Gender neutral rating for usta

[silentkman]

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.

Your premise is off base. for wealthy parents, $19 is nothing compared to what they have to pay for lessons etc. the $19 is important to lower income parents that's exposing their kids to tennis. what percentage of the league cost is the $44? to play play leagues, you have to pay court costs. when I was a HS coach, USTA offered HS clinics for free. The clinics were great for networking and getting deals on racquets from some companies. at one point, i was able to by two racquets, shoes, six sets of string, overgrips for $275. they still have stuff for coaches and they have been pushing the umpire thing as well. if I'm not mistaken, the league coordinators are paid the USTA. some people didn't have the foresight to get lifetime membership when they were available. Additionally to be a part of the UTR Power player, you pay $120 a year. How much do you spend on tennis per year?

 

[silentkman]

additionally I assume that everyone knows USTA provides a credit from Wilson dot com for $44. I was able to save on a case of balls.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Your premise is off base. for wealthy parents, $19 is nothing compared to what they have to pay for lessons etc. the $19 is important to lower income parents that's exposing their kids to tennis. what percentage of the league cost is the $44? to play play leagues, you have to pay court costs.

Paying the $44 does not cover the court costs. League players still have to pay for those. So the question remains what actual service is USTA providing for that $44? I mean I know they run the tennis link website and do something for nationals. But there is no way that can cost anything close that much.

when I was a HS coach, USTA offered HS clinics for free.

That is what I am saying. Most of the high school tennis players I know (not all) have very wealthy parents. So why is USTA taking money from adults (who may not have much money) that simply want to pay league tennis and giving it to these wealthy families? The notion that high school kids playing tennis are more disadvantaged than adults that are trying to play tennis is dubious.

The clinics were great for networking and getting deals on racquets from some companies. at one point, i was able to by two racquets, shoes, six sets of string, overgrips for $275. they still have stuff for coaches and they have been pushing the umpire thing as well.

This is what I am saying. USTA is spending so much money on high school and younger kids who are almost certainly going to stop playing tennis once they are out of high school. Adult players are the ones that keep playing tennis and teach the next generation. Adult players are the key to tennis's future. Yet USTA seems insists on overcharging adults that want to go to the next level and start playing league.

if I'm not mistaken, the league coordinators are paid the USTA. some people didn't have the foresight to get lifetime membership when they were available.

I don't know. But I think people here who seem to know about it are are saying you are wrong. We pay additional league fees for every single team we join and that goes to various things including some amount of that to league coordinators. I don't don't begrudge them any of it. And if a big part of the $44 goes to them then that is fine by me. But I am hearing that is not the case. USTA national apparently expects them to pretty much do volunteer work as they horde all the money they get from players membership fees and their monopoly on the pro game. What is the goal of this redistribution? It seems to me based on what you said and their financials there are mainly two things they do with the horded money:
1) Subsidize parents (who are already mostly very wealthy) whose kids are in tennis.
2) Become real estate tycoons.

Additionally to be a part of the UTR Power player, you pay $120 a year. How much do you spend on tennis per year?

Ok good luck to UTR. I do not currently pay for the service but they are a private company that can do what they want. They are not the official organization of US tennis that has a monopoly on the pro game.

Their business is not aimed at adult league players. I think it is likely that many of the people paying for that rating service are the wealthy parents that have tennis playing kids in high school that hope to play in college.

I pay quite a bit but I almost always know what goods and services I am getting for what I pay. Whether it is shoes, court time, coaching, tennis balls etc. The $44 to national usta, I have no idea. It just seems punitive.

This discussion seems better suited for the thread about increasing tennis and decreasing competition so I will copy and paste it there.

 

[cks]

additionally I assume that everyone knows USTA provides a credit from Wilson dot com for $44

I went and checked my USTA account and found the email receipt from UTSA. They ran my USTA membership renewal back in May 2022.
Looks like they gave me $44 credit with head.com instead of wilson.com. I have to spend over $100 at head.com to get to use the discount code for $44 off.

 

[time_fly]

I just checked my email and found a short, generic “thank you” note for captaining with nothing attached.

 

[cks]

I just checked my email and found a short, generic “thank you” note for captaining with nothing attached.

For me the email came from "USTA Customer Care <noreply@accounts.usta.com>"

 

[Moon Shooter]

I went and checked my USTA account and found the email receipt from UTSA. They ran my USTA membership renewal back in May 2022.
Looks like they gave me $44 credit with head.com instead of wilson.com. I have to spend over $100 at head.com to get to use the discount code for $44 off.

I did not get anything like that. I wonder if I joined in the wrong month or what. I got 10% off the USTAshop.com.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

$44 per year is $3.66 per month. To put that in perspective, UTR charges $10 per month just to see their website.

What do you expect to get for $3.66 per month?

 

[Biologydropout]

I got $44 off at Wilson, a code for $44 off at Head, a free hat or shirt, and a code for something else that I would never use. Mine renews in December so maybe time of year has something to do with it.

