Gender neutral rating for usta

[GrassCourtFan]

I don't think it's just USTA. I've played a bunch of non-USTA leagues (UTR, and a countless number of local flex leagues) and they've all been mostly gender-segregated.

I think worrying about the ranking system is putting the cart before the horse. If there's a bunch of interest in co-ed play, people would make co-ed leagues, probably? Regardless of what USTA did.

My guess right now is that men and women both on average feel a bit uncomfortable competing against each other seriously, so co-ed leagues only happen in places where there just aren't very many tennis players and so they need to mix genders to get a good number of players.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I think that was me

Anyone who lobs a lot is going to destroy a lot of competition < 4.0.

 

[OnTheLine]

Ok you think normal tennis reality in all of America is like Dallas. I don't. You also equate tennis reality with USTA participation reality.

And you just keep talking about large cities. And if the USTA wants to only be the tennis organization for large cities in America that is fine. But then they should allow a different organization that will represent the whole country. Look at any county population heat map. I am not saying central Illinois is Chicago or Dallas but it is not exactly barren either. The expression "will it play in Peoria?" was created because it is a test market for the whole country. National politicians and marketing companies don't ask "will it play in Dallas"

What he is saying is that just like in politics, the vast empty middle should not be dictating what works in the big or even medium cities.

Thankfully, that saying is really OLD and over with. We no longer care whether it plays in Peoria .... Part of why Iowa lost its spot in presidential primaries. So the national politicians are in fact no longer asking that ... and instead only campaigning in big cities.

Do what you think works in a sparsely populated area.

As one who would never live in such a place, I preferhaving options .... and as a woman, one of those options is to stop listening to the opinions of men on my choices, preferences and rationales. Especially will stop listening to men from the sticks.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

What he is saying is that just like in politics, the vast empty middle should not be dictating what works in the big or even medium cities.

Thankfully, that saying is really OLD and over with. We no longer care whether it plays in Peoria .... Part of why Iowa lost its spot in presidential primaries. So the national politicians are in fact no longer asking that ... and instead only campaigning in big cities.

Do what you think works in a sparsely populated area.

As one who would never live in such a place, I preferhaving options .... and as a woman, one of those options is to stop listening to the opinions of men on my choices, preferences and rationales. Especially will stop listening to men from the sticks.

It's nice to get a woman's perspective on the topic since a co-ed league would, you know, involve women.

I for one stated that I didn't know what people's preferences were so I couldn't make any definitive statement. I have not heard a great clamor for a co-ed league.

So, if I move to Peoria, you'll stop listening to me?

 

[OnTheLine]

It's nice to get a woman's perspective on the topic since a co-ed league would, you know, involve women.

I for one stated that I didn't know what people's preferences were so I couldn't make any definitive statement. I have not heard a great clamor for a co-ed league.

So, if I move to Peoria, you'll stop listening to me?

If you move to such a place and lose the relativistic thinking you are known for .... yes.

In terms of me and a co-ed league ... meh, I have no need for it. I already have mixed league for when I want that. Club drop-in when I want that.

And I am as fierce a competitor as they come, and definitely a feminist. But I am not so dense as to think that women can or should compete against men. We can't ... the physiological differences are so wide.

As a decently strong 3.5 (with my glimpses of 4.0) in order to be competitive in singles against a man, I would have to go up against a low 3.0 just to balance out the speed, reach, height and power differences. Or, as a 50 yo female who thankfully is in good shape and basically quick, I would have to find 65 yo 3.5 men.

Against the 3.0 male, the unforced error count on his side of the net is what would make me competitive. That is of no interest to me.
Against the 65 yo 3.5 man it would be my speed and shot placement that would allow me to compete. Of marginally more interest to me.

 

[Moon Shooter]

What he is saying is that just like in politics, the vast empty middle should not be dictating what works in the big or even medium cities.

Thankfully, that saying is really OLD and over with. We no longer care whether it plays in Peoria .... Part of why Iowa lost its spot in presidential primaries. So the national politicians are in fact no longer asking that ... and instead only campaigning in big cities.

Do what you think works in a sparsely populated area.

As one who would never live in such a place, I preferhaving options .... and as a woman, one of those options is to stop listening to the opinions of men on my choices, preferences and rationales. Especially will stop listening to men from the sticks.

The saying is old but Peoria is still a test bed. It’s no big city but it isn’t a tiny town either.

