Cycling rates you in categories based on ability, and you move up from slower to faster cats as you get faster.
For those that have raced in cycling and done tri’s - how does the category approach compare to the age group approach? (Or what do you think if you haven’t done cycling racing?)
tom
Triathlons should follow cycling categories.
In reality, USCF cats use both age and categories (and in the masters categories, it gets even clopudier with A,B, abd C rather than 1-5 like the open categories). For me, though, it makes sense for draft-legal tris only.
Actually, this IS a very good idea. In amateur motorcycle road racing (WERA) they have expert and novice classes. However cat pro/1-5 (and masters) would be a good solution to the age group ‘issue’.
I didn’t realize the cat issue was more complicated - thanks for hte info. But, why for draft legal tris only?
In a TT, there’s really no issue with categories. But it’s not so much an “ability” category (though it tends to works itself out that way), but more an “experience” category (you don’t want a Cat 5 novice mixing into a Cat 1 sprint). It’s a safety issue. Which is why I think it also makes sense for draft-legal tris (the same reason I don’t like the idea of just open draft-legal events).
The cycling cats may be principally an experience category, but it really is an ability category as well. While all it takes to cat up from 5 to 4 is some experience, each additional upgrade requires at least some sort of achievement in races other than just participating. I think categories like the cycling cats would be great for triathlon.
I would love it if USAT did this for Oly dist races. I think it makes a lot of sense and would make for some really competitive races overall. I don’t think it would make sense for ironman ----I’d rather see that stay the same and continue to have one big mass start.
I think categories like the cycling cats would be great for triathlon.
I couldn’t agree more.
Right. Just ask any RD what the resulting participation would be… And entry fees.
I would have to say it is more of a ability catagory than experience. Look up Floyd Landis’ record on USCF sometime and you’ll see he didn’t do a lot of Cat3/4/5 races moving gradually up the ranks…on the contrary if you are slow you can be at Cat4 for a long long time. In TT someone like myself that pretty much only races TT doens’t have a chance to advance out of Cat5 regardless of finish place, but it hardly matters since you can put your time against anyone. A lot of the mass start races mix the catagories so a strong/lucky Cat5 could easily be mixing it up in the sprint with Cat3 or above, at least in the local events.
I’ve been an advocate of the catogory system for tri for awhile, as it gives people in the middle/back of the pack something more to work for than just improving their time. Moving up a catagory is a difficult and rewarding goal that your peers can recognize and appreciate.
It would also allow starting waves to avoid fast swimmers/riders overtaking the slow, at least for the few single loop events out there.
Not sure I get the gyst of your reply. Why would it affect entry fees?
As for participation, has USAT or any other sanctioning body ever tried it? I dunno, so I don’t know the impact.
I personally would like it better, but maybe not all would. I know it was not much fun the past 2 years constantly racing against JJ Baily and 2-3 other elite athletes in my area. (I’m not saying I want it easy…just saying it would be nice to have a chance at some competitive success and something to shoot for by Cat’ing up.)
Ultimately, age groups are easy to administer, but they are otherwise of limited value, in my mind.
I don’t understand what problem you are trying to solve…
Most tris have overall awards/placement and everyone has the ability to race against each other. Many tri have even adopted a “friends and family” division (which I think is great). At a USCF event (minus TT), they are all totally different races (lengths, pace, strategy)
IMO, USCF money/prizes should ONLY go to the highest CAT. Lots of folks sandbagging back in Cat 3/4 playing king of the hill. If you want the money, CAT up! ;o)
I think the participation numbers would decrease. Just my own personal feelings onthe subject. No RD background to fall on.
