Wednesday, June 11, 2008

1st true DQ at 3.5 (big shocker)

Our first DQ of the season, congrats to you all for going this far. Some of us were starting to fall in love with Greenhill's team as a potential upset candidate in the QT but not so sure as they lose Raymond Zernick, a 60+ player who was beating up on young guys like they were ladies.

I wished he would have hung around I think it would have made the QT very interesting.

I think Gleneagles and Stonebridge probably benefit the most in that flight knowing that GH will have to come up with a win over Stonebridge without him. They do have Zach Stein and they will still have a shot at getting their way into the playoffs.

No 4.0 DQs or at 4.5? Any thoughts as to why not.

I hope this is the last but I have a sneaking feeling a couple might occur during the playoffs.

Any candidates?

156 comments:

  1. I never saw Zernick play. Was he better than say Klamecki or Delira or Prather???

    ReplyDelete
  2. The whole Lakes 4.0 team better be careful.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The higher up you go, the least likely you are to see a DQ. I haven't seen anyone at 4.0 that is an obvious DQ. Several that will probably be bumped to 4.5, but no DQ.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree i think there will be a massive number of bump ups (hopefully none from my team) but I don't see anyone out there crushing people to warrant a DQ.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Klamecki, Delira & Prather are all computer/benchmark players. I think Zernick was a Mixed or Self Rate. They do not have the same tolerance that the C or B does. Is he better than those guys? I don't know but I suspect there are players in this league better than those guys but are never mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  6. E d Ratcliffe and I use to play against Ray Zernick over 25 yrs. ago when we were all in the 4.0 level ( back then each level was all pretty legit ) and he most always won out back then, so I was sort of shocked when I saw him on a 3.5 team.

    I also agree that there are better players out there that haven't been found out about yet by the main public.
    All will reveal itself in the playoffs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think they should DQ crappy players and make them move down. There are alot of really bad players at 4.0 this year.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's a really good idea. When you have weak 3.5 players "playing up" at level 4.0, the matches are no longer competitive and no longer fun.

    DQ those SOBs and make them play at the correct level!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Call out some of the weak 3.5 players. You call out the clearly above level players why be shy with the 3.5's.

    ReplyDelete
  10. hmm - this might get interesting

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyone rated 3.5 should not be able to play up at 4.0 especially in the spring. The same goes for every level. If you want to play up do it in tournaments. I'll go ahead and call out the bad 3.5 players in the 4.0 division. ALL OF THEM.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That is really a dumb statement. I have no idea who the anonymous poster is that said that, but take a look at team Village-Johnson in 4.0 B flight. There is a 3.5 player on that team that would probably be happy to give you the beat down you deserve.

    His name is John Vacalis and I was quite impressed by his play.

    He beat Mike Richardson 6-3,6-0 and Antonio Garcia 6-1,6-0. The guy is solid.

    There are quite a few 4.0 players playing on 4.5 teams with success. Nothing wrong with playing up.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I will add I agree the majority of a league team should be of the correct level. I don't think a 4.0 team should consist of 8 3.5 players and only 5 4.0 players. At least 8 players on a team should be of the correct level.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, unless they're all self rated, then maybe they are at the right level or there's nothing they can do about where they're at.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Vacalis is playing the correct level. I'm talking about true 3.5 players playing up. It ruins the league. For the record I would beat Vacalis easily.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mr. ANOMYMOUS, Who the hell are you so we can be afraid to play you.Stpo hiding behind anonymous and post your name. june 11,719pm. Ed Ratcliffe

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why are the 90 year old 3.5 guys the ones always getting upset? Ya'll should get your own seniors blog.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So easy to talk behind that tag. I am sure you could kill a bear with a sling shot and a jelley bean too.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It does seem like self-rated players are treated differently from computer-rated players. Computer-rated players are hardly ever DQed while self-rated players can get DQed pretty quickly.

    Anybody have any insight regarding how that works?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I wonder if the person that is so upset is in Flight A where most of the teams with a lot of 3.5 rated players are at.

    The other option is that he's really in Flight B/C/D and is upset that maybe the flight A teams have a better chance of getting the third place spot because they play more 3.5 rated players.

    Several 3.5 players playing up have winning records against 4.0 opponents. Why shouldn't they be able to play up?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I watched the Vacalis/Richardson match, Vacalis is not a 3.5 rated player. Granted Richardson was not a 100% at the match, but I really thought Vacalis was closer to 4.5 than he was to 3.5.

    I've also seen Richardson win in 4.5 singles. So this guy Vacalis is for real. He better get bumped up at least to 4.0 after this season.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mitch and Gene deserve to be DQed. It seems like they never played their level (4.5 or above), and they continue to play down. They are not 4.0s, how have they succeeded manipulating the system?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The question about computer rated guys not getting bumped up as easily, well that's an easy one: there's a record of who and what they are, such as past league or tournament stuff; a track record.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A computer rated player hardly gets DQed when they are just playing their level even if they win easily, they get on the list only when they are playing a level higher and they are winning easily. Comments?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eddie Hill should get bumped up to 4.5 until his shoulder gets better and than on to 5.0 when it's healed.

    Should'nt Bazan and his entire 4.0 teams should be bumped down to 3.5?.....look at their record!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Eddie hill can beat 99% of you guys under normal circumstances. It's not fair to comment on Eddie when we all wish for his speedy recovery. But you have a point about Bazan's teams.

    ReplyDelete
  27. SIMPLE SOLUTION:

    Don't allow playing up in leagues. Allow it in tournaments only.

    Most players who truly playing below there level would choose to play at the higher level if they were only allow to play at one level.

    Playing up in tournament should definitely be allowed as this would give someone who is borderline a chance to test the water

    With this solution, we would see more consistant play at all levels.

