OBRA: OBRA Chat: Cyclocross categories

Tim Schauer

2006-08-30

One of the things that has made Cyclocross so popular here in OBRA is
the ability to balance the field sizes through some self selection. As a
38 year old Cat B Cross, Cat 3 road, sport MTB, I'm probably one of the
HERD of guys in the middle of either the new system or our current
system. As our field sizes have grown, nearing 80 or 100 I'd rather race
up in a smaller field of 50, then a mob field of 90. That is basically
why I moved up to Cat B, from the Cat C's. Not because I had scored some
dominating results in the Cat C's. I don't think I would have qualified
for an upgrade on results. The C's got too big, and I was already a Cat
3 on the road, so I opted for the move up to Cat B.

My fear with the new system, is that without some flexibility in self
selection the lower fields may max out until enough people can pick up
some points to upgrade, and this could take time, with big fields top
placing are significantly impacted by the ever earlier line up. This may
erode the flow of new participants. Why come out to race if you have to
walk slowly through the first single track sections or first hole shot
section because the field is so big. That makes for no fun, and likely
declining turnout over time.

-Tim Schauer

> USA Cycling is adopting a tiered cyclocross category system. I had
> thought that it would be a good time to change ours to match theirs.
> The note that I received from them is below. They are not allowing any

> self selection and requiring all rides to start at the bottom. While
> we have reciprocity with them for the road/mtn bike categories, I fear

> that their system will not work here in Oregon. Thoughts?
> Candi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrell, Shawn [mailto:sfarrell@usacycling.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:24 AM
> To: cmurray@obra.org
> Subject: RE: Cyclocross
>
> Cat 1 CX = Cat 1 road and pro MTB
> Cat 2 CX = Cat 2 road and semi-pro MTB Cat 3 CX = Cat 3 road and
> expert MTB Cat 4 CX = Cat 4 or 5 road, and beginner or sport MTB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Candi Murray [mailto:cmurray@obra.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:15 AM
> To: Farrell, Shawn
> Subject: Cyclocross
>
> Shawn
> Do you have any documentation on what the new cyclocross categories
> will be and how you plan on translating them from either road or mtn
> bike categories?
> Candi Murray
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

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

J.Michael Manning

2005-12-01

I tend to agree with you, as I think it is important to follow

established procedures where it may dictate one's ability to compete at

a higher level...but if I look at it a little closer and from the

perspective of the average cyclocross racer (these guys are generally

not quite as serious as roadies...just one explanation for the

extraordinary numbers), There is really not a problem with the current

system in place. Keeping the current system allows the thrill seekers to

continue to pursue their favorite escape while allowing those hardcore

cyclocross madmen to challenge themselves against the best. The guys who

are truly capable and concerned about competing on a national or

international level will make certain their classification properly

reflects their ability to compete on that level. Otherwise it seems to

be a moot point. I think that the most important thing is that our

current situation encourages greater participation, and isn't that what

everybody wants.

J.Michael Manning

Jerald Powell wrote:

--Apple-Mail-12-544447053

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset=US-ASCII;

format=flowed

Mike, and OBRA... I haven't raced 'cross in a number of years and have

watched it grow from the days when the only real crosser in Oregon was

a guy from the U of O by the name of Malone. OK, the USCF is

increasingly marginalizing itself and it looks like the regional

associations may be in a position to challenge USCF for dominance in

the American racing scene. However, USCF is the UCI and IOC official

US Sanctioning body for cycling and compatibility with them is

essential if we expect to compete in the world. Should we collectively

to not compete in the world, we ought to cease calling these events

races and just go out and have fun in the mud.

As far as development of racers is concerned... It seems to me that

promoting races that provide the opportunity for new riders to advance

(and old ones to prey on the unwary) is up to the race organizer, and a

different issue than whether to adopt USCF style categories.

Vis-a-vis the "sandbagging" problem, how about a rule that allow self

selecting "up" in difficulty but discourages selecting "down" (i.e.

sandbagging). Such a rule need not be incompatible with a category

system.

Just my two cents...

Jerry

On Nov 29, 2005, at 7:23 PM, mike.m-@obra.org wrote:

Currently OBRA categorizes riders for cyclocross in three groups; A, B

and

C. These are self selected categories.

USCF is going to start to categorize riders for cyclocross into

categories 1

through 4.

Is there interest in maintaining reciprocity between OBRA and USCF

categories for cyclocross similar to what we currently do for road and

track

categorization? If we do this it will require some negotiation with

USAC.

