Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by Cindysphinx, Jul 29, 2012.
Stop showing off your vocabulary with words like conflating. Is it related to flatulence?
Now you're just being nescient. :razz:
The reason for this thread is, according to Cindy, the idea that people should be honest about the source of their rating, which I agree with.
Whether USTA computer ratings represent significantly different levels of play than their non-computer and/or non-USTA counterparts is another question. My current opinion is that they're not significantly different.
My claim was that I'm willing to bet money that I can beat any USTA computer rated 3.0 player. There's only one way to find out. (Broward 3.0 USTA players, you've been challenged!)
The only claim I made about NTRP was that those guidelines are used for new players in these non-USTA local leagues to self rate their competitive level. After somebody has played a season, then their rating might be changed by the league administrators. In view of the results during the non-league 'legacy' matches, and the league results during this current summer season, this seems to have worked out pretty well regarding the relative competitive strengths of the players.
So far, I don't have any reason to believe that computer rated USTA 3.0 players are playing at a significantly different competitive level than the 3.0 players in the local Broward non-USTA leagues.
I thought your main point was that people should be honest about the source of their rating. I get that. I agree with that. No problem.
TomT is, so far, a 3.0 in the Fort Lauderdale branch of the non-USTA Tennis League Network. The Broward Tennis League is a different, and much larger, non-USTA league (which I'm not a member of ... yet). Several of the players in the Broward Tennis League are also playing in the Tennis League Network. So far, a 3.0 or 3.5 in the Tennis League Network seems to represent pretty much the same level of competition as a 3.0 or 3.5 in the Broward Tennis League.
I'm assuming that USTA computer ratings would represent pretty much the same level of competition as the ratings in TLN and BTL.
Not sure who you're quoting. What I said was that I'm willing to bet money that I can beat any USTA 3.0 player. For that matter, I'm willing to bet money that I can beat any 3.0 player from any league.
Self ratings, whether by people starting out in a USTA or a non-USTA league, are presumably done wrt the same NTRP guidelines. Then those ratings are adjusted, or maybe not, depending on one's results. In the local non-USTA leagues, I would guess that the administrators are taking into account most of the same variables that the USTA computer rating programs do (matches W/L, games W/L, games W/L in particular matches, etc.)
Well ... yeah.
Anyway, the question we now seem to be pondering is whether a certain USTA computer rating is comparable to a non-USTA league's (but still, at least initially, also NTRP based) non-computer rating.
You seem to be of the opinion that it isn't, eg., that a USTA computer rated 3.0 represents a different level of competition than a non-USTA and/or non-computer rated 3.0.
Tom, I think you are missing her point. What irks Cindy (among other things) is when someone spouts off about a level they play at and tries to provide insight. Then, they give some irrational explanation that would only come from a player at a different level. Basically, people saying they are one thing when they have zero to back it up.
As for you being able to beat any 3.0 in any league. If, in fact, that is true then you are not (or should not be) a 3.0. There just shouldn't exist a player that can so thoroughly dominate at any rating level. So, if your story is true, your rating system is inherently flawed for allowing that circumstance to exist.
I suppose that would irk me too. However, I took Cindy's main point to be ...
... and I totally agree that people should be honest about the source of their rating.
What story? I issued a challenge. In fact, I both win and lose against TLN 3.0 players.
I'm supposing that computer rated USTA 3.0s are pretty much the same skill level as TLN and BTL 3.0s. Cindy seems to be saying that they aren't.
So, while I agree with what I take to be Cindy's main point, I don't necessarily agree (given that most players start out with an NTRP guideline based self rating) with the idea that the competitive level of a USTA computer rated player is significantly higher than the competitive level of an identically rated player in our local TLN and BTL.
I have no idea if USTA 3.0s are the same skill level as a TLN and BTL 3.0. Neither do you.
That is precisely my point.
Despite what folks around here say when they get pounded into dust by a player with the same USTA rating, the USTA ratings are not random and they do not come out of thin air. They are based on something. They are based on a fairly large sample size and they are based on an algorithm that tries to determine each player's relative strength. They represent an effort (albeit an imperfect one) to have a standardized rating system nationwide. I do not have the strongest background in statistics, so I suppose someone could pick my characterization of the USTA computer ratings system apart. I hope I got close enough so that you follow my point.