    Can someone give good reasons why playing at multiple levels for league play is a good thing?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Cary...looks like it may be time to put a poll out there to see how everyone feels about playing up?

    In Leagues Only?
    In Tournaments Only?
    In Both?

    an maybe a thread to go along with the survey.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'd like to hear honest responses/reasons from those who play at multiple levels. I bet very few (if any) will feel good enough about their justification to sign their name.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I could see Henry Gonzales getting DQ'ed in 4.5 if he keeps winning matches, could be very important if Royal Oaks makes it to Qualies and possibly DCC.
    I think there will be plenty of ESR bumps.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Here is an example for you. Lets pick on Steven and Keith. In the fall these 2 guys had a rating of 4.5. They played in the Fall league on the Noel 4.5 team and had a winning record. Somehow the system moved them down to 4.0 anyways. Luckily they were snapped up by HP so they had a team, but what if they didn't know anybody at the lower level. You are saying sorry, you have been bumped down and can no longer play on the 4.5 team you were successful on. That makes no sense to me. Also several teams use lower rated players to add depth. Personally I would rather beat up a lower level guy than win by DQ - some of us just want to play.

    ReplyDelete
  32. There is nothing wrong with playing on 2 different teams if you can compete at both levels. I think people are complaining about the people who are playing up a level and getting woodshedded every week. Next time use Ken Ratana as an example, and leave me out of this.

    ReplyDelete
  33. A team having a couple of people playing up is not bad. The problem starts when a team has a lot of people playing up. Sometimes the drive to the match takes longer than the match. Playing up should not be prohibited. Having more than half your team playing up should be. Playing up should not be prohibited for many reasons. Some clubs are kinda small. They want a team. There is no way they could make at one level so they combine all their teams into one. This sometimes means adding the clubs 3.5s with the 4.0s to make a team. Not a big deal in my book. A lot of this league is about getting out, having fun, comraderie, meeting new people, improving your game and if your on a good team- drinking beer. Also, if you are at the top of one level, it gives you a chance to see how you stand at the next. I play on two teams at two different levels. I play my rated level and win 80% or more of those matches. I don't sandbag or lose on purpose but continually stay rated at one level. I play up to challenge my game and to see where I stand. I win around 50% of those matches. I now have more tennis friends to hit with. Win/win in my book. If I was getting blown out at the upper level, I would stop playing the upper level. I don't want to waste anybody's time. I would actually vote the opposite. If any thing should disallow playing up, it is the tournaments. What a pain in the arse to take a day off, drive a couple of hours to play someone that is playing up and win in 45 minutes. Waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Keith Robinson & Steven Brouer – What? You guys got bumped from 4.0 to 4.5 last year and then petitioned back down to 4.0?? No wonder you guys have won two majors in a row. You’re sandbagging. Don’t be a puss. If the computer bumps you up, move up and try out the new level. It shouldn’t be a very big deal since the both of you have been playing at the 4.5 level and on a 4.5 team.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I defense of Steven and Keith, I don't think they appealled their early season 4.5 rating. They were moved down to 4.0 by the computer. The problem I have are players who appeal end of year ratings (Ratana 4.5 down to 4.0) and then play up anyway in tournaments and leagues and to quite well. Ken is currently #10 in the year-to date 4.5 singles rankings. To me that is thumbing you nose to the system. If you fight getting moved up, don't play up!

    ReplyDelete
  36. In my opinion, if you play up and win at least half of your matches you should be moved up. While it is true that you might be beating players who are also trying to play above their level, that is the chance you take playing up. By definition, if you are winning half of your matches at the higher level, you can compete at that level. If you legitimately win %80 of you matches at your current level, you will not win %80 of your matches at the next level up. If you do, that means you shouldn't have been at your current level in the first place. Live with it!

    ReplyDelete
  37. 80%, 80% sorry for typo.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Keith and Steven are benchmark 4.0 players - they never appealed down. Get your facts straight before you come out firing.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Both Steve and Keith are definitely playing at the 4.5 level now. They will get bumped during the mid season to 4.5. So they will have to start playing at the 4.5 level this fall for league play and at the 4.5 for tournaments next year.

    Ken Ratana was playing at the 4.5 level last year and was bumped to 4.5 at the end of the year. Ken appealed and got bumped back down to 4.0. Ken will bet bumped up during the mid season to 4.5. Hopefully Ken will stop sandbagging, accept that he’s a 4.5 player and not appeal again.

    Guys – all of this bull shit about, I played on a 4.0 team, got bumped and didn’t know of any other teams to play on, etc, etc. Stop the crying. Accept the new level, and give it a try. To find a new team - call around to some public facilities, call the DTA, call the USTA, etc. Get off your ass and get creative. I think you can figure it out. No more BS! If you get bumped, move up. The goal for everyone should be to try and get better.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Two 4.0's have been DQ'ed in Ft. Worth, both on the same team. I'm pretty sure Zernick played college tennis decades ago. What's the rule on having played college tennis and then trying to play league tennis anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  41. There are NTRP guidlines regarding a players privious playing experience:

    Division I (top 75 team or player)
    committed to, playing or played:

    Age 30 and under = 6.0 level
    Age 31-40 = 5.5
    Age 41-50 = 5.0
    Age 51-60 = 4.5
    Age 61 and over 4.0

    Div I unranked team or player, NAIA, Div II and III top ranked college team or player
    (committed to, playing or played)

    Age 30 and under = 5.5
    Age 31-45 = 5.0
    Age 46-55 = 4.5
    Age 56 and over = 4.0

    NAIA, Div II and Div III college team player - program with no scholarships(not much stroner than high school tennis)and Jr College players:

    Age 35 and under 4.5
    Age 36 and over 4.0

    These guidlines could be the basis of players, even computer rated players getting DQed.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Where did all the above shit come from? Please explain the information and define the source. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The information came from the Texas Section USTA website.