I think the dems dropped Iowa for other reasons. But whatever, 21 million tennis players and about 250k in usta. Whatever their approach it’s not great.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I think having a unified rating system might reduce sandbagging which seems to mostly be a male phenonema.

1) tighter levels so if you get bumped it’s not like you will get killed at the next level.

2) when men sandbag to a lower level they won’t be able to claim yeah well a male x.xx is the equivallant of some higher women’s rating. It will all be the same rating. I think that will make men be more like the women and prefer to get bumped up.

 

[Quad Fault]

No way. Would not work and would lessen participation. The two main problems have already been discussed.

1.). Women would not and do not want it. And women are the majority of league participants. As an overgeneralization, they want to play with ladies and have wine afterwards. Having men there changes the interpersonal dynamic. You don't need a second reason after this.

2.). It would not work well. Men and women play different styles and have different strengths and weaknesses at all levels of tennis. And they advance and plateau at different levels and at different rates. For example, as you mention, you would have a nightmare with the "athletic beginner" in mens' leagues playing against women. How is a woman going to react playing one of those male "instant 4.0" types that play at 3 or 3.5? Annoyed and feel like they've wasted her time. The rallies she enjoys playing and that are her style become 3 shot points, if that. Even against a male 3.0 or 3.5 lifer or older male, male tennis is more "hard hits and errors". Women tend not to like it and rally. I had this conversation when UTR became bigger and it seemed most women at 3.5-4.0 have no interest winning (due to opponent putting every other shot into the net) or losing (because the male plays with less consistency than her, but hits much harder) to a male. Women at the 3.0-4.0 level also often cannot reliably deal with as much spin (particularly heavy spin and kick) that male players at that level can often deliver. It makes it a frustrating experience of mishits. Could many women learn to deal with it? Sure. But it's not something they grew up playing against or are comfortable with. They just don't see it.

Also, I'm an outlier in this view, but think the 0.5 gap is closer to 0.75 or 1.0 on the USTA scale in the 3.5-4.0 range.

Isn't UTR going away from this soon in some of their events and leagues? Going to separate m/w draws?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The saying is old but Peoria is still a test bed. It’s no big city but it isn’t a tiny town either.

I think the dems dropped Iowa for other reasons. But whatever, 21 million tennis players and about 250k in usta. Whatever their approach it’s not great.

You're saying a 1% capture rate is "not great"? How does that compare with other sports?

 

[time_fly]

As a 7.0 mixed captain, I’ve been having increasing difficulty recruiting guys to play mixed. I also captain two men’s teams and those are swimming in players. The reason that most guys give is that they find 3.5 women to be so inferior that it’s too frustrating to be on a court with them. The secondary reason, somewhat related to the first, is that USTA particularly in our area draws an aging population and most of the ladies who want to play mixed are 55+, making it even more challenging to keep up with the guys. Most of my guys are in the 40 to 55 age range.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

As a 7.0 mixed captain, I’ve been having increasing difficulty recruiting guys to play mixed. I also captain two men’s teams and those are swimming in players. The reason that most guys give is that they find 3.5 women to be so inferior that it’s too frustrating to be on a court with them. The secondary reason, somewhat related to the first, is that USTA particularly in our area draws an aging population and most of the ladies who want to play mixed are 55+, making it even more challenging to keep up with the guys. Most of my guys are in the 40 to 55 age range.

I guess it depends on how you perceive the situation. As a 4.5 male, I play both 8.0 and 9.0 MXDs. Yes, my 3.5 female partners aren't as good as my 4.5 female partners. My job is to adjust my game to best use my 3.5 partner's strengths and shield her weaknesses.

Maybe some of the 3.5 Men using that "weak partner" reasoning aren't actually strong enough to compensate for a weaker partner or to take over a match; that is a distinct skill set.

One could generalize that to any doubles in general, regardless of gender. I might play a 4.5 Mens match and have a significantly weaker partner [if they are a 4.0 playing up] or stronger [someone on the edge of being bumped up]. I simply craft my strategy to best account for the circumstances.

 

[Creighton]

As a 7.0 mixed captain, I’ve been having increasing difficulty recruiting guys to play mixed. I also captain two men’s teams and those are swimming in players. The reason that most guys give is that they find 3.5 women to be so inferior that it’s too frustrating to be on a court with them. The secondary reason, somewhat related to the first, is that USTA particularly in our area draws an aging population and most of the ladies who want to play mixed are 55+, making it even more challenging to keep up with the guys. Most of my guys are in the 40 to 55 age range.

