Most of the people here are yousing USATT ranking system. But ranking system is quite different in different countries. Could someone give me a link to several videos of USATT 2100-2200 players.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Different countries ranking systems
- Thread starter Leon81
- Start date
This user has no status.
Active Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
In the description of the first video the author's saying his opponents were rated 2300+, is that some separate rating he's referring to?
This user has no status.
Active Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Perhaps today it is (closer to 1900, assuming I found the right guy in USATT database), but in the linked video he is quite a bit lower.
Pips on BH?
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Aren't all ranking systems comparative? If the level of TT is low then you'll get a fairly high ranking easy. I.e. useless to compare the US ranking with Russia as the latter most likely has a way higher standard.
USATT 2100-2300 seem to be fairly similar to 1249-1500 in the Swedish ranking system (pros like Kristian & Mattias Karlsson are > 2800).
USATT 2100-2300 seem to be fairly similar to 1249-1500 in the Swedish ranking system (pros like Kristian & Mattias Karlsson are > 2800).
This user has no status.
Active Member
I don't know how the US and Swedish ranking systems compare. It is like apple and orange in my opinion.
Kanak Jha ranking is ~2700 in US ranking system but recently he beat Wong Chun Ting!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL-XK26eH4I
Kanak Jha ranking is ~2700 in US ranking system but recently he beat Wong Chun Ting!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL-XK26eH4I
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Kanak is an elite player at 2700 USATT.
The 2100-2300 USATT players in the above videos aren't very impressive. They would struggle severely in a 1249-1499 competition in Sweden. A player like Kristian Karlsson would not win easily against a player with a Swedish ranking score of 2300 but wouldn't be lost against Kanak. I assume that Kanak would absolutely trash/humiliate the USATT players at 2300.
My point - the USATT ranking is an extremely bad way of measuring players as the average standard is quite poor and you also seem rank your kids/youths as is not the case in most other countries.
It will be a bit strange for a forum reader from a country were the average standard of TT is quite high (like Russia in this case) to look at the USATT rankings and compare with his/her national ranking.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
I agree that the attempt to compare ratings across countries is almost futile. The rating systems in Table Tennis have made no attempt at uniformity. The ITTF has even gone to a ranking system instead of rating - complete nonsense.
In chess there is a better attempt (almost all Federations use some sort of ELO system - named after the mathematician Aprad Elo) but even then there are differences. The International ratings (developed over a sample that is generally high level than a country like the US) results in lower scores for higher level of play. While 2200 mean about the same thing in both it does not mean precisely the same thing and thus USA ratings are about a class lower (in real skill) or about 200 points higher than the International rating. This isn't just between countries either. Being a 1900 in Idaho is easier than being one in any of the Chess powerhouse cities like New York, Philadelphia, etc. because you see the same people all the time and defeat them in a small sample. This small sample size also results in a phenomena called rating inflation which is tough to counter as an artifact of the mathematics.
I would really like to see an ELO system applied to Table Tennis, but it would not be the end all be all of accuracy - probably no system would be.
(One quick addition - the British Chess Federation uses a system that results in ratings on an increasing scale in the low hundreds. So a average or good rating could be like 167. I am not sure how it is based but it isn't just an integer multiple. So there is confusion in the chess ratings as well)
In chess there is a better attempt (almost all Federations use some sort of ELO system - named after the mathematician Aprad Elo) but even then there are differences. The International ratings (developed over a sample that is generally high level than a country like the US) results in lower scores for higher level of play. While 2200 mean about the same thing in both it does not mean precisely the same thing and thus USA ratings are about a class lower (in real skill) or about 200 points higher than the International rating. This isn't just between countries either. Being a 1900 in Idaho is easier than being one in any of the Chess powerhouse cities like New York, Philadelphia, etc. because you see the same people all the time and defeat them in a small sample. This small sample size also results in a phenomena called rating inflation which is tough to counter as an artifact of the mathematics.
I would really like to see an ELO system applied to Table Tennis, but it would not be the end all be all of accuracy - probably no system would be.
