Comparing NTRP and "real world"?

[Osteo UK]

I was looking at a post by Goober when everyone was trying to suggest a videod players rating and I was curious as to how many of you think that the NTRP rating description tallies with the level you play at (http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_7372.pdf?12/20/2005 5:08:52 PM)?

Are there any players out there who look at this rating summary and say to themselves, "doesn't fit"?

I read it and then thought "4.0, maybe 4.5", but as our ratings in UK are backwards (in EVERY way possible) I don't really know. For example, I found an article that would compare an NTRP to an LTA rating, which potentially means I should be a 2.5 after a coach rated me 5-6 years ago when I started. However, in my one and only tourney in Vancouver, Canada, I entered a 4.0, beat a 3.5 in 3 sets and then lost 2&2 to a 4.0. I hope that I have improved since then as I approach 40 years old, but I have no idea - i could be worse and not know it!

 

[str33t]

ya my rating is about right. 3.5'ish. i play basketball and volleyball on teams for my school so that chart said that people with experience is other competitive sports will have rapid improvement, which is that exact thing that happened to me. i've only been playing tennis for a little less than a year (started last summer) but i have reached a 3.5 ranking.

 

[PBODY99]

The proof is in the playing. I have played USTA level of play for twenty five years. The skill set it refers to helpls only in terms of the level of adult play in your area. I don't think it should ever be used for Jrs.
If you are a tournament player in any adult age group, the old rule of thumb was based on how well you did in your increasing broader tournaments. 4.5 meant that you were a District ranked Player, 5.0 Sectional, 5.5 National.

 

[oldguysrule]

If you are improving your game, you will probably be playing at a level higher than what you are rated. It takes a while for the ratings to catch up. If you are rating yourself for the first time and you go by the descriptions, I think you will find yourself at the right level. However, keep in mind that the difference between a high 4.0 and a low 4.0 can result in scores of 6-1,6-1.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Unfortunately, it appears the the NTRP levels for adult league play is not ay all consistent with the descriptions. It is a very common practice for USTA league teams to "sandbag"... players are encouraged to underrate themselves so that the team has a decent chance to make it to sectional playoffs. In this area (South SF bay and peninsula), for instance, a competitive 3.5 league team consists primarily of players who appear to play at a 4.0 level or higher (according to the descriptions).

Some years back, there was a concerted effort in this area to move strong players up to a higher level so that the league teams would be more in line with the NTRP descriptions. However in the past few years, this practice has reversed. This was done, supposedly, so that West coast teams would be compitive with East coast teams (who apparently had been misrepresenting themselves to an even greater degree than the West coast teams).

I've been playing at a 4.0 level recently. (Some years back I had started playing 4.5 NTRP tournaments but age & injuries have forced me back down to a 4.0 level). Altho' I play comfortably at a 4.0 level, the NTRP descriptions suggest my rating might be at a 4.5 or 5.0 level.

I have been asked by 3.5 teams to underate myself so that I can play on their teams. I've seen other players with comparable abilities that have self-rated themselves as 3.5 (& even as low as 3.0).

 

[cak]

I agree with SystemicAnomaly. In the NorCal South Bay and Peninsula areas, most women playing 2.5 can consistently play up to the 3.0 to 3.5 descriptions, and 3.0s play consistently at the 3.5 to 4.0 descriptions. Lobs, approach shots, overheads and volleys are all key to a 3.0 game, and all contenders at the 3.0 level are very successful with those shots. There are many women that can get points off of their serves at the 3.0 level. I've just started play 3.5s, and the difference between 3.0s and 3.5s that I can see is often you can sucker a 3.0 with spin on a long rally, but that never works with 3.5s.

 

[35ft6]

I was rated 5.0 eight years ago, and I can beat, sometimes easily, guys who win 5.5 tournaments in So Cal, but sometimes I feel like by a lot of people's definition (here) I'm a 5.0.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I've not played NTRP tournaments in quite a few years (cuz of injuries). Back when I had been playing 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 tournaments, I found that the skill level of the participants was somewhat closer to the descriptions than the players who were involved in NTRP league teams. With tournaments, it appeared that the discrepency between the descriptions and the playing level was 0.5 or less. However with league players, the discrepency appeared to be 0.5 or greater.

