How to interpret the NTRP ratings? Lack of detail.

[pondus]

Hi, is anyone aware of a more detailed description of the NTRP ratings system than the standard fare?

http://tennisclub.gsfc.nasa.gov/tennis.ratings.html

I'm having trouble interpreting the meaning of the system.

For example, if someone fails one of the baseline categories for 4.0 by, say having a lack of depth control on the backhand, but some advanced skills like a mean kick serve and an advanced weapon like a very dependable shoulder level dip drive, does this mean that they are still a NTRP 3.5 because they don't qualify for the 4.0 level rating on the backhand stroke? This would seem odd, considering that in the modern game, 80 of strokes are forehands (at least at the NCAA level of play)

 

[Govnor]

They aren't much use. I think you can estimate within 1.0 of where you are by the wording, but you actually need to play matches (not just hit) against rated players to know your true ranking.

 

[ohplease]

There are effectively only 3 real levels in USTA play - 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5.

If you are below average relative to the population at your club, you're probably a 3.5. If you're above average, you're likely a 4.0. If you're one of the elite players at your club, you MIGHT be a 4.5. If you're actively being recruited by a captain at a particular level, you probably belong at the next higher level.

 

[J_R_B]

The descriptions are a very, very loose guideline at best. NTRP at heart is a way to rate players to create evenmatchups as best possible. In other words, the proper description of a 4.0 is "someone who can regularly beat 3.5s, loses regularly to 4.5s, and usually plays competitively with 4.0s" regardless of what srokes or skills you have to achieve those results. The best way to tell what level you are is to find a couple people at a given rating level, play them, and see how you do.

 

[pondus]

The descriptions are a very, very loose guideline at best. NTRP at heart is a way to rate players to create evenmatchups as best possible. In other words, the proper description of a 4.0 is "someone who can regularly beat 3.5s, loses regularly to 4.5s, and usually plays competitively with 4.0s" regardless of what srokes or skills you have to achieve those results. The best way to tell what level you are is to find a couple people at a given rating level, play them, and see how you do.

All good answers, thank you. It's my understanding that use of the ratings system is prevalent in the US, with leagues and tournaments being organized around this system. But where I live this is not the case, and no one knows what level they are (and if they do, they usually exaggerate.

Anyhoo, it would be nice to have some type of system that is less for competition, but to act as a gage for a selected basket of skills. For example, we all know people with horrible skills and technique, but with great footspeed and the heart of a lion, and they will beat people of a much higher skill level. But their progress in the game is limited. Someone may be very focussed on technical progress and stroke production and footwork, which makes them loose a lot for a time, but with the right foundation in place, it is hoped that they would progress to a higher level. It *would* be nice if there was a system in place to help gage such a project, as well as offer motivation as one slowly climbs this skills acquisition ladder.

Make sense, or am I smoking funny bananas? Is learning tennis all about testing your skills to see if they hold up during match play? Or is there more to it?

 

[LeeD]

3.0... looks like a beginner, or first year player, who IS a beginner.
3.5... that beginner can now get the ball back, and actually aims a little.
4.0... that beginner is starting to strategize and actually CAN hit left and right, deep and short.
4.5... no longer a beginner, when he's hitting well, he can look almost as good as the lower level pros.
5.0... he's better than you, and can look like a lower level pro, but can also look the same as you
5.5... no doubt he trains, has been playing tennis 6 + years.

 

[TennisLovaLova]

I think this is one of the reasons why USA are so bad at tennis right now.
This system is a carastrophy IMHO.

I played many times with 5.0 or 5.5 US players, beat them each time easily.

And in France or in Morocco I'm only 15/2 or even 15/1.

The ranking system here is totally different.
We have 3 series, 3, 2 and 1.
1 being the best.
And in each series there a 5 sublevels.
It allows more depth in level assesment I guess.
And of course it shows clearly the effort to give to move to the next level.
Why? Because it's a real ranking, based on tournaments achievements, not a judgment on how you hit the ball or the ability to serve where you want to.

It's a performance ranking system.

