Cross Comparison Nationals and Racers

Does someone who went to the last 4 cross nats want to compare and contrast? And should Napa really
hold next year's nationals? I haven't heard one way or another if it was good (everyone talked
about the rain)

2002 Napa 2001 Balt 2000 KC 1999 San Fran (I thought 99 San Fran's crowd were the most I have ever
seen at a cross races (although obviously the course sucked)...were there that many people in Napa?
Can't someone find a San Fran proper course? there is obviously a built in fan base in San
Fran--just look at the sept road race.

Riders: And anyone want to offer an opinion on the state of cross in the US? I thought overall, the
top 10 this year weren't as good as the year past (with McCormack continuing to diminish, Sundt,
Knapp not doing a full circuit, johnson having done road worlds.

Really it was only Well, Gully, and sometimes Page and Johnson lighting it up..with. There seemed to
be a strong(er) second tier of racers this year. Maybe it is that Wells, Gully, Johnson (and now
Page) have taken it to the next level (see last worlds results) for US cross and are apparently
better than everyone else week in and week out?

Andrew Albright

 

I don't know shit about CA because I don't go out there and live on the East Coast, however, based
on spreading around the venues, would you say that the northwest or new england is due?

How did you rate Baltimore last year and how were the crowds at the UCI DE and PA races this year?
I thought the Baltimore weekend last year was fucking outstanding (courses, places to stay, city
location, local pubs close to the park, all the top US crossers showed, etc) but I don't know how
the crowds rated. It had to be better than KC. I think new england is due and it seems that based
on correlation between population and racers and associated fans this would be the ideal region
(Boston?).

What no one is mentioning is this - the U.S. is a huge place - to huge for cross to ever get bigger
than it already is. This relates to the state of cross in the U.S. also. You will most likely NEVER
get all of the top riders to all of the top races when they are spread out from Seattle to San Fran
to Chicago to Philly to Brolder to Boston and on and on. Yes, you get good second tier riders who
may improve in a few years, especially in their own regions, but the whole caliber will not improve
on an even scale when the best racers are not going to all of the best races. Also, most of these
guys can't make a living off of it and spend most of the season racing road or mountian or both for
fitness and paychecks.

I think Wells and Gully and even Page have raised the bar, I would say even too much in that they
really don't have any major competition in any race they enter. Let's just make new england or the
mid atlantic the boss of cross and forget having UCI races in any other regions. You know,
concentrate on one area, let any and all top interested riders live and race in that area for the
cross season and then we'll do another comparison. Otherwise, cross has peaked.

thanks for listening,
M. Wilson

"Andrew Albright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Does someone who went to the last 4 cross nats want to compare and contrast? And should Napa
> really hold next year's nationals? I haven't heard one way or another if it was good (everyone
> talked about the rain)
>
> 2002 Napa 2001 Balt 2000 KC 1999 San Fran (I thought 99 San Fran's crowd were the most I have ever
> seen at a cross races (although obviously the course sucked)...were there that many people in
> Napa? Can't someone find a San Fran proper course? there is obviously a built in fan base in San
> Fran--just look at the sept road race.
>
> Riders: And anyone want to offer an opinion on the state of cross in the US? I thought overall,
> the top 10 this year weren't as good as the year past (with McCormack continuing to diminish,
> Sundt, Knapp not doing a full circuit, johnson having done road worlds.
>
> Really it was only Well, Gully, and sometimes Page and Johnson lighting it up..with. There seemed
> to be a strong(er) second tier of racers this year. Maybe it is that Wells, Gully, Johnson (and
> now Page) have taken it to the next level (see last worlds results) for US cross and are
> apparently better than everyone else week in and week out?
>
> Andrew Albright

 

"Andrew Albright" <andrew_.google.com...
> Does someone who went to the last 4 cross nats want to compare and contrast? And should Napa
> really hold next year's nationals? I haven't heard one way or another if it was good (everyone
> talked about the rain)
>
> 2002 Napa 2001 Balt 2000 KC 1999 San Fran (I thought 99 San Fran's crowd were the most I have ever
> seen at a cross races (although obviously the course sucked)...were there that many people in
> Napa? Can't someone find a San Fran proper course? there is obviously a built in fan base in San
> Fran--just look at the sept road race.

