USTA League Nationals start in four days

[USPTARF97]

Which perfectly relates to the first post I've been defending this whole time...

Since you are apparently thoroughly informed about all players and their playing histories, estimated ratings, etc You should assist teams in filing grievances. Especially the first year these players show up. How many players do you know of that are playing at Nationals that are sandbagging and are not (C) protected?

 

[Vox Rationis]

Since you are apparently thoroughly informed about all players and their playing histories, estimated ratings, etc should assist teams in filing grievances. Especially the first year these players show up. How many players do you know of that are playing at Nationals that are sandbagging and are not (C) protected?

No thanks

 

[Vox Rationis]

Since you are apparently thoroughly informed about all players and their playing histories, estimated ratings, etc should assist teams in filing grievances. Especially the first year these players show up. How many players do you know of that are playing at Nationals that are sandbagging and are not (C) protected?

There's 27 and 3/4 sandbaggers. The 3/4 is playing with a prosthetic leg. A true inspiration.

 

[USPTARF97]

No thanks

Really sounds like you could make a difference with all the time and effort you put into these players information. You could present this information to teams and the tournament officials and make a difference. You would only have to get a few players removed from the events and then it would set a precedent and maybe less people would sand bag. You and Jack the Hack could team up and put a stop to this cancer.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Really sounds like you could make a difference with all the time and effort you put into these players information. You could present this information to teams and the tournament officials and make a difference. You would only have to get a few player removed from the events and then it would set a precedent and maybe less people would sand bag. You and Jack the Hack could team up and put a stop to this cancer.

Nah no thanks. Not interested. I care about how wrong you've been. Not about catching sandbaggers.

 

[USPTARF97]

Nah no thanks. Not interested. I care about how wrong you've been. Not about catching sandbaggers.

It is still less than 1% of the players out there. My point is that you guys are obsessed with all these players that are sandbagging and we hear it day in and day out in the clubs. You would be better served in focusing on the things you can change and not wasting your time on things you can do nothing about.
It is wasted effort, especially for those going to play, to concentrate and try to figure out who is supposed to be there and who is not. It’s a defeatist attitude and thought process. You have taken it to another level and basically stalked these players to find out their history’s and precise levels in your estimation. You should at least use if for good. But apparently you really don’t care about this issue other than arguing with people on a forum or taking the stance that it just isn’t fair. Fair comes once a year and they bring in a Ferris wheel. .

 

[Jack the Hack]

Really sounds like you could make a difference with all the time and effort you put into these players information. You could present this information to teams and the tournament officials and make a difference. You would only have to get a few players removed from the events and then it would set a precedent and maybe less people would sand bag. You and Jack the Hack could team up and put a stop to this cancer.

OK, smart ass. Over the past 25+ years of league tennis, I have written countless e-mails to the USTA regarding the sandbagging issue, suggesting rule changes that could fix the problem and increase fair play. Some of the suggestions have been adopted , some have not. I've also captained at least a dozen teams, and I have indeed filed grievances and helped other captains do the same when there have been blatant ratings cheaters in my local area. I do my research, and all but one of these grievances has been upheld (and the one that wasn't, the person was bumped at the end of the season anyway). I've also volunteered for my Section ratings and grievance committees. So I have made a difference, at least in my Section. The problem still remains at the National level, and as long as people are competing, some will try to cheat. It's a fact.

Am I obsessed with cheating. No. As I've mentioned in my previous posts, I believe a vast majority of USTA League players are ethical and play within the rules. I've been on 20 different teams that have qualified for the Sectional championships, and I've qualified for Nationals twice. I didn't do this by focusing on the bad apples we've encountered. But I did try to do something about it on behalf of my team when I was the captain, and I also always fielded clean teams myself- no self rates and minimal appealed players (only guys I knew well), and no short cuts. I think I've gone above and beyond in this, and I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Vox Rationis]

It is still less than 1% of the players out there. My point is that you guys are obsessed with all these players that are sandbagging and we hear it day in and day out in the clubs. You would be better served in focusing on the things you alcan change and not wasting your time on things you can do nothing about.
It is wasted effort, especially for those going to play, to concentrate and try to figure out who is supposed to be there and who is not. It’s a defeatist attitude and thought process. You have taken it to another level and basically stalked these players to find out their history’s and precise levels in your estimation. You should at least use if for good and clean up the leagues rather than waiting for the USTA to do it.