I sort of had this experience with mixed the other week. I recently was able to appeal down from to 3.5 from 4.0 so I got invited to a 7.0 mixed team.
The first match, the captain paired me with a 60+ partner and I thought no worries, I can hang with the 4.0 guy and have an advantage with the 3.5 partner. When the match started, because it was an ESL the opponents got to play with their old ratings so we ran into a 4.0 and a 3.5 lady. At first I thought, no biggie, we're really a 7.5 pair ourselves.

Then the match started and the 4.0 guy was younger guy with one of the best driving top spin forehands I've seen in league play. My poor partner didn't stand a chance. He hit with so much topspin she couldn't judge where the ball would land and even worse if she got to the general area she had no idea what the ball would do on the bounce. I honestly felt bad for her. Not because she was a bad player or anything, but his forehand was just so different than anything she would ever experience as a 3.5 lady or in the older leagues. It really was unfair.

I honestly stopped trying to win the match as a concession to get him to rally with me more often to save her from some embarrassment. I felt really bad at the end of the match because she said a couple times me and the other guy probably would be better served just playing 8.0. So I know she didn't have any fun in the match.

Mixed just creates far too big of a gap in these scenarios.

 

[socallefty]

Why is there so much difference in topspin RPM between mens and womens tennis at similar levels (like a 4.5 woman and 4.0 guy or 5.0 woman and 4.5 guy) typically both on serves and shots? Even the very good women hit much flatter than men at the same level although they might hit at comparable pace. Is it upper body strength, difference in center of gravity etc.?

I’ve noticed that when I play mixed doubles occasionally, it is the topspin serves and shots that give the opposing women more trouble than hard flat serves/shots. And they hit/serve much flatter than their male partners.

 

[ChaelAZ]

I am all for gender neutral ratings, and leagues really. As it is, anecdotally I see that .5 point rating gap right now, so most the time I am playing with 4.5 women in 4.0 level matches. I think that is also the standard, or was, in mixed.

 

[time_fly]

I sort of had this experience with mixed the other week. I recently was able to appeal down from to 3.5 from 4.0 so I got invited to a 7.0 mixed team.
The first match, the captain paired me with a 60+ partner and I thought no worries, I can hang with the 4.0 guy and have an advantage with the 3.5 partner. When the match started, because it was an ESL the opponents got to play with their old ratings so we ran into a 4.0 and a 3.5 lady. At first I thought, no biggie, we're really a 7.5 pair ourselves.

Yeah, overall I was in favor of the new ESL ratings rules. One year I lost 6 guys to mid-season bumps; you would think we won nationals, but we actually didn't advance past districts. But I do think the rules should be revised for combo leagues like mixed. Right now you can have a 4.5 playing with a 3.5 at 7.0 if they both got bumped, which is ridiculous. At a minimum they should not allow two bumped players to be paired using their old ratings. The point is to not completely disallow people who move to 4.5 or 2.5 from playing on their existing 7.0 team, but creating 7.5 and 8.0 pairs using bumped players should generally disallowed; only allow 7.5 if someone was bumped to 4.5. There might be some captain somewhere who wouldn't be able to field a team because of a large number of bumps, but that has to be a really rare exception.

Why is there so much difference in topspin RPM between mens and womens tennis at similar levels (like a 4.5 woman and 4.0 guy or 5.0 woman and 4.5 guy) typically both on serves and shots? Even the very good women hit much flatter than men at the same level although they might hit at comparable pace. Is it upper body strength, difference in center of gravity etc.?

I find this the same up to the pro level. Many of the WTA players hit flat. In some cases they hit the average ball faster than the men, but of course using a lighter ball and much less spin. I think the risk/reward ratio is a little different since the ladies are also slower, so they can't defend against the pace as well as the guys can. Therefore fewer flat shots need to be made to win the point. In terms of the mechanics of for rec players, possibly more shoulder strength is needed for the upward swing and higher finish, so most ladies prefer to swing flatter?

