What constitutes as a level for you?

[speedplay]

Seeing as we have talked a lot about what level we are, who is better then who and who plays at the same level and stuff like that, I thought it would be intereting to know what 1 level is to you. It's not about who server short and who doesn't, but for you to say that you are of the same level as another player, what results would you have to make against him, before you said he was a level above or below you?

Say 10 matches, best of 5, what results would mean that you where the same level as your opponent?

[RebornTTEvnglist]

It is a good question. The lines are blurred in my mind. It is quite hard to clearly define because I don't think its as clear as taking a club's divisions and saying the players of Division X are clearly better than Division Y. Often there will be players in a lower division are as good, if not better than someone in a higher one, and there are reasons for the disproportion. Some players in the same division are not of the same level too. Results are a way of determining it to a degree but unless those results are within a well structured ranking system, it is hard to use them definitively. Results between a small sub-set players is reasonable, but even that can lead to precarious results. Take 2 players who play frequently (bit not so often they know each others game inside out) in practice. Let's say player A beats player B 8/10 times in practice. Player A scores 30% more wins in the division they play each season consistently. In competition when they meet, they are about 50/50 due to player B having more insight to player A's game than others in the division. Is player A a higher level or the same level as player B? What if the same things occurred, but player B drops back a division due to his teams overall competition results. Does that change their levels?

Its kind of ironic that you raise this question Speedplay, given your assertion that you and Rob are of about the same level. That assertion is extremely random and arbitrary IMO btw. Being totally unbiased here I cannot say how your level would compare to Rob's. I can't say you are definitively lower, higher or the same, and I don't think you can either, without actually playing against him. Seeing a vid is definitely not a way to measure it. As smacktalk of course its acceptable to say, but not to be serious. Anyway, I diverged a little.

I think given there is no official scale of what constitutes "levels" in the world of TT, it is an almost impossible question to answer with anything but supreme subjectivity. And I understand you haven't asked for an objective answer. So there is no right or wrong answer. We had a thread a long time ago on OOAK where we discussed how many levels there were in TT, and the answers ranged from about 10 through to about 20 IIRC. If you compare on a person to person basis, yes I'd say if you consistently win 7-8/10 against someone you're a level above them. If you win 10/10, its more difficult to say if you are 1,2, 5 or 10 levels above (the set scores may help determine, but may only reveal the better player is trying stuff a lot and would win 11-0 if really trying). But you can't judge level from one-on-one alone or everyone would need to play everyone to classify them.  You might be able to do it based on techniques that are demonstrated by one player but not another, but thats horribly subjective too, especially given varying styles and unorthodox abilities. Btw, if there was an easy answer to this, we wouldn't have the debates we do on here LOL. So I'm going to leave my answer wishy-washy at least until I read the thoughts of others.

[big ears]

its easy, if you can't beat them on a good day, however much you try, they are a level or more above you, and i'm not talking endless games in practice, coz two things always happen, one player relaxes, and lets the other one get nearer and nearer until they lose one.
Another way is to look at the best player you have beaten, remembering of course, you will be one of his worst losses, and see how you would do against the best players HE beats, there will be a distinct air of 'no chance' if you are honest, and its the 'no chance' between his best win and yours that shows a clear difference in level.

[speedplay]

Obviously level should be determind by the results vs a larger group of players and not just the result between 2 players.

Still, I feel that if I play against some one and win 2 or more out of 10 matches, I'm at the same level as he is. Sure, he's a better player, but if we where to face each other in a competition, we would both know that he was the favourite, but I stood a chance against him. If I only win 1, or not win any at all, he's a level above me, cause 1 out of 10 can be put down to pure luck (I know, luck don't really exsists, but such as me having my best night ever, while he is totally out of shape) and if I don't win any, well, even if all my losses are 2-3, the fact remains that I don't win against him, which puts him at least one level above me.

I like the idea of the best win as suggested by Biggy, but I've never looked at it this way my self before.

As for Rob and me being of the same level, as you say, it's really impossible to tell, since we haven't played against each other, we haven't even played the same opponents, so this is all a guessing game. Based on the facts we have, I don't think I'm to far of when I'm guessing that we are at roughly the same level.
 
Looking at it the way I do, I would say that JKC and Biggy play at the same level, but Biggy is the better player with in this level. They can win and lose against the same opponents and even though Biggy is likely to end up with a better over all result, I still think we can call them as players who play at the same level. But remember, the way I see it, WH plays in a level of his own down in Asutralia

[pingpongrob]

its easy, if you can't beat them on a good day, however much you try, they are a level or more above you, and i'm not talking endless games in practice, coz two things always happen, one player relaxes, and lets the other one get nearer and nearer until they lose one.
Another way is to look at the best player you have beaten, remembering of course, you will be one of his worst losses, and see how you would do against the best players HE beats, there will be a distinct air of 'no chance' if you are honest, and its the 'no chance' between his best win and yours that shows a clear difference in level.

