NTRP Ratings for Males and Females

Are NTRP Ratngs for Males and Females Equal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only Equal Up to 4.0

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Thanatos

Semi-Pro
Do you think that an NTRP rating 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 for males is equivilent to a NTRP rating 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 for females? If they are, then a 4.0 female should be able to compete at the same level as a 4.0 male and so on?
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
I think the rule of thumb is that men and women are equal in the the NTRP system when they are within one full point of each other.

In other words, a 4.0 man should be able to compete well with a 5.0 woman.

I am a 4.5 and I used to play with a woman that was the NCAA Division III National Singles champion (which I am guessing would put her somewhere between a 5.5 and 6.0) and we were pretty even.
 

kevhen

Hall of Fame
No they aren't setup that way but I wish they were but the the women pros would only be like men's 5.5 or 6.0. I have found that a men's 3.5 is equal to about a women's 4.0. But this sucks when playing mixed doubles since the 4.0 woman is usually much weaker than her 4.0 male partner and becomes the player to attack. If the levels were equal we could all compete in tourneys together, singles or doubles. That would be more fun, but some guys would hate losing to girls.

I would say more like a half point in difference. I know I can beat 4.5 women but am not sure I would beat 5.0 women but I could definitely compete with them. I find most of the best high school girls around here are 3.5 men's level and the very best are still weak 4.0 men's level and the one girl I played won state last year and I beat her 3 and 0. The NCAA top 64 woman I played this winter had to been 5.5 or 6.0 in her prime but would still be at least 5.0 women's level and she beat me in two close sets like 3 and 4. Some people that I play around here at the clubs think I am 4.5 though but others like Bill who has never seen me play would say I am more 3.5. I do typically beat other 4.0 men like 6-3, 6-4.

I would say at the 1.0-3.0 levels the men and women are pretty close in skills but at the 4.0 level if definitely starts to diverge and becomes even wider the higher you go up. Men are just faster, stronger, and serve much better thanks to their height and upper body strength at the higher levels. Women at the lower levels (3.0) get the ball back just as well as the men at those levels, sometimes better since they don't usually try to hit so hard.
 
Division III isn't that high. The average player in a division III college is a 4.5. You might find a solid 5.0 as champion, far from 6.0.

I don't believe there's any direct connection. At the lower levels, and up to even 5.5 or so, you'll find a lot of female players are almost or EQUAL to the male players. Above, you'll find the natural muscles and body men have resulting in greater power than women can achieve.

It might be different for me, since I've seen a lot of nationally ranked girls play where I live, but the difference is NOT that much until really high levels, where men can properly control and direct their different muscle mass into their shots.

edit:: Of course, I'm biased since I'm female. But it's what I believe, anyway from what I've seen.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
Actually, more than 5.0 for champion. Robert Chu is currently a division III player, and he's not a champion DIII player. This is a guy who beat the number 16 year old guy in the nation as a junior hardly training worth a lick compared to others.

It really depends. DIII can have either really good (5.5-6.0, legitimate open level) or just slightly above average talent (i.e. 4.5).

The #1/2 player at a ranked DIII program, however, can be very good up to having been an international ITF junior, highly ranked nationally/sectionally, former tour pro experience, etc.

It just depends. College tennis varies widely. You have guys in community college who are almost good enough to be on tour sometimes, and other times complete beginners.

There's no consistency in college programs at all except for the known DI programs. Even in lesser DI programs though there is variability where it would not be a surprise at all if a ranked DIII team took them out easily.

Just depends.

Also, I agree that at the lower levels there isn't as much difference between guys and girls. It's not until the 16s and up that the differences become more apparent.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
From what I've seen around here, and especially in mixed doubles, there's about a full point of difference. For example, a 4.0 rated woman is equal to about a 3.0 rated man, and a 4.5 rated woman is about equal to a 3.5 rated man.
 
Are you sure they're a 4.0 or 4.5 though? Everyone overrates themselves, women do too. The difference between 3.0 and 4.0 is a LOT, in terms of consistency and spin. Sure, the men may have power, but in no case do I see an actual 4.5 player losing to a 3.0.
 

cak

Professional
Around here, at the lower levels, they are off by half a point. A 3.5 woman plays even with a 3.0 man. At the higher levels they might diverge more.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Kana Himezaki said:
Are you sure they're a 4.0 or 4.5 though? Everyone overrates themselves, women do too. The difference between 3.0 and 4.0 is a LOT, in terms of consistency and spin. Sure, the men may have power, but in no case do I see an actual 4.5 player losing to a 3.0.

Yes, I'm sure. I know a lot of 3.5 men around here that are very good doubles players and can hit with both power and consistancy, and with good variety and placement. I've also seen some rated 4.5 women that really can't do much but lob. Oh, and I'm not talking about self ratings, but USTA computer ratings.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
Division III isn't that high. The average player in a division III college is a 4.5. You might find a solid 5.0 as champion, far from 6.0.

