estimate or call 911

[kukamonga]

There are many 2200 level players who will pound your long serves, or even your short ones if they are not good and tight/low. Some true 2000 level players will not automatically attack everything long when they do not know what is exactly on the ball.

I agree with the sentiment that the rating system is flawed. It is inherently deflationary, even with the upwards adjustments in it. A 2000 level player now is better than a 2000 level player 8 yrs ago, I stand by that. Ratings for the same level of player vary widely. That is sometimes not the fault of the system, if there are players who are 1600 rated who improve to 2000 level and play each other, beat each other up and take each others' points, no one will really be 2000, but there will be a lot of 2000 level 1800 rated players. A lot of my region's players in the 1800-1900 range can defeat a 2000 level player 1/3 of the time. San Jose area in USA has a whole hoard of players rated at under 1000 who are near 2000 level. They simply play in their division and win or lose vs other similar skilled way under-rated players.

Unless we have people circulate throughout the country or force them to play in Nov Teams or similar national events, you will never get teh ratings system to be even. The other way would be to use subjective judgment of rater-adjusters and move players up or down on a one time eval. I can see the alligator tears from the parents of the San Jose children whose hopes of a national U1000 title just went down the drain...

I think in general the system is overvalued.
most players would generally be higher than it is concluded.
it's like you show a video, people see something that is not continuous attack and loop like you would see in a pro tour match and they immediately say "oh you are 1300".
there's a whole range from 0 to that level which is like 2500 or 2600.

 

[Archosaurus]

So what's the problem? The difference between 1300 and 1500 and 1700 and 1900 etc. are all somewhat apparent. From the 2000's the differences get bigger.

 

[kukamonga]

So what's the problem? The difference between 1300 and 1500 and 1700 and 1900 etc. are all somewhat apparent. From the 2000's the differences get bigger.

not really.
to me 1300 to 2400 are all in the same group and somewhat difficult to differentiate.
and this is where 99% of the people who ask their rating are.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

One time the Infamous Wally Green said something like this to me:

"That's the problem with this GAME. You have a guy who totally sucks and he doesn't have any idea of it. That's why I play with my cell phone and my little racket. After I beat someone using a cell phone, how can they keep thinking they are good! Then you have another guy who looks great in practice and you swear he is 2200. And he plays a match and loses to someone who sucks. Then you have those guys who do weird stupid stuff and their game skill level is high but their technique level sucks. That would never be able to happen in tennis. In tennis you can't just stick the racket out, do nothing, but hope, and expect the ball to get over the net. You have to be good to be good. There is no other sport in the world where someone could do that."

And I guess, in a way that is both a positive and a negative to the sport. There is some stuff that is very hard to see on video. It is also why top women can be as close in level to the men as they are. Because you don't really need sheer power and real athleticism. Table tennis is much more about touch, feel and subtle technical details than about sheer power.

In tennis, a mid-level college man would usually be nowhere near top 300 in the world but often would be able to beat the top women in the world. In table tennis the top women can stand toe to toe with a man who is just outside of the top 100. Maybe even if they are just outside of the top 50 depending on the woman.

I have a feeling, at the top of her game, Zhang Yining could have dealt with most of the men outside of the top 50.

I have a friend who is a college tennis coach. When he recruits women for his team, he told me all he really needs to see is the overhead smash. If they have the strength and athleticism to do that well, he feels he can teach them what whatever else they need. But if they don't have that skill, and strength he feels he would be wasting his time on them.

So, kukamonga actually has a point if you are basing things on how they look on video. But if a 2000 level player was matched against a 1300 player, the difference in level becomes pretty evident.


Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Carl, if you see some of my matches, all I do is push the serve and be ready to block.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. I was more commenting on them both ONLY serving long. If there is a short, or even a low serve in there, I can't remember it. And then I commented on how the smaller guy was too ready to push the third ball even when it was right in his wheel house.

But, you pushing with deception and changed in grip pressure, I have a feeling that might be different.

The last thing I said was that it was clear the kid didn't have the game plan of letting the other guy open and then to block or counterloop. How that is evident is that, in almost every point the taller guy opens, he controls the point. And the shorter guys countering those third ball attacks is not his strength. But the taller guy missed too many of his opening loops.

But I do think kukamonga's point about attack vs long serves is interesting. And I don't mean they should all be ripped back. But there is a certain level where it would not be ALL long serves. Where there would be at least some short serves. Or where the short serves would be used to make the long serves more effective.



Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

 

[NextLevel]

If this is the kind of thread that the old folks used to warn me about...
I'm in trouble...
I'm in real big trouble...

Someone, please call 911!!!

 

[kukamonga]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. I was more commenting on them both ONLY serving long. If there is a short, or even a low serve in there, I can't remember it. And then I commented on how the smaller guy was too ready to push the third ball even when it was right in his wheel house.

But, you pushing with deception and changed in grip pressure, I have a feeling that might be different.

The last thing I said was that it was clear the kid didn't have the game plan of letting the other guy open and then to block or counterloop. How that is evident is that, in almost every point the taller guy opens, he controls the point. And the shorter guys countering those third ball attacks is not his strength. But the taller guy missed too many of his opening loops.

But I do think kukamonga's point about attack vs long serves is interesting. And I don't mean they should all be ripped back. But there is a certain level where it would not be ALL long serves. Where there would be at least some short serves. Or where the short serves would be used to make the long serves more effective.



Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

show me a video of a 2200 who attacks every long serve and who flips every short serve.
there's none.
you guys are watching too many pro tour videos.
this is real life and real people playing.
no cnt special top of the hill elite squad.
these are the games you need to be watching, people who play just like you.

 

[Boogar]

show me a video of a 2200 who attacks every long serve and who flips every short serve.
there's none.
you guys are watching too many pro tour videos.
this is real life and real people playing.
no cnt special top of the hill elite squad.
these are the games you need to be watching, people who play just like you.

Why do you even care so much about rating?
Ratings obviously dont mean too much, this game is by far too complicated too be rated like this. I think there are just good and bad matchups.

If you really want to rate something you'd need to rate every singel aspect of the game of a specific person.
For example how good is his opening loop off spinny pushes. How good is his loop if he is out of position etc... Just too many factors to be acounted.

I do understand that talking about ratings and statistics is fun

 

[Archosaurus]

Boogar, isn't that why it goes simply with the no-bullshit method of "If you can't consistently beat X then you're not X."?

 

[Boogar]

Boogar, isn't that why it goes simply with the no-bullshit method of "If you can't consistently beat X then you're not X."?

Lets say X has a rating of 2 and you have a rating of 1.
You however beat X consistently. Still you lose to A and B who are 1 aswell, while X beats them.
Thats what i mean with good and bad matchups.

On the other hand a player who has no idea how spin works has obviously no chance against one that does, so it makes sense to have some kind of rating but just for big level differences.

However a 2000 player can be a 2000 player without attacking long serves and without the ability to loop kill.
Thats why its very hard to rate players from just one performance. It might be a bad match up where his tactics don't work.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

show me a video of a 2200 who attacks every long serve and who flips every short serve.
there's none.
you guys are watching too many pro tour videos.
this is real life and real people playing.
no cnt special top of the hill elite squad.
these are the games you need to be watching, people who play just like you.

Not sure how you consistently try to come up with comments like this. Pretty funny though.

No, a 2200 player does not always attack every long serve and flip every short serve. Who said they did?

But if someone pushes long, right to my FH, I will at least try to loop it. Unless there is a real reason not to.

So, again, what I said was. When the shorter kid served, and his serve got pushed back to him, there were too many instances, given how short the footage is, of him simply pushing back a push that was right in his power zone. And the thing that adds to that, in my observation is that, when the taller guy did open on those 4th balls, the kid did not really have an answer. He wasn't doing it to counter or set himself up to handle the tall guy's opening.

But, I know you are just making ridiculous comments and purposely misunderstanding things to try and get a response because that is what you do to try and bait people into arguments. So, go ahead and say what ever you want. The whole subject is summed up quite well by NextLevel's post.

 

[violoniste18]

just a question : how many players about in the US rating system ?

 

[Der_Echte]

Maybe 4000 or so do a tourney or three a year... membership is maybe 9000...

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[kukamonga]

Why do you even care so much about rating?
Ratings obviously dont mean too much, this game is by far too complicated too be rated like this. I think there are just good and bad matchups.

If you really want to rate something you'd need to rate every singel aspect of the game of a specific person.
For example how good is his opening loop off spinny pushes. How good is his loop if he is out of position etc... Just too many factors to be acounted.

I do understand that talking about ratings and statistics is fun

in the end it's not so much about rating.
it's just entertaining to share videos of people I played with and see the comments.

 

[NextLevel]

in the end it's not so much about rating.
it's just entertaining to share videos of people I played with and see the comments.

IT's more entertaining to call 911.

 

[kukamonga]

One time the Infamous Wally Green said something like this to me:

"That's the problem with this GAME. You have a guy who totally sucks and he doesn't have any idea of it. That's why I play with my cell phone and my little racket. After I beat someone using a cell phone, how can they keep thinking they are good! Then you have another guy who looks great in practice and you swear he is 2200. And he plays a match and loses to someone who sucks. Then you have those guys who do weird stupid stuff and their game skill level is high but their technique level sucks. That would never be able to happen in tennis. In tennis you can't just stick the racket out, do nothing, but hope, and expect the ball to get over the net. You have to be good to be good. There is no other sport in the world where someone could do that."

And I guess, in a way that is both a positive and a negative to the sport. There is some stuff that is very hard to see on video. It is also why top women can be as close in level to the men as they are. Because you don't really need sheer power and real athleticism. Table tennis is much more about touch, feel and subtle technical details than about sheer power.

In tennis, a mid-level college man would usually be nowhere near top 300 in the world but often would be able to beat the top women in the world. In table tennis the top women can stand toe to toe with a man who is just outside of the top 100. Maybe even if they are just outside of the top 50 depending on the woman.

I have a feeling, at the top of her game, Zhang Yining could have dealt with most of the men outside of the top 50.

I have a friend who is a college tennis coach. When he recruits women for his team, he told me all he really needs to see is the overhead smash. If they have the strength and athleticism to do that well, he feels he can teach them what whatever else they need. But if they don't have that skill, and strength he feels he would be wasting his time on them.

So, kukamonga actually has a point if you are basing things on how they look on video. But if a 2000 level player was matched against a 1300 player, the difference in level becomes pretty evident.


Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

that's my homie right there.
straight thug from the gutter.
me wally and tupac, we are one.