RATING 3.5 4.0 4.5 etc

M

monkeyisland90

Rookie
Just some questions on rating and would like some opinions

1. If there was a pie chart that showed people playing tennis .. what percentage would be 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 etc...

2. Is 3.5 consider good player? Or 4.0 player considered good.. (i definately know 4.5 and above is great players).

3. Estimating, how long does it take for someone to be 4.0 player or even 4.5.
Some people just have natural talent but i'm just wondering a ball park figure.

4. If someone is 3.5 rating is chances of them beating a 4.0 player pretty slim? same for 4.0 to 4.5, 4.5 to 5.0 etc...

5. If someone plays really well one day like 4.0 and above and the next day he plays like 3.0 - 3.5 against a 4.0 player.. on a consistent basis (like this happens to him 50/50 of his matches)... what rating would this be considered?
 
H

HellBunni

Rookie
monkeyisland90 said:
Just some questions on rating and would like some opinions

1. If there was a pie chart that showed people playing tennis .. what percentage would be 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 etc...
Click to expand...

I guessing it would be something like
3.0 25%
3.5 40%
4.0 25%
4.5 - 5.0 10%

2. Is 3.5 consider good player? Or 4.0 player considered good.. (i definately know 4.5 and above is great players).
Click to expand...

well that all depends on what you define as "good", or who you compare them to.

In my opinion 3.5-4.0 players are decent, they have the shots but lack consistency and game plans (in general).

3. Estimating, how long does it take for someone to be 4.0 player or even 4.5.
Some people just have natural talent but i'm just wondering a ball park figure.
Click to expand...

It depends a lot on the age of the player, and how often they play.
High school aged kids should be able to be 4.0 and above within 3 years or so.
I would think it takes 4 years + for an adult to get to around 4.0-4.5.

4. If someone is 3.5 rating is chances of them beating a 4.0 player pretty slim? same for 4.0 to 4.5, 4.5 to 5.0 etc...
Click to expand...

when someone is a "3.5", they could be the "top" of 3.5, meaning they are nearing 4.0. So such a player beating a "low" 4.0 is not that slim.
Also tennis is about match ups, so a player has a chance to beat someone 1 level above them if their style matches well against his opponent.

5. If someone plays really well one day like 4.0 and above and the next day he plays like 3.0 - 3.5 against a 4.0 player.. on a consistent basis (like this happens to him 50/50 of his matches)... what rating would this be considered?
Click to expand...

he would be a "3.5"
 
C

Cruzer

Professional
monkeyisland90 said:
3. Estimating, how long does it take for someone to be 4.0 player or even 4.5.
Some people just have natural talent but i'm just wondering a ball park figure.
Click to expand...

In my section 4.0 players are real good players and 4.5 players are real, real good players. Unless you are still fairly young and are planning to devote a lot of time (like 2-3 hours a day) to playing tennis you may never get to even a 4.0 level. Other factors such as general athleticism can impact how quickly you can improve. I know I guy who started playing tennis 4 years ago at 3.0 and today he is rated 4.5 but I would consider him an abnormal case.
 
Last edited:
C

Caswell

Semi-Pro
It's a bell curve, with 3.5 and 4.0 at the peak. Some areas may have more 3.5 players, others may have more 4.0 players, but that's generally where the large majority of competitive recreational players sit.

4.5 and above requires some serious court time just to remain competitive. Just about every player I know at that level plays on average one match per day.
 
K

kevhen

Hall of Fame
My estimates for people at each rating level
1.0 90% of people don't know the rules of tennis.
2.0 4% of people know the rules but are horrible at the game.
2.5 3% of people sort of hit the ball but aren't too good.
3.0 2% of people can have slow recreational rallies.
3.5 1/200 people can play competive tennis.
4.0 1/1000 people can handle moderate paced rallies
4.5 1/10,000 people can hit with decent pace, spin, placement, and consistency.
5.0 1/50,000 can play scholarship caliber tennis.
5.5 1/100,000 can win half their D1 matches.
6.0 1/200,000 can be ranked nationally at the university level.
6.5 1/1,000,000 can play satellite tournaments and do well.
7.0 1/10,000,000 can play at the pro level.

