How to determine NTRP rating

D

DAWRTAJACI

New User
I know there is a guidline for this. But, Is there someone who can really tell you what your rating is? I'm planning to play in my first tournament and I don't know if I should play 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0. I have a pretty consistent backhand and forehand. I can serve, I can volley on both sides but having difficulty on placement. I'm not a member of a tennis club or something like that. I just have a consistent hitting partners that I play with every week.

I just want to experience how to play in a tournament but I'm afraid of playing on a higher level that I'm supposed to.

Thanks,
 
I think the best way to determine one's rating is to play some tournaments and see what your results are. For example, if you enter some 4.0 tournaments and lose in the first round every time, you are probably lower than a 4.0. But if you enter a 3.5 tournament and win the tournament easily, you're probably rated higher than a 3.5.
 
If you self rate at 4.0 and you find you've overestimated your abilities you'll be stuck with it at least till November when the end of year ratings come out.

My advice fwiw:
Play it safe at 3.5 for now. If you find too little competition in the your first tournament, play up a level in the next one. But be honest with yourself. If you're smoking your opponents at the lower level, start playing at the higher one.
If a self-rater wins about 50% of their matches at their level...they probably did a good job at self-rating.
 
DAWRTAJACI said:
I'm planning to play in my first tournament and I don't know if I should play 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0. I just have a consistent hitting partners that I play with every week.
Click to expand...

If you can hit your serve in consistently, I would start at 3.5.
It's going to be very different in a tournament, as you will hit with different people that you're used to and you might be a bit nervous as well.
 
Rate yourself 3.0 and then you can play any level you want. If you have never played a USTA tournament or league match I think it is wise to rate yourself as low as you can. You may find 3.5 is to much for you initially. If you have no trouble at 3.0 or 3.5 then you can always play up. Playing with the same people every week for fun and playing in a tournament are two different things. Besides, if you self rate at 3.0 and play in a 3.5 tournament your opponents may look up your record, see you are a 3.0 (albeit self rated) player and perhaps not take you seriously enough when you play.
 
Mark Jensen said:
If you self rate at 4.0 and you find you've overestimated your abilities you'll be stuck with it at least till November when the end of year ratings come out.

My advice fwiw:
Play it safe at 3.5 for now. If you find too little competition in the your first tournament, play up a level in the next one. But be honest with yourself. If you're smoking your opponents at the lower level, start playing at the higher one.
If a self-rater wins about 50% of their matches at their level...they probably did a good job at self-rating.
Click to expand...

You actually don't have to self rate yourself as anything your first year of tourney play. You can pretty much sign up for anything and move between levels without penalty as long as you are not playing USTA leagues. I know somebody who played Open, 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 in his first year of tourney play without a self rating. I was able to sign up for any level till I got my first year end rating.
 
^^^^No kidding? Is that right? Interesting.
So you're saying someone can just sign up as a USTA member and then can play whatever sanctioned tourneys they wish at any NTRP level till the year-end ratings are published?
Hmmm.
In the Southern Section, we're not counting tournament data in dNTRP calculations...I wonder what will happen to a strictly tournament-playing self-rater at year end.

Thanks for the info Goob'
 
goober said:
You actually don't have to self rate yourself as anything your first year of tourney play. You can pretty much sign up for anything and move between levels without penalty as long as you are not playing USTA leagues. I know somebody who played Open, 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 in his first year of tourney play without a self rating. I was able to sign up for any level till I got my first year end rating.
Click to expand...

Goob, I'm not sure on this. When you sign up online for the tourney using your USTA #, your rating is also pulled up. I'm not completely sure the computer would allow you to play anywhere but Open without some type of rating. But I don't know for sure. I do know that one big tournament here made a couple of non-rated players be unofficially rated by the tournament director to verify they were what they claimed. But it is an interesting point that I hope to invistigate a little more.
 
tennis-n-sc said:
Goob, I'm not sure on this. When you sign up online for the tourney using your USTA #, your rating is also pulled up. I'm not completely sure the computer would allow you to play anywhere but Open without some type of rating. But I don't know for sure. I do know that one big tournament here made a couple of non-rated players be unofficially rated by the tournament director to verify they were what they claimed. But it is an interesting point that I hope to invistigate a little more.
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you my experience and several others I know. I never had to self rate my first year. I never had to go through the self rating process like you do for league tennis so I don't know how the computer would bring up my rating. In fact I remember my rating was actually listed as 0.0 my first year of tourney play. When I entered my USTA number I was allowed to sign up for every mens division from 3.0 to Open.
 
