Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by oneguy21, Jan 3, 2009.
or are they?
Yeah, I think it's a possibility.
The serves seem a bit abbreviated, but other than that I don't see why not. But I would call them low 4.0s.
Sure, why not? The guy in the blue shirt certainly hits consistent, medium-paced topspin strokes with good directional control and depth.
What is a 4.0 supposed to look like?
It looks different in person, doesn't it?
Yeah I can see that. Kinda weird looking strokes but they make them work pretty well. They're hitting pretty consistent too. So yeah they probably are 4.0, but their strokes arent that pretty
I wish I could play in an NTRP tournament like that. Honestly, I think I could easily beat them.
It's quite possible actually, if you look at points two and three, even if they had a stroke deficiency, they could be rated a higher rating than "what they seem to be". It's all based on results...
What is there to argue here? If these guys are playing competitively in a 4.0 tournament, then they're 4.0s, by definition. You can't just say that they aren't because their strokes don't look like Federer's.
For sure! Yea these guys could play 4.0...i think we've all seen quite a wide range of ability within one rating. I could also see these guys play 3.5, but if they call themselves 4.0 i wouldn't say they over rated themselves or anything...
Does anyone else think that wind has anything to do with what we are seeing?
It looks and sounds extremely windy.
My home courts are in a place that is always windy (right next to a freeway), and in one match there was 35+mph winds and I had to go to some sort of simplified service motion to even have a chance at serving the ball in because otherwise the wind would blow the toss away before I had a shot at swinging at it. I wonder if that has anything to do with how these guys are serving?
And I play at this place all the time.
If someone who isnt used to those conditions on a regular basis encounters them, 4.0 or not, Im sure it's not going to look all that pretty.
In some of the film I think they demonstrate decent form, but in the parts that look spotty, it doesnt just look like they have bad form, it looks like they are simply not tracking the ball very well and are forced into demonstrating bad form as they try to get the ball back over at the last second.
That happens a lot when it's windy, especially if someone is not used to it. (I usually end up hurting something because of that)
the NTRP ratings on the website can be interpreted in many ways
for me, 4.0 would be very good
the people in that video look 3.0
Most if not all of the time, only 3.5 and 4.0 USTA rated players can play USTA 4.0 matches so they are either 3.5 or 4.0 unless they are sandbagging.
They are 4 levels from being a pro so I'm not sure why people are saying their strokes don't look pretty. If they look gorgeous now, how much prettier are they going to look at 4.5? Besides, a great looking stroker at the 3.0 level will never beat a special olympics stroker at the 4.0 level because how good you are depends on who you beat in a match, not in a beauty contest!
This video or one of Maverick's other NTRP videos get posted every 3 months or so- usually with the same "amazement" from the OP. These are from USTA leauge matches in New Jersey. It is possible they have 3.5 ratings but the vast majority of 4.0 league players have 4.0 ratings. If you think you are way better than these guys self rate yourself 4.5 and see how you do in USTA league matches. I know one of the guys who said these guys suck and are 2.5 is now playing in a league in the same area of the country and is losing at 3.0 lol
I think some of the poster don''t realized that video actually makes you slower on the court. I played player who say there where about 4.5, turn out there more like 2.5 in match play.
News Flash: Many people who take up tennis during adulthood usually have hitches in their game because either they did not receive instruction or just didn't play a lot of sports as a child. So that might account for the fact that they don't look like great players, despite what one would expect at 4.0 level based on all the TW talk about the subject. There is no requirement that your game has to look a certain way to compete at 4.0. There is a guy at my club who is like 70 year old and dinks every shot in. He is a 4.0. He wins matches because he never hits errors.
Why does it say they are #2 4.0's? Not nationally for sure? I clicked on the side on the number 1 singles guy and he looked worse than them???
Its based on the usta adult league format:
It means nothing other than to determine what court/position you are assigned to. Most teams will put their best players at #1 and worst at #2/3, but real strategic teams will stack the lineups.
They might be good enough for 4.0, but I doubt they're even solid 3.5's right now in tournament play.
It's not only the serve and strokes, it's your mental play that gets you your highest levels.
What's their tournament RESULTS?
If they haven't played, they are 2.5's until they can prove otherwise.
In general league play is tougher than tournaments at the same NTRP level.
I've seen 4.0 in my area also don't have freat looking strokes, but consistency and results are imho what matter in order to get bumped up. I don't see usta officials come out and rate your strokes when you play so that just what i think. Yeah, liked stated before if they are competing at that level, most likely they are rated as such.
idk how you can argue it. you can be a COMPLETE pusher and be a 4.0 if your winning 4.0 tournaments, or playing competitively. in reality you don thave to "hit with spin and depth" or have a "really dependable 2nd serve" if your still winning.
... No, just no.