Does this take into concideration the ability to play differant styles, On a ranking sysyem it doesnt.  According to matthew Syed, if you traine 10,000 hour (purposeful training) everybody is the same.

I guess Bigears hasnt done the 10,000 hours yet.

[Der Echte]

In the USATT system, it is about every 200 rating points, but after 2200, more like 100-150, then after 2500, more like 100.
So, it would be something like this...

USATT 1000-1200
USATT 1200-1400
USATT 1400-1600
USATT 1600-1800
USATT 1800-2000
USATT 2000-2200
USATT 2200-2350
USATT 2350-2500
USATT 2500-2600
USATT 2600-2700
After that, it doesn't matter... world class top 100 and up.

[Der Echte]

In Korea, there are three standards of level that have essentially all the same levels.

There is National Standard, Regional Standard, and City Standard. They all have the same level system, but a city div player might be a regional div 2 and a national div 3 player.

I list the standards for my city, then also for national standard

div 1 = USATT 2200 and above
div 2 = USATT 2000-2200
div 3 = USATT 1800-2000
div 4 = USATT 1600-1800
div 5 = USATT 1400-1600
div 6 = USATT 1200-1400
div 7 = USATT 1000-1200
Hope Division = Under USATT 1000, which is a noob who probably cannot loop two balls in a row or land the first loop 50%.
These players "Hope" to enter one of the divisions after some moar training.

National standard - there is some overlap as some coaches place their players higher or lower on the rungs of the system.

div 1+ = USATT 2500-2650
div 1 = USATT 2350-2500
div 2 = USATT 2100-2350
div 3 = USATT 1900-2200
div 4 = USATT 1600-2000 (Sometimes, there are some USATT 2200+ players hanging around this division)
div 5 = USATT 1400-1700

[Der Echte]

In the Korean system, it is generally acknowledged that if you are always 2 points behind, that is one level. (11 point games)

There is a handicap system of 2+1+1+1...

Which means the player who is a division lower than the other player gets a 2 point handicap.

Which means a player 2 divisions lower gets a 3 point handicap (2+1)

Which means a player 3 divisions lower gets a 4 point handicap (2+1+1)


This might be an approximate way to estimate the difference of levels between players in any system in any country, if one accepts the rough idea of what makes a level.

[pingpongrob]

In the Korean system, it is generally acknowledged that if you are always 2 points behind, that is one level. (11 point games)

What happens if you consistently take games of these player, but just dont get over the line.

[Silver]

In the USATT system, it is about every 200 rating points, but after 2200, more like 100-150, then after 2500, more like 100.
So, it would be something like this...

I doubt anybody really cares about this, but since the USATT system is bell curved, statistically you should probably expect to have large-level-gap small-rating-differences at the bottom and at the top, while the middle of the curve (1700?) has a small-level-gap large-rating-difference.

[Der Echte]

Also, since the great majority of players do not travel everywhere in US to play, except for a small percentage who do the nationals and teams tourneys, it is difficult for everyone to get a true rating if they stay in their regions. TT forums are full of threads claiming California, Texas, and Baltimore players rated 1800 would destroy 1800 rated players from anywhere else. That is pretty much true to a large degree. There are several regions where the players are stronger, but do not get around enough to even out their rating. That is probably something that affects any rating system.

I believe like the Koreans that a player who is 2 points better each match on the average is about one level better.

[Der Echte]

What happens if you consistently take games of these player, but just dont get over the line.

I give an example of matches between me and our club captain. He is one level higher than me. When we play matches straight up without a handicap, I win 15% of the time. (Edit: best 3 of 5 matches) When I lose, it can be 0-3 (-8,-7,-9) (15% of the time), can be 1-3 (-8, 9,-9, -10) (35% of the time), or can be 2-3 (6,-6,9,-9,-7) (35% of the time) for a typical match. Such a losing percentage and points won in losing games/winning games pretty much agree that I am a level behind him. Usually I get a game or two, infrequently I win. It is not impossible for a player one level higher to lose, it just doesn't happen real often.

[big ears]

Does this take into concideration the ability to play differant styles, On a ranking sysyem it doesnt.  According to matthew Syed, if you traine 10,000 hour (purposeful training) everybody is the same.

I guess Bigears hasnt done the 10,000 hours yet.

 I'm on about 17000 hours.

[big ears]

What happens if you consistently take games of these player, but just dont get over the line.

It counts for absolutely nothing what so ever. If you were a REAL challenge, you would be winning a good proportion of those games, ever since the 11up rule, EVERYONE get closer to winning.

[pingpongrob]

I'm on about 17000 hours.

So According to Syed, you should be right at the top, I guess the Win from Letts was just a fluke.

