Originally Posted by
Heathpack
If we're going to talk about silliness, your example of parsing race categories down to M40-44 born in November is a great example of such.
that's the point. at some point you think it is silly. someone might thing M43-44 November is the line, someone else might thing M40-44. it's arbitrary and at least somewhat personal.
Originally Posted by heathpack
Race categories are created because there are real physiologic (and I guess, in the case of RR and crits, experience) differences between people of different ages and genders.
honestly, i hear lots of *anecdotes*, but i haven't seen much science on this. i'll hear things like
"once you're giving up 10 years to another rider, that's a real performance gap."
really? is it 10 years and not 5? is it 10 and not 15? is it 10 and not 7.5?
some 50yo riders kick the butts of some 20yo riders.
arbitrary.
Originally Posted by heathpack
Of course there's always going to be some sense of arbitrariness in any scale that is discrete when the differences are in fact analog. But there's a basis for it that is not simply a matter of "let's create more opportunities for people to win jerseys so that we can give these things away".
i respect your point of view and the discussion.
that said, the differences are not analog. they vary to some degree based on age (there's a difference between an 18yo and an 80yo and a 24yo and a 74yo, but is there much of one between a 40 & 46yo? maybe. (and maybe is the point.)
and i'd argue that the differences are influenced to a large(r) degree by factors such as genetics and training over the n years prior.
for instance, the commonly-held belief that VO2max decreases at a drastic rate is based on looking at large groups of people who, by and large, stop doing anything related to VO2max. those who do keep it up show substantially slower decline. do we go by the physiological differences between sedentary population, or do we go by an athletic population to decide when it matters? do we differentiate between those who do VO2max work vs those that decide it's time to quit all that and just 'go longer'?
not attacking you here, just posing a thought experiment.
Originally Posted by heathpack
The flip side of that is because of this obsession with the idea that bigger fields are more meaningful
earlier i posed a hypothetical situation (which actually has happened) where there is one competitor in a national championship age group. from there the conversation somehow morphed to 'bigger fields matter more'; i'll play along, but that's not something i ever intended to say (nor do i think i said it).
Originally Posted by heathpack
, women frequently race TTs in a open category. So how does a 29 year old racing 10 other women who are all 50+ make that 29 year old's win more meaningful?
i never made that statement. generally speaking, a 29yo who hasn't made it to the professional ranks is doing this as a hobby (whether they realize it or not), so i think nothing separates the 29yo from the 50+ yo in any practical terms of "meaning" for amateur competition.
Originally Posted by heathpack
Does Amber Nebens win over me make her win more meaningful than it would be if you separated the pros out from the amateur newby racers?
well, i think that's probably a poor example to use a professional, but, i'm going to guess at no time would your participation in an event that included amber neben or anyone paid to ride his/her bike have any positive impact on the meaning they attach to a race result.
actually, i'd probably bet a few $ that if an even is somehow open to professionals at the top of their sport (e.g., Tony Martin) *and* somehow also open to amateur riders like you, me or any cat 1, that pro probably doesn't consider the event worth all that much. they're likely gunning for stuff like AToC, TdF, UCI World Champs, etc.
IOW, the fact that you (or i) were there would be a negative.
Originally Posted by heathpack
IMO these wins become less meaningful and the thing you race for in these fields is some kind on intrinsic win- a PR or a power PR or just executing it perfectly.
that's my point.
Originally Posted by heathpack
Which is fine, but we all know the point of racing is to actually try to win. Creating fields where the physiology means that some people essentially can't win without some kind of act of god? Sorry that just feels way less meaningful to me than letting go of this arbitrary concept that unless there's 10 people or 6 people or whatever number you want to make up the race doesn't really count.
this stuff is never fair, though. @
Doge has commented countless times how juniors are, in fact, penalized while racing adults.
sometimes the UCI world championship ITT includes a significant hill that eliminates the traditional flat TTers from contention.
occasionally a racer who was born late in a year gets bumped to M45-49 instead of M40-44 (even though they are 44yo at the time of competition), and their time was good enough to beat all the 40-44yo's.
or what if the split is 41-45/46-50 instead of 40-44/45-49? there could be different outcomes.
again, it's arbitrary.
it's cool with me, i'm just riffing on the fact that it is arbitrary and some of the arguments used to split up the groups are a little ... thin.
Originally Posted by heathpack
As to how I would feel if I trained for 5 years to win some race and then the next guy came along and won his/her race easily in an easy field?
that wasn't the question i asked; the key part is that individual is taking great pains to tell you how they just did the same thing you did, with far less training (none in my hypothetical) and in a field that had no competition due to external issue.
my *guess* (based on human nature) is that you'd be at least a LEEEEEETLE perturbed. how could you not?
but therein lies the issue: if you answer that you are just a teeny, tiny bit bothered, it's an indicator that you judge fields based on field size, quality of competition, etc.
it's natural, just as it is natural to assume that anything *we* do is a little tougher or holds just a bit more meaning than what others do.
"in my day, i used to have to walk to school in a blizzard, and it was uphill both ways..."
Originally Posted by heathpack
I honestly can't say that it would bother me at all or diminish my sense of accomplishment. If I knew my own field was weak, it would diminish my sense of accomplishment somewhat. But I'd still be happy with it- because that's bike racing. You can't control who else shows up or getting a day or venue that favors you over your competitors. But you can control whether you're there with your shot together prepared and ready to race. If just doing that is enough for the win, well that's the only part of it that's in my control, so that's all I can really worry myself with.
totally agree. again, that wasn't the question that was asked. i made the point earlier that you can only race who shows up, and if the "top gun" has the flu that day, well maybe they would not have won anyway, or maybe their preparation was poor, or, or, or. Or even if they missed the start due to traffic, unfortunately getting ourselves to the starting line is still a part of (amateur) competition.
i suspect we probably agree more than disagree, and i'm just writing a bunch of words because i find that any argument to define anything other than pretty broad categories to come down to peoples' opinions on where lines should be drawn more than any fact.
the answer "because that's what USAC says the lines are" is totally cool to me, and it's what i abide. it's still silly, though.