Joshua Zlotlow wrote:
>
> >Subject: Cat 3 fun From: warren
[email protected] Date: 8/8/03 9:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <080820030906039745%
[email protected]>
> >
> >In the 30+ 1,2,3 race there were plenty of bumps and nudges but nobody fell down. The sequence
> >below is why I don't do Sr. 3 races...
> >
> >
http://www.abbiorca.com/bike/road/road2003/timpani-8-3-03/cat3/source/ti mpani_r_03_177.html
> >
> >
http://www.abbiorca.com/bike/road/road2003/timpani-8-3-03/cat3/source/ti mpani_r_03_179.html
> >
> >
http://www.abbiorca.com/bike/road/road2003/timpani-8-3-03/cat3/source/ti mpani_r_03_180.html
> >
> >
> >-WG
>
> So, if you felt there were more crashes in Masters' races, you wouldn't do those either?
For one, he is speaking of comparative risk (since he knows crashes occur in *every* division) -- so
that "solves itself" as far which race one is "pushed to" regarding risk if they do intend to race.
For me, if I thought the risks were too high in any division I'm elgible to race in, then I would
simply not participate at all. That seems pretty simple for low level amateur.
> I'm not going to say too much more than that, since I don't want want to start sounding too much
> like Henry, even though he's generally right in his mockery of Masters racing.
He isn't even close to being right. He's far closer to a moron when it comes to that. Not
recognizing that isn't something you ought to wear on your sleeve. Another obeservation of the
Masters 1/2/3 races is that they are most often the 2nd fastest or 2nd most competetive race
(naturally under pro/1/2) of the race day. So if I were to pick two races to watch, those would be
the two based on the speed and style I like to watch in a bike race. If I were to pick only one for
watching, it would of course just be Pro/1/2.
> Since I can't resist, I will point out my observation on the Masters 1/2/3 fields. They're made up
> of 3s who are never going to upgrade either due to a lack of talent or ability to train enough due
> to other demands in life;...
That was me, but you don't say why you think it is particularly important -- most riders regardless
of category are not "talented enough," whatever that might mean (turn pro with a $0k contract?).
Warren's point, I believe, is simply that masters have a bit less tolerance for going down than some
23 yo Cat 3 (or 1/2/3/4/5 23 yo for that matter). You can decide if it is true, but most masters
have more family and work responsibilities than most young men, and they've already done all the
falling down they want to do. The opportunity cost of getting hurt is higher when your older (and
not just for bike racers). In this way, older people have less tolerance for getting hurt.
> ...and 1s and 2s who are either no longer good enough to be highly competitive...
Some are, some aren't. Some "masters" win the Pro/1/2 races. Sometimes the same day they won the
masters race. Winkel, for one, has done it. Not recently, because even he ages. The governing bodies
speak out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to categorization. IOW, categorization system
is theoretically non-age graded, but practically speaking it most certainly is not. You get the Cat
X stamp and you get to keep it and hold it while you are 90 yo dying from pneumonia.
> ... in the serious races or enjoy racing against some 1s and 2s while beating up on a pack of
> mostly Cat 3s.
I've suggested alternatives and variation in what race divisions are offered from week to week. It
was not received well -- status quo seems to be the rule. People are resistant to change.