[big ears]

I think you need to read the book again, relatively speaking, I'm pretty close to the top of the pyramid anyway in terms of numbers @ 79 in England out of 30,000 players.
Paul Pinkewitch is one of Australia's greatest players ever, can you tell me why he's not at the top?

 I think you will find that the 10,000 hours is in proportion top how long it took to achieve, and on a sliding scale, the less time, the more chance of being a international, so someone such as Fred (JKC son) Has a good chance because he will undoubtable get his 10000 hours in BEFORE he reaches his physical and mental prime, Getting it in over a longer period, still constitutes as to being an 'EXPERT'. BTW, I've read the book cover to cover.

[JKC]

Fred was runner up in an under 13 (2 star) tournament yesterday by the way and played some incredible TT. Beat a player ranked around 80 in the U13's in the semi's and was well up in a couple of games against a player ranked in the 40's in the final before losing. - but that is another story.

[Der Echte]

The lad is getting it.

[pingpongrob]

Fred was runner up in an under 13 (2 star) tournament yesterday by the way and played some incredible TT. Beat a player ranked around 80 in the U13's in the semi's and was well up in a couple of games against a player ranked in the 40's in the final before losing. - but that is another story.

Firstly Congrates to Fred - Keep up the good work.  May I ask a silly question, Whats a 2 Star Tournament.

[pingpongrob]

I think you need to read the book again, relatively speaking, I'm pretty close to the top of the pyramid anyway in terms of numbers @ 79 in England out of 30,000 players.
Paul Pinkewitch is one of Australia's greatest players ever, can you tell me why he's not at the top?

 I think you will find that the 10,000 hours is in proportion top how long it took to achieve, and on a sliding scale, the less time, the more chance of being a international, so someone such as Fred (JKC son) Has a good chance because he will undoubtable get his 10000 hours in BEFORE he reaches his physical and mental prime, Getting it in over a longer period, still constitutes as to being an 'EXPERT'. BTW, I've read the book cover to cover.

I haven't finished reading the book as yet, my schedule is quite busy.  Either your Really Good, or your Ranking System is not Accurate, I mean 86 in the UK at the age of 46, and to top that off being beaten by a combo player like Greg.  What happened to the Depth you keep talking about. Shouldn't there be a lot more 21 - 30 year old between the Top players and the top 300.

Now before you say that Brian is ranked really high in Australia, just remember that we dont have the depth - or so you say.

To me a level, all depends on how many players you have.  For instance if you had 100 Players of Big Ears standard, they would have to be placed in differant levels even though they are all the same standard.  And then Big Ears and Speedplay would look at the rankings and say that the No. 100 is no where near the standard of the No. 1.

Another thing you need to take into concideration, is that as the players get older, because of the amount of hours they have been playing, their relative standard get closer. They also tend to play a little smarter, you also get the Combo players coming out in drove's spoiling everyones fun.

[Der Echte]

JKC will answer for himself, but in USA, the more stars, the larger the tourney and the more professionally run/adhering to ITTF in terms of personnel and facilities, availablitity of umpires, etc...

[speedplay]

Rob, pips and anti don't have anything to do with level. As we have stated previously, to get an accurate reading of some ones level, you should look at the results they make in a larger group. Remember this the next time you comment about GL, as his results against a larger group in U.K wasn't as impressive.

Also, even if you have 10 000 players, who constantly beats each other, they would still be in the same level (al though only 100 of them could be ranked as top 100 at any given time) as long as they all beat each other. But, if you have 5 players, where 4 of them beats each other every now and then, while the fifth player plays close to 3 of them, but loses, while he manages to beat the fourth every now and then, this fifth player would, according to me, be playing at a level below the other 4.

As for the age thing, what this shows isn't so much about the depth of a nation, but rather that the growth from down under isn't great. Look at Sweden, we have Jörgen Persson and Jan Ove Waldner at the top of our ranking, and both of them are 40+. So, are youngsters are failing to catch up, which isn't a good sign for the future, but it reveals very little about the depth, since they both still play at a high level. Who knows, if they played in Vic, they might be rated in the top 20, despite their age?

[JKC]

2 star is better than 1 star, but not as good as 4 star. I don't think there are 3 stars. 2 stars are better attended than 1 stars with better players though we haven't been to a 1 star yet as this is only his 4th tournament.

[big ears]

I haven't finished reading the book as yet, my schedule is quite busy.  Either your Really Good, or your Ranking System is not Accurate, I mean 86 in the UK at the age of 46, and to top that off being beaten by a combo player like Greg.  What happened to the Depth you keep talking about. Shouldn't there be a lot more 21 - 30 year old between the Top players and the top 300.

Now before you say that Brian is ranked really high in Australia, just remember that we dont have the depth - or so you say.

