OBRA: OBRA Chat: Comment on proposed BAR cha...

steve truesdale-Digital DJ Ser

2006-02-04

We race because we like competition. If we didn't want to compete we would all be riding recumbents and doing the beer and doughnut diet. The BAR IS the competition. Every area or region has some sort of BAR in that it does attract people to race and to continue to race throughout the year, not just until nationals or state championships. When we didn't have it in So Cal the numbers were dismal at best after July. The BAR as silly and trivial as it seems to some, is very important to the overall benefit of everyone. Steve

Mark Magilner wrote: > How about cancelling the entire BAR?
>
> It will always be "unfair" to someone and Candi has enough to do
> already. I have not tried entering all that data, but I bet it is a
> pain. Anyway, I bet most of us do local amateur races for reasons
> other than ranking or BAR points.
>
>
> Mark Magilner
> HFV
>

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra

Steve Truesdale
Digital DJ Service
503-232-1704
http://www.digitaldjservice.com

Mark Magilner

2006-02-04

> How about cancelling the entire BAR?
>
> It will always be "unfair" to someone and Candi has enough to do
> already. I have not tried entering all that data, but I bet it is a
> pain. Anyway, I bet most of us do local amateur races for reasons
> other than ranking or BAR points.
>
>
> Mark Magilner
> HFV
>

Gary Cornilles

2006-02-04

Is reducing the amount of BAR points really going to stop you guys/gals in Eugene/Medford from attending your local races? Or, stop someone in Portland from attending?

If winning the BAR is your goal, how is sitting out a race because it is only going to award 1/2 points help you achieve your goal? Are you really going to get up in the morning and think to yourself; "I'm only going to get 11 points for third, I think I'll stay home."?

Most of us are competitive enough that even if there's only 4 or 5 other racers (or less), it's still a race and beats doing yardwork any day of the week.

John F. Wilson

2006-02-03

I agree that it seems unfair to award full points when only a few racers

show up, but if someone goes to the trouble to promote an event and secure a

date on the OBRA calendar shouldn't it be worth as much as any race in

Oregon (points wise)?

We don't want to artificially make "Portland" Races more important (that is

races that have the shortest distance to the masses). If people are really

that interested in BAR and we implement this rule will we see remote races

start struggling.

It's late in the season, there is a hot battle for BAR, but you suspect that

the race down in Eugene won't be well attended so even if your rival goes

he/she can't get enough points to overtake you. So you don't go. Is that

what we want ? I drive to Portland for a lot of Races but like having a few

in my back yard as well.

If Bar points are your interest then maybe you should go to more races !

Just sharing my thoughts !

John Wilson

EWEB Windpower

hogie-@yahoo.com

2006-02-02

If the BAR is changed then it should be called the Williamette Cup. Why

would anyone put on a race out side of Portland/Eugene and be part of

OBRA? Smaller races will suffer and OBRA will become what we left, the

USCF.

Brian L wrote:

A. Best All Round Rider Competition.

Points for the BAR will be weighted based on attendance. i.e. Races

with

10 or less riders will get .5 of full points. Races with 11-20 will

receive

.75 of full points. Races 100+ will receive 1.50%.

Since the BAR is a participatory award, shouldn't these incentives be

reversed? i.e. Wouldn't we want to reward people for going to the

smaller

races rather than the races that are full anyway? I have no problem

with

people getting easy BAR points at the smaller races, for perhaps that

extra

incentive helps those races survive.

The proposed bonuses seem more appropriate for something like the Oregon

Cup.

Just a thought,

Brian

Ron and Dorothy Strasser

2006-02-02

All who care,

As the winner of the cyclocross master bar it is very clear that it does not

always reflect the best rider/racer. I am not the best all 'round cross

racer. Truth is that winning in larger fields is a more accurate guage.

The new rule changes may help make it seem more fair. The only reason I won

the cross bar is that I competed in more races than most. One thing that

did level the field some was that the cross races (other than Crusade) had a

40 or 45+ cat that I raced in at the ripe old age of 57. All said and

done... I plan on racing in those events again next season no matter what

points are given. This I will do for the totally selfish reason that it is

so much fun and good for me. I guess that the most negative thing that I

see in the rule change is how it impacts the folks that race in the smaller

fields and cannot make it to the larger races in the metro area because of

"life". Some of those folks might have used the bar as a motivator. If

they are so motivated, I guess they can try to make some of the bigger races

in the future.

