Guess the Rating

[Shuki]

Arch, come on....

You're telling me that you've guided players past the 2000 mark by simply telling them to slow down and not kill balls? Anyone near 2000 already plays the types of balls they're comfortable with.

And you say being stuck at low 2000 like its a bad thing. I'm 21 years old playing 3-4 times a week getting coached every week and 2000 is a LIFE goal for me.

 

[Archosaurus]

Seeing as USATT rating seems to actually vary for different levels in different regions, I'd really like to see the 2000's in your clubs, Shuki. Perhaps they are better than the 2000's I have seen. You see, I do not have experience in the USATT system personally, so my impressions are entirely based on videos and descriptions.

Maybe an equivalent TTR ranking player playing would show me how good 2000 actually is, because Germany is more competitive than the US in the sport, so their level is overall higher.

I'd also really have to argue about amateurs playing shots they're comfortable with, because watching amateur games, inconsistency is very prevalent. It gets better as they warm up, but most points are scored from unforced mistakes, hinting towards a lack of consistency in the technique.

Maybe I'm entirely wrong, though. I'd like to know what's a 100% accurate representation of levels at different USATT.

 

[NextLevel]

Seeing as USATT rating seems to actually vary for different levels in different regions, I'd really like to see the 2000's in your clubs, Shuki. Perhaps they are better than the 2000's I have seen. You see, I do not have experience in the USATT system personally, so my impressions are entirely based on videos and descriptions.

Maybe an equivalent TTR ranking player playing would show me how good 2000 actually is, because Germany is more competitive than the US in the sport, so their level is overall higher.

I'd also really have to argue about amateurs playing shots they're comfortable with, because watching amateur games, inconsistency is very prevalent. It gets better as they warm up, but most points are scored from unforced mistakes, hinting towards a lack of consistency in the technique.

Maybe I'm entirely wrong, though. I'd like to know what's a 100% accurate representation of levels at different USATT.

TTR 1500-1700 is about where a USATT 2000 player would be.

One mistake people make when watching me play is to underestimate the amount of cognitive processing that goes into my play because they focus on what they can see and are too naive to see what is also possible to see if they had the experience to see it. Here is one of my best matches ever.

 

[Shuki]

Seeing as USATT rating seems to actually vary for different levels in different regions, I'd really like to see the 2000's in your clubs, Shuki. Perhaps they are better than the 2000's I have seen. You see, I do not have experience in the USATT system personally, so my impressions are entirely based on videos and descriptions.

Maybe an equivalent TTR ranking player playing would show me how good 2000 actually is, because Germany is more competitive than the US in the sport, so their level is overall higher.

I'd also really have to argue about amateurs playing shots they're comfortable with, because watching amateur games, inconsistency is very prevalent. It gets better as they warm up, but most points are scored from unforced mistakes, hinting towards a lack of consistency in the technique.

Maybe I'm entirely wrong, though. I'd like to know what's a 100% accurate representation of levels at different USATT.

This old man at my club on the right was about 2200 at the time of the video. I'll see if I can find anyone closer. This year at us open he won the over 65 and got 3rd in over 60

video not working posting from phone so you'll have to click the link

 

[NextLevel]

I don't think I ever advocated NOT playing every return well, at any point in time. It's not like conservative shots are inherently bad shots, unless you're competing in a far too high level competition, but in that case, go compete with similarly skilled people and triumph there.

The point I'm trying to make is that a fancy strong loop instead of a regular good loop is not going to end the point outright. It's going to go towards ending the point, sure, but if you miss most of them, then you're really handicapping yourself. Not to mention that by the time you can somewhat consistently land those shots in a rally situation, people can more consistently block them, often with nearly 100% success rate if you just keep hitting in the same spot.

At the same time, you'd be a fool and not kill a ball if you have more than a 51% chance to hit it successfully and immediately end the point. You'd be a great player if instead of killing the ball, you picked a >75% consistency shot that does the same thing. Then you'd nearly always come on top.


I don't think Carl and I were talking about exactly the same thing, but it might just be wording.


I'd have to disagree on the shots being level appropriate. If they were, you would have read the ball and struck it successfully most the time.