 

[Moon Shooter]

$44 per year is $3.66 per month. To put that in perspective, UTR charges $10 per month just to see their website.

I can see the UTR website without paying for it. The payment basically allows me to see my current rating to the 100th and a few other tools. USTA payment does not even do that. Plus UTR is a private company etc., see above.

UTR actually tries to make a decent rating system. I think they fail at that for adult rec players, in my area, so I don't pay for it. But it seems to work for kids looking to play in college. If my children were looking to play in college I would probably pay for the UTR subscription.

What do you expect to get for $3.66 per month?

Something. If you want to pay 3.66 per month for nothing I will give you my address and you can send me the checks.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

I don’t know man. If you won’t pay $3.66 per month for a year of access to tennis leagues, maybe you just don’t really want to play. And that’s ok, but you don’t have act like they are overcharging.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I don’t know man. If you won’t pay $3.66 per month for a year of access to tennis leagues, maybe you just don’t really want to play. And that’s ok, but you don’t have act like they are overcharging.

It is not an issue for me. But sometimes when I talk to people who haven’t played in a league this has come up at least twice. (And I highly suspect it was a factor other times.). The thing is I can’t promise them more than a couple of matches since I don’t captain many teams and can’t speak for other captains. So by the time you include a tank of gas since most of the teams are about 40 miles away, the league fee of $22 and the $44 dollar donation to USTA’s real estate ventures, they are looking at spending an extra $100 to just to get two matches. Most people can play matches with players closer to their level without paying that 100 dollars. I tell them well you might be on other teams too but I can’t promise that.

that is why I think it makes sense to at least waive the fee the first year. If someone likes league play and is able to join a bunch of teams the $44 donation is less of a burden.

why do you think they are not overcharging? What is the national usta doing in terms of services to adult rec players that justifies that fee? They don’t even enter the scores for the rating system - the players do that directly.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

It is not an issue for me. But sometimes when I talk to people who haven’t played in a league this has come up at least twice. (And I highly suspect it was a factor other times.). The thing is I can’t promise them more than a couple of matches since I don’t captain many teams and can’t speak for other captains. So by the time you include a tank of gas since most of the teams are about 40 miles away, the league fee of $22 and the $44 dollar donation to USTA’s real estate ventures, they are looking at spending an extra $100 to just to get two matches. Most people can play matches with players closer to their level without paying that 100 dollars. I tell them well you might be on other teams too but I can’t promise that.

that is why I think it makes sense to at least waive the fee the first year. If someone likes league play and is able to join a bunch of teams the $44 donation is less of a burden.

why do you think they are not overcharging? What is the national usta doing in terms of services to adult rec players that justifies that fee? They don’t even enter the scores for the rating system - the players do that directly.

40 miles away? Just to play in a tennis league? Good grief. I would think twice about that too. It seems like that is a bigger deterrent than the $3.66 per month. Particularly if it is only 1 team with only 2 matches.

I think you have to remember that a lot of us live in urban metro type areas where there is plenty of tennis close by, many teams and leagues, and $3.66 is the least we spend on anything tennis related. Most spend more than that on a vibration dampener. It is the fee we pay to play with everyone else in the largest competitive league, and most barely notice it. In rural areas, life is different, and I understand that. I wouldn’t pay for USTA either in that case.

 

[silentkman]

I got $44 off at Wilson, a code for $44 off at Head, a free hat or shirt, and a code for something else that I would never use. Mine renews in December so maybe time of year has something to do with it.

I got the Wilson code and I can get a case of US Open balls for $75 instead of $120. That's $44 well spent.

 

[silentkman]

Paying the $44 does not cover the court costs. League players still have to pay for those. So the question remains what actual service is USTA providing for that $44? I mean I know they run the tennis link website and do something for nationals. But there is no way that can cost anything close that much.




That is what I am saying. Most of the high school tennis players I know (not all) have very wealthy parents. So why is USTA taking money from adults (who may not have much money) that simply want to pay league tennis and giving it to these wealthy families? The notion that high school kids playing tennis are more disadvantaged than adults that are trying to play tennis is dubious.



This is what I am saying. USTA is spending so much money on high school and younger kids who are almost certainly going to stop playing tennis once they are out of high school. Adult players are the ones that keep playing tennis and teach the next generation. Adult players are the key to tennis's future. Yet USTA seems insists on overcharging adults that want to go to the next level and start playing league.



I don't know. But I think people here who seem to know about it are are saying you are wrong. We pay additional league fees for every single team we join and that goes to various things including some amount of that to league coordinators. I don't don't begrudge them any of it. And if a big part of the $44 goes to them then that is fine by me. But I am hearing that is not the case. USTA national apparently expects them to pretty much do volunteer work as they horde all the money they get from players membership fees and their monopoly on the pro game. What is the goal of this redistribution? It seems to me based on what you said and their financials there are mainly two things they do with the horded money:
1) Subsidize parents (who are already mostly very wealthy) whose kids are in tennis.
2) Become real estate tycoons.



