Erik
I seem to recall this conversation here on the list not too long ago.
Something about the absurdity of the average X-C course length here in
Oregon and the effect it might be having on participation in summer
events, racers being burned out on Epic courses before things even
warm up, etc.
The word "Epic" of course is used because it's a
lot easier to say than "course that's guaranteed to damage you, your
bike, and your motivation - if you can finish".
Any
psychologist will tell you that there are three main criteria that
shape human behavior: fear, pain, and ambition. Right now Oregon
mountainbiking is mainly using pain. The miserable experience that is
the typical X-C race in this state is very likely to drive away all but
the most ambitious riders. Hard terrain is one thing, but we give
people a painful experience and there is little to feed their ambition.
Maybe
mountainbiking needs to finally take some cues from the running
community. Do you know what's really nice about 10k runs? Marathons?
Half-Marathons? THEY'RE ALWAYS THE SAME DISTANCE.
Runners
impress me. It's a very different attitude. You'll never hear a
runner complain that they just paid $20-30 to run a measly 10
kilometers. They show up to compete at a set distance for what it is. Here's the
important part: this allows all participants to compare this week's 10k
time to last week's 10k time. This is infinitely smart compared to
Mountainbike promotion. People keep showing up when they can see
measurable improvement because they feel good about doing better than
before. And yes, if you have your thinking caps on, this is the essence of ambition.
This concept of fixed distances extends
to every endurance sport that comes to mind: Running, Triathlon, XC
skiing, swimming . . . Why should Mountainbiking be any different?
Would it really be a problem to have race distances set at 20, 30, and
a "Marathon" distance of 50 miles? Or 20k, 40k, and 100k, whatever works. Does anybody else wonder if
consistency might be a better route than simply driving away everyone
who's not up to a 4-5 hour suffer fest?
From: hinke@ashlandhome.net
To: obra@list.obra.org
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:23:27 -0700
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Falls City Firecracker: great event, but where are the women???
I
agree that racing is hard. But it's also supposed to be fun, right?
I mean, not too many of us make our living racing. Most of us just enjoy
hanging out with like-minded people doing something fun.
I'm
starting to get prepared for the Jedi state championship XC race coming up and
was looking at last years results to try to gauge how much time it'll take
me. Most of the men in my category took between 3-4.5 hours to do the Jedi
race last year. Ouch! I'd better train some
more.
I also
noticed there were only 5 women who did the race. Their times for
the pro/expert women were off the charts and very unreasonable for just about
any "normal" mountain bike race. The pro woman took 4h14m to complete the
course, while the expert woman took just under 5 hours! That's right: 5
hours. (Better start training more, eh?) How many people want to
race that long or can race that long (ignoring all of the 12 hour and 24 hour
racers out there)? That's a long time to race. I'm not sure I'd come
back to a race if it was that long. I also understand that it's a tough
decision for the promoters. If they make the course too short or easy,
people will complain. If they make it too long people will complain.
Finding that sweet spot is a challenge.
Anyway, I love the Jedi.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
[mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org]On Behalf Of Melissa
Boyd
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:59 PM
To: sue
butler
Cc: obra
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Falls City
Firecracker: great event,but where are the women???
It does seem like women are avoiding mountain bike races, and some of the
responses I heard said that it is "too hard".
Races are supposed to be hard! But, some promoters seem to take
great glee in making them as hard as possible. That may be discouraging
some of the women who are just getting started. For instance, if half the
riders in a category find a long section of singletrack climb (or
descent) unrideable and have to push their bikes, is that "too hard" for that
category? What if it's 80%, or 100% that have to walk? Is that getting
excessive? If the beginner women find they are spending more time pushing
their bikes than riding them, it may be hard to get them to come back and try
again. And yet, that may be just the Best Course Ever for the Expert riders
and the strong guys.
Most races have beginner's distances that are shorter than the Sport and
Expert races. Although it would be harder for the organizers, they might
get more novices to give it a try if the beginner's course
was technically easier and not just shorter.
Melissa
On 6/2/08, sue
butler
wrote:
I
agree that this was a great race and a lot of fun. When do you get to race
on almost ALL singletrack?
I also agree that it was extremely
disappointing to have only 4 women line up for the afternoon session of
racing. I know the Silverton road race took a few 'regulars' out of the
pack, but I continue to wonder why other women don't like to race their
mtb's? It is great fun, great people and a great workout! Stay tuned for
upcoming mtb clinics that will be at the short track races, which start
later this month. Maybe this will help get more women out there racing their
mountain bikes. I think all the men that were there need to work on one
woman each to get them there. Because I know when you have no one to race,
sometimes then you don't go and the cycle continues... I was just
glad to be home and able to race a new
venue!!!
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing
list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe:
obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
_________________________________________________________________
Make every e-mail and IM count. Join the im Initiative from Microsoft.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ MakeCount