"San Francisco" unless you're a tourist or a troll.

What was so bad about the tough '99 SF course?

> Riders: And anyone want to offer an opinion on the state of cross in the US?

How many race cross (Cat. "III" or better? Maybe 3,000 as compared to 20,000 who race road)
seriously?

> I thought overall, the top 10 this year weren't as good as the year past (with McCormack
> continuing to diminish, Sundt, Knapp not doing a full circuit, johnson having done road worlds.
>
> Really it was only Well, Gully, and sometimes Page and Johnson lighting it up..with. There seemed
> to be a strong(er) second tier of racers this year. Maybe it is that Wells, Gully, Johnson (and
> now Page) have taken it to the next level (see last worlds results) for US cross and are
> apparently better than everyone else week in and week out?
>
> Andrew Albright

 

"ronde champ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "jim gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Keep it in Baltimore, it worked. The hotels were probably cheaper than most places. The beer is
> > always cheap. The course was great.
> >
> > Could Philadelphia compete? Are there bars walking distance from Fairmont park?
>
> Yes there are, but I have a feeling that your cracker-ass would feel a little uncomfortable
> in them.
>
> Thanks, Ronde Champ

who you callin' cracker, G?

So Philly sucks, cross it off the list.

 

Hartford, Connecticut might not be a bad choice for cross Nats. It is halfway between Boston and
NYC, reachable by two major interstates, has an airport about 25 minutes north of the city and
plenty of downtown hotel rooms and parking. And Hartford is eager to get its name out there as a
place to visit. It is in the process of building a new downtown convention center/mall. There is a
large downtown park, Bushnell Park. The Hartford Criterium races around a portion of the park so
bike racing is not foreign to city officials. That part of downtown is empty on the weekends because
most of the buildings that border the park are government offices, including the state capital
building. Closing some of streets around the park would be relatively easy I would think. They do it
for the crit and the Hartford marathon, among other events. (To get a good start/finish stretch on
pavement I would think 1 or 2 of the streets would be needed. The crit's start/finish is on a wide
open false flat.)

Just a thought...

Wade

 

>Subject: Re: Cross Comparison Nationals and Racers From: "Mark Wilson"

> however, based on spreading around the venues, would you say that the northwest or new
> england is due?

What the fuck does "being due" have to do with anything? Nationals goes to whomever puts in the best
bid, and will put on the best production. And unless Galeforce goes broke paying for course repair
(I'm guessing $25k++ for this year, if you include the vines riders crashed into, and the irrigation
systems they wrecked), then they will have the race next year too, since nationals are being given
in two year blocks.

>What no one is mentioning is this - the U.S. is a huge place - to huge for cross to ever get bigger
>than it already is. This relates to the state of cross in the U.S. also. You will most likely NEVER
>get all of the top riders to all of the top races when they are spread out from Seattle to San Fran
>to Chicago to Philly to Brolder to Boston and on and on.

This is the only year that the top riders HAVEN'T been at all the top races. Without a national
series, you get what you had this year. Redline seems like they are moving to a full national series
next year, so maybe we'll see it again.

>Let's just make new england or the mid atlantic the boss of cross

It has been for years kid......

>Otherwise, cross has peaked.

Wrong. It's just getting started. Cyclo-cross might just be the thing to explode bike racing in the
US. There are some very big things in the works for the next few years. Just wait and see........


-----Sharon Peters Personal Trainer to the Stars-------- Remove "No Junk" to reply please!!!

 

>"Sharon Peters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
What the fuck does "being due" have to do with anything? Nationals goes to
> whomever puts in the best bid, and will put on the best production.

Maybe the Verge resources can step up - the new england and mid atlantic series was top dog
this year.

> This is the only year that the top riders HAVEN'T been at all the top
races.
> Without a national series, you get what you had this year. Redline seems
like
> they are moving to a full national series next year, so maybe we'll see it again.

