MATCH RANKING (GRADING)
AND EVENT RATING SYSTEMS
DESCRIPTION, ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
Gilbert Simons, Founder: S.D.T.T.A.
E-Mail: gilbert@gsimons.org
Web page: http://www.gsimons.com
History of
table tennis’s Match Ranking (Grading) System. Prior
to the late 1950s, the USTTA had no rating or classification system. As
President of the San Diego Table Tennis Association, I strongly urged Norman L.
Kilpatrick, then President of the USTTA, to establish such systems, suggesting
that they would invigorate the sport and increase its popularity. In July of
1962, Norman wrote me that he fully agreed with me, and suggested that I chair a
committee to develop a Rating System (letter on file). I intended to propose a
standard Event Rating System used by virtually all sports worldwide, customized
for the sport of table tennis. Used by the S.D.T.T.A., it proved highly popular
with the 450 members of the club.
Due to serious family problems at the time, I declined
chairing such a committee. Jim Scott and Jack Howard then were chosen to develop
a national rating system. . For reasons unknown to me, they chose to copy the
chess model, unrelated to table tennis or any other sport. Dr. Marcus, a key
member of the USATT Ratings Committee, acknowledged that, "The current
table tennis system is based, roughly, on the chess system," and further
stated that, "The only other sport we know of with a similar rating system
is chess" (Improving the Table Tennis Rating System, Marcus, Oct 3, 1997, p
2). The USTTA/USATT has used this system for almost 4 decades. Recently the
Ratings Committee proposed some modifications to this system.
Sports use two measuring instruments, each with different
purpose and goals. One is a Rating System, the other is a Ranking Tool (in Chess
also called a Grading Tool).
A Rating System
consists of a journey. It can be visualized as one by a huge fleet of canoes on
a broad river. Each player paddles his own canoe at whatever pace he desires.
Some choose to go fast, others slow, some prefer to stay in place and enjoy the
scenery. A Classification System provides locks players pass through to the next
promotional stretch of river. (Bridge with its 12 levels; Martial Arts with its
20 belt levels come to mind). There is no going backwards, no losing points.
Rating Systems motivate players to improve, encourage upward
mobility, support universal motives for recognition, status, prestige. They
stimulate tournament participation, add challenge and excitement to competition,
make tournaments fun, and provide lifetime goals. They stimulate joining
organizations, and reduce lapsing of membership.
Event rating systems concurrently award prizes and points to
participants, solely based on achievement. The further players advance in an
event, the higher the number of points awarded. When an event concludes, players
immediately know if they gained points and how many, providing a valuable close
relationship between achievement and reward. The more players of a particular
level enter an event, the more points in contention. Players winning in classes
above their own receive double or triple points, quickly moving them into their
proper Classification (See "Event and Rating" section at top of this
Web site).
In the $6 million Golf Players Championship of March, 2,000,
Hal Sutton won and collected $1.08 million. Tiger Woods, second, received
$648,000. Seventy eight other players won lesser amounts from $270,000 down to
$10,980 for four players at 13 over par (the 80th ranked player
receiving over double the prize money won by the U.S. Table Tennis Open
Champion). That is an Event Rating System in action.. Don’t Elite Table Tennis
players want to partake of this feast?
Rankings provide a numerical listing of top players, based on their ratings, published at various times during the year, or yearly. It requires no additional mathematical computations, or rating fees from players. It indicates how top players stand versus each other on their individual journeys. Gustavo Kuerten earned the most rating points in tennis tournaments during the year, finishing #1 on the ATP computer ranking list for the year 2,000. In all sports but table tennis and chess, players gain points for winning, and lose no points for defeats. Rankings serve very limited goals, which Dr. Marcus, the lead mathematician of the USATT’s Rating Committee, spells out, "as a basis for seeding...the selection process for team trials and other elite athlete and junior selections..." (Improving the Table Tennis Rating System, Oct 3, 1997, p 1).
The USCF (U.S.
Chess Federation) created a hybrid system. It kept the shell of the Event
Rating System, awarding prizes to top players of various events. But within
events, they eliminated the Rating Points, normally awarded the further players
advance. In their stead, they inserted a unique Match point system into the body
of events, awarding points to winners, and deducting points from losers. For
Chess Grandmasters, at the zenith of their skills, such a system was
appropriate. The pool was small and exclusive, and players competed against each
other repeatedly in Round Robins, providing accuracy of results. They won and
lost few points, so changes were minor.
But the USCF (and the USATT) instituted this idiosyncratic
win-loss system for all players, a fatal mistake. Intended for seeding and team
selection, it was an inappropriate instrument to use in general tournament
competition. Created for players who have already reached their destination
(their "playing level" as Dr. Marcus calls it), the aim of Match
Ranking System mathematician is to insert each player into his final rating
slot, between a higher and lower ranked player, with as small a Standard
Deviation as possible. When he has accomplished this for all players, his job is
done.