You seem obsessed with letting sandbaggers sandbag. You don't even want anyone acknowledging it. Even when it's blatantly obvious you're against someone saying so. That's just strange.

I don't worry about changing it. When I play league I look forward to playing the ridiculously strong players. When I went to 4.5 districts this year the matches I was looking forward to the most were the two against teams filled with 3* high schoolers and college kids and incredible teaching pros. I have no problems whatsover with playing them. Loved it and made a few friends out of it. Doesn't mean I can't point out that maybe the kid with a top 200 national ranking didn't belong out there (remember those guidelines you brought up before). That maybe a lot of those guys would be really solid 5.0s if we had the leagues for it. The truth is just the truth.

 

[Doan]

It is still less than 1% of the players out there.

How many of those 0.5% are at Nationals ?

 

[brettatk]

I guarantee if you look at just the participants at Nationals it's a heck of a lot higher than 1%. If team doesn't have several members playing under level then they wouldn't have gotten there in the first place. If a team does have all people at level then they aren't going to have a chance at winning.

 

[USPTARF97]

Do you guys want some cheese with that wine? Typical Americans complaining about the levels being too strong..it’s too tough. Weaker levels is what you guys really want and again it’s a small percentage of players that sandbag. Most 4.5 players I know would quit tennis if they had to play 3.5.

 

[brettatk]

Just stating the facts whether you choose to believe it or not. I've played against a team that went to Nationals and 100% know that the people on that team sandbag and tank matches to stay at that level.

 

[Doan]

Most 4.5 players I know would quit tennis if they had to play 3.5.

Of course. Those are part of the 99% that don't don't care about going or winning at Nationals. So you accept the premise that someone getting double bumped is playing way out of level ? Lets see how many Men/Women at Nationals get double bumped in 8 weeks time.

 

[USPTARF97]

OK, smart ass. Over the past 25+ years of league tennis, I have written countless e-mails to the USTA regarding the sandbagging issue, suggesting rule changes that could fix the problem and increase fair play. Some of the suggestions have been adopted , some have not. I've also captained at least a dozen teams, and I have indeed filed grievances and helped other captains do the same when there have been blatant ratings cheaters in my local area. I do my research, and all but one of these grievances has been upheld (and the one that wasn't, the person was bumped at the end of the season anyway). I've also volunteered for my Section ratings and grievance committees. So I have made a difference, at least in my Section. The problem still remains at the National level, and as long as people are competing, some will try to cheat. It's a fact.

Am I obsessed with cheating. No. As I've mentioned in my previous posts, I believe a vast majority of USTA League players are ethical and play within the rules. I've been on 20 different teams that have qualified for the Sectional championships, and I've qualified for Nationals twice. I didn't do this by focusing on the bad apples we've encountered. But I did try to do something about it on behalf of my team when I was the captain, and I also always fielded clean teams myself- no self rates and minimal appealed players (only guys I knew well), and no short cuts. I think I've gone above and beyond in this, and I know what I'm talking about.

Exactly my point, I think you and Vox Rationis should join forces. With your knowledge and his ability to research players and pinpoint their levels you guys could make a difference with all this sandbagging going on. See what kind of impact you guys could have on the up and coming Nationals. Sounds like you know who some of the suspects are just find out the ones that are not computer protected and get them booted.
Sure do miss tournament tennis. It’s a shame the draws don't make anymore and we are left with this drama theatre league tennis. League tennis killed the tournaments and now we are left with this. It’s made Tennis a much softer sport.

 

[USPTARF97]

Of course. Those are part of the 99% that don't don't care about going or winning at Nationals. So you accept the premise that someone getting double bumped is playing way out of level ? Lets see how many Men/Women at Nationals get double bumped in 8 weeks time.