 

[OnTheLine]

I find this the same up to the pro level. Many of the WTA players hit flat. In some cases they hit the average ball faster than the men, but of course using a lighter ball and much less spin. I think the risk/reward ratio is a little different since the ladies are also slower, so they can't defend against the pace as well as the guys can. Therefore fewer flat shots need to be made to win the point. In terms of the mechanics of for rec players, possibly more shoulder strength is needed for the upward swing and higher finish, so most ladies prefer to swing flatter?

WTA only uses a lighter ball at the USO, none of the other majors

I think that shoulder/arm strength is a big issue. As I understand it, the heavier the topspin, the greater the swingspeed needs to be in order not to lose velocity.

And WTA players do not hit flat shots. They just hit a flatter shot than the men. All you need to do is watch a top 50 WTA match courtside ... that ball has serious topspin .... just not compared to the top 50 men.

 

[Moon Shooter]

You're saying a 1% capture rate is "not great"? How does that compare with other sports?

good question.
im not familiar with other adult sports that offer a rating. Do you? Chess sort of comes close but it’s not the same for several reasons. The biggest being the availability of ratings you can get online now. I would guesstimate that at least 50% of adult players that play chess at least a dozen times a year have a rating on some site. But really do t know.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I guess it depends on how you perceive the situation. As a 4.5 male, I play both 8.0 and 9.0 MXDs. Yes, my 3.5 female partners aren't as good as my 4.5 female partners. My job is to adjust my game to best use my 3.5 partner's strengths and shield her weaknesses.

Maybe some of the 3.5 Men using that "weak partner" reasoning aren't actually strong enough to compensate for a weaker partner or to take over a match; that is a distinct skill set.

I freely admit that I am not at all interested in trying to take over a match anymore than I want a stronger partner to take over a doubles match when I am the weaker player. I mean I am ok with shading a bit one way or another. But when we are talking 3 levels of difference (like a 4.5 male playing with a 3.5 female) that is ridiculous.

One could generalize that to any doubles in general, regardless of gender. I might play a 4.5 Mens match and have a significantly weaker partner [if they are a 4.0 playing up] or stronger [someone on the edge of being bumped up]. I simply craft my strategy to best account for the circumstances.

Ok but even a full level difference is not great.
But that is nothing like a 4.5 male playing with a middling 3.5 or 4.0 female. Or a 3.5 male playing with a 2.5 female. The mixed doubles is just a sh…. Show unless the female is at least the same rating as the male and preferably higher rated. Unfortunately schmke has shown those matchups typically don’t win as often as allotting as many rating points as you can to the male partner. And it makes sense if you look at how utr translates.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I freely admit that I am not at all interested in trying to take over a match anymore than I want a stronger partner to take over a doubles match when I am the weaker player. I mean I am ok with shading a bit one way or another. But when we are talking 3 levels of difference (like a 4.5 male playing with a 3.5 female) that is ridiculous.

I adapt to the demands of the match.

I play 8.0 MXDs because I like the team members. Yes, it's not the same as 4.5 Mens. But man does not live by bread alone.

Ok but even a full level difference is not great.

I differ: I've been the sole 4.5 playing with 3 5.0s and I struggled just to not screw up so much.

But that is nothing like a 4.5 male playing with a middling 3.5 or 4.0 female. Or a 3.5 male playing with a 2.5 female. The mixed doubles is just a sh…. Show unless the female is at least the same rating as the male and preferably higher rated. Unfortunately schmke has shown those matchups typically don’t win as often as allotting as many rating points as you can to the male partner. And it makes sense if you look at how utr translates.

No argument there. USTA offers MXDs and the response is good enough to keep offering it. I doubt arguments about skill imbalance is going to change anything. What would lead to change is if enough people quit MXDs.

 

[RatedPG]

As a 7.0 mixed captain, I’ve been having increasing difficulty recruiting guys to play mixed. I also captain two men’s teams and those are swimming in players. The reason that most guys give is that they find 3.5 women to be so inferior that it’s too frustrating to be on a court with them. The secondary reason, somewhat related to the first, is that USTA particularly in our area draws an aging population and most of the ladies who want to play mixed are 55+, making it even more challenging to keep up with the guys. Most of my guys are in the 40 to 55 age range.

Both of these reasons make sense to me.