There's also nothing wrong with being stuck at 2000, especially because it looks like a good balance of fun and competitiveness and dedication. If you WANT to reach a higher level, though...

So in other words, missing a shot makes it not level appropriate? I mean, you admit to have never developed a player before so it is okay to speak about something you have no clue about as if you are an expert. Then you start talking about how you have made players look like USATT 2000. USATT 2000 is not achieved by looking a certain way, it is achieved by playing competitive matches. I mean, do you think you are anything close to the level of Juan Vila?

Everyone can make cognitive errors while taking supposedly level inappropriate shots. I can post matches with me making the same shots I missed vs Olsen on that same day against other players. At least, now I see that I gave you too much credit.

 

[Archosaurus]

The old man understands the concept of playing level appropriate shots, thus he is quite good.

Although, I have never seen a 2000 as good as him. Surely 2000 and 2200 cannot be compared, because 2200 should virtually always beat a 2000 statistically, right?

Well, my image of 2200 players is correct, at least.

@NL

If you miss most of the shots. The older gentleman in Shuki's video for example, does not miss most of his shots. They are level appropriate.

Also, you don't need to give me or any credit for anything, last time I checked. Nor do I understand why a valid point is now invalid because you disagree with something else...?

 

[NextLevel]

This old man at my club on the right was about 2200 at the time of the video. I'll see if I can find anyone closer. This year at us open he won the over 65 and got 3rd in over 60

video not working posting from phone so you'll have to click the link

Ahhh, Parviz - great guy. He used to be much higher when he was younger. You are lucky to have such good players at your club.

 

[NextLevel]

The old man understands the concept of playing level appropriate shots, thus he is quite good.

Although, I have never seen a 2000 as good as him. Surely 2000 and 2200 cannot be compared, because 2200 should virtually always beat a 2000 statistically, right?

Well, my image of 2200 players is correct, at least.

Well, here is me beating a career 2200 player. Maybe it will give you a better appreciation of my third ball game and make you think over whether my shorts are level inappropriate or not.

 

[Shuki]

The old man understands the concept of playing level appropriate shots, thus he is quite good.

Although, I have never seen a 2000 as good as him. Surely 2000 and 2200 cannot be compared, because 2200 should virtually always beat a 2000 statistically, right?

Well, my image of 2200 players is correct, at least.

@NL

If you miss most of the shots. The older gentleman in Shuki's video for example, does not miss most of his shots. They are level appropriate.

Also, you don't need to give me or any credit for anything, last time I checked. Nor do I understand why a valid point is now invalid because you disagree with something else...?

Funny. I need to show you our 2000 rated players then... Because by the looks of them, they're way better than the man in the video I posted. I don't think you know how to judge how good someone is. something tells me every player on the other tables in this video is better than you.

 

[Shuki]

Ahhh, Parviz - great guy. He used to be much higher when he was younger. You are lucky to have such good players at your club.

yea he dropped below 2200 and got pretty upset, then came training focus and he's back up to 2350ish I believe. Never heard someone say he's a great guy, great player but he sure knows how to aggravate people. All part of his game though, his illegal serves aren't any good so people don't complain about them and then all of a sudden he just spins it right out of his hand when he's in need of a point.

 

[NextLevel]

The old man understands the concept of playing level appropriate shots, thus he is quite good.

Although, I have never seen a 2000 as good as him. Surely 2000 and 2200 cannot be compared, because 2200 should virtually always beat a 2000 statistically, right?

Well, my image of 2200 players is correct, at least.

@NL

If you miss most of the shots. The older gentleman in Shuki's video for example, does not miss most of his shots. They are level appropriate.

Also, you don't need to give me or any credit for anything, last time I checked. Nor do I understand why a valid point is now invalid because you disagree with something else...?

The sample size is small enough that many bad conclusions can be drawn from it. And it is okay to say that. I was actually frustrate in part because I was missing shots that I usually make. To call that level inappropriate is exactly the issue - you have no clue what is possible at a certain level if you don't play at it. You can pretend to have one, you can have a general idea based on what you see, but you don't know until you do.

 

[Archosaurus]

I think you guys are posting more out of egoism than wanting to provide information, now. There is no need to go around insulting people, especially when no one questioned your playing level or ability in the first place.