Lets hope so!

> >Otherwise, cross has peaked.
>
> Wrong. It's just getting started. Cyclo-cross might just be the thing to explode bike racing in
> the US. There are some very big things in the
works for
> the next few years. Just wait and see........

Bring it on, I would love to see it.

waiting patiently,
M. Wilson

 

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, simonson wrote:

> Concerning the 1975 Nats, I can't recall the exact field sizes. My recollection was that we had a
> field of 30-50 seniors, including John Howard, who was the dominant road rider of that time. We
> got coverage on the front page of the SF Examiner with a 4-photo collage, including Howard doing
> an endo in a creek crossing on the first lap. The crowds were huge - several thousand at least.
> There were people literally all around the course. I had sent out press releases and photos to
> more than 30 small local papers that were oriented toward various European groups, and it happened
> that a the biggest local free weekly gave us half the back cover (including a photo) to publicize
> the event - we were about the only thing happening then that was *free*.
>
Not bad for a cult, eh Mr. Kunich?

... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected] Kyle Legate [email protected]

Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca moon
musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

 

"David LaPorte" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Sharing Peckers) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > >Subject: Re: Cross Comparison Nationals and Racers From: "Ken Papai"
> > >
> > > >What was so bad about the tough '99 SF course?
> > > >
> > > Ken, I'm going to put you and Tommy Eunich in my file of people who
don't "Get
> > > It" about cross. There is a huge difference between a tough course
and a bad
> > > course. Tough means that the course presents a challenge for all
those who
> > > participate. Bad means poorly planned, unsafe or unsporting.
> >
> > Plainly you have a real problem understanding racing yourself. While there was certainly some of
> > the problems you noted, such as poor course crossings and the course being too short,
> > complaining about a tight course isn't one of them.
> >
> > Just because on the east coast they want to be able to have 20 people pass abreast doesn't mean
> > that easy passing should be a feature of a course. I raced motorcycles for many years and it was
> > a rare course where you didn't have to wait for your chance to pass. Somehow you think that
> > bicycle racing should be different in that respect. Too bad.
>
> The previous poster had complained about the width of the course, stating
that it was less than 3 meters in many
> sections. Rule 3G1(d) states "Over its full length, the course shall be a
minimum of 3 meters wide.....". A
> championship course really should obey the rules, IMO.
>
> David

Thomas J. Kunich,

What do you have to say about this?

Thanks, Ronde Champ

 

simonson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> A brief followup to this discussion about Nats cross courses. I have my own opinions about the '99
> SF course, but I would like to make two points:
>
> 1) The organizers were severely constrained by the groups controlling the SF Presidio after the
> handover from the military.
>
> 2) The rules being referred to generally didn't apply or exist. In 1999 there were virtually no
> USCF rules about the courses, other than the height of barriers. Later (2001 or 2002), the
> current rules were replaced by taking the UCI rules verbatim and moving them over. Moreover, I
> believe that the UCI changed its recommended width from 2 meters to 3 meters around that time
> (I can't find my older UCI stuff right now). That Nationals was not run under UCI rules. The
> Supercup the next day was, so the rules issues raised are more applicable there.
>
> Other comments about the growth of cross: certainly cross has gotten bigger and better in recent
> times, but the crop of riders who really got started with the '75 Nats did quite well for
> themselves e.g. Lawrence Malone, Clark Natwick and Joe Ryan. Ryan was 16th in the World
> Championships in Italy (1980?). That was the highest placings for an American Sr man until the
> last two years when Mark Gullikson and Tim Johnson each bettered that mark with 13th placings,
> although in the older days there were separate races for amateurs and pros.
>
> Concerning the 1975 Nats, I can't recall the exact field sizes. My recollection was that we had a
> field of 30-50 seniors, including John Howard, who was the dominant road rider of that time. We
> got coverage on the front page of the SF Examiner with a 4-photo collage, including Howard doing
> an endo in a creek crossing on the first lap. The crowds were huge - several thousand at least.
> There were people literally all around the course. I had sent out press releases and photos to
> more than 30 small local papers that were oriented toward various European groups, and it happened
> that a the biggest local free weekly gave us half the back cover (including a photo) to publicize
> the event - we were about the only thing happening then that was *free*.
>
> ---
> Tom Simonson, Oakland CA

