UTR: A Great Innovation With Hidden Drawbacks

In 2008, Virginia based tennis coach Dave Howell launched Universal Tennis Rating, an online algorithm that produces player skill ratings between 0 and 16. By gathering scores of matches across the world, UTR can use data to generate a rating. This development has helped tournaments and tennis organizations create competition by skill level rather than age, ranking, or some other generalization. But as UTR has caught on, junior players and college recruiters have become obsessed with high figures, but just how universal is the universal tennis rating?

First, here’s what the numbers allegedly mean in layman’s terms:

UTR 1.0-2.5: Rising Intermediate/ Developing Player.

This rating represents the lowest rung of junior competition. At most high schools, kids with this rating are good enough to earn a low position on the team or play JV.

UTR 2.5-4.0: Intermediate.

Players with this rating possess functional groundstrokes and serves but often lack a weapon to beat more advanced players. This level is usually enough to play varsity high school tennis and the low tier junior tournaments.

UTR 4.0-5.5: Semi-advanced.

Players with this rating have a functional set of skills but none strong enough break into higher tiers of competition. This level is typical for high school varsity, low to mid-tier junior tournaments, and adult league tennis.

UTR 5.5-7.0: Advanced

Players with this rating have a relatively complete set of skills and even a few legitimate weapons. They may compete in mid-tier junior tournaments or competitive adult leagues. Girls with this rating can compete in upper tier junior tournaments, lower division college programs, and competitive adult leagues.

UTR 7.0-8.5: Highly Advanced

Players with this rating have a relatively complete game and above average athleticism. They can play upper-tier junior tournaments and are usually the strongest players on competitive high school teams and may be able to walk on Division 3 college teams.

UTR 8.5-10: Exceptional Competitor

Players with this rating have a variety of weapons and a high degree of athleticism. They can play upper-tier junior tournaments, Division 2/3 college tennis, and in highly competitive adult leagues. Girls with this rating can compete at Division 1 colleges.

UTR 10-11.5: Elite Competitor

These players are strong enough to play national level tournaments and at some Division 1 colleges. Female players in the higher range of this rating are top 200 professionals.

UTR 11.5-13: Rising Professional/ D1 Competitor.

Players with this rating are strong enough to play Division 1 college tennis and lower levels of professional tennis. Female players in the middle range of this rating are top 50 in the world.

UTR 13-14.5: Challenger Level Professional.

Players with this rating are among the top 800 men in the world.

UTR 14.5-16: World Class Touring Pro.

Players with this rating are among the top 100 men in the world.

Although better than traditional ranking systems in some ways, there are hidden drawbacks to UTR.

Traditional ranking systems are essentially a game rather than a measurement of skill. Play enough tournaments and win enough rounds (including defaults and withdrawals), and your ranking goes up even if your skill level doesn’t improve. Someone with a healthy budget and resilient body can compete in more tournaments than a less fortunate player, which means you can hustle your way into a high ranking. With UTR on the other hand, having the health and resources to play often doesn’t impact your rating as much. As long as you play six matches in a calendar year against reasonably close competition, you’ll get a fairly reliable rating. Play more often, and your rating gets more accurate.

Despite these upsides, some players find ways to manipulate their rating. For instance, if a match starts badly against a lower rated opponent, some players will withdraw by claiming an injury before the score reaches more than 3-0. Doing this prevents your rating from going down. Alternatively, players can rest on the laurels of a big win that’s not reflective of their typical level. For example, if a level 6 beat a level 7, he/she would go up in rating. If they lost to a level 6 in the next round, it would undo the gains. Moreover, if the level 7 were to then beat a level 8, then the level 6’s rating would become further inflated.

Another issue is that UTR is not actually universal across age and gender. Most players agree that if a 14-year-old level 6 played a 30 year old level 6, the mature and seasoned adult would dominate. But these match-ups are very rare in official competitions. Similarly, women don’t often play against men. While the technical skill may be similar, the physical differences are substantial. Elite male players can serve faster, hit harder, and move better than the best female tennis players in the world. Consider that Iga Swiatek once possessed the highest ever female UTR - 13.1. But male players below that level routinely serve and return shots over 120 MPH. Men’s serves also kick significantly higher and men generate more topspin and angles with their groundstrokes because of their greater wrist strength. While Swiatek has exceptional groundstrokes and movement, it’s unlikely she could string together enough consecutive points to win a game against pace and spin unseen in women’s competition.

But this is a petty point. The real issue with UTR is how it affects the spirit of competition and the behavior of players that believe in the system. Specifically, there are many players that avoid opponents with lower ratings and seek out players with higher ratings. That’s because players can only gain UTR by beating better players while they might lose UTR by losing to players that are rated lower. But in tennis, there’s a universal understanding that slightly worse opponents are more dangerous than slightly better ones, and learning to defeat “worse” players is an important part of player development. Avoiding that challenge is insecure behavior and bad for the sport.

And then there’s “treeing.” This term has been used to describe players who are playing way above their ordinary level (i.e. like “playing out of a tree”), but junior players mainly use this phrase to describe playing recklessly against higher rated opponents. By going for shots that are highly risky and far outside their abilities, the goal is to artificially raise one’s level for a single match. This behavior is considered immature by most people — a kind of audacious desperation to bypass the honest hard work they’d normally need to win a match. And though this kind of behavior happens in tennis no matter what, the anecdotal evidence suggests that the advent of UTR has made treeing more frequent. Indeed, how exactly are players supposed react when they’re told their opponent is objectively and mathematically better?

In tennis, good players beat better players and lose to worse players. The game is very nuanced, and that’s a good thing. Using UTR, we might ask, how inferior does one need to be for the difference in level to have a noticeable impact on the quality of competition? The answer is probably about two full points. In other words, a 7 should sometimes beat an 8, and an 8 should sometimes beat a 9, but a 7 should never beat a 9. Unfortunately, many players give too much credence to the system and feel defeated when one point separates them from their opponents.

If there is a bottom line here, it’s that coaches and tournament organizers need to recognize the limitations of UTR, especially at lower levels. Generally, no one reaches a rating of 8 or up by fluke. But below that rating, things can be murky. When coaches use UTR as a gatekeeping tool for lower rated players (such as 2s and 3s), they may be looking past plenty of capable players whose ratings belie their skill since many such people know how to play but not how to win.