OOAK Table Tennis Forum
http://ooakforum.com/

A New OOAK Ranking
http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29251
Page 9 of 10

Author:  Cobalt [ 27 Aug 2016, 20:53 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

An 18 handicap in Cambodia would be about the same standard as an 18 handicap in USA. This is because player is playing against the course rather than an individual player. Each course is given a rating depending on difficulty. Therefore to actually par an easy course you might have to play 4 shots under par.

Author:  NextLevel [ 28 Aug 2016, 03:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

Many countries use dissimilar start off points and there is not enough international activity to center the rating properly.

Author:  lionto [ 29 Aug 2016, 19:23 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

haggisv wrote:
Ratings Central started off in USA, but most of the Australian leagues are starting to use it as well. Although it's a global rating system, comparisons between ratings of players from different countries is highly inaccurate, because there is very little data on players that play in both countries (which is what's required to get a global rating system).


If its a global system then all countries should adopt the system. (Does not matter if its US originated as along as its practical and accurate.) True that ratings of players from different countries would be difficult. At least those within the same country would have a common rating.
1) Taking a cue from golf again, teams of golf players travel all over the world on golfing tours to play in different courses. Why don't TT players do TT tours and travel to foreign cities to play competitive matches at club level? In that way, ratings can be compared and then revised.
2) I played non-competitively in NSW. But I do not hear of competition players with some sort of points ratings. I think the players were organised in Divisions 1 to 5. Perhaps South Australia are better organised.
3) Why don't the Ooak Ranking follow the global rating system? Surely some of our national and state players would have a USATT rating and when Ooak players play against them they get a rating as well. Isn't this how it works?

Author:  Debater [ 29 Aug 2016, 20:18 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

lionto wrote:
If its a global system then all countries should adopt the system. (Does not matter if its US originated as along as its practical and accurate.) True that ratings of players from different countries would be difficult. At least those within the same country would have a common rating.
1) Taking a cue from golf again, teams of golf players travel all over the world on golfing tours to play in different courses. Why don't TT players do TT tours and travel to foreign cities to play competitive matches at club level? In that way, ratings can be compared and then revised.
2) I played non-competitively in NSW. But I do not hear of competition players with some sort of points ratings. I think the players were organised in Divisions 1 to 5. Perhaps South Australia are better organised.
3) Why don't the Ooak Ranking follow the global rating system? Surely some of our national and state players would have a USATT rating and when Ooak players play against them they get a rating as well. Isn't this how it works?


1. Time, money, work, family commitments.
3. I think we are tackling this from the wrong way round. We're looking at a rating system that already exists and trying to apply it to other countries, standards, cultures. I agree with your first part of your "question" - why doesn't the OOAK..." Instead of thinking why we can't, why not change this question round. Ask the question "what would we want, how can it work, what does it need to do for us". Then when we know what we actually want how can we best deliver it, what are we actually willing to do to deliver it.

Treat it like a project manager would. Scope it first but from a positive perspective and then deliver. Be innovative rather than plagerise. Nothing will be perfect to start with but if all we can do is list reasons why it won't work this will never get off the ground.

So,

1. What do you want, and why do you want it - really want it.
2. What must it do, what would you like it to do, what are you prepared to do to deliver it
3. Just do it. Forget perfect, use workable, good enough and build from there.

Then try it. Revise it, make it better iteratively.

There is a OOAK ranking list - REB's produced it. It does what people want. It lists people in order of "alleged ability".

What needs to happen now is to update it. Next Level has played so_devo, LordCope and others on this forum. Adjust the ranking list accordingly. The great haggisv has played REB, so we know where their rankings should be. Maybe set up a network of contacts. There is already the "club" list facility that haggisv built which gives us all the opportunity to search out where members play and contact them. so_devo has commented who he'd like to play from the forum. Maybe start a "thread" - "have bat will travel" and post when people will be in a certain area / city / state / country and invite challenge matches or simple get togethers. It's not that difficult if the will is there. In fact I think I'll start just such a thread.

Ultimately though, less talk more action. We have a list - not universally acceptable but let's face it, thousands of members and only a handful of people on that list. Ultimately is the real reason there isn't a universal rating simply there isn't the interest?