Florida is the same way. Plenty of people playing tournaments with no NTRP ratings. They show up in TennisLink as "Not Rated".

Here's a link to a guy I played in the first round of my last tourney:

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=I&MemberID=DB00D9736FE0DCF2B5847B5AD9582F6E5D8C&CYear=2007

After the end of the year they get assigned a tournament exclusive rating of "T" if they didn't participate in league play. Some here reported receiving a "T" rating if they had a significant amount of tournament play compared to league play.
 
Caswell said:
Florida is the same way. Plenty of people playing tournaments with no NTRP ratings. They show up in TennisLink as "Not Rated".

Here's a link to a guy I played in the first round of my last tourney:

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=I&MemberID=DB00D9736FE0DCF2B5847B5AD9582F6E5D8C&CYear=2007

After the end of the year they get assigned a tournament exclusive rating of "T" if they didn't participate in league play. Some here reported receiving a "T" rating if they had a significant amount of tournament play compared to league play.
Click to expand...

I've posed the question to our sectional office. I'll let you know when and if I ever get an answer. I just don't know. And now tournaments do not count toward NTRP ratings, do they?
 
Who knows. I've read about certain sections taking them out completely (Texas?), but I'm not sure they really counted in the first place.

From my experience, it seems that the results have different weights, with league championship play counting the most, then regular league play, then tournament play.

I've given up trying to figure out how it all works.

EDIT: With regards to unrated players in tournaments, it's also worth nothing that guys I've played against have amassed an entire year's worth of tournament play without having a rating assigned. Makes me 99.9% sure that tournament results have no impact on dynamic NTRP, and that if they're factored in it's only at the end of the year. How else would you explain last year's #1 3.5 tournament player in the Florida section going as "Not Rated" until he was assigned a "T" rating at the end of the year?

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=I&MemberID=DB00780699901D7BD2E03D4A59482FAE9D4CF3F2E1&CYear=2006
 
Last edited:
Well, here's the reply I received from our sectional office. LOL. There is no answer here, not surprisingly.

The USTA rules imply that unrated players can enter any open or age diviision level but frm what you guys are saying, it pretty much is up to the tournament director and I have no doubt you are correct.


"Hi Gary, players can usually enter tournaments by selecting an NTRP level or age division. I see you are in SC and tournaments would be governed by your state, so check out www.sctennis.com to see if they have any other info. (In most cases, if you have a computer rating, you cannot play lower but if you don't have a computer rating, you typically can self rate in your first tournament.) Age divisions separate players by age (40 means you have to be at least 40 or turning 40 this year to participate."
 
I was thinking about this last night. How much do you think the sandbagging at the national levels has trickled down to the rest of the ratings?

It's obvious that league results have much more impact on NTRP than any other type of play, so it only makes sense to me that if you've got a guys playing above level at a national level that it's going to depress the ratings that they serve as a benchmark for.

I don't have enough league play experience (two springs, one fall) to tell, but are the 4.0's of today better than the 4.0's of 10 years ago?
 
Caswell said:
I don't have enough league play experience (two springs, one fall) to tell, but are the 4.0's of today better than the 4.0's of 10 years ago?
Click to expand...

I am a person returning from a long layoff. I can unequivocally say that sandbagging is a far bigger problem now than in 1990.

At that time, a 4.5 was maybe a 4.5 to 4.8 (my own unscientific guess) and the occasional 5.0 (this was the player everyone complained about). A 4.0 was no higher than a 4.2ish and very rarely would a 4.5 be mixed in. 3.0 and 3.5 teams were laughably bad. I return to the game and I see 3.5s that would have been very good 4.5 team players in 1990.

I cannot answer your question as to 10 years ago, but 15 to 17 years ago, the sandbagging was not nearly as severe. On the positive side, most of the players and captains seem to get along better than at that time.
 
Caswell said:
I was thinking about this last night. How much do you think the sandbagging at the national levels has trickled down to the rest of the ratings?

