USATT 2000

walleyeguy7 wrote: yo brandon this is ted lol. that match was really interesting to watch. personally, this is just me, i think you just were too aggressive overall on your loops. instead of picking and choosing which ones to hit really fast and flat, you threw a medium fast medium flat one almost every loop, and he won just by putting it on more often than you. then again, last time i played him, my rallies were a lot longer and my loops were more safe, and i picked and choosed the ones that i would hit flatter, and i lost 0-3. i guess whatever the strategy, in the end, you just have to play better than him that day.

dalamchops wrote: every 100pt is a pretty big gap, especially above 2000.

good point.

while frequent upsets seem to occur in the 1000-1500 (usually based on style matchups or "off days") folks levels higher usually have a lot more to "fall back on" in terms of consistency or technique. that's not to say that a 1600 player won't beat an 1800 player, it's just not as likely.

icontek wrote: dalamchops wrote: every 100pt is a pretty big gap, especially above 2000. good point. while frequent upsets seem to occur in the 1000-1500 (usually based on style matchups or "off days") folks levels higher usually have a lot more to "fall back on" in terms of consistency or technique. that's not to say that a 1600 player won't beat an 1800 player, it's just not as likely.

I completely disagree!!! I've seen 2000 level players and 2200 level players play. For the most part its a matter of consistency and style. There are as many upsets in those levels are there are lower levels. 200-250 points apart - now that is the difference. Even USATT believes that if you have more than 265 whatever points over the previous, you deserve nothing for beating them. I agree with that.

Once you get high enough to possess touch besides simple strokes, you can develop new strokes on the fly, you can adapt to the style, you recognize weaknesses for improved strategy easier and can take tactical advantages. So as the knowledge of the game improves, its easier to take the next jump higher up.

Again, the reason people don't is exactly as I mentioned in the previous post - everyone trains the same - no evolution, no ingenuity, no thoughts! Please tell me you work on feeling the ball so you can retain it on the paddle without bounce as if you're a juggler. Answer - if not nobody, then very few. So there are other levels of training an imagination has no limit....

Leshxa wrote: Jeff(ATTC) wrote: USATT 2000 is an elusive rating.  It's the point where you're considered "legit," it's the number that all your club mates want to be; it's where you can adapt your game accordingly to best use your game; it's where your consistency is a step above most of the people in the club; it's the light at then end of the long tunnel that's hard to reach. Then again these things also apply every 100 points after USATT 2000. Where every 100 points is another "level."  Many 1800's and 1900's could be USATT 2000, but lack small things in their games that will push them over that benchmark; be it slow footwork, serves that go too long, pushes that are a little too high, etc. As a personal example; I am ~USATT 1800, many of my highly ranked club mates USATT 2000+ tell me that my strokes look good, my serves are good, etc, etc.  They all tell me that I am missing something very small, something that they can't quite put their finger on, and once I "find it" that I will be at USATT 2000.   I wish it was easy to find that "small" thing that I am lacking, but after hours of video analysis, interviewing people I have played, the small things are actually really big.  Things like pushing, footwork, anticipation are things that I need to work on. My pushing has little spin and tend to go high; my footwork exists in practice, but I usually find myself "surprised" and running for the ball in a game; and my anticipation is not so hot; I figure though that once my anticipation improves that my in game footwork will too (achieved through lots of match play?). Well I have taken steps to work on these items, by trying to refine my tactics by brainstorming on paper, video analysis, practice, and asking for advice from the better players at my club.  Sorry for the tangent, got a little carried away, but this is what I think USATT 2000 is. Good point! I have a suggestion. Since you play a lot of over 2000 players, look at what they do to make you miss. Then you'll know exactly what to work on. I am also an 1800 player but I've been told that my game exceeds it. I've beaten players over 2000 level a few times in tournaments, so its definitely possible to roll over the mark - the biggest problem - the way my coach puts it - you need to keep beating all the players under you, then you'll solidify your rating. So its a challenge. I strongly believe that the difference in ratings is very small. I've seen incredible loops from people rated a lot less - but they lack variety, placement, consistency. At 2000 level its not enough to have a forehand, need backhand, defense, push, and most of all STRATEGY! There are way too many players that can make the shots, but can't construct a rally if their life depended on it. Like robots - I'm sure we've all heard it. There is an article on table tennis that I read somewhere, it said, if you practice like everyone else, you'll be identical to everyone else and that is just no way to excel. Finally, around 2000 level it is no longer acceptable to loose to no skill anti, pip blockers, choppers, etc, especially if they have no offensive shots. Why do you guys think all those "junk" players have high ratings without very obvious strengths in their game??? Very simple - because they beat higher rated players that can only play other inverted players.

The main thing that these players do to beat me is placement and strategy like you said.  They put the ball in a place that "surprises" me, and when I do place the ball on the table they put it in a place for me that is difficult to get to.  The thing is I probably don't think enough, or maybe I think too much?  Recently I've been taking more time to think my points out rather than just get the ball and serve, event then I don't execute, or I guessed wrong and end up "surprised."