Ok good luck to UTR. I do not currently pay for the service but they are a private company that can do what they want. They are not the official organization of US tennis that has a monopoly on the pro game.

Their business is not aimed at adult league players. I think it is likely that many of the people paying for that rating service are the wealthy parents that have tennis playing kids in high school that hope to play in college.

I pay quite a bit but I almost always know what goods and services I am getting for what I pay. Whether it is shoes, court time, coaching, tennis balls etc. The $44 to national usta, I have no idea. It just seems punitive.

This discussion seems better suited for the thread about increasing tennis and decreasing competition so I will copy and paste it there.

You must live in a elitist world if you think all high school tennis parents are wealthy. Most were middle class families. I always had kids that needed racquets etc. You just can't make up stuff. find the Wilson code and use it to save $44 on a case of balls. yes, I know for a fact that league coordinators make money for every registration. if you take away the $44, what are spending on tennis annually? one more thing, not everyone wants or needs to play League tennis. I've covered that topic before. I did find in North Carolina, that they are offering to pay the first year USTA or a tournament fee to new players up to age 35 I believe.

 

[Moon Shooter]

40 miles away? Just to play in a tennis league? Good grief. I would think twice about that too. It seems like that is a bigger deterrent than the $3.66 per month. Particularly if it is only 1 team with only 2 matches.

I think you have to remember that a lot of us live in urban metro type areas where there is plenty of tennis close by, many teams and leagues, and $3.66 is the least we spend on anything tennis related. Most spend more than that on a vibration dampener. It is the fee we pay to play with everyone else in the largest competitive league, and most barely notice it. In rural areas, life is different, and I understand that. I wouldn’t pay for USTA either in that case.

There are many ways that USTA specifically caters to larger urban areas. We can argue about whether $44 or $100 is a lot of money but it only makes sense if we do that in the context of what you get for it.

Any amount of money is a lot of money for nothing. That is my my point. I would think USTA would want to encourage adult rec tennis not charge some arbitrary fine for the crime of wanting to play in a league. Yes tennis league costs something to run and they do have a few interns run the same national tournaments they have been running for years. But this is not millions of dollars. What else does the national org do with the money? Give it to wealthy family’s? Buy real estate investments? I mean when they are grossing hundreds of millions of dollars from their monopoly on the pro game I just think it is wrong to to overcharge adults for something that is directly their core stated purpose: promote tennis in the United States.

 

[silentkman]

There are many ways that USTA specifically caters to larger urban areas. We can argue about whether $44 or $100 is a lot of money but it only makes sense if we do that in the context of what you get for it.

Any amount of money is a lot of money for nothing. That is my my point. I would think USTA would want to encourage adult rec tennis not charge some arbitrary fine for the crime of wanting to play in a league. Yes tennis league costs something to run and they do have a few interns run the same national tournaments they have been running for years. But this is not millions of dollars. What else does the national org do with the money? Give it to wealthy family’s? Buy real estate investments? I mean when they are grossing hundreds of millions of dollars from their monopoly on the pro game I just think it is wrong to to overcharge adults for something that is directly their core stated purpose: promote tennis in the United States.

The Wilson.com and the head voucher. The head voucher is worthless, but the Wilson voucher is good. The wealthy high school is silly. Most wealthy parents that have good high school players don't even play high school tennis.

Thank you for your interest! This was a program that we did for the 2023 and is not continuing for the 2024 year.

form.jotform.com

 

[Moon Shooter]

You must live in a elitist world if you think all high school tennis parents are wealthy. Most were middle class families. I always had kids that needed racquets etc. You just can't make up stuff. find the Wilson code and use it to save $44 on a case of balls. yes, I know for a fact that league coordinators make money for every registration. if you take away the $44, what are spending on tennis annually? one more thing, not everyone wants or needs to play League tennis. I've covered that topic before. I did find in North Carolina, that they are offering to pay the first year USTA or a tournament fee to new players up to age 35 I believe.

I couldn’t find any actual data from a quick google. But yes in my experience the kids playing tennis in the US are from wealthier then average families. I don’t think it is even controversial to say that. The adults are as well, but in my experience the median adult that plays makes less than the median adult whose kid plays. And even if I am wrong it is not like the adult player is making so much more every adult should have to make a donation to these wealthier than average families, just so they can play usta tennis.

If part of the fee went to kids or adults that showed they were poor, then fine I’m in! But that seems to be a very small percent of the free stuff that is given to the parents of tennis players.

 

[Moon Shooter]

The Wilson.com and the head voucher. The head voucher is worthless, but the Wilson voucher is good. The wealthy high school is silly. Most wealthy parents that have good high school players don't even play high school tennis.