It will also likely require that we swallow their system whole; i.e.

change

the categories to 1 through 4, have criteria for categorization rather

than

have it be self selected, etc.

Let us know what you think.

Mike Murray

Jerry Powell

USAC Elite Coach

1926 SW Madison Street

Portland, OR 97205

503 222 7173

503 799 7823

jpow-@spiritone.com

--Apple-Mail-12-544447053

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Content-Type: text/enriched;

charset=US-ASCII

Mike, and OBRA... I haven't raced 'cross in a number of years and have

watched it grow from the days when the only real crosser in Oregon was

a guy from the U of O by the name of Malone. OK, the USCF is

increasingly marginalizing itself and it looks like the regional

associations may be in a position to challenge USCF for dominance in

the American racing scene. However, USCF is the UCI and IOC official

US Sanctioning body for cycling and compatibility with them is

essential if we expect to compete in the world. Should we collectively

to not compete in the world, we ought to cease calling these events

races and just go out and have fun in the mud.

As far as development of racers is concerned... It seems to me that

promoting races that provide the opportunity for new riders to advance

(and old ones to prey on the unwary) is up to the race organizer, and

a different issue than whether to adopt USCF style categories.

Vis-a-vis the "sandbagging" problem, how about a rule that allow self

selecting "up" in difficulty but discourages selecting "down" (i.e.

sandbagging). Such a rule need not be incompatible with a category

system.

Just my two cents...

Jerry

On Nov 29, 2005, at 7:23 PM, mike.m-@obra.org wrote:

<excerpt>Currently OBRA categorizes riders for cyclocross in three

groups; A, B and

C. These are self selected categories.

USCF is going to start to categorize riders for cyclocross into

categories 1

through 4.

Is there interest in maintaining reciprocity between OBRA and USCF

categories for cyclocross similar to what we currently do for road and

track

categorization? If we do this it will require some negotiation with

USAC.

It will also likely require that we swallow their system whole; i.e.

change

the categories to 1 through 4, have criteria for categorization rather

than

have it be self selected, etc.

Let us know what you think.

Mike Murray

</excerpt><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>Jerry Powell

<italic><x-tad-smaller>USAC Elite Coach

</x-tad-smaller></italic>1926 SW Madison Street

Portland, OR 97205

503 222 7173

503 799 7823

jpow-@spiritone.com</fontfamily>

--Apple-Mail-12-544447053--

Technology is the future.

Luciano bailey

2005-12-01

Yes indeed we are the hub for cross let the rest follow our lead.

From: Doug Evans <Dou-@sprbrk.com>

Reply-To: Dou-@sprbrk.com

To: impu-@yahoo.com, terry.-@agedwards.com, ob-@topica.com,

mike.m-@obra.org

Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] Cyclocross categories

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:02:07 -0800

I agree. Why complicate things? It would appear that Oregon has the right

formula for CX.

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

From: Jonathan C. Puskas [mailto:impu-@yahoo.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:00 AM

To: terry.-@agedwards.com; ob-@topica.com; mike.m-@obra.org

Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] Cyclocross categories

As one who aspired, but alas failed, to win the Golden

Sandbagger category...I must say please don't.

In all seriousness, I think the self-selection is one

element of CCX which makes it attractive to such a

large base. It's really only sandbagging if one has

the combination of skills, experience, and

fitness/training completed to race in a higher

category. Since CCX is a season in itself for some

and an off-season for others, I don't think we need to

heavily regulate things.

Besides, Brad, Brian and the Cross Crusade Crew do a

great job of publicly humiliating those they deem

deserving. When it's all said and done, peer pressure

is the greatest tool and will be far more effective

than copying someone else's system.

Cheers,

Jonathan "I have a pit bike in the C's" Puskas

Half Fast Velo;

Co-Conspirator

--- Terry Keele <terry.-@agedwards.com> wrote:

no benefit comes to mind, why bother?

mike.m-@obra.org wrote:

Currently OBRA categorizes riders for cyclocross

in three groups; A, B

and

C. These are self selected categories.

USCF is going to start to categorize riders for

cyclocross into

categories 1

through 4.

Is there interest in maintaining reciprocity

between OBRA and USCF

categories for cyclocross similar to what we

currently do for road and

track

categorization? If we do this it will require

some negotiation with

USAC.

