So let me state up-front I did not attend the 2005 Mideast regional championships and from many account the event went over well. However, many of my friends and tri-mates attended with family.
My beef is the same one this forum has debated over the years. The wave rule for age-group points established by USAT is just plain wrong on every level.
The first male across the line did not win the event! The male winner- a good friend- was in the last wave and finished 20 min. after.
This makes for a seriously uneventful event. Spectators don’t care, zero excitement and no real racing of top competitors. All because we or USAT, can’t figure out how to score or what to do with the top racers and what to category to put them in.
Congratulations USAT. Thanks for making our sport a cold, flat, no butter, no syrup pancake!
sounds pretty annoying. Didn’t they have an elite or open wave?
one thing they had at a few tris in australia this year for the guys who dont want to race pro but are borderline pro/top age grouper was an open age group category which was a combined wave of fast age groupers generally between 18-35 who wanted a good race against the other fast guys, they also let them off just after the elites so that they had a clear course under similiar conditions to the elites.
I agree - part of the fun of racing is racing against people, including the use of those people to bring out the best in you. It isn’t as much fun (for me, at least) to race ghosts (those in other waves). As a 40+, I am usually relegated to the later waves and frankly don’t enjoy it as much.
Bottom line - I favor a mass start, regardless of event size. The masses will separate…I contend it is probably safer, since the masses get gradually strung out, rather than have waves where the “faster” are continually overtaking the wave in front, and the “slower” are continually dropping through the subsequent waves.
After twenty years of racing my opinion is that the first 100 finishers from the previous years race regardless of age or sex wowuld have the option of the first wave start. It would reward not only excellance but encourage people to return the following year. Chances are most age group winners would emerge from this wave and it would be easier to weed out the wheel suckers.
In my feeble mind, I always thought the use of some seeding method using the past year’s age group rankings would make things a little more even instead of age group waves.
This would have two effects in my mind - the USTA could hope to gain more members, to be included in an early/fast wave you would have to have a ranking. Secondly, some of the MOP/BOP in each age group would be more fairly split, which might be better of for all waves. Of course, there will be exceptions, when a racer from a later wave might win the race overall. But, the chances would be smaller than they are now.
Go ahead, rip this theory. I’d like to hear what flaws I’m not seeing.
It seems pretty simple, every race should have an open wave which you are eligible for by:
USAT Ranking (for the sake of argument, anyone over .85) or petitioning the race director if you don’t have the ranking but feel you ‘got the goods’. It shouldn’t be a choice, if you are going to be racing for the overall, you should have to race against the others that are racing for the overall.
Another good idea but as I remember USAT distinguishes open waves separate from age groups and rankings are compromised because of the chance of differing conditions.
In my opinion a race that small, less than 400 entries, should only have about 20 minutes between the first wave and the last so everyone is still competing in the same conditions
It’s not about racing in the same conditions, it’s about racing head-to-head. It really sucks to finish first in your wave only to be edged out by others racing in different waves. I know what you are going to say, go faster. Whatever. Do you think the Marathon World Record and 10,000 Meter World Record would be where they are today if it wasn’t for head-to-head racing? It makes too much sense so I guess it will never happen…
Why complicate the issue. Seed on time. First wave, fastest times. Last wave slowest times. First Race? Seed at a realistic goal time (if you have no idea you haven’t been training very seriously so seed at the back).
Many benefits to this system - first across the line wins, the awards ceremony could be held promptly after the finish of the race instead of two hours later, no need to figure out overall results from wave results, easier to prevent drafting, etc…
Seeding would have to be on the honor system. Lie about your times and look like an @ss hanging out the back of your wave.
I agree with you on the head to head competition issue and I like your ranking suggestion.
We had a discussion here a while ago why the open wave athletes weren’t scored as age-groupers and as I remember the issue was because USAT felt that the different start times gave open athletes an advantage over the standard age group athletes. So anyone starting in an open wave was scored as such.
Personally I would like to see less time between waves with a smaller number of people in them. Honestly 1 minute is all that is needed to separate groups. The swimmers would be in a straighter line and easier for the faster swimmers in the following waves to pass. You could get 400 swimmers going in 7 minutes by putting 50 people in each wave.
Without going to a mass start I don’t see a way of solving the problem. Should we go that way to satisfy the top 20 althletes? Or should we keep the waves and satisfy a few hundred?
Sorry guys but I keep coming back to Categories for triathlons and duathlons. Your description of starts based on finish times is basically the same principal.
Why not do what big running races do? Seed yourself, but if you want to be in the earlier waves you have to have proof of a past time to be in that wave (ie the Bolder Boulder 10k with thousands of runners)
To seat youself in the early waves you have to have proof you have ran that fast in previous years BB’s or other races. No proof = you race in the waves that you think you will run in, but it wont be in the ‘qualifying’ waves up front. This keeps similar speeds together, etc.
I think it is silly to go off in waves split up by age and gender. As has been pointed out this is unfair to the faster older people and it is also generally unfair to women. If there is a woman or older guy who is as fast as me then I want them in my wave, I am there to race and I want to race the people who are closest in speed to me regardless of age or sex. And if I get beat by a 50 year old (I am 34) man or women and then good job to them and for me back to training and working hard, because I sure as hell don’t like loosing (to anyone).
I see no reason why we shouldn’t be seeded, just like in swimming. That brings out the best in everyone, it creates competition and makes everyone faster and offers a more race like atmosphere. This will also resolve some of the issue surrounding group swimming starts with slower/weaker swimmers being intimidated by and swum over by stronger faster swimmers. This could be done any number of ways including, but not limited to the following.
USAT ranking as previously mentioned
Results from previous years race - The top X # people from the previous year leave in the first heat, X-Y leave in the following wave and so on.
Results from similar distance races done prior to the event in question.
The USAT could help the RD’s in determining how to weight the value of a race in terms of toughness. Hell they already do it when they award the points for ranking. In order for this to work all of the seeded entries would need to be in a few weeks prior to the race so the seeding could be done, but this also would help RD’s get a better fix on the number of people they will have at the race. All race day entries would be in the last heat(s). Ultimately the RD would be responsible for determine how the seeding would go, strictly USAT rank, previous results, other races ect. I could see a combo set up something like for a 50 person wave the top 30 from the previous year then 20 slots for the folks who are at the race for the first time or not in the previous year. The 20 slots could be given away based only on USAT rank or by other race results, RD’s choice. The beauty of this will be that it will allow for both overall winner racing but also age group racing as well because a persons from the same age group who are similar speeds should be in the same wave.
In N.C. and the vicinity Set-Up Inc used to have prize money at many of their events, but you had to race in their Elite Wave to win any. You could race with your age group and win an age group award, but the first guy across the line won $500 or whatever it was a the time. Since they went away from prize money there has been less motivation because people care about the silly rankings, but all the races I attended the Elite winner did win overall. You still had to race in the Elite wave to be considered for the overall awards.
Anybody could sign up for the Elite Wave and race. The self-policing occurs because you don’t want to look like a dork. One year I raced White Lake and was second to last in the Elite Wave, but would have been third in my age group.
If USAT can’t even put on one National Championship event per year, how can we expect them to solve this complicated a problem?
I’ve been in many other races which Tuxedo Brothers managed and they had let Mike Smith go in the 18-39 wave because he was competing for the win. I’ve also seen them let other contenders (Boggs) do the same thing. Perhaps USAT would not allow this in a championship race?