Doge

Cycling is a team sport - right? Not at juniors, but anyway everyone got one, still first time USA wupped the world that I can think of.

tommyrod74

Interestingly enough - this is my only real beef with the CX series in this region (NCCX). Fields are big enough that you HAVE to show up to almost every race to get a callup - and courses don't usually have a prologue climb or anything to separate the field before the conga line begins into the fast sections - so, in effect, you get a "perfect attendance award" for just showing up to all the races, and it's not based on real merit or ability (always), just attending is enough to earn callup points.

In a way, this makes it way more of a "participation award" discipline than it should be, IMO. I'm aware that if I was one who could make every race, I'd have less beef with it. I can't however, and as CX results are very dependent on starting position (such a short race...) it discourages many from going out to do the occasional race, especially once one hits the higher categories.

I think course design could make this better, however. Just start at the bottom of a big hill...

EDIT TO ADD: i should probably point out that callups are based solely on points earned in THAT series... so if a strong rider with a high USAC ranking showed up for one race, he'd still (theoretically) start at the back.

grolby

I disagree with the bolded sentence, but more in the sense that I think it's "not even wrong." Because participation in more races does matter. And I don't see how that's a problem. Excellence in ANY discipline requires showing up. Why is that not ok in cyclocross? I don't have sympathy for the strong road racer who does three cross races a year and is forced to start at the back. If you deserve a front row start, earn it by showing some commitment to the sport and by getting results. And I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree that the call-up order as based on past results is not based on merit or ability - if you're good, you'll get the results to show it. Anything else is just excuse-making. I started this season on the back row or very near it in many of my races. I was staged about 50th of 65 or so in one of the twistiest cross races in the region (Quad Cross). I finished 10th. A few weeks later, I was staged in a similar position for Midnight Ride, another fast and technical course, against some of the strongest racers in the region. I was top 10 by the start of lap 2, and I finished 4th. For a higher level example, Zdenek Stybar won the 2014 world championship from the 6th row. In short, yeah, callups matter or we wouldn't bother with them. But it's more that a bad callup makes it harder to race for the win rather than precluding a good result. If you're good and you enter races, you will very quickly move up the ranks. It's pretty simple.

That said, there's really no way around the fact that starting position influences race results in cyclocross to at least some degree. While good course design should at least mitigate the consequences of 1st lap traffic, suggesting that it's more fair if races start at the bottom of a climb doesn't add up to me. Just as in road racing, climbing well is only one possible element of being a strong racer and other types of riders should get their chances. And this is also a good example of how being overly worried about the riders at the back would constrain course design in unnecessary ways. It's totally possible that you're getting screwed by poor course design, I don't race in your area and don't know what the courses are like. It's true that there is less institutional knowledge of effective CX course design outside of regions with a longer history of large participation, like New England. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that courses need to be mostly slow turning sections, but of course the problem is that slow turning sections can hurt racing because it's very difficult to make passes if that's all there is. And yeah, bottlenecks very early in a lap are not a good idea.

It is a bummer when you show up to a race and the staging is just Wild West style, with a big rush for the first row. That's why professional races are staged by UCI ranking, and why more and more amateur races are being staged either by crossresults.com ranking points or USAC ranking points. The thing is, there are problems with these systems, too. There's really no perfect answer, but as you already noted, if you show up consistently and you race reasonably well, you'll start getting better callups. And that's your answer. Want to get better callups in cyclocross races? Do more cyclocross races! That seems totally fair to me. Given some time it will work itself out and you will be starting in a place commensurate with your ability, whether that's the first row or the last.

TheKillerPenguin

Le mans start!

dz_nuzz

This is my beef with CX. The race is more or less determined in the first 1 minute than anything else.

While I can appreciate that Cyclocross has a very real element of technical skill that should be there there always seems to be this bias towards luck, good sprint power, and starting position. Then when you get a race like Fruitlands or Canton all you hear is whining that the course is "boring" or "Too hard". I mean you are racing bikes for god's sake, don't cry because it requires fitness. There is never a time when people are just forced to dig deep and put down power to keep their place nor is there any "weeding out" that really occurs during the start.

Sure have technical sections, but also have sections that are non-technical and favor multiple lines and raw power to balance out the off-camber turns and mud that always get thrown in there.

Or just make an actual sand pit. None of these stupid "We have sand!" sections where there is a single line that invariably goes through some sharp turn that is designed more as a technical obstacle than a true sandpit that requires power to ride through.

globecanvas

Local cross race Sunday has a lemans start. I actually like it.

tommyrod74

I don't think one's ability to win a race should be tied to one's having showed up to all the previous races, regardless of result.

And I think that making it almost mandatory to show up to every race discourages the folks who could race some but not all races from even bothering to come out.

Again, maybe I see it through the lens of a guy who has made it to Cat 1 CX and pro XC (this isn't my first rodeo, in other words) and can't do every last race due to family, work, and other obligations.