I do not know whether USTA-rated players are higher or lower than they are in some non-USTA league. That is not my point.
My point is that if someone says "I am a 3.0" and that statement is based on anything other than the USTA computer, then it is incorrect and potentially misleading. This is so if the statement is based on TLN, BTL, GUIDA, Interclub, WTT, a pro's evaluation, or even the USTA self rate guidelines. All these other things are just guesses.
Please understand that I am not denigrating your tennis skills. I have never seen you play. I would never guess whether you would beat or lose to a computer-rated 3.0 player. I don't know, and neither do you unless you have played some 3.0s USTA computer-rated players.
Lastly, you are correct that all USTA players start out as a self-rate. I don't see the significance of this, though. Everyone has to start somewhere, and lots of people get it wrong and self-rate too high or too low. I consider USTA self-rated players to be un-rated players, just as I consider someone with a REDB or TLN 3.0 to be an unrated player.
That said, I imagine there are pockets of humanity where the statement "I am a 3.0" refers to TLN or an internal club rating system or whatever. That's fine, of course. In the U.S., when someone says they are "a 3.0", this is generally understood to mean USTA.
I don't understand why people can't just say I am a beginner/intermediate/advance player if you do not have an USTA rating.
USTA rating means very specific thing. If you do not play in an USTA league, you really have no idea what the difference is between 3.5/4.0/4.5 player. And claiming that you are one is just dumb because it has no reference.
Just use advanced/intermediate/novice if you don't play in a league.Why do you even need to describe yourself with USTA rating if you don't play in one?
Yes, it's when both partners in doubles have flatulence at the same time: coflatulence.
That's right. For example, "I am a 5.0" on craigslist is well understood within that community. Bilingual rate-ologists recognize this as equivalent to 3.0 NTRP
Actually, I think I do have some idea if USTA 3.0s are the same skill level as TLN or BTL 3.0s. And I have to suppose that if you played in a non-USTA league then you might have a similar idea regarding the representation of competitive levels wrt NTRP guidelines.
Your stated main point, your "bottom line", was that you want people to be honest about the source of their ratings. I totally agree with that.
As to whether we can have any idea whether or not USTA 3.0s are the same skill level as, say, TLN and BTL 3.0s ... I think we can. The fact of the matter is that some TLN and BTL players actually have USTA ratings from former USTA league participation. Then there's the fact that most players in most leagues, whether USTA or not, start out with a self rating based on NTRP guidelines that's modified or not depending on their results, and these modifications are done according to essentially the same criteria.
And it all seems to work out pretty much the same wrt performance compared to ratings. Hence, I have to suppose, until given compelling evidence to the contrary, that USTA (NTRP based) ratings represent essentially the same competitive levels that non USTA (NTRP based) ratings represent.
I've lost, badly, to a player rated the same as me and then come back, sometimes only a few days later, to beat that same person badly. Has this ever happened to you?
They come intitally from self ratings based on NTRP guidelines -- just like most, but not all, ratings for TLN and BTL and other non-USTA leagues. Unlike first time USTA players, some local league non-USTA players start in their leagues with established USTA computer ratings.
They're based on performance. On results. Just as all ratings in all leagues that use NTRP based ratings are.
I take your point to be that computer based USTA (NTRP) ratings represent, on average, a higher competitive level than non-USTA (NTRP) ratings.
My current opinion is that that's not correct. That is, I suppose the fact of the matter to be that USTA (NTRP based) computer ratings indicate skill levels commensurate with non-USTA ratings. Hence, my challenge to any and all USTA 3.0s in my area.
Ok, then ... nevermind. :-?
Ok, you want people to be honest about the source of their rating. I get that. Really. I do too. Otherwise it's just a meaningless number.
But here's the thing, if an admistrator's evaluation of a player's strength is based on essentially the same criteria as a computer program's evaluation of a player's strength, then what's the difference?
Yes, well it's an empirical question that can only be decided via direct competition. Rest assured that I would only have issued my challenge if I was pretty sure that I would be quite competitive with USTA computer rated 3.0s.
That's interesting. Because in our local non-USTA leagues some players start out with former USTA computer ratings.
It's significant because everybody is speaking, and presumably understanding, the same language, and rating themselves according to commonly presented criteria. Sure, there's the possibility that some people are just lying. But I really do think that that gets pretty well corrected via direct competition, ie., the truth is in the results.