Personally I think the whole Lance Armstrong (winner of 7 tdfs) is an

amazing personal story, but really does not reflect the reality of cycle

racing. It does fit into the America "has to win" persona. What if Lance

would have finished 2nd or 3rd all those years? From my view he would have

still been a champion. Society is so caught up on WINNING that it loses the

real champions... those that compete! When I finish behind Zimbleman,

Schwyhart, Leet, Schreck, Spir, Montgomery, Romasco, Nurre, Lacey or some

others...I am not a loser in my mind.

I say lets just move on to the next race. If it is the first race of the

season, or the championship, it is still just a race on a specific day and

each of us will do the best we can on that day...rain or shine. =) ron

----- Original Message -----

From: "Heather VanValkenburg" <hvan-@msn.com>

To: <lis-@comcast.net>; <ob-@topica.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 6:38 AM

Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] Comment on proposed BAR changes

Brian-

The idea is to award folks for doing well in larger fields. For example,

most local women's races have small fields of 6-10, so merely showing up,

and trailing in 20 minutes after the winners have finished (in my case

many times) can earn you BAR points. On the other hand, a stage race field

may have closer to 40-60 women, and the stakes are the same. The fields

are even smaller for track, time trial, mountain bike (I think), and most

criteriums. As someone who doesn't go uphill very quickly (most of OBRA

can tell you that about me and my feelings about climbing), I race in very

small fields on the track and most criteriums. Heck, I did my first and

only cross race this year to take advantage of the current system.

I have gotten used to the system that is unfair for others. Look at the

top 5 women in the overall BAR- mostly track riders. Kori's just a great

non- track racer, who had to attend almost every cross race to keep her

position. Based on the old formula, I can win one PIR a month (gets me top

5 in overall monthly series and counts as one road race), do the "food"

races (pies, bananas, and cake) do one time trial a season (top 3 based on

the average turnout of 1-5), and just show up at the track for a few

races, and I finish well in the overall BAR. (oh yea, let's not forget the

blue lake cross.)

Ask the cat 3 guy that does almost all local races, yet finishes 11th most

of the time. He will be very happy with the new system. I agree the new

system will hurt my overall standings, but it's a lot more fair to the

women who do very well in a few select stage races and deserve the

recognition.

-Heather VanValkenburg

----Original Message Follows----

From: Brian L <lis-@comcast.net>

Reply-To: lis-@comcast.net

To: ob-@topica.com

Subject: [OBRA Chat] Comment on proposed BAR changes

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:45:02 -0800

A. Best All Round Rider Competition.

Points for the BAR will be weighted based on attendance. i.e. Races with

10 or less riders will get .5 of full points. Races with 11-20 will

receive

.75 of full points. Races 100+ will receive 1.50%.

Since the BAR is a participatory award, shouldn't these incentives be

reversed? i.e. Wouldn't we want to reward people for going to the smaller

races rather than the races that are full anyway? I have no problem with

people getting easy BAR points at the smaller races, for perhaps that

extra

incentive helps those races survive.

The proposed bonuses seem more appropriate for something like the Oregon

Cup.

Just a thought,

Brian

To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.

To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org

To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com

_________________________________________________________________

Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.

To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org

To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com

Heather VanValkenburg, Fdg.

2006-02-02

Brian-

The idea is to award folks for doing well in larger fields. For example,

most local women's races have small fields of 6-10, so merely showing up,

and trailing in 20 minutes after the winners have finished (in my case many

times) can earn you BAR points. On the other hand, a stage race field may

have closer to 40-60 women, and the stakes are the same. The fields are even

smaller for track, time trial, mountain bike (I think), and most criteriums.

As someone who doesn't go uphill very quickly (most of OBRA can tell you

that about me and my feelings about climbing), I race in very small fields

on the track and most criteriums. Heck, I did my first and only cross race

this year to take advantage of the current system.

I have gotten used to the system that is unfair for others. Look at the top

5 women in the overall BAR- mostly track riders. Kori's just a great non-

track racer, who had to attend almost every cross race to keep her position.

Based on the old formula, I can win one PIR a month (gets me top 5 in

overall monthly series and counts as one road race), do the "food" races

(pies, bananas, and cake) do one time trial a season (top 3 based on the

average turnout of 1-5), and just show up at the track for a few races, and

I finish well in the overall BAR. (oh yea, let's not forget the blue lake

cross.)

Ask the cat 3 guy that does almost all local races, yet finishes 11th most

of the time. He will be very happy with the new system. I agree the new

system will hurt my overall standings, but it's a lot more fair to the women

who do very well in a few select stage races and deserve the recognition.