I'm curious if anyone has information about the '76 cyclocross Nats held in Austin, TX? I have a
race poster that states it was run in Zilker Park.

thanks, Greg Hall

 

<< From: "Mark Wilson" [email protected] Date: Tue, Dec 17, 2002 2:32 PM Message-id:
<[email protected]>

<<How did you rate Baltimore last year and how were the crowds at the UCI DE and PA races this year?
I thought the Baltimore weekend last year was fucking outstanding (courses, places to stay, city
location, local pubs close to the park, all the top US crossers showed, etc) but I don't know how
the crowds rated.>>

Here is how I would rate crowds from the 3 nationals I went to 99 SF Ft Devens 98 2001 Baltimore.

I didn't go to KC in 2000, but it couldn't have been much.

To really get the crowds you need a big city venue. Ft Devens kind of worked since cross is huge in
New England. But in my estimation you'd get at least twice as many with a Boston Nationals.

<<What no one is mentioning is this - the U.S. is a huge place - to huge for cross to ever get
bigger than it already is. This relates to the state of cross in the U.S. also. You will most likely
NEVER get all of the top riders to all of the top races when they are spread out from Seattle to San
Fran to Chicago to Philly to Brolder to Boston and on and on.>>

You could do it if the UCI cat 1.2 races were arranged geographically and temporally. The UCI cat
1.3 should and will only be thought of as regional races.

 

<< What was so bad about the tough '99 SF course? >>

It wasn't a good course for a large race like nationals. It was too narrow, too short, and didn't
have an adequate start. Just read the UCI and NE guidelines for cross to know what a reasonable
cross course is.

 

>Subject: Re: Cross Comparison Nationals and Racers From: "Ken Papai"

>What was so bad about the tough '99 SF course?
>

Ken, I'm going to put you and Tommy Eunich in my file of people who don't "Get It" about cross.
There is a huge difference between a tough course and a bad course. Tough means that the course
presents a challenge for all those who participate. Bad means poorly planned, unsafe or unsporting.

Since you asked about the Frisco' nationals, here is just a small list Greater than 90 degree turn
less than 100 meters from the start. Uneven bumpy terrain in between high speed hurdles. Ultra
narrow course (less than 3m in many sections). 10 meter finish straight. Nearly impossible for
mechanics to move from pit to pit. Poorly designed and marshalled course crossings. Ultra short
course combined with multiple field championship events (ie M30-34 and 35-39, 200 riders on a 4
minute course at the same time) U23 and Elite Men combined championship on a 4 minute lap, meaning
top 10 U-23's were pulled from the race.

Missed you this weekend- Sharon -----Sharon Peters Personal Trainer to the Stars-------- Remove "No
Junk" to reply please!!!

 

KC, December 2000

Kansans on Podium at Nationals

KU's Jed Schneider won the gold medal and the national collegiate cyclocross title, and LBCR's
Madeline Finch of Lawrence and Suzanne Johnson of St. Louis were among seven Kansas racers who won
medals by finishing in the top five in their categories at last weekend's USCF National Cyclocross
Championships at Stoll Park in Overland Park, KS.

It was a beautiful weekend for Kansas cycling, right down to the arctic conditions and wind
chills near -30F. In women's masters racing, Johnson, a Kansas City native now living in St.
Louis, was fifth in the 30-34 race, and Finch took fifth behind Trudi Roberts of Topeka
(Wheatland), who finished fourth in the 40-44 race. Topeka's Catherine Walberg (Ameritech) was
fourth in the 35-39 event, and Glenda Taylor of Topeka (Wheatland) won the silver medal with a
second-place finish in 45-49.