If you go by just club players then it is more of a bell shape curve with 3.5 and 4.0s at the top. My numbers are for the overall public. Mostly higher end (4.0+) players play club tennis. You can still see many 3.0s and 3.5s who just play on public courts.
 
Last edited:
J011yroger

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
kevhen said:
5.0 1/50,000 can play scholarship caliber tennis.
5.5 1/100,000 can win half their D1 matches.
6.0 1/200,000 can be ranked nationally at the university level.
6.5 1/1,000,000 can play satellite tournaments and do well.
Click to expand...

I don't consider 5.0 scolarship caliber tennis.

If you play for a top 75 D1 school no matter your record you are by definition 6.0

If you play sats/futures (I would add and have an ATP point) you are by definition a 6.5 player.

I understand that your numbers are arbitrary, so I won't comment on them. If you wanna give it a look, I started a thread on high level play rating.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=118505

J
 
goober

goober

Legend
monkeyisland90 said:
Just some questions on rating and would like some opinions

1. If there was a pie chart that showed people playing tennis .. what percentage would be 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 etc...

2. Is 3.5 consider good player? Or 4.0 player considered good.. (i definately know 4.5 and above is great players).

3. Estimating, how long does it take for someone to be 4.0 player or even 4.5.
Some people just have natural talent but i'm just wondering a ball park figure.

4. If someone is 3.5 rating is chances of them beating a 4.0 player pretty slim? same for 4.0 to 4.5, 4.5 to 5.0 etc...

5. If someone plays really well one day like 4.0 and above and the next day he plays like 3.0 - 3.5 against a 4.0 player.. on a consistent basis (like this happens to him 50/50 of his matches)... what rating would this be considered?
Click to expand...


1. It's hard to guess the amount of each level because you have to define what is a tennis player. If you play once a year would you be considered a tennis player? The USTA counts such people as I recall. My definition is that you have to play on average 1/week. In this group I would say 2.5-3.0 =30%, 3.5=35%, 4.0=25%, >4.5=10%

2. I would say strong 4.0 or 4.5 is where start to see that even non-tennis players would say hey you are good!

3. I have seen people reach 4.0 in 1-1.5 years, but you have to be motivated and have some talent. I would say it takes 4-5 years for your average club player.

4. A strong 3.5 can beat a weak 4.0 fairly often. A strong 3.5 will almost never beat a strong 4.0.
 
G

Geezer Guy

Hall of Fame
Interesting link. Thanks for posting that aldekeuk.

It's skewed a bit to the higher end than I thought it would be, but it's obviously of only USTA members (with NTRP ratings). I'll bet if you'd include tennis playing non-USTA members, you'd get a lot more 2.5 and 3.0 weekend hackers.
 
O

ohplease

Professional
Geezer Guy said:
Interesting link. Thanks for posting that aldekeuk.

It's skewed a bit to the higher end than I thought it would be, but it's obviously of only USTA members (with NTRP ratings). I'll bet if you'd include tennis playing non-USTA members, you'd get a lot more 2.5 and 3.0 weekend hackers.
Click to expand...

That link confirms what I've long suspected. It used to be (and it's still generally held) that 4.0 was where the peak of the bell curve was in USTA play. In other words, 4.0s were considered "average" players. That peak has now been pushed back to span 3.0 and 3.5. Seems like ample evidence of rating inflation/deflation sandbagging effects to me.

I mean really, 4.0 doesn't sound very good, right? And yet, according to the link, only 1 in 4 players who play seriously enough to be involved in USTA leagues are 4.0 or better. Only 1 in 20 is good enough for 4.5 or better. 5.0? 1 in 100.

Since bell curves traditionally define "average, give or take" as between the 25-75% marks, then demographically, 4.0 is currently where players can start to be described as genuinely better than average, with 4.5 and up as significantly better than average.

