USTA Level ratings videos...

Vox Rationis

Semi-Pro
I'm not disputing that he could be a 4.0 by competing his way up, but you cant use a funky stroke old dude with a non 4.0 serve as the video definition. There are legit players in 4.0 who won state championships and/or played at crappy collges.
I completely agree he's a horrible demonstration to use! Even if his shots are effective they don't mesh with the description that played along as he hit.

Although I'd dispute that those legit 4.0s that played at low division colleges or won hs state championships are representative of common 4.0s as well. Those are the guys some captains recruit to try and win sectionals.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Okay .. is this a joke?
Just looking at the women .... well, because I know what they look like playing day after day ... It is like each one is down a level or two in terms of stroke fundamentals like what I expect to see. This is only based on the stroke fundamentals .... not positioning, match strategy and everything else that goes along with a rating level ... those factors are the difference between winning and losing at a level.

The 3.0 ... looks like what I see in local 2.5 matches. Bizarre servie patty cake motion, no slice or spin on volleys,
The 3.5 ... looks like a low 3.0 locally ... still little topspin on fh ... absolutely flat bh, serve that is still not fluid, but the volleys are the worst give away ... the motion made on a bh volley is what I expect to see out of a low 3.0 or even some 3.5s. Footwork looks about right for higher local 3.0 level
The 4.0 ... WTH is with this video??? I get using a lefty in a video ... but the player SWITCHED HANDS to do a high bh OH with her right hand!! On all volleys, little display of touch with a lot of them popping up, no slice, no underspin ... FH's are more flat than in the 3.5 video and BH is incredibly tight, what is with the weird leg flailing on the BH? ... that serve is a disaster ... does not look like what I see in my 3.5 matches, much less my 4.0 matches, and again switches to her right hand? .... for a video that is supposed to show a ratings metric why would you pick someone who is so darn wonky?
The 4.5 ... okay, this looks about like what I expect to see stroke wise and serve wise from the high 3.5 to mid 4.0 level locally ... I actually recognize this style of stroke, serve, volley, etc. (speaking of stroke fundamentals only)

I truly hope that no one considers using these to create their self rating. There will be a gazillion people self rating at 4.0 or 4.5 and getting destroyed
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Okay .. is this a joke?
Just looking at the women .... well, because I know what they look like playing day after day ... It is like each one is down a level or two in terms of stroke fundamentals like what I expect to see. This is only based on the stroke fundamentals .... not positioning, match strategy and everything else that goes along with a rating level ... those factors are the difference between winning and losing at a level.

The 3.0 ... looks like what I see in local 2.5 matches. Bizarre servie patty cake motion, no slice or spin on volleys,
The 3.5 ... looks like a low 3.0 locally ... still little topspin on fh ... absolutely flat bh, serve that is still not fluid, but the volleys are the worst give away ... the motion made on a bh volley is what I expect to see out of a low 3.0 or even some 3.5s. Footwork looks about right for higher local 3.0 level
The 4.0 ... WTH is with this video??? I get using a lefty in a video ... but the player SWITCHED HANDS to do a high bh OH with her right hand!! On all volleys, little display of touch with a lot of them popping up, no slice, no underspin ... FH's are more flat than in the 3.5 video and BH is incredibly tight, what is with the weird leg flailing on the BH? ... that serve is a disaster ... does not look like what I see in my 3.5 matches, much less my 4.0 matches, and again switches to her right hand? .... for a video that is supposed to show a ratings metric why would you pick someone who is so darn wonky?
The 4.5 ... okay, this looks about like what I expect to see stroke wise and serve wise from the high 3.5 to mid 4.0 level locally ... I actually recognize this style of stroke, serve, volley, etc. (speaking of stroke fundamentals only)

I truly hope that no one considers using these to create their self rating. There will be a gazillion people self rating at 4.0 or 4.5 and getting destroyed
Only if they have never seen themselves on video.

J
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
Only if they have never seen themselves on video.