How can you make a statement like ''shoulden't there be more 21-30 yr olds between the top players and the top 300'' when you don't know how many there are? I'm ranked 79 BTW not 85, and there are 53 players under the age of 30 above me, 19 of the top 20 are under 30.  If Greg Letts was to reside in England for any length of time, I am confident his ranking would be in a band between 70 and 120 (fluctuating) Where is he in Aus?
 In answer to your Question ''either you are really good or your ranking system is not accurate''
Our ranking system is VERY accurate, its virtually impossible to get ranked in the top 100 without much dedication, many players have a top 100 ranking as their ultimate TT goal, but its a club with not many members. I'm in my 16th consecutive year.....

 In the English top 100 men, there are currently 11 players aged over 45.

[pingpongrob]

How can you make a statement like ''shoulden't there be more 21-30 yr olds between the top players and the top 300'' when you don't know how many there are? I'm ranked 79 BTW not 85, and there are 53 players under the age of 30 above me, 19 of the top 20 are under 30.  If Greg Letts was to reside in England for any length of time, I am confident his ranking would be in a band between 70 and 120 (fluctuating) Where is he in Aus?
 In answer to your Question ''either you are really good or your ranking system is not accurate''
Our ranking system is VERY accurate, its virtually impossible to get ranked in the top 100 without much dedication, many players have a top 100 ranking as their ultimate TT goal, but its a club with not many members. I'm in my 16th consecutive year.....

 In the English top 100 men, there are currently 11 players aged over 45.

Then the answer to my question is that you are really good.  Wasnt that simple.

[big ears]

What does happen frequently, is a set kind of pattern to a players TT career. I'm going to generalise a little, but this is the norn;

Starting at 12/13 they rapidly progress up the junior ranks if they are dedicated, and once they have the bug, they generally are. By 17/18 they are competent players usually hovering around the 150 to 300 area in the mens rankings (obviously a few are much higher) then they leave school and attend a TT academy, there are quite a few in England where they play virtually full time in residence. This gets them right up to their full potential usually top 50, and this is the make or break point for the top. Unlike years ago when I started, after a few yrs trying to be internationals, and being unsuccessful, they pack up dissalusioned, sick of TT. They are often sold a promise by their coaches that they are going to be international class, when in reality, they have no chance at all, so they feel they have failed, when in actual fact they have succeeded in getting to a standard that many dream of.

[RebornTTEvnglist]

What does happen frequently, is a set kind of pattern to a players TT career. I'm going to generalise a little, but this is the norn;

Starting at 12/13 they rapidly progress up the junior ranks if they are dedicated, and once they have the bug, they generally are. By 17/18 they are competent players usually hovering around the 150 to 300 area in the mens rankings (obviously a few are much higher) then they leave school and attend a TT academy, there are quite a few in England where they play virtually full time in residence. This gets them right up to their full potential usually top 50, and this is the make or break point for the top. Unlike years ago when I started, after a few yrs trying to be internationals, and being unsuccessful, they pack up dissalusioned, sick of TT. They are often sold a promise by their coaches that they are going to be international class, when in reality, they have no chance at all, so they feel they have failed, when in actual fact they have succeeded in getting to a standard that many dream of.

If they are good enough to be English top 50 why do they have no chance at international class?

[big ears]

If they are good enough to be English top 50 why do they have no chance at international class?

 Because for that they need to be top 10. Once they have been 'chosen' they are invited to reside at the national training centre in Sheffield where they train on a full time basis and get paid a wage. On top of that once they start performing internationally a gap developes within our own ranking system between the top 10 players and everyone else. So there is a crucial period in a young players career, where they either get chosen for greatness or not. It has many critics, me being one of them, because the system tends to overlook late starters/developers, in favour of players starting very young. The onus of thought being ' if he's that good at 10 imagine how good he'll be at 18, but as we know, it does not always work out like that.

[RebornTTEvnglist]

So English top 10 is a big gap to 11-50? I'd have assumed once they start competing internationally they no longer gain points as often in the English rankings, having less time to do so? So do any drop down/out the English rankings due to this, or does everyone still play at home enough to maintain their ranking? For example, have any English players gone to live in Germany or China to expose themselves to better training, but dropped out of the home ranks because of it?

[big ears]

So English top 10 is a big gap to 11-50? I'd have assumed once they start competing internationally they no longer gain points as often in the English rankings, having less time to do so? So do any drop down/out the English rankings due to this, or does everyone still play at home enough to maintain their ranking? For example, have any English players gone to live in Germany or China to expose themselves to better training, but dropped out of the home ranks because of it?

Its exactly the opposite, their wins in international matches/tournaments count in the English rankings, every foreign player who plays against an English player gets a dummy English ranking, based on their ITTF ranking. At the same time, as you state, they play less domestically, so they are not exposed to the players just below them. To widen the gap even further, international events carry high ranking point weightings (x2 or x3 the norm)