Rate me in USATT/Chinese rating. I want to know the numbers :)

[NextLevel]

It really depends where in the US.
A 2000 usatt rated player from the Bay Area is wildly different than a 2000 player from the Midwest.

Many people say this, but as someone who traveled around to play TT for a while, this was not my experience, and I have seen at least one loud mouth get a reality check when he thoughthe could just leave Cali, beat up on playera and break a new rating high. The reality I saw was that other than juniors and adults who suppressed ratings by playing in leagues and then showing up at national tournaments underrated ( and this was rare at the 2000+ level for a few reasons), ratings were fairly similar. In fact the 2000 level is usually the level at which most players have either travelled enough or played widely enough nationally that the ratings are accurate. Ratings below that are the ones where there can be trouble and a lot of that comes down to the issues I mentioned and how long the player has been rated.

In fact the ratings in California, New York and Maryland tend to be accurate because you find a good number of players at all playing levels (again if you exclude the juniors hiding in leagues to take rating jumps at Nationals). But usually, players at usatt 2000 and above meet at National events like Teams, US Open and Nationals and get fixed/adjusted after one big event. And the separation of adult and junior events has made the chicaneey at the adult level more obvious when it happens at the national events.

So long story short, it is below the 2000 level that players might be different if they game the system but above that, playing level largely converges ans a Midwest 2000 is almost as likely to be underrated because he might have one 2400 player in his area who he trains against but not have any 2100 players to show his true level and therefore stays 2000 until he travels and beats up on 2100 players.

 

[Jslick89]

Many people say this, but as someone who traveled around to play TT for a while, this was not my experience, and I have seen at least one loud mouth get a reality check when he thoughthe could just leave Cali, beat up on playera and break a new rating high. The reality I saw was that other than juniors and adults who suppressed ratings by playing in leagues and then showing up at national tournaments underrated ( and this was rare at the 2000+ level for a few reasons), ratings were fairly similar. In fact the 2000 level is usually the level at which most players have either travelled enough or played widely enough nationally that the ratings are accurate. Ratings below that are the ones where there can be trouble and a lot of that comes down to the issues I mentioned and how long the player has been rated.

In fact the ratings in California, New York and Maryland tend to be accurate because you find a good number of players at all playing levels (again if you exclude the juniors hiding in leagues to take rating jumps at Nationals). But usually, players at usatt 2000 and above meet at National events like Teams, US Open and Nationals and get fixed/adjusted after one big event. And the separation of adult and junior events has made the chicaneey at the adult level more obvious when it happens at the national events.

So long story short, it is below the 2000 level that players might be different if they game the system but above that, playing level largely converges ans a Midwest 2000 is almost as likely to be underrated because he might have one 2400 player in his area who he trains against but not have any 2100 players to show his true level and therefore stays 2000 until he travels and beats up on 2100 players.

i think the phenomena that happens with ELO rating system is called "rating pool effects" (thanks Chat GPT and google AI lol), but the good thing about ELO is that the more matches you play, the more accurate and refined your rating will be.

Particularly in the bay area, which is the only place i have knowledge of, these kids are training so much with high level players, that even if their current rating is 2000, that could be playing at a much higher level than that already, or 3 months later at their next tournament.

anyways, I digress. With regards to OP and doing the "eye-test" on players to guess their rating, i put a heavier weight towards their footwork if their stroke technique seems good. OP moves smoothly, has good strokes on forehand and backhand. there is a flow to his game so i believe he is at least 2000 USATT

 

[NextLevel]

i think the phenomena that happens with ELO rating system is called "rating pool effects" (thanks Chat GPT and google AI lol), but the good thing about ELO is that the more matches you play, the more accurate and refined your rating will be.

Particularly in the bay area, which is the only place i have knowledge of, these kids are training so much with high level players, that even if their current rating is 2000, that could be playing at a much higher level than that already, or 3 months later at their next tournament.

anyways, I digress. With regards to OP and doing the "eye-test" on players to guess their rating, i put a heavier weight towards their footwork if their stroke technique seems good. OP moves smoothly, has good strokes on forehand and backhand. there is a flow to his game so i believe he is at least 2000 USATT

Apologies to OP for high jacking is thread but training with higher rated players makes you better at some things and worse at others, especially if you are young. To build a complete game, many things come into play. But if a player is 2000 and through training is ready for the next level, we just call that an underrated player , and it is nothing special to the Bay area. Such kids might be most common in the Bay Area because of the community, but they also exist in MD and NY and to a lesser degree places like TX, NC, FL and IL. They are all over the country wherever good coaches and training centers are.