 

[LeeD]

NTRP is also solely a performance ranking system.
You are looking at NTRP "guidelines" so novices can group players by some kind of guideline.
I won a big draw C tourney, or 3.5, back in 1977. At the end of the year, I went 3 rounds in a Q event for the TransAmerica PRO ATP tourney. In between, I'd played 4 A/Open tourneys, losing in the first round ONCE, and going 3 rounds in the rest.
Can you go multiple rounds in a Q event, or a Futures?

 

[Topspin Shot]

Now, is this really possible? Let the debate begin.

 

[pondus]

I think this is one of the reasons why USA are so bad at tennis right now.
This system is a carastrophy IMHO.

I played many times with 5.0 or 5.5 US players, beat them each time easily.

Interesting. How old are you? Are you busy with something? Because that means you'll easily get a full scholarship to play NCAA tennis in the USA.

Or maybe you didn't quite mean "easily". Or perhaps these people lied about their rankings (very likely). It's statistically improbable, given equal access to information, that one country's system is far superior to anothers. The world generally doesn't work like that in any field (physics, economics, heavy metal guitar, computer science etc. etc. ), at least not anymore. Yes there are pockets of excellence, and perhaps you've been part of one of them. Lucky for you, I wish I'd been there!

I just took a look at the list of currently ranked french players in the ATP (top 1500). Relative to the size of the population, it does look like France is more successful at producing tennis players. But upon closer inspection of each player, I noticed that a many of them had their training in the US or played NCAA tennis to lay foundation for their career.

It is an interesting debate though; is tennis training in Europe or South America somehow better than in North America. If so, why? Surely, access to knowledge can not be the difference maker in this day and age where the internet provides equal access to information, unless you believe in silver bullets. Is it heart or spirit? Is it that travelling distance is shorter to go to tournaments, so it's easier to face higher levels of competition at all ages? Curious to know.

 

[LeeD]

Not only was it possible, it actually happenned.
What makes it even better, the following year I took up motocross again, which took me 6 years to make 125 and 500 Expert in AMA District 36. Never got enough points riding 250's to get out of intermediate.
Better yet, I entered my first 4A surfing contest in 1969, starting surfing in 1965.
Oh, national sponsored Seatrend, Haut, Oneill, and Gaastra rider by 1987, starting first day of windsurfing in August 1983.

 

[pondus]

3.0... looks like a beginner, or first year player, who IS a beginner.
3.5... that beginner can now get the ball back, and actually aims a little.
4.0... that beginner is starting to strategize and actually CAN hit left and right, deep and short.
4.5... no longer a beginner, when he's hitting well, he can look almost as good as the lower level pros.
5.0... he's better than you, and can look like a lower level pro, but can also look the same as you
5.5... no doubt he trains, has been playing tennis 6 + years.

LeeD, I know you are a legend around here, but these sound a little overly generous. Or are you being sarcastic, as in, everyone exaggerates their level of play?

 

[Govnor]

I think this is one of the reasons why USA are so bad at tennis right now.
This system is a carastrophy IMHO.

I played many times with 5.0 or 5.5 US players, beat them each time easily.

And in France or in Morocco I'm only 15/2 or even 15/1.

The ranking system here is totally different.
We have 3 series, 3, 2 and 1.
1 being the best.
And in each series there a 5 sublevels.
It allows more depth in level assesment I guess.
And of course it shows clearly the effort to give to move to the next level.
Why? Because it's a real ranking, based on tournaments achievements, not a judgment on how you hit the ball or the ability to serve where you want to.

It's a performance ranking system.

If you can "easily" beat a 5.5, then you make your living playing competitive tennis. Right?

 

[pondus]

Not only was it possible, it actually happenned.
What makes it even better, the following year I took up motocross again, which took me 6 years to make 125 and 500 Expert in AMA District 36. Never got enough points riding 250's to get out of intermediate.
Better yet, I entered my first 4A surfing contest in 1969, starting surfing in 1965.
Oh, national sponsored Seatrend, Haut, Oneill, and Gaastra rider by 1987, starting first day of windsurfing in August 1983.

Cool. Then you must know Robby Naish, one of the great American athletes and innovators of all time.

What do you reckon is the recipe for learning something relatively quickly? Empty your brain and just do, or be very analytical and systematic in compartmentalizing the learning process into digestible parts?