It's obvious that league results have much more impact on NTRP than any other type of play, so it only makes sense to me that if you've got a guys playing above level at a national level that it's going to depress the ratings that they serve as a benchmark for.

I don't have enough league play experience (two springs, one fall) to tell, but are the 4.0's of today better than the 4.0's of 10 years ago?
Click to expand...

Not to be funny, but I've seen 3.5's today better than the 4.0's of 10 years ago. It may be time to consider dividing the current NTRP's into smaller divisions, as has been suggested by some on this board. Have a 3.0, 3.25, 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.25, etc. The difference in talent and ability between the worst 4.0 player and the best 4.0 player is huge. I think this creates somewhat an illusion of sandbagging, not that sandbagging isn't going on. I just monitored the 3.5 local league playoff between four teams to determine the league rep to the state tournament. The difference in this group was large. One team was complaining about a singles player that was sandbagging and had also played 4.0 league and won most of his matches at 4.0. Guess what, he got smoked in the finals 2 and 1 and the "smoker" is a computer rated 3.5.
 
tennis-n-sc said:
Not to be funny, but I've seen 3.5's today better than the 4.0's of 10 years ago. It may be time to consider dividing the current NTRP's into smaller divisions, as has been suggested by some on this board. Have a 3.0, 3.25, 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.25, etc. The difference in talent and ability between the worst 4.0 player and the best 4.0 player is huge. I think this creates somewhat an illusion of sandbagging, not that sandbagging isn't going on. ....
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. One thing that the current divisions can do is make for uninteresting league play -- the top of level will pretty much always beat the bottom. You often know which group will win when you see the rosters. Certain teams can go through league without losing a set ... and not meet any competition until playoffs. That's not really good. It isn't good for the teams who have no hope, and it isn't good for the teams who have to go into playoffs without being battle tested.

I should say I'm talking bona fide computer-rated women's teams here, since men have the bigger problem with sandbagging.

You could have a superb 4.25 league around here. It would make the 3.75s happy, too. I guess that's one idea behind the .5 combo leagues ... but that still breaks down into .5 divisions instead of .25.
 
tennis-n-sc said:
Not to be funny, but I've seen 3.5's today better than the 4.0's of 10 years ago. It may be time to consider dividing the current NTRP's into smaller divisions, as has been suggested by some on this board. Have a 3.0, 3.25, 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.25, etc.
Click to expand...

Unrealistic-

There are many cites which would not have enough people to do this proposal and are struggling just to fill out enough teams for the standard levels. I live in the 5th largest city in the US with plenty of tennis players and good weather year round. The 3.0 Mens league has 2 teams and the 4.5 men's has 3 teams. The 3.5 and 4.0 are the most populated but there is no way additional 3.25/3.75/4.25 leagues would ever have enough teams. USTA league tennis is just not very popular. In fact I would say the vast majority of players I know 3.5-4.5 don't play and have no interest in it.
 
goober said:
Unrealistic-

There are many cites which would not have enough people to do this proposal and are struggling just to fill out enough teams for the standard levels. I live in the 5th largest city in the US with plenty of tennis players and good weather year round. The 3.0 Mens league has 2 teams and the 4.5 men's has 3 teams. The 3.5 and 4.0 are the most populated but there is no way additional 3.25/3.75/4.25 leagues would ever have enough teams. USTA league tennis is just not very popular. In fact I would say the vast majority of players I know 3.5-4.5 don't play and have no interest in it.
Click to expand...

Just because your area doesn't have USTA participation doesn't mean others couldn't benefit from some further stratification. Make it optional. Have a playoff at the end of the year if the lower teams want a chance to go to Sectionals. Their winner could play the winner of the higher quarter.

In Denver, for example, there are 53 men's and 122 women's 3.0 teams. Even at 4.5 there are 29 men's and 11 women's teams.

At 3.5, there are 79 men's and 144 women's teams; at 4.0, it's 62 men's and 44 women's teams.

It's definitely realistic here.
 
SB said:
Just because your area doesn't have USTA participation doesn't mean others couldn't benefit from some further stratification. Make it optional. Have a playoff at the end of the year if the lower teams want a chance to go to Sectionals. Their winner could play the winner of the higher quarter.