-Heather VanValkenburg

----Original Message Follows----

From: Brian L <lis-@comcast.net>

Reply-To: lis-@comcast.net

To: ob-@topica.com

Subject: [OBRA Chat] Comment on proposed BAR changes

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:45:02 -0800

A. Best All Round Rider Competition.

Points for the BAR will be weighted based on attendance. i.e. Races with

10 or less riders will get .5 of full points. Races with 11-20 will receive

.75 of full points. Races 100+ will receive 1.50%.

Since the BAR is a participatory award, shouldn't these incentives be

reversed? i.e. Wouldn't we want to reward people for going to the smaller

races rather than the races that are full anyway? I have no problem with

people getting easy BAR points at the smaller races, for perhaps that extra

incentive helps those races survive.

The proposed bonuses seem more appropriate for something like the Oregon

Cup.

Just a thought,

Brian

To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.

To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org

To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com

_________________________________________________________________

Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Luciano bailey

2006-02-02

The reward is riders get points at all when other riders don't show this is

totally fair. many times the bar is won by attendance not performance.

Planning the years racing is challenging trying to figure out a way to get

my son to enough raves so his bar placement will better reflect his

abilities. This also happens to really help the team bar when local teams do

not score at southern races and vis-versa.

From: Brian L <lis-@comcast.net>

Reply-To: lis-@comcast.net

To: ob-@topica.com

Subject: [OBRA Chat] Comment on proposed BAR changes

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:45:02 -0800

A. Best All Round Rider Competition.

Points for the BAR will be weighted based on attendance. i.e. Races with

10 or less riders will get .5 of full points. Races with 11-20 will receive

.75 of full points. Races 100+ will receive 1.50%.

Since the BAR is a participatory award, shouldn't these incentives be

reversed? i.e. Wouldn't we want to reward people for going to the smaller

races rather than the races that are full anyway? I have no problem with

people getting easy BAR points at the smaller races, for perhaps that extra

incentive helps those races survive.

The proposed bonuses seem more appropriate for something like the Oregon

Cup.

Just a thought,

Brian

To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.

To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org

To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com

_________________________________________________________________

Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

RCJoh-@attglobal.net

2006-02-02

Interesting point. I've thought about it a little and here's what I

think.

As the name "Best All round Rider Competition" suggests the ranking is

a measure of competitiveness. I think the proposed rule change is a

reasonable attempt to make the ranking more accurately reflect the

level of competitiveness. As a side note here I might also suggest that

changing the name to "Best All Round RACER" might also more accurately

reflect the increased competitive emphasis of this proposed rule

change. Consider that the term "rider" suggests simple participation in

events.

Back the Brians comment, it is possible that the change may in fact

have unintended side effects. Sure, someone who is really concerned

with the BAR might be disinclined to attend smaller events. However,

I'd hope the opposite would be true. Perhaps that same person might

encourage a few of their friends (in this case hand selected to be

people said person can beat) to attend the event and thus receive full

BAR points. Either way I think the effect will be minimal and be

difficult to even quantify.

In reality the BAR is just bragging rights. If there was something

significant at stake (big prize money or the like) I could see people

being more calculated about it. But I don't believe most the majority

of competitors give it that much thought.

Whether the rule change is good or bad basically comes down to what you

believe the BAR should be: a competitive ranking or a participatory

one.

Rick

Brian L wrote:

<blockquote cite="mid1172883489-1463-@boing.topica.com"

type="cite">

Message



A. Best All Round Rider Competition.

Points for the

BAR will be weighted based on attendance. i.e. Races with 10 or

less riders will get .5 of full points. Races with 11-20 will receive

.75 of

full points. Races 100+ will receive 1.50%.



Since the BAR is a

participatory award, shouldn’t

these incentives be reversed? i.e. Wouldn’t we want to reward

people for going to the smaller races rather than the races that are

full

anyway? I have no problem with people getting easy BAR points at the

smaller races, for perhaps that extra incentive helps those races

survive.



The proposed bonuses seem

more appropriate for something

like the Oregon Cup.



Just a thought,

Brian

To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.

To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org

To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com

Brian L

2006-02-01

A. Best All Round Rider Competition.

Points for the BAR will be weighted based on attendance. i.e. Races with

10 or less riders will get .5 of full points. Races with 11-20 will receive

.75 of full points. Races 100+ will receive 1.50%.

Since the BAR is a participatory award, shouldn't these incentives be

reversed? i.e. Wouldn't we want to reward people for going to the smaller

races rather than the races that are full anyway? I have no problem with

people getting easy BAR points at the smaller races, for perhaps that extra

incentive helps those races survive.

The proposed bonuses seem more appropriate for something like the Oregon

Cup.

Just a thought,

Brian