Are you one of those who claim that 3.5s hit 100 mph kick serves?
If 4.0 was good, it wouldn't be a 4.0 LOL.
4.0 is where most recreational players land up. Then they grow old and become a 3.5 again.
playing with a partner that double faults
- Thread starter raiden031
- Start date
Are you one of those who claim that 3.5s hit 100 mph kick serves?
If 4.0 was good, it wouldn't be a 4.0 LOL.
4.0 is where most recreational players land up. Then they grow old and become a 3.5 again.
Boy, you really are full of yourself. With that kind of attitude, I'm sure you have a lot of friends.
Unfortunately there are all 3.5s and 4.0s LOL If any of us moves up, we will not be friends any more.
I agree with your assessment of this. Especially as far as the differences between serving in 3.5, 4.0, 4.5. (in 4.0 your serves are not really 'good' enough relative to the 4.0 returners. In 4.5 you start seeing serves that are.)
I think the problem is you cleverly used the word 'good' and 'not good', so rather than try to understand where you're coming from, people have chosen to feel bad about it and get offended instead.
(and in the case of cknobman, they've chosen to be rude, because in their offended state, they cant think of anything intelligent to counter your point)
Although the occasional awesome serve does exist at 3.5 and 4.0, but Im with you that it would pretty rare. Ive just started playing 4.0 tournaments myself and occasionally I get the guy that's probally really close to 4.5 (wins every match and/or appealed down) and Im starting to see serves that are way beyond what even the 4.0 players are bringing. (usually massive slice and kick and speed, and/or excellent placement)
I also notice that "decent" 4.0 players simply never double fault though when someone like myself (3.5) is involved in a match, but that's only because they dont have to. They have enough other things going for them, that they dont have to risk giving away free points against lessor competition. Against other 4.0 players with great returns that know how to grab control of a point right away, they dont have that luxery.
You are being way too sensative about this.
Rather you are 'good' or not is all relative, you shouldnt get too upset if someone points that out.
Unless you're a pro and I see you playing on TV, there are always TONS of players out there who are VASTLY way better than you.
That doesnt mean you shouldnt feel good about yourself if you accomplish something, but if that's the case you shouldnt get so offended because someone points out where you are as well.
Im in 3.5 myself, and I always like to think about the 4.0 players as "good" players, but the fact is there are still flaws in their game as well otherwise they would be playing 4.5. Someone who is just starting out has an outside chance making it to 4.0 if they have tons of athletic ability and skills with lessons, etc.... Making it to 4.5 is next to impossible (unless you quit your day job, and dedicate every day to playing tennis, and even then you may not make it).
Im not sure why people have to get so offended about that. If you are happy about where you at, then be happy about it. You dont have to make it into something that it's not.
Also if anyone does start thinking they are "good", then most of the time, they are not. People who dont think they are very good (which is everyone in any of the "skill ratings" from 2.5 all the way to 5.5), has things that they could work on to improve. The people who usually make a big deal about it and think they are "SO GOOD" are usually the ones who sandbag from year to year to win little plastic trinkets, but they never really improve their game.
(or they dont even make it that far in their own level)
I think your argument would make more sense if you werent stuck on the 100 mph kick serve idea.
You might be right, that they dont get 100 mph, but the problem is most players dont even fathom how fast their serve goes unless they have a speed gun there and they compare it to someone else. (I believe mine goes anywhere from 84 - 95 and it is a kick serve, that's based on a speed gun)
The problem is by itself, having a 100 mph kick serve doesnt mean it's anything like a serve you are going to see at 4.5. So to say that 3.5 players can NEVER hit kick serves is silly.
The difference that I notice is (even with my own kick serve) is that I lack specific placement on it, and the consistancy isnt always there.
If Im having a good day, a lot of 3.5 adults wont even return my serve, but Im not always having 'that' good of a day, and if they are smart, they will figure out where it's going and better prepare for it. (I played some up anc coming high school kids recently and they just simply moved way the heck back and were fast enough to run up once they saw what it was doing)
Sometimes if you find the magically spot when returning you can intercept any of these serves.