    Go to:

    Adult
    USTA Leagues
    NTRP Ratings
    NTRP Regulations
    What is DNTRP?

    Go near bottom of page:

    General Experience Player Guidelines

    You will find a detailed chart that provides the information.

    My guess is that these guidelines might make a few players nervous at all levels.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Delira is a 3.5 player that got bumped during the 2006 mid season, tanked a bunch of matches and got bumped back down at the end of 2006.

    Delira is really a 4.0 player if he ever gets his head screwed on straight.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thank you Keith for bringing my name up on the blog again...Remind me to repay you by slipping a few laxatives in your water jug at the next tournament I see you guys at, I'm kidding(maybe). To the Tennis statistician, who looks up(and posts) my tournament and league results and rankings, I'm very flattered. If you happen to be watching my car through your binoculars, could you check and see if I left my headlights on and let me know? Thank you sir, I appreciate it.

    Bagger Vance

    ReplyDelete
  46. Not only is Ray Zernick a good tennis player, it also sounds like he's a good investor --


    BY CRAIG SHAW
    INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
    Ray Zernick prefers individual sports like tennis to team sports. His competitive streak has earned him a top 10 ranking among tennis players in the 55-to-60 age group in his state of Texas.
    He follows the same philosophy when it comes to the stock market.
    "The thing I like about investing is it's your own thing," he said. "You're not relying on anybody else, win or lose. You have nobody to blame but yourself."
    Zernick, 58, has worked in purchasing for a cable TV firm for the past seven years, after stints at Northern Telecom and Xerox. He uses analytical skills from the workplace in his investing, but mostly he's self-taught.
    "Losing my own money was my only training," he jokes.
    Zernick started actively trading stocks five years ago, experimenting with strategies like bargain-hunting and technical-trading.
    "I tried a lot of different methods," he said. "In the beginning I tried just getting low-priced stocks, penny stocks. That taught me not to do that."
    Over time, he developed his own stock-ranking system that incorporates elements of IBD's CAN SLIM strategy along with value criteria and technical tools like stochastics. He uses spreadsheet analysis to give stocks ratings of 1 to 100 in several categories. He computes the results weekly. Stocks near the top of the list are considered for purchase.
    "The biggest weight goes to the fundamental things I get from IBD - Relative Strength, up/down volume, industry ranking," he said.
    On July 1, layoff adviser Right Management Consultants (RMCI) and candle maker Yankee Candle (YCC) popped up at the top of the list. Yankee Candle was new to him, so Zernick decided to keep watching it. He bought Right Management, a stock he'd had his eye on for a while, at 25.
    Though it was 25% off its high, the stock's EPS Rating was 98, with triple-digit earnings growth the last four quarters. Sales growth and return on equity were top-notch. Its Stock Checkup rating was A, with top scores for Fundamental and Attractiveness ranks.
    "It's fundamentally superstrong," Zernick said.
    He buys stocks in the $15 to $40 range. They must trade at least 200,000 shares a day. He isn't interested in cheap or thinly traded issues, finding them too volatile. He holds four to five stocks at a time and keeps 20 to 25 names on his watch list.
    One potential fatal flaw: The market, which three out of four stocks follow, has been moving down. Right Management's stock failed in its bid to regain its 50-day moving average line June 28 and is now toying with its 200-day line and Zernick's sell point.
    One of Zernick's recent winners was Armor Holdings (AH). He bought the Florida-based security products and services firm's stock on Sept. 24 at 20.47 (point 1 in the accompanying image). It had gapped out of a five-month base six days earlier when the market reopened after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
    At the time, Armor had a Composite Rating of 96. Its EPS Rating was 77, its Relative Strength 92. Security stocks were doing well, with an Industry Group RS Rating of A.
    Zernick held the stock for three months. He sold on Dec. 27 for a 29% profit (point 2), a decent gain in the current rocky market.
    Other success stories were Direct Focus, a marketer of fitness products and sleep systems, and Pre-Paid Legal Services (PPD), a lawyer contract marketer. Zernick bought Direct Focus on Nov. 16, 2001, as it was climbing the right side of a five-month base. He sold it four months later for a 38% profit.
    He netted 35% in Pre-Paid Legal, buying it at the 200-day line in February and profiting as it took off over the next two months.
    Like most investors, he's struggled to make money in the grinding bear market. He tries to book small profits in his winners and sell his losers before losses mount to 8% or 10%. He's outperformed the mutual funds in his 401(k) plan.
    "It's tricky right now," he said. "You can't mess with a stock that's not really strong."
    He's subscribed to IBD for four years and relies on many of its ratings in his stock selection. He starts each day by reading The Big Picture. From there he goes to the Nasdaq and NYSE Stocks In The News charts and The New America. He uses IBD Stock Checkup on the investors.com Web site in calculating his stock ratings.
    Investing "seems to work really well when everything's pulling together," he said. "When the market, the industry group and the company you're investing in are all going in the same direction, you can't help but make money."
    Zernick hopes to retire on his earnings and write a book about his stock-picking strategy.
    "I tried to develop a system that would consistently make money for me," he said. "That didn't necessarily happen in the beginning. But at least I think I have something now that, should the market get better, I should be getting a lot better."