Sure could do that by self rating, playing a couple of league matches and then going to state. Thing is all it would take is to file a grievance and they would be out. Somewhere between State, Reguonals and Nationals someone should file a grievance and it wouldn’t happen.
What is not likely is that a player that is 3.97 is going to compete at 4.5-5.0. Not happening.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

There is one fallacy that needs addressing. I don't agree that it is just 1% of the players sandbagging, I think it is more. But, let's all agree for this example it is only 1%.

Well, 1% of the players, at nationals, are sandbaggers. What if every region though had one sandbagger per team, still, hey man, that's only 1%.

However, every team representing a region at nationals with a simple 1 sandbagged on the roster, means it changed the outcome for 100% of the teams and players in that region they are representing.

Meaning the effect is immeasurable.

 

[USPTARF97]

There is one fallacy that needs addressing. I don't agree that it is just 1% of the players sandbagging, I think it is more. But, let's all agree for this example it is only 1%.

Well, 1% of the players, at nationals, are sandbaggers. What if every region though had one sandbagger per team, still, hey man, that's only 1%.

However, every team representing a region at nationals with a simple 1 sandbagged on the roster, means it changed the outcome for 100% of the teams and players in that region they are representing.

Meaning the effect is immeasurable.

There is one fallacy that needs addressing. I don't agree that it is just 1% of the players sandbagging, I think it is more. But, let's all agree for this example it is only 1%.

Well, 1% of the players, at nationals, are sandbaggers. What if every region though had one sandbagger per team, still, hey man, that's only 1%.

However, every team representing a region at nationals with a simple 1 sandbagged on the roster, means it changed the outcome for 100% of the teams and players in that region they are representing.

Meaning the effect is immeasurable.

That is called a Slippery Slope.

 

[ShaunS]

There is one fallacy that needs addressing. I don't agree that it is just 1% of the players sandbagging, I think it is more. But, let's all agree for this example it is only 1%.

Well, 1% of the players, at nationals, are sandbaggers. What if every region though had one sandbagger per team, still, hey man, that's only 1%.

I don't know that we have the data to suggest accurately how much sandbagging is going on, but you've got some leaps here that cover.

If you're accepting his position that 1% of the players are sandbaggers then it's not going to be remotely close to every team. Maybe every fifth team. That means the potential impact is changed from your next line.

However, every team representing a region at nationals with a simple 1 sandbagged on the roster, means it changed the outcome for 100% of the teams and players in that region they are representing.

Meaning the effect is immeasurable.

The existence of a sandbagger does not inherently change the outcome. We cannot know whether it did because it could change the entire lineup. That means it would be impossible to measure, but we cannot know if it's immeasurable.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

It would be impossible to measure, but we cannot know if it is immeasurable.
Far out man

 

[Vox Rationis]

Sure could do that by self rating, playing a couple of league matches and then going to state. Thing is all it would take is to file a grievance and they would be out. Somewhere between State, Reguonals and Nationals someone should file a grievance and it wouldn’t happen.
What is not likely is that a player that is 3.97 is going to compete at 4.5-5.0. Not happening.

Why not? They're literally 0.03 away from being a 4.5. I've seen plenty of 4.5s lose to players worse than that.

Also the guys I've brought up were computer rated, including the 3.97. Filing a grievance likely wouldn't work. It's also not hypothetical if he could compete against a 5.0. He literally did play a 5.0. 7-5 6-2 is a fairly competitive match in my book.

 

[Jack the Hack]

What is not likely is that a player that is 3.97 is going to compete at 4.5-5.0. Not happening.

Seeing that I've bounced between a 5.0 and 4.5 computer rating in the past 5 years, I'm happy to see that you believe so much in the invincibility of those levels. Personally, I fear no player that is 4.5 or less. I believe I'm capable and should be able to win all of those matches at that level, especially if the opponent has a 4.0 rating. That said, I'm humble enough to know that on any given day, stuff can happen.

Just to squabble some more, didn't you say...

Not even sure how people play tennis if they go in obsessing on how some guy is .3-.6 higher level than him. I have beaten higher ranked players my entire life and never considered them better than me or even gave it a thought.

Given this, why would the 3.97 player (which is the tippy top of the 4.0 range) not be able to "compete" with people in the 4.5 range especially?

