Quantcast

no more semi - ex class....?

FCLinder

Turbo Monkey
Mar 6, 2002
4,402
0
Greenville, South Carolina
Wow...I feel like I'm being told to quit racing or slow down. I'm Semi-Pro and without being in that category, you wouldn't catch me at a National or large scale race. Why? Because practice in Expert Class SUCKS! This sport isn't motocross where if there is a 48 year old expert on the track with a 30 year old expert, you can just take the outside line and blow by. I saw Amateur practice at the Open and it looked like a parade lap coming out onto the fire road. Riders spaced 30 feet apart one after another like cattle to water.

In Semi-Pro, I'm 35, can ride the big stuff, can keep up with pros, not tie up anybody, take full runs, scope lines with peers and get in as many runs as possible. Come race time, I go head to head with guys all on the same skill level with me.

Put me in expert and I get to spend 2 hours with my tire behind 10 other guys waiting to ride a 30 yard section of roots, not pedal a lick, coast, brake, stop, repeat.

Understand that I have no beef with the skill level in Expert, but the bottom line is me and the majority of my riding buddies have NO business in Expert Class where we'd be called Sandbaggers. And I'm not pretending to be a pro either. You can call Semi-Pro a wanna be class all you like, but bottom line is it is a darn big pool of very fast riders with a select few looking to move up to Pro. Take away Semi-pro at a large event, and you can have it. I'll go shuttle.

At the US Open, with 150 guys in Pro, we had one choke point at the off camber slab, but by in large, we weren't tying each other up. The horror stories I heard of in AM though made me sick.

But by all means, move categories all you want. Until you make a legitimate pro purse a requirement for those promoters with all their fancy timing and brand new hats and shirts, the Nats are dead to me and all those other fanboys. It's a joke until the pros get paid...and not just gas money. I'm talking top 20 pro payout with 20th able to cover the bulk of their airfare.

Anybody besides me remember a payout that looke like this:
1. 10k
2 6k
3. 5k
4 2k
5. 1k
6. 700
7. 600
8. 500
9. 400
10. 300
11-20. 250 each.


Honestly Todd, I'm a monster proponent of Nationals, but not til the pros get their jobs back. 90% of DHers will never see the pro podium or have a shot at getting paid at a Nat. But they all "aspire" or dream of it...and to see their heroes and idols get squat is a disservice and slap in the face of that other 90%. They won't support a series that won't pay their pros.
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 

ska todd

Turbo Monkey
Oct 10, 2001
1,776
0
Ok folks, everyone needs to take a BIG breath here; in...now out... Many of you are quite unnecessarily getting your panties in a bunch. Yes, change can sometimes be hard to accept but you get used to it once it happens.

What we are talking about here is pretty simple:
1. Reshuffling the categories based on current needs of the sport's disciplines and the membership
2. Increasing the level of competition of amateur categories thru age-based racing (as is done in many other sports)
3. Structuring the Pro category such that it becomes a viable entity and can thrive and prosper.

This is not about Nationals or pro-payouts or periphery details. This is shoring up the foundation of the house prior to rebuilding it. In general, our collective attitude needs to shift from "how does this affect ME" to "how does this affect US". This is not just about downhillers but about the entire sport. However in this case, the particular needs of downhillers are being more than heard and respected and not being randomly passed down.

Again, feel free to PM me to arrange an individual phone call if needed to clarify.

-ska todd
 

Cant Climb

Turbo Monkey
May 9, 2004
2,683
10
Ska Todd is right.

Semi-Pro has turned into a wasteland.
Wasteland of competition.

I've been in semi for 8 years and never wanted to be 'Joe Pro'. Now i look around at races and see guys in their 30's who have been in semi forever. Most of them get a click slower every year. But they what to race. Do they move back to expert.....?.......no, it's not really acceptable to do that. And it's because of the state of the racing scene. It's become a giant wasteland where most people never win anything. They might have decent days but still your racing truely 'Elite' riders. All they are is filler. All they do is contribute to the pro purse. And and some point they fade away and never are heard from again.

In properly regulated class structure they would be racing their peers and have more fun competing.......and maybe the race scene would get healthier...

But in reality, i see this becoming a huge headache to manage....smaller countries can do it....not sure about the US.....
 
Last edited:

Jeremy R

<b>x</b>
Nov 15, 2001
9,698
1,053
behind you with a snap pop
As of right now you can call the classes whatever you want.
How about "the largest penises in the universe" class?
People still ain't showing up for Nationals.
The only people who go to Nationals are Juniors wanting to go to worlds or turn pro, and Pros wanting to go to Worlds.
Other than that the National series is like "Weekend at Bernies."
Sure Bernie is propped up, but everybody knows he's dead.