Kana, I think !Tym summed it up pretty good... there is a wide variety of NTRP levels in college tennis depending on the quality of the program, irregardless of Division 1-3.

I played Division II tennis and was #1 on my team, but was a 5.0 at my best. I never qualified for the national tournament, but I think one of the guys that won the championship (either my junior or senior year) played Davis Cup for for his country and had a top 500 ATP ranking. In other years, I know the Div II champ was not nearly that good.

The gal the I was talking about was a state high school champ also and had scholarship offers at several top 25 Division I schools, but chose to attend a Division III school for academic reasons. In fact, after she won the national championship, she almost dropped out of tennis to concentrate on her classes because she knew she wasn't going to turn pro. I haven't seen her for a long time, but I think she's a doctor now.
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
I always get confused on this board when posters talk about ratings. To me, the only rating that counts is computer generated. By the time this occurs, you pretty well know where you are. Self ratings and guessing, or statements to the affect that one is playing at about a 4.5 - 5.0 level iare for the birds, IMO. The computer generates ratings based on who you play and the results, tracking back to bench marked players. I have found that 4.0's in Florida, for instance, are much different than 4.0's in Kentucky,overall. On this basis, genders are equal. Now, can a 4.0 female beat a 4.0 guy. Depends on a lot of things. Where the rating orginates, the age and experience of the players, singles or doubles player, etc. All things being equal, the guy should win. But I have been involved in and witnessed some very competitive matches of same rated players of different gender.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
This just reminds me of the "Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs" battle.

I hate watching replays of that old match. Billie Jean King was the best female player in the world at the time, and Bobby Riggs was an old man well past his prime. In my opinion, the whole thing was just a ratings grab and Riggs's chauvinistic talk was just a put on to build up the hype.

If there were NTRP ratings then, I think King would obviously be a 7.0 and Riggs was no more than a 5.0 at the time. King would win that matchup 99% of the time.
 

kevhen

Hall of Fame
If only the Williams sisters would have played a match against Johnny Mac we could have gotten more people inspired to play tennis. Maybe Sharapova could play him.
 
T

TwistServe

Guest
A 4.5 male can probably beat a 5.0 female pretty easily..

A 5.5 male can probably beat any 5.5 female easily.

A strong 5.5 male can probably beat any WTA pro ranked 25-100+.
 
T

TwistServe

Guest
Kana Himezaki said:
I don't believe there's any direct connection. At the lower levels, and up to even 5.5 or so, you'll find a lot of female players are almost or EQUAL to the male players.

This is a complete joke!! ha,.. sorry Kana, but a 5.5 male will obliterate a 5.5 female probably 6-1, 6-0.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
If only the Williams sisters would have played a match against Johnny Mac we could have gotten more people inspired to play tennis. Maybe Sharapova could play him.

At this point in history, I would pick Mac to win a match with Sharapova easily in straight sets. He still keeps in shape on the Champions tour, and does quite well... and I'm sure his speed, power, and net game would be too much for any female player on the tour today.

(If you watched the Davenport or Venus match, you probably saw how poorly they move and how inconsistant they can be.)
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
This is a complete joke!! ha,.. sorry Kana, but a 5.5 male will obliterate a 5.5 female probably 6-1, 6-0.

Of the nearly 1500 posts he has created, this is one of the first times I agree with TwistServe!

I firmly believe the female NCAA champ that I mentioned before was a 5.5, and I was a 4.5 when we used to hit. When we played sets, we usually split. A 5.5 man would have cleaned up... 6-0, 6-1 or the like, as TwistServe stated.

It's not chauvinistic or a comment saying that 5.5+ female players are bad or don't belong on the same court... it's just a completely different level of speed, power, and consistancy with a 5.5+ man. I have a lot of respect for the champ I used to hit with, and many of the top collegiate and professional female players.
 

papa

Hall of Fame
I've played with and against some very good female players. The new racquet technology has certainly allowed them to hit with a great deal more power and coupled with better conditioning methods and practices, they (at least those I've played with for the most part) are very good and getting better. I hit with women on a regular basis and enjoy it but I would rather play against men - has nothing to do with ability as much as it has to do with tagging someone in the face --- I did that (actually in my case it was driving a shot into someone's ankle) and it wasn't a pretty picture -- god, she and another made me look like someone with an anger management problem.

However, I think this discussion rather silly but find myself aligned with Twist Serve if I had to vote on the matter.
 
S

SageOfDeath

Guest
I don't understand.... why can't they both be equal? So does this mean when you look up for a NTRP rating for a female the requirements to be at a 5.0 or 6.0 level would the different from a male? We may have more upper body strength and a broader back, but don't women have bigger love handles? Hip rotation is important and they have more hip than us.
 

antontd

Semi-Pro
Kana Himezaki said:
Division III isn't that high. The average player in a division III college is a 4.5. You might find a solid 5.0 as champion, far from 6.0.