 

[rkelley]

3.0... looks like a beginner, or first year player, who IS a beginner.
3.5... that beginner can now get the ball back, and actually aims a little.
4.0... that beginner is starting to strategize and actually CAN hit left and right, deep and short.
4.5... no longer a beginner, when he's hitting well, he can look almost as good as the lower level pros.
5.0... he's better than you, and can look like a lower level pro, but can also look the same as you
5.5... no doubt he trains, has been playing tennis 6 + years.

This isn't bad, but it's still more complicated than this.

For instance, I played 3.5 (C) tournaments about 25 years ago. The players there didn't suck and were not beginners, but they all had some issue that prevented them from being better. On the positive side, there were people with 100 mph serves who could land them frequently, kick serves, consistency, decent pace, net games, a big ground stroke. But a player usually only had one two of those really good qualities. They could also have a big weakness, often a backhand. Mine was consistency. If someone could handle a little pace and put 3 decently hit, unattackable balls over the net, then the point was basically theirs.

One really big thing was that the overall pace was lower than at the higher levels. Folks might look great hitting and have nice form, but there just isn't enough pace and spin on the ball to bother a better player. If they try to up the pace level then they can't keep it in.

 

[pondus]

One really big thing was that the overall pace was lower than at the higher levels. Folks might look great hitting and have nice form, but there just isn't enough pace and spin on the ball to bother a better player. If they try to up the pace level then they can't keep it in.

Interesting point. Since tennis is in part a game of taking away time, and not just space, can you say that the level of play can be measured by the general rhythm and cadence of play, which is actually measurable (with a watch or a metronome of some sort).

 

[baba123]

This American system is confusing, is it self rated or do you have to a number of matches to go up a rating or whatever?
Why can't it just be like British ratings

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Here are a couple of sites that go into a bit more detail. I thought that the USTA also provided more detailed rating criteria/list but I cannot seem to find it.


http://www.betconline.net/rating.shtml
http://www.austin*********.org/rules/NTRP_RATINGS_GUIDE.htm

Edit: ********* = tennis net (w/o the space)

.

 

[anubis]

This is slightly more descriptive than what was on that NASA site:

http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/About_NTRP/

But not hugely so. When you go through the self-rating area of the USTA site, it asks you questions about your tennis history. That does help to narrow it down for you. It's usually pretty close, or at least in the ball park.

 

[BMC9670]

I won a big draw C tourney, or 3.5, back in 1977. At the end of the year, I went 3 rounds in a Q event for the TransAmerica PRO ATP tourney. In between, I'd played 4 A/Open tourneys, losing in the first round ONCE, and going 3 rounds in the rest.
Can you go multiple rounds in a Q event, or a Futures?

If you are talking about a ball chucking tournament, maybe I'd believe you. Maybe.

 

[RetroSpin]

...


One really big thing was that the overall pace was lower than at the higher levels. Folks might look great hitting and have nice form, but there just isn't enough pace and spin on the ball to bother a better player. If they try to up the pace level then they can't keep it in.

I think this is a key point that the guidelines basically ignore. The main difference between a 4.0 and a 4.5 or 4.5 and 5.0 is pace and weight of shot. The lower ranked player will constantly feel pressured. That's why it's relatively easy to rank players after a short hitting session.

 

[TennisLovaLova]

Lee said that a 5.5 has a 6+ years of tennis.
I'm 34 and I play since I cant remember.

Maybe those guys I defeated were lying but I dont think so.
Or maybe a little then

All I'm saying is that your nrtp rankings overrate US players and give a wrong idea of their level because there's a lack of depth in this system (no subclass).

I've seen many threads of tt members posting vids to know their level.
And among them, many were declared by the other members of these boards to be 4.5 or 5.0
Well, I also watched those same videos, and their level was average, most of the time I mean.

Fyi, a moroccan 15/2 is superior to a french 15/2 or even a 15/1. Ask any frenchman who played against moroccans and he'll say the same thing.

Moroccan 2nd series (ranked negative) play atp250 tournaments and futures and reach 2nd rounds at best.
THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS RANKED IN THE 2nd and 1st series are limited.

And the latest 1st series we had in morocco were arazi, alami and el aynaoui.