But 99% of players are in the sport for the journey, not for
its destination. Trying to put entry-level players into final slots is of
course, farcical. Unable to use a finalizing instrument on them, Dr. Marcus
simply assigned such players a 1,400 initial Ranking, with a 450 S.D., in effect
giving them no rating at all. Most soon drop out, (old or proposed system).
Established players soon discover that the win-loss scheme anchors them from any
meaningful further advancement, while they are virtually certain to lose points
and prestige as youngsters zoom through their ranks like shooting stars. Their
journey halted, many say, "Been there, done that," and drop out. The
young phenoms soon run up against the win-loss wall of the top pro players, and
furthermore see that their acquired skills will not pay off in fame and fortune
in the adult table tennis world, and also depart. Everybody loses, including the
USATT.
The Match Ranking System converts competitions into
conflicts. Rutgers Professor David Popenoe explains: "In competition,
persons or groups struggle to reach the same goals, but they focus on the goals
being sought, not on the competitors...defeating the competitor is not the main
aim." Conflict, on the other hand is, "the process of social
interaction in which two or more persons struggle with one another for some
commonly prized object or value." This is the critical difference between
the Match Ranking System and the Event Rating System.
A handful keep winning each event, moving up, losing, moving
down, winning again. The rest of the competitors now concentrate on winning and
not losing points, the focus on the event gone. This can be seen in local
tournaments where finals are often conducted in near empty gyms. Were Event
Rating System rules applied, players would keep vying to gain points and move up
in classification, while cheering finalists, opening up the class to new
challengers.
The Match Grading System, used by the USATT, CTTA, ETTA and
USCF makes a conflict of every match of every event. It is a punisher, with 50%
of all players losing points in the first round, reason enough to drop out of
competition and the USATT. The Event Rating System, non-punitive, is a
reinforcer, encouraging repetition of the behavior, i.e. participation in
tournaments. It supports the growth of the sport and membership in the national
organization.
John Prean, ETTA Chairman from 1986 to 1991, wrote to the
point 7 years ago in an article entitled, "Death Wish," in Table
Tennis News, (March, 1993): "There never was much of a case for having
ranking lists at all, unless these added fun to the game and generally advanced
the sport. The opposite is now the case...The current scheme punishes loses
quite severely,... and players have a great chance of returning from long,
expensive trips with fewer points than they set out with and probably lower
ranking.
It should have been obvious long ago that the present scheme
is enormously discouraging and ultimately damaging. As the ghastly implications
sank in, more and more players decided not to go to tournaments...A positive
incentive exists NOT to play...The English ranking scheme is now a disaster
area...The death wish of the sport seems to know few limits."
The USCF has the same problem, losing almost all their
juniors when they reach adulthood. Jack Peters, Chess Columnist for the Los
Angeles Times, writes of "the nationwide slump in adult tournament
attendance," and about "weekend tournaments which used to fill the
local chess calendar, are now held only occasionally." (Dec. 3, 2000).
For years, the rationale for using the Ranking System was
that it was the most accurate of systems. Dr. Marcus burst the bubble, writing:
"The current system has no idea how accurate the ratings are...The current
system often does strange things...It is well known that the best way to raise
one’s rating under the current system is to go into a large tournament
underrated....the current system is riddled with nonmonotonic formulas...The
current system seems to be bouncing around.... Currently some players are
overrated while others are underrated [many by hundreds of points]."
In Chess, Edward R. Brace admits that, "the magnitude of
the Elo [USCF] ratings is completely arbitrary...It is not their absolute level
that is important, but the difference between the ratings of two
competitors." (An Illustrated Dictionary ofChess, p 90). To 99% of table
tennis players, their ratings are important, not the difference between theirs
and that of others.
Punishing lower-ranked players for losing to higher-ranked
ones, and awarding them points for winning over lower ranked players is an
oddity carried over from chess, inapplicable to table tennis. Should players be
rewarded for doing the expected, and should losers be punished for not beating
higher-level players?
The USATT, using an anchor as its promotional tool, cannot
recruit newcomers fast enough to replace its huge number of lapsing members each
year. The Match Ranking Tool degrades what should be a wide-open chase for
points by thousands, and eventually millions of players, into a terminus for all
players. What should have been a hugely popular sport turned into an elite
boutique activity, far removed from the public eye.
Some national organizations are recognizing that deducting
points for losses is a serious problem, and have halved them. Reducing the
amount of arsenic will not cure the patient. It will only kill him more slowly.
The ONLY solution is to purge the Ranking poison pill from the Event Rating
System, and use the E.R.S. as intended - points and awards progressing hand in
hand; the event the focus of play; competition replacing conflict.
With deduction of points eliminated, players can no longer
manipulate the system, dumping and sandbagging. Players need no longer play far
above their class, to avoid losing many points. Table tennis ends being a
boutique sport. All canoes get the Green Light, no longer cramped between higher
and lower ranked players. Millions of casual table tennis players will join the
association, as will tens of thousands of non-affiliated club players and
thousands of lapsed members. Table tennis will take its rightful place as a
growth-oriented, major sport on the national and international scene.
(A sample Event Rating and Classification System formulated
for Table Tennis can be accessed from the top of this Web site).