I just think it's a little backwards that, in this particular series (again, where callups are based solely on points accrued in that series in the current season - and where you get points simply for finishing a race, even if lapped and pulled) that doing it this way actually rewards just showing up over placing, and discourages those who cant do every race.

Using myself as an example, I finished in the money (7th) in my first race of the series - from 4th row, on a tech course. That put me 37th place overall (it was the 3rd race). I'd be lucky to receive a callup by the final race of the series, if I hit them all from then on out.

I know it sounds like complaining, and I'm cool with that. It just seems like one more way the sport discourages those with talent and fitness (but other responsibilities) from racing. I also understand this position will garner zero sympathy from those without such concerns, and that's OK too. Just my viewpoint as a long-time racer and coach (who has many clients in a similar boat).

grolby

With the utmost respect, you feel this way because you aren't very good at it. I can tell you that it is NOT luck and it is NOT just starting position - see above. I earned a good starting position and my upgrade points by being good at this sport, not cause I got lucky. Road racing (and any sport, really) is just as arbitrary in the attributes it favors. I absolutely agree that there is a place for courses that favor different kinds of riders, including those with more power. And those courses are out there! But man, if you insist that cyclocross is unfair because it doesn't favor your abilities the way that road racing does... that's just wrongheaded. It's like me saying that time trials are unfair because they're biased toward riders with more power. That's just the way it is. It's a different game.

grolby

And the ability to do well in road racing is very much tied to one's ability to find time to train. Is that unfair? Cause it sure discourages people with interest and ability but other responsibilities from racing. Getting dropped is awfully discouraging. Should we just not have road races that go up hills cause that would make it easier for me to compete?

It sounds like complaining because it IS complaining. No getting around it. I'm a complainer, personally, so I don't think it's necessarily wrong to complain. But I'm telling you, the way cyclocross works as a sport, there's no way that there's not going to be some advantage inherent in having a better start position. And there are limits to what you can do to make a course more favorable to riders who are starting deeper in the grid.

It certainly sounds like your local series could use a better callup system - here in New England, EVERYONE (who pre-registered) gets a callup, based on crossresults.com points. It's not that hard to implement, either. So maybe talk to some promoters. But, I'm sorry, otherwise this just sounds like sour grapes to me, not like something that is inherently wrong with cyclocross.

TheKillerPenguin

@grolby, did you...just compare snagging participation points to putting in training hours? Did you just go full enduro?

tommyrod74

Going to have to pile on with this one - I was about to post the same thing. I'm discussing my personal situation (I can train 10-16 hours/week, as can a few of my clients) but can't always make 2 races a weekend with a family and job. I don't think that's a unique situation.

In other words, guys who put the work in, and have good genetics on top of it (well, my clients, anyway).

I'd point out that this isn't really an issue in crits, road racing, or XC. I've won all of the above with a poor starting line position, and wasn't really put out to do so (any more than I would have been starting up front, anyway - it's always hard to win). CX, due to the nature of courses and the very short race, seems to be somewhat unique this way.

Remember, I'm discussing our series alone, and its unique callup rules. I'm not against callups at all, just this particular way of doing them (and the 50-meter-dash-to-the-woods-start nature of some courses, as well).

dz_nuzz

I totally accept that I am not good at Cross, always have, always will. But this goes both ways, you like the sport because it favors you, just like I like road racing because it favors me. The question is how much of an element of luck is there and how much are races "pre-determined" before the gun even goes off? In my opinion Cross races are pre-determined before the gun goes off, and tommy is saying that races are determined by participation. This is the argument here.

Personally I have benefited from the cross results points system. I hardly race at all but seem to find myself in the front rows because in the past I would do ONE race every year; Canton. Which suited me perfectly and always nabbed me some awesome placings because the start was right up my alley.

As for one particular example of "Luck" I am going to point you to Orchard Cross this year. You were in a good spot to win that race at the start. 15 seconds later you were on the ground. Sure we could say that crashes are not luck, but really you were just unlucky to be behind the guy who slid himself out and ruined the chances of a bunch of people, including yourself.

As for starting position, it is pretty easy to say that if you are in the first 3 rows you have a shot, behind that.....not really, unless your field is small enough that moving up is not as much of a chore as it is when you are elbowing past 50 guys.

Hey, whatever I personally don't see a need to be good at Cross, I don't care for it in general or gravel grinder road rides. But there is a reality there that cross is really a game of favorites and luck for several reasons. And I guess that is cool, it is it's own sport, but you can't get upset that people are calling it out for that and expressing a desire to make it less about those things.

mike868y

i vow to never mention starting position in a race report ever again.

himespau 

So would your solution be to put more emphasis on average result from races completed in the series (with maybe a tiny part for having completed)? Would that sound more fair to you? Or maybe a 3 component measure to determine your spot with average placing, placing in the last race you were in getting equal weight (to reward one good lucky result and maybe downplay a possible poor start to the season - I like the idea of this as a randomizer) and number of starts getting maybe a quarter as much weight as the other two?

mike868y

ironically, the ranking system in the northeast (cross-results) does just this - as dz nuzz mentioned, it doesn't penalize you for not racing. so like...yeah, tommyrod's region just needs to get itself into 2015

tommyrod74

That sounds like a good idea. I didn't really come to the discussion with a solution in mind, just a general observation that the current system rewards participation over placement, and discourages part-time involvement.