1) I find it a slight annoyance when I’m paired up with a 3.5 women, and that is during social play. It is worse when it is in competition. I don’t play mixed tournaments. But, I’ve seen 4.0 male players play competitions with a 3.5 lady player and I enjoy staring at the men as they try to intercept and over aggressively poach, just to try to get some tennis in during the match or salvage their egos. I know a female 4.0 that lobs and lobs and always seeks 4.0 male players to enter 8.0 mixed doubles tournaments. Her partnerships usually last 1-2 tournaments, and then the guy is either injured or becomes mysteriously busy. I wonder why
2) I’ve seen a lot of higher level male players play down with younger females. They suffer on the tennis court. But, you can see the the true motive is for something outside tennis. But, that is for obvious reasons. When the ladies are 55+, there is no incentive for the younger guy to pair up with a senior lady. I feel bad for these women, because if they knew how men truly felt, they would just stick to ladies doubles.

Both of these reasons are valid. The last reason just pertaining for me, is I find myself more prone to injuries playing with 3.5 ladies who struggle a bit with coordination skills.
Ex. They think they can go for a volley and back up and then lose sight of the ball and then you have to chase down the ball just to get it back over. So, you are not just solely covering 50% of the court, but, also protecting her side of the court and when the ball goes in their direction, you have to shift closer to where the lady is standing right before she hits the balls just in case she misses
OR another Ex. where a lady that is happy just to hit the ball, but, doesn’t really think about where to place the ball as they are just happy to get the ball over the net, even though, it is three strides right within poaching area of the opponents, where you then have to dart around the court like crazy to run the ball down, as opponents can either drop shot or hit the ball deep. It is fine once in a while, but, when it is constant, I can feel my knees burning after a certain period of time. In the past when I was younger, I’d just laugh and do my best. But, as I’ve gotten older, the effect this type of play has on my knees, just isn’t good. The worst part is when finished playing this set, the female player usually is excited, full of energy (due to lack of energy spent due to lack of movement) and because it is higher level tennis than she is used to, wants to play another set, not understanding the wear and tear her level of play has caused her male partner.

Just my two cents….

 

[Moon Shooter]

I adapt to the demands of the match.

I play 8.0 MXDs because I like the team members. Yes, it's not the same as 4.5 Mens. But man does not live by bread alone.



I differ: I've been the sole 4.5 playing with 3 5.0s and I struggled just to not screw up so much.



No argument there. USTA offers MXDs and the response is good enough to keep offering it. I doubt arguments about skill imbalance is going to change anything. What would lead to change is if enough people quit MXDs.

by “not great” I meant it is not ideal to play someone a level higher or lower.

Sure they offer mixed because many areas do not have enough players for flights of single gender teams. But where there are those flights I bet the percentage of mixed is lower than the percent of non mixed matches. So “the response” (as if usta cared enough to ask) is mixed is pretty bad but is all you can get in some areas. Why not make it better?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

by “not great” I meant it is not ideal to play someone a level higher or lower.

Sure they offer mixed because many areas do not have enough players for flights of single gender teams. But where there are those flights I bet the percentage of mixed is lower than the percent of non mixed matches. So “the response” (as if usta cared enough to ask) is mixed is pretty bad but is all you can get in some areas. Why not make it better?

USTA may not be using the same criteria of success as you are. Maybe MXDs is icing on the cake, not meant to rival single-gender for participation but solely to get more league fees.

If so, maybe they don't want to "fix what ain't broke" and jeopardize their revenue stream.

 

[Moon Shooter]

USTA may not be using the same criteria of success as you are. Maybe MXDs is icing on the cake, not meant to rival single-gender for participation but solely to get more league fees.

If so, maybe they don't want to "fix what ain't broke" and jeopardize their revenue stream.

No one is actually defending the current disconnected rating systems as being better. So I’m not sure why you think this would jeopardize their revenue stream.

If you have ever actually looked at usta’s revenue streams you would see that adult rec tennis is a very minor part of it, and that almost certainly explains why bad systems stay in place. Adult rec tennis is more of a token badge then a revenue stream. The monopoly they have on US pro tennis, tv rights etc, are the revenue stream. Adult rec tennis is like the lemonade stand the kids/interns run.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

No one is actually defending the current disconnected rating systems as being better.

In order for me to want change, there has to be an incentive. I don't have any under the current system.

I keep coming back to the phrase I've been using throughout: I get competitive matches so if you're going to propose a change, it has to have enough benefit to be worth it.

So I’m not sure why you think this would jeopardize their revenue stream.

Simple: a change is made and participation declines [without a concomitant increase somewhere else].