J
You'll find this amusing then, I play on a Playsight court every day so I watch my session afterwards most of the time and I've literally created a mental checklist of what not to do so that I look good while playing. Doesn't matter the result!
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
Where in the description of NTRP ratings does it say you need pretty strokes to achieve a certain level? I can show you athletic 3.0s who can demonstrate good mechanics on forehands and serves. That doesn’t mean $&@! Mark Boone at TW has some funky looking stuff and he is a legit 5.0. This is the problem with people around here - you have no idea how to watch recreational tennis players and assess their level. As soon as you see something “weird” they must automatically be a 3.5, even if they’re hitting the ball exactly where, when and how they want to.
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
What's the point of using a non-standard stroke as the average stroke for any particular level? The whole purpose of these videos is to show what a 3.0/3.5/4.0 should look like. If you want to get into ball placement, pace, spin as the definition of level then it's dependent on the type of shot/pace/consistency that you're receiving and you need analytics to figure it out on court.

Really, someone should just create a simple test that you can do with a ball machine and then having a bunch of people at each level take the test, establish a baseline score for each level and then publish the data.
Setup ball machine at center line, hit 10 balls to the left deep quadrant, how many land in without double bouncing in play(to force more pace), how many to the right can you make in out of 10. Then do the same drill with backhand. Serve 10 balls to each side, how many can you land in with the 2nd bounce occurring beyond the baseline etc. I think 40 ground strokes + 40 serves(10 first + 10 second to each side) should give you a good idea. The average 3.0 can hit 50 of those in, 3.5 can hit 60 etc.
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
What's the point of using a non-standard stroke as the average stroke for any particular level? The whole purpose of these videos is to show what a 3.0/3.5/4.0 should look like. If you want to get into ball placement, pace, spin as the definition of level then it's dependent on the type of shot/pace/consistency that you're receiving and you need analytics to figure it out on court.

Really, someone should just create a simple test that you can do with a ball machine and then having a bunch of people at each level take the test, establish a baseline score for each level and then publish the data.
Setup ball machine at center line, hit 10 balls to the left deep quadrant, how many land in without double bouncing in play(to force more pace), how many to the right can you make in out of 10. Then do the same drill with backhand. Serve 10 balls to each side, how many can you land in with the 2nd bounce occurring beyond the baseline etc. I think 40 ground strokes + 40 serves(10 first + 10 second to each side) should give you a good idea. The average 3.0 can hit 50 of those in, 3.5 can hit 60 etc.
You either haven’t spent a lot of time on a tennis court with adult recreational players, or you’re just not that observant. The things I saw the 4.0 male doing are TOTALLY representative of the kind of weird stuff I see on the court every single day. If they showed someone using perfect strokes as a demonstration there wouldn’t be any need for the videos.
 

Vox Rationis

Semi-Pro
You either haven’t spent a lot of time on a tennis court with adult recreational players, or you’re just not that observant. The things I saw the 4.0 male doing are TOTALLY representative of the kind of weird stuff I see on the court every single day. If they showed someone using perfect strokes as a demonstration there wouldn’t be any need for the videos.
That's what I'm saying... but I also do some coaching so I naturally watch for people's deficiencies while playing. I still do agree with people saying they could have used someone a little less unique for some of the demonstrations. How many ambidextrous players play league? Why use one in the video? Why use such a spaz like the 4.0 guy? He was hitting the ball where he wanted but he looked like QWOP doing it.
 

Vox Rationis

Semi-Pro
The 4.5 ... okay, this looks about like what I expect to see stroke wise and serve wise from the high 3.5 to mid 4.0 level locally ... I actually recognize this style of stroke, serve, volley, etc. (speaking of stroke fundamentals only)
I have never once seen a 3.5 or mid 4.0 woman play like that. Just speaking fundamentally, that lady had excellent form. On par with every 4.5 lady I've ever hit with.
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
That's what I'm saying... but I also do some coaching so I naturally watch for people's deficiencies while playing. I still do agree with people saying they could have used someone a little less unique for some of the demonstrations. How many ambidextrous players play league? Why use one in the video? Why use such a spaz like the 4.0 guy? He was hitting the ball where he wanted but he looked like QWOP doing it.
I don’t understand using ambidextrous players in a video like that either. But I think there are a lot of spastic players at 4.0 and below so they really are demonstrating what we actually see on court in adult leagues. Should be cleaned up a lot by 4.5-5.0.
 

Max G.

Legend
Huh. The videos seemed pretty good to me, at my level at least. I've taken videos of myself (4.5) playing and I could definitely see that their 4.5 video looked about as good as I do on video, and their 5.0 example looked like they have better shots than I do on video, and their 4.0 and below looked worse than me on video.
 
