Originally Posted by jgg3

Actually, I think the problem is the category system. For Master's here in New England, it is largely ignored. Most Masters events are Cat 1-4. This means as a 4 I have a choice: race against Cat 1-3 and have a very tough time even staying with the field, but generally safer and more professional, or race in the Cat 4 open which is an argy-bargy fest, but in which I can consistently get top-20. I don't really have much chance to get upgrade points in the masters, but I want to be in masters because at least I am with guys who make similar risk-aversion decisions. This is what masters was created for. The irony is that I believe that most masters events I am in are mostly Cat 4 guys. It would be justified to have our own race, but the promoters don't set things up that way. For example, the Tokeneke race here in August:
Cat 4 men
Masters 50+ (cat 1-4)
Women 4
Cat 4/5 men
Pro/1/2
Masters 40+ (cat 1-4)
Cat 3 men
Women 1/2/3
Juniors 15-18 (cat 1-5)
Masters 60+ (cat 1-4)

I have no less than 3 choices: Cat 4, Masters 1-4, and Cat 4/5. That seems silly.

Now I know the comeback: Promoters' can't just add fields, there is a limited resource of time. But how silly is it to have several separate Masters 1-4 races? If a guy is a top gun, then it doesn't matter if he is 35, 45, or 55. They should all be in the same race. The category system should be used to group the fields, not the ages. The category system is intended to put the same level of riders together. If a guy gets old and can't hack the Cat 1's any more, he should downgrade, not hope for culling of a higher age category. Whether a separate field should be created or not (Masters 1&2 and a separate Masters 3, or just a Masters 1-3) should be based on the numbers.