US Open 2018

Weather Forecast Dec 17-22

Orlando
High high 60's Low mid 50's

Las Vegas
High mid 50's Low mid 30's

For a Vacation your choice ?

Both are t-shirt and shorts weather. I grew up in the Northern part of the US. Camping in 0'F weather. Have beer, don't mind...
 
says Check out my Podcast Talkin' Smash!
says Check out my Podcast Talkin' Smash!
TeamJOOLA
Oct 2010
2,672
1,413
4,289
Read 12 reviews
33
In my mind the most critical error in this planning process was making 3 significant changes all at once. There are concepts behind the changes that have value and are valid -

- Trying a new location aside from Vegas is healthy, perhaps they could attract more entries from the east coast etc.
- People may appreciate a change from Vegas to a new vacation spot, personally I like Florida to holiday more than Vegas.
- The new rating event format is interesting and helps people get more matches with players around their level
- There is a standard for entering the main singles events, this is an international open and should have standards in place - there needs to be a difference from the US Nationals, not just everyone can enter the men's singles etc.

I could go on, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm in complete support. Essentially what I believe happened was that because of the track system for entering events there was some restriction in the number of events some could compete in, also with a new blanket entry fee system and a price increase in the entry there are people being offered less events for a higher entry price.

I can understand why people weren't in favor of that or might not want to attend. If you entered 3 events previously for say $40 per event ($120 total), why would you now want to pay a blanket entry of $275 for the same 3 events.

I think that 550 is a respectable outcome given the changes made were relatively drastic. I think it's healthy to try new things and I appreciate that the organization is not willing to just keep plodding along as normal, we need people who can think outside the box. Sure if things don't work out then learn from it and move forward, but actively trying to improve and choose things which you think will benefit a majority of players is important.

All I can say is I hope this trial of new things is fairly evaluated and used to continue help improving the event. At the end of the day we want more people playing and more people happy. It seems there were more people who were less happy with this combination of changes, and that's ok, as long as it's learned from and put back into the process.

Long yarn there ha
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Sep 2017
175
220
440
In my mind the most critical error in this planning process was making 3 significant changes all at once. There are concepts behind the changes that have value and are valid -

...

I think that 550 is a respectable outcome given the changes made were relatively drastic. I think it's healthy to try new things and I appreciate that the organization is not willing to just keep plodding along as normal, we need people who can think outside the box. Sure if things don't work out then learn from it and move forward, but actively trying to improve and choose things which you think will benefit a majority of players is important.

All I can say is I hope this trial of new things is fairly evaluated and used to continue help improving the event. At the end of the day we want more people playing and more people happy. It seems there were more people who were less happy with this combination of changes, and that's ok, as long as it's learned from and put back into the process.

Long yarn there ha
I abbreviated your long yarn.

Like you said, the problem is that too many big variables were introduced all at once. When you experiment you test for 1 variable at a time.

How will USATT be able to analyze and learn from this with so many change variables as the cause of the big drop in this year's participation?

Without this analysis, how will they know which of these changes to keep, which to drop for the next/future US Opens?

Is there a plan to send a survey (survey monkey) to all USATT members why they chose to NOT attend.

Will there be a survey sent to all participants asking why they DID choose to attend this year's Open.

These survey questions should be thought through to allow some decent analysis of the USATT population and 2018 US Open actual participant's opinions. And then they should be published and decisions made to further modify (or not) this year's US Open format/location change/etc well before the next US Open.
 
I like the new location as in my previous life I traveled across the US, often to Florida.

Why did I choose not to go?
- The new Track event separating the 'Elite' from 'Performance' tracks. Note: both levels pay the same $275
- I'd be playing only 1 event (as I didn't locate a doubles partner). The singles events are age related. Being 59YO, I'd be in the 50+ event. Yes, I could have also played the 20+ event, not the 40+ event at it was scheduled too close (to the 50+ event and I don't schedule them that close).

For me it came down to the separation of the 'riff-raff' (ie Performance Track) versus 'Elite. For example, the 'Elite' qualifications are 2400+ USATT or have a have an ITTF world ranking. Why should I pay $275 to help support the Elite prize money? And I don't get to play/learn from these Elite players.

Now, maybe if the overall structure was different I would have gone. Maybe if they had 3 Tracks and entry fees to match (Elite-$275, Performance-$120, and Regular-$40) I'd be packing about now.
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Jun 2015
2,205
547
2,850
Generally, I think the format is okay, but maybe too expensive or confusing so some decided to opt out.

For Example: Rating Singles has a range of ratings from 468 to 2431.
Oliver Mader 2173 is the top seed of 6 in RR Group 22.

I think it is a good location. I like having two different locations for the two tournaments hosted by the USATT.
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Jun 2015
2,205
547
2,850
Someone told me in the next couple years more Chinese coaches will become US citizens thus Kanak might not have a chance even at the National. This is sad... if true.

Kanak Jha has been developed by Chinese coaches, usually the Chinese male immigrants have let the locals take the honors at the Nationals, the last 10 years.

....
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Jun 2015
2,205
547
2,850
I have heard rumors that players in the Ratings Event who were upset in the 1st tier phase have defaulted out rather than play in 2nd tier phase vs lower rated.

People are obsessed with their ratings, that is why the USATT should change to a division system which emphasizes trying to finish in the top 4. Ratings are used because most players do not get many significant peer matches in any one tournament.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Nov 2015
543
817
1,977
I have heard rumors that players in the Ratings Event who were upset in the 1st tier phase have defaulted out rather than play in 2nd tier phase vs lower rated.

People are obsessed with their ratings, that is why the USATT should change to a division system which emphasizes trying to finish in the top 4. Ratings are used because most players do not get many significant peer matches in any one tournament.

Given that you keep bringing up division system, would you mind elaborating HOW it will actually work?
 
Top