On the men's side, four-time US cross champ Steve Tilford of Topeka (Jogmate) was fifth in the men's
elite race. Tilford was part of a six-man break which made the decisive move on the second of seven
laps, then survived numerous attacks by Saturn's Tim Johnson, defending US champ Marc Gullickson
(Mongoose) and Johnson's Saturn teammate Mark McCormack before unleashing a blistering attack of his
own as the break came onto the start/finish area on the fourth of seven laps. The team of Johnson
and McCormack, however, proved too much for all but Gullickson, who pulled away with Johnson with
two laps to go. Johnson then opened up a 15-second gap, attacking Gully with 1.5 laps to go take

the stars and stripes jersey and the gold medal. "I really didn't have any bad falls," said Johnson,
"but I had lots of 'dabs' because of the
ice. The cold weather wasn't really a problem, but the ice and wind together sucked because of the
off-camber turns. My front tire really felt like it was getting light." Asked about Tilford's
fourth-lap attack, Gullickson said simply, "Tilford was awesome." Dale Knapp of Tacoma, WA,
(Kona) finished fourth.

A disappointed Tilford admitted that with the weather conditions and the

strength of the field, it could have been worse. "I fell several times,

and each time I'd get up and chase back on, but I'd be winded by the time I got back," Tilford said
in the finish area after the race. Meanwhile, Johnson and Gullickson rode near-perfect races to
finish gold

and silver, respectively.

"Timmy almost fell once right in front of me," recalled Tilford, "but he

rode a good race. This wasn't my best race. I had better fitness than this (fifth)." With four
veterans of world cyclocross championship competition (two with US cross titles already under their
belts) in the top spots, a better finish would have been a tall order at any rate.

Schneider, the defending Kansas state cyclocross champ and two-time national collegiate mountain
biking silver medalist, overcame a difficult start and an early crash to chase down race leader Todd
Shoberg (Lindsey Wilson College, Columbia, KY), then attacked Shoberg hard with two laps to go.
"Todd stayed with me for a while but I finally jumped hard and Todd crashed trying to follow,"
recalled Schneider in describing his winning ride. Schneider suffered through the men's elite ride
on Saturday, and raced again in the SuperCup finals

on Sunday, but, after capturing the collegiate gold, the rest of the weekend was "gravy."

But the real action took place Saturday morning in the sublime deep-freeze of the men's B race, by
whose 10:30 start time a morning sleet had combined with 30-mph winds and a quarter-inch layer of
solid ice to create conditions that made me want to shout, "Mush!" I arrived barely in time to pick
up my kit and hop on the bike for a quick skate/warmup lap. I pulled up to the back of the start
chute about 2 nanoseconds before the start whistle. 86 starters.

Since, presumably to allow time for the Zamboni to finish the course, I didn't get a call-up at the
start line, I was obliged to make my way from near the back row, where I was joined by LBCR's Matt
McKillip along

the right-side fence. Also riding for LBCR in the B's were Rick Finley and Shadd Smith (fresh off
his strong finish at the Florida Ironman Triathlon). The jockeying for position on the start grid
was almost as ferocious as the conditions, because everyone knew that position would be crucial,
given the likelihood of more than a few crashes--and how!

Sure enough, at the whistle--yard sale! Still under the start banner, about 20 guys went straight
down, rear wheels spinning out from under them as if someone had pulled the ground out from under
us. Did I mention that there was some ice? Matt and I managed to stay upright, but the course was
practically blocked by the bikes and riders scattered

all over the place. So, as the holeshooters dropped onto the grass section 100 meters ahead, we
waited for the course to clear and settled into about eleventy-two hundredth place. Goodbye podium.
Shadd survived the paddock melee in the top twenty.

Nevertheless, unwilling to be cheated out of the masochistic thrills which make psychlocross so
worthwhile, I started crashing immediately. At the first hill, I went down as Rick Finley passed on
my outside, then managed to pass him as we both low-sided on an icy off-camber left-turn in the
second half of the course. It was here that I began to catch some of the riders, usually by simply
riding over them as they slipped and went down right in front of me. I know, I

know...it's not polite to ride over other guys, but it's not as if I could have turned or anything.
Besides, traction was much better on the

riders and/or their machines than on the icy ground.