At 4.5 it's not like that because the server can vary the placement and sometimes they can throw in twist, so you have to read the serve early and move. You cant just stand in one spot. (for me it was too hard, I felt like I had to sprint for every serve half the time because the server was able to fool me everytime)
Im not sure that 4.5's necessarily hit it at 100mph though either all the time, or at least they dont seem 'THAT' much faster relative to the 3.5 and 4.0 players. I think they just have way better consistancy and control and it's more of a weapon for them.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Tossing around adjectives like "good" will only get you into trouble. Only the top pros can be described as "good."
As for whether a 4.0s serve is "good," well . . . if it can achieve what needs to be achieved (starting the point on the offense), then it is "good" IMHO. Remember, the returner is a 4.0 also and so lacks the return skills of Davydenko.
Cindy -- deciding not to mention how amusing it is to see 4.0s bristle when told they are not "good" because those of us at lower USTA levels hear that all the time around here
As for whether a 4.0s serve is "good," well . . . if it can achieve what needs to be achieved (starting the point on the offense), then it is "good" IMHO. Remember, the returner is a 4.0 also and so lacks the return skills of Davydenko.
Cindy -- deciding not to mention how amusing it is to see 4.0s bristle when told they are not "good" because those of us at lower USTA levels hear that all the time around here
for me there is nothing more annoying than playing doubles with people that constantly double fault. i have played with a kid who doubled faulted the entire game. i simply tell my partner to get the first serve in, and tell him/her that we can win the point after he gets the serve in. it rarely helps anything, but i have to say something..
I knew someone would get what I am saying
The nervousness in 4.0 second serves comes from the fact that 4.0 is the strange level at which the returner can hammer the return back.
When 4.0s play 3.5s or 3.0s, they rarely double fault, because the pressure is not there. Even if they do get a good return and lose the point, they can easily come back.
My definition of good is quite different. Obviously pros are good. That is a given. My definition of good is very specific and corresponds to other activities too. A "good" player is one who is never awkward or hesitant in any stroke. He/she plays as if they are driving. Backhands don't cause panic, just like left turns don't cause panic. They can make fine adjustments to their strokes and movement, instead of following a single action and then scrambling. Like they can control the pedal to fine tune the car speed instead of driving in the same mode. When you see a 4.5 player, the difference with a 4.0 player is obvious immediately. The 4.0 player has a wobbly second serve, backhand is jerky, simple shots draw outrageous motions, like standing still and waving the racquet, etc. That is why I maintain that 4.5 onwards is good and 4.0 is the level all players with improper technique will end up at. This is what a coach said in another section too.
Think of what you mean by a good driver. Is it a Nascar or Formula 1 driver? No. Put it this way - you will send your children to school in a bus driven by a 4.5 driver but never with a 4.0 driver. Get it?
My opinion is based on experience playing at my local club 4.0 singles ladder which has about 35 players.
Your accessment of the 4.0 abilities in general is a bit harsh although it is true for 80% of the players. The top 20% maybe don't have perfect techniques, but I wouldn't classify them as "improper".They have very decent serves and half of them play serve and volley. Incidentally most of them continously take lessons and cardio tennis.
A group of about 6 players bounce back and forth between 4.0 and 4.5 ladder, although they normally lose 6-1 to 6-3 range ( to the bottom of the 4.5 ladder).
I agree that there is a huge difference between 4.0 and 4.5, but the 4.0 especially the strong 4.0 are not as bad as you made them out to be.
Then again I wonder what a 5.0, 5.5 player would say about the 4.5 level!
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Oh, I get it. I just think you are incorrect.
A good driver is one who is effective under the circumstances.
A good tennis player is one who is effective on his or her level. That is why you will hear people say things like, "Let's invite Sarah onto our team; she's a good 3.0."
A 5.0 will challenge a 4.5 enough so that the 4.5 starts making mistakes and begins to look Not So Good. All of a sudden the 4.5 backhand that was smooth and effortless against someone of their level goes off a bit. The smooth movement looks a bit slower when the opposing player is that much better. And so forth.
Everything is relative, IMHO. Trying to pick one spot as the place where everyone above is "good" and everyone below is "not good" seems a rather silly exercise to me. Especially if you are going to say that a 4.5 player who can't possibly earn a living at this sport is "good."
