Universal Tennis Rating

[tfm1973]

Apologies if this has already been posted (i did do a search and found nothing). And no I'm not in any way affiliated with this website. I have a friend and his two kids are listed in this rating system.

Has anyone heard of this Universal Tennis Rating? Kinda interesting with the 16 levels of tennis player. I also think it's interesting how it breaks down characteristics of players at each level. What do you think?

For example:

LEVEL 5 (NTRP 3.5-3.7):
The adults at this level may be vulnerable in many areas, but will usually be able to do at least one thing fairly well. This may include a good slice backhand, decent serve, or a drop shot. Young juniors at the level are very good for their age, but still may have trouble with adults whose games are not at good as theirs. Many older level 5 juniors will improve and become more consistent if they simple play more tennis. Often players at this level have problems with technical development in certain areas. They may have good groundstrokes, but an odd looking serve for example. If they do have a good overall game, consistency and shot selection can be problematic.


http://www.universaltennis.com/rating-evaluation.aspx

 

[Applesauceman]

This is very cool, I've never seen this before. Thanks!

 

[cak]

I'm guessing this is meant to be a NTRP for kids and for those adults that don't want to play USTA?

As seen time and again on this board, juniors really, really, really want to know their rating, but there doesn't seem to be universal ratings for the kids, so this would fill that void. And then they could put out junior tournaments by rating. But I'm not sure where this is suppose to go with adults, as there is a rating system for adults who want to play US National leagues and tournaments. If you are using it only for your own club, wouldn't the club pro be able to determine who falls in whatever category grouping they want to do for socials? Are there other countries looking for rating systems that don't like ITN?

As for the word descriptions, well, it's hard to pick a level by reading something. And if they must compare levels to NTRP levels, they might do better by going on the NTRP boundaries. A 3.500 player is a very high 3.5 player. A 3.51 player comes up as 4.0 in NTRP. So their level 5, according to their comparisions, is a extremely high 3.5 to low 4.0. If they called them high 3.5 or low 4.0 it might make more sense.

 

[tfm1973]

cak - i agree that it's probably geared more for the juniors playing tournaments and posting results on that site.

but what i liked about this rating system is that it's a lot better defined than the NTRP which says things like, "beginning to master spin and able to hit with power". LOL stuff like that doesn't really mean anything.

 

[cak]

but what i liked about this rating system is that it's a lot better defined than the NTRP which says things like, "beginning to master spin and able to hit with power". LOL stuff like that doesn't really mean anything.

It does use more words, but I would say their description of a level 5 player corresponds to about a 2.5 NTRP. Even the website itself says "The 16 levels of tennis are based on actual match results." So it doesn't matter what your game looks like, only how you do. Which is exactly the same as NTRP.

 

[tfm1973]

i guess you're right. just another attempt to try and classify someone in a competitive sport but the only real indicator is Wins and Losses.

it would still be nice to figure out someone's relative skill level when match results aren't known.

 

[raiden031]

As for the word descriptions, well, it's hard to pick a level by reading something. And if they must compare levels to NTRP levels, they might do better by going on the NTRP boundaries. A 3.500 player is a very high 3.5 player. A 3.51 player comes up as 4.0 in NTRP. So their level 5, according to their comparisions, is a extremely high 3.5 to low 4.0. If they called them high 3.5 or low 4.0 it might make more sense.

So do you get the impression that a 3.8 corresponds to an upper 3.5 rather than a lower 4.0? I can't figure out what they are doing but the 2.3-2.5 thing makes me think that they might be going by the same scale as USTA, where 2.5 is an upper 2.5, not a weak 2.5. But then again, level 5 sounds awfully like 3.5 players, not 4.0 players.

 

[cak]

So do you get the impression that a 3.8 corresponds to an upper 3.5 rather than a lower 4.0? I can't figure out what they are doing but the 2.3-2.5 thing makes me think that they might be going by the same scale as USTA, where 2.5 is an upper 2.5, not a weak 2.5. But then again, level 5 sounds awfully like 3.5 players, not 4.0 players.

USTA doesn't have a 3.8 category, but on the occasion where they do distinguish between past the X.0 and X.5 categories they state that a NTRP X.5 has a rating between X.01 and X.5. So yeah, a player with a 3.8 dynamic rating would be considered an above average 4.0 player.

I think the problem with word descriptions is you can translate them to playing ability in a ton of ways. I know 2.5 players that I would describe with the same language they use to describe level 5. But the proof is in the win/loss records.

 

[innoVAShaun]

Bringing this thread back because I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on them.

I play Universal Rated Tournaments and I think it's a more competitive rating than USTA.

 

[DartMarcus]

What do you guys think about universal tennis rating?

You can get a free 2 week trial if you sign up. http://www.universaltennis.com

How would you compare it to NTRP ratings?

 

[Deleted member 23235]

reviving an old thread... recent article about how UTR is starting to become mainstream...
http://www.si.com/tennis/2015/10/06/universal-tennis-rating-boston-open

Definitely like the idea of normalizing the field... to allow similar matched players to find each other (regardless of age, sex, etc...)