Michael Hoyt
Doesn't it seem thought that if you are a 35 year old in the hunt for
the BAR title and your main competition is a 40 year old that the older
person has an advantage? He will be eligible to ride in races that the
35 year old won't. The only reason this has any relevance is in relation
to a season long race title, not individual events per se.
M
On Thursday, January 1, 1998, at 12:39 AM, Mike.M-@obra.org wrote:
I have to disagree with this. It makes sense at some races for Masters
to
be defined differently than it is at other races. For example, Monday
PIR
works well for Masters defined as 30+. For the AVC Masters defined as
35+
or 40+ works better. It would be a mistake for us to say to race
organizers
that they have to run races of specifically defined age groups or not at
all. It is important to recognize the difference between deciding which
OBRA Championship races should be held and deciding what should be done
at
all races.
Mike Murray
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hoyt <mg.h-@charter.net>
To: ob-@topica.com <ob-@topica.com>
Date: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:48 PM
Subject: [OBRA Chat] Rules changes
I'd like to see a consistent definition of Masters age in all races. It
seems silly to have it as 35+ in some and 40+ in others. How can one
compete for the BAR if they aren't eligible to ride in some of the
races? It also seems that having Masters age cuts at 5 year intervals
in
State events dilutes the significance of a win. Why not simplify it to
Seniors, Masters and 50+ and leave it at that? For that matter, who
decided to name the Seniors, Seniors? What a mistake. Where will this
stop <g>.
M
To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.
To respond to the list manager send to ob-@teleport.com
To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com
To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.
To respond to the list manager send to ob-@teleport.com
To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com