This user has no status.
Here’s my latest video of a friendly competition with my friends. Let me know what you think!
2200 showdown!!
- Thread starter Brian Zhao
- Start date
says
MIA
says
MIA
Well-Known Member
Fun video and good group of players with various styles!
I'm curious, which blades and rubbers are the other 3 players using?
I'm curious, which blades and rubbers are the other 3 players using?
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
This user has been banned.
When I see that video, and when I watch the last Patty and Si Wasserman junior tournament that was held in Samson Dubina Academy in Akron Ohio recently, I definitely thinks the USATT rating system needs a serious update cos'... it does not make any sense anymore:
- not so much gap between 1800 - 2200 rated players
- enormous gap between 2200 - 2600/2600+ players, mostly members of the USATT team
Their rating system needs to take in consideration those gaps, by elevating the 2600/2600+ to 3000 at least.
Or, reducing the lower rated players to a more realistic rate: in France, and France isn't the biggest nation in the world TT by far ! (we're only the 15th nation at best), playing 2200 is like playing 1700 and then it wouldn't be possible to play in nationals or pro leagues, only regionals ones. R1 is the 6th best league for example (Pro A - Pro B - Nat 1 - Nat 2 - Pre-Nat - R1 - R2 - R3 - Pre-R - D1 - D2 - D3 - D4).
- not so much gap between 1800 - 2200 rated players
- enormous gap between 2200 - 2600/2600+ players, mostly members of the USATT team
Their rating system needs to take in consideration those gaps, by elevating the 2600/2600+ to 3000 at least.
Or, reducing the lower rated players to a more realistic rate: in France, and France isn't the biggest nation in the world TT by far ! (we're only the 15th nation at best), playing 2200 is like playing 1700 and then it wouldn't be possible to play in nationals or pro leagues, only regionals ones. R1 is the 6th best league for example (Pro A - Pro B - Nat 1 - Nat 2 - Pre-Nat - R1 - R2 - R3 - Pre-R - D1 - D2 - D3 - D4).
This user has no status.
Eden: viscaria, Dignics 64 fh, Tenergy 05 FX bh
Chase: TB ALC, Dignics 80 fh, Dignics 09C bh
Nico: IF ALC, I think T05 both sides but I’m not sure
This user has no status.
Music&Ping;342400 said:
The ELO system is self-correcting so in principle if 2600s consistently beat 2500s, then eventually after enough matches the 2600s will be more like 2650 and the 2500s will be more like 2450. I think you are seriously over-estimating the chances that an 1800 or even a 2000 can beat a 2200, which almost never happens. As many kids have improved a lot over the last year without a chance to play tournaments, it is likely that the "1800s" you saw at the junior tournament were actually more like 2000 or 2100.
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
Well-Known Member
Every classification system can have its difficulties fairly or propery classifying players if the conditions are right for inequity... like say so many players playing only a narrow group of opponents, or so many improving, but having to play the same small group of players, or even worse, those who lose enough matches with a purpose of lowering the points rating, to qualify for a lower event with a large cash prise at a huge tourney and make more money.
In Korea, they had a similar division system and you moved to higher division if you made finals. This is great motivation for those who want to improve and play higher level... but not everyone does this... in fact, so many are kept purposely lower division, even if they are truely skilled for 2 divisions higher... this is to win the handicap team event... where so many Div 3 players are really Div 1 players, so when they face an equally skilled and properly classified Div 1 player, they get a 3 pt handicap.
In Korea, they had a similar division system and you moved to higher division if you made finals. This is great motivation for those who want to improve and play higher level... but not everyone does this... in fact, so many are kept purposely lower division, even if they are truely skilled for 2 divisions higher... this is to win the handicap team event... where so many Div 3 players are really Div 1 players, so when they face an equally skilled and properly classified Div 1 player, they get a 3 pt handicap.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
This user has been banned.