Thank you for your interest! This was a program that we did for the 2023 and is not continuing for the 2024 year.

form.jotform.com

lol this voucher is blatant age discrimination. No requirement that you show you are in any finically need. Just if you are older usta is going to charge you more.(edit: technically give you less for the same charge but it is still blatant ageism.)

well also only if you are from a certain part of the country. I would hope this is not being paid by usta national. Why would the national org reimburse certain parts of the country but not others?

 

[silentkman]

lol this voucher is blatant age discrimination. No requirement that you show you are in any finically need. Just if you are older usta is going to charge you more.(edit: technically give you less for the same charge but it is still blatant ageism.)

well also only if you are from a certain part of the country. I would hope this is not being paid by usta national. Why would the national org reimburse certain parts of the country but not others?

it's about introducing people to the game. what other groups offer a zero fee. I'm fine with saving on tennis balls every year with Wilson.com. check your email, if you didn't receive one call the USTA. This is strictly your opinion without any research.

 

[Moon Shooter]

it's about introducing people to the game. what other groups offer a zero fee. I'm fine with saving on tennis balls every year with Wilson.com. check your email, if you didn't receive one call the USTA. This is strictly your opinion without any research.

No it is about giving discounts to adults based on age discrimination. What next? Are you going to show me employment ads by usta that show they are looking to hire someone and if that person is under 40 they get a thousand dollar sign in bonus?

I suggest that usta is overcharging adult rec players for stupid if not malicious reasons. You are just providing more facts that show I am right.

But anyway I don’t think that would be funded by usta national since it is only for that region.

 

[Moon Shooter]

it's about introducing people to the game. what other groups offer a zero fee. I'm fine with saving on tennis balls every year with Wilson.com. check your email, if you didn't receive one call the USTA. This is strictly your opinion without any research.

“If you are a Young Adult living in North Carolina between the ages of 18-35 and are NEW (did not participate in 2021 or 2022) to participating in a USTA League or USTA Sanctioned Tournaments, you may be eligible for reimbursement of your Adult Tournament or League registration fee.”

Nothing about introducing people to the game. They may have been playing tennis since they were 5. The only requirements are you can’t be older than 35 and you need to live in NC.

 

[silentkman]

No it is about giving discounts to adults based on age discrimination. What next? Are you going to show me employment ads by usta that show they are looking to hire someone and if that person is under 40 they get a thousand dollar sign in bonus?

I suggest that usta is overcharging adult rec players for stupid if not malicious reasons. You are just providing more facts that show I am right.

But anyway I don’t think that would be funded by usta national since it is only for that region.

just proves my point, you have zero research. I'm waiting for that list of other groups that charge zero. c'mon employment ads? That has nothing to do with a $44. You have provide no facts. what's next a surcharge on US open tickets to cover your $44. at this point, I'm almost willing to Venmo you $44. Use your $44 voucher from Head and Wilson wisely. additionally you get a shirt from tennis-point. sheesh

 

[cks]

But sometimes when I talk to people who haven’t played in a league this has come up at least twice.

The cost of playing league will come up when trying to recruit new players into USTA league. Not for everyone, but for some having to pay over $100 "to tryout" USTA league can be a hard sell.

I'm in Texas and the fees to play your first USTA league match will be over $100. $44 USTA annual fee + $37 league fee (6-10 team matches) + ($20 ish court/ball fees).

 

[cks]

I got the Wilson code and I can get a case of US Open balls for $75 instead of $120. That's $44 well spent.

I received the Head.com coupon instead of wilson.com. Anyone want to trade? I would rather pickup another case of US Open XD balls for $75 like @silentkman

 

[silentkman]

I received the Head.com coupon instead of wilson.com. Anyone want to trade? I would rather pickup another case of US Open XD balls for $75 like @silentkman

according to the website, you should have received both.

 

[silentkman]

according to the website, you should have received both.

from the USTA website

When you purchase or renew your Adult or Senior USTA Membership, you will receive special online offers for $44 towards tennis gear from both Head and Wilson.

 

[silentkman]

from the USTA website

When you purchase or renew your Adult or Senior USTA Membership, you will receive special online offers for $44 towards tennis gear from both Head and Wilson.

I received the Wilson code on 11/22/2022. it should be in your email.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I couldn’t find any actual data from a quick google. But yes in my experience the kids playing tennis in the US are from wealthier then average families.

If part of the fee went to kids or adults that showed they were poor, then fine I’m in! But that seems to be a very small percent of the free stuff that is given to the parents of tennis players.

Your original statement was "Most of the high school tennis players I know (not all) have very wealthy parents."

Your subsequent statement was "the kids playing tennis in the US are from wealthier then average families."

There's a giant difference between "very wealthy" and "wealthier than average".

Your sample size also changed from "players I know" to "the kids...in the US".

If you live in a wealthy area, likely the kids playing tennis [or any sport] will come from wealthy families. But it's the opposite for a poor area.

 

[penpal]

The hypothetical chart in @schmke's linked blog post seems quite plausible for how gender-neutral leagues would look at different levels, and it's interesting to imagine would the different league levels would be like:

Seems the new "2.5" league would be exactly the same as the current 2.5 women's leagues, although on the @schmke chart it does look like there is a tiny sliver of men - does that mean there are actually a few men who currently receive 2.0C ratings?