    ReplyDelete
  47. If you have a computer rating you can not be DQ'd for any reason other than 3 red flags.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Your welcome Ken. I know how you like the attention. Also I think your left front tire is low.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I could be wrong, but my guess is that if you initially self-rated and didn't disclose (lied) about your previous college experience, and later obtained a computer rating, you could be DQ'ed without the three strikes. It would be too easy to self-rate, not disclosing information that would keep you from obtaining the level you are seeking, play a few tournament or league matches and "manage" your results to get a computer ranking at that level.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ken “The Dallas 4.0 Sandbagger” Ratana is seeded again in a 4.5 tournament.

    The Dallas 4.0 Sandbagger is currently seeded 6th for 4.5 singles in the upcoming East Texas USAT Major Tournament.

    ReplyDelete
  51. If you get caught lying you will get DQed without the 3 strikes.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Good grief …

    Ken – you’re a very good sandbagger. You’re a good 4.5 player. You need to realize this and quit fooling yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I’m really surprised that Ken hasn’t been DQed. Ken didn’t “really” tell the truth when he submitted his appeal last year.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ken probably just appealed like any of us can do online mind you. He appealed and somehow his rating was within the threshold to allow him back down to 4.0.
    Some of you guys are funny in your fuzzy interpretation of the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Guys – if you get bumped, move up. Give it a try. One doesn’t need to win 99% of their matches to move up. Don’t be a puss about it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Dear June 12, 2008 11:26 AM
    Booooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrringggggg

    ReplyDelete
  57. Being ranked or seeded in tournaments doesn't mean much other than you are willing to travel. Win a match or two in MZ's and voila, high ranking.

    Wins/losses versus comparative players is a better indicator of being rated too high/low.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ken, sorry you're the person the bloggers are picking on this week. But guys, it's an online appeal form. There's nothing to hide or not fully disclose. I haven't appealed with it, so I can't be 100% accurate here, but from my understanding you send the request for the computers to check and see if you fit in the criteria to move down and if so they do it. It's not like years past where you just get to appeal and make up reasons to USTA to get moved down.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Explain to me why everyone is bagging on Ken? Have you met him? He's one of the nicest guys to play against and hangout with that's on the tournament circuit. Ken competes at the next level and does well but he doesn't seem to throw matches or tank. Yet the computer still let him be a 4.0, not his fault. And don't say since he appealed it is because that is the way the system works. He also plays on a middling 4.0 team with his buddies not an "elite" team so I hardly call that sandbagging to ruin your lives. I do enjoy the fact that half the people complain about people not good enough to compete and others who complain about those too good to compete. Maybe we should go to a 4.25 etc. or for some a 4.10, 4.20 etc. so everybody can ONLY play people at the exact same level. Maybe we should also have it for conditions, like a 4.10 Windy Day rating because I know my rating changes in the wind and Bazan's rating changes in the heat apparently. Ken has done nothing seemingly underhanded and he's a good guy having fun. Alright Keith, Steven, Ken you can all thank me as I'm sure everyone's ire will turn to me now.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Jason,
    one former sandbagger taking up for another sandbagger probably doesn't help their case.

    ReplyDelete
  61. dude. people are a bunch of haters on this blog. player haters.

    ReplyDelete
  62. keith, you should go get bageled again by Gene Davis. That kept you quiet for a few days.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Steven and Keith kinda suck

    ReplyDelete
  64. Why is Eddie HIll still playing a challenge match. I thought he jacked his shoulder up or was that a lame excuse for losing.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Keith and Steven dont kinda suck. they just suck.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Steven and Keith don't suck if they're winning tournaments. I will say that they're the best 4.0's I've played against this season;
    even if I am sort of the Peter Fleming of the group.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Keith and Steven are better than 90 percent of the people on this blog. We are in June and they have already won two major zones in 4.0 doubles, which is a grueling, impressive task. I love how two days ago they weren't supposed to be playing 4.0 and now they suck. Make up your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I wouldn't say that I suck, but I'm definately no Ken Ratana. Getting bageled in a practice match won't keep me quiet.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Steven and Keith are doing very well at 4.0 doubles because their really 4.5 players.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Steven and Keith are really good 4.0 sandbaggers. Both of them play the “game” very well so they can keep their 4.0 rating.

    ReplyDelete
  71. You’re correct Keith, your no Ken Ratana. Ken’s a down right sandbagger.

    ReplyDelete
  72. How come anybody who wins alot at their level are considered sandbaggers and whenever those same players lose they are merely giving matches away to maintain their rating?

    Credit is rarely given to lesser players who rise up and knockoff someone off. If Appalachian State can beat Michigan then anyone at this level can lose to a lesser player.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I've played 2 matches this year. I won them both. How am I sandbagging?

    ReplyDelete
  74. did kern just say I wilt in the heat? Oh that is right I do. My complaint for the DTA and USTA is to have all leagues at night so I don't have to worry about getting overheated.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Keith – Come on. Don’t play dumb. You’re sandbagging. You should have been bumped last year from 4.0 to 4.5. Just go back and review your league and tournament record for the last few years or just the last 12-months. You have been playing on a 4.5 team since 2004. Come on … quit sandbagging and move up.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I was bumped at mid year last year to 4.5, and I played at that level. I was moved down to 4.0 at the end of the year so I'm playing 4.0 this year. I'm not losing on purpose, and I did not appeal my 4.5 rating. I don't see how anyone can call that sandbagging.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Keith – I guess the story is the same for Steven. So you get bumped back down to 4.0 at the end of the year since you “didn’t do so well” in the fall of 2007 and you come out of blazing in 2008 winning left & right (both tournament and league play). Nice snow job! It’s very interesting, you play at a level that will keep you at 4.0 but will crank it up when you need to win. You have been playing on USTA teams for a long time, 4.5 teams since 2004. You know the system very well. You might think you’re not a 4.5 singles player but you sure are a 4.5 or maybe a 5.0 doubles player. Since you play mostly doubles, quit sandbagging and move up. It’s a joke that your playing USTA league team tennis and USTA tournaments at the 4.0 level.

