Just wanted to add a few thoughts about the rating system thread
that had been popular here for a while.
First of all it is important to view ratings like you would weight
classes in boxing. If one weight group is 140 pounds and under and
another is 150 pounds and under, obviously someone who is 141
pounds will be closer to the boxers in the group below him than
most of the ones that are in his own group. It wouldn't make ANY
difference, where you drew the line. If you changed it to 141 and
151 then you would help the guy who was 141, but would hurt the
guy who was 142 and they guy who was 150.
Secondly, it is important to understand, as has been stated before,
that "ratings" are really verifications. You say what you think you
are rated, and the verifyer determines whether you are lying through
your teeth or not. Most of the people who get into leagues will at
least be close to the proper level of the league.
Obviously there are two problems. Some people try to get rated as
low as possible and others as high as possible. If someone is on
the border, they will claim to be what they want to be. I have
almost never seen anyone rated two levels above or below where
they should be. So I would say 90% of the verifications are
Secondly, the USTA leagues that use the verifications will also use
a computer to further improve the ratings. The computer uses a
sophisticated system, that is linked with visual ratings by highly
trained verifyers at nationals, sectionals and regionals.
I would say that ratings are accurate almost 95% of the time. A few
people do squeak by, but not many.
Now I think a system that works 95% of the time is a pretty good
one. That is not to say there aren't room for improvements, but they
basically do the job they are supposed to do by allowing people to
play relatively competitive matches.
director of tennis
schenectady racquet & fitness
Schenectady Racquet & Fitness:
Community Sports Association:
Received on Sun Aug 13 2000 - 21:29:31 CDT