It will also likely require that we swallow their

system whole; i.e.

change

the categories to 1 through 4, have criteria for

categorization rather

than

have it be self selected, etc.

Let us know what you think.

Mike Murray

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

Jonathan C. Puskas

159 Fifth Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

impu-@yahoo.com

"If you're gonna charge...charge hard!"

__________________________________

Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!

http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential

information intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s) and

contains confidential and/or privileged information belonging to

Springbrook Software, Inc. or its customers or partners. Any unauthorized

review, use, copying, disclosure or distribution of this message is

strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient of this message,

please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all soft and hard

copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you.

Springbrook Software, Inc.

Visit us at www.springbrooksoftware.com

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/

cmur-@obra.org

2005-12-01

OBRA has complete reciprocity with USAC on upgrades and categories for the

road/track, I do not see that changing for cyclocross at all.

Candi

Ps I just got a call from USAC asking about Ryan Trebon's category as he has

applied for an upgrade and they want to coordinate it with OBRA

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

From: Brooke Hoyer [mailto:pdx_-@hotmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:46 AM

To: ob-@topica.com

Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] Cyclocross categories

There isn't quite a 1-to-1 mapping. The Cross Crusade is the only major

series in the country to offer a Beginner category. Everywhere else, 'C'

means beginner. Personally, I think having a Beginner cat is a great idea.

If OBRA were to adopt the USCF 1-4 ranking, I would propose that we also

offer a Cat 5 cyclocross category which corresponds to the Beginner cat.

Promoters can still run 4/5 races which would correspond to the traditional

'C' race. The cross Cat 5 could have similar upgrade rules as road Cat 5.

That way there would be a fast track out of Cat 5 that doesn't require

placing highly in a bunch of races.

I also understand that the initial USCF rankings start everyone as Cat 4 but

upgrades are supposed to be granted pretty liberally. In other words, you

can self select your initial cat.

I don't think the debate should be about which classification system is

better. In reality, they are equally good (like Celsius vs. Fahrenheit). The

debate should be about whether OBRA wants to maintain reciprocity with USCF

in regard to cyclocross classifications. I'm with the 'ayes.'

Brooke Hoyer

From: Erik Voldengen <eri-@fusium.com>

Reply-To: eri-@fusium.com

To: ob-@topica.com

Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] Cyclocross categories

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:31:07 -0800

Would this be a big departure from what we're currently doing? We have

four

categories now (A,B,C,Beginner). It seems to me this would be easily

translated to 1-2-3-4.

Also, don't we kind of already map road categories to cross?

From crosscrusade.com:

Category A=OBRA and/or USCF categories 1,2, NORBA Expert and anyone else

who

chooses to race at this level

Category B=OBRA and/or USCF category 3, NORBA Sport

Category C=OBRA and/or USCF categories 4&5, NORBA Beginner (Riders at this

level may choose to race in a higher category.)

I didn't think it was completely self selected.

-Erik

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

Jerald Powell

2005-12-01

--Apple-Mail-12-544447053

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset=US-ASCII;

format=flowed

Mike, and OBRA... I haven't raced 'cross in a number of years and have

watched it grow from the days when the only real crosser in Oregon was

a guy from the U of O by the name of Malone. OK, the USCF is

increasingly marginalizing itself and it looks like the regional

associations may be in a position to challenge USCF for dominance in

the American racing scene. However, USCF is the UCI and IOC official

US Sanctioning body for cycling and compatibility with them is

essential if we expect to compete in the world. Should we collectively

to not compete in the world, we ought to cease calling these events

races and just go out and have fun in the mud.

As far as development of racers is concerned... It seems to me that

promoting races that provide the opportunity for new riders to advance

(and old ones to prey on the unwary) is up to the race organizer, and a

different issue than whether to adopt USCF style categories.

Vis-a-vis the "sandbagging" problem, how about a rule that allow self

selecting "up" in difficulty but discourages selecting "down" (i.e.

sandbagging). Such a rule need not be incompatible with a category

system.

Just my two cents...

Jerry

On Nov 29, 2005, at 7:23 PM, mike.m-@obra.org wrote:

Currently OBRA categorizes riders for cyclocross in three groups; A, B

and

C. These are self selected categories.

USCF is going to start to categorize riders for cyclocross into

categories 1

through 4.

Is there interest in maintaining reciprocity between OBRA and USCF

categories for cyclocross similar to what we currently do for road and

track

categorization? If we do this it will require some negotiation with

USAC.