    ReplyDelete
  78. There is a lot of gray area with ratings and people's capabilities. Most experienced, good 4.0 players can play at 4.5 level but that doesnt mean that their stellar 4.0 record will force them to be rated up. As a 4.0, I want those folks in the league to make our matches intriguing.

    As for the person that posted the guidelines for ratings, those are a starting point but can be very deceptive. I played sparingly for a Division 1 program almost 20 years ago, but due to injury didnt play much and then didnt play for over ten years before moving to Dallas. I self-rated at the time at 4.5 which was below what the guidelines' state. I was rusty, 20 lbs overweight, out of shape and still dealing with a bad knee from college. I got my butt handed to me for 2 seasons at 4.5 before being rated down. Since i have played 4.0 and some 4.5 here and there with good success but far from dominating. A lot can happen that can make self-rating null in void.

    I've also seen folks who started paying a few years ago that were barely 3.5's but were athletic and competitive enough to learn to get better and suddenly become world beaters at 4.0 and 4.5. The self-rate orginally was right on for where they were but the computers show the improvement although it is probably a little slow.

    Rockettman

    ReplyDelete
  79. 5.0 doubles player? Now I know you have never seen me play.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I've played 1 season on a 4.5 team and went 2-2. So if I was sandbagging wouldn't I go 0-4 to try and get moved back to 4.0? That's a true sandbagger for you. It's a shame that you can't post your name so we can all go check out your records.
    All the comments are the same...the people that can't beat Gene, Mitch, Ken, Keith, Eddie or anyone else for that matter get called sandbaggers...with the exception of Ken, the rest of us got moved down by the computers. I've played 3 times this year and won all 3. How is that sandbagging?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Bazan,

    Has this site not become popular enough to remove Anonymous as an option for posting. If you can't post your name, then what you got to say isn't that important.

    It takes less than 3 minutes to create an id. I mean I enjoy reading about how Keith and Steven suck as much as the next guy, but when its coming from some fat guy sitting behind a computer wearing a dress who can't even sign his initials - the attacks get old.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I agree with Steven. When the playoffs begin all of the top teams will send their "ringers" on the court and the Dallas City Champions will be decided. The teams that lose will complain that the other teams "ringers" were too good. This will occur across all levels, the same it does every year. Put your team on the court don't whine if you come up on the short end of the result.

    ReplyDelete
  83. tmckinney . . . SCREW YOU!

    - Fat Guy Wearing A Dress

    ReplyDelete
  84. I didn't know Don wears dresses.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Bazan, get rid of the anonymous posters.

    ReplyDelete
  86. 10:40 pm Poster:
    I totally agree that we should all play and not whine about "ringers" when we get beat.

    Somebody needs to remind Somabut about that. He was whining like a 3 year old when his team got beat at Sectionals last year.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Cary Bazan Wears a Dress
    and he can never get rid of me!

    ReplyDelete
  88. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I hate when comments get deleted before I read them.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I agree. Let's remove the ability to post Anonymous. This will probably eliminate 80-90% of all of these rants about the DTA, and other comments from people who are fearful to leave their names.

    And on the subject of 3.5 players playing on a 4.0 league. Let them play. How else are they going to get more match tough better if they don't at least try to play in a tougher league.

    Remember the Tampa Bay Buccaneers went 0-14 their first year, but they did eventually win the Super Bowl.

    ReplyDelete
  91. So, are you saying there is something WRONG with being a fat guy wearing a dress? I think we need some clarification here.

    ReplyDelete
  92. you suck Marcus. Nobody cares about your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  93. concerning the 3.5 players playing at 4.0.

    There is nothing wrong with a COUPLE of players trying to play up and test their skills/ability at 4.0 or even maybe try to improve their skills.

    It is when a team is 67% 3.5 playing at 4.0(IE. Canyon Creek, Brookhaven)

    THEN - it IS the drive is longer than the match, and that is not fun. It is not like they don't have other teams to play on. The club rule was made for smaller cities, not big cities where there is a big pool of teams/players.

    If you are borderline 3.5/4.0, you should attempt to play up first, and see if you can win at LINE 3 doubles. That way the computer will be able to better understand your true playing ability. GIGO. It can only be as good as the information it has to determine your rating.

    With the teams mentioned, the very weak 4.0 players are now playing line 1 doubles. Of course they are going to get smoked.

    I wonder if they are playing just to keep their ratings down for the following season?

    But those 2 matches aren't even fun.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Not to pick soley on Jerry Freddle, he was just the first name I found, but he ONLY played line 3 in 3.5. Why is he even playing 4.0?

    those are the matches that aren't fine/fun. There should be a COMMON sense rules that these teams should have applied TO THEMSELVES. It is their OWN responsibility to apply the common sense rule though, not the system.

    If Strohl & Waters consistently played line 3 in 4.0, they could win or start winning that line eventually.

    Brookhaven had 3 full teams already. They could have asked the 4.0 guys that never/rarely play on their current teams to assist the 4th Brookhaven team. You can play on 2 teams, right? if not, maybe they would just want to play more and come over. AND MAYBE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED W/ USTA. Like you can play on two teams, but can't play same "day" for both.

    There had to be at LEAST 2-3 players from EACH current (Pearlman/Helter/Bartlett)Brookhaven team that would have wanted to play more and played on both teams. Combine that with the couple of 3.5 players that wanted to test their skills, and they now field a full competitive team.

    Again, Jerry, my apologies, I was only using an example and yours was the name that I found.