I think suresh's point though partially is that at 4.0, the returns have actually increased enough in relation to the serves that the serves are not yet the big offensive weapon that affects the point from the get go as it seems.
If that's true, it's because the serve is about the hardest thing you can learn, and it's far easier to master everything else.
Thus from his perspective the serve is "not good" yet, but the rest of their game might be "better". (but still not perfect because it's not fluid enough yet)
As far as the other strokes, I dont believe that 4.0 is filled with tons of players with bad technique. That sounds sort of inaccurate to me. It may not be as fluid as 4.5, but not every pro uses the best technique out there either. (a lot of them have different interesting variations, that are probally bad for most people to copy)
I have seen people with REALLY strange technique make it as far as 4.0 though (not really dominate 4.0's or anything though) and that simply doesnt happen at 4.5. Right now I know a pusher who has a sort of crazy hook serve, and sometimes uses a one or two handed forehand or backhand, and he's beaten some lower 4.0 players. (I define them as 4.0 players because they have won some matches in the 4.0 league, and they seem to beat most of the 3.5 players)
I'll take a 6.0 player. 4.0 / 4.5, not really a big diffrence to me.
I use the same idea when I take lessons from a teaching pro. My friend is a 6.0 player, he used to be ranked in the top ten in the country (in the amatuer level) and was #2 in the Mid_West. He's surpassed the skill rating system (6.0 is not about skill, 5.5 is the last true "skill rating"), thus he has no skill weaknesses, and because of how he used to play (smart, along with identifying his opponent's weaknesses), he's able to help a lot of players.
But he's still not "good". Physically, or skillwise, he probally was never good enough to make any money actually playing the sport, so there are probally a few thousand people even still that are better than him.
To him, it doesnt matter if you are a 3.5 / 4.0 / 4.5. He's going to find out what you are doing wrong (and you're always doing something wrong) and let you know.
And if you think you are good, he'll play you in a match, and then you might reconsider. (he has a funny way of playing down to people where you wont notice that he's doing anything but he'll just play enough out of your range where you just feel like you suck)
"good" is really subjective after all. Im a 3.5 player running a 3.5 team, so usually "good" for me is someone with a good attitude that actually knows that they are not perfect and is working on their game so they'll probally make it to 4.0 at least in a year or so. You can teach technique all you want, but if someone doesnt have the right mental attitude and doenst know how to approach a match, they probally wont succeed at any level.
Im not sure what the point of the bus driver analogy is anyway. Im not driving a school bus. Im playing tennis, and Im not depending on someone else to play tennis for me.
I agree with you that there is probally a point around between 4.0 and 4.5 where there starts to become a big difference in what you will encounter. But the reason why it's like that, is it's hard enough to become a good 4.0 player with a considerable amount of time and effort, much less a 4.5 player. And when you are dealing with adults who have jobs and other commitments, that are not yet 4.5 players, they in most cases wont have the time, money, or energy to spend on it.
So what would you suggest, not playing? It's all relative.
Last edited:
The "good" factor can be noticed by people who are not into tennis. Cindy and others are not getting it. When I used to observe tennis or table tennis or badminton players, everyone around would focus on the "4.5" players, whether or not they knew anything about the game. A "4.5" table tennis player can hit 50 forehands in a row (while rallying) quite easily - a "4.0" will falter after 5. There are elements fundamental to all sports - balance, posture, hand-eye coordination, running skills, jumping skills etc. The threshold where the play is not a pain to watch is 4.5 in tennis. You can measure it by the number of balls hit in a rally, or the rhythmic sound of impact, or by other things. Just go to a club and watch who the spectators are watching towards the end of the social, as they sit with drinks in their hand and dreaming about dinner. It is not the awkward 4.0 guys to be sure.
That may be true, but I dont care about "non tennis playing" spectators. They dont know anything about tennis or what's involved in playing it.
I can appreciate a good 4.0 match between two tough opponents. I actually "play" tennis, so I can better identify with them rather then a couple guys who are playing a game that isnt anything close to what Im doing.