Dhers figured out a few years back that they can go to weekend events and ride all weekend long and get in a race run.
I would comment more on this, but as of right now, it really does not matter.
Most people racing are barely even doing any Norba sanctioned racing at all these days. For me personally, I could care less, but I do wish Norba would turn things around mainly because of junoir development and for the "Pro" class to actually mean Professional. Pro = dough.
 

merft

Chimp
May 16, 2007
37
0
Ska Todd,

I think NORBA needs to focus deeper in review of its "foundation". Rearranging class categories addresses a sympton but misses the underlying issue with NORBA.

What seems to be happening is that NORBA's mission statment 2.2.1 "To achieve widespread mountain bike participation for all ages, skill levels, and genders;" is conflicting with mission statement 2.2.3 "To be a forum to identify and select the best elite athletes;" (Bylaws of the National Off-Road Bicycle Association). The current emphasis is on mission statement 2.2.3.

The intent to improve competition by consolidating classes may support MS 2.2.3 but at the expense of MS 2.2.1. I believe this is where many people are getting frustrated. Many riders are not out to go to UCI races, just competitively race with folks of similar skills and age levels.

The core question is NORBA's main mission to develop mtn bike participation, to identify best elite athletes, or both? If the priority is to identify the best elite athletes, then just say so. The mixed messages are getting old.
 
Last edited:

NJMX835

Monkey
Feb 17, 2007
605
0
Highland Lakes NJ
Where did the 19-34 age bracket come from, is that for real or just an example?

Seems patently unfair to run your average 34 year old against your average 19 year old, that's a big age gap there...
 

FCLinder

Turbo Monkey
Mar 6, 2002
4,402
0
Greenville, South Carolina
As of right now you can call the classes whatever you want.
How about "the largest penises in the universe" class?
People still ain't showing up for Nationals.
The only people who go to Nationals are Juniors wanting to go to worlds or turn pro, and Pros wanting to go to Worlds.
Other than that the National series is like "Weekend at Bernies."
Sure Bernie is propped up, but everybody knows he's dead.

Dhers figured out a few years back that they can go to weekend events and ride all weekend long and get in a race run.
I would comment more on this, but as of right now, it really does not matter.
Most people racing are barely even doing any Norba sanctioned racing at all these days. For me personally, I could care less, but I do wish Norba would turn things around mainly because of junoir development and for the "Pro" class to actually mean Professional. Pro = dough.

Once again!!!!!
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 

MikeMac

Monkey
May 18, 2006
156
0
I appreciate USAC's forward thinking stance on trying to make things better, but for what it's worth, Expert, Semi-Pro, Pro and JR X are all HUGE categories at our events. Vet Pro is off to an admittedly slow start - definitely not what we expected after the clamoring for it that we've experienced the past few years.

What I wish that USAC would do (and I've made this request officially) is the following:

1. Define the problems/issues in black and white terms. Publish the results of this exercise.
2. Allow a comment period whereby their constituency can help illuminate, deconstruct and offer additional perspectives and suggestions.
3. Re-define the problem by incorporating the feedback of the community.
4. Publish possible solutions and offer another comment period to membership
5. Arrive at a dynamic solution that incorporates regional differences, size differences and as much as able, individual concerns.

The reshuffling of categories will inevitably ruffle a few feathers - change always does. Let me reiterate, I'm really happy that they're taking a proactive stance on trying to make things better, but Todd, you're the ONLY guy on the BoD with any experience on the gravity side. That fact is a cause for concern. With that said, there are more than a few smart hard-working folks at USAC and on the BoD itself, and I don't think that they all necessarily have to ride a DH or 4X bike to understand the issues that face the gravity community. To draw a comparison, Rick Majerus isn't going to roll out his crossover dribble anytime soon, but he can still coach...and at a very high level.

For the record, I'm not totally sold on eliminating Semi-Pro. I'm not against it either. Has anyone considered that the folks that ARE transitioning from Semi to Pro are the only ones out there that would be doing it anyway (no matter what the category alignment) and that for the rest of the Semi-Pro field it's an entirely appropriate place to live, ride and breath? Just because it's not fulfilling the letter of its intended purpose doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. Again, what I'd like to see is a clearly defined explanation of the problem and an interactive dialogue between the policy makers and the folks that said policies are going to affect.