    I am just trying to make the system better. It always can't be "them" or "USTA" that does it. Sometimes, it has to come from within and it has to be some suggestions from others sometimes to help.

    Come playoff time, obviously, the player still has to choose his team.

    ReplyDelete
  95. TO: June 13, 2008 7:50 AM

    I am embarassed that my comment came in even remotely around your comment time. thank God I wrote a BOOK in front of yours so people know it couldn't have been me that wrote it.

    But you should be embarassed that you even blogged something like that, and then anonymously to boot.

    What a horrible, horrible thing to say, and maybe you should stop and remember that this is a real person and human being that you are talking about, and you know you wouldn't/couldn't say something like that to anyone's face and feel good about yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  96. The way to clean up the ratings is to discuss it publicly. I believe we need to publicly discuss players that should either be pushed up or down.

    ReplyDelete
  97. yes, WEAK 3.5 players playing 4.0 ruin the league for everyone else!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Crybaby 4.0's ruin the league also. Everyone who is better than you is not a ringer. Maybe your just not that good. Spend more time on the courts, and less time complaining.

    ReplyDelete
  99. its Freedle, and Freddle, and i just looked it up. he has won 4 games total - combined in his last 3 matches combined in 4.0! He played in 2007 4.0 fall as well.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Keith & Steven,

    I feel much better now about our loss to you in Waco. Learning that you are really 5.0 doubles players......what a relief. It was an honor just getting a few games off you.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Now that I am a 5.0 doubles player I will probably win every tournament I enter, and go undefeated in league play. I would have beaten Mitch and Gene if I had known I was a 5.0 player. I wish someone would have told me sooner.

    ReplyDelete
  102. This site would not nearly be so much fun without the anonymous bloggers!!!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Only because us Anons are too much p$ssies to say the same thing using our real names.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Similar Situation in Level 3.5:
    JOHN STACHLER played level 3.0 in the fall and had a 1 - 5 record at level 3.0.

    So in the spring, Stachler plays level 3.5 Fretz/Feiler and goes 0 - 4 never winning a set. His BEST match was a 3-6, 2-6 loss. I hear he's going to play level 4.0 in the fall.

    Not a lot of fun to play that guy at level 3.5 OR even level 3.0.

    Does the DTA have some type of 2.5 competition???

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anyone who goes 1 - 5 at level 3.0 should not be allowed to play level 3.5 the very next season.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I'm a level 3.0 player. I think I will play 4.5 next year just for "the experience". And that's perfectly legal!

    ReplyDelete
  107. Would you rather have a team default lines than play lower level players?

    I would rather have a team jack in a warm body then default both singles lines,

    I'm looking at you 3.5 El Dorado and Stonebriar!

    ReplyDelete
  108. I agree about getting rid of the anonymous posters, but I don't think that will really solve the problem. I'm pretty sure I could use a fake name and/or e-mail address to create an account and post. It might lessen it a little bit but it won't end it, unless Cary has a way to stop certain people from posting.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Here's some ideas to blow holes in:

    1) Anyone who plays up and wins against a rated player(s) at the higher level should be automatically moved up the next season without the ability to appeal, that is unless you can prove injury and it would be questionable to allow injury appeals at anything below the 4.5 level.

    2) A win, either in league or tournaments at level higher than your rating should be counted as a strike during the current season, get 3 strike and you're DQ'd for all matches played at the lower level (just like a Self-rated). This may seem extreme but there are way to may players playing above their current level and winning. Has that been said already?

    3)Treat an "Appeal" rating the same as a self-rated player invoking the 3 strike rule.

    4)Don't allow a player who appeal to play up. Would it be interesting to see the stats on all those who won their appeal and now play up. These might be the true sandbaggers.

    5) Allow teams to have no more that 3 players (total) on their team that are self-rated, won their appeal or play up. This one would really hurt some of the power house teams.

    Anyone got stats on how may players who won appeals and are playing up?

    I'd like to hear reasonable responses to these ideas.


    OC-Yauch

    ReplyDelete
  110. It’s a tight race for second and third place within the 3.5, flight C division between Oakridge, Lifetime Fitness and Brookhaven.

    There’s a big match tomorrow afternoon between Oakridge and Brookhaven @ Brookhaven (3:30) on courts 4 – 8.

    The match is a must win for both teams! Please feel free to come on out and watch the showdown.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Bazan,

    Can we make it so the email address you are posting from shows up on the message? Not the address you input but the sender's address. This should curtail some of the anonymous postings from those spineless snakes. I am pretty sure this would curtail most of the personal attacks also since this would reveal them for who they really are, cowards.

    Hector

    ReplyDelete
  112. It’s a tight race for second and third place within the 3.5, flight C division between Oakridge, Lifetime Fitness and Brookhaven.

    There’s a big match tomorrow afternoon between Oakridge and Brookhaven @ Brookhaven (3:30) on courts 4 – 8.

    The match is a must win for both teams! Please feel free to come on out and watch the showdown.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Isn't Oakridge v Brookhaven next weekend?

    ReplyDelete
  114. My bet is they have rescheduled to allow people to play at the Major Zone in Tyler the weekend of the June 20.
    I didn't knoe that was a legit reason to allow a reschedule.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Brookhaven 3.5 vs Oakridge should be a very good match. However, Brookhaven must beat BOTH Oakridge and Life Time to finish 3rd place and make the QT. That's a very tough task.

    If BH was in Flight A they would easily win at least 3rd place and a spot in the QT. If they were in Flight B they would easily make the QT and they might even finish 1st place.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Keith and Steven continue to play your butts off!!!!!!!! I will jump on corey for not playing his 5.0's Great point Trey! Anybody on top will get blasted! PLAY ON! Mr.Anonymous' we'll be at gtc 6/14 at 2pm only 16 players so far come out. Happy fathers day to all! J.Sisk

    ReplyDelete
  117. WTF?!?!?!?!