We arent interpreting the NTRP ratings at all from the website. The guideline they give is absolute BS and puts anyone who has ever played tennis at 5.0 after their first month. We're comparing these people to 4.0 players that we know and have seen, not making a guess from a messed up system. Thats the reason why so many people make horrible ratings, they dont know whats good and whats not.
there are things you cant see in the video such as the temperature of the courts when the players are playing, which make them and the ball move more slowly
these people are lower 4.0's, or strong 3.5's. A 4.0 should only on a slight occasion beat a 4.5 player, but never a 5.0 player. I heard some shots hit with good pace in the video but they went into the net/out so they are still very inconsistent.
if they're 4.0 i must be a 5.5-6.0 :S ahah
if these guys are 4.0 then i am 5.5 :-D
They are 4.0 maybe for the requirements of the 70's
Seriously now,even if these guys are 4.0 or more,it doesnt matter,I dont have satisfaction if I win against them.
most people on this forum wont beat these guys, it takes more than good strokes and top of the line gear to win a match...
yes... it takes good fitness, concentration and most importantly - skills...
these guys are old... (they cant move very fast) and movement is a killer
they should resort to other sports like ... golf or something
Post your videos and then if you really are better then you guys can keep talking trash.
I don't know why people post stuff like this. We are talking 4.0 tennis here. The vast majority of adult league and tournament tennis is played by 30-50 year olds. I have seen a ton of NTRP matches and players in their 20s at this level get beaten by the older players all the time.
older players have better precision and their level most likely depreciated from a higher level because of age... thus being able to beat the younger player
It doesn't look as good on video as on the court. Also, it's windy. I think they are good, (not great), players with solid games. They'd be beatable, but unless you have some great weapons, you'd have to work hard to beat them.
OK, 4.0's from the late '70's.
Early third year of tennis, I lost in the finals of the GGParkSanFrancisco C finals. 5 weeks later, I won the SFCityChamps in C level. That would be about 3.5 or 4.0 TOURNAMENT, not guesstimate or coach speak, level.
I was even with #1 AAA SanFrancisco high school players....they were my weekly practice partners.
I could beat PeanutLouie (who won the Canadian Open one year later) if I was allowed to first serve and short angle....or serve and volley.
My other practice partners, mostly twice a week were #1's and 2's at CityCollege of SanFrancisco. We were trading sets even in tournaments.
By the end of the season, I was only a low level B player because I'd only gone 4 rounds in the B's (maybe 4.5 nowadaze), and never got to any finals at that level.
This is after playing more than 5 "B" level tournaments!
Doesn't matter what your coach says, your buds say, ....you are only as good as your actual tournament results.
As to hitting style..... then, 1978, old fart TomBrown was a low level A. He sliced every backhand, he sidespun most forehands, his serve was maybe 85mph sliced. His volleys were weak but angled. He would be playing singles for Cal or Stanford if he was entered there.
OTOH, he never practiced lazy, lackadaisical, or wet noodle, even against me.
agreed. People seem to think that to be a 4.0, one has to have beautiful strokes, hit with a lot of spin/power, etc.
Fact is, majority of 4.0's are dinkers.
These guys are 4.0 players easily. How? The first guy on the close court on the video (blue shirt on the court nearest the camera) has solid ground strokes that seem pretty consistent. Sure, he doesn't exactly have a Karlovic serve, but if he can place his 1st and 2nd serves with good consistency and follow them up with sold strokes than how couldn't he be 4.0?
You don't have to hammer balls and hit 100+ serves to be a 4.0. You have to win at the 4.0 level. If these guys are winning, and are officially on a 4.0 league, then they are 4.0.
What kind of tournaments are those?I ask becouse I have seen 14 years old boys playing like you would say they have atp rankings and they were only playing into some local tournaments.
I don't get what you're saying. Tournament results count but league results do not?
Here is why tournament results are LESS accurate than league results:
1) Many tournament players do not have ratings at all because they are not playing in leagues (or in section where tournament results are not factored into NTRP ratings) and hence are not part of the NTRP computer rating system.
2) More people "play up" in tournaments because you often have to prove yourself competitive to "play up" on a league team. Just like all the club 4.0 competition ladders/group clinics are filled with more 3.5s than actual 4.0 players because the players want better competition. They end up playing people mostly of their own level (~3.5) even though its a 4.0 group.
5.0? : )
^^^ haha i used to play like that last year.
At the end of my competitive tennis days, I was still officially ranked 4.5 according to the powers to be....
I had just won 4 rounds qualifying in my second TranAmerica attempt, losing in the 5th round, to some 6'4" Aucklander. RusselSimpson.
The inter bay league people invited me to play A league.
The BATL (BayAreaTennisLeague), different from the first, said I had to play A or Open only.
I was still ranked 4.5 !!