Ok, so you're basically unrated until you play a season. No problem. The USTA computers are using essentially the same criteria to evaluate player's performances as non-USTA leagues.
Ok, and I take that USTA rating to mean essentially the same thing that it does wrt TLN or BTL.
Present to me your Fort Lauderdale based, NTRP USTA computer rated 3.0 players. We will decide the truth of the matter on the tennis court.
holy splice post batman
Once again, you have expressed in few words (and shorthand) what it probably would have taken me many (more) words ... to express. Even though I'm not really sure what you said or were intending to express.
This seems like much ado about nothing. It's not like USTA ratings accurately reflects how any given player will play on any given day.
TomT - while self ratings are relatively made up ratings, computer NTRP ratings have substance to them. Anyone can fill out the form and be assigned a superficial rating. Then they go play matches and the computer defines what they in fact are. The ratings are Benchmarked from players that have advanced to the post season. Thus, they have substance on a national level when the letter "C" is added to the rating at year's end.
That is Cindy's point. Saying "I am a 3.0" doesn't say anything if it isn't a rating that has been measured against the post season benchmark.
That being said, it's pretty clear that people don't care about satisfying Cindy's plight for honest declaration of their computer confirmed rating. Let the controversy continue ad nauseam...
Congratulations. All your hard work has paid off. You're now one of us - those who don't like having our time wasted by wannabe's, dreamers, and just plain BS'ers. That's the good news...
But the problem is - you have to sip the USTA Kool-Aid - no gulping it down. From your post, you went on a bender. Your blind faith in the almighty computer, like a Dorothy from Kansas, has lead you to astray. You're incorrectly dismissing of all the ratings from the non-USTA groups who use the same criteria, have statistically significant numbers of members, and keep computerized results to see who's been doing what to whom - those rankings are as valid as yours. And your belief that a '4.0 is a 4.0 is a 4.0' because some teams of tankers and soon to be bumped show up at regional and national events and thus results are normalized across regions is naive.
But hey, whatever floats your boat. Or as we say out here 'takes all kinds to fill the freeways.'
Problems with NTRP QQ's in this thread:
-Everyone thinks they know what a particular NTRP "looks like".
-Whenever someone beats them and is a "S" rate, that person is automatically labeled a "sandbagger".
-"C" or "B" rated players are somehow more legit than "S" or "A" players. This is only half true.
"B" means they actually "did something", but even this a "B" rating can be misleading. "B" could mean "beat 3 teams and went straight to nationals" or "beat 4 other flights in adult league, advanced to sectionals were 4 other sections were beaten, advanced to nationals and won."
It's quite obvious both sides to this are either playing stupid or are completely missing the point.
"C" just means they've played enough for a YER. "C" doesnt mean anything unless that person has at least 5 years of play. You can "S" rate 2.5 as a 4.5, play your minimum 3 that year and end up with a "2.5 C" as a "4.5 able park player with no history".
NTRP is just an objective and arbitrary rating scale. You cant have everyone opinion-ing someones rating, but you cant just look at the rating and say its error-less too.
If you dont like NTRP, just play open, or find another "rating system", or dont play in any leagues at all.
And to the guy saying he can beat any NTRP 3.0C player on the planet please post a video. I actually have a small "highlight reel" of me playing a legit 5.0 and I want to see how you compare. Im a 3.0C mind you, and I didnt make the cut to go to nationals...
If you do not have an NTRP computer rating, you are nothing. This is America. You are nothing until you spend money and some official sounding company will tell you how good you are.
Ratings from other countries or competing organization do not count.
We need to order Obama to liberate the rest of the world from tennis rating tyranny. First we occupy the country, transfer tennis governance to the USTA, impose a no-tennis zone. Now that the Olympics is over, the 82nd should drop down on London, take over GB, disband the LTA and let the USTA take over. It is the first step toward tennis liberation.
My current favorite post in this thread. Several other posters said essentially the same thing, but your lead in was most entertaining, imo.
Another creative paraphrase of what I actually said. Which was simply that I'd be willing to bet money on myself in a match with a USTA 3.0C. Why? Because, as West Coast Ace and others have pointed out, there's reason to believe that players (in any league) with identical NTRP-based and result-adjusted ratings will be competitive with each other. Of course, as you and others have pointed out, there's a certain range of abilities wrt any rating level, and many other factors can affect the outcome of any match between two identically rated players. But my current opinion is that NTRP-based, result-adjusted ratings are a pretty good general indicator of relative performance.
