Susan Peithman
I have been kind of half following this thread even though it is an
interesting and important (at least to me) topic. I apologize if I am going
to make any points that have already been established.
I started racing in the midwest and they have a pretty effective system.
And I think it is pretty unintentional. They certainly do not have the
numbers that OBRA has in the fours fields but enough. And about 90% of the
races are crits. But they run the women 4's field as a separate category
during the spring and then in July the Superweek series has a 3/4 category.
Because it is an opportunity for lower categories to race many days in a
row, its a big draw for racers from all over (and Wisconsin is rad). Then
most all of the big races after Superweek are 3/4 and 1/2 or 1/2/3. Does
that make sense? Separate the 4's in the early season and then combine them
with the 3's. There are a couple of reasons why this was beneficial.
1. The strong fours are able to win races early and get into the 1/2/3
races
2. The fours are able to race with people of a similar ability for 2 or 3
months and gain some race fitness and skills
3. The threes are able to learn skills (very, very important for crit
racing) from the 1/2's. While they may not be winning these races, they're
able to increase their fitness and skill level.
4. The combined 3/4 races allow the fours to learn skills from the threes.
The speed and skill of the race is increased (helping the fours get
stronger) and the threes are able to get some good results under their belts
against the other threes.
Does this make sense? I thought it was a good system and helped a number of
people move out of the fours category without too many growing pains. There
was also a big emphasis on getting the fours out of that category quickly to
increase the number of women in the 1/2/3 races.
Susan
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Michelle Lichtenfels <
mlichtenfels@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spencer - good point, and I think it gets to Kenji's point about a lack of
> an intermediate step here - namely, the absense of an all-Cat 3 women's
> field.
>
> When I upgraded to Cat 3, I effectively upgraded to the Cat 1/2s as well. I
> absolutely agree that racing is supposed to be hard, but I don't see Cat 3
> men heading up against Cat 1/2 men in every race.
>
> I also want to make another plug for the fact that it's already difficult
> to stay competitive at the Cat 3 level, much less a 1/2 level, when you have
> a family and a full time job, but don't quite qualify to be in the Masters
> field.
>
> Michelle
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Bushnell, Spencer <
> SPENCER.BUSHNELL@providence.org> wrote:
>
>> I disagree-
>>
>> the upgrade to a cat 3 is tough enough. a 3/4 field definitely benefits
>> the cat 3 riders and 4s. the pack speeds are not that much harder than just
>> a 4 field, but the SKILL level is very close. so the women can increase
>> speeds incrementally while being the in same realm of skill level (which
>> often can dictate speed and hardness of a race, ie riding in in the wind, on
>> the hoods, large gaps etc).
>>
>> you dont see very many cat 3 men owning PIR in the 1/2/3 field, and they
>> have the benefit of cat 3 only fields to gain experience/skill/ and then
>> fitness. i think the next best thing is the 3/4 field.
>>
>> my 2 cents
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org on behalf of Garcia
>> Sent: Tue 5/12/2009 9:04 PM
>> To: OBRA
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Proposed category change for OBRA Road and
>> Critracing
>>
>>
>> Exactly! Well said Meg!
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Meg Mautner
>> To: Candi Murray ; OBRA
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:41:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Proposed category change for OBRA Road and Crit
>> racing
>>
>> I agree with Candi and Jim. I don't see how combining the 3's and 4's
>> helps out either field. It would seem that the 4's (already a big field)
>> would get discouraged by having to race with the 3's. The 3's don't gain any
>> experience by riding with the 4's. In a 1/2/3 field, the 3's gain the
>> experience of the stronger riders. They've been upgraded based on their
>> ability to race well. It's bike racing; it's supposed to be hard.
>>
>> Meg
>>
>> On May 12, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Candi Murray wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with Jim's comments entirely. My worry to the proposed change
>> is
>> > also that new and slower riders would be discouraged from racing in the
>> 3/4
>> > because of the increased pace and would not stick with the sport. The
>> > largest women's field is the Cat 4 women field. There is a good reason
>> for
>> > this and to pollute the pool does not make sense.
>> > Candi Murray
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Fischer, Jim E (Corvallis)
>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:44 AM
>> > To: obra@list.obra.org
>> > Subject: [OBRA Chat] Proposed category change for OBRA Road and Crit
>> racing
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DISCLAIMER:
>> This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may
>> contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
>> disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby
>> notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the
>> message or any information contained in the message. If you have received
>> this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email
>> and delete this message.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>