Golden Set Difficulty

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
..er..... I"m a bad 4.0. Most 3.5's are low pace moonballers with patty cake serves, at least those I can beat without losing more than one handful of points.
I already mentioned the big hitter 3.5's, who can easily win 2 points a game against me, and they often solicit another point a game off me just by intimidation. So those guys, I cannot ever beat a golden set into them.

Well your world is different than mine. I don't really see low pace moonballers except if I'm playing women. Most guys I play in the 3.5 range will try for shots and make a few several times a set. Hell even the pusher types will get a really good lob that I'll smash into the net or miss long with.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
I don't get it!
Don't you guys READ my posts?
I said "MOST 3.5's are low pace....."
And then I also say the 3.5's who hit hard, who go for their shots, those guys I CANNOT win a golden set against.
What, you all have selective memory and comprehension disorders?
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
I don't get it!
Don't you guys READ my posts?
I said "MOST 3.5's are low pace....."
And then I also say the 3.5's who hit hard, who go for their shots, those guys I CANNOT win a golden set against.
What, you all have selective memory and comprehension disorders?

Your argument just doesn't make sense. It's a shame you don't realize it. Most 3.5s are not moonballers.

3.5 is the most populous level in usta league play and tends to be where players start playing aggressive tennis.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Sounds like you have lots to work on regarding reading COMPREHENSION and selective memory.
YOU say "most 3.5's are not moonballers" because YOU yourself is a 3.5.
I say, "most 3.5's are dink softballers, while SOME can hit as hard as 4.5's, but miss a lot". I mentioned both already, so I covered both sides of the story.
To YOU, a 3.5 can hit a big ball. TO ME, while some indeed can hit harder than me, at least 70% of 3.5 's dink and softballers.
Why the difference in perception? Because while I"m just a bad 4.0, I spend some time hitting with 5.0+ players, and THEY really hit the ball hard.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Unless someone is such a dinkballer that you stand 3 feet inside the baseline, eventually one of those 3.5's is going to hit a frame or a net cord and drop one just over the net to the surprise of all. Winning points comes in such funny ways through a two set match that its statistically improbable to golden set a 3.5 male unless you are 5.0 or higher. That's over 100 shots where one person never makes an error and the other person never gets a lucky winner.

I see net cord winners at least 3 times a match when I play, sometimes even 6 or 7 times. I see 4.5's net an easy ball or two or DF once in a while even against inferior opponents.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
No chance 3+ netcords in one set, unless you mean it happened ONCE in 100 sets.
Several of us already said we managed Golden Sets against lower level soft hitting players. Throw your statistics out the window! I've done it 2 out of 3 sets against Marc, one of the San Pablo old fart 3.5 singles guys. He's old and slow, maybe 4 year's older than me. He starts each game at 40- love, and none of the games got past ONE duece point.
Is he a 3.0? Possibly, but he does play singles against several of the old 3.5's at the courts, and he's at least even with all of them. Those old 3.5's can get points off me in doubles, by hitting good deep shots and getting an error from my part.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
@S&V-not_dead_yet do you still think this thread isn't just trying to make people feel better about themselves?

When you made your original comment, you did not single anyone out. You generalized it to everybody on the thread and that's what I disagreed with. Now that you call out a specific example, I have something concrete to respond to: I also disagree with LeeD's statement that "Most 3.5's are low pace moonballers with patty cake serves.": that doesn't line up with the reality I know.

But, as LeeD pointed out, his perspective might be different from mine. And the comparison is relative: I don't hit that hard either so maybe the 3.5s I observe are moon balling in LeeD's eyes but not in mine.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
1. I am NOT a good player, but good enough to get to hit with 5.5's and Open level player's when their buddies don't show up.
2. You've all seen Shroud hit. We've had easy 10 ball rallies, some 20, but most around 10. I hit lower with less spin, he hit's more spin and higher net clearance.
3. His main hitting partner, Papa Mango, beats both of us, but by different means. Shroud loses to Papa because he can't sustain enough shots to win enough points. I lose to Papa, and he will be the first to agree, because Papa is incredibly quick, being 27 year's younger than me, and he hits incredible highlight worthy passing shots on a full run on the backhand side over and over. And he has to come up with these 4.5 level shots over and over, because I"ll approach net position with shots landing very deep NML, but it doesn't seem to faze him. Yes, I go to his forehand too, but his topspin low dipper is very consistent, forcing me to hit much better than 4.0 low and half volleys to win a point against him.
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
If you're a bad 4.0 then you're going to have at least one return of serve error. You've gotta be trolling LeeD. Are there outlier 3.5s that you could golden set? I'm sure there's gotta be one or two out of the tens of thousands of 3.5s out there if everything goes your way.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Already mentioned, I did it twice out of 3 sets, giving Marc a 40- love lead each game. That's 66%.
Hard to stretch the truth, that's what happenned, and I assure you, Marc will not challenge me again.
Why do you think all bad 4.0s are going to miss a ROS, or any shot? Some will, but some won't. Didn't you see all the guys who posted 100 shot rallies? Have you ever heard of a slice ROS?
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
No chance 3+ netcords in one set, unless you mean it happened ONCE in 100 sets.
Several of us already said we managed Golden Sets against lower level soft hitting players. Throw your statistics out the window! I've done it 2 out of 3 sets against Marc, one of the San Pablo old fart 3.5 singles guys. He's old and slow, maybe 4 year's older than me. He starts each game at 40- love, and none of the games got past ONE duece point.
Is he a 3.0? Possibly, but he does play singles against several of the old 3.5's at the courts, and he's at least even with all of them. Those old 3.5's can get points off me in doubles, by hitting good deep shots and getting an error from my part.