(it's like that in the pros as well, I would gravitate toward players like Brad Gilbert, Alex Corretja, etc.... who are not as talented, but work hard and sometimes upset the big names and can peak as high as 3. I will identify better with them)
The problem with your line of thinking is that a lot of 3.0/3.5/4.0 players actually do believe in what you are saying, they care more about looking good then actually playing well, thus they cant even make it out of their own level. (because they are trying to do things that they have seen on TV, but dont really understand)
And actually the spectators will gravitate toward the "Open" level events, not the 4.5 events. (or whatever the highest event is) If the highest even is 4.0, they probally will gravitate toward that because there is a difference between that and 3.5 or 3.0.
(although most socials that I am at are filled with actual tennis players so they dont necessarily subscribe to such narrow minded thinking)
Most of the non-tennis playing fans that I know will not sit and watch a whole tennis match anyway at any level. NASCAR is on, or an exciting football game, and they would rather watch that. (but they would rather watch tennis than golf Im sure, that's a real snooze for non-golf players)
I dont know anything about table tennis or badmidton ratings, but i dont care what the layman thinks. 4.5 is not "good". There is still a huge range between that, and my friend (who is at 6.0), which means there are probally thousands of thousands of players out there who you dont have a chance at beating. (although at the adult level you've surpassed a decent amount since the bulk of players are in 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0)
I try to base things on actual sound reasoning, not on who "looks good". I have a freind from my tennis team that has his own table tennis table, and probally could beat any of us who only occasionaly play table tennis. He employs spin, decent pace, and against us he has a very good amount of control.
He played this chinese guy at our university one day, and lost like 21 points to 0. So by my logic, my friend is probally not very good at table tennis, no matter how impressive he might look against us. (because I seriously doubt the chinese guy is anywhere near the elite either, there are probally millions if not billions of people that will beat that guy)
But by your logic, if a bunch of spectators saw my friend and someone similar play and they got a good rally going, it means they are "good".
(also another flaw with that logic, is if the spectators didnt play table tennis, they would be bored out of their minds no matter how good the players are. You can be amazed at something that takes some skill for maybe 3-5 minutes, but eventually you'll want to move on and watch something that is actually more entertaining then watching a ball go back and forth. A good majority of the spectators would rather just play themselves, no matter how good they are, which is where we are at with this little fun debate)
Last edited:
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
And as soon as touring pros show up and start to hit, the spectators move en masse over to watch them, abandoning the 4.5 guys.
Which means what, exactly? That 4.5s aren't good compared to 7.0s, I guess . . .
People like to watch sports (and music and other things) performed at the highest level available to them. That hardly proves your point about who or what is "good."
Cindy -- who likes watching one particular 9 year old girl hit because she is really "good," but thinking Nadal could make her look pretty bad indeed
When talking about spectators, in women's club tennis I have often seen looks (and I mean skimpy outfits) trump skill in pulling in the crowds. Really, you think anyone is actually watching club tennis for the tennis?
I ran into a lady today that plays social matches with friends in my circle, but I've never run into her. I was excited to get her number, so we can get together and play. My daughter asked if the lady was really good. And I answered the lady is known for being fun to play with. And in my tennis circles, being known for being fun gets you way more games than being good.
So to bring it full circle to the original question, I don't mind a player that double faults in a social match. Half the time I don't even know the score in a social match. As long as she doesn't beat herself up about it, plays on, and has fun, I'm good with that.
I ran into a lady today that plays social matches with friends in my circle, but I've never run into her. I was excited to get her number, so we can get together and play. My daughter asked if the lady was really good. And I answered the lady is known for being fun to play with. And in my tennis circles, being known for being fun gets you way more games than being good.
So to bring it full circle to the original question, I don't mind a player that double faults in a social match. Half the time I don't even know the score in a social match. As long as she doesn't beat herself up about it, plays on, and has fun, I'm good with that.
Topaz
Legend
Raiden,
I've often found it useful to ask my partner if they'd like me to move from my position up at the net and go back to the baseline or stand a bit wider, etc. That way they get a more open view of the court and can serve without having to worry about hiting me.
Of course, I'd only suggest that if I knew the other person wasn't going to take offense. If they might, I'll just shut up and keep my head down.