If you have ever actually looked at usta’s revenue streams you would see that adult rec tennis is a very minor part of it, and that almost certainly explains why bad systems stay in place. Adult rec tennis is more of a token badge then a revenue stream. The monopoly they have on US pro tennis, tv rights etc, are the revenue stream. Adult rec tennis is like the lemonade stand the kids/interns run.

I have not. What is the breakdown?

So, like Winston Churchill, when the facts change, so do I: if league is a rounding error, then what is their motivation to change? How much resources are they willing to commit for such a small chunk of the bottom line?

Note that I'm not arguing that everything's perfect. I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes to see why the changes you proposed haven't happened.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I have not. What is the breakdown?

So, like Winston Churchill, when the facts change, so do I: if league is a rounding error, then what is their motivation to change? How much resources are they willing to commit for such a small chunk of the bottom line?

Note that I'm not arguing that everything's perfect. I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes to see why the changes you proposed haven't happened.

ok that explains some of your views.

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2022-pdfs/USTA%20Association%202021%20fst%201231%20EV_Final%20draft_3.23.22_(secured)_FINAL%20SIGNED.pdf

Now you see why they have very little immediate financial incentive to care about adult rec tennis. If they actually cared about tennis in the United States then they would care. Because it is those adult rec players that are introducing their kids and grandkids to the game.

 

[silentkman]

ok that explains some of your views.

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2022-pdfs/USTA%20Association%202021%20fst%201231%20EV_Final%20draft_3.23.22_(secured)_FINAL%20SIGNED.pdf

Now you see why they have very little immediate financial incentive to care about adult rec tennis. If they actually cared about tennis in the United States then they would care. Because it is those adult rec players that are introducing their kids and grandkids to the game.

it's kind of weird that everyone complains about the cost of league tennis etc. I didn't look at the document but the US Open is a large portion of the revenue. It brings almost a billion dollars to new York in three weeks. What do you want the USTA to do regarding adult rec tennis?

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Generally speaking, adult females are not as big or fast as adult males of otherwise similar athletic ability. For women, hitting flat to the open court is way more effective since the opponent cannot cover the space of the court as well. In men’s league, the court can be covered more effectively, and thus if you hit flat to the open court, the ball is more likely to just come right back to you. Spin allows you to play with more angles off the court (making the court even wider, more to cover), as well as moving the strike zone and disrupting timing. It is born of necessity.

 

[time_fly]

I think the clubs care about USTA tennis more than the USTA itself does. Leagues fill most of the club courts on the weekends around here.

 

[schmke]

I think the clubs care about USTA tennis more than the USTA itself does. Leagues fill most of the club courts on the weekends around here.

It is a love/hate relationship. Being a facility that hosts USTA League teams is a drawing point and gets people to join the club, or like you say fills up courts. But when league is booming and there are a lot of teams, they end up hogging courts and other members complain they can't get courts on weekends/evenings or whenever league matches are played.

This is apparently part of the reason the USTA switched 40+ to a 4-court format, because facilities had complained that league matches were using too many courts.

 

[Creighton]

It is a love/hate relationship. Being a facility that hosts USTA League teams is a drawing point and gets people to join the club, or like you say fills up courts. But when league is booming and there are a lot of teams, they end up hogging courts and other members complain they can't get courts on weekends/evenings or whenever league matches are played.

This is apparently part of the reason the USTA switched 40+ to a 4-court format, because facilities had complained that league matches were using too many courts.

I didn't quite appreciate this argument until I moved to an area that plays indoor in the winter. Amazing how packed those courts stay at all times.

Just sucks for Southern where we didn't quite have that issue.

 

[cks]

This is apparently part of the reason the USTA switched 40+ to a 4-court format, because facilities had complained that league matches were using too many courts.

Good to know. I'm new to USTA league (started playing JAN '22) and thought 40+ went to 4 court because older players preferred doubles over singles.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Good to know. I'm new to USTA league (started playing JAN '22) and thought 40+ went to 4 court because older players preferred doubles over singles.

If that was the case, it would be 4 doubles and 1 singles.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I didn't quite appreciate this argument until I moved to an area that plays indoor in the winter. Amazing how packed those courts stay at all times.

Oh, yeah. I moved to a place that plays indoors in the winter and the only reasonable way to get courts is to join leagues and regular scheduled groups. You just cannot expect that if you and a buddy want to get a court, there'll be one open anywhere at the days/times when you're free.