Just saying that a more detailed system could help the players really know where they are compared to the field.

What is Felipwo ntrp ranking?

 

[J_R_B]

Touring pros are 7.0 NTRP, but no one even refers to NTRP at that level any way.

 

[Chas Tennis]

My opinion-

In practice, the NTRP process is very mushy, especially for the initial self-rating.

The gold standard is to join a USTA league and see how you do. The best self-rating is based on how you do playing players who are already in the USTA. Also, ask them what they think your level is.

If you mix it up with players who are 3.5. Self-rate 3.5. If you beat 3.5 players ~80% of the time rate 3.5 or 4.0. If 3.5 players beat you 80% of the time rate a 3.0.

If you are most likely somewhere between a 3.5 and a 4.0 - ?? - rate 3.5 and you will be happier and so will your captain.

To play singles successfully on competitive teams (one with any chance to win the league) you have to be about 0.5 level stronger than the rest of the team. The 3.5 singles players on a competitive 3.5 team are often the strongest 3.5 players on the team closer to the 4.0 level.

If you are a really strong player and some competitive captain wants you to take a rating so that you will win all your matches for sure - think about what that and why you playing tennis....fairness.....why would anyone want to win all their tennis matches.....etc...

The levels between teams in a league vary a great deal. In a league you may only play 5 matches or so. Since level varies a lot you might do well or badly depending on how many strong or weak opponents you happen to draw in those 5 matches.

 

[gameboy]

Unless you are playing in a USTA league/tournaments, don't use the USTA ratings. PERIOD. It only confuses the issue. The descriptions are not even worth discussing.

Beginner/intermediate/advanced is useful enough of a description for those without USTA rating.

 

[Govnor]

Lee said that a 5.5 has a 6+ years of tennis.
I'm 34 and I play since I cant remember.

Maybe those guys I defeated were lying but I dont think so.
Or maybe a little then

All I'm saying is that your nrtp rankings overrate US players and give a wrong idea of their level because there's a lack of depth in this system (no subclass).

I've seen many threads of tt members posting vids to know their level.
And among them, many were declared by the other members of these boards to be 4.5 or 5.0
Well, I also watched those same videos, and their level was average, most of the time I mean.

Fyi, a moroccan 15/2 is superior to a french 15/2 or even a 15/1. Ask any frenchman who played against moroccans and he'll say the same thing.

Moroccan 2nd series (ranked negative) play atp250 tournaments and futures and reach 2nd rounds at best.
THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS RANKED IN THE 2nd and 1st series are limited.

And the latest 1st series we had in morocco were arazi, alami and el aynaoui.

Just saying that a more detailed system could help the players really know where they are compared to the field.

What is Felipwo ntrp ranking?

A more detailed system would help for sure. No one doubts that. However, a 5.5 is a very good player. Lee is joking when he says playing for at least 6 years (unless he means playing for 6+ years non-stop and doing nothing else). A 5.5 would be at the very top end of a european club. If you are easily beating this level of player, you have been playing tennis your whole life, likely at a very high level for most of that time.

Do you have video of you playing a match we could see?

 

[Govnor]

How would you do against Tonlars?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=131731

 

[rkelley]

Interesting point. Since tennis is in part a game of taking away time, and not just space, can you say that the level of play can be measured by the general rhythm and cadence of play, which is actually measurable (with a watch or a metronome of some sort).

To some degree I'd say yes. Hitting hard and consistently requires a certain level of skill that would be indicative of a higher NTRP, but obviously there's way more to it than just that one factor.

 

[rkelley]

How would you do against Tonlars?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=131731

I'd be eviscerated, but I'd love to have a hit with him.

 

[Govnor]

I'd be eviscerated, but I'd love to have a hit with him.

haha. Was actually directed to tennislovalova!!

 

[wrxinsc]

Lee said that a 5.5 has a 6+ years of tennis.
I'm 34 and I play since I cant remember.

Maybe those guys I defeated were lying but I dont think so.
Or maybe a little then

All I'm saying is that your nrtp rankings overrate US players and give a wrong idea of their level because there's a lack of depth in this system (no subclass).