It will also likely require that we swallow their system whole; i.e.

change

the categories to 1 through 4, have criteria for categorization rather

than

have it be self selected, etc.

Let us know what you think.

Mike Murray

Jerry Powell

USAC Elite Coach

1926 SW Madison Street

Portland, OR 97205

503 222 7173

503 799 7823

jpow-@spiritone.com

--Apple-Mail-12-544447053

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Content-Type: text/enriched;

charset=US-ASCII

Mike, and OBRA... I haven't raced 'cross in a number of years and have

watched it grow from the days when the only real crosser in Oregon was

a guy from the U of O by the name of Malone. OK, the USCF is

increasingly marginalizing itself and it looks like the regional

associations may be in a position to challenge USCF for dominance in

the American racing scene. However, USCF is the UCI and IOC official

US Sanctioning body for cycling and compatibility with them is

essential if we expect to compete in the world. Should we collectively

to not compete in the world, we ought to cease calling these events

races and just go out and have fun in the mud.

As far as development of racers is concerned... It seems to me that

promoting races that provide the opportunity for new riders to advance

(and old ones to prey on the unwary) is up to the race organizer, and

a different issue than whether to adopt USCF style categories.

Vis-a-vis the "sandbagging" problem, how about a rule that allow self

selecting "up" in difficulty but discourages selecting "down" (i.e.

sandbagging). Such a rule need not be incompatible with a category

system.

Just my two cents...

Jerry

On Nov 29, 2005, at 7:23 PM, mike.m-@obra.org wrote:

<excerpt>Currently OBRA categorizes riders for cyclocross in three

groups; A, B and

C. These are self selected categories.

USCF is going to start to categorize riders for cyclocross into

categories 1

through 4.

Is there interest in maintaining reciprocity between OBRA and USCF

categories for cyclocross similar to what we currently do for road and

track

categorization? If we do this it will require some negotiation with

USAC.

It will also likely require that we swallow their system whole; i.e.

change

the categories to 1 through 4, have criteria for categorization rather

than

have it be self selected, etc.

Let us know what you think.

Mike Murray

</excerpt><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>Jerry Powell

<italic><x-tad-smaller>USAC Elite Coach

</x-tad-smaller></italic>1926 SW Madison Street

Portland, OR 97205

503 222 7173

503 799 7823

jpow-@spiritone.com</fontfamily>

--Apple-Mail-12-544447053--

Brooke Hoyer

2005-12-01

There isn't quite a 1-to-1 mapping. The Cross Crusade is the only major

series in the country to offer a Beginner category. Everywhere else, 'C'

means beginner. Personally, I think having a Beginner cat is a great idea.

If OBRA were to adopt the USCF 1-4 ranking, I would propose that we also

offer a Cat 5 cyclocross category which corresponds to the Beginner cat.

Promoters can still run 4/5 races which would correspond to the traditional

'C' race. The cross Cat 5 could have similar upgrade rules as road Cat 5.

That way there would be a fast track out of Cat 5 that doesn't require

placing highly in a bunch of races.

I also understand that the initial USCF rankings start everyone as Cat 4 but

upgrades are supposed to be granted pretty liberally. In other words, you

can self select your initial cat.

I don't think the debate should be about which classification system is

better. In reality, they are equally good (like Celsius vs. Fahrenheit). The

debate should be about whether OBRA wants to maintain reciprocity with USCF

in regard to cyclocross classifications. I'm with the 'ayes.'

Brooke Hoyer

From: Erik Voldengen <eri-@fusium.com>

Reply-To: eri-@fusium.com

To: ob-@topica.com

Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] Cyclocross categories

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:31:07 -0800

Would this be a big departure from what we're currently doing? We have

four

categories now (A,B,C,Beginner). It seems to me this would be easily

translated to 1-2-3-4.

Also, don't we kind of already map road categories to cross?

From crosscrusade.com:

Category A=OBRA and/or USCF categories 1,2, NORBA Expert and anyone else

who

chooses to race at this level

Category B=OBRA and/or USCF category 3, NORBA Sport

Category C=OBRA and/or USCF categories 4&5, NORBA Beginner (Riders at this

level may choose to race in a higher category.)

I didn't think it was completely self selected.

-Erik

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/

eri-@fusium.com

2005-11-30

Would this be a big departure from what we're currently doing? We have four

categories now (A,B,C,Beginner). It seems to me this would be easily

translated to 1-2-3-4.

Also, don't we kind of already map road categories to cross?

