.0 Benchmark rating and consider myself to be weak to average for my level. If I wasn't rated and had to guess my rating using that video I would think I'm at least at their level. I guarantee that anyone who has rated themselves based on a video of some guys hitting is no where close to accurate.

That's why I said roughly, because that's not how it always is, but quite often, that's how it is.

 

[Kick_It]

I'd caution people against jumping to conclusions based upon watching a couple videos.

Actual results and ratings that reflect results measure a "complete game" over a period of time. Strokes alone are a mere contributor to those results.

Watching a series of someone playing 10 entire matches against computer rated opponents - paying particular attention to match results - would be indicative of true level of play.

One massive improvement to the level based descriptions would be "Consistently beats lower level players". Somehow that is often overlooked.

Just my opinion, K_I

 

[ttbrowne]

These guys are pretty intense 5.0 players, see 2:23.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IhThtqX02s

No, no, no...a guy named Cliff Price plays at our club and he is much, much better than these guys and he's over 60 and only a 4.5.

 

[andfor]

They can tell by their match results at a certain level. Which we've told you, over and over again.

A 'benchmark' designation as it applies to NTRP ratings means one thing and one thing only...that that player advanced to post-season championship play (ie districts, sectionals, nationals) the previous season. That is all it means.

Thanks Topaz.

How many more times are folks here going to mention they are benchmarks or ask about how good are benchmark players?

 

[Cindysphinx]

Thanks Topaz.

How many more times are folks here going to mention they are benchmarks or ask about how good are benchmark players?

It's not the fault of the people asking the question.

It's the fault of USTA for using the term "benchmark." "Benchmark" implies that a player sets the standard, so of course that is what people believe it means.

I do not understand why USTA doesn't simply change this. Surely they are tired of answering that same question? Just call them "P" players, for playoffs or "Post-season," take your pick.

Sheez.

 

[JoelDali]

No, no, no...a guy named Cliff Price plays at our club and he is much, much better than these guys and he's over 60 and only a 4.5.

I'm sure Cliff will be very happy to know hes now immortalized on the Internet with his first and last name exposed.

Imagine if this guy had been posting on TT for the past 40 years.

His post count would be huge.

 

[ttbrowne]

I'm sure Cliff will be very happy to know hes now immortalized on the Internet with his first and last name exposed.

Because I mention his name he's immortalized??
Okay, I'm Tom Carey.......Immortalized!!!

 

[JoelDali]

Because I mention his name he's immortalized??
Okay, I'm Tom Carey.......Immortalized!!!

Google will have your soul for years and years.

 

[ttbrowne]

Google will have your soul for years and years.

Ha! I don't have a soul...only a body.

 

[raiden031]

It's not the fault of the people asking the question.

It's the fault of USTA for using the term "benchmark." "Benchmark" implies that a player sets the standard, so of course that is what people believe it means.

I do not understand why USTA doesn't simply change this. Surely they are tired of answering that same question? Just call them "P" players, for playoffs or "Post-season," take your pick.

Sheez.

Benchmark players DO set the standard though. They are used to normalize ratings across the nation, that is why the playoff matches are important. Whats misunderstood is that people think that being a "benchmark" means that they are always at the top of the level even though thats not the case.

To ALL: Being a benchmark means your rating is used to help normalize the rating system across other sections and throughout the country since you played against players outside of your local area.

 

[raiden031]

I don't think you would get it wrong Cindy, simply because there is no such thing as "wrong" when forming an opinion on something as subjective as NTRP levels. Show me 100 experienced tennis players, and I'll show you 100 different opinions on where to draw the boundaries between levels, none of which is also "wrong."
...
The point is, there are no clear-cut boundaries between levels, nor can there be in a sport like tennis, So the answer to the OP's question is "no."

Actually NTRP boundaries are not subjective, since they are determined only by match results using a computer algorithm. Yes the system has error, but its mainly because of things it cannot control such as 1) self-rated sandbaggers, 2) player who intentionally tank games/matches, and 3) players who get injured, and 4) players who drastically improve their game. But with enough time everyone's true rating will eventually come out, the system just takes a while to catch up.

Whats subjective is non-USTA players who think they know the NTRP levels. I bet I could rate any player between 2.5 and 4.5 within 0.15 if I played against them...this is something I can't do watching a video though.

 

[raiden031]

Unfortunately the NTRP ratings are proving to be way to ambiguous to mean much of anything. A 3.5 can beat a 4.5 and it means nothing to be rated this or that. There's to many sandbaggers and to much of a disparity between play and locations etc. All I can say is just look at videos of said level of player and try and figure out it you can beat them or not and then just take that rating level if you think you can.

No there are just too many people who misunderstand the rating system. The biggest problem is that stupid NTRP guidelines sheet that uses 50 words or less to describe each level...it is very misleading. A 3.5 would not beat a healthy 4.5. A 3.5 might beat a 4.0 on occasion though. There is some overlap because of error in the ratings and individual matchups, but I'd say its a pretty good system and the solid majority of players in the leagues are at the correct level. Most complaints about sandbaggers are by whiners and are without merit. There are sandbaggers out there, but a good competitor will look forward to the challenge instead of whining to the grievance committee.

 

[kennydoe]

I'll chime in here...

There are so many variables in tennis. I have a 4.0 serve and 4.0 backhand, but my forehand is a weak 3.5 and my volleys are weak 4.0. My defensive play is 4.0 but my offense is 3.5. So where do I rate myself?