Just played today and there were 3 net cord winners in 2 sets. One by me and two by my opponent including a ball that was clearly heading out, hit the net cord and ricochet'd back onto the line for a cheesy game winner. Would have likely seen more but my opponent had real problems with my serve and so we didn't get into very many rallies. On clay we usually get more net cords.

I also counted 3 frame shot winners by myself.

Again playing at a pretty much 3.5 level. I can easily get a few points off the 4.0 and 4.5 players I've played.

Anyways if you are giving a player a 40-0 advantage and winning with two golden sets, your opponent is no where near a 3.5. That's like playing a 2.5 or very low 3.0. My father's slow as molasses at age 75 and USTA ranked 3.5 in men's doubles. He would likely beat any old fogey 4.0 who gave him 40-0 leads.
 

Big_Dangerous

Talk Tennis Guru
I have never given nor been given a golden set, but a 4.5 Male vs a 3.0 Female (well you said 3.0/3.5) seems as if a golden set would not be too difficult.

I've beaten people 6-0 before, but a golden set is ridiculously difficult, even when playing someone well below your level. You're bound to make an error either double faulting, or hitting a shot long trying to go for a winner. It's not easy to lose 0 points in an entire set.
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
No one is claiming that a golden set at any level is likely. It is extremely difficult and unlikely but they do occur. I have played many, many, many sets of tennis and rounds of golf. I have had 1 golden set and 1 hole in one. That is a very, very, very low percentage but they happened.

Even at the pro level, there have been 4 golden sets in the last 4 years. One of them was against Sara Errani, a top 10 player, at 2012 Wimbledon. So at our hacker 3.0 - 5.0 levels, they happen more frequently.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
No one is claiming that a golden set at any level is likely. It is extremely difficult and unlikely but they do occur. I have played many, many, many sets of tennis and rounds of golf. I have had 1 golden set and 1 hole in one. That is a very, very, very low percentage but they happened.

Even at the pro level, there have been 4 golden sets in the last 4 years. One of them was against Sara Errani, a top 10 player, at 2012 Wimbledon. So at our hacker 3.0 - 5.0 levels, they happen more frequently.

The one against Errani was only the second one ever in professional tennis.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
No one is claiming that a golden set at any level is likely. It is extremely difficult and unlikely but they do occur. I have played many, many, many sets of tennis and rounds of golf. I have had 1 golden set and 1 hole in one. That is a very, very, very low percentage but they happened.

Even at the pro level, there have been 4 golden sets in the last 4 years. One of them was against Sara Errani, a top 10 player, at 2012 Wimbledon. So at our hacker 3.0 - 5.0 levels, they happen more frequently.

I think someone is claiming to have done two Golden Sets in one match as a 4.0 against a 3.5. That statistical probablility must reach Powerball proportions.
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
The one against Errani was only the second one ever in professional tennis.
According to Wikipedia, there have been 7 golden sets at the pro level. Some of them in the pro Qualifying rounds.

History[edit]
Only three men and four women in the history of top-tier professional tour tennis are known to have achieved a golden set.
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
I think someone is claiming to have done two Golden Sets in one match as a 4.0 against a 3.5. That statistical probablility must reach Powerball proportions.
Probability of 2 golden sets in 1 match = Probability of getting struck by lightning on the way to claiming Powerball winnings
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
BTW Shvedova the player who golden setted Errani was also 1 point away from golden setting another player but double faulted at 5-0, 40-0. DOH!!!
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Well, there are at least 4 guys who post here who also play at San Pablo Park. They can check out Marc's tennis skills on any MWF morning around 9AM when he play's singles against some of the old fart 3.5's. He's at least equal to the old farts who do play singles. His weekly singles opponent is a guy named Robert, and he's played Norm and a few other guys in singles. Robert has a real slice serve, and I don't think I can beat him with him getting less than 5 total points a game.
I didn't say I could be EVERY 3.5 a golden set, I named the ONE player I did beat 2 out of 3, giving him 40- love leads.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Well, there are at least 4 guys who post here who also play at San Pablo Park. They can check out Marc's tennis skills on any MWF morning around 9AM when he play's singles against some of the old fart 3.5's. He's at least equal to the old farts who do play singles. His weekly singles opponent is a guy named Robert, and he's played Norm and a few other guys in singles. Robert has a real slice serve, and I don't think I can beat him with him getting less than 5 total points a game.
I didn't say I could be EVERY 3.5 a golden set, I named the ONE player I did beat 2 out of 3, giving him 40- love leads.

Well like many outrageous claims on the Internet: "pics or it didn't happen"

I'm still not buying it. A low 4.0 "can't run more than 3 steps" golden setting a 3.5 player twice in one match. Something's amiss.
 
Top