Cyclocross Magazine - Cyclo-cross News, Race Reports, Bike Reviews, Forums and More

huttondh hey, you think that video is just a joke but those types of qualifiers have already been used at a world championship level. See the video here: http://www.cxmagazine.com/sscxwc10-qualifier-race-action

rockdude Not true. I did a quick count of titles and podiums from the past 6 CX nationals, and yes, in 2010 Colorado racers had a banner year with 9 championships, but counting the full 5 places, the Mid Atlantic had 18 podiums to Colorado's 15, and New England had 14. In prior years, New England had 9 titles in both 2006 and 2007 when Colorado had 4 and 5 respectively. Oregon never had more than 5 titles and 13 podiums in any year. The Mid Atlantic states had greater number of podiums even in the years that nationals was in Oregon. Infact New England took more podiums 4 of the 6 years and equal or more titles 3 of the 6 years as Colorado. The comparison gets a little tricky at the elite level though, since should you count Amy Dombroski as a Vermont/New England racer (where she grew up and started racing) or a Colorado racer since she resides there now. Same dilemna with Todd & Troy Wells (NY) and Katie Compton (PA). For the record I counted the Wells and Compton as CO racers. Ultimatley, the whole debate about regions is stupid. At the national level we should all be trying to improve the sport for every region. The ultimate goal is to produce champions that can race at the international level. Regional rivalries do not help that goal in my view. I'll cheer for Zach McDonald and Danny Summerhill just as much as Jeff Bahnson and the Keogh brothers in world cups.

ringcycles rockdude I see you used a little fussy math. Not that I am going to get in a pissing match over this but CO had something like 27-28 top 3 finishes last year. That is a healthy margin over mid-Atlantic's 18 top 5 finishes. In 2009 the results were similar.

http://303cycling.com/2010-colorado-cyclocross-nationals-coverage. I stand by my what I said, that the majority of top races in the country are at a unfair disadvantage under the new system USAC has implemented. Is this a wise way to promote the sport, I think not. This is all about one thing, USAC trying to strong arm other organizations to fold to their wishes. Who gets hurt, the riders, some of which are our nations best. You can not have a real event and call it Nationals if you disenfranchise the majority of your best riders. If an event is to be designated as Nationals it should be fair and equal to all rides regardless of what organization they race under.

rockdude ringcycles Um, no fuzzy math. Nationals has held a 5 deep podium in each championship category for atleast a decade. As to you assertion that the majority of top racers in cyclocross are from Colorado and therefore will be at a disadvantage, also not so. If you actually count the number of championships and podiums between Colorado and New England over the last 6 years, the numbers are pretty equal. Colorado certainly does not have more championships and podiums than every other region combined, i.e a majority. The only way to get to 28 podiums for CO in 2010 is to count 5 deep of every race, including the non-championship events (which I would not). Regarding your central point, that a 3 USAC race average is unfair to CO racers, the CO elites all race UCI races around the the country, so for them its a non issue. The top juniors and masters women are either in small fields or also racing around the country at UCI/USAC events, so again non issue. The one group it might truly effect is masters men between age 35-55+. The truly top masters racers, like Pete Weber, Brandon Dwight, Jonathan Baker, are also racing around the country at UCI/USAC events, so for them again non issue. Guys who think they are that good should likely hop over to Kansas for a weekend or drive to Iowa for Jingle Rock and get their 3 races done. Or those guys could race the UCI events in Colorado, get their results, and see if they really are that good. The only group then it might negatively effect is mid pack 35-59 year old men like me, but racing exclusively in CO or OR. This group may have to start at the back rather than 6th row. I see nothing in this rule that will keep Danny Summerhill or Jon Carriveau, or Matt Pacocha from getting the start position that they deserve. So for the truly best masters racers in the country, this rule should actually improve things since they don't have to worry about aging up a category and losing top 10 status, or failing at a time trial 2 days before the championship, or a down server meaning they can't register fast enough. I can not imagine true national champion quality racers who will be hurt by this system, I just don't. Once again, if you do not like USAC, don't race events they permit, but then you can not complain that their national championships should somehow make accomodations for racers who contribute nothing to the organization the rest of the year.