In any given year, I bet there are at least a hundred matches where a high level 4.0 beats a lower level 4.5 in tournament or USTA League play. Out of thousands of matches overall, the percentage of these upsets isn't super high... but "not happening" is not correct.

I can think of two examples I've witnessed. Last season, my 4.5+ team that went to Nationals had an early season match against the last place team in our League. At least half of their roster was 4.0s and they had no 5.0s on the team, so we didn't bring our top line players. Still, at #3 doubles we had two guys in their mid-50s that were former Division 1 college players and had just been dropped down from 5.0 to 4.5 the year before. Tennisrecord.com has their dynamic ratings around 4.25, which is the middle of the pack for 4.5. Their opponents that day were two computer rated 4.0s, who have dynamic ratings of 3.98 and 3.79 in Tennisrecord.com. Our guys should have won by 6-2, 6-2 scores at worst on paper. However, they started off slow, got broken early in each set, and blew a bunch of opportunities. Their 4.0 opponents played above their normal skill level, got hot at the right moments, and won 6-4, 4-6, 12-10 after our guys had several match points. The other upset I remember was a few years ago when we had an older 4.5 rated player volunteer to play 2nd singles, and he got matched up with a younger, very fast 4.0 kid on the rise. I don't know what their dynamic ratings were since it pre-dates Tennisrecord.com, but I recall the 4.5 guy (a good friend of mine) being really embarassed by losing 6-3, 6-3. In fact, now that I'm thinking of it, I can think of several other 4.0 upsets of 4.5 players in League over the past few seasons. It happens. Everyone is human. Some days, the high 4.0 actually plays like a 4.5, and other days, the low 4.5 plays like a 4.0 Therefore, I believe a 3.97 player (which again, is a very high 4.0) can definitely "compete" against a 4.5, depending on the matchup and circumstances.

 

[USPTARF97]

It’s interesting you guys don’t see the difference in 4.0,4.5,5.0. It’s all the same to you guys.
There is a distinct difference in those levels where we train. We have 4.5/5.0 doubles on 4 Courts on Saturdays and occasionally have 1 or two of the best 4.0’s come out and play and they a very difficult time holding serve, returning and just playing in general.
Playing 8.5 and 9.5 there is a huge difference in the level of play.
League tennis has become so ridiculous that clubs are starting to do in house leagues and ladders. Works much better. Don’t have players trying to play up where they don’t need to be. You eat what you kill and have to work your way up. We don’t care what people think their level is, their results dictate where they are. You win you move up a court, you lose you move down. Just because someone goes from 4.0 to 4.1 it doesn’t make them a different level. Just means they are slightly better than they were.
What the USTA has set up isn’t working. My hope is that things will go back to age division.and tournaments like it was back in the hay day.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Just because someone goes from 4.0 to 4.1 it doesn’t make them a different level. Just means they are slightly better than they were.

You're actually starting to get it without even realizing it. Just because 3.97 So Cal guy and 4.03 (4.5) guy have different assigned ratings doesn't mean they are different skill levels. In fact they're quite close in level.

It’s interesting you guys don’t see the difference in 4.0,4.5,5.0. It’s all the same to you guys.

It's not all the same. We haven't been saying that at all. However it's more interesting that you don't seem to see that there is a lot of overlap on the borders of rating levels. And that the best players with one assigned rating can beat players of a higher assigned rating.

 

[USPTARF97]

Can see overlap with the best 3.5’s and the worst 4.0’s. Guess players around here don’t cheat as much as what you guys are used to. The best 3.5 player around here can’t touch the 4.5 players. Not even the worst ones. It’s a complement to the tennis professionals in the area and the people in general. Makes me realize that we have really good people in the tennis community here.

 

[Vox Rationis]

It's not too bad around me either. People abuse the questionnaire a bit but no blatant sandbagging usually.
However there's a long history of teams from certain areas doing it and they tend to stand out like a sore thumb. All I've been doing is pointing out the ones who are 3.5 only in name not in skill.