    Oak Ridge has not even played Greenhill yet cuz they wanted to go to Waco,
    Are they just making their own schedule now?

    I'm Calling Bullshit,

    I like all you Oak Ridge Boys personally, But you can't have your Cake and eat it too,

    I'm Sure Eddie Hill would like to reschedule his match so Forrest can get there,

    Part of the team thing is depth, and sucking it up when players are not available.

    ReplyDelete
  118. If this is true that is weak as hell. You can reschedule for weather or court unavailability only.

    ReplyDelete
  119. i think it is fine they did it. in fact last year when they moaned about losing to sprinpark I think I posted to David he should always ask the other captain if they would be up for rescheduling.

    Most sections just have "weekend" play and if you are a home team you can schedule the match late on Sunday if it helps your cause.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Yes, we need to win this weekend against Oakridge and next weekend against Lifetime. We're taking one match at a time.

    Yes, Oakridge asked as soon as the schedule for the season was published to reschedule our match due to the east Texas USTA major zone tournament, since several of the Oakridge boys were planning on playing in the tournament. We didn’t have an issue with it since, this weekend was wide open. We want to play their best and see how we do. That’s what it’s all about.

    ReplyDelete
  121. So when are they going to play Greenhill?

    Dave told me they were going to play that match this week end.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Oakridge is playing Greenhill this morning @ 11:00.

    ReplyDelete
  123. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Damn, those guys are Crazy!

    That should give you a solid chance at an upset.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Dear Marc Klamecki, You need to worry about your own business and stop worrying what we are doing.We did not break any rules by rescheduling matches that were agreed upon by the teams Captains. Please remember that most of our players are used to playing 2-3 matches a day. By the way you have not been fairing very well in you challange matches lately maybe a little more court time rather than computor time might help!! I will be ready to challange you soon so maybe you will have a chance to win one!! Grandpa

    ReplyDelete
  126. Make Sure you remember to bring your heart medicine,

    ReplyDelete
  127. So what was the match score Grandpa?

    ReplyDelete
  128. I would like to be mad at Oakridge for rescheduling but if the other captain knew the circumstances and still agreed to it, that was his own fault. I occasionally have players ask me to try to reschedule matches but, in my opinion, there is no incentive for an opposing captain to reschedule. Obviously if a team is trying to reschedule it is because they are not as strong.

    Does anybody disagree with me?

    This season T bar and I did schedule two lines for a different time but it was mutually beneficial. Although we ended up losing 3-2 so maybe we would have won if we didn't reschedule those two.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Brookhaven beat the Oakridge Boys this afternoon, 3 – 2. The match was a real nail biter. I really worked up a sweat watching the matches! It was hot this afternoon. Oakridge won the first match of the afternoon, line 1 doubles (6-2, 0-6, 1-0) and then Samuel Burt (aka – slice and dice) from Oakridge with his ginsu racquet drove Bernard Goor (Brookhaven) crazy after the first four games, taking line 2 singles (6-2, 6-2). Brookhaven came back and won line 2 doubles (6-2, 7-6) and shortly after, won line 3 doubles (7-6, 6-2). Line 2 & 3 doubles was very exciting to watch. Both sides were really hammering the ball back & forth! Brookhaven was just able to come up with the big points. There was some really good tennis!

    With the match score tied @ 2 – 2, it all came down to line one singles! It was a long drawn out battle. During the match, I could actually see the grass grow in the fairway behind the court. Evan Lukasik (Brookhaven) was able to stay focus and beat Enrique Molina (Oakridge), 6-3, 5-7, 1-0.

    Oakridge Boys – Great match! There was some very exciting tennis this afternoon. I’m glad that we were able to play this afternoon versus next Saturday. Good luck next week at the East Texas USTA Major Zone tournament!

    ReplyDelete
  130. Brookhaven won 3-2.

    Nice win.

    Loser of Brookhaven and Lifetime on 6/28 will not make the QT (assuming Oakridge wins its last match)

    ReplyDelete
  131. WOW . . .
    Congratulations to John & the whole Brookhaven team!!!

    ReplyDelete
  132. It is crazy that either Life Time or Brookhaven will not make even the QT this year. Placement of teams within flights matters big time!

    ReplyDelete
  133. Wow,
    No wonder Grandpa was so Crabby,

    Nice win for the Karate Kid over Enrique,

    Guess he might be for real!

    ReplyDelete
  134. John K.

    What do you mean Sam ( aka slice and dice) I very seldom cut the ball!!! Just kidding, you are correct on that, but to my defense, this was my first match back since I dislocated my right shoulder a month ago. I had to slice even more than usual to make sure I did not aggrevate it.

    Congratulations on your team victory. Now you just need to beat Lifetime next week.

    Sam Bert

    ReplyDelete
  135. Thanks to all who want to put their comments on this blog about things that really is none of their concern. John and I talked before the season started about our teams date to play and we both agreed that we could play another date, as we both are going to be in Tyler.
    He wanted to be there when our teams played each other, so there was no problem. I did the same thing with Rick Lyon, so we played 2 matches yesterday.
    Johns team met the challenge, however we fell short. All of us did our best and that's all one can ask from a teammate. I'm proud of our team and their character.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Sam – Wow! I didn’t know that you had dislocated your right shoulder. You were sure hitting the ball well and giving Bernard fits.

    ReplyDelete
  137. wasn't aware any match could be rescheduled just because the captains agreed.

    Thought only a league coordinator could reschedule a match unless it was for weather related reasons or court availability issues.

    Where is this actually explained?