In other words, sandbagging has crammed just about everyone into 3.0 and 3.5, which means most club players would do well to improve to 3.5, and very few will ever improve to 4.0 or beyond. That's two strata in a rating system with more than 10.
 
beernutz

beernutz

Hall of Fame
There are many great answers to your questions above to which I don't have much to add except an observation with regard to your question #4. I consider myself a middle of the pack 3.5 but I have beaten some 4.0s who were also, IMO, middle 4.0s not because my overall game was better but because one of my strengths matched up well with one of their weakeness. It happens.

It also helps if the 4.0s mostly play doubles which many, especially the older ones, do. Those type guys play doubles great, and make me look silly at that game, but when you start running them side to side or up and back in singles they get out of their comfort zone and are easier to beat. </$.02>
 
M

mona999

Banned
Just a rant / personal observation - the better one becomes, the lower the rating they give themselves. I say this because about a year ago I seriously thought I was about a 4.5 - I read the description and thought that's what I was. Then as I started taking lessons, joining tournaments/leagues, etc... my self-assessment dropped to a 4.0 (and a weak one).

I developed a much better understanding of the game, realizing it's not only about being able to consistently hit well-paced balls, control placement, having a strong serve, etc. Unfortunately, now my criteria for becoming a 4.5 is a long way away, and is about developing game strategies, limiting errors, coming to the net - and being able to consistently beat players I "think" I am better at.

Until I can confidently beat those "unathletic-looking" pushers, or hacks, or whatever, then I am stuck at 4 (or 3.5)...arghh.
 
J011yroger

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
1/1,680 are 5.5/Open. Yee ha. But that isn't accurate, because most who play open don't rate themselves 5.5/open. I only play opens, but never rated myself, or got a rating, so my NTRP is listed as 0.0.

J
 
LuckyR

LuckyR

Legend
ohplease said:
That link confirms what I've long suspected. It used to be (and it's still generally held) that 4.0 was where the peak of the bell curve was in USTA play. In other words, 4.0s were considered "average" players. That peak has now been pushed back to span 3.0 and 3.5. Seems like ample evidence of rating inflation/deflation sandbagging effects to me.

I mean really, 4.0 doesn't sound very good, right? And yet, according to the link, only 1 in 4 players who play seriously enough to be involved in USTA leagues are 4.0 or better. Only 1 in 20 is good enough for 4.5 or better. 5.0? 1 in 100.

Since bell curves traditionally define "average, give or take" as between the 25-75% marks, then demographically, 4.0 is currently where players can start to be described as genuinely better than average, with 4.5 and up as significantly better than average.

In other words, sandbagging has crammed just about everyone into 3.0 and 3.5, which means most club players would do well to improve to 3.5, and very few will ever improve to 4.0 or beyond. That's two strata in a rating system with more than 10.
Click to expand...

Yup. And to add to the effect the stats were: #1- from SoCal, a relative hotbed of tennis where 4.0, means 4.0. #2- only USTA players were counted, so a hghly motivated subset of the total tennis playing group. Stats from the whole population would be even more skewed to the left.
 
C

cak

Professional
LuckyR said:
Yup. And to add to the effect the stats were: #1- from SoCal, a relative hotbed of tennis where 4.0, means 4.0. #2- only USTA players were counted, so a hghly motivated subset of the total tennis playing group. Stats from the whole population would be even more skewed to the left.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the stats from the Southern section? Is the Southern section Southern California? I thought it was the South, like Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky. Though I'd be interested in seeing the same breakdown for both SoCal and NorCal.
 
R

raiden031

Legend
aldekeuk said:
Below is a link from the Southern Section of USTA that breaks members down by rating for those who have a computer rating. Found it interesting. Especially as how drastically the numbers drop from 3.5 to 4.0 and from 4.0 to 4.5

http://www.southern.usta.com/usaleaguetennis/custom.sps?iType=987&icustompageid=20205
Click to expand...

This looks how I would expect. I've been reading Tennis Mastery the book and if I remember correctly he stated that 75% of tennis players are below 4.0, which matches up with these stats.