I don't believe there's any direct connection. At the lower levels, and up to even 5.5 or so, you'll find a lot of female players are almost or EQUAL to the male players. Above, you'll find the natural muscles and body men have resulting in greater power than women can achieve

It might be different for me, since I've seen a lot of nationally ranked girls play where I live, but the difference is NOT that much until really high levels, where men can properly control and direct their different muscle mass into their shots.

Pathetic. Men and Women are not equal in sports. Accept it! I'm sure you(women) are better in some other things; like cooking. :mrgreen: ha-ha
 

goober

Legend
In adult club level tennis I would say that there is at least a .5 level difference between men and women. I play 4.0 level but I have beaten the 4.5 level women I have played fairly easily. I am sure most of the strong 4.5 level men could compete very successfully in the open level women's events around here.

I think most of this has to due to lack of competition. In the mens events tournaments will draw 16-32 players whereas the womens events almost always draw 4-6 and many times have to be cancelled at some levels because only like 2 or 3 people sign up. When there is that little competition, people who are good stand out a lot more and rate themselves up higher.
 
S

SageOfDeath

Guest
antontd said:
Pathetic. Men and Women are not equal in sports. Accept it! I'm sure you(women) are better in some other things; like cooking. :mrgreen: ha-ha

Whaoh..... are you talking to me?! I'm all male ok? But I do know how to cook, don't be jelous of my culinary skills. Men and Women are not equal in sports??? I don't know about that one...... I don't have a book of world records.
 
T

TwistServe

Guest
SageOfDeath said:
Men and Women are not equal in sports??? I don't know about that one...... I don't have a book of world records.

We talking about real sports! Football, baseball, basketball, tennis, hockey, golf.. even poker!

Remember what happen when that young girl tried to play in the PGA tour .. she got creamed! Men are bigger, stronger, faster, more agile, dexterious, and so forth... I would bet Andy Roddick could double begel most WTA pros.
 

cak

Professional
TwistServe said:
This is a complete joke!! ha,.. sorry Kana, but a 5.5 male will obliterate a 5.5 female probably 6-1, 6-0.

I don't know about 5.5 levels, but certainly at the lower levels it just depends. I'm a strong 3.0 woman. Though there are 3.0 women I have beaten 6-1, 6-0 there are no 3.0 women who beat me by that much. (Though there are certainly strong 3.5 women that can beat me by that much.) I'm fairly sure there are 3.0 men that can beat me by that much. I am also sure there are some 3.0 men that I can consistently beat, but probably not bagel. The range within a category is pretty huge. So I'm guessing you could find strong 5.5 women that can play even with or even beat weak 5.5 men, if you could call anyone at 5.5 weak. You could also find strong 5.5 men that could bagel any 5.5 woman.
 

GuyClinch

Legend
"I don't know about 5.5 levels, but certainly at the lower levels it just depends. I'm a strong 3.0 woman. Though there are 3.0 women I have beaten 6-1, 6-0 there are no 3.0 women who beat me by that much. (Though there are certainly strong 3.5 women that can beat me by that much.) I'm fairly sure there are 3.0 men that can beat me by that much. I am also sure there are some 3.0 men that I can consistently beat, but probably not bagel. The range within a category is pretty huge. So I'm guessing you could find strong 5.5 women that can play even with or even beat weak 5.5 men, if you could call anyone at 5.5 weak. You could also find strong 5.5 men that could bagel any 5.5 woman."

This just means at the 3.0 level the "self-rating" that alot of people have is BS. No one really knows what those ratings mean. All I know is that last year I self-rated myself a 2.5 and I was beating everyone I played fairly easily. So this year I rated myself a 3.0 so I could play some better people. Now I win about half the time. (Yes I am not a good tennis player - but I don't really practice)

Anyway there shouldn't be that much variance in rating. If you can consistently beat someone 6-1 or 6-0 then one of you is rated incorrectly (assuming your the same sex).

Pete
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
If you are playing USTA tennis, your rating is computer generated after one season. You do not self rate on a continuing basis. And I agree with cak, especially at the lower club levels. And, as I commented earlier, age makes a huge difference.
 

cak

Professional
To GuyClinch, my experience is with computer rated folks who got their ratings playing USA league. Self rated folks vary even more. I don't ever believe a self rating. Even mine the first year I played. :)
 

GuyClinch

Legend
To GuyClinch, my experience is with computer rated folks who got their ratings playing USA league. Self rated folks vary even more. I don't ever believe a self rating. Even mine the first year I played.

I agree with you. I want to join a league so I can get computer rated as well. It's hard for me to find the time. I have no real idea what my level is though I think it's on the bad side. :p I will try the 3.0 league since that is low as though go around here.

Pete
 
Top