Categories vs. Age

The debate rages on about too many categories. Everyone has their opinion, and generally they are self-serving. It boils down to what motivates the average cyclist. For most, it is performing well, or at least improving. There are very few cyclists who will continue to race frequently if they are usually dropped in races.

There is no question that field sizes are down this year, and it's not just due to overcategorization. There are economic factors at work too. It's easy to point at a small field from a particular race, and suggest combining or eliminating that field.

A cyclists performance is not simply a product of training. You also have to consider natural talent, mental toughness, and tactical ability. Koeneman is a perfect example. He was in the hospital 6 weeks ago with a collapsed lung, and he is already back to impactful racing with the 1,2's. Some riders can train as much as they want, but are unable to perform beyond the Cat 4 ranks.

Masters racing has been around forever, and is here to stay. The question is in what form. Get rid of the Masters 1,2? Where do you think they will race then? Same question for Masters 3,4 or even Masters 50+? Bottom line. Don't assume that if you eliminate a field, those riders will race up in category. They may downgrade, or even stop racing.

Here is a suggestion to limit races to 6 separate fields:
Cat 1/2/3 - Use for Cat 1/2 ROY
All Masters - Score current ROY categories separate
Cat 3/4 - Use for Cat 3 ROY
Cat 4/5 - Use for Cat 4 ROY
Women - Score current ROY categories separate
Juniors - Score current ROY categories separate

My hunch is that doing this would make for larger fields, but decrease overall participation in a race. It would also probably make it easier on the promoter and officials.