Guess rating and provide advice

alphapong wrote: NextLevel wrote: I don't think that's the whole truth to be frank.  You guys also don't play tournaments often and artificially depress ratings so that you can get good results at Nationals and the Open.  I had a look at this after Nationals. After the ratings came out, I was quite pleased that our 9 players picked up an average of 357 points. Our players averaged 6-7 tournaments in the run up to nationals. Do players from other areas really play much more? I did notice on the list of big points gainers quite a number of players from the south bay elsewhere who had only played 1 or 2 tournaments all year. So while I do think "tournament avoidance sandbagging" does take place, it is not the primary factor for the ratings discrepancy. In addition to what has already been mentioned, our local area has a very high percentage of improving players. We have 30 players going from our club to the Sacramento Open tomorrow. Out of those 30, 22 are juniors in our program. Of the 8 adults, half participate in  some form of training here. Improving players will always depress the rating system by consuming points from the static players.

The california regional thing is a myth to me. It has everything to do with the fact that a lot of players get streaks of coaching, or are up and coming, and are quick to play better than their rating because of improvement. There are just a lot of improving players all the time. Nothing to do with some standard 'regional difference'. But for a normal club or tournament player, My experience in the last 3 years going to play in CA says that a 1600 player is a 1600 player. If the inflation were so severe, then I would have no chance in a single match of beating and/or competing with players higher rated than myself who are local to CA while I'm from Iowa- yet I have done it. So either I'm severely under-rated (despite that fact that my rating has been basically the same range since I started tournament play) or it's bogus. That doesn't mean i've done WELL in CA, but I have beaten higher rated players and had very close matches with players 2-300 points above me- even more, just like any player does at any given time. If a 1500 player there were a 1900 player out here, there's NO chance that would happen AT ALL. 

lineup32 wrote: NL while technically U make a good point the reality is that USATT tournaments are basically revenue generating events and brackets other then open are artificial boundaries both age and point brackets to generate interest in the tournament and draw a larger audience to the event which pays the overhead.  The rating system supports the tournament seeding brackets so the system tends to reinforce itself creating a variety of mismatches within various brackets.  Its all about revenue generation rather then fair play and even competition, so for those players most concerned with sandbaggers they can play open level. Best of luck this weekend at Sac

I believe strongly that even in a divisional system, one can take advantage. You just keep your division lower than your true skill and lose where there is an objective measurement component.

Guessing ratings is tough.  Both players have some skills and hit some pretty strong shots.  But neither seems able to serve short more than 1 out of 10 (being generous).  The guy in green has about the most 2-speed backhand I've ever seen.  It looks about "beginner +" most of the time, then, once in a while, he rips one at a ~1800 (maybe better) level.  The penholder does a pretty neat, and unusual flat rpb punch - but misses a bit too often.  Many of his rpb loops look more like a banana flip - but occasionally he rips one pretty good.  Both players move pretty well.  Both usually attack to pretty good spots.  Both have solid (if a bit inconsistent) forehands.  Both miss way too much.

I have to agree with hookumsnivy about the short serves thing. We all think short serves are better because we see the pros and high level players serve short a lot. At this level long serves will test the opponent much more. Short serves should still be used but if your opponent is having trouble with long serves or not attacking them effectively then you are going to get more outright points or an advantage by the long serve.

He looks 1400-1499 from his footwork and his serve. I'm talking about Pen.

I think we will have 10 or 12 going.

sahiggs100 wrote: I have to agree with hookumsnivy about the short serves thing. We all think short serves are better because we see the pros and high level players serve short a lot. At this level long serves will test the opponent much more. Short serves should still be used but if your opponent is having trouble with long serves or not attacking them effectively then you are going to get more outright points or an advantage by the long serve. Of course everyone should develop good short serves as well because you will face opponents that you will need to use them.

Edited by NextLevel - 04/20/2015 at 8:02am

hookumsnivy wrote: I'll have to record a match where I serve the vast majority of the balls short to prove to everyone that I can do it at will.  I tailor my serves to the opponent.

Edited by NextLevel - 04/20/2015 at 8:44am

BH-Man wrote: BH-Man isn't doubting your ability to serve short.

hookumsnivy wrote: BH-Man wrote: BH-Man isn't doubting your ability to serve short.  Hookumsnivy thinks it's funny when people refer to themselves in the 3rd person