I am not seeing enough of her playing to truly call her ambidextrous at a level 4.0. If she can switch hands mid match and play with the same level of proficiency the entire time, then yeah. As far as hearing people judging ratings to what is in the video.. Sandbagging is a thing. I am guilty of doing it, as it was the only chance I was able to get in and play at all. A so called 3.0's going in a match and playing true tournament 4.0's and destroying them.. yeah. Seen it, So I take everything with a big pinch of salt when it comes to things like this.
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
Huh. The videos seemed pretty good to me, at my level at least. I've taken videos of myself (4.5) playing and I could definitely see that their 4.5 video looked about as good as I do on video, and their 5.0 example looked like they have better shots than I do on video, and their 4.0 and below looked worse than me on video.
Yes but that isn't real match play, that's fed balls from a coach and they don't even have to land in. I'm a 3.5ish player when put into competition but I'd look similar to the 4.5 when my coach is feeding me easy layups to tee off on.
 

Vox Rationis

Semi-Pro
Yes but that isn't real match play, that's fed balls from a coach and they don't even have to land in. I'm a 3.5ish player when put into competition but I'd look similar to the 4.5 when my coach is feeding me easy layups to tee off on.
You can't say this without acknowledging the other side of this coin. They could be better in matches than how they appeared on video. For example that 4.5 guy was clearly not trying his hardest. If there was the urgency of a match he looked like he would be much more impressive. Same with both 5.0s and the 4.5 girl. The 4.0 male had wonky technique, but if he hits it where he wants and doesn't miss then he'll win despite it.
 

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
I have no rating, but consider myself a 3.

Here is a ROS practice from last Tuesday... I tried to kill every weak serve in one.


I get allways stunned by the stiff and poor movement of mine, not to mention spacing.
——————————
On pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter subject to disclaimer
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
@schmke I told you I smelled a big ratings adjustment. This is more proof it's coming.

J
What's your theory on the ratings adjustment?

Is it like women's clothing where they tell you you're a size or two smaller than you really are, to make you feel better about yourself? :)
 

5sets

Professional
I'd love to play with the 5.0 woman. In more ways than one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk
 

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
I'd love to play with the 5.0 woman. In more ways than one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk
Indeed! I had my F55 champs league player licked in the morning at her lower lip... #suryp.


——————————
On pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter subject to disclaimer
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
I have no rating, but consider myself a 3.

Here is a ROS practice from last Tuesday... I tried to kill every weak

I get allways stunned by the stiff and poor movement of mine, not to mention spacing.
——————————
On pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter subject to disclaimer
yeah if I was trying to match you up to one of those videos above you'd be a 4.0. In the real world you might be a 3.0 or 3.5 depending on how well you serve and where those balls are landing
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Okay .. is this a joke?
Just looking at the women .... well, because I know what they look like playing day after day ... It is like each one is down a level or two in terms of stroke fundamentals like what I expect to see. This is only based on the stroke fundamentals .... not positioning, match strategy and everything else that goes along with a rating level ... those factors are the difference between winning and losing at a level.

The 3.0 ... looks like what I see in local 2.5 matches. Bizarre servie patty cake motion, no slice or spin on volleys,
The 3.5 ... looks like a low 3.0 locally ... still little topspin on fh ... absolutely flat bh, serve that is still not fluid, but the volleys are the worst give away ... the motion made on a bh volley is what I expect to see out of a low 3.0 or even some 3.5s. Footwork looks about right for higher local 3.0 level
The 4.0 ... WTH is with this video??? I get using a lefty in a video ... but the player SWITCHED HANDS to do a high bh OH with her right hand!! On all volleys, little display of touch with a lot of them popping up, no slice, no underspin ... FH's are more flat than in the 3.5 video and BH is incredibly tight, what is with the weird leg flailing on the BH? ... that serve is a disaster ... does not look like what I see in my 3.5 matches, much less my 4.0 matches, and again switches to her right hand? .... for a video that is supposed to show a ratings metric why would you pick someone who is so darn wonky?
The 4.5 ... okay, this looks about like what I expect to see stroke wise and serve wise from the high 3.5 to mid 4.0 level locally ... I actually recognize this style of stroke, serve, volley, etc. (speaking of stroke fundamentals only)

