Usta

[kevhen]

The USTA says:
A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player. (I don't agree and the USTA used to say that the typical score between a 4.0 and 3.5 was 6-1, 6-1 and I would agree with that. Why can't the USTA show us their computer rating formula? I think it is flawed.)

At approximately the 3.5 rate for a man, a woman with a 4.0
rating will be competitive. When a man reaches the 5.0 level or
above, a woman needs to be approximately 1.0 higher in order to
be competitive. (I would agree with this.)

 

[raiden031]

If they show their formula, then sandbaggers will be able to beat the system and go to nationals every year without disqualifying.

 

[oldguysrule]

The USTA says:
A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player. (I don't agree and the USTA used to say that the typical score between a 4.0 and 3.5 was 6-1, 6-1 and I would agree with that. Why can't the USTA show us their computer rating formula? I think it is flawed.)

At approximately the 3.5 rate for a man, a woman with a 4.0
rating will be competitive. When a man reaches the 5.0 level or
above, a woman needs to be approximately 1.0 higher in order to
be competitive. (I would agree with this.)

The difference in ability between a high 3.5 and a low 3.5 is greater than the difference between a high 3.5 and a low 4.0.

 

[batakdepores]

Clarification

Kevhen,

I've always thought that 3.00 - 3.49 are considered 3.0's and 3.50 - 3.99 are 3.5's. Therefore, either I'm mistaken or your statement of "[with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s/I]" is incorrect.

Which is it? Thanks.

 

[oldguysrule]

Kevhen is correct. To play at the 3.5 level, your actual Dynamic NTRP must be 3.5 or lower.

 

[batakdepores]

Oldguysrule,

Now I understand that I'm mistaken. However, please entertain my train of thought:

If I self-rate at 3.5, according USTA, I can do:

3.5 - You have achieved improved stroke dependability with directional control on moderate shots, but need to develop depth and variety. You exhibit more aggressive net play, have improved court coverage and are developing teamwork in doubles.

Let just say I can do all the above, exactly as the above, but I lose 20% of my matches at 3.5 level. If my dynamic goes up to 3.51, let say since we don't know how their formula works, I have to play 4.0 next year?

So, these guidelines is only applied to the first time you rate yourself, if for some reason you have briliance in moving your opponent around and get them to break down mentally, even if you hit like 3.5, you can find yourself being dynamically rated at 4.5? Not likely, but not impossible, right?

Why do I think this way, because I see this guy play so un-orthodox tennis and beating 3.5s by 6-0, 6-1 (he beats me 6-2, 6-3, perhaps the next time would be closer since his un-orthodoxness is not strange anymore) and found out that he was DQ for the season. Seriously, I think his case is special but support my reasoning above.

Your thoughts guys...

 

[North]

If they show their formula, then sandbaggers will be able to beat the system and go to nationals every year without disqualifying.

They do anyway, at least where I live.

 

[oldguysrule]

Oldguysrule,

Now I understand that I'm mistaken. However, please entertain my train of thought:

If I self-rate at 3.5, according USTA, I can do:

3.5 - You have achieved improved stroke dependability with directional control on moderate shots, but need to develop depth and variety. You exhibit more aggressive net play, have improved court coverage and are developing teamwork in doubles.

Let just say I can do all the above, exactly as the above, but I lose 20% of my matches at 3.5 level. If my dynamic goes up to 3.51, let say since we don't know how their formula works, I have to play 4.0 next year?

So, these guidelines is only applied to the first time you rate yourself, if for some reason you have briliance in moving your opponent around and get them to break down mentally, even if you hit like 3.5, you can find yourself being dynamically rated at 4.5? Not likely, but not impossible, right?

Why do I think this way, because I see this guy play so un-orthodox tennis and beating 3.5s by 6-0, 6-1 (he beats me 6-2, 6-3, perhaps the next time would be closer since his un-orthodoxness is not strange anymore) and found out that he was DQ for the season. Seriously, I think his case is special but support my reasoning above.

Your thoughts guys...

I think you are too worried about your rating. Play tennis and have fun.

Your dynamic rating and subsequent computer rating will not be based on your strokes but on your match scores. So if you can beat 4.5's with 3.5 strokes, good for you.

btw, why does this concern you so much, and...what exactly are you asking?

 

[raiden031]

Oldguysrule,

Now I understand that I'm mistaken. However, please entertain my train of thought:

If I self-rate at 3.5, according USTA, I can do:

3.5 - You have achieved improved stroke dependability with directional control on moderate shots, but need to develop depth and variety. You exhibit more aggressive net play, have improved court coverage and are developing teamwork in doubles.

