That is what I was saying -- the person did go 1-2 at State and the scores that of the match won were 6-1, 6-4, so it wasn't too off.... Here is the link to the results on tennis record if anyone wants to try and help explain the 1pt bump, because I can't figure it out.
It’s also possible the bump was not related to her results, but a discovery in her tennis history from 20 years ago that led to USTA determining she should’ve originally rated as a 3.5.
As in played high school tennis for a high school with 400 people in rural VA for 2 years, that never went to a state tournament? I'm not sure how that qualifies for a 3.5 rating --- Also when you sign up for USTA the self rating questions ask you if you played High school or College int he past 20 years - so she answered the questions correctly.
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
First you had asked if others had seen anything like this. And I will say no I haven't. This is the worst I have seen. So yes what you are describing is an outlier and I agree with JRB she should be able to appeal down to 3.0. But I also don't think it is proof that something went wrong with the algo let me explain:
In your initial post you said "Her partner was a seasoned 3.5C player that's been to 4 sectionals and 1 Nationals." And of course that is good information in understand how strong she is. However if I am reading Schmke's response correctly here:
The dreaded EOY Rating thread
You can have regular season matches before October 31 2022 if you have an early start or Fall league. Then play 2 matches in sectionals in June 2023. Those are matches, so they would be more than 2.
USTA did not consider his record for same gender play at all. In other words when evaluating how USTA rates, you need to pretend none of what I quoted from you ever happened for her partner. You only look at his mixed doubles results. And even there I think you just look at mixed results that end with a .0 (7.0 8.0 etc) and completely ignore any mixed results where the team can end in .5. (like 6.5 or 7.5 etc)
The thing is we all know players can have good days and bad days. And of course your opponents and partners can have good days and bad days.
If someone plays 15 matches then sure it should sort of round out and the rating should be pretty solid. But that only happens if you include all those results! If 4 of those matches only count for one rating system and 5 only count for a completely separate rating system, and 6 don't count at all, then you can have some pretty substantial swings in what rating the same exact player might end up with. So her partner may have had a substantially lower mixed rating then his adult rating.
USTA does not publish any information of what her partners mixed dynamic rating was. TR is guessing this based on making guesses about his early opponents in mixed doubles etc. But unlike the adult ratings where TR will change their rating based on USTA EOY Adult rating, with mixed they often can't recalibrate. (because USTA doesn't publish Mixed ratings if someone has a Adult c rating) So those "errors" in TR (where "error" is defined as a deviation from USTA) will just keep piling on year after year. Piling error on top of error this way is why TR mixed rating may seem pretty far off from USTA ratings. That does not necessarily mean they are less accurate as to someone's true strength. It can be that the mixed ratings assigned by TR accord with reality better than USTA.
That's easy for us to say sitting on the sidelines, but for the person - if they are truly a 2.5 player, what desire do they have to go out and play 3.5 league and feel embarrassed. We all understand if she goes out and loses she "might" get bumped back down, but that's not a guarantee either. My original statement is that it really isn't fair to that individual and I was curious if anyone else has seen something similar in the past or currently as well.
That's my fear, because being a member of our local CTA - we want to increase our membership and not put up barriers to deter people from joining or continuing esp. new players and just starting.
Hard no on coed leagues.
Let her play line 1 singles and it will get sorted one way or the other.
Because it is not the same tennis (Pace and spin) and I refuse to change my game to account for it. If I was able to play against 4.0 and above women maybe, but below that is not fun for them or me.
Clinics and clubs are run differently around the country. I have gone to 2.5/beginner clinics specifically because I know the pro teaching them and needed their help with a serve hiccup I developed. New players always want serve help so I don’t feel bad for taking instruction time from them. At my home club the clinic schedule is posted monthly on a board and the pro is named when you sign up online. The other club has a pretty regular schedule but they rotate teaching the beginner clinic kind of infrequently.
Two things.
FWIW, my M rating for her is a decent 3.5, so the 3.5M seems appropriate. She did go 3-3, all of the wins and losses in straight sets. But the wins rated quite well, two of them quite high, and they offset the losses being in 3.0 territory and she ended up a 3.5.
I attend tennis clinics weekly. I go mainly for the pro, but I also take into consideration the skill level of other players. Most of my clinics spend the last 1/3 of the clinic in doubles play, and I want to make the sure more the majority of the players are at my level. So you could say I go to clinic because of the teaching pro and the other attendees.