Since you are NTRPolice, I think I should consult my lawyer first. But seriously folks, I will post something as soon as my newly ordered video camera arrives. Or maybe I can get somebody to hold the iphone while I hit with somebody.
I would like to see that video.
Since we are going to get high and mighty about USTA leagues allow me to up the ante. Is the Virginia/DC/MD 4.5 on par with a Florida or California 4.5? A lot of people would think not. So we should not only USTA rate everyone, but let's also have a state by state ranking in which we determine where the most tennis talent is.
So now when someone comes through our tourist city and wants a match and says they are a USTA 4.5, we will ask them where from? Ohhhh, but they are from Vermont. The match can be politely declined by the 4.5 and sent down to a 4.0.
Oh but wait, why doesn't FL or Cali win the USTA nationals every year even though they are the 2 most talented tennis states in America? Could it be because not everyone actually (*gasp*) plays USTA tennis? That's complete insanity!
Actually, one of the goals of USTA NTRP is to standardize across the country, so that yes, in fact, a Virginia/DC/MD 4.5 is on par with a Florida or California 4.5.
This is one advantage USTA has of being a national organization, versus local non-USTA leagues. At Nationals, USTA can compare the representatives from the various sections, and apply adjustments to the ratings on a section by section basis such that a 4.5 is a 4.5 no matter where.
This explains why FL or CA don't win every year - they may be the most talented in terms of having more high-rated players, but that just means that for example they have a higher ratio of 5.0s to 4.5s than other areas; it does not mean their 4.5s are better than other areas' 4.5s.
[This is all in theory and part of what USTA is trying to accomplish with NTRP... in practice, I don't get around enough to have a personal opinion of whether in fact 4.5s in different areas are the same]
^^^it is the theory of NTRP, which everyone seems to agree isn't perfect. I'd give it a 75% accuracy. I mean by this that I feel there is a 75% chance that if I move anywhere in the country that players at my level will be nearly identical caliber as in my current local league as in the new area. 3 out of 4 isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.
Records in Nationals don't mean much. Doing well in nationals just means that your captain and team put together a lot of out of level players that are rated too low and he kept them from being bumped or DQ'ed. It is more a reflection of how good your captain is at playing the system and recruiting. It has nothing to do with the level of talent in the area.
Several years ago a team from Montana played a socal team in the 5.0 National championship match. Is anyone really going to say that Montana is tennis hotspot for 5.0s?
Completely agree with your comments about Nationals.
In general terms, I believe that those in any NTRP range are the same from section to section. Texas, California, and Florida may have more participants in each range, and therefore, have more players at the top end. However, I've played tournaments in at least 9 different states, and a 4.5 is a 4.5 from what I've seen.
In USTA League, you only need to put together about 10 or 12 players to make a serious run at Nationals. In fact, if you can get 6 sandbaggers to take the two singles spots and help with the doubles, and fill the rest of your team with solid players, you will have a good shot. As you said, a captain that is successful at working the system, recruiting these sandbaggers, and juggling his/her lineup can win Nationals out of any region.
(In 5.0, since the lineup is 1 singles match and 2 doubles, the Montana team only had to come up with 3 sandbaggers to have a shot at winning. I bet those were the 3 best players in the entire state!)
Nationals, sectionals, states, and districts is the best way to figure out who to bump up. I wish there was insight as to how heavy a bump up it really is. And what the effect is throughout their pipeline down to the local level. That's how it works itself out.
I'd be willing to bet that the Montana state was affected a lot more in bumps than SoCal was. Purely on volume of players. Anyone that was competitive against those guys was probably bumped as well.
Thanks. I was having fun with it - but I do believe it. I'm an IT guy - to believe some Code Geek can craft software to magically standardize something as complex as hundreds of thousands (millions) of tennis matches in a year - ridiculous.
But its EXACTLY what you said...
If that's you in your avatar picture, and your age is 65 as per your signature, you would have to be pretty amazing to beat me. I know some pretty good 50-somethings, but 65 is really pushing the limit of physical capability.