I truly hope that no one considers using these to create their self rating. There will be a gazillion people self rating at 4.0 or 4.5 and getting destroyed
Being married to and playing frequently with a competitive woman, I would have no idea where to classify my wife. Her stroke fundamentals are worse than the 3.5 example, but I know my wife would totally destroy Miss 3.5 in a match because Miss 3.5 has zero pace. My wife looks a lot more like the 4.0 but I don't think she's as consistent.
I'd say my wife is probably a low 3.5 based on how she's done in rated tournaments. But she could destroy the USTA's 3.5 example and compete with the USTA's 4.0 but would likely lose on consistency issues.
 
N

Nashvegas

Guest
Someone could do a group lesson with the guys (other than the 4.5 who uses platform) to teach them not to bring the back foot all the way up before contact.

That is a pretty representative move though.
 

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
ITN would scale everybody, cause it has rigid criteria and a test to take. League levels are allways relative to one another and doesn’t play absolute values ever.

They are quantified lots and generalized ratings among those who compete in the leagues.


——————————
On pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter subject to disclaimer
 

WhiteOut

Semi-Pro
If you haven't seen them, check out the USTA Level Ratings Videos.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3M9c8sEXpS3Yfvd7ai83KprW_h3M5cHT


Interesting to see the look of strokes vs. the level being presented, and VERY interesting to me there are separate videos for men and women since level is supposed to be level. Maybe just for visuals, I guess.

Anyway, thoughts? I mean, I realize most TWW posted are 5.0+, but I thought I would see what others thought about accuracy of statements and such.

Thanks.
I'm in *******, and i play 3.5, 4.0, and 8.0/8.5 mixed, so i play a good amount of 4.5 men (albeit w/ 3.5 or 4.0 ladies).
--the 3.0 guy looks like many of the lower 3.5's I've seen. Id take his ground strokes over the 3.5 guy any time. the 3.0 guy's serve was the obvious weakness to me.

--the 3.5 guy looked like the low end of the 3.5 range i've played against.

--the 4.0 guy looked like the higher 3.5's I play. his serve just seems really weak and jerky...they used the word fluid in the video, and his serve was less fluid than the 3.5 they showed imo. his backhand looked like he had a pretty nice groove to it, probably the thing that got him to 4.0 over the 3.5's (that's what's holding me back right now, along with mental discipline/patience).

--I also noticed the ambidextrous 4.0 lady...i think it's pretty cool when someone can do that. the only real difference i saw between the 4.0/4.5 ladies was on the serve -- the 4.5 appeared to have more pop to it, and she didn't drop her shoulder the way the 4.0 did. IMO the vids didn't really depict the differences between the two players as well as the written descriptions.
 

tennis4me

Hall of Fame
I have not seen many 4.5 women hit with such nice strokes, except the borderline 5.0 ones and the ones getting bumped down from 5.0. But of course even the ones that don't look as nice as in that video they are legit 4.5 who wins their matches at 4.5.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
If you haven't seen them, check out the USTA Level Ratings Videos.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3M9c8sEXpS3Yfvd7ai83KprW_h3M5cHT


Interesting to see the look of strokes vs. the level being presented, and VERY intersting to me there are separate videos for men and women since level is supposed to be level. Maybe just for visuals, I guess.

Anyway, thoughts? I mean, I realize most TWW posted are 5.0+, but I thought I would see what others thought about accuracy of statements and such.

Thanks.
I was rated 4.5 Plus by one of the top teaching pros in professional tennis and USTA. I would rather not mention his name since I don't think he wants me to. But just saying, he is well known teaching professionals in the country.
 

Saul Goode

Semi-Pro
I was rated 4.5 Plus by one of the top teaching pros in professional tennis and USTA. I would rather not mention his name since I don't think he wants me to. But just saying, he is well known teaching professionals in the country.
FYI you don’t get rated by a pro. You get a rating by playing against other players. And, also, if he’s a well-known professional, he’d be fine with his professional assessment made known. Unless it didn’t really happen.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
I thought one or 2 of the women looked like they were stronger than level and the 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 men looked like they might be a little weaker for the level. I guess you have to account that the players are probably supposed to be the average player for the level and if you peeled off the top 20% or even 30% of any level, they would be stronger than the video players.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
You can't even judge someone's rating seeing them hit actual balls behind the back and people here saying what ratings these people are when you don't even see them hit at all from behind only from front.