In Denver, for example, there are 53 men's and 122 women's 3.0 teams. Even at 4.5 there are 29 men's and 11 women's teams.

At 3.5, there are 79 men's and 144 women's teams; at 4.0, it's 62 men's and 44 women's teams.

It's definitely realistic here.
Click to expand...

Just a hypothetical question-

If you have that many teams, would there really be a need for .25 and .75 divisions? Sure there may be some dominant teams and if you are a lower level team you will take an occasional thumping. But with that many teams I actually think that the vast majority of matches would be competitive or semi-competitive. Is the point of league play to eliminate beatdowns?
 
I do think every level has become more competetive over the past few years. I have a bunch of friends who went to 4.5 nationals back in the day. They're all a lot older now, but I don't think they were ever at the level of the 4.5s I saw at the GA state tourney last weekend. If you want to go to sectionals at 4.0, you need several 4.5s and at least one 5.0 singles player.

To figure out your level, all you need to do is play some people who know what level they are. Some people have great strokes, but don't know how to win matches. There are big servers who get stuck at 3.5 because that's all they can do. There are pushers who get bumped up to 4.5. Don't pay attention to the 1-pager about the levels and what shots they can hit. Results determine your level.
 
goober said:
Just a hypothetical question-

If you have that many teams, would there really be a need for .25 and .75 divisions? Sure there may be some dominant teams and if you are a lower level team you will take an occasional thumping. But with that many teams I actually think that the vast majority of matches would be competitive or semi-competitive. Is the point of league play to eliminate beatdowns?
Click to expand...

Yes, the point of league play is to eliminate beatdowns. Otherwise everyone would just play each other. Former college players against suburban moms just picking up the sport, etc.

In my experience, no, the matches aren't really competitive. The same group of players win and advance to playoffs every year. By group, I mean about 30 players who mix and match on different teams. My mother has played USTA for 15 years and never even sniffed playoffs. She's not been moved up or down.

When I was 4.0, I went to playoffs all the time. I didn't move up until I played up, exclusively. If you like going to playoffs, just don't play up; as long as you don't win at Nationals, you won't move up. It seems silly.
 
SB said:
Yes, the point of league play is to eliminate beatdowns. Otherwise everyone would just play each other. Former college players against suburban moms just picking up the sport, etc.

In my experience, no, the matches aren't really competitive. The same group of players win and advance to playoffs every year. By group, I mean about 30 players who mix and match on different teams. My mother has played USTA for 15 years and never even sniffed playoffs. She's not been moved up or down.

When I was 4.0, I went to playoffs all the time. I didn't move up until I played up, exclusively. If you like going to playoffs, just don't play up; as long as you don't win at Nationals, you won't move up. It seems silly.
Click to expand...

I don't think the point of league play is to eliminate beatdowns. Of course I am not advocating beginners play against former college players. I think that broad categories (advanced/ intermediate/beginner) rather ever finer gradations of ability would be fine with me. Getting beat soundly on a semi-regular basis could be a good thing and a good learning tool. If your mother's teams never sniffed the playoffs in 15 years, that tells me that her team doesn't place a high value on winning over other issues- such as social, having fun, ect. I say good for her. If a captain was intent on going to playoffs it would be not that difficult to put together a team that could do so.

Some of the more successful leagues which are nonUSTA around here have no playoffs to get to sectionals/Nationals. If a team wins a league at a certain level the whole team is moved up together. Teams that finish in last place can be moved down. Guess what there is almost no sandbagging. People if anything are trying to play up because they want to face better competition. I have yet to see any of the usual USTA league stuff like throwing matches, tanking, bringing in ringers, trying to manipulate computer ratings. I think the USTA league system is messed up which is why it is one of the least popular options around here.
 
goober said:
I don't think the point of league play is to eliminate beatdowns. Of course I am not advocating beginners play against former college players. I think that broad categories (advanced/ intermediate/beginner) rather ever finer gradations of ability would be fine with me. Getting beat soundly on a semi-regular basis could be a good thing and a good learning tool. If your mother's teams never sniffed the playoffs in 15 years, that tells me that her team doesn't place a high value on winning over other issues- such as social, having fun, ect. I say good for her. If a captain was intent on going to playoffs it would be not that difficult to put together a team that could do so.