 

[Creighton]

Oh, yeah. I moved to a place that plays indoors in the winter and the only reasonable way to get courts is to join leagues and regular scheduled groups. You just cannot expect that if you and a buddy want to get a court, there'll be one open anywhere at the days/times when you're free.

The contract time blows my mind. Quite the commitment to show up every week at the same time.

 

[romano]

I believe Mixed league would be improved if USTA would make them level-specific, just like the Adult leagues (Mixed 3.5, Mixed 4.0, etc.). Players can still play up, but it would avoid the 2-level difference.

 

[time_fly]

I believe Mixed league would be improved if USTA would make them level-specific, just like the Adult leagues (Mixed 3.5, Mixed 4.0, etc.). Players can still play up, but it would avoid the 2-level difference.

Figuring out how to win when the opposing 20 year old 4.0 guy is peppering your 63 year old 3.0 woman partner is the unique challenge of mixed doubles.

 

[TennisOTM]

I believe Mixed league would be improved if USTA would make them level-specific, just like the Adult leagues (Mixed 3.5, Mixed 4.0, etc.). Players can still play up, but it would avoid the 2-level difference.

The X.5 mixed combo leagues that already exist in many places are also good for avoiding the 2-level difference. You can't add up to X.5 when the partners are two levels apart.

 

[Biologydropout]

Figuring out how to win when the opposing 20 year old 4.0 guy is peppering your 63 year old 3.0 woman partner is the unique challenge of mixed doubles.

I’ve got a “mature” lady on one of our 7.0 teams that has aged/injured down to a 3.0. Pace doesn’t bother her as much as spin (especially on the serve) but I love watching young 3.5/4.0 guys start missing from over hitting while she casually deflects their shots back beyond the service line. She doesn’t get all of them back and doesn’t win every match but she can force a lot of third set tiebreakers. Pairing her with a fast, consistent 4.0 is usually a nightmare for our opponents.

 

[romano]

The X.5 mixed combo leagues that already exist in many places are also good for avoiding the 2-level difference. You can't add up to X.5 when the partners are two levels apart.

No such league in NORCAL. Interesting on the differences between USTA sections, I suppose driven by participation?

 

[drivophd]

No such league in NORCAL. Interesting on the differences between USTA sections, I suppose driven by participation?

X.5 Mixed is not a national offering so sections have the option to offer it if they so choose. Like how NorCal has Combo Doubles but there is no Nationals competition to advance to beyond Sectionals.

 

[Creighton]

X.5 Mixed is not a national offering so sections have the option to offer it if they so choose. Like how NorCal has Combo Doubles but there is no Nationals competition to advance to beyond Sectionals.

Combo really should be a nationals event. Southern does it as well and it's great.

 

[Moon Shooter]

it's kind of weird that everyone complains about the cost of league tennis etc. I didn't look at the document but the US Open is a large portion of the revenue. It brings almost a billion dollars to new York in three weeks. What do you want the USTA to do regarding adult rec tennis?

Given that usta makes the vast majority of their money from the monopoly they have over professional tennis I would think they wouldn’t need to charge a national fee just adults can play in their leagues. Or at least just cover their costs by charging like $10/year instead of over 4 times that. (The ten bucks is not based on looking at financials as usta does not offer that. But it seems that the national league pretty much leaves the website open and organizes the national tournaments which players still have to pay extra for. 13 million seems like a quite a bit of profit for that.) You know to promote tennis in the USA like they are supposed to, as opposed to running a real estate business.

 

[TennisOTM]

No such league in NORCAL. Interesting on the differences between USTA sections, I suppose driven by participation?

I suspect the demand for X.5 mixed here was partly/largely driven by married couples who want to play together. If their ratings happen to add up to X.5 then they have to play under-level in the X.0 leagues and lose all the time.

 

[Moon Shooter]

It is a love/hate relationship. Being a facility that hosts USTA League teams is a drawing point and gets people to join the club, or like you say fills up courts. But when league is booming and there are a lot of teams, they end up hogging courts and other members complain they can't get courts on weekends/evenings or whenever league matches are played.