 

[USPTARF97]

Seeing that I've bounced between a 5.0 and 4.5 computer rating in the past 5 years, I'm happy to see that you believe so much in the invincibility of those levels. Personally, I fear no player that is 4.5 or less. I believe I'm capable and should be able to win all of those matches at that level, especially if the opponent has a 4.0 rating. That said, I'm humble enough to know that on any given day, stuff can happen.

Just to squabble some more, didn't you say...



Given this, why would the 3.97 player (which is the tippy top of the 4.0 range) not be able to "compete" with people in the 4.5 range especially?

In any given year, I bet there are at least a hundred matches where a high level 4.0 beats a lower level 4.5 in tournament or USTA League play. Out of thousands of matches overall, the percentage of these upsets isn't super high... but "not happening" is not correct.

I can think of two examples I've witnessed. Last season, my 4.5+ team that went to Nationals had an early season match against the last place team in our League. At least half of their roster was 4.0s and they had no 5.0s on the team, so we didn't bring our top line players. Still, at #3 doubles we had two guys in their mid-50s that were former Division 1 college players and had just been dropped down from 5.0 to 4.5 the year before. Tennisrecord.com has their dynamic ratings around 4.25, which is the middle of the pack for 4.5. Their opponents that day were two computer rated 4.0s, who have dynamic ratings of 3.98 and 3.79 in Tennisrecord.com. Our guys should have won by 6-2, 6-2 scores at worst on paper. However, they started off slow, got broken early in each set, and blew a bunch of opportunities. Their 4.0 opponents played above their normal skill level, got hot at the right moments, and won 6-4, 4-6, 12-10 after our guys had several match points. The other upset I remember was a few years ago when we had an older 4.5 rated player volunteer to play 2nd singles, and he got matched up with a younger, very fast 4.0 kid on the rise. I don't know what their dynamic ratings were since it pre-dates Tennisrecord.com, but I recall the 4.5 guy (a good friend of mine) being really embarassed by losing 6-3, 6-3. In fact, now that I'm thinking of it, I can think of several other 4.0 upsets of 4.5 players in League over the past few seasons. It happens. Everyone is human. Some days, the high 4.0 actually plays like a 4.5, and other days, the low 4.5 plays like a 4.0 Therefore, I believe a 3.97 player (which again, is a very high 4.0) can definitely "compete" against a 4.5, depending on the matchup and circumstances.

 

[USPTARF97]

there is definitely some overlap with high level 4.0’s and low level 4.5’s. Same with high level 3.5’s and low level 4.0’s.
Back to my statement about beating higher ranked players..open division and we were all the same level. I never go into matches thinking I’m gonna lose or the guy is just better. Certainly am not trying to figure out what level they are if they should be there. Can’t compete that way nor could some one going to 3.5 nationals worrying about 4.5 players.

 

[kelkat]

Kevin, Im on the 55+ team heading to Nat'l out of NorCal. What do you think our chances are..... ?

 

[Vox Rationis]

there is definitely some overlap with high level 4.0’s and low level 4.5’s. Same with high level 3.5’s and low level 4.0’s.
Back to my statement about beating higher ranked players..open division and we were all the same level. I never go into matches thinking I’m gonna lose or the guy is just better. Can’t compete that way nor could some one going to 3.5 nationals worrying about 4.5 players.

Right. They shouldn't worry about playing them, they should just be prepared to have to beat them if they want to win nationals.

 

[CHtennis]

Right. They shouldn't worry about playing them, they should just be prepared to have to beat them if they want to win nationals.

That is why people get frustrated about this right. The teams at Nationals are outliers, the top 1% of teams. So while you expect good players, having someone close to or at 2 levels above level is a big problem. We are all ok going and competing against over level players but when they are 2 levels above that is too much. I have had experiences both ways, when I went to nationals in 2003 at 4.5 there were people complaining about these two singles guys (on different teams) that people thought were 5.5's. Well they were very good, definitely 5.0 but I played both of them, and I lost to each but they did not think they clear 5.5's (one I lost to in a match tiebreak and another I got beat pretty bad). However the one guy did get rated up to 5.0 (all three of us got rated up to be clear) the next year and went to nationals with his team in 5.0 (it wasnt 5.0+ then) and they did not win the title but were competitive, and he regularly played and won at 1st doubles. So maybe he was about a 5.5 or at least a very high 5.0.