I've seen many threads of tt members posting vids to know their level.
And among them, many were declared by the other members of these boards to be 4.5 or 5.0
Well, I also watched those same videos, and their level was average, most of the time I mean.

Fyi, a moroccan 15/2 is superior to a french 15/2 or even a 15/1. Ask any frenchman who played against moroccans and he'll say the same thing.

Moroccan 2nd series (ranked negative) play atp250 tournaments and futures and reach 2nd rounds at best.
THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS RANKED IN THE 2nd and 1st series are limited.

And the latest 1st series we had in morocco were arazi, alami and el aynaoui.

Just saying that a more detailed system could help the players really know where they are compared to the field.

What is Felipwo ntrp ranking?

In our rather large section of very strong upper level tennis players we have one 5.5 male. He was was a former student at Bollettieri's Academy. He was ranked in the USA - No. 1 in Boys' 16s and No. 2 in Boys' 18s... And of course he is a professional tennis player.

Most of our 5.0's are former Div. 1 NCAA players, and many of them scholarship athletes. These guys compete well at Southern Sectionals through the years and have gone to Nationals.

It is amazing to me that people need to exaggerate their ability so on tennis forums. But possibly you are ready for at least the ITF Futures Pro Tour.

 

[LeeD]

It's pretty agreed a Div1 SINGLE's player is a 5.5. Not if he lost every match bagels, of course. So, say a No.3 for Stanford. That is 5.5.
A top school's No.1 singles might be pushing into 6.0, and go on the Q tour for two odd years before making it or being broken by it.
Except for TonLars and Tennis Balla, and the now gone MOP, and Clint, who's gone also, most everyone here is not nearly 5.5 level.
Most 5.5's are entering every Q then can get to, to try to make the first round of a paying tournament.

 

[HughJars]

I love old man Leeds modesty.

I was lucky enough to catch him in action serving up some ten foot bouncing bombs

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORmFGpPjo9c

 

[LeeD]

Reality, bud. Whether you like to blow hard, or you're a meek lamb, reality is still the standard we live by.
Reality is you don't lower your eyes to net level to volley a ball 36" high.

 

[HughJars]

.................................

 

[spinorama]

Aww be nice to tha ol guy!

 

[goran_ace]

An NTRP rating is useless without enough results to back it up. You can self rate yourself whatever you want based on the guidelines, but if you're not playing USTA league it is completely meaningless.

It's not an objective measure of skill. You don't move up by hitting with a ball machine and thinking that you acquire mastery of a new shot. You move up because you've been beating everyone at your current level no matter what shots or tactics you use.

Also, it's not a ladder or linear scale. Think if the population of USTA players as a bell shaped curve with the average and median player around 3.5. Each step up in NTRP rating is exponentially better than the previous.

 

[goran_ace]

Unless you are playing in a USTA league/tournaments, don't use the USTA ratings. PERIOD. It only confuses the issue. The descriptions are not even worth discussing.

Beginner/intermediate/advanced is useful enough of a description for those without USTA rating.

^^^ THIS.




10 char

 

[TennisLovaLova]

haha. Was actually directed to tennislovalova!!

I hope it's not the guy in red.
The other one looks "accessible"

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

For what it's worth, here is a version of the rating system that shows some detail:

http://assets.usta.com/assets/639/15/National%20tennis%20Rating%20Program.pdf


.

 

[TennisLovaLova]

For what it's worth, here is a version of the rating system that shows some detail:

http://assets.usta.com/assets/639/15/National tennis Rating Program.pdf


.

Ok!
Now i understand why some of you guys reacted that way.
Judging by this detailed information, I position myself between 4.0 and 4.5.
Definetly not a 5.0 that's for sure.

 

[Chas Tennis]

The Number of Tennis Players Available Leads to 3 Levels

There is another factor at play in the levels.