You would need incredible ground strokes for a 65 year old or have to get into my head and throw me out of my game. I have a feeling you think you can FHslice winners on me, or moonball my backhand, or dropshot me. You might be able to, but I doubt it. Maybe if you had the touch of Mansour Barahmi...
I already posted it on this forum and im not going to post it again because im not here to advertise my channel. If you go to Youtube and look for 3.0 vs 5.0 point play you can find it. You'll know its mine when you see it.
Found that video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iD6dsekjms&feature=channel&list=UL
It doesn't seem like a helpful video for gauging your actual level of play, so I'm not sure what the point of referencing it here is. A video of match play against a 3.5 might be more informative.
What you said I said (that I could beat any NTRP 3.0C player on the planet), and what I actually said are different. Aren't you willing to bet money that you can beat any NTRP 3.0C player? Do you go into 3.0 matches thinking you're going to lose? The fact is that I have no way of knowing if I could or couldn't beat somebody on any particular day unless I play them, but from what I've seen on YouTube, and playing people around here, I'm willing to bet on it.
Having said that, and having watched your video, I might have to exlude you. Just watching you move around made me tired.
Considering your stroke mechanics, your youth, athleticism, speed, quickness, intelligence, and the fact that you're getting formal instruction leads me to suppose that you're a better player now than what's shown in your videos -- and that didn't look too bad at all. Showed a lot of promise.
I also looked at a few NTRP 3.5 videos. You seem to have better or at least comparable skills, and certainly move better, than the players in the videos I watched.
What I'm getting at is that I'm guessing that your current level of play is higher than NTRP 3.0. If you're still losing to 3.0s, then I have to wonder why.
Yes that's me, and I agree.
Yes, I know.
I don't generally do any of that stuff. Just serve and volley.
I doubt it too. So, when are you due to get bumped up?
I just spent some time looking at you tube videio's of 3.5, 4.0,4.5 guys play doubles. Is this how people should play at each level? Or just some people taking video of there team? I am playing USTA sectional at 3.5 this upcoming weekend and would be happy to see any of the 4.0 guys in the video's I watched. Maybe I watched the wrong one's I will try to find more later. Even the 4.0 singles player I saw had no top spin backhand and his slice was a floater. I think the biggest challenges facing the USTA as far as the adult leagues go is 1 - evening out the country as far as levels. 2- Stop all the sandbagging. We all know going into our USTA season that we need players who are either computer rated down a level or self rated to compete in playoffs. We also know we need to be careful with the self rates so the don't strike out. The place I play for is good at this as well as many other clubs. But saying this the problems will never be solved. I have been playing tennis for 5 years and I am 47 years old I have gone to playoffs every year at 3.5. The odd thing in my case is the last 2 years I got moved to 4.0 early start and moved back down year end. I did not know this but by me playing tri-level matches and having a bad record in that league is what has gotten me moved back down. Now I know some people who are going to try to do that this year just throw some tri-level matches so that they can manage there rating. Now that I know this I am not going to play tri-level. Seems like there is manys way to beat this system.
Make a video of yourself playing a match.
You will be shocked at how poor/slow you look.
I recently had a tennis pro buddy of mine do video's of me playing matches as well I played another sport on a high level and saw my foot work and things like that when I was young. It hurt old age is rough but I have some things that I can work on to help improve things. So I agree with you on that. Also I want to say that I am not putting anyone down! I was making the point that if this is the level the usta wants to be 3.5 the problem is greater than I thought. The people I will see this weekend will rip from both sides for the most part and be able to serve as well. As we say at practices is that we will not see anymore 3.5 players.
But back to your statement you are correct I looked slow and sluggish. I am hard on myself and have been beating myself up since I watched it. I will have an interesting winter trying to improve it.
I apologize if anyone thought I was putting anyone down. I am not about that.
No one thinks you are putting anyone down. You don't need to apologize.
Most people have an image of how they play and how their opponents look during a match which do not match the actual video footage.
You just need to be aware that in the videos you are looking at, people are not as bad as it looks on the video.
Someone mentioned that the goal of NTRP is to standardize ratings nationwide. How good a job does NTRP do?
I can only go by my personal experience, which is limited.
I went to senior 3.5 ladies nationals last year. I thought I would get smoked. I mean, our draw was Delaware, Florida, Southern California and Arizona. Semis was Lousiana, and we lost the final to NY in a match tiebreak on Doubles Three. In addition to the six matches I played, I watched parts of play of my teammates and other random matches.
