Different countries ranking systems

[langel]

From what I can see of 2100/2200/2300 players over videos, it feels like Kanak Jha should have 3500 points if not much more (he's had really good wins recently, I don't know his exact level on the world stage). The best non CNT could maybe sit at 4200 or so.

Kanak Jha is WR 64 with 6346 points, and the next USA player is WR 300 with 1148. So I would say that Kanak Jha is an exeption and if the system is to be adapted to him, the next player should have half of his points, which is inadequate.

 

[talbon]

I see. But it's not inadequate, as long as it reflects accurately the difference in level (most likely not relevant here, but it could also be in some cases that one player is not as active on the international stage - having a lower WR but not necessarily a much lower national rating).

A less extreme version of the situation that you describe occurs in quite a few countries, with a sharp jump in rating over a few dozen players at the top.

I like it because it informs me of the gap in skill. That is valuable to me.

If as you suggest, Kanak Jha is almost alone at the top, then of course it might be difficult for the system to correctly assess his skill. But still, shouldn't he be several 100's of points above the next players then? That's what happens in many other rating systems.

 

[langel]

Yes, I agree that USATT system is too much compressed.

 

[Der_Echte]

Langel, you are looking up the ITTF rankings for the USA male players. That is how Americans would say "Barking up the wrong tree".

Not so many American males get to compete in ITTF events and actually win to get ranking points. A player pretty much has to pay his or her way to an ITTF tourney, USA national players get sent to a scant few ITTF tourneys. There simply isn't money in the budget pot to support it a lot.

The USATT rating points system works pretty much for its intended purpose - to classify players as best can be done for ranking purposes and to have other players have an "Idea" what a player's skill is like by looking at the rating.

The problems are that over time, for some reasons already discussed, there is downward point pressure making over time the same skilled player have less ratings points 1-3 years down the line. This is a mission creep kind of thing.

The ratings system still pretty much works, but you got to have an understanding over time relative to times and also relative for regions what a certain rating level means.

In the US Nationals tourney just completed a week or two ago, K. Jha and opponent were rated pretty close to each other Jha at 2697 and Feng at 2662. However, at that level, 30 points is still a big difference, way more than it is at 1700 USATT level.

 

[Loopadoop]

A better perspective of Jha's rating or level should be after the 2018 US Open with USA top Chinese playing who didn't play in the US Nationals.

 

[langel]

Langel, you are looking up the ITTF rankings for the USA male players. That is how Americans would say "Barking up the wrong tree".

Not so many American males get to compete in ITTF events and actually win to get ranking points. A player pretty much has to pay his or her way to an ITTF tourney, USA national players get sent to a scant few ITTF tourneys. There simply isn't money in the budget pot to support it a lot.

The USATT rating points system works pretty much for its intended purpose - to classify players as best can be done for ranking purposes and to have other players have an "Idea" what a player's skill is like by looking at the rating.

The problems are that over time, for some reasons already discussed, there is downward point pressure making over time the same skilled player have less ratings points 1-3 years down the line. This is a mission creep kind of thing.

The ratings system still pretty much works, but you got to have an understanding over time relative to times and also relative for regions what a certain rating level means.

In the US Nationals tourney just completed a week or two ago, K. Jha and opponent were rated pretty close to each other Jha at 2697 and Feng at 2662. However, at that level, 30 points is still a big difference, way more than it is at 1700 USATT level.

Yes, Der_Echte, I know that all and generally I agree with it.
The reason I gave the example is that the more compressed systems may not give enough visual information about skills and ranks. For those who are very fmiliar with the USA players and the USATT system 30 points may be enough to make a difference, but others who are trying to compare different ranks in order to evaluate, 30 points may not be enough.
Our system in Bulgaria is on the other side - there is a 3000 points difference between the 100th and the 1st who is with above 7000 points.
I know that perticipating on ITTF events is a matter of money, but you see, Bulgaria is the poorest country in Europe, we are only 7 000 000, our players can't afford to pay themselves, the federation is poor too, and all depends on the good will of the sponsors. So the same here. But if you look at the ITTF rankings you will see that Bulgaria and USA have equal number of players between rank 300 and 600. Of course its not a matter of systems, its more about popularity of the sport and sponsors activity is linked with the popularity too.

 

[Der_Echte]

True langel and clearly in my mind your country's assn is doing a much better job using their funds and getting sponsors.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[langel]

Yes and maybe. Still I think that popularity of the sport is the most important key. Better popularity means more active clubs and more active federation, more players to compete and more competition may push the system development to higher standarts. Funds and sponsors would follow the popularity. USA athlets have prooved to be world best in popular sports. USA is a big and great country with a lot of rich people and organizations. Just need to find the way to look for and motivate the good players in TT. And it depends not only on state policy and funds, but more on society interest and clubs activity.
I've discussed in other threads the activity of our club - we have a permanent number of about 30 children and now during the summer we have 60 children in the club. If our club is going stronger and more competitive it will push the other clubs to be more active too if they wont to keep competitive, otherise they will start to loose positions. Results and funds come with the fight.

 

[Loopadoop]

USATT is used to develop the national teams since it is a minor sport. US Olympic Committee is the major funding source. Their goal is not to promote the sport. They don't have big name sponsors. They are doing a better administration job now than in the past.

 

[Der_Echte]

True, better than in past for sure.

USA needs to get TT active in schools. It is kinda in there, but once it is a school sport, we will have clubs and coaches galore.

There will be a career path - a good tt athlete could then have an income in tt. Once MOM supports the sport, it will go places.