For a given area within driving range to a league there are usually only so many tennis players participating in USTA leagues. For 'adult 18 & over men's' in our area near Baltimore (~650,000) we have 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 leagues. Last year, there was a league of just 2 4.5 teams and no 3.0 league. Some of those small USTA leagues (2-4 teams) are not such good tennis due to the tendency of the stronger players to group together on one or two competitive teams resulting in many lop-sided matches in the league. Ideally, the teams would be more even to provide many competitive matches for recreational tennis. We also have a #1S, #2S, #1D, #2D, #3D format for a team match. While playing the lines ups according to skill level leads to maximizing the number of competitive individual matches many captains will 'flip' their line ups (play a stronger player below a weaker player) to get an extra win. It is within the rules but makes for bad tennis when the #1D team plays a #3D team, etc. Those #1D and #3D teams would probably not have enjoyed playing tennis for that match..... In general, a doubles team of two players in the bottom 33% of, say, the 4.0 level would not have very much of a chance of beating a doubles team of two players in the top 33% of the 4.0 level.

Anyhow, with a given density of tennis players there is a tendency to only have 3 levels, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 as mentioned by Ohplease in Reply #3. In our area, when a player moves up to a 4.5, they usually have no league to play in unless they go to another county. Many players go to adjacent counties to find USTA additional leagues. Our area is one of the more populous areas and seems to sustain no more than 3 levels.

 

[skiracer55]

Just get a handle on your goals...

All good answers, thank you. It's my understanding that use of the ratings system is prevalent in the US, with leagues and tournaments being organized around this system. But where I live this is not the case, and no one knows what level they are (and if they do, they usually exaggerate.

Anyhoo, it would be nice to have some type of system that is less for competition, but to act as a gage for a selected basket of skills. For example, we all know people with horrible skills and technique, but with great footspeed and the heart of a lion, and they will beat people of a much higher skill level. But their progress in the game is limited. Someone may be very focussed on technical progress and stroke production and footwork, which makes them loose a lot for a time, but with the right foundation in place, it is hoped that they would progress to a higher level. It *would* be nice if there was a system in place to help gage such a project, as well as offer motivation as one slowly climbs this skills acquisition ladder.

Make sense, or am I smoking funny bananas? Is learning tennis all about testing your skills to see if they hold up during match play? Or is there more to it?

...and take it from there, where, IMHO, there are two general paths:

- I want the best results I can get. Even that is loaded dice. There's a huge assumption that NTRP is the only path to getting your best results. Not true. You can also play age groups or Open events, and see how you do in those venues.

To stick, just for a moment, to NTRP. Not every NTRPer exaggerates his or her ability..."sandbagging" your ability so you can be a big fish in a small pond...that is, win lots of matches and tournaments at a given NTRP level when you really should be playing at a higher level...is also, I believe, quite common. So if you want to get better in an NTRP mode, you need to, first, work the system. And second, improve your skills. And third, maybe most important, improve your match toughness. I don't care how great your forehand is in a hitting session, if you can't do what you want with it in a pressure situation in a match, you don't need to work on the stroke, you need more match play.

Back to skills, for a moment. If you look at the general descriptions of the NTRP levels, you don't see much mention of the serve and return at the 3.0 level, but they show increasing importance as you move up the NTRP scale. I've said it before, but I will tell it to you again: The serve and the return are the most important shots in the game, in that order. I don't care if you have the greatest forehand in the world, if your serve is a helium ball and you get one in 10 returns back, you're never gonna get to hit your great forehand.

- So now we're into the second general path, which is I want the best game I can get...and maybe after I do that, I'll worry about the results I can get with that game, and maybe I won't, because I feel like playing the game well is what counts, and maybe I don't want to play a lot of tournaments or whatever.

I play some tournaments, but I play a lot more hitting sessions with one or more of my hitting partners where we work on technique and tactics for about an hour and then take the gloves off and see who learned the most. That's why I play tennis, your mileage may vary...

 

[TomT]

For me, playing in an organized (though flex) league and posting scores online and aiming for better results and a higher NTRP based rating increases my motivation to get out on the court and work on stuff. Which increases my enjoyment of the sport.

There is an artistic aspect to tennis, but the bottom line is that it's a competitive sport with very clear and simple criteria for winning. How one actually gets any particular win can seem to be rather less clear and simple.

As for interpreting NTRP based ratings, it's just a relative quantitative scale based on match results.

It would be cool to have a national or even international system of skill ratings based on how one does in certain standardized tests. But I doubt that anything like that will happen, and anyway it wouldn't necessarily be a very good predictor of match results. Certainly not as good as a system that's actually based on match results but doesn't tell you anything about how a person actually plays, like NTRP.