At the end of the first lap, Rick, Matt, and Oz rider Bret Sehorn were all with me as we crossed the
line. Bret was a few lengths ahead of me until he decided to get out of the saddle on the pavement.
Whoops! Bret went down, scoring major style points with his 20-mph rubber-side-up, booty-side-down
and slick remount, righting himself and the bike while sliding across the line a la James Brown. He
also swept from the rink what little sand hadn't been blown away by the howling north crosswinds
which lashed the chute area.

During the second lap, Rick made some hard pushes, and Matt passed me, too. I noticed that my
cassette wasn't engaging its pawls, so that I'd spend a few pedal revs waiting for the gears to
catch after I freewheeled or soft-pedaled. Perhaps the chunks of frozen oil weren't lubricating so
well in there. The surprising anti-jolt of pedaling against zero resistance had me tripodding all
over the course, but I managed to keep up with Rick and Bret until the last lap, where Bret
unleashed a hard attack at the end of the pavement before the "frozen tundra" section, which ended
with triple barricades just before the finish sprint. He shot past me, accelerating in the last
meters before the grass then pedaling hard downwind toward the barriers and the final turn onto the
finishing straight. I took his wheel and sat on him across the north end of the course, knowing that
I'd have the advantage with my silky BUTTAH-smooth hurdling. He aced the backstretch chicane and
opened a gap, but I closed two bike lengths at the last triple and pulled onto the finish stretch
with a one-length lead. I couldn't restrain myself from getting out of the saddle with the line in
sight, and when I did I almost went down as my rear wheel lost traction-- the ice was so slippery I
kept expecting to see a goalie up ahead. Bret easily took advantage of my slip, coming around me
with 100 meters to go to take 35th place and the coveted yellow socks (provided he could

catch one of the hundred or so pairs thrown into the crowd at the mondo swagfest after the race). 48
finishers classified.

No animals were harmed during the production of this story, although some events have been
embellished to make you look.

I've lived in Seattle, St. Louis and Lawrence, and I think KC would be a

good city for cross natz again, especially had it been this year. In fact, three of the last four
Decembers have been raced in short sleeves--just that one crappy blizzard. KC has a very cool
midtown area near some new courses.

I visited Baltimore and Boston for the first times this year--I liked both of those cities--a
lot. By comparison, the midwest's advantage is geographic, and while the KC cross scene is pretty
damn good here (no comparison to NE and left coast), I enjoy both Chicago and St. L as cities
more than KC.

Cheers,

Eric Lawrence, KS

 

Sharon Peters wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Cross Comparison Nationals and Racers From: "Ken Papai"
>
>
>>What was so bad about the tough '99 SF course?
>>
>
>
> Ken, I'm going to put you and Tommy Eunich in my file of people who don't "Get It" about cross.
> There is a huge difference between a tough course and a bad course. Tough means that the course
> presents a challenge for all those who participate. Bad means poorly planned, unsafe or
> unsporting.
>
> Since you asked about the Frisco' nationals,

Wow, I didn't know they had 'cross nats in Frisco, TX!

Greg

--
"Walking under ladders for a living You know we should be running round in pubs and bars We know
we'll never grow short And we'll never grow tall" - the Mekons

 

Keep it in Baltimore, it worked. The hotels were probably cheaper than most places. The beer is
always cheap. The course was great.

Could Philadelphia compete? Are there bars walking distance from Fairmont park?

Central park in NY has potential, but I bet it would NEVER happen. Van Cortland park would be a
better bet, but security could be an issue. Prospect park would be a great place.

Boston...somewhere along the river over by Harvard's women's boathouse? Flat and boring. The common?
Would be ideal, but as unlikely as Central park. I vote for Fenway, even as far down as Jamaica
pond. A quick walk east into Jamiaca Plain for bars.