Let just say I can do all the above, exactly as the above, but I lose 20% of my matches at 3.5 level. If my dynamic goes up to 3.51, let say since we don't know how their formula works, I have to play 4.0 next year?

So, these guidelines is only applied to the first time you rate yourself, if for some reason you have briliance in moving your opponent around and get them to break down mentally, even if you hit like 3.5, you can find yourself being dynamically rated at 4.5? Not likely, but not impossible, right?

Why do I think this way, because I see this guy play so un-orthodox tennis and beating 3.5s by 6-0, 6-1 (he beats me 6-2, 6-3, perhaps the next time would be closer since his un-orthodoxness is not strange anymore) and found out that he was DQ for the season. Seriously, I think his case is special but support my reasoning above.

Your thoughts guys...

Here's my understanding of how it works. If someone self-rates at 3.5, they aren't really put at a certain spot (3.01 - 3.5) until after they play something like 4 games. Depending on the score and the dynamic ratings of the other players they went against, they will then be given a dynamic rating themselves. Lets say they play four 3.5 players, all ranging from 3.01 - 3.5 dynamically. If they crush all those players, I'm betting they would be disqualified and put at 3.51+, which is the low end of a 4.0 player. If they get their butts whipped by all those players, they would probably be dropped to like 3.0, which is the high end of a 3.0 player.

So if you beat a guy who is dynamically rated at 3.50 (the highest dynamic rating of a 3.5 player), and you beat him 6-0,6-0, I'm betting at most you might be placed at like 3.75, which is about midway through the 4.0 level.

 

[batakdepores]

Raiden031, Thanks for the further explanation. I find one thing odd though, if someone self rate at 3.5 and beat all 3.5s silly, and being put up to 3.75, the the 4.0s beat him silly... I don't think he will be put back down to 3.0, he surely would be a heavy sandbag there! Don't you think?

Oldguysrule, I'm not so much worry about rating but I didn't realize both the confusion and sandbagging are so deep-rooted that I really don't know which from which anymore. What I'm concerned about is whether I underrated myself the first time I self rate, making me an accidental sandbaggers. In 2006, I played two singles matches, first one won 6-2, 6-2 and second one lost 2-6, 3-6 against someone who later on was DQed. I also played double and lost 5-7, 4-6. I guess I would like it if someone can give me a link to check my dynamic NTRP so I know for sure.

So, back to Kevhen thread, my opponent whom I beat 6-2, 6-2 can still be 3.5 on the much lower level then? Or was he a true mid point 3.5 and I should be moving up?

Thanks for reading guys, let me know your thoughts.

 

[raiden031]

Raiden031, Thanks for the further explanation. I find one thing odd though, if someone self rate at 3.5 and beat all 3.5s silly, and being put up to 3.75, the the 4.0s beat him silly... I don't think he will be put back down to 3.0, he surely would be a heavy sandbag there! Don't you think?

I didn't mean the 4.0 players beating him silly, I'm saying if the 3.5 players beat him silly, he would be dropped to 3.0.

Oldguysrule, I'm not so much worry about rating but I didn't realize both the confusion and sandbagging are so deep-rooted that I really don't know which from which anymore. What I'm concerned about is whether I underrated myself the first time I self rate, making me an accidental sandbaggers. In 2006, I played two singles matches, first one won 6-2, 6-2 and second one lost 2-6, 3-6 against someone who later on was DQed. I also played double and lost 5-7, 4-6. I guess I would like it if someone can give me a link to check my dynamic NTRP so I know for sure.

So, back to Kevhen thread, my opponent whom I beat 6-2, 6-2 can still be 3.5 on the much lower level then? Or was he a true mid point 3.5 and I should be moving up?

Thanks for reading guys, let me know your thoughts.

You are not allowed to see your dynamic rating, so there's no way to find out unless you get DQed or bumped at the end of the year. Whether you get moved up depends on the dynamic rating of the guy you beat 6-2, 6-2. If he is near the top of the 3.5s, then its possible.

 

[kevhen]

I just quoted the current USTA guidelines which I think are flawed, that players 3.0-3.49 could have 6-0, 6-0 scores and still be considered normal. I have never double bageled anyone within one level. Usually double bagels occur when players are about a level and a half apart or more but not within one level.

The whole point of the NTRP was to give players at one level a decent chance of winning. If double bagels is considered normal between a 3.00 and 3.49 then the NTRP formulas are not working too well.