One time we picked up a self rate for our team and he was way too good. He was a great kid, going into college, hadnt committed when he did the self rate and did not play many USTA tournaments so he did not have a national ranking or whatever disqualifies you. He got in and we played him and he played 5 matches and go DQed. While it was frustrating for our team as we had a good one and it flipped a match or too to losses for us, it was absolutely the right call as he beat another singles player 6-2,6-2 and that guy got rated up to 5.0 at the end of the year. I liked him as a guy and a player but he was no where close to a 4.5 so the system worked, but if he had had the commitment of some of these other guys to get computer rated for a year at level they do not belong at and then play full out, then that is a problem and would be really frustrating to deal with.

 

[schmke]

Kevin, Im on the 55+ team heading to Nat'l out of NorCal. What do you think our chances are..... ?

I will probably do a preview/simulation a week or two before the event. If you'd like more details than the preview or something sooner, contact me (ratings@teravation.net).

 

[ChaelAZ]

lol. This thread....

 

[USPTARF97]

Colossal example of overthinking 3.5 tennis.

 

[CHtennis]

Colossal example of overthinking 3.5 tennis.

Yes that is what we do here, we overthink league tennis and that is why I love this message board.

 

[OnTheLine]

In some vain attempt to re-rail this thread:

So, 3.5 Nats starts today here in Vegas .... They are being treated to absolutely perfect weather. Mid 80s, no humidity, no wind, no clouds ... as ideal as one can possibly ask for.

Was at Darling last night and arrived while the captain's meeting was being held and overheard something curious that perhaps @schmke or someone else could clarify for me. In round robin the coordinator was explaining that in the case of a retirement the winning team is credited with not only the games won up to the retirement but also the full games for any set not played. This seems odd to me. Perhaps I did not hear it right.

Also noted that in the case of a forfeit the winning team does NOT receive credit for a 6-0; 6-0 win .... it is as if it didn't happen.
This also doesn't seem right

Clarification?

 

[Vox Rationis]

Colossal example of overthinking 3.5 tennis.

You were so close to getting it! What a shame.

 

[Vox Rationis]

In some vain attempt to re-rail this thread:

So, 3.5 Nats starts today here in Vegas .... They are being treated to absolutely perfect weather. Mid 80s, no humidity, no wind, no clouds ... as ideal as one can possibly ask for.

Was at Darling last night and arrived while the captain's meeting was being held and overheard something curious that perhaps @schmke or someone else could clarify for me. In round robin the coordinator was explaining that in the case of a retirement the winning team is credited with not only the games won up to the retirement but also the full games for any set not played. This seems odd to me. Perhaps I did not hear it right.

Also noted that in the case of a forfeit the winning team does NOT receive credit for a 6-0; 6-0 win .... it is as if it didn't happen.
This also doesn't seem right

Clarification?

Seems a little contradictory to give extra games in a retirement win but taking them all away in a forfeit win. Hopefully we do get a clarification or see it in action.

 

[USPTARF97]

You were so close to getting it! What a shame.

Nothing here is beyond anyone’s understanding. It’s a bit Neurotic but entertaining.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Nothing here is beyond anyone’s understanding. It’s a bit Neurotic but entertaining.

Indeed

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The TX player that is slightly over 4.0 is 4.0 not 4.5. He could be bumped to 4.0. You are 4.5 when you reach 4.5.
So Cal’s highest rated player is 3.97 meaning he is just below 4.0.

@Vox Rationis is correct.

You're mixing apples and oranges: you're comparing an NTRP level [4.0] with the NTRP number tied to that level [which is defined as 3.50 - 3.99]. So your statement "You are 4.5 when you reach 4.5." is incorrect: you are an NTRP 4.5 when you reach a rating of 4.00. If you reached a numerical 4.50, you'd be an NTRP 5.0.

So the SoCal player with an estimated 3.97 means he's at the very upper end of the 4.0 NTRP range and is within a hair's breadth of being an NTRP 4.5 [defined as 4.00 - 4.49].