    ReplyDelete
  138. DTA
    Rule 2G
    No match is to be rescheduled without the consent of the coordinator unless it is a
    rainout.

    We are all busy people We all make special arrangements to be where we need to be for matches, some time weeks in advance, and all of our time is equally important.

    It sets a bad precedent if we just start rescheduling matches willy nilly when our best players are not available, hurt, or the weather is not to out liking.

    I can think of a few times I would have liked to rescheduled a match because I did not have enough players to be competitive but had to play anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Nobody really cares what any of you ANONYMOUS guys have to say about anything. If you have a complaint then sign your name or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Yeah,
    Tell Grandpa Ed your name,
    So he can Dog Cuss you and tell you to got to hell, Like he did that guy from High Point,

    Weather the "Oak Ridge Boys" think it's "our business" or "concern",
    Anonymous or not everyone is entitled to their opinion,

    What the actual rules are is everybody's business.

    You don't want to be cheaters like Garland do you?

    ReplyDelete
  141. The biggest problem is noboby knows what the the hell the rules are and they keep complaining about the DTA anyway and say that they dont give a damn anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  142. OC Bi time to take you out on the court and beat your ass again! Tired of your cheaters remark about Garland...It is too bad your such a sore loser before you even are proven to be a loser just because you think we are cheating. You will find out at season end that we are well within the rules of 3.5 play. We had guys last fall that were way more qualified to be 4.0 players than we do this year. I can't wait to get my head on straight and get out of the whiny ass 3.5 league..I'll challenge you later on the ladder. Plus, I'll make sure to invite Ed Ratcliff and all his cronies!

    ReplyDelete
  143. RockJock – Stop yakking and work on getting your head screwed on straight. We’re waiting for you at the 4.0 level. Why didn’t you sign up to play in Tyler?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Two against one, Huh?

    That sounds typical of how Garland rolls.

    I accept your challenge, if you can't wait until the play-offs for your beat down.

    ReplyDelete
  145. John K.

    Yea I dislocated the shoulder and had to actaully hit even more cuts and slices then usual. I was surprised how well it held up. I hope it holds up for Tyler.

    Sam Bert

    ReplyDelete
  146. There is nothing in the DTA rules that prohibits two teams from re-scheduling a match _ and it has been done many times before by different teams under a variety of different circumstances.

    The 8:16 pm post citing Rule 2G was very misleading.

    DTA rule 2G is titled ""RAINOUT/RAIN MAKE-UP"
    What the rules mean is if a captain wakes up in the morning and it is very cloudy, they cannot cancel or re-schedule the match unless it is really rained out. This rule does not prohibit captains re-scheduling weeks in advance and playing the match early, before it was originally scheduled.

    "Figures don't lie but liars figure"

    Oakridge and Brookhaven did nothing wrong. Leave them alone!

    ReplyDelete
  147. Marc,
    You are an excellent player and Oak Creek is maybe the best 3.5 team in Dallas. You guys play hard and you play by the rules.

    Exactly the same can be said about Garland. They are a really good bunch of guys and they also play fair and by the rules.

    There have been WAY too many nasty comments about Garland on this site including untrue allegations of cheating. Let's stop the name-calling and let's all enjoy the upcoming playoffs.

    Hardcourt

    ReplyDelete
  148. Just for the Record-

    I really don't have any problems with Garland and
    I really don't give a shit about what Garland is doing,
    And I am hoping to meet them in the Finals of the city tournament,

    It's just funny to see John and Jock's reactions,

    If the name calling really bothers them the best thing they can to is just not respond,

    The interaction is what makes it fun,
    Not the name calling,

    Same thing goes for OakRidge

    PS.
    Jock I have not seen that Challenge yet.
    Is it coming?

    ReplyDelete
  149. OC BL...Ok...after playoffs! Maybe by then I'll have been bumped up. But, by the way my attitude has been this season it may not happen. I have had a bad season, poor play outside of team tennis and not enough drills and maybe too much match play. I wish I would have played Tyler..but I have some personal issues that have kept me out of tournaments..that will change! after playoffs. I will stay in touch to play...BTW...I get your humor! Funny shit! I am not serious about the ass kicking ..just talking smack.

    Rot Jock

    ReplyDelete
  150. Delira is a 3.5 player that got bumped during the 2006 mid season, tanked a bunch of matches and got bumped back down at the end of 2006.

    Delira is really a 4.0 player if he ever gets his head screwed on straight.

    June 12, 2008 11:20 AM

    Whoever wrote this is telling some truth..I did not tank matches in 4.0 I just got beat down in most of my doubles in league and lost every 4.0 first round match in tounament play..I do agree there are issues about my mental aspect of my game. Big issues.

    Cary,

    I need a rematch!

    ReplyDelete
  151. Oc Bl....do you hear the ladder screaming!!!! I think the challege is coming!

    ReplyDelete
  152. who cares about a reschedule? seriously? I agree, 3.5 becoming a little cry-baby right now.

    tourney is getting close now.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Harrdcourt,
    Are you a 5.0 looking for a 3.5 team? Ocbl I hope you get your shot at us!We have heard your mouth,where have I cheated? If your talent is as strong as your mouth......Don,Glen,Zack your pick
    before playoffs.I'll bet you don't split with any of them!!!!!!!!I bet a picture of ben franklin you don't win! Sisk

    ReplyDelete
  154. Sisk, i don't think your allowed to bet anybody until you catch up on your past due money challenges.

    You have to play your previous money matches before you can start new ones.

    Until then, your limited to G Notes. G stands for George Washington.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Ok no more bets!Money measures confidence in these matches.I still honor any bet I've made,no more future bets.Thanks for setting me straight on the rules!!
    J.Sisk

    ReplyDelete