The new "3.0" league would also be nearly entirely women. The (current 2.5) men playing in this league would be true hardly-ever-played beginners who perhaps would appreciate having a place to compete where they currently do not.

The new "3.5" league would be about 80% women. This league might have a weird dynamic. The massive number of current 3.5 women include many 3.5-for-lifers who have settled in at this level. Not sure how they'd feel having their party crashed by current 3.0-level men, especially the subgroup of 3.0 men who are athletic beginners who improve quickly.

The new "4.0" league, consisting roughly of current 4.0 women and current 3.5 men, would have a massive pool of available players and be about half/half men and women. This would be an interesting one, and I'm enjoying imagining how the dynamics of such a league could play out. Many teams would have a mix of men and women, but some captains would perhaps choose to create all-men or all-women teams, and there could be some excellent Riggs/King-style grudge matches. Imagine the entertaining response on this message board if an all-woman team made a run to the National title.

The new "4.5" league would be about 25% women, current 4.5 women playing with current 4.0 men. As a 4.0 man I would happily join this league. I've played in level-based clinics that include 4.5 women and it's been nothing but enjoyable. I also don't see why the minority of women who are good enough to reach 4.5 would object to the opportunity to test themselves against a larger pool of players?

The new "5.0" league would basically be the current 4.5 men's league with a few very-good women allowed to join in if they want to. Who would object?

I think you're onto something here. Maybe the best idea is to simply start the gender-neutral ratings at 4.5. That is, everything stays the same where mens and womens leagues are split, and MxD is the same from 3.0-4.0. There are usually enough men/women in a given area that at these levels teams and leagues can be formed.

But above 4.0 you institute a different league system. 4.0 men and 4.5 women can play on teams together in a gender-neutral format, as can 4.5 men and 5.0 women. This broadens the number of available players at those levels and, in theory, could increase participation (which is really what is desired, and is most difficult to achieve the higher the level). And, for the most part, because everyone at these levels are experienced, relatively high-level rec players, the women who choose to participate can feel comfortable that the men with/against whom they are playing aren't going to be overhitting wildly and dangerously.

There might need to be some fiddling with the ratings at this point also, as the .5 difference isn't entirely accurate. But even there, I would probably make a case that the mens ratings can stay as they are and only women who are rated 4.5 or higher might be subject to adjustments.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Every USTA player is assigned a USTA member number. Now lets say USTA not only divided the leagues by male and female but they further divided these leagues for even and odd numbers. So instead of 2 completely separated leagues and rating systems (one for each gender) you would have 4. (One league for even numbered men one league for odd numbered men and one league for even numbered women and a separate league for odd numbered women.)

You would have nationals for odd men and nationals for even men at all these different levels. And even men and women would never play against odd men and women. So larger areas might like it as they would have an increased chance of winning nationals. But how would this effect the league over all? It would certainly drive down the number of players considerably.

How would this effect your current team? Well you would likely lose about half the players and your captain would need to try to find players at your level that have an even or odd usta number. Would this mean fewer teams? Yes of course it would. You just made it harder to form teams. So of course there will be fewer teams at each level. And in some areas that now do not have a 5.0 level they may no longer have a 4.5 level. Others with no 4.5 would find their area no longer has even a 4.0 level. The numbers of teams in each flight would be reduced so the total number of matches would be reduced as well. Fewer matches means less reason to join. So the reductions would happen at all levels.

So anyone that thinks this through can see this would substantially reduce the number of people playing USTA tennis.

Yes it is true that separating by gender is not as arbitrary as by even or odd USTA number. There are good reasons to have gender separated leagues and I am not proposing those end. But there is no question that if they combined ratings and allowed some coed play there would be areas and levels that would have teams that did not have teams and leagues in those levels before. And there would areas where the leagues that have very few teams would have much larger flights of teams.

And combining levels would mean the current mixed doubles situation would not be so wonky.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I'm bumping this thread so FYB's thread on Utah's 4.0 team can focus on what he wants it to focus on.

I was hoping WTN would actually be the solution. Unfortunately it seems USTA is determined to make it the worst rating system in tennis.

 

[Roforot]

I know UTR chooses to overrate women in their analysis starting point. Ive seen posts where a 3.5 woman had the same rating as a strong 4.0 man in utr. But if there is coed play does it reflect after a dozen matches their skill/ability level.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I know UTR chooses to overrate women in their analysis starting point. Ive seen posts where a 3.5 woman had the same rating as a strong 4.0 man in utr. But if there is coed play does it reflect after a dozen matches their skill/ability level.

I don't think UTR overrates women to start. I don't think they give anyone a starting rating before they play their first match. (WTN seems to assign a rating at the start - are you referring to that system?)