Your comparisons are off by one level.

He is just below 4.0 competing with team mates that are below 4.0. How in the world is that competing above or at 4.5 level? Just because he had a couple of good results in a 5.0 event doesn’t mean he is that level. Players play their best about 10% of the time and their worst about 10% of the time. Their actual level is what they play when they are competing somewhere in the middle of those percentages.

The "actual" level is the sum total of all results. If the algorithm threw out the bottom and top 10%, then I'd agree with you. But there's no evidence that this is the case.

Could you come up with an explanation that justified those stellar results without him being significantly under-rated? Sure. I'd prefer the simpler explanation, a la Occam's Razor: he's under-rated.

You are using fuzzy math to reach the conclusion you prefer. Your math is like saying my 7 yr old who is 7 and a couple of months old is 8. It’s a good thing they have birthdays to determine Junior age divisions.

The math didn't seem fuzzy to me at all. And your analogy is shaky: one's age increments in a predictable fashion. One's estimated NTRP is all over the map: you could play down a level one day and up a level the next.

You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid the possibility that there are significantly above-level players at Nationals [not necessarily a lot but enough to skew the predictions; just ask @schmke.

By the way, who created the estimations on these players?

I get mine from tennisrecord.com [t e n n i s r e c o r d.c o m, in case the filters kick in].

BTW: I enjoy facing stiffer competition. Winning is not the most important thing to me. If a closet 5.0 sneaks into my 4.5 league, I want to be the one to play him and if I get double bagelled, so be it; I'll try and enjoy the "lesson" and learn something from it. So I'm not making my arguments because I'm whining about losing to sandbaggers. I'm making my arguments to correct what I see as a flaw in your logic.

 

[USPTARF97]

@Vox Rationis is correct.

You're mixing apples and oranges: you're comparing an NTRP level [4.0] with the NTRP number tied to that level [which is defined as 3.50 - 3.99]. So your statement "You are 4.5 when you reach 4.5." is incorrect: you are an NTRP 4.5 when you reach a rating of 4.00. If you reached a numerical 4.50, you'd be an NTRP 5.0.

So the SoCal player with an estimated 3.97 means he's at the very upper end of the 4.0 NTRP range and is within a hair's breadth of being an NTRP 4.5 [defined as 4.00 - 4.49].

Your comparisons are off by one level.



The "actual" level is the sum total of all results. If the algorithm threw out the bottom and top 10%, then I'd agree with you. But there's no evidence that this is the case.

Could you come up with an explanation that justified those stellar results without him being significantly under-rated? Sure. I'd prefer the simpler explanation, a la Occam's Razor: he's under-rated.



The math didn't seem fuzzy to me at all. And your analogy is shaky: one's age increments in a predictable fashion. One's estimated NTRP is all over the map: you could play down a level one day and up a level the next.

You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid the possibility that there are significantly above-level players at Nationals [not necessarily a lot but enough to skew the predictions; just ask @schmke.



I get mine from tennisrecord.com [t e n n i s r e c o r d.c o m, in case the filters kick in].

BTW: I enjoy facing stiffer competition. Winning is not the most important thing to me. If a closet 5.0 sneaks into my 4.5 league, I want to be the one to play him and if I get double bagelled, so be it; I'll try and enjoy the "lesson" and learn something from it. So I'm not making my arguments because I'm whining about losing to sandbaggers. I'm making my arguments to correct what I see as a flaw in your logic.

Am aware of how the computerized system implements the levels. Also understand that people cheat and sandbag. People that train players don’t look at it like if you get someone from 3.5 to 3.6 they are at a new level and are 4.0. We teach skills, techniques, patterns of play and strategy that take people to the next level.
Slightly better gets you nothing among our players. If players are bumped out after minimal improvement they struggle at the next level and get bumped back down. The rating system has great fallacies.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Am aware of how the computerized system implements the levels. People that train players don’t look at it like if you get someone from 3.5 to 3.6 they are at a new level and are 4.0. We teach skills, techniques, patterns of play and strategy that take people to the next level

Which makes perfect sense; that's how I would teach also.

