The GR system of tennis rating is different from the rating system the USTA uses to determine a level playing field in USTA competitions.

Elements of the Golden Racquets System

Our rating system is an ongoing, multipart process.

(1) The first element is new member rating.  Applicants for membership complete is a self-evaluation questionnaire that provides general information to enhance the rating system.  The Rating Committee Chair uses the questionnaire to select a team of current GR players to rate the potential new member.  The team uses on-court playing sessions to determine a rating.

(2) The second element of the rating system is a triennial rating review.  Every GR member is subject to a mandatory rating review every three years which may result in an upgrade, a downgrade, or retention of the reviewed player’s current rating. The Rating Committee, Venue Captains, and other designated members appointed by the Rating Committee Chair vote on the members subject to triennial review who are nominated for a potential rating change. A member’s rating can be changed with a simple majority vote if a minimum of five votes have been cast.

(3) The third element of the rating system is the ongoing observation and monitoring of play by the player’s respective Venue Captain(s). Captains can recommend any player at their venue for an upgrade or a downgrade in rating. Captains may consult other players on the venue roster before making the recommendation to the Rating Committee Chair.  The Rating Committee Chair with the assistance of other committee members will make a decision based on playing experience or observation of the member’s skill.

(4) The final element of the rating system is the right of every player to ask for a rating change outside the triennial review, a right that can be invoked only once in two calendar years. Players may ask their Venue Captains for reconsideration of their rating.  The Venue Captain may consult with other venue players before making a recommendation to the Rating Committee chair.  Before ruling on the recommendation, the chair will conduct a review that may include on-court observation of the player’s skills.

In most instances a rating change will be limited to one skill level, e.g., from 3.7 up to 3.8, or from 3.9 down to 3.8. However, if a more noticeable increase or decrease of skill has been observed, a rating change of two skill levels can be brought before the Rating Committee for a vote.   Players may challenge the results of their 3-year review and/or a Venue Captain’s recommendation for a rating change. Their appeal is reviewed by the Rating Committee Chair, with the player offered the option of either an on-court assessment or tracking the percentage of games won over a specified period of time at the player’s venue(s) to confirm level of play and accuracy of rating.  The result of any rating appeal is final.