So your idea of 'good' means that probably 85% of all tennis players are NOT good? I have to say that in my opinion 4.0 would be good considering how much time and effort it takes to even reach that level, and the proportion of people that will make it there.
Probally way more than 85%.
I think the big difference between tennis and those other sports he's mentioning is that tennis is such that you dont have to be a 4.5 player and you can still have fun competing. Thus it has a lot more players in the lower skill levels who are still seriously competing.
Badmitton, and Table Tennis are okay if you have your own table or you're just amusing yourself for a bit, but unless you develop some decent skills, or you have good hand eye coordination, they become sort of boring really fast.
Either you have a fair amount of skill at those games, or you are just the occasional participant. In tennis there are a lot more people who are in between. (they are capable of playing a competitve match with each other, yet they dont necessarily look like the people on TV either)
So again, I think that analogy is sort of weak.
That's keeping in mind though, that I agree that there is a definate difference in general from a 4.5 players serve versus a 4.0 players serve and they have usually accomplished a better balance of using it as a weapon yet maintaining control. But to generalize one or the other as "good" or "bad" is silly. If someone is a 3.5 player, the 4.0 players serve is going to be consistant, and will be challenging enough for them that's they should think it's pretty "good", despite what they see on TV.
If someone wins the 3.5 championship however and they think they are the greatest thing in the world, then I agree. They suck, and they should be happy that they were lucky enough to be at the right level at the right time. (after all, there is no championship for the best 3.25 players, maybe their should be......)
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
So . . . in deciding who is good, our yardstick is that 90-95% of players are not good and only the very top 5-10% of people are good. Geez, when I was going to school, I considered a "B" (80%) to be "good." I thought grade inflation usually worked the other way around!
Just so I understand how we're using this yardstick, am I correct that almost all juniors, no matter how accomplished or successful they might be, also are not good? 'Cause most of them would lose to a 4.5 male player, so these juniors are not good. Even if they are the very best junior in their whole state, they are not good?
And as long as we're handing out "You suck!" badges, I guess almost all amateur women get one. 'Cause most of them would lose to a 4.5 male also, so there are hardly any amateur women in the U.S. who are any good at all.
Wow.
If someone wins a 3.5 championship, I highly doubt they think they "are the greatest thing in the world." We all know who is the greatest thing in the world: Roger Federer.
If someone wins a 3.5 championship, then they are entitled to have everyone think they are good or even the best at their level. They deserve some respect for their progress and mental toughness and pluck. They don't deserve to have anyone tell them they are not "good."
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand all the energy being put into denigrating the accomplishments and skill levels of other players. I think my pro has it right. If I'm doing something well, he will tell me it was "good" or "good for my level." I guess he's wasting his breath, 'cause only 4.5 men and above can be called "good" and he didn't get the memo.
Cindy -- idly wondering whether wheelchair players are also disqualified from being "good"
In college I was a driver for a student run bus system that drove city and school buses. You got to bid on routes, with those with more seniority biding first. The school buses routes always got picked up dead last. Needless to say, this analogy really cracked me up.
So . . . in deciding who is good, our yardstick is that 90-95% of players are not good and only the very top 5-10% of people are good. Geez, when I was going to school, I considered a "B" (80%) to be "good." I thought grade inflation usually worked the other way around!
Just so I understand how we're using this yardstick, am I correct that almost all juniors, no matter how accomplished or successful they might be, also are not good? 'Cause most of them would lose to a 4.5 male player, so these juniors are not good. Even if they are the very best junior in their whole state, they are not good?
And as long as we're handing out "You suck!" badges, I guess almost all amateur women get one. 'Cause most of them would lose to a 4.5 male also, so there are hardly any amateur women in the U.S. who are any good at all.
Wow.
If someone wins a 3.5 championship, I highly doubt they think they "are the greatest thing in the world." We all know who is the greatest thing in the world: Roger Federer.
If someone wins a 3.5 championship, then they are entitled to have everyone think they are good or even the best at their level. They deserve some respect for their progress and mental toughness and pluck. They don't deserve to have anyone tell them they are not "good."