I'm surprised though that there are more 3.5 players than 3.0 players. I know its hard to even reach 3.5, because I still haven't done it and am very athletic, young (26), and put a lot of time into tennis.
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I wish there were a gender breakdown. I think there are more than 3-4% of 2.5s in women's tennis, whereas hardly any guys are willing to self-rate at 2.5.

In our league, there were 68 2.5 women and 14 2.5 guys.
 
aidenous

aidenous

Semi-Pro
Cindysphinx said:
I hear ya, Raiden.

On days like today, 3.5 looks entirely unattainable. :(
Click to expand...
I'm with you both. When I started three years ago I had two pros tell me I was close to a 3.5 and had natural athletic ability. I see improvement but it's not going as fast as I thought and I'm not getting any younger.
 
S

Sakkijarvi

Semi-Pro
I like the comment about singles vs. doubles. I play primarily singles, that's 'my' game. When playing doubles, many of my weapons are negated. I have a nasty drop shot, and am fast, cover the other guy's drop shots and lobs. I am in excellent shape and tend to win the stamina battle. I look for the giant lake of sweat on the other guy's stomach and back and smell blood.

With reduced running, shorter points, and a net guy, doubles nullifies the very tools I use to win at singles. So a 4.0 - 4.5 double dude that plays only that form of tennis doesn't scare me. Singles is just another sport.

I'll be playing a 6' 6" guy with his own court ...for the first time next week. Ought to be interesting!

Sakki
 
H

Hokiez

Rookie
Very interesting. I'd always wondered what the breakdown is and I'd say that's fairly accurate. At my club there are 3 3.0 teams, 4 3.5 teams, 2 4.0 teams, 1 4.5 team and no 5.0 teams. In fact, city wide (Richmond, VA 1MM people) there are only 4 5.0 teams and those are mostly 4.5's "playing up".

I wish I'd started playing sooner. I took the game up in 2003 playing in a rec league, played USTA for the first time in 2005 and am up to 4.0/4.5 (won all but 1 match at 4.0, not so many at 4.5 so I'm 4.25 I guess). I can only wonder if I'd have been able to get college paid for if I'd started at 10 instead.
 
T

tennis-n-sc

Professional
cak said:
Are we talking about the stats from the Southern section? Is the Southern section Southern California? I thought it was the South, like Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky. Though I'd be interested in seeing the same breakdown for both SoCal and NorCal.
Click to expand...

You are right. You can include Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana also. I guess if you are from Southern Cal, you assume the Southern Section is California. It would be interesting to see the stats from other sections, like California, Texas and Florida, what I would consider the hotbeds of tennis.
 
AP328

AP328

Rookie
Hokiez said:
Very interesting. I'd always wondered what the breakdown is and I'd say that's fairly accurate. At my club there are 3 3.0 teams, 4 3.5 teams, 2 4.0 teams, 1 4.5 team and no 5.0 teams. In fact, city wide (Richmond, VA 1MM people) there are only 4 5.0 teams and those are mostly 4.5's "playing up".

I wish I'd started playing sooner. I took the game up in 2003 playing in a rec league, played USTA for the first time in 2005 and am up to 4.0/4.5 (won all but 1 match at 4.0, not so many at 4.5 so I'm 4.25 I guess). I can only wonder if I'd have been able to get college paid for if I'd started at 10 instead.
Click to expand...

Most players in Richmond at 4.5 or higher are mostly playing tournaments. Especially the 5.0 in town. They are busy teaching. The city tourney at Byrd Park is where you will see the local 5.0's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mutantducky
rating system is just plain wacky
Replies
12
Views
1K
J_R_B
J
M
ntrp rating
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tennisman912
T
v205
NTRP ranking levels
Replies
19
Views
3K
raiden031
R
S
What Does That Rating Number Mean?
Replies
4
Views
3K
struggle
S
D
USTA Rating - Golf Handicap
Replies
10
Views
2K
lostinamerica
L
Top