(One quick addition - the British Chess Federation uses a system that results in ratings on an increasing scale in the low hundreds. So a average or good rating could be like 167. I am not sure how it is based but it isn't just an integer multiple. So there is confusion in the chess ratings as well)
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
In what way exactly USATT rating (not ranking) system is bad? When I see US player with a decent number of matches who is rated 2100 I know reasonably well what to expect - I'm very likely to lose. Same with the one at 1300: most likely an easy win for me. 1700-1800, can go either way (I'm bouncing within this range lately). You don't know how to interpret these numbers (and that's OK), but you also don't have USATT rating, you don't play here, and thus it's kind of irrelevant for you. Would you also say that German TTR system is bad? It's the same thing, really...
Average standard has nothing to do with it - no one in USATT set out to come up with a system that will tell me exactly and in a globally meaningful way what my strength as a player is, and have ability to compare me to a random player in Sweden, Germany, or Russia. Not what it's designed for.
Don't get your complaint about kids either - and again, they are rated, not ranked. Pretty much no one in US is walking around proclaiming that "I'm ranked #456 in the US!" (which would be an actual rank and what I hear folks in UK typically say). They'll tell you instead "I have 2157 rating".
This user has no status.
Active Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sorry for misusing ranking vs rating. English is not my mother tongue. I was referring to rating (we call it ranking-points here which is the same as rating).
Our kids/youths normally do not participate in adult/senior events which is required to gain a rating.
I still argue that USATT rating points are useless to use a comparison in this forum as at least > 50% are from outside of the US (from countries with a higher standard).
Our kids/youths normally do not participate in adult/senior events which is required to gain a rating.
I still argue that USATT rating points are useless to use a comparison in this forum as at least > 50% are from outside of the US (from countries with a higher standard).
This user has no status.
Active Member
Again you slipped your tongue here. In US we use US rating system to understand and guess how good our opponents/friends are in TT in "USA". If you don;t understand it then ask as the OP did. We are trying nicely to explain it to you but you continue voicing nonsense here. We don't really care about how many members do not understand what we were talking about and at the same time you don't have to care about our rating system whether it makes sense to you or not. Do I care what you eat? Come on .. be mature.
This user has no status.
Active Member
This is the link to show the top 25 US players (including foreigners and US citizens).
https://www.teamusa.org/usa-table-tennis/ratings/top-25-usa-men
Bojan Tokic ranked # 1 in US with 2836 rating. He ranked #61 currently in ITTF (new ITTF system I think).
https://www.teamusa.org/usa-table-tennis/ratings/top-25-usa-men
Bojan Tokic ranked # 1 in US with 2836 rating. He ranked #61 currently in ITTF (new ITTF system I think).
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
The USA match rating system is flawed causing too many players to avoid tournaments. A better rating system would be divisions or classes. .
says
Shoo...nothing to see here. - zeio
Division or class system suffers the same problem, so long as the points never expire. HKTTA uses the division system and people could camp on their points forever, as long as they pay their membership fees. That's why HKTTA started reforming the ranking system similar to the ITTF, where the points accrued "depreciate" over time.
The USATT rating is flawed in that people could ｄｕｍｐ matches to keep themselves below a specific threshold to keep themselves eligible for prize money events that they have a higher chance of winning.
The USATT rating is flawed in that people could ｄｕｍｐ matches to keep themselves below a specific threshold to keep themselves eligible for prize money events that they have a higher chance of winning.
says
Варна
Well-Known Member
Our best player Teodor Alexandrov has 7227 points according our ranking system and currently is WR 330 with 1015 points.
Here he is making fun under preasure:
This year our best WR 195 is of Petyo Krastev, who is 6th in our federation.
Rankings and points do not tell much.
Here he is making fun under preasure:
This year our best WR 195 is of Petyo Krastev, who is 6th in our federation.
Rankings and points do not tell much.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Camping on points in classes or divisions has no effect below pro division except to give a player or coach a higher status when his ability really starts to decline which is a slow process over time. They can't win money or trophies in tournaments or leagues doing that.
Last edited:
says
Shoo...nothing to see here. - zeio
The same can be said for USATT rating where people sandbag just to win in U1200 for the bragging rights.
This is a problem even for the division system, we have former Division A players playing in Division E. So tell me about it.
This is a problem even for the division system, we have former Division A players playing in Division E. So tell me about it.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
The USATT match rating system is easy to manipulate for your benefit.
a Division A player shouldn't be able to go down to Division E very easily or in a short period of time. If he does and is dominating, his status should be elevated accordingly.
Similar threads