From crosscrusade.com:

Category A=OBRA and/or USCF categories 1,2, NORBA Expert and anyone else who

chooses to race at this level

Category B=OBRA and/or USCF category 3, NORBA Sport

Category C=OBRA and/or USCF categories 4&5, NORBA Beginner (Riders at this

level may choose to race in a higher category.)

I didn't think it was completely self selected.

-Erik

Brooke Hoyer

2005-11-30

I think that maintaining reciprocity is a good idea. A number of OBRA

members race in Washington (Seattle) and California. I bet that some will

travel to Nationals in the coming years. It seems to me that aligning OBRA's

cyclocross categorization with USCF's will best serve those OBRA members.

The realignment won't be without some hand wringing but I'm sure that

everything will get worked out pretty quickly. Some might consider it a

bitter pill that we have to follow the lead of the 800# gorilla. I agree

that OBRA shouldn't be like USCF but we're just talking about letters and

numbers here. Of course we are living in the last bastion of English

measurement in the world ...

Brooke Hoyer

From: mike.m-@obra.org

Reply-To: mike.m-@obra.org

To: 'OBRA Remailer' <ob-@topica.com>

Subject: [OBRA Chat] Cyclocross categories

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:23:23 -0800

Currently OBRA categorizes riders for cyclocross in three groups; A, B and

C. These are self selected categories.

USCF is going to start to categorize riders for cyclocross into categories

1

through 4.

Is there interest in maintaining reciprocity between OBRA and USCF

categories for cyclocross similar to what we currently do for road and

track

categorization? If we do this it will require some negotiation with USAC.

It will also likely require that we swallow their system whole; i.e. change

the categories to 1 through 4, have criteria for categorization rather than

have it be self selected, etc.

Let us know what you think.

Mike Murray

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

_________________________________________________________________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Ron and Dorothy Strasser

2005-11-30

I am 56, in my 2nd year of racing and not going to be a national champion.

I do almost always question change so in this case I wonder "why" USAC is

doing this and did they get states feedback first (what a thought!). I

would just say that I would be for this change if it helped our riders that

are focused on really making it big in the national scene... but only if we

still had that open invitation that exists now for so many to get involved

in cross. Cross in Oregon is the one aspect of bicycle racing that really

has a unique ability to get people interested in trying a race. I do

believe from what I have seen that many get hooked and continue racing cross

or try road, mtn, track or tt. I just hope that whatever way OBRA goes on

this does not put a damper on our great cycling atmosphere.

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

From: <mike.m-@obra.org>

To: "'OBRA Remailer'" <ob-@topica.com>

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:23 PM

Subject: [OBRA Chat] Cyclocross categories

Currently OBRA categorizes riders for cyclocross in three groups; A, B and

C. These are self selected categories.

USCF is going to start to categorize riders for cyclocross into categories

1

through 4.

Is there interest in maintaining reciprocity between OBRA and USCF

categories for cyclocross similar to what we currently do for road and

track

categorization? If we do this it will require some negotiation with USAC.

It will also likely require that we swallow their system whole; i.e.

change

the categories to 1 through 4, have criteria for categorization rather

than

have it be self selected, etc.

Let us know what you think.

Mike Murray

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

Doug Evans

2005-11-30

I agree. Why complicate things? It would appear that Oregon has the right formula for CX.

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

From: Jonathan C. Puskas [mailto:impu-@yahoo.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:00 AM

To: terry.-@agedwards.com; ob-@topica.com; mike.m-@obra.org

Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] Cyclocross categories

As one who aspired, but alas failed, to win the Golden

Sandbagger category...I must say please don't.

In all seriousness, I think the self-selection is one

element of CCX which makes it attractive to such a

large base. It's really only sandbagging if one has

the combination of skills, experience, and

fitness/training completed to race in a higher

category. Since CCX is a season in itself for some

and an off-season for others, I don't think we need to

heavily regulate things.

Besides, Brad, Brian and the Cross Crusade Crew do a

great job of publicly humiliating those they deem

deserving. When it's all said and done, peer pressure

is the greatest tool and will be far more effective

than copying someone else's system.

Cheers,

Jonathan "I have a pit bike in the C's" Puskas

Half Fast Velo;

Co-Conspirator

--- Terry Keele <terry.-@agedwards.com> wrote:

no benefit comes to mind, why bother?

mike.m-@obra.org wrote:

Currently OBRA categorizes riders for cyclocross