The only way to really tell is by playing and looking at my record.

If i'm rated at 3.5 and win better than 80% of my matches, I'll be considered a 'strong 3.5'. If 80% i win are in straight sets and/or blowout 6-2/6-1/6-0 sets, then I'm ready to be bumped up to 4.0.

My first year (or two) at 4.0 I'm likely to win less - maybe much less. Most people know that the more you play people better, the more you improve.

The problem is that there are overly-competitive people (you call them sandbaggers, i call them bullies) that would rather play at or below their level and win win win - they don't want to go through the early "losing" stages of being bumped up. i see it in the USTA leagues all the time.

There are regional variables, for sure...My wife plays 4.0 tennis - we went to Jamaica on our honeymoon a few years ago and we played against a 3.5 woman from another part of the US who whipped the ball harder than any 4.0 we've seen in NY. If you move out of your area, you may have to re-rate to your regional standard - which might be difficult to do off the bat - you'll need to play a season at your current rating and have either a really good or really bad season ;-)

I wonder if the USTA would be open to suggestions on how to improve the system...quarter points maybe? Or maybe people could break their games down and rate each part of the their game (like i did above) and get an average.

Tha's my $.02

~kenny

 

[bmwfool]

As mentioned before, benchmark simply means that this individual played in a championship mathch (districts or beyond). That's all it means, that's how it is defined. I played at districts last year, with my last match being the worst player I came across all season long. However, his team no longer had a chance, so he was just thrown into the lineup. His rating however, although a losing record, was then later noted as 'benchmark' for having played that match.

 

[Lame_Backhand]

As mentioned before, benchmark simply means that this individual played in a championship mathch (districts or beyond). That's all it means, that's how it is defined. I played at districts last year, with my last match being the worst player I came across all season long. However, his team no longer had a chance, so he was just thrown into the lineup. His rating however, although a losing record, was then later noted as 'benchmark' for having played that match.

Benchmark or "B" is also a result of being DQ'ed from a lower level not just post season play. We had two local players DQ'ed Mid-season (Neither made Local, District or regional playoffs) from 3.0 to 3.5 last season and if you search using Find a rating, they are now and were after being DQ'ed 3.5 (B). Just an observation.

 

[kevhen]

Didn't a TW poster with a 4.5 NTRP just move to Oz? I think it's Kevhen, if I remember correctly. All Australians live next to each other, don't they? Perhaps you can meet for a hit.

I did live in Brisbane, Australia for 2.5 years but now living in Auckland, New Zealand. Australia is huge, the same size as continental US with only about 5 big cities which are each like 10 hours drive or more apart from each other so not so close.

NZ has a better tennis ranking system where you get points for each win, and more for a win over a stronger player. It's called Top Dog and your ranking is adjusted after every match. Australia and US kind of keep you in the dark about how close you are to the next level up.

 

[anantak2k]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=306212432736431&set=vb.100000430304818&type=2&theater

4.0

 

[anantak2k]

I'll chime in here...

There are so many variables in tennis. I have a 4.0 serve and 4.0 backhand, but my forehand is a weak 3.5 and my volleys are weak 4.0. My defensive play is 4.0 but my offense is 3.5. So where do I rate myself?

The only way to really tell is by playing and looking at my record.

If i'm rated at 3.5 and win better than 80% of my matches, I'll be considered a 'strong 3.5'. If 80% i win are in straight sets and/or blowout 6-2/6-1/6-0 sets, then I'm ready to be bumped up to 4.0.

My first year (or two) at 4.0 I'm likely to win less - maybe much less. Most people know that the more you play people better, the more you improve.

The problem is that there are overly-competitive people (you call them sandbaggers, i call them bullies) that would rather play at or below their level and win win win - they don't want to go through the early "losing" stages of being bumped up. i see it in the USTA leagues all the time.

There are regional variables, for sure...My wife plays 4.0 tennis - we went to Jamaica on our honeymoon a few years ago and we played against a 3.5 woman from another part of the US who whipped the ball harder than any 4.0 we've seen in NY. If you move out of your area, you may have to re-rate to your regional standard - which might be difficult to do off the bat - you'll need to play a season at your current rating and have either a really good or really bad season ;-)

I wonder if the USTA would be open to suggestions on how to improve the system...quarter points maybe? Or maybe people could break their games down and rate each part of the their game (like i did above) and get an average.

Tha's my $.02

~kenny

I can break my game down even further!!!

4.5 DTL BH
4.0 CC BH
5.0 InsideOut FH
4.0 CC FH
4.5 DTL FH
3.0 BH Volleys
4.0 FH Volleys
4.0 1st Serve
4.0 2nd Serve
4.5 Side to Side Footwork
4.5 Up and Down Footwork
4.0 Mental Game

Am I missing anything?

 

[aurelius]

A 'benchmark' designation as it applies to NTRP ratings means one thing and one thing only...that that player advanced to post-season championship play (ie districts, sectionals, nationals) the previous season. That is all it means.

This is false. Although advancing to playoffs may earn you a a 'benchmark' designation, you can also get a 'benchmark' designation without advancing to any post-season play or even playing a match at the level your were benchmarked at. Please see my recent thread with a couple examples. I don't know why that is or how the USTA organizes benchmark players but 'that is all it means' is not correct.