But saying that the typical Bay area 2000 level adult is better than the typical 2000 level adult in MD etc. is a common wisdom often communicated as if it is true, even by players who should know better (some of them are even friends and may show up on this thread) and I get tired of hearing it. If this were uncritically true, then all the events at nationals would be won by players from those parts of the country. This is not what happens in reality, even when travel and coaching skews regional participation.

If forced to guess, I would have put OP at 2150-2250. But I cannot make serious guesses from highlights, a full match makes much more sense so we can see the full capabilities of him and his opponent on display. I know one Youtuber who posts highlight videos and if I didn't know the rating of his opponents, I would think he was 2200+ beating up on scrubs. But when he posts some of the points they win as well, you can see 2000 players battling each other with some just have better technique on some points than others.

 

[lightspin]

I remember when a bay area 1800 player came to Westchester and won the open beating four 2700 players along the way. Bay Area 1800 players are heavily recruited in MLTT because of their incredible skill level compared with other players across the country.

Oh wait, that never happened.

I am also tired of hearing this nonsense. What does happen however is with juniors who are training all the time, sometimes their rating lags behind. So maybe for a few tournaments while they have a 2000 rating, they crush everyone. Their rating eventually catches up and then they are 2200. This happens all across the country and more often with communities with lots of junior players playing.

 

[Dr Evil]

Hard to say without seeing a few complete matches against different players. My guess is US 2073.

 

[Lando]

Many people say this, but as someone who traveled around to play TT for a while, this was not my experience, and I have seen at least one loud mouth get a reality check when he thoughthe could just leave Cali, beat up on playera and break a new rating high. The reality I saw was that other than juniors and adults who suppressed ratings by playing in leagues and then showing up at national tournaments underrated ( and this was rare at the 2000+ level for a few reasons), ratings were fairly similar. In fact the 2000 level is usually the level at which most players have either travelled enough or played widely enough nationally that the ratings are accurate. Ratings below that are the ones where there can be trouble and a lot of that comes down to the issues I mentioned and how long the player has been rated.

In fact the ratings in California, New York and Maryland tend to be accurate because you find a good number of players at all playing levels (again if you exclude the juniors hiding in leagues to take rating jumps at Nationals). But usually, players at usatt 2000 and above meet at National events like Teams, US Open and Nationals and get fixed/adjusted after one big event. And the separation of adult and junior events has made the chicaneey at the adult level more obvious when it happens at the national events.

So long story short, it is below the 2000 level that players might be different if they game the system but above that, playing level largely converges ans a Midwest 2000 is almost as likely to be underrated because he might have one 2400 player in his area who he trains against but not have any 2100 players to show his true level and therefore stays 2000 until he travels and beats up on 2100 players.

It's impossible for a 2000 USATT Bay Area player to be at the same level of a 2000 USATT in the Midwest.
The competition in the Bay Area is waaaaaay better. It's a drawback of the elo rating system.
There is a reason why the Naresh brothers had to move away from the Midwest, and to the Bay Area.
I am in the Midwest, and know the local tournaments and who goes to them.
"Elo only measures performance relative to the opponents you face."

If China had the same rating system as the US, would you seriously say a 2000 level player from China is the same as a 2000 level players from the US?

 

[kindof99]

It's impossible for a 2000 USATT Bay Area player to be at the same level of a 2000 USATT in the Midwest.
The competition in the Bay Area is waaaaaay better. It's a drawback of the elo rating system.
There is a reason why the Naresh brothers had to move away from the Midwest, and to the Bay Area.
I am in the Midwest, and know the local tournaments and who goes to them.
"Elo only measures performance relative to the opponents you face."

If China had the same rating system as the US, would you seriously say a 2000 level player from China is the same as a 2000 level players from the US?