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand all the energy being put into denigrating the accomplishments and skill levels of other players. I think my pro has it right. If I'm doing something well, he will tell me it was "good" or "good for my level." I guess he's wasting his breath, 'cause only 4.5 men and above can be called "good" and he didn't get the memo.
Cindy -- idly wondering whether wheelchair players are also disqualified from being "good"
A B grade in school is usually based on succeeding past some certain level. It has nothing to do with how many people succeed at that level.
It could very well be the case that the majority are way below the B level, which unfortuanally would prove suresh's point. (only in that case, your talking about something that is a lot more important than playing tennis)
I said "If someone thinks they are the best in the world".
Sure, some team that has been improving may win a championship, but a lot of those teams are not like that. Their players continually appeal, and they go out finding self-rates because they think they deserve to win and there is something wrong if they dont.
If some team has been improving for years and finally they made it to some level, I think they deserve credit, but that's not the case for most of those teams out there. (especially the ones who tend to win every year)
If you are dominating 3.5 year after year, and you have to appeal, it's questionable whether you can say you were the "best 3.5 team", since you probally are not competitive anyway. The same team usually will do pretty well in 4.0 (although they may not win it).
It's obviously my opinion and you can pooh pooh it all you want, but I think for the people who spend all their time and energy just to play down to gain some championship, they are wasting their time, and they do not deserve anyone's praise. Most players sign up for what happens during the season, not what happens in the post season, and if you are winning easily week after week, most normal people are not going to see the value in that. (but these people do apparently)
As far as wheelchair tennis, I'll let you hang yourself on that one. What if they are in a wheelchair, and hitting against wall, "extremely old" around 55, they try to be friendly and tell you about their situation ("ewwww.....") and they happen to give you advice at the same time?
Topaz
Legend
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Topaz, you nailed it. Introducing sandbagging into this discussion is just a red herring. I mean, in one post Javier has now accused our 3.5 tournament champion of being a sandbagger, someone who "sucks," someone who was just lucky, and someone who just had good timing. Man, alive! Why work so hard to avoid patting the 3.5 champ on the back and saying, "Job well done! You're pretty good."
As for Javier's peculiar reference to wheelchair players . . . I guess we should be relieved that he didn't come right out and say wheelchair players are "no good" or "suck."
As for Javier's peculiar reference to wheelchair players . . . I guess we should be relieved that he didn't come right out and say wheelchair players are "no good" or "suck."
I would never say anything of the sort. That would be as bad as your biggoted comments or ideas about people who dont fit into your mold of what's ideal....
(players who dont say a lot, older lonely guys who give too much advice, etc....)
Wheelchair tennis is a whole seperate event. Most of those players are way better athletes then the majority of non-wheelchair players, and they dont have to strive for some plastic trophy or get all the glory on TV to get to that point.
Oh and by the way, you're the one who opened your mouth about Wheelchair players, not me? Why do you feel the need to drag them into this? What are you saying? That they are somehow not as good as the rest of us? You seem to be implying that yourself otherwise you wouldnt of used them as an example. That's far more peculiar then anything I said, which is why I dont mind blasting you about it now. (otherwise I was going to stay out of the other topic)
Last edited:
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Dude. You're on the wrong thread.
This thread is about Raiden playing with a partner who double-faults.
The other thread you have in mind is about a stranger who came up to me, said some strange things, and offered unsolicited advice. Search for "unsolicited advice" if you can't find it.
You're also blatantly misquoting me (I didn't call him "extremely old" or say "ewwwwww"). That is another reason why you might want to bop over to that other thread if you have something to say about it, so that you can avoid misconstruing or misquoting what others write.
I hope you will be big enough to acknowledge your errors and set the record straight. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
I am not sure about the number of people in between. If you consider only the US, the number of TT or Badminton players is not large. It is quite different in China, for example. Even in the US, there is a whole spectrum of players in hotspot cities. I am a "4.0" in table tennis, what they call advanced intermediate, and ends at 1400 or so in the USTTA ratings. From the 1600s are the "advanced" players - I would call them the 4.5s.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
The reason I brought wheelchair tennis into this is simple.