 

"Sharon Peters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Cross Comparison Nationals and Racers From: "Ken Papai"
>
> >What was so bad about the tough '99 SF course?
> >
>
> Ken, I'm going to put you and Tommy Eunich in my file of people who don't
"Get
> It" about cross. There is a huge difference between a tough course and a
bad
> course. Tough means that the course presents a challenge for all those
who
> participate. Bad means poorly planned, unsafe or unsporting.
>
> Since you asked about the Frisco' nationals, here is just a small list Greater than 90 degree turn
> less than 100 meters from the start.

OK, check. That was extremely dumb. There was a RACE to the 1st corner and those left behind were
extra screwed.

> Uneven bumpy terrain in between high speed hurdles. Ultra narrow course (less than 3m in many
> sections).

Very true.

> 10 meter finish straight.

I made it about 15 meters or so... way short.

> Nearly impossible for mechanics to move from pit to pit. Poorly designed and marshalled course
> crossings. Ultra short course combined with multiple field championship events (ie
M30-34
> and 35-39, 200 riders on a 4 minute course at the same time) U23 and Elite Men combined
> championship on a 4 minute lap, meaning top 10 U-23's were pulled from the race.
>
> Missed you this weekend-

Big time bummer I know.

-Ken

 

[email protected] (Sharing Peckers) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >Subject: Re: Cross Comparison Nationals and Racers From: "Ken Papai"
>
> >What was so bad about the tough '99 SF course?
> >
> Ken, I'm going to put you and Tommy Eunich in my file of people who don't "Get It" about cross.
> There is a huge difference between a tough course and a bad course. Tough means that the course
> presents a challenge for all those who participate. Bad means poorly planned, unsafe or
> unsporting.

Plainly you have a real problem understanding racing yourself. While there was certainly some of the
problems you noted, such as poor course crossings and the course being too short, complaining about
a tight course isn't one of them.

Just because on the east coast they want to be able to have 20 people pass abreast doesn't mean that
easy passing should be a feature of a course. I raced motorcycles for many years and it was a rare
course where you didn't have to wait for your chance to pass. Somehow you think that bicycle racing
should be different in that respect. Too bad.

A proper cross course is challenging and that challenge can come from the difficulty of the terrain
or the difficulty in passing or in a water crossing that is 3 feet deep. You plainly don't have any
sense of history in the sport or you'd realize that when it started in Europe it was an improptue
steeplechase. But perhaps if you have your way it can deteriorate into a BMX-like event with
bleechers so that you can sit your fat ass in a cushioned chair.

 

"ronde champ" <ronde_champ...
>
> "Ken Papai" <[email protected]@sccrnsc04...
> >
> > "Andrew Albright" <andrew_.google.com...
> > > Does someone who went to the last 4 cross nats want to compare and contrast? And should Napa
> > > really hold next year's nationals? I haven't heard one way or another if it was good (everyone
> > > talked about the rain)
> > >
> > > 2002 Napa 2001 Balt 2000 KC 1999 San Fran (I thought 99 San Fran's crowd were the most I have
> > > ever seen at a cross races (although obviously the course sucked)...were there that many
> > > people in Napa? Can't someone find a San Fran proper course? there is obviously a built in fan
> > > base in San Fran--just look at the sept road race.
> >
> > "San Francisco" unless you're a tourist or a troll.
> >
> > What was so bad about the tough '99 SF course?
> >
> > > Riders: And anyone want to offer an opinion on the state of cross in the US?
> >
> > How many race cross (Cat. "III" or better? Maybe 3,000 as compared to 20,000 who race road)
> > seriously?
>
> Ken, And your point is......?

That road is 7 times as popular among serious racers. Why? Maybe because everyone has a road bike, a
mountain bike and few have a dedicated cross bike.

Nobody's fault but mine.....

But the question was asked.

-Ken

 

"jim gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Keep it in Baltimore, it worked. The hotels were probably cheaper than most places. The beer is
> always cheap. The course was great.
>
> Could Philadelphia compete? Are there bars walking distance from Fairmont park?

Yes there are, but I have a feeling that your cracker-ass would feel a little uncomfortable in them.

Thanks, Ronde Champ