This will be one of my rare commentaries, regarding categories.
Most peoples opinions about categories center around the specific category in which they normally compete. The current 14 ROY categories have been selected based on rider feedback, and what can reasonably be taken on by promoters. Combining smaller fields is a fact of life, when there are this many categories, but no one wants their category combined with another. I commend the promoters that can accommodate everyone.
Whenever fields need to be combined, the obvious choice seems to be combine like abilities. However, there is no perfect solution, since combining the fields will likely change the dynamics of the race compared to how it might play out if the fields were separate.
How do we strike a balance? There doesn't seem to be a simple answer. The old A/B/C format is easier on promoters, but less attractive to racers. I believe the success of cycling, as small as the sport is, is based on the fact that there is a category system in place to allow riders to develop. I remember 10 years ago, when there were not many opportunities for women to race by themselves, and there were only a handful that raced. Slowly, the opportunities have increased, and women's racing in MN is now very healthy. I can tell you that Jordan would not have gotten involved in cycling if the A/B/C system was in place.
Keep in mind that not all racers are created equal. Some riders can train relatively little and upgrade quickly, where others may train a lot, and improve very little. This is exacerbated by the fact that the style of racing changes as you move up the ranks. Strong, up and coming Cat 4's enjoy racing with the Cat 3's. Career Cat 4's, not so much.
My point is 14 fields seems a little excessive, but 3 definitely seems too few. The latest trend in MN is for the officials to score just about everyone anyway, so I think combining "similar ability" small fields is reasonable to make promoters lives easier.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
14 is excessive and it's because we have "age" categories mixed with skill categories. We don't need 2 35+ fields, in fact I would get rid of 35+ all together. the 2 age categories should be 45+ and 55+...
Skibby you crack me up.
I agree that 14 are too many. I would look to always allow the Cat 5/Juniors to be combined, the Cat 3/4 combined and the Cat 1/2 to be combined. I don't recommend combining the Cat 4 and Cat 5 fields, as the levels on bike skills is pretty dramatic. I also agree that we should not have more than one age category and I would force it to be all categories. So if we have a 35+ category cat 5 - 1 race together.
Keep in mind the Masters categories are the strongest growing fields in the US, particularly M3/4/5's.
Regarding bike handling skills, some of it is learned, but much of it is natural ability. There are plenty of experienced riders who are still unpredictable on their bike. The best way to find out if you are one of them is to ask the people you race against, and hope they are honest.
Regarding handling skills:
Pro-prio-ception = in layman's terms "knowing where your body is in space."
Born or bought? 90% of it is "born." You can train it, but as Jimmer said, "you got it or you dont."
Yep, 14 is too many, but like Jimmer said, the biggest fields are those with the tightest qualifications (M 35+ 3/4).
I tried to combine some fields last year but got significant push back on combining 3s n 4s in both mens and womens fields. I also tried to drop some fields (junior girls < 15, etc.) but people didn't like that either.
Hmmm.
Large fields attract lots of riders, even if out of skill level. Racing in MN fell apart when fields fell to 15 riders (early 90's) and you can't argue with the success of wisport. Go over seas with 300 rider fields. You end up in your level anyway. Can't field 10 riders, shouldn't be a race anyway. What do you loose, 5 riders, so what. The current system isn't attracting anyone. You loose a few either way.
It is easy, combine Masters 35+ open with 1/2s.
Masters 35+ 3s should be with mens 3s
Masters 35+ 4s should be with mens 4s
This solution will make everyone happy. :)
14 is way excessive, but that is why I don't promote races.
Thanks to those that do.
I totally agree w/Anonymous. Remember Mora Road Race. Everyone started together and the field was huge if I remember correctly.
I disagree with the difference between 4's and 5's. There are many 5's who are strong tri guys or mtb bikers. Many of these races which they have been for the past few years had equal number of people winning of 4's and 5's. I think the separation to a 3 is more significant as your distance then changes and you have to have results to upgrade. I could care less about age separations, but category like abilities, I think it was best when it was 1/2 then 3's, and then 4/5.
Post a Comment