Some of the more successful leagues which are nonUSTA around here have no playoffs to get to sectionals/Nationals. If a team wins a league at a certain level the whole team is moved up together. Teams that finish in last place can be moved down. Guess what there is almost no sandbagging. People if anything are trying to play up because they want to face better competition. I have yet to see any of the usual USTA league stuff like throwing matches, tanking, bringing in ringers, trying to manipulate computer ratings. I think the USTA league system is messed up which is why it is one of the least popular options around here.
Click to expand...

Listen, I mostly agree with you. But in some places (not yours), USTA is the only game in town. We don't have alternatives.

And getting beat regularly is not really that fun. Some people really don't have the time to work on their game enough to improve greatly. You would like to at least have a chance. There is a lot of "purgatory" here -- you win too much at your own level, but you can't compete at the next. And that is because of the sheer number of teams, and the wide disparity of skill within level. You aren't very often competing against similarly skilled teams.

Which would be fine, except that the entire point of NTRP is to categorize players by ability level so that the matches will be somewhat competitive.
 
Rating is a disaster because there are too many levels. Plus, it varies so much depending on where you live. In some cities, people tend to under rate themselves. Where, I live everybody overrates themselves.

My rating was never much of an issue because I always played open tournaments or non-USTA tourneys. This summer was the first time I played USTA league on my city's 4.0 team. I won my first match pretty easily at #1 singles and was accused of being a 4.5. I'll admit, I'm on the cusp, at least base on my individual league results where I went 20-2 in a 4.0 league. But, I had more than a few close matches and lost, so I can't really be a consistent 4.5.

Anyway, my next 4.0 team match I lost a close match.

People know if they are 3.0, 4.0, 5.0. The differences between those levels are obvious. It's when you get to 3.0 v. 3.5 or 4.5 v. 5.0, etc. where there are problems, because people play within a range.

If you want to be challenged rate yourself up. If you want to win, rate yourself down.
 
goober said:
I don't think the point of league play is to eliminate beatdowns...
Click to expand...

I don't think the USTA does either. I'm sure you've seen this posted before:

http://www.shively.net/howNTRPisCalculated.pdf

It's listing a differential of just 0.325 from a match result of 6-1, 6-0. It looks like 6-0, 6-0 would be just 0.350. If I'm interpreting that right, that's saying someone who isn't even in the extreme top of a given flight is expected to crush someone who's not at the extreme bottom.

I don't know about everyone else's experiences, but on the rare occasion that I double bagel someone they're typically at the bottom of the next flight down, not the bottom of my own flight. The only time I've been double bageled in the past year and a half was to someone who was at the top of the flight above me.

If that document is anywhere near right and I'm correctly interpreting the way the differentials work, that's part of the problem right there. Those differentials need to be increased.
 
DAWRTAJACI said:
... I'm planning to play in my first tournament and I don't know if I should play 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0. I have a pretty consistent backhand and forehand. I can serve, I can volley on both sides but having difficulty on placement. I'm not a member of a tennis club or something like that. I just have a consistent hitting partners that I play with every week. ...
Click to expand...

I'd suggest you play 3.0 for your first tournament.
If you do well, you can try 3.5 next time.

3.5 often has the largest draw, and is packed full of guys that can hit the ball consistently all day long. They can be very frustrating to play - especially your first time out.

The 3.0 draw will be a bit smaller, and the folks there will actually make errors from time to time. If you play well, you can go far. Play hard and have fun. Good luck.
 
Z-Man said:
I do think every level has become more competetive over the past few years. I have a bunch of friends who went to 4.5 nationals back in the day. They're all a lot older now, but I don't think they were ever at the level of the 4.5s I saw at the GA state tourney last weekend. If you want to go to sectionals at 4.0, you need several 4.5s and at least one 5.0 singles player.

To figure out your level, all you need to do is play some people who know what level they are. Some people have great strokes, but don't know how to win matches. There are big servers who get stuck at 3.5 because that's all they can do. There are pushers who get bumped up to 4.5. Don't pay attention to the 1-pager about the levels and what shots they can hit. Results determine your level.
Click to expand...

I just had first hand experience of how true the two points are:
- You need to sandbag to do well in today's USTA leagues, especially at 4.0(IMO) where a lot of advanced player hide because there aren't a lot of leagues at higher levels.
- Great strokes are not enough to win matches.