This is apparently part of the reason the USTA switched 40+ to a 4-court format, because facilities had complained that league matches were using too many courts.

yes indoor facilities need to book 2 hours per match just in case they run long. Plus with double headers they need time between matches so it can really tie up the courts that day. Where as if they are just book the courts privately they can follow strict timelines. And the facilities don’t seem to bill the full cost of the reservation.

 

[silentkman]

Given that usta makes the vast majority of their money from the monopoly they have over professional tennis I would think they wouldn’t need to charge a national fee just adults can play in their leagues. Or at least just cover their costs by charging like $10/year instead of over 4 times that. (The ten bucks is not based on looking at financials as usta does not offer that. But it seems that the national league pretty much leaves the website open and organizes the national tournaments which players still have to pay extra for. 13 million seems like a quite a bit of profit for that.) You know to promote tennis in the USA like they are supposed to, as opposed to running a real estate business.

You know that anyone under 19 can join the USTA for free? the $44 that you we are paying helps with that. Most USTA tournaments are run by Tournament Directors that want to make a profit. admittedly, some TD go overboard. You just need to find the right tournament. I don't think $44 is unreasonable. However as a life member, I see it differently. It sounds like you want the USTA to not have fees for leagues or tournaments. That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Moon Shooter]

The X.5 mixed combo leagues that already exist in many places are also good for avoiding the 2-level difference. You can't add up to X.5 when the partners are two levels apart.

I don’t know if it is still the case but at least in 2021 I don’t believe there was a national rule against having a partner over 1 point different in combo leagues. I think I remember a 4.0 guy playing with a 2.5 female in 6.5 mixed in one of my leagues.

 

[Moon Shooter]

You know that anyone under 19 can join the USTA for free? the $44 that you we are paying helps with that. Most USTA tournaments are run by Tournament Directors that want to make a profit. admittedly, some TD go overboard. You just need to find the right tournament. I don't think $44 is unreasonable. However as a life member, I see it differently. It sounds like you want the USTA to not have fees for leagues or tournaments. That just doesn't make sense.

I think it is unreasonable to require any adult that wants to play national league tennis to subsidize some country club kid’s parent.

Most young players learn tennis from a parent or grand parent. But adults that take up the game are actual new blood that are much better promoters of tennis then children - who will usually quit after jr high or high school.

I am not complaining about the league fees or tournament fees. Those are based on a free market calculus and I have respect for small business owners.

Services do you think adults get from national usta that makes the $44 reasonable?
As I posted above when you add in all the other (legitimate) costs of league play the $44 dollars seems punitive.

Tennis growing, competition declining?

In most areas of the USA, private tennis clubs are about the same price as a CrossFit gym. I’m sure it is more expensive in Southern California or the northeastern megalopolis though.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

At the very least the first year the fee should be waived. Many more people would join.

 

[cks]

At the very least the first year the fee should be waived. Many more people would join.

I like this idea. I've written a few emails trying to get more adults to join our USTA league team and it would be an easier sell, if the $44 annual fee was waived for the first 12 months for new adult members. I hate trying to explain the upfront costs to play USTA league for the first time. $44 annual fee + $37 league fee + $20 (ish) for court/ball fees for 6 to 10 league matches.

I would also like USTA to bring back the five (5) year pre-paid plans, where you get the 5th year free.

 

[TennisOTM]

I don’t know if it is still the case but at least in 2021 I don’t believe there was a national rule against having a partner over 1 point different in combo leagues. I think I remember a 4.0 guy playing with a 2.5 female in 6.5 mixed in one of my leagues.

Yeah this is determined by local rules. Many local districts have regulations that specifically disallow a >1.0 difference between partners.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I like this idea. I've written a few emails trying to get more adults to join our USTA league team and it would be an easier sell, if the $44 annual fee was waived for the first 12 months for new adult members. I hate trying to explain the upfront costs to play USTA league for the first time. $44 annual fee + $37 league fee + $20 (ish) for court/ball fees for 6 to 10 league matches.

I would also like USTA to bring back the five (5) year pre-paid plans, where you get the 5th year free.

Exactly, my experience. They don’t know if they will be on more than one team or how many matches they will play. For many players $44 is nothing. But for many others when you add it on top of all the other costs of league play I think it is a real pain. It turns about a 80 dollar investment to try usta for a few matches into a $120 investment.

lots of the top junior talent I see are the kids of very wealthy parents. I’m not sure why all adults over 19 years should be required to make a donation to those wealthy families just so they can try some league play.