 

[raiden031]

I just quoted the current USTA guidelines which I think are flawed, that players 3.0-3.49 could have 6-0, 6-0 scores and still be considered normal. I have never double bageled anyone within one level. Usually double bagels occur when players are about a level and a half apart or more but not within one level.

The whole point of the NTRP was to give players at one level a decent chance of winning. If double bagels is considered normal between a 3.00 and 3.49 then the NTRP formulas are not working too well.

Here's a problem I notice in my area that may explain bageling problem within the same level.

True 2.5 players are self-rating at 3.0 because there are no 2.5 leagues and they are forced to play in 3.0 leagues.

As far as I know there are no leagues around here for those above 4.5, which means 5.0+ players have to self-rate at 4.5 and play in those leagues.

As a result, each level has a pretty wide range of abilities because all these players are trying to fit within only four possible levels: 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, or 4.5 levels.

 

[oldguysrule]

I just quoted the current USTA guidelines which I think are flawed, that players 3.0-3.49 could have 6-0, 6-0 scores and still be considered normal. I have never double bageled anyone within one level. Usually double bagels occur when players are about a level and a half apart or more but not within one level.

The whole point of the NTRP was to give players at one level a decent chance of winning. If double bagels is considered normal between a 3.00 and 3.49 then the NTRP formulas are not working too well.

I don't think your OP quoted an actual USTA guideline, but I could be wrong. Can you provide a link to that quote on their website?

My guess is you are maybe quoting someone who told you these are the guidelines. To my knowledge, the USTA has never officially published what scores could be expected between players. But, again, I could be wrong.

 

[oldguysrule]

Oldguysrule, I'm not so much worry about rating but I didn't realize both the confusion and sandbagging are so deep-rooted that I really don't know which from which anymore. What I'm concerned about is whether I underrated myself the first time I self rate, making me an accidental sandbaggers. In 2006, I played two singles matches, first one won 6-2, 6-2 and second one lost 2-6, 3-6 against someone who later on was DQed. I also played double and lost 5-7, 4-6. I guess I would like it if someone can give me a link to check my dynamic NTRP so I know for sure.

So, back to Kevhen thread, my opponent whom I beat 6-2, 6-2 can still be 3.5 on the much lower level then? Or was he a true mid point 3.5 and I should be moving up?

Thanks for reading guys, let me know your thoughts.

The rating is not going to change based on the matches you qouted above. It moves slowly and you really don't have enough matches played to make a difference.

If it helps, here is my history. I joined the USTA in 2003 to play mxd leagues with my wife after about 15 years of infrequent play. I self-rated as a 3.0 because I had no idea what the competition was like and I was advised to self-rate low and play up if I wanted. I played 6.0 mxd that year, 7.0 mixd the next year and my rating did not change. In 2005 I started playing adult leagues, mxd, and Combo at the 3.5 level (as a computer rated 3.0), and a couple of local tournaments. I was bumbed to 3.5 for 2006 and did the same playing schedule but added a 4.0 league and a couple of 4.0 tournaments. This year I was bumped to 4.0. My point is, don't worry about what your rating is...just play where you are competitive and the rating will take care of itself.

 

[kevhen]

Question 31 in this document
http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_13688.pdf?7/26/2006 3:25:35 PM
31. Are all players in a given NTRP level equal in ability?
No …The NTRP system identifies general levels of ability, but an individual will
be rated within those levels at 50 different hundredths of a point. For example, a
3.5 player can fall anywhere between a 3.01 and a 3.50. That is the reason many
people feel they are playing sandbaggers – they are closer to the bottom of that
range while their opponents are closer to the top of the range. A typical match
result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of
whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player.

 

[kevhen]

You should not get double-bageled within one level's range. Or it would be very very rare even if players were at opposite ends of one NTRP level. The whole points of NTRP is to level the playing field to make matches competitive and not become double bagel matches. The USTA is really messing things up here.

 

[raiden031]

Here's a good read on how the computer works.

http://decaturtennis.com/genpage.cgi?S1=main_selections&S2=NTRPGuide

 

[oldguysrule]

Question 31 in this document
http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_13688.pdf?7/26/2006 3:25:35 PM
31. Are all players in a given NTRP level equal in ability?
No …The NTRP system identifies general levels of ability, but an individual will
be rated within those levels at 50 different hundredths of a point. For example, a
3.5 player can fall anywhere between a 3.01 and a 3.50. That is the reason many
people feel they are playing sandbaggers – they are closer to the bottom of that
range while their opponents are closer to the top of the range. A typical match
result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of
whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player.

Thanks Kevhen...I am glad I left open the possibility I was wrong, because....I was.

I tend to agree with you but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you because it happens so rarely