The reason UTR may be off for different genders is because, at least in my area, and adult player's UTR is almost exclusively based on USTA matches. And USTA matches have no true coed leagues. The mixed tennis matches always have a mf v mf so it can't sort out the female ratings from the males ratings very well. I think that is why the ratings between men and women may be off. In doubles this would equalize if you had mm v mf, ff v mm, or ff v fm matches. But USTA does not allow that play in league play yet. I also think there is some regional and maybe some age related pockets due to Juniors not playing against adults very often.

 

[atatu]

I'm bumping this thread so FYB's thread on Utah's 4.0 team can focus on what he wants it to focus on.

I was hoping WTN would actually be the solution. Unfortunately it seems USTA is determined to make it the worst rating system in tennis.

Just curious is WTN supposed to be gender neutral ?

 

[schmke]

Just curious is WTN supposed to be gender neutral ?

Yes.

"A single global scale for everyone, regardless of age, gender or ability"

 

[Moon Shooter]

The hypothetical chart in @schmke's linked blog post seems quite plausible for how gender-neutral leagues would look at different levels, and it's interesting to imagine would the different league levels would be like:

Seems the new "2.5" league would be exactly the same as the current 2.5 women's leagues, although on the @schmke chart it does look like there is a tiny sliver of men - does that mean there are actually a few men who currently receive 2.0C ratings?

The new "3.0" league would also be nearly entirely women. The (current 2.5) men playing in this league would be true hardly-ever-played beginners who perhaps would appreciate having a place to compete where they currently do not.

The new "3.5" league would be about 80% women. This league might have a weird dynamic. The massive number of current 3.5 women include many 3.5-for-lifers who have settled in at this level. Not sure how they'd feel having their party crashed by current 3.0-level men, especially the subgroup of 3.0 men who are athletic beginners who improve quickly.

I see this assumption quite a bit. That anyone playing mens 3.0 tennis must be a new and improving player. But that is not always the case and maybe not even the norm. In fact my area has no 18 and over 3.0 league we *only* have a 40 and over 3.0 league. Just like women when guys get older they are not always as good at tennis as when they were younger. So just like you will have guys that used to play 5.0 get older and start playing 4.5 there are also guys who may have been at the top of 3.0 who now lose quite a bit at that level. But there is no lower league for them. I have a guy on my team who played D1 football (is a great athlete) and has been playing tennis for a long time. He is in his seventies and loves playing league and does extremely well for his age. There are guys in their fifties and 60s that have played quite a while and do not play as well as he does. But realistically many these guys are not going to be competitive with a UTR 4.0+ player. Maybe an 18 year old can get a UTR 4.0+ rating in a year but adult players who start tennis late or maybe had some very limited experience and are now picking it up after decades are not going to be in that boat.

So the vast majority of these guys tried USTA leagues and realized USTA offers them very little. Some go to clinics with 3.0 and 2.5 females and they are competitive at that level. So it is not that these guys do not exist. It is just that USTA offers nothing for them.

Wow I actually did find a guy in my area who got a 2.0C rating based on his results in 3.0 men's league. There are no 2.5 men's leagues here, so he had to play in 3.0. He got destroyed by all 3.0 opponents and also lost to other 2.5 guys who were playing in 3.0, which made it mathematically possible to get a 2.0C. He has successfully appealed to 2.5A so he'll be able to play league again this year - otherwise he'd be locked out of playing 3.0.

I suppose there are a handful of guys around the country who experience this, and perhaps there are a lot more of the same ability who would like to compete but don't want to get destroyed in 3.0 year after year. But if there really are a lot of these guys, wouldn't the market dictate 2.5 men's leagues being more common?

There is no "market." USTA is a semi government agency that makes the vast majority of its income from its monopoly on US professional tennis rights. USTA adult rec tennis is a button they like to wear to *show* how much they care about tennis in America. But they are much more interested in their real estate investments then they are in "LOL adult rec tennis." If anyone wanted to try to run a league USTA would step in and try to prevent it just like they are not exactly being helpful to UTR. But that is because they don't want anyone to take their button. If they actually cared about tennis they would encourage and help foster all sorts of different leagues to try to take root.

It would be great if USTA off loaded their adult rec tennis league to a completely separate corporation that ran it like a business. Then it would be sensitive to the market. But now it is just a tiny side job that gives the world the impression they really care about tennis in the USA instead of their own special interests.

 

[cks]

In fact my area has no 18 and over 3.0 league we *only* have a 40 and over 3.0 league.

Interesting. In my area, the men's 3.0 and 3.5 teams are mostly made up of players over 40. And they field teams for both 40+ and 18+. I've got 1 guy on my 3.5 team that is under 40 now, and has to sit out for the 40+ season.

 

[J_R_B]

Can someone lock this thread please? This is one of Moony dumbest arguments of all (which is saying quite a bit), and I think it makes everyone here dumber every time it's bumped.