China rating= USATT rating +200

 

[NextLevel]

It's impossible for a 2000 USATT Bay Area player to be at the same level of a 2000 USATT in the Midwest.
The competition in the Bay Area is waaaaaay better. It's a drawback of the elo rating system.
There is a reason why the Naresh brothers had to move away from the Midwest, and to the Bay Area.
I am in the Midwest, and know the local tournaments and who goes to them.
"Elo only measures performance relative to the opponents you face."

If China had the same rating system as the US, would you seriously say a 2000 level player from China is the same as a 2000 level players from the US?

Yes, you seem to miss the point deliberately, confusing whether a place has stronger players with whether the ratinf refers to the same playing strength. Do you think an 18 year old in China is the same age as an 18 year old in the USA? Or a 6ft man on China is the same height as 6 ft 1 man in the USA? I think we are missing the point completely. There are more and stronger players in the Bay Area. Just as there are many taller people in the USA. That doesn't change what the height or rating level refers to in the USATT system. Will the average rating in the Bay area be higher? Sure. But will a 2000 player on the east coast compete favorably with a 2000 player from the Bay Area? No doubt.

Just about every player I know at the 2000 level has either gotten coaching from a stronger player or travelled to camps for exposure. Players can be underrated and yes statistical measures have limitations but it isnt the same as ayijg that there is a massive difference in what the rating measuees in different parts of the country. You seem to think that means that the rating is different everywhere. Next you will explain to me that a 2809 USATT in Germany like Kanak is not the same as a 2800 USATT in the USA (Kanak) because magic happens. In reality, places with stronger players tend to also have those stronger players at higher ratings.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

There is a reason why the Naresh brothers had to move away from the Midwest, and to the Bay Area.

Yeah because their club in the Midwest that was becoming a major training hub that brought in strong international players was shut down so they had to go to the next place that had many players of their level which is really only the Bay Area at that point. Financial and educational incentives also play a role.

 

[lightspin]

I am pretty sure the Naresh brothers would not have moved from Ohio, had the club where they made dramatic improvements not been shut down.

Then again, maybe they thought "Man we are 2700 in Ohio and on the national team. I wonder if we can beat those 1850 bay area players. You know they say bay area rating + 1000 = rating anywhere else."

 

[ThePongCommenter]

It is true that at the <1000 level in the Bay Area it is harder to compete but that is because the players are just rapidly improving and underrated not because the people who are properly rated at 800 are better than the people from other parts of the country that are properly rated at 800. But when you improve yourself or play enough tournaments it evens out. This happens everywhere just with greater frequency in the Bay Area due to the system and volume.

After 2000 or so it's not a factor anymore at all. If it were you'd see the junior teams full of surprisingly lower seeded Bay Area players who upset the higher seeded players from other regions but you don't. Or you'd see players from other regions go to Nationals, US Open etc. and consistently lose to equally rated players from the Bay Area. Again, doesn't happen.

 

[NextLevel]

It is true that at the <1000 level in the Bay Area it is harder to compete but that is because the players are just rapidly improving and underrated not because the people who are properly rated at 800 are better than the people from other parts of the country that are properly rated at 800. But when you improve yourself or play enough tournaments it evens out. This happens everywhere just with greater frequency in the Bay Area due to the system and volume.

After 2000 or so it's not a factor anymore at all. If it were you'd see the junior teams full of surprisingly lower seeded Bay Area players who upset the higher seeded players from other regions but you don't. Or you'd see players from other regions go to Nationals, US Open etc. and consistently lose to equally rated players from the Bay Area. Again, doesn't happen.

It is an idea that has grown wings despite all the data that exists to show that it was at best an artifact of underrated players showing up at Nationals repeatedly for amateur events. When I travelled to play more in the early and mid 2010s, I started learning to check the league ratings of these players if they were in my draw at Nationals. But these were all U2000 rated events, and ever since the split between adult and junior events for u2000 rated, no one really complains anymore about playing California players except the few cases where some coaches/adults come in and play the same underrated game.

Also, most parts of the country don't run many events at U1000. The Bay Area is one of the parts of the country where you can see a lot of events at that level. In many events on the East Coast, the lowest I played was u800 in rare cases and usually U1000.