JohnLucas invited me to sit in on local TeamTennis practices, and hit with the players. I was hoping for a spot!
I was still ranked 4.5!:evil:
And 30 years later, I still claim 4.0 because I regularly hit with 5.5 or higher Mens players or top 18 Junior Mens'.
NO, they'd kick my butt in a match, but even they need practice against a real lefty serve.
I don't know what you're trying to say with all this, but it seems to be completely irrelevant to the topic. If you're playing open tournaments then your rating becomes less meaningful. If you are playing in NTRP tournaments and leagues then it becomes meaningful.
What matters most when we're talking about NTRP is whether someone has experience against players who have a computer-generated NTRP rating. And you get alot less of that in tournament play than you do in league play. Anybody can play in a 4.0 sanctioned tournament, but not anybody will get accepted onto a 4.0 league team by a competitive captain.
I suspect the opposite!
For league play around here, Berkeley, California, I could easily play 5.5 and be somewhat competitive.
For an actual sanctioned tournament, I know real 4.5's who can beat me up pretty badly.
But I was ranked 4.5, never higher officially.
So maybe it depends on the region, the state, and the whims of the tournament directors.
FYI, in like '86, 7 years after NO tennis, the MtTam racket club made me play 6.0 singles. I lost first round.
Skillwise, I should have made the FINALS. I lost to the #1 seed in 3 sets who WON the finals his third time in a row.
Still, I lost in the first round, making me what....maybe a 4.5?
From what I've heard 5.5 players are Division I college players. Not saying it's impossible, but are you certain you can play a 5.5 player and still make the match competitive? There's a huge difference between a 4.5 and 5.5. A 5.5 can easily beat a 4.5 6-0, 6-0. Again, maybe you are that good; I wouldn't know.
trash? i dont claim to be the worlds best tennis player, but im gettn better everytime i play... and i can easily distinguish my skill level from others, i know alot of you guys on this forum would be better than me and alot of you would be worse, but i can clearly see im much better than these guys, and i would rate myself a 4.5-5.0 based on the vids u guys post up
I'm talking an expanse of 30 years here, so it's not like I can go out and beat #2 for Harvard tomorrow.
And when anyone goes 5 rounds in pro qualifiers, not satelite, maybe he's played some pretty decent players. There were no satelite tournaments in 1978.
I hit with aforementioned #2 Harvard yesterday. Only for his serve return practice, his Dad plays our paltry level, but whenever most good players get to practice against a real lefty serve, they take the opportunity, even against and old has never was.
FYI, took a couple of unreturnable wide slices out 8' into the red before he took it seriously and stepped in against my second serve.
My first maybe 110 was dead meat out wide or up the middle.
When he moved in, I'd top, slice, or twisted into his body, a very effective serve.
Basically, my first serve was useless unless hit 3" from the lines.
My second was actually not all that different from his normal competition.
There is no way you can beat a computer-rated 5.5 and lose to any 4.5 tournament players.
But if anyone looks at your video LeeD, I would think they would rate you at a 3.0 just because of some of your arkward body position when you hit your forehand, backhand and volleys. IMHO, your body adapts to the injuries and aging process causing some of your strokes not to look to pretty.
Since I used to hit with some 4.5 & 5.0 seniors, I can tell most of your shots were in. One thing they taught me was power is not everything. It all about constructing points and placing the ball. And from your video I can tell you are a really good player even though I thought your anticipation and reaction time was not what it used to be. As a doubles player I think you probable have the game for any league play.
Any way , I doubt your first serves were faster than my second serves in my video.lol
Well I hope you don't think you can beat all players who have worse-looking strokes than you, because that would be a load of bull. I would say 90% of everyone that has ever beaten me had ALL of the following: 1) uglier strokes than me, 2) a less developed game than me, 3) hit less power than me, 4) hit less spin than me, 5) had a slower serve than me, 6) could not move as well as me, yet somehow was able to beat me. And why must this be? Because 90% of the players I have lost to are 20 years older than me, less athletic (currently), and are self-taught or never trained seriously, but have been playing a long time.
If you look at this video and say, "if he's a 4.0, then I'm a X.X", then that means you have no idea what a 4.0 player is. Because anyone who has played league tennis will have seen 4.0s like the guys in the video.
I beat some what would be 6.0 rated players in 1978!
I would lose to a 4.5 today if I was dumb enough to play them.
Talking 30 years have past since my playing days.
Did I say I could beat a 5.5 today? Dream on.
And if you looked at my vids, which there aren't any of, you'd probably think..... at least 5.5 serve, first and second and motion, maybe 4.5 forehand, nice 4.5 backhand, easy 5.0 volleys, and the movement of a 59 year old out of shape skinny OLD man !!
C'mon, I haven't played competitive singles in 30 years.
Separate names with a comma.