I spend a fair bit of time during the offseason working with local XC promoters to improve participation, and if I had any involvement with CX promotion (I know the guys casually, but don't spend much time around the CX scene) I'd look at this (among other issues, like Cat 4/5 field size and a need for forced upgrade enforcement).

globecanvas

What region are you in? I feel like everyone I know who races cross has been mandatory upgraded at some point. Whoever is in charge of those things here is really on it.

tommyrod74

North Carolina. I honestly don't know firsthand if mandatory upgrades in CX have been an issue here; people complain about it a lot but I'm not around the scene enough to know if it's a legitimate complaint, or just "that guy's fast, why's he in my race?".

The XC and (especially) crit scene here is full of folks who met the criteria for mandatory upgrades long ago, but haven't been forced to do so. My guess is USAC officials aren't able to police it thoroughly as it would take too much time to do so.

Wylde06

You guys and your fancy cross bikes.

gsteinb

cross killed Jesus.

TheKillerPenguin

I'm done with bf for the day, nobody is topping that one.

globecanvas

P&r

grolby

Yeah, I did make the comparison and I stand by it. There's putting the work in terms of training hours and there's putting the work in in terms of lining up, and they both matter and there's variation in people's ability to do either or both. No, it's not fair. Life isn't fair. That said, it sounds like there is a specific issue with the way your series/region deals with callups and ranking, and I hear you - that sucks. Course design, too, should at least have some concession to the physics of a huge crowd of people trying to funnel down into a tight course feature early in the race. I don't think starting every race at the bottom of a hill is possible or reasonable (and might not work as well as you think) but a 50 meter sprint to a handlebar-wide hole in the woods is crap.

Yeah, of course it goes both ways - being good at cyclocross definitely helps the enjoyment factor! I won't deny that. As for Orchard Cross, I'd like to point out that crashes happen in road racing all the time and they're just as capricious and random there. I got crashed out of the Worcester crit in the Longsjo series this summer when I was in position for a top 10. That was pretty much the only shot at a good result I had all year (that part is on me, but you know, context). It sucked, but it happens.

Again, I disagree that cross is more of a "game of favorites and luck" than regular old road racing. I already mentioned that random crashes happen, and we know that there's dirty play and blocking actions to screw over riders who the dominant teams/riders perceive to be below them in the pecking order. And obviously, I would never suggest that you should waste time on trying to be a great cyclocross racer when your attention is better spent on the road, where you're very good. But I would suggest considering the possibility that you're conflating cyclocross not suiting your abilities and mindset with cyclocross being more luck-based or unfair than road racing. I just don't perceive that. It's a wide world and there's something in it for all of us.

Yeah, this is worth repeating. It really does help to have some kind of ranking system to use for callups, one with some kind of persistent points system that nonetheless rolls over over the course of a season. Promoters around here settled on crossresults.com because it exists, it has what seems to be reasonable ranking system, pulls from Bikereg.com which is universally used in this region and thus can more-or-less automatically rank everyone who has ever entered a race. It is definitely not perfect and can be gamed, but it's good enough for the most part. USAC also has a ranking system (which is basically a shameless rip-off of crossresults.com) that would probably work about as well. Basically if promoters can agree that there's an issue here and agree on a solution that most of them will use, it should at least help.

Ygduf

the perfect cross race starts with a 5k le mans start and then just ends.

dz_nuzz

In road racing a crash is a big deal, relatively rare, and people talk about it. In Cross a crash is part of the game , seeing only a single crash would be worth mentioning merely for the fact that there were so few. Some of those crashes (Most of them) are due to skill (or lack thereof). But it is normally a crash that creates the real separation of the contenders and the participants.

Trying to compare road race crashes and cross race crashes is sort of pointless. In road races rules and racers try to mitigate the effects of a crash as best as possible. Fields neutralize themselves to allo the victims time to gather themselves, crits offer free laps, etc. In cross you gun it and go and count your blessings that you weren't taken out. The victims of the crash are just unlucky. This is not to say that one way is right or wrong but there is an element here of trying to mitigate the randomness and thus "luck". Cross doesn't.

What I am suggesting is that cross plays a more mixed bag that offers a favorable section for everyone. It seems that cross too much focuses on the "Epicness" of the course. Now it is always good to have one course that is nothing but power and some that are nothing but technical. Even road has this (See GMSR's Stage 3 vs. Stage 4, polar opposites) and cross does this to some extent but it feels like everyone bemoans seeing a power course and thus everyone shies away from creating them. Of course this is just the ramblings of an inexperienced and ****ty cross racer but what if every course featured a section that was hard because it wasn't technical? Doesn't mean the rest of the course has to be like that, play to everyone's strengths and their weaknesses, isn't that what cross should do?