Bottom line: There just wasn't much difference in the quality of the play on the various teams. No one seemed wildly out of level. Everyone looked like a 3.5 player. Some players did not even look to be on the high end of 3.5, and some were not bumped up to 4.0 later.
Maybe things are different at the adult level, where you might see more sandbagging. In seniors, I'd be surprised if there were any self-rates. By the time a person is a senior, they probably have a long history in the computer.
I think NTRP/USTA does a reasonable job of matching people up by ability so that people get competitive matches.
I'm sort of new to TT, but I've read many of your posts (because, well, you post a lot of posts), and you seem to be a a reasonable and quick witted person (albeit a tennis nut, as, I should think, all posters at TT are). Anyway, I think I have to agree with your last statement quoted above.
From what I've seen, and of course I also have to defer to your extensive USTA experience, I would agree with you that NTRP/USTA "does a reasonable job of matching people up by ability so that people get competitive matches".
The only question I have is, given that "NTRP/USTA does a reasonable job of matching people up by ability so that people get competitive matches", and given that local non-USTA leagues use the same NTRP guidelines and essentially the same criteria to result-adjust ratings, then would you conclude that a Tennis League Network 3.0 local playoff and/or national playoff player would be competitive with a USTA 3.0 B or C?
The video in question is there to show how good I am against a very formidable opponent and how high the standard of play needs to be to actually win. These videos are really just for me and me only and it will be hard for anyone to get use from them.
The only reason why I posted that video here are for people who have Q's about 3.0's (which I am) and its the only video I have of me playing out points. The point? TomT says he can beat any 3.0 C and would bet money on it. I said, I doubt it, here's a video of the best of my abilities against a 5.0 taking it easy on me. I think im pretty good for a 3.0 so if he wants to compare himself against that video, it's there for him to watch and see.
I dont have videos of me playing 3.0/3.5 because I dont need to see that. If that's what you want to see, sorry. I'm not concerned with trying to beat 3.5's. I'm concerned with trying to beat 4.5's and 5.0's because thats where I want to be one day.
Ack... guess I cant edit my last post...
I think it is too and I didnt play 3.0 adult league this last season even though I signed up on a team.
I played 3.5 adult and my record was like... 4-4 or something, but to be honest, I really only "tried" one match which I lost. That team was the first place team and my opponent was a 3.5 S on his first season. I went into that match telling myself that I needed to win and played as if our singles match was the deciding lineup. We lost 0-5 as a team, but I played as if it was 2-2.
The reason why that match still haunts me is because I was up 7-5 in the tie breaker, on my serve. He ran 5 points starting on my serve and I lost 10-7.
So im probably going to be bumped to 3.5 this year which was expected since I played up. My, uh, 7.0 teams were kinda wondering why I was basically "kissing it goodbye" haha. I had to write an assertive email explaining that I would be moving up because im going to play up and let the computer do its thing.
Would a local league 3.0 be equivalent to a USTA 3.0?
No. Not unless the local league process were comparable to the process USTA uses. Again, I don't do math or statistics, but I would think sample size coupled with the detail of the USTA algorthm would give you more accurate ratings.
What is the local league process you are referring to? Do they just have folks self rate using the USTA self rate guidelines and then have a few people decide who should move up or down based on unknown criteria? Or is there something else?
The simple answer is, no. A more precise answer lies somewhere between "maybe" and "probably".
To be statistically relevant, each league would need to have at least 500 player's results being compared. I know the USTA has this. I do not know about your local league.
Then, the dynamic aspects of USTA ratings would have to be identical. This is where the biggest statistical challenge lies. The USTA doesn't release the dynamic formula. It doesn't mean that it can't be observed and duplicated...or even precisely duplicated by a rogue USTA employee. But, the chances of it being 100% identical are very slim. Probably less than a ~4% likelihood, or more than 1 standard deviation.
Thus, it is an apples to orange comparison. Your local league may be stronger, may be weaker. One thing I'm nearly certain of is that it isn't the same. But like I said, the answer is somewhere between "maybe" and "probably".
Ya. This is what I would have said if I understood statistics.