 

[mpnv1990]

Wow I actually did find a guy in my area who got a 2.0C rating based on his results in 3.0 men's league. There are no 2.5 men's leagues here, so he had to play in 3.0. He got destroyed by all 3.0 opponents and also lost to other 2.5 guys who were playing in 3.0, which made it mathematically possible to get a 2.0C. He has successfully appealed to 2.5A so he'll be able to play league again this year - otherwise he'd be locked out of playing 3.0.

I suppose there are a handful of guys around the country who experience this, and perhaps there are a lot more of the same ability who would like to compete but don't want to get destroyed in 3.0 year after year. But if there really are a lot of these guys, wouldn't the market dictate 2.5 men's leagues being more common?

In Las Vegas, there are probably enough men to form a men’s 2.5 league.

 

[TennisOTM]

There is no "market." USTA is a semi government agency that makes the vast majority of its income from its monopoly on US professional tennis rights. USTA adult rec tennis is a button they like to wear to *show* how much they care about tennis in America. But they are much more interested in their real estate investments then they are in "LOL adult rec tennis." If anyone wanted to try to run a league USTA would step in and try to prevent it just like they are not exactly being helpful to UTR. But that is because they don't want anyone to take their button. If they actually cared about tennis they would encourage and help foster all sorts of different leagues to try to take root.

It would be great if USTA off loaded their adult rec tennis league to a completely separate corporation that ran it like a business. Then it would be sensitive to the market. But now it is just a tiny side job that gives the world the impression they really care about tennis in the USA instead of their own special interests.

Perhaps I should not have used the word "market" - apologies for the trigger word, haha. All I know is that in my area, the local league coordinators are pretty responsive when players ask for new types of leagues.

For example, they have been experimenting with offering 18-39 leagues during the summer for several years now, because there had only been leagues for 40+ players during those months and the 18-39 group wanted an option too. They have tried different formats that didn't work, until this year they seem to have found one that is popular: an 18-39 tri-level league.

Another example is 18+ 5.0 male leagues, which did not exist here for several years until this year enough interest emerged to offer one, and they are using a non-standard format that apparently the new captains wanted.

We do not have 2.5 leagues for men. Given the responsiveness I have seen from our local coordinators, I can only assume that is because not enough players exist or have asked for one.

 

[ChaelAZ]

MAGA doesn't approve this! Keep it He/She, Him/Her and no They/them ratings! These liberal tennis rules are poising the blood of AMERICA!

 

[ChaelAZ]

I've said a bunch of times, I play with all players no matter gender or age, so I don't care about ratings. But just go through any "women's pay" or other ilk type thread and you will see a bunch of fragile guys who wouldn't survive being beat by a woman/girl. I just don't think it will happen really.

 

[Roforot]

In our co-ed clinic there are some women who are better than me and hit the ball harder. I like when they play and I feel comfortable practicing something like going at them when they are at net. If I can beat them at the net, I know I'm getting better.

I don't think I've ever seen a 2.5 division in a tournament, but at the last tournament there were 2 fellows playing up at 3.0... Unfortunately, the roving ref kept calling foot faults... poor guys were just trying to get the point going. Maybe they were too embarassed to ask why they were getting a foot fault or how to correct it? I met a 3.0 who said he had played in a2.5 league so I guess that does exist. But I don't know of anyone who used to be a 3.5 or 3.0 and has slowed down to 2.5. I think here most people just stop playing competitively once they drop below 3.0.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I've said a bunch of times, I play with all players no matter gender or age, so I don't care about ratings. But just go through any "women's pay" or other ilk type thread and you will see a bunch of fragile guys who wouldn't survive being beat by a woman/girl. I just don't think it will happen really.

I think you may be right. I never really thought of tennis as a test of masculinity. But I was playing in a tournament with a guy who is a good friend and before a match against two women I said I don’t think we will win. We ended up winning. And he sort of admitted he really didn’t want to lose to two women. He is not anti women or in any way like that. I guess it is a thing for some guys though.

I think I have just been in competitive sports when I was younger. I’m just not going to get too worked up now over rec tennis.

In our co-ed clinic there are some women who are better than me and hit the ball harder. I like when they play and I feel comfortable practicing something like going at them when they are at net. If I can beat them at the net, I know I'm getting better.

I don't think I've ever seen a 2.5 division in a tournament, but at the last tournament there were 2 fellows playing up at 3.0... Unfortunately, the roving ref kept calling foot faults... poor guys were just trying to get the point going. Maybe they were too embarassed to ask why they were getting a foot fault or how to correct it? I met a 3.0 who said he had played in a2.5 league so I guess that does exist. But I don't know of anyone who used to be a 3.5 or 3.0 and has slowed down to 2.5. I think here most people just stop playing competitively once they drop below 3.0.

The guys who play mixed exclusive doubles as 2.5 players are usually pretty strong 3.0 players. But by the time someone is about to drop to 2.5 after being in a 3.0 leagues they are well to a point where 0-6 0-6 is more likely then not against upper 3.0 players. There are no leagues for them so they stop playing.