As far as I know ratings are about match performance, how capable someone is winning matches against other players, you can't judge that by these videos.
 

SavvyStringer

Professional
I think we all need to video ourselves to know how we move and hit versus how fluid we feel. I think it would be an interesting comparison. I also think the difference between 3.5 and 4.5 according to these videos is marginal where in actually it isn't. A 4.5 won't hit me off the court in doubles but in singles they'll kill me. As far as the difference between male and female, we all know it is present. We all know in 7.0 mixed for instance that a 4.0 male with a 3.0 female is typically a better team than a 4.0 woman with a 3.0 male. The difference in gender is usually thought to account for at least half a point if not a full point for everything I've seen.
 

Kenny022593

Professional
I'd love to know who these players were so I could report where I estimate their rating to be. If they weren't all more or less middle of the range, hard to say they are representative of the level.

And videos like these can be very misleading anyway as someone can look very good and not be rated that high because they don't compete well, or have strange technique but get the job done in matches and be rated high. Any level descriptions or videos have to be treated as a rough generalization and example of what a player at that level may look/play like.
The woman 4.5 was last rated in 2015 playing 5.0 on a 9.0 mixed team.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
The woman 4.5 was last rated in 2015 playing 5.0 on a 9.0 mixed team.
So, despite the fact that they don't trust M ratings so much that M rated players must self-rate again when playing Adult, they are using a 4.5M from 3 years ago as an example of a 4.5 today? Or did this player at least have a C rating in 2014?
 

Vox Rationis

Semi-Pro
You can't even judge someone's rating seeing them hit actual balls behind the back and people here saying what ratings these people are when you don't even see them hit at all from behind only from front.

As far as I know ratings are about match performance, how capable someone is winning matches against other players, you can't judge that by these videos.
The irony being that the USTA posted these videos with the purpose of us judging their levels so that people can accurately self-rate themselves. I completely agree with you, too.


So, despite the fact that they don't trust M ratings so much that M rated players must self-rate again when playing Adult, they are using a 4.5M from 3 years ago as an example of a 4.5 today? Or did this player at least have a C rating in 2014?
They honestly look like they just grabbed members of their USTA National Campus facility whose skillsets roughly matched each rating and used them. Doubt they spent too much thought on it.
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
Okay .. is this a joke?
Just looking at the women .... well, because I know what they look like playing day after day ... It is like each one is down a level or two in terms of stroke fundamentals like what I expect to see. This is only based on the stroke fundamentals .... not positioning, match strategy and everything else that goes along with a rating level ... those factors are the difference between winning and losing at a level.

The 3.0 ... looks like what I see in local 2.5 matches. Bizarre servie patty cake motion, no slice or spin on volleys,
The 3.5 ... looks like a low 3.0 locally ... still little topspin on fh ... absolutely flat bh, serve that is still not fluid, but the volleys are the worst give away ... the motion made on a bh volley is what I expect to see out of a low 3.0 or even some 3.5s. Footwork looks about right for higher local 3.0 level
The 4.0 ... WTH is with this video??? I get using a lefty in a video ... but the player SWITCHED HANDS to do a high bh OH with her right hand!! On all volleys, little display of touch with a lot of them popping up, no slice, no underspin ... FH's are more flat than in the 3.5 video and BH is incredibly tight, what is with the weird leg flailing on the BH? ... that serve is a disaster ... does not look like what I see in my 3.5 matches, much less my 4.0 matches, and again switches to her right hand? .... for a video that is supposed to show a ratings metric why would you pick someone who is so darn wonky?
The 4.5 ... okay, this looks about like what I expect to see stroke wise and serve wise from the high 3.5 to mid 4.0 level locally ... I actually recognize this style of stroke, serve, volley, etc. (speaking of stroke fundamentals only)

I truly hope that no one considers using these to create their self rating. There will be a gazillion people self rating at 4.0 or 4.5 and getting destroyed
I know what you mean but video makes everything look .5 worse than it actually is.
 