miller.climb really good point. we don't know many 30+ races. crossafterdark 's StarCrossed race used to have a 30+ race, but beyond that? What about 40+, 50+? A lot of areas have 35+ and 45+. We'll see what we can find out.

cyclocross I think the system makes sense...on the surface it just seems easier for people who race categories that are represented at USGP or similar big races...especially since only 3 races count. It might even be easier to race SS and head to some USGP races then to try and figure out a good strategy at a 30+, 40+, or similar 'nat' category....right now it is either ride in the middle or back in the elites at USGP and get no points. Or race for top10 or podium in the cat 2s (I assume this would be considerably less points...but then again, what else is there?).

miller.climb I guess we have to wait for the final detailed rules to know how non-exact age categories and lower category results count (if at all).

ddobrozsi we contacted resultsboy and he said it's not based on his site. it certainly could be inspired by his site as he and usacycling had conversations in the past ( see: http://www.cxmagazine.com/bikeregcom-buys-colin-reuter-crossresults-com ). But Colin was quick to credit the FIS (skiing association) for inspiring his system.

RevBigRing Since its USAC's party, I do not see why they should make extra accomodations for racers who do not compete in USAC events. Yes, it sucks for people in CO and OR, but this start order scheme is probably the best one. Since the ranking is going to be based on 3 results, instead of 7 or 10, it should be possible for the top racers in those states to travel for a few USAC events each year. Most of those top guys already do so anyway.

ringcycles RevBigRing This is just USAC trying to strong arm OR,CO,No Cal and UT into the fold. All of these place have thriving cross scenes without USAC. Cross Nats is USAC annual money grab where they take credit for a huge scene and growth segment that they had nothing to do with and do nothing to support.

RevBigRing ringcycles USAC really does nothing to support CX in the USA; this is best evidenced by the fact that they make riders "chosen" to represent the USA at the World Championships pay their own way there and expenses.

flahute ringcycles The real reason they got rid of the time trial is paying 2 timing crews cut into the profit of the event they do nothing to support but take all the credit for.

RevBigRing Don't enter nationals if you don't like the rules. Thats how OBA and ACA started in the first place, right? Of course its the USAC playing their own hand, like I said, its their party. If they really wanted to "strong arm" any given region, they'd make it a ten race average. Ultimately, if an elite racer wants to go to World Cup, then they have to play by their national federations rules. If a masters or juniors racer want to wear a national champions jersey likewise. Sorry if you don't like USAC, but they are the national federation. If you are content with or prefer your own regional organization fine. ACA and OBA can sponsor their own championships as they like. But don't then moan about how the lack of affiliation with the national body is a disadvantage. USAC does plenty to support cyclocross in New England, the Mid Atlantic, and SoCal. I'm sure they would support any other region likewise. They let UCI races get permitted in Oregon and Colorado without requiring the amatuer and masters races be USAC affiliated as well. How is OBA or ACA helping to make cyclocross an olympic sport and therefore entitled to national funding support by refusing to affiliate with the UCI?

ringcycles is making cyclocross an Olympic sport the end goal though? or can these orgs do good by developing local talent who should have a fair shot at a good start position at nats as well? good discussion going here, we don't have all the answers, just a lot of questions.

cyclocross ringcycles honestly, the end goal for USA cycling is Olympic status. The origin of USAC is to develop and focus on talent at the Olympic level. At least that's what it was founded to do (in their mission statement).

Being an individual who grew up in the Midwest and luckily had an awesome series in the OVCX, results were always reported to USAC. With that being said, I now live in the Southeast and not too much cyclocross happens down here and the reporting to USAC is poorly executed. Largely the problem a lot of people will have is that they are racing but the less than motivated race organizers will fail to report the results as they are expected to. A lot of the issue with cyclocross and USAC is the conflict between being organizing as a sport and trying to stay somewhat grassroots to keep the persona of the sport what it has been.

In short, race promoters have as much an impact on moving the sport forward as riders and USAC do.