I am a 3.5 USTA player.(Just got bumped up from 3.0)
In my club ladder last week, I had to play a former D3 college player who is 30-ish, fit and very fast. This guy plays 4.5 in USTA, I guess because that is the minimum he is allowed to rate himself due to his college experience. Despite his solid all around strokes which helped him blow me away in the first set, I managed to win the the second set and the deciding tie-breaker by counterpunching consistently. Even though he could play every shot and hit cleanly with good pace, his depth was consistent and placement somewhat limited and predictable, enough for me to get into a good counterpunching rhythm. I guess he also got a little tight after he lost a few games. When he tried variations like drops and slice backhands, they were 3.0 quality shots, pretty easy to handle. His volleys were rarely deadly. As long as I gave it a good rip, I didn't need to pass him cleanly. His volleys were usually reachable. I stopped going for too much on my passing shots, just hit 2 or 3 in row until he made an error or I had an easy passing shot. I still needed some luck as well as play my best to win 2-6 7-6(7-3) 1-0(7-3). He asked if I wanted to play a full third set, but I declined because I knew a lottery was my best shot :)

I guess this is the kind of player that the USTA intended as a 4.5. He would probably beat me 9 out of 10 times, but would not do well at all in USTA 4.0 as it is now. I checked his USTA record at 4.5. He played only two doubles matches at #3, and lost both in straight sets.
 
Caswell said:
I don't think the USTA does either. I'm sure you've seen this posted before:

http://www.shively.net/howNTRPisCalculated.pdf

It's listing a differential of just 0.325 from a match result of 6-1, 6-0. It looks like 6-0, 6-0 would be just 0.350. If I'm interpreting that right, that's saying someone who isn't even in the extreme top of a given flight is expected to crush someone who's not at the extreme bottom.

I don't know about everyone else's experiences, but on the rare occasion that I double bagel someone they're typically at the bottom of the next flight down, not the bottom of my own flight. The only time I've been double bageled in the past year and a half was to someone who was at the top of the flight above me.

If that document is anywhere near right and I'm correctly interpreting the way the differentials work, that's part of the problem right there. Those differentials need to be increased.
Click to expand...


bingo.

the algorithm used is too conservative about moving players up or down. a 60 60 win should "calculate in" much more than a .5 differential. basically, if you play against 4.5 rated players all the time, you're going to get rated 4.5 at the end of the year in all likelihood.
 
Raiden.Kaminari said:
Hmmm ... maverick1, doesn't your post imply that you should be above 3.5 if the other guy rated properly (which it sounds like he did).
Click to expand...

Yes. I would love to be rated higher, but the computer isn't going to bump me up because I lose to most of the actual 4.0 singles players in the league. There is a lot of sandbagging, and even the honest ones will get bumped down because they will lose a lot at their "proper" level.

My original self-rating was based on my results agianst USTA rated players. The 3.5 were all beating me, so I started at 3.0. I have definitely improved in the last year( I haven't been playing the game for too long)
 
Geezer Guy said:
I'd suggest you play 3.0 for your first tournament.
If you do well, you can try 3.5 next time.

3.5 often has the largest draw, and is packed full of guys that can hit the ball consistently all day long. They can be very frustrating to play - especially your first time out.

The 3.0 draw will be a bit smaller, and the folks there will actually make errors from time to time. If you play well, you can go far. Play hard and have fun. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Believing that a player has a good serve, forehand, etc is different than actually playing matches at similar levels. If you do well at 3.0, then you can move up. From my experience, when starting out, I bet you find that 3.0 is harder than you think. It is in Georgia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ghj
NTRP Tournament Rating Effect on Dynamic rating
Replies
8
Views
807
Moveforwardalways
Moveforwardalways
DeeeFoo
First NTRP tournament, didn't have an NTRP rating
Replies
28
Views
1K
DeeeFoo
DeeeFoo
S
How do you determine what your NTRP rating is?
Replies
49
Views
8K
mark1
M
happyandbob
NTRP "T" Rating
Replies
13
Views
1K
5sets
5sets
B
How to get NTRP rating
Replies
14
Views
7K
buckfastlover
B
Back
Top