Kenny022593

Professional
So, despite the fact that they don't trust M ratings so much that M rated players must self-rate again when playing Adult, they are using a 4.5M from 3 years ago as an example of a 4.5 today? Or did this player at least have a C rating in 2014?
I’m not sure how to view if it was a 5.0s, or 5.0c rating.
 

JLyon

Hall of Fame
honestly crap videos, anyone can look great when being fed balls. I watched the 4.5 video and he looks solid, but when fed balls even I can still look like a 4.5. They need to show legit match play via National Tournament, or Sectional Qualifiers, yes they will be top end generally but gives good representation.
Nice try by USTA but as usual very lacking.
 

navigator

Hall of Fame
I was rated 4.5 Plus by one of the top teaching pros in professional tennis and USTA. I would rather not mention his name since I don't think he wants me to. But just saying, he is well known teaching professionals in the country.
That's ridiculous; this never happened. You *allege* that you play(ed) on a 4.5 team that's gone to playoffs, etc, so... you wouldn't need a teaching pro to rate you in the first place; you would already have an official rating. So, whatever rating this teaching pro would have given you would be unnecessary and redundant. No one who has an actual NTRP rating goes to a teaching pro to get a rating. That's for self-rates who haven't played much tennis and want an idea of where they should self rate as they get started with competitive play.

FYI you don’t get rated by a pro. You get a rating by playing against other players. And, also, if he’s a well-known professional, he’d be fine with his professional assessment made known. Unless it didn’t really happen.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. I just wish if Nostradamus lied he'd do a better job of it. I still don't think the guy actually plays tennis.
 

navigator

Hall of Fame
Interesting.

I know there is some differentiate for college players where they would fall, but I guess I always assumed (since I never read) that rec NTRP was the same for men and women. I just looked through things the USTA provides and really there isn't anything that differentiates gender. It is all skill based, but that link for the videos was already added to the USTA Rating document.

Very interesting.
If they were meant to be equivalent there would be no need to have separate draws for each gender in NTRP tournaments... male and female 4.5s would all play in the same draw, for example.
 

RyanRF

Professional
Thanks for the effort USTA, but ultimately these videos aren't gonna be that helpful.
  1. Ratings are based on who you can beat in a match, NOT how you look while playing.
  2. I have beat many players that looked better than me from a distance. I have lost to many players that looked worse.
  3. It would be very easy to edit together a video that makes myself or any of my friends look 0.5 better or worse than their actual level.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the effort USTA, but ultimately these videos aren't gonna be that helpful.
  1. Ratings are based on who you can beat in a match, NOT how you look while playing.
  2. I have beat many players that looked better than me from a distance. I have lost to many players that looked worse.
  3. It would be very easy to edit together a video that makes myself or any of my friends look 0.5 better or worse than their actual level.
Yup yup.
Precisely why the old ratings clinics were done away with. Players can look particularly good visually ... strokes are smooth and "proper" but can be mentally at least a full 1.0 NTRP lower than that ... and vice versa.

But I do think that if a new player would come across these videos and use them as a guide to self-rate, there are going to be a bunch of people in absolutely the wrong division.
 

Vox Rationis

Semi-Pro
honestly crap videos, anyone can look great when being fed balls. I watched the 4.5 video and he looks solid, but when fed balls even I can still look like a 4.5. They need to show legit match play via National Tournament, or Sectional Qualifiers, yes they will be top end generally but gives good representation.
Nice try by USTA but as usual very lacking.
In that case, without looking at the title (if you can help it), let's judge these guys' ratings.


 

schmke

Hall of Fame
^Could only watch about 2 minutes of it. Looks like high level 3.0 on video.
I couldn't bear to watch any more than the first game either, and with no point going longer than two strokes and not because of winners, hard to disagree ...
 

JLyon

Hall of Fame
In that case, without looking at the title (if you can help it), let's judge these guys' ratings.


looks like some 4.0 tennis to me, trying to hit the ball to big and missing many shots. Video slows shots down, but can see it, may not be pretty but these teams are nationals for a reason, also factor in match started at dusk and finished in the dark.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
If they were meant to be equivalent there would be no need to have separate draws for each gender in NTRP tournaments... male and female 4.5s would all play in the same draw, for example.

Very true. Should would save time and money for coordinating if it was just levelled play, but I know a lot of butts would be frosted losing in those matches. lol.
 
Top