NL, your third ball is better than in the video you posted in the OP. Maybe you have figured out by now that what is appropriate and what is not depends also on what kind of ball you are returning, what your mental state is, what your opponent's mental state is etc. you get the drill. Perhaps on another day, you would have flopped every single third ball and lost.

I should not need to give a disclaimer that I am not judging you as a player or as a person, only your performance in the videos provided, and there is no need to get upset, because we are just hitting a ball for fun, in the end.

Your shorts are fabulous and entirely level appropriate, by the way.

 

[NextLevel]

I think you guys are posting more out of egoism than wanting to provide information, now. There is no need to go around insulting people, especially when no one questioned your playing level or ability in the first place.

NL, your third ball is better than in the video you posted in the OP. Maybe you have figured out by now that what is appropriate and what is not depends also on what kind of ball you are returning, what your mental state is, what your opponent's mental state is etc. you get the drill. Perhaps on another day, you would have flopped every single third ball and lost.

I should not need to give a disclaimer that I am not judging you as a player or as a person, only your performance in the videos provided, and there is no need to get upset, because we are just hitting a ball for fun, in the end.

Your shorts are fabulous and entirely level appropriate, by the way.

What is really insulting is the pretense of expertise. When are you posting video of your 2400+ play? Can you give a rating estimate of yourself so we know what to look forward to? Any ranking system will do.

 

[Archosaurus]

I would love to know exactly how long it would take me to become so good as to post 2400+ play, NL.

After looking around in the USATT rankings and at charts etc., and because I am entirely unsure of what exactly is going on around the 1750 - 2100 area, all I can say is that I fulfill the "At least 1750" criteria fully. I am surely not at or over 2200, at least. I must humbly say that my technical aspects and perhaps mental ability to perform are most likely not up to par.

If I was modest, I would say 1600 - 1700 taking into account the competition pressure and whatnot.

 

[Shuki]

i don't understand why you're unable to even find a phone to show shadow strokes. I showed my coach the video of Carl's footwork when she asked who I'd be playing with in New York. Instantly she says "oooo, he ends his stroke too low. But actually see how his arm moves? He is avoiding something without noticing, maybe an arm pain or something." Which I thought was weird she could see that so instantaneously. He said his shoulder hurt when he tried to do the shadow stroke and end at the right height.

she also mentioned that he's very fluid and looks like he can hold that slow motion in a game, probably close to my level but higher. Definitely not over 1900. If she can figure all this out from a shadow stroke why is it that you can't see obvious problems while they are playing in a game hitting a ball.

probably because you aren't as good as you let on?

 

[Archosaurus]

Are shadow strokes an accurate representation of someone's level? Surely my shadow stroke is a bit better and technically better than when I am presented with an actual situation. I have also noticed my shadow footwork IS better than my match footwork. I do not consider it accurate.


Shuki, I am surely not as good as an ex-professional player and professional coach. I also don't understand your point, nor do I know who "they" is.

 

[Shuki]

Are shadow strokes an accurate representation of someone's level? Surely my shadow stroke is a bit better and technically better than when I am presented with an actual situation. I have also noticed my shadow footwork IS better than my match footwork. I do not consider it accurate.


Shuki, I am surely not as good as an ex-professional player and professional coach. I also don't understand your point, nor do I know who "they" is.

My point is why can't you even post a video of a shadow stroke. Surely someone in your country owns a phone

 

[Archosaurus]

I can post a video of a shadow stroke. I just thought you wanted actual match footage.


Shuki, with the way the economy is going, you're not really terrible far off in some aspects.

 

[Shuki]

I can post a video of a shadow stroke. I just thought you wanted actual match footage.


Shuki, with the way the economy is going, you're not really terrible far off in some aspects.

of course people would rather see match footage. But anything is better than nothing, constantly speculating on others while misrepresenting how you are yourself gets tiresome.

 

[Archosaurus]

It is only tiresome if you let it be tiresome. You can always dismiss everyone who does not post match footage as sub 1000 theorists and your life will be significantly easier, if you can't see a person's level from what they're saying.

Honestly, I would really like to actually meet some members here and play a bit with them. It would be more than enough. Such a thought is unrealistic, though, because I do not live in the US.