It also appears that the discrepencies are greater in the lower levels (below 4.0) than they are at the upper levels.

 

[ohplease]

Unfortunately, it appears the the NTRP levels for adult league play is not ay all consistent with the descriptions. It is a very common practice for USTA league teams to "sandbag"... players are encouraged to underrate themselves so that the team has a decent chance to make it to sectional playoffs. In this area (South SF bay and peninsula), for instance, a competitive 3.5 league team consists primarily of players who appear to play at a 4.0 level or higher (according to the descriptions).

Some years back, there was a concerted effort in this area to move strong players up to a higher level so that the league teams would be more in line with the NTRP descriptions. However in the past few years, this practice has reversed. This was done, supposedly, so that West coast teams would be compitive with East coast teams (who apparently had been misrepresenting themselves to an even greater degree than the West coast teams).

I've been playing at a 4.0 level recently. (Some years back I had started playing 4.5 NTRP tournaments but age & injuries have forced me back down to a 4.0 level). Altho' I play comfortably at a 4.0 level, the NTRP descriptions suggest my rating might be at a 4.5 or 5.0 level.

I have been asked by 3.5 teams to underate myself so that I can play on their teams. I've seen other players with comparable abilities that have self-rated themselves as 3.5 (& even as low as 3.0).

This is a very accurate description of the situation. I've seen players rated by local pros as 4.5's be allowed onto the 3.5 team. And even then, that team of club rated 4.5s has a losing record against other clubs.

The USTA has been asleep at the wheel on this issue for quite some time.

 

[kevhen]

I fit the 4.5 desciption. My official rating is 4.0. I win about 75% of my 4.0 matches so am pretty close to 4.5 and may in a couple years get bumped up to 4.5 but I need to win even more than 75% of my 4.0 matches. When I play strong 3.5s or weak 4.0s, they tend to think that I am 4.5, but when I play 4.5's and 5.0s, I know I am still just on that 4.0-4.5 cusp.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

I don't play NTRP tourneys; just Mens 50 (first year in 50s). But I'm a 5.0+. I have a buddy who is actually computer rated 5.5 and I haven't ever lost a set to him, but I still say I'm a 5.0+. (I think his rating is an anomoly.)

The NTRP is barely a guideline. The NTRPS system is more sensible. As far as a strict read of the NTRP goes; I'm a 5.5. But on the NTRPS I'd be between a 4.5 and a 5.0. (Almost everybody checking the NTRPS says they'd be rated at least a half point below the NTRP.)

- KK

 

[badmice2]

I've not played NTRP tournaments in quite a few years (cuz of injuries). Back when I had been playing 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 tournaments, I found that the skill level of the participants was somewhat closer to the descriptions than the players who were involved in NTRP league teams. With tournaments, it appeared that the discrepency between the descriptions and the playing level was 0.5 or less. However with league players, the discrepency appeared to be 0.5 or greater.

It also appears that the discrepencies are greater in the lower levels (below 4.0) than they are at the upper levels.

I guess I'm one of them that you consider a Sandbagger ?!?

SystemicAnomaly - I do agree with you. In Norcal, players who generally plays tourneys are true to their ratings (very rarely do i encounter players who sand bags). In league play, however, you have a really big discrpency with level of play. I still havent quite figure out how that came about; do you think it might have to do with simply just trying to win? Or does it have to do with self-rated players under rating themselves?

I know Norcal USTA do have a mid year adjustment base on league play, but i often question their approach in determining player's level. What's your take?

 

[arnz]

I really believe that the best way to rate yourself is through match results. I can tell you right now I'm a 5.0+, an outright lie, but how will you know? Prove it is what I say.

Last week an 18 year old kept claiming to me that he was 5.0 college player. There was an older guy probably in his 40's who came to the court. I asked him what level he plays at, he told me he played in 4.0 doubles league. They played and I stayed to watch. He beat the snot out of that kid:mrgreen:

 

[tennis-n-sc]

There is no doubt that I am fairly rated based on my results in match play. However, the written guidelines for my computer rating are far less advanced than the actual play.

 

[kevhen]

yeah, kids almost always overrate themselves. They should play in adult leagues more and get a stronger dose of reality.