Both Candi and Jim bring up good points. However I disagree
completely as I think their concerns are offset by the following:
That Cat 3's would not be run with the 4's for the Cat 4 women's
series. We would be encouraging promoters to run "true beginner"
fields for early crits and road races- even going as far as offering
financial support. In addition, up until recently Women Masters who
are 1/2/3's have been run with the 4's. There will be plenty of races
where the 4's would not be run with the 3's.
The men have an intermediate step- moving from 4/5 to 3 then to 1/2.
There is no such intermediate step in the women's fields. The end
goal of this exercise would be to have a separate 3 field as soon as
it makes economic sense for promoters to do so. (numbers). To tell
women to downgrade would reduce the numbers of Cat 3's, thereby
negating any argument that could be made that there are increasing
numbers of Cat 3's- and therefore should have their own field.
Remember- this is a long term project that has to be looked at from
30,000 feet. People have to look at the forest, not just the trees.
We also plan on having a Women's Cat 3 Series next year to help Cat 3
participation. To make sure that the 1/2 races don't suffer during
the series races, I will likely be coordinating with not only Oregon,
but Washington teams to see if we can have regional races where there
1/2's can have a viable field on their own. To that end, I have been
conducting a lot of outreach to the WSBA and WA promoters as we have a
shared interest in increasing the number of women out there. I also
think think that a regional approach would also help.
I cannot emphasize enough that this "change" would not mean that every
single race would be 1/2/3, 3/4.
Finally, the status quo isn't working- we have had a phenomenal number
of Cat 4's but the 1/2/3 fields have been small for non-Oregon Cup
races.
Piece of Cake- 16
Icebreaker- 10
Roubaix- 13
BB 3- 6
BB 1- 14
To maintain reciprocity with USAC, the category upgrade system cannot
be changed.
Comments I have received:
"Hi kenji- this is how they run the womens fields in NY and most of
the ne from what I can tell.
I think it's a great idea. Most women spend a year racing in the 3/4s
after they've upgraded to 3 and they really learn tactics and can get
a few wins. Usually after they've won a race or two, they will choose
to race with the 1/2/3s."
"This is the way to go! Good work."
"so its in writing....as I said yesterday, i'm in full support of this
idea. thanks for working on this for us...i think it'll make a huge
difference in the next road racing cycle."
"This seems like a great compromise. I've always thought Chad was
smart to structure the Mt. Hood Classic like this. 3's get to choose.
They can't possibly have anything to complain about now ;-)"
"Well, I've pretty much dropped out of road racing since becoming a
3... if there were 3/4 races, I would be much more inclined to race,
since I might actually be a factor and have fun. I was thinking about
Mt Hood for this reason (although for other reasons am not going to
race it).
Personally, I could see myself being a career cat 3. I don't think I
could ever devote enough time or money to being a 1/2, but if my
future of road racing is being dropped off the back of the 1/2/3s,
then I will probably just stick to mountain bike racing."
"Kenji-
This is a GREAT idea! I like it a whole lot better than running
mixed-genders fields. It keeps in the spirit of having a womens-only
playing field, but one where we have an intermediate option that won't
leave us in the dust of the 1/2s.
The other MAJOR advantage I see is a team's ability to better mentor
(and monitor) their new Cat 4 women - give new Cat 4 women a chance to
race with their Cat 3 teammates, give us Cat 3s a chance to teach our
own developing riders in a real race situation. It will help uplevel
each field, result in quicker learning, preserve the "collective
knowledge" that disappears from the Cat 4 field when women upgrade to
3, and create overall safer race conditions.
As for the women-with-families, issue, I'm totally on board with that
concept - I think it's a huge unresolved issue. I know both ... and I
will happily come back in a mixed 3/4 field once we're done cooking up
the next round of ... babies! (Both of us are on a short hiatus this
year!)
Thanks for putting the idea out there, I think it's got a lot of legs."
"I appreciate how much thought you put into some of the issues with
women racing. I think offering a 3/4 split is a good solution. I
have many friends who are in the cat 4s that are doing well, but dont
want to upgrade because of the significant change in intensity and
distance. "
"Kenji- I think you are on the right track. I know when I was racing
this is exactly why many of us quit racing. My theory is exactly what
you said "why pay money to ride by myself". I can do from my front
door."
"As a female cat 3 (who is currently pregnant so not racing this year,
but plan to next year) I think it's a great idea. After returning to
racing from my first pregnancy I got shelled as a 3 and got pretty
discouraged. Being able to race with the 4's and then with the 1/2's
as confidence and cycling form grows is a great idea. Thanks for
suggesting it."
"Kenji,- Yes! I love the idea. I train when I can and race when I
can. My interests and work schedule are varied so at times I'm not in
the best racing shape. Though I would love to jump into races for fun
I'm often intimidated by the 1/2/3 field if I haven't been training.
The choice of racing with the 4's would make me jump at the chance of
racing more often. I could concentrate on having fun instead of
holding on by the skin of my teeth. I also agree there has to be some
way to monitor the 3's and make sure the women capable of hanging with
the faster group should be strongly encouraged to race with the
1/2/3's. Just my two cents. I appreciate your thoughts and attention
to this subject!"
