State Junior Ranking, can you rate 3.5?

[JavierLW]

Tonight we played a kid who just graduated from High School and was ranked in the top 64 in the state in doubles.

Some people commented on it because they think it's a fair play violation that he self rated 3.5, but Im not totally sure.

Here is the chart:

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/sitecore_usta/USTA/Document Assets/2008/02/14/doc_13_7372.pdf

Does anyone know of any cases like this? It seems that if he had a national ranking (not sure about that yet) it would be a big deal, but it doesnt seem to cover state rankings or really low sectional rankings. (obviously if he's 64 in the state he's pretty low in the section)

He may be committed to play for a Division III college next year though however we may not be able to prove that, not sure how you can.

Anyway just curious, Im not going to go on a diatribe about it here, I just genuinely don't know if anything is amiss or not as far as his self rating (at least as far as player history which is all that matters).

 

[Midlife crisis]

My son played high school tennis last year as the #3 varsity player in a 4A school with a moderately weak tennis program and won a round at state in doubles. He's a moderately strong 3.5 overall (he's at least a 4.0 against a hard hitter, and probably a 3.0 against retrievers).

So, 3.5 is probably around the right range or a little low, depending on the state you are in. Our state is probably average or a little below average in junior tennis overall. In a state like California or Florida, he'd probably be a 4.0 to 4.5.

 

[raiden031]

So, 3.5 is probably around the right range or a little low, depending on the state you are in. Our state is probably average or a little below average in junior tennis overall. In a state like California or Florida, he'd probably be a 4.0 to 4.5.

This doesn't make sense. Why would he have a higher rating in a stronger tennis state?

 

[Perry the Platypus]

Because to be a varsity player in a stronger tennis state, he would likely have to be a stronger player......... That's how I took it.

It all depends on where you are, around here someone not top 50 in their age group certainly should be no higher than 3.5....

Juniors usually can hit hard and look good but many (certainly not all) don't always translate well to USTA. I know a kid who is great and finished in the top five at states who could not get more than 2-3 games a set off of our 4.5 singles guys - and he is playing college tennis.

I guess I'm saying from my standpoint the 3.5 things sounds reasonable. If it is not then as a self rate the computer will take care of it.

 

[raiden031]

Because to be a varsity player in a stronger tennis state, he would likely have to be a stronger player......... That's how I took it.

It all depends on where you are, around here someone not top 50 in their age group certainly should be no higher than 3.5....

Juniors usually can hit hard and look good but many (certainly not all) don't always translate well to USTA. I know a kid who is great and finished in the top five at states who could not get more than 2-3 games a set off of our 4.5 singles guys - and he is playing college tennis.

I guess I'm saying from my standpoint the 3.5 things sounds reasonable. If it is not then as a self rate the computer will take care of it.

Well if he was a better player in any state his rating would be higher. I took the post as saying he would automatically be higher rated by living in FL or CA. But without a change in skill level, being ranked high in a weak state would translate to being ranked much lower in a strong state.

 

[Perry the Platypus]

Hey Raiden - not to be argumentative (well maybe a little), but I have to disagree.

Take professionals........Kei Neishekori (however you spell it) is the number one player in Japan. That does not make him as good as the number one player in the USA. I would also wager that the number 50 player in Japan is not as good as the number 50 player in the US.

By that same token, a top 50 player in Montana could very well be a 3.5. A top 50 player in Florida on the other hand could be a 4.5. It's not just the ranking, but the overall quality of players.

We're not saying that if the player in question moved to Florida that his rating would automatically go up 1 point. We're saying his ranking would go down.

 

[raiden031]

Hey Raiden - not to be argumentative (well maybe a little), but I have to disagree.

Take professionals........Kei Neishekori (however you spell it) is the number one player in Japan. That does not make him as good as the number one player in the USA. I would also wager that the number 50 player in Japan is not as good as the number 50 player in the US.

By that same token, a top 50 player in Montana could very well be a 3.5. A top 50 player in Florida on the other hand could be a 4.5. It's not just the ranking, but the overall quality of players.

We're not saying that if the player in question moved to Florida that his rating would automatically go up 1 point. We're saying his ranking would go down.

I don't see where we are in disagreement. I'm not comparing two top 50 players from two different areas, I'm talking about the same player moving to another state. I said his ranking would go down in CA/FL because he would be competing for rankings against better players.

 

[JavierLW]

I don't see where we are in disagreement. I'm not comparing two top 50 players from two different areas, I'm talking about the same player moving to another state. I said his ranking would go down in CA/FL because he would be competing for rankings against better players.

He's not talking about the same player, you misread his original comment.

He's saying that if you mention someone in general is at the "State Tournament" that implies that they'd be at a higher level in a bigger state, then a smaller state.

(more players, harder to get to state, etc.....)

 

[raiden031]

He's not talking about the same player, you misread his original comment.

He's saying that if you mention someone in general is at the "State Tournament" that implies that they'd be at a higher level in a bigger state, then a smaller state.

(more players, harder to get to state, etc.....)

OK...I took it as midlife_crisis was still referring to their son, not that they were referring back to the player you mentioned.

 

[JavierLW]

OK...I took it as midlife_crisis was still referring to their son, not that they were referring back to the player you mentioned.

Right, I just read between the lines and figured it out. A useful skill sometimes when reading posts on a message board.

 

[amarone]

I didn't know that doubles rankings still existed; Southern Section has amalgamated singles and doubles into one standing in which just 15% of doubles points are included.

I looked up the standings in Georgia and 64th would put him one ahead of Jordan Cox, who just lost in the final of junior Wimbledon. Hence he should be about a 6.0

More seriously, the kid in 64th place is probably a high 4.0 player. Georgia is a big tennis state, though, with 485 players havng a standing.

 

[kylebarendrick]

My experience has been that junior players with significant tournament experience (like a top 100 ranking in their section) dominate when they self rate at 3.5.

 

[goober]

Technically according to the chart he would be able to rate 3.5.

I played a 22 year old guy that self rated 3.5 and he was #90 in Florida 18s, but did not play college. Some other people filed a grievance which did not hold up and he was allowed to rate 3.5. He was definitely 4.5 when I played him and got a 4.5 rating at the end of the year.