 

[GuyClinch]

At the league level the ratings are actually pretty tough IMHO.

Most of the guys in 3.5 leagues are better then the average person who plays tennis regularly. The 4.0 guys are what most people would call good players. And 4.5 guys are what the average person would feel is a great player if they went against them.

5.0's are almost always guys that played in college on a team and now drifted back a bit but still play.

It's pretty much the same with 5.5s except they could still play on a decent college team. 5.5s can hit with pros and not embarrass themselves.

The scary thing is all but the 5.0s look mediocre to bad on video. Most people judge others by how the pros look on video..

The self-ratings don't work. Most people realize they can't beat a good HS player on a team at a decent HS (a 4.5) but they think based on the self ratings they can beat em no problem..

 

[TomT]

The self-ratings don't work.

They're just a starting point that gets adjusted or not based on performance. Some people self-rate fairly accurately, some don't. Some people deliberately lie about their competitive level in situations where sandbagging can get them a divisional title (albeit in a lower rating class) that they probably wouldn't have gotten had they self-rated honestly.

I'm guessing that most people self-rate honestly (even though they might still be a bit off the mark), in which case, and judging from the predictive value of the ratings, I'd say that the self-ratings generally work. But of course it would be better to have a more objective assessment of a new player's probable competitive level.

To the small-minded individuals who self-rate below their playing strength in order to win a lower divisional title I say ...
_ _|_|_ _
\_ ('o')_/
....\~/
..WTF!??

 

[GuyClinch]

I'm guessing that most people self-rate honestly (even though they might still be a bit off the mark), in which case, and judging from the predictive value of the ratings, I'd say that the self-ratings generally work. But of course it would be better to have a more objective assessment of a new player's probable competitive level

I never felt that in NYC. Depending on your point of view either league players sandbag or 'casual' say 'craiglist' players boast. Its not a big deal really but that .5 point is significant..

If real league 4.0s went out and played the self rated 4.0s they would win all the time.. Of course the problem is the 4.0s (self rated) rate themselves that high because they beat the self rated 3.5s - and so on and so forth..

 

[rkelley]

At the league level the ratings are actually pretty tough IMHO.

Most of the guys in 3.5 leagues are better then the average person who plays tennis regularly.

This is my experience too.

It's pretty much the same with 5.5s except they could still play on a decent college team. 5.5s can hit with pros and not embarrass themselves.

There's a video of Tony Larson (5.5 - a very good 5.5) hitting with Mike Russel (ranked around 100 at the time). Tony was hanging with Mike.

 

[wmilas]

3.0... looks like a beginner, or first year player, who IS a beginner.
3.5... that beginner can now get the ball back, and actually aims a little.
4.0... that beginner is starting to strategize and actually CAN hit left and right, deep and short.
4.5... no longer a beginner, when he's hitting well, he can look almost as good as the lower level pros.
5.0... he's better than you, and can look like a lower level pro, but can also look the same as you
5.5... no doubt he trains, has been playing tennis 6 + years.

This is ridiculous. A 4.0 player at my club would smoke a 5.0 or a 5.5 based on this description.

3.5 players at my club practice regularly 1 or 2 times a week and play on at least one league, and perhaps 2. They can rally 10-15 balls no problem and are on the edge of more winners than errors. They still lose due to errors but a higher 3.5 its pretty close. Have a good flat first or slice first. Second can be a bit weak but its not short. Will come forward if the ball is short. 50 50 chance of losing the point when he/she comes forward.

4.0 the player takes control of the court. Will punish any short ball. Has a good first serve and a dependable kick on the second. Will hit more winners than errors.

 

[LeeD]

4-4.5 accounts for most high school players who are SINGLES players for the team. The rest are 3-3.5's.
Div 111 colleges often have 4.5's to 5's playing their singles matches, but can also have a 4.0 for lower singles because there are not enough tennis players to choose from.
Div1 colleges mostly have some level of 5.5 playing their top singles, while the top tennis schools might have more than 6 5.5's on the team.
YOU, Wmilas, is probably a 3.0-3.5, so you know nothing.