 

[TennisOTM]

But by the time someone is about to drop to 2.5 after being in a 3.0 leagues they are well to a point where 0-6 0-6 is more likely then not against upper 3.0 players. There are no leagues for them so they stop playing.

I looked for potential examples of this happening in my area. I took 2023 3.0 men's league players and found all the guys who got 2.5C ratings at year end. There were 28 of them out of nearly 400 players.

Of the 28, 16 have continued playing in 2024, ranging from 3 to 23 matches played so far.

So perhaps the other 12 decided to quit playing (though there is still time). Maybe they would still be playing if there was a men's 2.5 league available. One observation though is that some of these 12 guys did so badly in 3.0 leagues that they were getting crushed by all 3.0's, not just the higher-end ones. Their ratings suggest that if 2.5 men's leagues existed they would be average or below average in those leagues as well. The "higher-end" 2.5C guys have a reasonably good experience playing in 3.0, not a great W/L record obviously but they have mostly good matches and get some wins.

Another observation is that the 2.5C guys who want to keep playing in 3.0 have no problem getting playing time - one of them has managed to play 23 league matches already this year.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I looked for potential examples of this happening in my area. I took 2023 3.0 men's league players and found all the guys who got 2.5C ratings at year end. There were 28 of them out of nearly 400 players.

Of the 28, 16 have continued playing in 2024, ranging from 3 to 23 matches played so far.

Interesting data. So you have almost 400 3.0 players in your area? Are the 2.5 players getting played in 3.0 leagues or in mixed doubles or some other combos. Almost half stopped playing altogether. I’m sure the guys the 12 play with and are competitive with, are not inclined to join usta.

So perhaps the other 12 decided to quit playing (though there is still time). Maybe they would still be playing if there was a men's 2.5 league available. One observation though is that some of these 12 guys did so badly in 3.0 leagues that they were getting crushed by all 3.0's, not just the higher-end ones. Their ratings suggest that if 2.5 men's leagues existed they would be average or below average in those leagues as well. The "higher-end" 2.5C guys have a reasonably good experience playing in 3.0, not a great W/L record obviously but they have mostly good matches and get some wins.

A bottom level 2.5 doubles pair would be expected to lose to a *bottom* 3.0 pair 6-0 6-0. So yes of course some of the 2.5 men will get crushed by mid level 3.0. Just like some 3.5 players will get crushed by some mid level 4.0 players. I’m curious, have you ever played in a men’s 3.0 league?

Another observation is that the 2.5C guys who want to keep playing in 3.0 have no problem getting playing time - one of them has managed to play 23 league matches already this year.

So you look at 28 players who played last year. 12 are not on any teams now - perhaps they weren’t asked but who knows. Right there is that a typical drop rate? Do 3/7s of players usually not play the next year after they played the current year?

But *one* of the 28 played 23 league matches. So you conclude based on that one guy that they all have no problem getting playing time? 23 matches is a decent number but it is also not huge. If someone at the upper end of their rating level wanted to have double that number of matches in an area like yours they pretty easily could. I live in a area where all but one 3.0 over 40 within 1.5 hours is on my team (12 total) and we played one other 3.0 40 and over team which is 2.5 hours away. And I played 30 matches this year.

Being an upper level 2.5 can be helpful for mixed doubles 6.0 team. Some guys sandbag their adult rating just so they can lock in mixed doubles for a few years.

 

[Roforot]

Are you suggesting that if there were a coed division where a 2.5 man could play with or against a 3.0 woman, we would have more participation ?

I fear people may not like the status of playing 2.5, but if you called it 3.0 coed that may soothe egos?

 

[Moon Shooter]

Are you suggesting that if there were a coed division where a 2.5 man could play with or against a 3.0 woman, we would have more participation ?

I fear people may not like the status of playing 2.5, but if you called it 3.0 coed that may soothe egos?

WTN was supposed to be the answer. But it seems like a disaster and they made it even worse by some artificial reshuffling they did a few years ago. WTN is unlikely to be a solution for adult rec tennis because it ignores game scores and only looks at set scores. So 7-6 7-6 counts the same as 6-0 6-0.

If we did this to ntrp I would give all the men the ratings the women get at the same skill level and add some levels at the upper end. So most 3.0 men would be 3.5 on the new scale. A few at the bottom would stay 3.0 and a few at the top would be 4.0.

I believe this chart likely accurately shows the relationship.

http://www.kimgranttennis.com/uploads/3/1/3/5/31353957/utr-player-range-page-001_3.jpg

But if usta has better data they could use that. This way the women would not have their rating suddenly go down.

 

[onehandbh]

I've said a bunch of times, I play with all players no matter gender or age, so I don't care about ratings. But just go through any "women's pay" or other ilk type thread and you will see a bunch of fragile guys who wouldn't survive being beat by a woman/girl. I just don't think it will happen really.

Imagine what would happen if a macho-MAGA-man lost a match against a trans using pusher tactics.