Problem is: in chess the elo rankings can go up to 2900+ nowadays, as Magnus Carlsen for example. The national USATT elo ranking should go up that high a minima, considering the differences between many players rated 2500, 2600 or 2700. To me it does not make any sense that Kanakh Jah is only 2700+ (come on... seriously...), he could beat french league players that are rated 3600+ here in France like Robert Gardos ! Gardos is ranked french N°2 behind Gauzy, 28 ITTF, Lebesson is ranked N3, 40 ITTF, playing the german top league... and Kanak Jah is in the german top league also, ranked 30 ! but if a USATT 2200 faces a french R1 player (6th league) rated 1800, it will be a closed game.
I stand by my words: I'm not saying USATT players are bad at a given rate number, I'm saying the national USATT rating system does not comply at an international level, therefore saying some players has achieved some goal at 2200 or 2000 or 2500 means nothing for the rest of us playing in other countries. It's impossible to establish any equivalence because the rating system is too much narrow.
I'm sorry but... some of you are being a bit... american-centric when it comes to your ratings.
Last edited:
I think you have nice strokes.
Still think you are too passive but I can imagine this is due you are not moving so much? Feel like you are standing still a lot. Looks a bit like you have the whole heels in the ground and to much weight there? hard to see from the angle. Maybe is the other way around too that you are pretty passive and that makes you stand a bit still.
Moving better and being a bit more aggressive will give you better results in no time!
Still think you are too passive but I can imagine this is due you are not moving so much? Feel like you are standing still a lot. Looks a bit like you have the whole heels in the ground and to much weight there? hard to see from the angle. Maybe is the other way around too that you are pretty passive and that makes you stand a bit still.
Moving better and being a bit more aggressive will give you better results in no time!
I think the rating system in the US is very problematic. You can get readjusted or not readjusted arbitrarily. If you have no rating and play one match and lose, you are assigned a rating of the player you lost to minus 10 points. So if someone off the street played Kanak Jha and lost 11-0, 11-0, 11-0 they would be assigned a rating of 2727 or so if that were the only match they played. On the other hand, I know a player from China who won his first tournament by crushing everyone. The highest rated player he beat was 2170, so he was given an initial rating of 2180. After a few tournaments he was 2500+ but he certainly made quite a few 2300 and 2400 players cry along the way. On the east coast at least there is a whole cadre of players who keep their ratings around a certain level so they can win money at events.
I think a tiered system would help a bit. If you win or place top 4 (or whatever) you move up a tier for your next tournament. Once you are a certain tier level, you are stuck playing in events at that level or higher. It would cut down on a lot of nonsense.
I think a tiered system would help a bit. If you win or place top 4 (or whatever) you move up a tier for your next tournament. Once you are a certain tier level, you are stuck playing in events at that level or higher. It would cut down on a lot of nonsense.
This user has no status.
Music&Ping;342455 said:
Kanak is underrated because he is so much better than the rest of the country, particularly in the tournaments that he plays (only open to US citizens). If the US had more players at the 2700-2800 level and Kanak frequently played more tournaments, his rating would go up. I agree that the rating system fails when it comes to players at Kanak's level. However, just because Kanak is too good and has broken the rating system doesn't mean the rating system needs to be thrown out. The US just needs more strong players to push his rating upwards.
I think the other issue you're running into is that certain regions of the United States are more underrated than others. Since rapidly improving players result in rating deflation, regions with many professionally trained kids such as San Francisco tend to be underrated relative to the rest of the country by as much as 100-200 points.
As lightspin mentioned, certain regions that offer prize money for events such as under 2000 will also have rating deflation since people at that level intentionally lose points to play these events.
This problem of regional variation vanishes as ratings approach ~2400 or higher since at that level most players play at national tournaments and there is mixing between players of different regions. However, due to US geography, unless we force all the club players to play at national tournaments, under any ELO system certain regions will be more underrated than others and it will be hard to calibrate what it means when someone says they are 2000.
I think all the ELO systems are still designed so that if someone plays someone else from the same locale, someone has a 30% chance of beating someone 100 points higher than them, a very small chance of beating someone 200 points higher than them, and virtually no chance of beating someone 300 points higher. Based on my understanding, this should be true both in the United States and in Europe.
Last edited:
Similar threads