Edited by Jeff(ATTC) - 11/10/2010 at 4:14am

yes, nicefrog you are pretty much right with your assumption.

popperlocker wrote: yes, nicefrog you are pretty much right with your assumption. and lesxha, upsets happen all time time, but i think icontek meant if your (real) rating is 1600 it's not likely you will beat a (real) rated 1800 player. In a tournament if a 1600 player beats a bunch of 1800 players, he will most likely be given an 1800 rating, so that means he is not really a 1600 player.

The thing is there is no such thing as "real" rating. There is only formal tournament-based rating which is something tangible. It might be very unfair - as in case of people who haven't played tournaments in a while, or if a guy really plays at a higher level but cannot play many matches in a row because of injured shoulder or due to the fact that he gets tired very quickly... but that's just life.

The "real" rating you are talking about is probably what I would call "technical rating" - it's basically how good the player is in all the basic elements of the game, how good he can play when practicing at the club, having done proper warm-up and stretching, with good preparation, in good shape both mentally and physically. As we all know, this entire sum of circumstances is something that rarely happens at a tournament...

Then again, the USATT rating reflects your results against specific people you played. In areas with rather homogeneous styles or with less players than it is desired, those numbers are still formal but they do not reflect the results this player would be showing when playing in a much more diverse group or simply against many more players (preferably the ones he hasn't played 57 times already). I know people who got to 2000 rating having NEVER played a long-pips player - well, there might be one or two  in the neighborhood but they are not coming to the local tournaments. Players with Anti rubbers are exceedingly rare, and in some places around the world they have never seen a fast pick-hitter with SP on a C-pen (classic Chinese style) - in my native Russia 2-3 years ago I recall a case when people with a rating around 2150-200 got destroyed by a 1800-rated Chinese SP-hitter who came to visit a friend and played a local tourney.

lol its andrew in jeff's vid


bh man you mean the guy with anti and a pony tail?

JyeChen wrote: JimT wrote: popperlocker wrote: yes, nicefrog you are pretty much right with your assumption. and lesxha, upsets happen all time time, but i think icontek meant if your (real) rating is 1600 it's not likely you will beat a (real) rated 1800 player. In a tournament if a 1600 player beats a bunch of 1800 players, he will most likely be given an 1800 rating, so that means he is not really a 1600 player. The thing is there is no such thing as "real" rating. There is only formal tournament-based rating which is something tangible. It might be very unfair - as in case of people who haven't played tournaments in a while, or if a guy really plays at a higher level but cannot play many matches in a row because of injured shoulder or due to the fact that he gets tired very quickly... but that's just life. The "real" rating you are talking about is probably what I would call "technical rating" - it's basically how good the player is in all the basic elements of the game, how good he can play when practicing at the club, having done proper warm-up and stretching, with good preparation, in good shape both mentally and physically. As we all know, this entire sum of circumstances is something that rarely happens at a tournament... Then again, the USATT rating reflects your results against specific people you played. In areas with rather homogeneous styles or with less players than it is desired, those numbers are still formal but they do not reflect the results this player would be showing when playing in a much more diverse group or simply against many more players (preferably the ones he hasn't played 57 times already). I know people who got to 2000 rating having NEVER played a long-pips player - well, there might be one or two  in the neighborhood but they are not coming to the local tournaments. Players with Anti rubbers are exceedingly rare, and in some places around the world they have never seen a fast pick-hitter with SP on a C-pen (classic Chinese style) - in my native Russia 2-3 years ago I recall a case when people with a rating around 2150-200 got destroyed by a 1800-rated Chinese SP-hitter who came to visit a friend and played a local tourney. I don't think popperlocker meant real in the sense that you are criticizing. Rather that if you are a 1600 that honestly plays at a 1600 level and would maintain a 1600 rating after playing say... 10 tournaments in diverse situations. That sort of real. However, at the same time, a "real" 1600 could beat a "real" 1800 simply because their style may counter the others. It's not that unlikely.

I was basically just saying that using the word "real" is pointless here - there is no such thing. Same way as there is no "real" speed of, say, a rocket flying in space - only relative to another object.

USATT rating is a rather "flexible" number which we take as an approximation (sometimes a bad one) of a player's strength... but there is no way to assign a player a number which can be called his "real" rating... and also there is no such thing as player's "real strength". It's all just figures of speech - this stuff cannot be measured numerically.

As an analogy - when you come to a doctor's office complaining of pain in your muscle, they would ask you to rate your pain on scale from 0 to 10. Wouldn't you agree that from the formal point of view it is an absolutely stupid question? sometimes you cannot even compare two kinds of pain... not to mention there is no way to compare pain that patient A is experiencing right now in his knee with the pain that patient B had yesterday in his lower back.

LobbedYoud0wn wrote: lol its andrew in jeff's vid bh man you mean the guy with anti and a pony tail?

 

Edited by BH-Man - 11/12/2010 at 8:28am

Its easier to give a range for playing level. Like their rating level fluctuates between 2000-2200  

Asaomi wrote: I am the chinese guy in black and red. I see lots of room for improvement in my game, especially service return! Footwork can also always be better. I might add that my opponent here wasnt having his best day, missing alot of kill shots and points that actually should have had been his. How much USATT rating would you rate me based on this game?

I would say around 1800-1900, but its really hard to say based on a video.