If anyone is going to make the argument that only 4.5 men and up are "good," then one necessarily excludes the rest of the tennis-playing world as "good." The rest of the non-4.5-male tennis-playing world includes seniors, juniors, women and wheelchair players. If you want to call these folks "not good" or say they suck, go right ahead.
That was the point.
So . . . in deciding who is good, our yardstick is that 90-95% of players are not good and only the very top 5-10% of people are good. Geez, when I was going to school, I considered a "B" (80%) to be "good." I thought grade inflation usually worked the other way around!
A is good. B is not good.
Some counties grade restaurants for hygiene. Would you eat in a B establishment?
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Uh . . . what a weird and silly hypothetical.
Sure, let's go with it.
If the price of a meal in "A" is $1,000,000,000 and the price of a meal in "B" is $7.99, and someone will shoot me in the back of the head if I opt not to dine, then I will choose "B."
Why would it include all these players? Juniors do NOT have NTRP ratings - they are ranked in age categories. From my experience, a good high school varsity freshman boy or sophomore girl are already equivalent to adult 4.5s. Wheelchair players have their own tournaments with different rules. What have they got to do with this discussion? They don't even matter to the original thread title because I doubt if the partner who double faults was in a wheelchair.
Women have their own ratings too. I would say 5.0 woman would be a good player if you relate it to the men's scale, otherwise you can still say 4.5 woman is good.
You have a point about seniors. After 70, things do get a bit dicey. If you are talking about Dodo Cheney in her 90s, yes, is it good or bad tennis raises a lot of questions and debate.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Juniors do not have NTRP ratings. So I guess you'd say the only way to tell if they are "good" would be to see if they can beat a 4.5 guy?
Look, you can have your definition of good, and you do. I just think it is conveniently arbitrary (what is your NTRP rating, BTW?) given that there are higher levels than 4.5.
I think that's a silly way to look at it, frankly. But if we go with your approach, then I'd say if you can't play on the tour and support yourself with your tennis, then you are *NOT GOOD.* Which means no one on this board and no one playing league tennis is good.
And FWIW, the varsity boys I see playing at the prep school where I play tennis are not, not, *not* equivalent to a 4.5 USTA guy. No flippin' way.
Look, you can have your definition of good, and you do. I just think it is conveniently arbitrary (what is your NTRP rating, BTW?) given that there are higher levels than 4.5.
I think that's a silly way to look at it, frankly. But if we go with your approach, then I'd say if you can't play on the tour and support yourself with your tennis, then you are *NOT GOOD.* Which means no one on this board and no one playing league tennis is good.
And FWIW, the varsity boys I see playing at the prep school where I play tennis are not, not, *not* equivalent to a 4.5 USTA guy. No flippin' way.
Trying to discuss who is "good" is the equivalent of trying to decide who is "rich". But really what it comes down to is that anyone who makes 5x what you do is probably someone you consider to be rich. If you make 20k a year someone who makes 100k a year is rich. If you make 50k then someone who makes 250k seems rich. You make a million a year and you look at the people who make 5 million and think they are rich. And for Tennis I think that anyone that would put you at risk of getting double bageled would seem good to you. When you first start playing a legit 3.5 seems to be good because they can just toy with you. As you move up your definition of "average" goes up and it takes a better player to seem good.
Last edited:
cak said:
Okay, let's go with the story that led to my first observation. I was playing ladies 3.0 tennis. I'm not going to argue that the ladies playing 3.0 tennis are good. Especially the ladies on the court I was on. I was playing at a terribly friendly club, with quite a spectator patio with a bar-B-que. One of my opponents was a lovely young lady who apparently had recently acquired some new boobs. This must of been one of her first times playing with them, as she had yet to buy new shirts, and her old wardrobe really put them front and center. They were even distracting me. We were on one of the two courts the spectators could really see, but unfortunately, at the end of the first set, the wind came up and started blowing the bar-B-que smoke over our court. So I offered to move down a few courts, so the smoke would not be in our eyes. The court was open, we started to move down. The spectators threw a fit, no, no, no! (Which was yet another hint these were new, this was her home court, they could watch her anytime....) Well, the other spectator court was being used by 4.5 men. And yes, they moved the 4.5 men to the far court so this young lady would still be in ogling range. And, to bring the story back to the main topic; this lady was still working on learning to serve around these things, and well, I have never seen someone double fault more than this young lady did in this match. And I can guarantee you, no spectator, not amongst the giddy giggling ladies or the slackmouthed gentlemen, noticed how many times she double faulted. I'm not sure they even noticed she lost.