"I like the idea of the 1/2/3 and 3/4 groups - give some option to
those 3's. Personally, the 4 field has changed a lot since I started
racing 3 years ago - when I started, even the cat 4 field was small,
and very novice. Kudos to you for growing the 4 field, and really
challenging us to race harder. The cat 4 field now is pretty bimodal -
you have the new to racers and the almost 3'ers. If we had a 3/4
field, that might split more naturally, and it would be easier for the
almost 3ers to go with the 3's and feel
comfortable about upgrading. Yes, there is much talk within the pack
and within teams about how to stay within the cat 4 field, just to
avoid the problem you mentioned."
"I think the general sentiment seems to be vectoring towards either a
separate 3's field, or a 3/4 field when possible, with all deference
given to promoters and the inherent permits, etc. For KVRR, half my
girls bailed on it, the other half that raced won't do it again since
it was, in their eyes, a $30 donation to go on a training ride. That's
a wee bit besides our true point here, but I figure I'd mention it.
I think the lynchpin flooding the Cat 3 pool with more talent are
things like the Norm Babcock/Veloforma Cat 4 women's series. By
participating, a bunch of gals who start the competition will be 3's
by the time it's over - look what happened next year. It's why I am
involved with it, and I figure if we bite the bullet for another year
or two, by '10 or '11 we may have a much larger, healthy pool of good
Cat 3 women that would warrant their own field.
The straight Cat 3 or combined Cat 3/4 field would lend itself to
Kenji's point of "strong but don't have the skills" in the meantime. "
All things being equal here are some of the e-mails that I received
that weren't fond of the idea:
"Kenji,
I feel that you either run the 3's with the 1/2's or by themselves,
but not with the 4's. The 4's are either new woman to racing or those
that have been doing it a couple years and are trying to upgrade. The
4's that get upgraded have been pushing the pace for all the other 4's
and have been perhaps making in difficult for some of the woman to
stay in the pack. By taking them out of the mix it gives these 4's a
chance to feel like they can be leaders and can feel that self
satisfaction of being one of the first few across the finish line."
"There are already some pretty fast, competitive, and vocal women in
the 4's and I fear that if someone that wants to "give road racing a
try," gets up the gumption and shows up, they will be eaten alive and
not ever show up for a road race again. A cat 4 race is already
"racey" enough and there are plenty of women that already show up, pay
their money, and end up racing alone. I love Beth Burns, but as a
new 4, hellifIwanna race against her! :0"
"But if even the Cat 3/4 group becomes tough enough that I am going on
a Sunday ride (ie. I got popped off the pack because I am SLOW) two
miles in, I might as well do just that- go on a Sunday ride. It's a
hell of a lot cheaper. I race my heart out, but racing your heart out
doesn't mean much when your training time is a lot less than your
competitors."
"Interesting idea. I'm concerned, though, that this plan would be
really hard on the novice women, masters women, and the slower cat-4
women. By adding cat-3's to the cat-4 races, more of the slow racers
will be dropped. You may be encouraging the cat-3 women, but it may
ultimately end up discouraging novice cat-4 women and masters from
racing."
"There is already a large problem with the Cat 4 women's field being
too strong for new women racers. This keeps new female racers from
trying to race or from returning after getting their butts kicked. By
having the 3's race with the 4's this would just make the problem
worse. This seems to be contrary to fostering women's racing. Sure, by
allowing the 3's to race with the 4's you may make a few of the slower
3's happy, but there will be less women trying the sport.
As for field sizes. The cat 4 women's fields are typically larger that
the 1/2/3 women's field. By allowing the 3's to race with the fours;
wouldn't that take away the incentive for promoters to have a 1/2/3
women's field? I know that Jim and I have talked about not having a
women's 1/2/3 field because of the low turnout."
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Fischer, Jim E (Corvallis)
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> OBRA is making a change to the women's road/crit fields to offer 1/2/3 as well as 3/4 groups allowing the 3s to pick where they want to race. Please send your comments (for or against) to Kenji.
>
> I agree with the goal to increase participation by women in the 3s and 4s, but I feel this will NOT have the desired effect.
>
> The supposition is that there are 4s who've been upgraded to the 3s only to find they cannot keep up with the 1/2/3 fields. This change will let the slow 3s gain experience and fitness with the 4s before they start really racing with the 1/2/3s.
>
> The issue is with the upgrade criteria/implementation, not with the category structure.
>
> One issue with the current 4s field is that it's too fast to encourage new beginner ladies to race because the fast 4s, while not having sufficient points to upgrade, really need to be moved up to the 3s...and WANT to be moved up. If 3s are allowed to race in the 4s, this discrepancy will get worse. If the 3s can "race down" with the 4s, this will draw down an already small 1/2/3 field at most road races. As the promoter of Cherry Pie, the 1/2/3 field has barely had 10 riders for the past two years...most of them 3s. This change would cause us to reconsider even offering a 1/2 field for the women.
>
> If the goal is to increase participation...to grow the 3s, we need to grow the 4s...and this cannot happen if the 4s are too fast to encourage new beginner riders.
>
> I suggest we do the following:
> 1.) Keep the categories as they are.
> 2.) Encourage/enable the fast 4s to move up, thus growing the 3s, and encourage the promoters/judges to score them separately. (May require a change to upgrade criteria and futher discussiona and a team rep vote in January.)
> 3.) Encourage/enable the slower cat 3s to downgrade. Our lives and bodies change, and we may lose fitness as a result. Downgrades offer an opportunity for racing in an appropriate category while still having fun.
>
> I'd be curious to hear other points of view if you want to share.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Fischer
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>