Both USTA and the local leagues start with newcomers self rating according to NTRP guidelines. If a newcomer to a non-USTA local league has a USTA rating, then that's what they start with. Then ratings are adjusted according to results, and I suppose that the criteria in non-USTA local leagues are pretty much the same as USTA. So, I suppose that, say, a 4.0 after a season of play in the Broward Tennis League or the Tennis League Network denotes pretty much the same level of play as a USTA 4.0C .
But you seem to be saying that you know that a, say, BTL or TLN 4.0 isn't at roughly the same level of competition as a USTA 4.0C. So, the question is, how do you know that? I, and many others, think there's good reason to believe that the NTRP-based, result-adjusted ratings of non-USTA AND USTA players denote similar playing strengths. If you have reasons to doubt that, then what are they, exactly? What variable quantities do you think the USTA rating algorithm is factoring into its calculations that the non-USTA leagues aren't? What makes you think that a local league computer isn't using a very similar algorithm? I mean, if you think about it, there are only certain variables that can be factored in. Local non-USTA leagues have access to the same sort of relevant info that the USTA does.
Why 500? Where did you get that number? Anyway, the non-USTA league players in Broward County far outnumber the USTA league players, as far as I've been able to find out.
Well, how much different can the formulas be? We're talking about formulas for evaluating and denoting the relative playing strengths of tennis players based, I'm assuming, primarily on the results of matches.
On the contrary, I think it's likely that it's a valid comparison based on an essentially similar evaluational algorithm. That is, my guess is that the evaluational criteria are similar enough that they produce ratings which refer to similar ranges in competitive ability.
Then, to be honest, you're really not a 3.0, are you? Rather, you're in the 3.5 range. Is that correct?
500 is the number of statistical significance in a normal distribution bell curve. Hence, the S&P 500 is the best gauge of the relative strength of the US stock market. This is Stat 315 stuff at any university. A random sample's minimum number of subjects for a test hypothesis is 500.
How much different can they be? Who knows. I don't know the DNTRP formula and how it weights wins vs every player in a match. My whole point is that if no one non-USTA employee wise knows, how can we be certain that a certain local league has it perfectly aligned. We just can't.
They may in fact be "essentially similar", but that is an invalid statistical analysis. In the statistical world, it wouldn't be considered valid. I take it you don't have much of a statistic background? If you can't tell, it's what I do. Again, a 3.0 in your league may be a similar level, but it might not. It would be very tough to actually determine.
Ya. That's what I was going to say.
Cindy -- who took one year of 100 level statistics, which was just enough to teach her she knows nothing about statistics
You could just tell Tom that the WAG method of comparing tennis leagues is silly.
almost entirely incorrect
- quite arguable whether s&p 500 is in fact the best gauge
- s&p 500's reputation is based mainly on samplin methodology, not sample size
- minimum samplin varies based on many factors includin population characteristics, n is usually based on some form o distribution function
Obviously not, lol. I'm probably pushing 4.0+, but that depends on all of my game coming together at the same time. Also, im stronger in singles than in doubles in my opinion.
However, I am still currently a 3.0 C, and my account is legitimate. It's not a "fake account", an "alias", or anything like that. There's only one of me in the database and I have not lied on the questionnaire.
That's why I was quite skeptical over your statement that you can beat any "3.0 C" player. The fact that I played 3.5 is irrelevant. What if I played only 3.0 adult league and didnt elect to play 3.5 because im still a 3.0? I could very well have done that.
This is where you lose me in your argument. The USTA uses some secret formula to calculate ratings that nobody here knows. I've played in 4-5 non-USTA leagues that each use their own algorithm for evaluating player performance, and bumping you up or down if you cross some magical numerical threshold. Most of these leagues even post their algorithms on their websites.
Some leagues are known for inflated ratings compared to USTA. I know quite a few people who play a level higher in this one league than their USTA rating (i.e. rated 4.0 in flex league, but 3.5 in USTA). And of course they tell you their higher flex rating if you ask them what their rating is.
I don't know anything about your Broward County league. It's just my experience that many non-USTA leagues have inflated ratings compared to USTA. And it is because while they all use the NTRP guidelines for new players, they each have their own system for bumping players up and down after that. I'm not saying USTA is the end-all be-all, just that every league has their own criteria, and therefore are inherently different.
Go talk to your stats prof, kiddo
Separate names with a comma.