Author:  lionto [ 31 Aug 2016, 08:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

1. What do you want, and why do you want it - really want it.
Perhaps I assumed wrongly "why do you want it" Looks like the purpose is only to rank amongst Ooak members only and not used as a universal gauge. If that's the case, then I was out of line commenting on USATT or other systems. Sorry guys.

2. What must it do, what would you like it to do, what are you prepared to do to deliver it
3. Just do it. Forget perfect, use workable, good enough and build from there.
Then try it. Revise it, make it better iteratively.
There is a OOAK ranking list - REB's produced it. It does what people want. It lists people in order of "alleged ability".
Ultimately though, less talk more action. We have a list - not universally acceptable but let's face it, thousands of members and only a handful of people on that list. Ultimately is the real reason there isn't a universal rating simply there isn't the interest?[/quote]
Yes, for any system to work, need action, not talk.
Wonder how Ooak can achieve this with members all over the world.

Author:  RebornTTEvnglist [ 01 Sep 2016, 22:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

Debater wrote:
Then try it. Revise it, make it better iteratively.


Ok, Debater, what do you think of where I iterated you into? :lol:

Author:  Debater [ 02 Sep 2016, 18:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
Ok, Debater, what do you think of where I iterated you into? :lol:


Debater wrote:
Ultimately is the real reason there isn't a universal rating simply there isn't the interest?


However, in the spirit of participation, I played my first competitive match in 18months last night. I think you need to re-iterate me - lower :lol:

Author:  dan [ 15 Oct 2016, 06:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

Maybe I could play so_devo at some point to get on the ranking in this thread. Although, I would most likely lose.

So far, I have played 15 players in 2 table tennis leagues this winter season and my overall singles ranking is nearly 100%... except one game where I lost 3:2 in sets, despite leading 7:10 in the last set... I thought I had it and got too relaxed haha :headbang:

Author:  so_devo [ 15 Oct 2016, 06:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

Where in the uk are you Dan? If near me we can make this happen.......

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

Author:  so_devo [ 15 Oct 2016, 07:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

Actually I think I asked that before....Hockley yes?

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

Author:  dan [ 15 Oct 2016, 16:49 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

Indeed. :) I play for a Hockley team in division 3 of the Southend League and I also play for a Hatfield Peverel team in division 5 of the Chelmsford League.

Author:  pgpg [ 20 Mar 2017, 01:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

Necromancing this thread - noticed that PRW played Westchester recently (in addition to a bunch of tournaments in CA). He was a solid 1850 there, but lost quite a few points in NY (mostly, but not all, to underrated juniors from Canada).

I guess the estimate of 'Australian RC +600 = USATTE' is a bit suspect. :?:

Author:  Silver [ 20 Mar 2017, 08:11 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

wouldn't be surprised.
They are both essentially normal distributions yeah? So might be 600 at the edges, but not so much in the middle.

Author:  mwvadi77 [ 20 Apr 2017, 14:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

Silver wrote:
wouldn't be surprised.
They are both essentially normal distributions yeah? So might be 600 at the edges, but not so much in the middle.

:rock:

Author:  PRW [ 21 Apr 2017, 13:04 ]
Post subject:  Re: A New OOAK Ranking

pgpg wrote:
Necromancing this thread - noticed that PRW played Westchester recently (in addition to a bunch of tournaments in CA). He was a solid 1850 there, but lost quite a few points in NY (mostly, but not all, to underrated juniors from Canada).

I guess the estimate of 'Australian RC +600 = USATTE' is a bit suspect. :?:

haha - very dangerous to use me as a base metric - I am not very consistent! :lol:
my Ratings Central is 1566±33; my US rating is 1850. Using NY as a benchmark is possibly a bit suspect - I am playing with Achilles tendonitis at the moment, and it was the worst there - I almost pulled out. I am also about 25 lbs heavier than when I was in Oz. I recently beat Der Echte (1966 US) 3-1 at a tournament, for those who know Der Echte.

In terms of playing here: according to my coach, am a solid 2000 level player, with the potential to get to around 2100 if I get rid of some basic errors. I would say my game now is equivalent to when I was playing in Oz; so, my best guess as to the differential is 2000-1550, = 450?

Page 9 of 10 All times are UTC + 9:30 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/