The problem with judging someone's rating based on how they look is if they are better at winning than everyone else, then they are still a 5.0 despite how they look. A guy like that would beat average 4.5s in most areas even when stroke for stroke they look about even.
I totally agree that NTRP ratings are fully based on results, not looks. We have a guy in our 5.0 league that has terrible looking strokes. If you saw him warm up, you'd guess he's a 3.5 at best. However, he always wins about 70% of his matches because he's got exceptional hands, is really fast, is mentally tough, and is a way better athlete than he appears - the definition of a gamer.
This guy from the Southern team had good looking mechanics. I saw him hit some pretty forehand winners, and a couple aces. However, I also saw him make a lot of unforced errors that a 5.0 just wouldn't do. He's a middle of the road 4.5 in my opinion, based on the small sample size of the single match that I observed at Nationals. But, as I've said, my perspective is a little skewed since I'm a 4.5 on the way downward from a recent 5.0 rating, and I've been playing guys way better than him this year. However, I totally understand that he'd stand out in what is supposed to be a 4.0 tournament.
I believe he did play for Georgia Perimeter College after high school. That school was absorbed at some point into Georgia State University. Not sure what division they played or how much he played during college. He also played high level junior but don't recall what kind of results he had.
OK, this makes much more sense. In 35 years of competitive tennis, I've only ran across a couple guys that reached a 5.0 rating in their 40s without a decent junior, pro, or college playing background. You have to be a very good athlete and invest an inordinate amount of time to start tennis as an adult and advance to that level after your body hits the 40+ age range.
I can also see more why guys are complaining so much about this. This is an example of someone who played a decent level of junior tennis and college ball that has a history of doing OK in 4.5 going back 10 years, who self rates as a 4.5 after a few years off, loses exactly 3 matches by 6-0, 6-1 scores, and then turns around to lead his team to a National title while going 14-0 in 4.0... it does look very suspicious. Obviously, with his background, he'd know that he clearly was not a 4.0 as his play this year showed. And if he's playing for a captain that has a reputation for doing some shady ratings maneuvers, it's not out of the realm to think that he was convinced to take a fall in 4.5 in order to get his rating down and help this group become competitive at Nationals.
Unfortunately, this is a formula that has been successful by many, many National semifinal and championship teams. If it's not caught or policed at the Sectional level, the only thing the USTA can do is put the ratings hammer down at the year end. This player got smacked, along with the whole team. Similar to what happened with those two ringer kids from the cheating Texas team in 4.5 last year that got bumped to 5.5. Granted Texas made the semis, and this Southern team got a title... and it may seem hollow since they "won", but at least the USTA did something after the fact.
