Teams

TIC Hinkle-Mabe

2025 OH OV FALL Combo Charleston · 2025 8.5 Women

9 players · average NTRP 4.50 / OHIO VALLEY

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-11-09vs YMCA GreenLost 02
L#1 DoublesMichelle Steele / Sharon Seidler vs Emily Thayer / Lisa Hughes2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesLisa Hunter / Lisa Hammonds vs JoMarie Bohn / Ella Peterson4-6, 1-6
2025-10-18vs YMCA GreenLost 03
L#1 DoublesMary Bulriss / Lisa Hunter vs Sydney Prince / Caroline Green4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesKelli Hinkle Mabe / Shannon Elliot vs Emily Thayer / Kristin Warner3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesCatherine Jarvis / Michelle Steele vs Ashlee Cooke / Kimberly Nelson4-6, 3-6
2025-10-11vs YMCA GreenLost 03
L#1 DoublesShannon Elliot / Melissa Williams vs Sydney Prince / Kristin Warner3-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKelli Hinkle Mabe / Shelby King vs Emily Thayer / Caroline Green3-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesSharon Seidler / Lisa Hunter vs Susan Arbogast / Lisa Hughes2-6, 2-6
2025-09-21vs YMCA GreenLost 03
L#1 DoublesMichelle Steele / Mary Bulriss vs Susan Arbogast / Ashlee Cooke4-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesCatherine Jarvis / Lisa Hammonds vs Sydney Prince / Ella Peterson4-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Braley / Melissa Williams vs JoMarie Bohn / Lisa Hughes6-7, 0-6
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings2 teams · 2025 8.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1YMCA Green40120167
2TIC Hinkle-Mabe0401224145

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 3.42 estimated across 4 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

Catherine Jarvis
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.54
Kelli Hinkle Mabe
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.46
Mary Bulriss
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.45
Nancy Braley
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.21
Sharon Seidler
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Lisa Hammonds
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Steele
published
Shannon Elliot
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Shelby King
published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Lisa Hammonds + Shelby King6556% games+9.2% vs expected
Catherine Jarvis + Mary Bulriss303 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

4.5
Catherine Jarvis
20W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kelli Hinkle Mabe
37W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.54
Mary Bulriss
9W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%61%38%
3.46
Nancy Braley
19W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.45
Sharon Seidler
13W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%6%94%
3.21
Lisa Hammonds
37W–27L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Michelle Steele
7W–9L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Shannon Elliot
16W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Shelby King
30W–20L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.