 

[USPTARF97]

Self rating creates a problem in itself that if someone wants to sandbag it’s easy. Very unfortunate. USTA became too cheap for verification clinics.

 

[J011yroger]

Self rating creates a problem in itself that if someone wants to sandbag it’s easy. Very unfortunate. USTA became too cheap for verification clinics.

Oh yeah, they worked so well.

J

 

[J011yroger]

Self rating creates a problem in itself that if someone wants to sandbag it’s easy. Very unfortunate. USTA became too cheap for verification clinics.

And what do you mean became too cheap? The members paid.

J

 

[OnTheLine]

Oh yeah, they worked so well.

J

Ditto what he said.

They did not work.
Players paid for them.

One cannot put someone at a level in a drill situation. Someone (me for instance) may drill well "look" like a higher level but has no match sense or ability to play competitive matches at that level.

It was full of a lot of corruption. Pros from club A would see a player from club B and place them at a higher level than where they belong ... boosting Club A's chances at that level, while looking at their own members would rate them lower.

 

[USPTARF97]

Need age division tournaments.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Tourneys are back, I do 80% UTR now. So much better competition and exercise. USTA is not even close in comparison.

 

[USPTARF97]

Draws don’t make in most Tournaments try to play. Hoping that will change.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Ditto what he said.

They did not work.
Players paid for them.

One cannot put someone at a level in a drill situation. Someone (me for instance) may drill well "look" like a higher level but has no match sense or ability to play competitive matches at that level.

It was full of a lot of corruption. Pros from club A would see a player from club B and place them at a higher level than where they belong ... boosting Club A's chances at that level, while looking at their own members would rate them lower.

Yeah, when I graduated from college in the mid-90s and moved to the city I'm in, I was recruited to play on a 4.5 USTA team at the local club I joined. I had no awareness of USTA League before that. I recall warming up for about 5 minutes on court with another player, then having a teaching pro come over at the start of the clinic and ask me what I was looking to do. I told him that I was asked to play on a 4.5 team, and he said OK and wrote something down on his clipboard. I paid him $10. That was that. He never watched me hit, serve, or play any points, and never asked me about my playing background.

I played #1 for my college. Although my college team wasn't that special in terms of national rankings, by the NTRP guidelines today, because I played the #1 spot for 4 years, I should have been given a 5.0 or 5.5. I did really well at 4.5 those first couple seasons, but had losses against other guys my same age. One of those losses was against the ACC conference singles champion, who had just graduated also. It was in a playoff match, and the USTA had a visual verifier there, who disqualified him after the match. My teams back then never made it to Nationals (and I never really remember that being a goal), but I eventually got bumped up to 5.0, and dropped out of USTA League for a few years.

In my opinion, the ratings clinics were a waste of time... so the online self rating thing is fine, I guess. It's very easy to verify if someone has ommitted or lied on their self rate form. What's missing now though is the existence of visual verifiers from the USTA at the playoff level to help root out obvious issues when someone has gamed the system (by self rating, then throwing matches to get an artificially low protected computer rating). I've been around long enough to have had discussions with the USTA about visual verifiers, and I recall that the USTA saw problems with consistency in their rulings. When a human is making a decision on someone's playing level during a critical playoff match, it was subjective and very unpopular. That's why the USTA almost completely defers to their computer now, regardless of the flaws in that system.

One thing that I agree 100% with @USPTARF97 on is that the USTA League has ruined tournaments, and that I really wish tournaments were like they were 10 to 20 years ago. In my age group, there were only 5 events in my entire Section for this year. 12 years ago, I played 18 tournaments in the same season, most of which had really good draws. However, clubs don't want to give up the court time due to all the USTA League play, the USTA imposes high sanctioning fees and standards, the USTA has nearly abandoned advertising and promotions for tournaments and rankings, the cost of entry fees has skyrocketed while the benefits have dropped, and many of the old school tournament directors have moved on. Sadly, big tennis tournaments that have been going for 50, 75, or even a 100 years in my area have stopped operating in the past 5 seasons. Maybe UTR will catch on in my area and revive it. However, the last couple UTR tournaments I've seen have featured $60 entry fees for a one day event playing pro sets. No thanks.