BeyondTheTape
Semi-Pro
Yea, another TTW guy saying 4.0s in their area are awesome, just like everybody else.
Blah blah blah.
J
Rumor has it. @Vox Rationis 4.0 friends are 2nd on this continent...but thats just hearsay.
Yea, another TTW guy saying 4.0s in their area are awesome, just like everybody else.
Blah blah blah.
J
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.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.
2nd? Before long these friends will be claiming they won nationals.Rumor has it. @Vox Rationis 4.0 friends are 2nd on this continent...but thats just hearsay.
2nd? Before long these friends will be claiming they won nationals.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.
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.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.
I'd love to play with the 5.0 woman. In more ways than one.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk
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
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
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 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.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.
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.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.
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.
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?The woman 4.5 was last rated in 2015 playing 5.0 on a 9.0 mixed team.
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.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.
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.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 know what you mean but video makes everything look .5 worse than it actually is.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
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 think we all need to video ourselves to know how we move and hit versus how fluid we feel.
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.
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.
Thanks for the effort USTA, but ultimately these videos aren't gonna be that helpful.
- Ratings are based on who you can beat in a match, NOT how you look while playing.
- I have beat many players that looked better than me from a distance. I have lost to many players that looked worse.
- 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.
In that case, without looking at the title (if you can help it), let's judge these guys' ratings.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.
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 ...^Could only watch about 2 minutes of it. Looks like high level 3.0 on video.
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.In that case, without looking at the title (if you can help it), let's judge these guys' ratings.
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.