Which brings me to another question, can you get a NTRP medical appeal down for breast augmentation surgery?
most intelligent posting yet. "good" in tennis is extremely subjective. i have taught some friends to play tennis and they can play at a very solid 3.0 to 3.5 rating. now i'm a decent 4.0 player but they think i'm the best non-pro they've ever seen pick up a racquet. which is really quite laughable but it's really nice for my ego in my old age.
but really at my level i've played 4.5's and 5.0's who make me look downright foolish. it's all relative. and it also seems to vary by region as these NTRP ratings fluctuate wildly.
saying you haven't "made it" or you aren't "good" til you hit a certain range is extremely limiting and myopic.
Well said Spot.
It is not "good"
Even when I was a 3.0, I did not think that a 4.0 was the best non-pro
haha. yeah they haven't seen enough 4.5 or higher players to know the difference. but the relative scarcity of players 4.5 or higher makes that difficult. i thought i read somewhere that only 5% of players ever make it to 4.5 or higher. if someone has the correct percentage please correct me.
how did this topic go from double faults to how to tell if someone is "good" at tennis?
I made a stupid post and then everyone took it seriously, so I was left defending it
Ha, but it's all good.
You made some interesting points anyway (the ones that are around noticing the difference between 4.0 and 4.5+, but not the ones labeling them as "good"), no big deal.
At least you're an honest person and it seems you are in the same boat as I am. Just because someone's better than I am doesnt mean Im going to make a big deal about it, and it certainly doesnt mean they know more about tennis than I do.
I think certain people just misunderstood you and mistook you for someone who is a 4.5 player, as if you were bashing them for not being 4.5 players.
If anyone is playing tennis and their goal is to improve they shouldnt be too impressed with the people who are only one level better than they are. You very well may get there someday and you're going to have to deal with beating those people eventually. (since the whole point of playing is to try to win....)
Not sure what that had to do with the OP either, but who cares?
You just said it was okay to say those people suck.
suresh didnt say anything about "men, seniors, juniors, women, and certainly not wheelchair players". If you dont know the difference between reaching out and grabbing those groups of people in the discussion, and talking about a number that is related to SKILL, then I feel sorry for you.
Seniors can be any level, so they are not relavent to the discussion. What are you inferring that they arent? (why bring them up?)
Juniors can be any level as well. They may not play in NTRP leagues, but the NTRP system is a representation of your skill level so they could be classifyed (by a pro) as being in any level. Most of the Juniors that I have experience with are usually 4.0 or better. (on average they are WAY better than most of the adults because they hit like 5000 balls a week and they are better off physically)
Women can be any level. Suresh never mentioned men versus women, so Im surprised you even felt that you had to bring that up. When it comes to 3.5 doubles however, there are TONS of women that I would way rather play with then the 3.5 men. Anyone at 3.5 has not usually developed the type of weapons that make a big difference between men/women/seniors, so if you have someone who's smart and consistant and knows what they are doing, that rules in 3.5. (which is why in 7.0 mixed in our leagues sometimes the women are more of a threat, and in the 3.5 men's league, there are 68 year old guys who consistantly win a lot of 3.5 tournaments)
I already mentioned what I thought about wheelchair players, but that's the stupidest example yet. Besides, like suresh said, they do play by their own rules. (for one, you have to be in a wheelchair to play) I dont know this for sure, but I bet you can take a bunch of "good" tennis players, stick them in a wheelchair and they will get rocked by a real wheelchair player. It's not that easy.
It's nice how you have to feel the need to put words in other's mouths that have nothing to do with what they've even said. It's not the first time.
Do you even know anyone in a wheelchair? Or do you shy away, because they are "ewwwwy"?
If I was a 4.5 player, I wouldn't be posting here .....
No but seriously it is all good
Similar threads