I did a race (actually did the race several times) in Bellingham years ago, where the RD had two races. An Elite (or “competetive”) one in the morning, and a beginner (or non-competetive) one in the afternoon. Same course and distances, but in the later race, if you went faster than a particular time, you were effectively labeled a sandbagger and ineligible for awards. Not sure how that race is run now (Lake Padden Tri).
i have long thought tri’s wopuild be better served with a ability/experience grouping. call it cit/sport/comp/expert, or call it cat 4/5, 3,2,1.
it works.
yeah, there is a little snadbagging that goes on - it’s not that big a deal - it is mostly self limiting, and it is part of the fun.
i do beleieve the AG thing is a holdover from running, and they shoulda gone to the cycling model from the git-go. if people triied it, they would like it. more people get to shoot for something they are in tune with. win/win/win, it would be.
For those that have raced in cycling and done tri’s - how does the category approach compare to the age group approach?
This may not answer the quesiton but for some reason there always seems to be a perception that Masters races are easier than Categorized races - this typically is not the case. Most of the time, an older person new to road racing and entertains the thought of competing in a masters category road race will find that the shorter distances coupled with a mix of highly experienced racers (many former Pro-1-2 racers) makes for a challenging, high tempo events. Often times, older first-time competitors who are new to the sport and trying there hand in masters races will quickly find themselves off the back and out of contention as a result of the high tempo and/or a variety of attacks aimed at shedding those not up to the challenge. For the most part, older racers do not get any slower (but it might take a bit longer to recover), but things like family and work obligations tend to prevent getting in the training hours necessary to stay competitive at the higher levels. A good example is Kent Bostick - he made his first U.S. Olympic team at the age of 43 and has raced as a domestic pro throughout his 40’s into his early 50’s.
Lots of folks sandbagging back in Cat 3/4 playing king of the hill.
This is true enough. Superweek is full of guys holding out from Cat’in up because of the prize money. But there is no reason this needs to be the case.
USCF could have automatic Cat ups if they wanted. This is even more true for USAT, since USAT has standards on when/how RD’s are required to report results and nearly all events are chip timed. (USCF has more difficulties in this regard because race results aren’t always quite as accurate outside of the first 5-10 spots in each race.)
You might be right about participation. I don’t have any knowledge of that from the RD perspective but it would be a good thing to consider before ever making changes.
But my main point is that I would enjoy racing with cats more as CY TRI said. I like the thought of trying to reach a level of performance (like Cat 1) while racing people at more my level on my way there. For all of my selfish reasons (and other reasons) I think cats would be good for triathlon, but obviously there may be other things to consider.
I didn’t say I was trying to solve any particular problem, was just wondering if those who have experienced both types of classifications could compare.
Personally, it seems like the cat system would allow BOP and MOP racers more opportunity to have an easily defined goal by moving up in cat.
From the perspective of a MOP/BOP newbie - I have to say I rather like this idea.
If you look at the churn in the ironman slot thread and Clyde/athena thread this may go a long way to solving that. They issue really is having an achievable goal to work towards. I started out as one of tri4ever’s dreaded fatties, and next year will be racing AG (yes, some of us do work hard and lose the weight guys). So for me, I check out the AG results and use that to set some goals for training. However, if I think of it in competetive terms, I would much rather be racing with people of similar performance, rather than AG, which can range widely. I can still goal set to reach the top of my cat, then look at moving up category.
That said, I see two drawbacks. I am not sure there wouldn’t be a need for cat levels distinct for the different tri distances. Someone who is CAT1 or 2 in sprint is by no means assured of being the same cat in IM. This would create an administrative headache. Greater organizational minds than mine can voice possible solutions.
Secondly, what does this do for qualifying for Kona/Clearwater? Do these become strictly Cat 1 races? Does a Cat 3 racer ever have a chance to qualify? You will never get around may peoples dream of being at Kona, and limiting it to the top two Cats could be a bitter pill for many. Looking at my AG for Timberman last year (my goal race for 07) - the top 45-59 was 17th overall, the second in the division was 61 overall. We have qualifiers for 60+ AG that would probably never rank in a Cat system for Kona. This would probably be the biggest detractor for many. Again, no solutions offered here.
While I like the idea of the cat system, I think inertia will hold sway, and AG is going to be with us for a long while.