You know what else would be nice? Let's see the metrics. It shouldn't be that hard to legitimize any category issues (at least one aspect of them) by pointing to the numbers. How many Pros, Semi-Pros and Experts are typically competing in the NMBS, in the east, in the Rockies and in SoCal? How would a proposed solution shift the numbers in those categories? What problems may arise from the 'solution'? While we can't completely ignore qualitative issues and problems (they're just as legitimate), we should be able to back them up with empirical documentation.

I don't think that we can expect perfection - not because of USAC, we support the new regime there with very few qualifiers. They've shown that they're willing to listen and act in accordance with both common sense and the needs of the community and industry. I don't expect perfection because our community is too diverse - one solution just isn't going to work for everyone. I'm OK with that. Is everyone else? Dunno. I guess that we'll see.

The problem that I have is Todd's lone voice. It's not that the folks he's talking to aren't smart or well-intentioned (I know for a fact that they're both,) it's that people in general have a tendency to make decisions based upon their own personal experience. And the BoD and USAC themselves don't bring a ton of empathy to the needs of the gravity crowd. Historically at least - they're definitely trending upwards the past few years and that in itself is reason for optimism.

The ability to 'project' by taking three giant steps backward mentally in order to get your arms around the big picture is historically in short supply. Not specifically among USAC, but among human beings in general. To do this you need to set aside preconceptions, ego, personal experience...the list goes on, and open yourself up to the fact that what you believe to be true may be, in fact, wrong. That's my concern. That the folks on the BoD don't see the gravity issues the same way that those of us immersed in them do, and don't always see membership as valuable sources of information. Combine that fact with even one BoD member or USAC staffer who doesn't completely embrace decision-making selflessness and the folks in the Springs are going to take one more black eye that they don't need and that could have been avoided. The answer? Talk to your members USAC, collectively they're a pretty smart group. Don't let poor lines of communication allow you to take yet another one on the chin. You have the opportunity to be the hero this time.

MM
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,196
4
I just spent a while on the phone with Ska Todd and he answered all of my questions. The goal is to create a more competitive environment in the amateur classes to make racing more fun. Just because we are going to numbered categories doesn't mean they are taking road philosophies and applying them to mountain biking. I'm excited to see how it works out, and I have an idea of where I'll end up
 

beesonutah

Chimp
Apr 23, 2006
18
0
You all have great points, But the one thing that we are missing hear is that USAcycling have created this monster. For instance I won the 06 Masters Worlds as a semi pro, Then last year bumped up to pro. Had some good races at Otter and fontana. Got back from Fontana and had a press release that said I would not be eligible for Masters Worlds because I raced in a UCI points race.Great timing. So this year I had a choice to go and race Elite and maybe get a top 20-25 and miss Worlds or do as the guys at USAcycling told me to do and drop down to Semi and race whatever I want and still go to Worlds. Now Masters class is the only real solution, But the only races that are doing that are the Mountain States Cups. No offense but I would win my age group in amature by 10 seconds. This is not fun or fair for me or the other guys in that class. I really don't care as to what they do, because I will race and support my local race series and only race 1 National this year(Deer Valley) because it is in my back yard. And if USAcycling wants to promote faster and better racers from the amature ranks they need to hold races on Mountains not on weed infested mole hills like they like to do. They need to step up and get back to Switzer and Mammoth and such.
Just my thoughts.
 

ChrisKring

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2002
2,399
6
Grand Haven, MI
Good points by most of you. I can't believe that I actually agree with Butch ;)

Anyway, the amateur classes will probably work as long as upgrades into the advanced amateur (expert or whatever you want to call it) are policed. As Butch stated, the US Open is a clear example of what happens when there is only one amateur class. I have raced both pro 3 years at the Open and the past 2 in AM. I can stay out of the way in Pro but I am not fast enough to really compete for a qualifing spot. On the other hand, practice was a complete cluster and I never got a clean run without people blocking the course. I wasn't able to try faster lines since you need speed to try them and starting at a standstill doesn't work for that.

Not sure how to solve it other than policing the upgrades. USA Cycling is supposedly doing that now. However, I can guarantee that there will be people in the elite class (open, pro, expert, whoever wants to sign up) at the AMBC race I am going to next weekend that will be 100% slower than the winner.

The strange thing is that these are not problems at the Master's. I have theories why it happens at other races but that would be taking shots at people.

Todd: I am glad your working on it. Please post the results of your discussions for public input before voting on it. I think that would help with the reception of the plan.
 
Last edited:

stiksandstones

Turbo Monkey
May 21, 2002
5,078
25
Orange, Ca
Anybody besides me remember a payout that looke like this:
1. 10k
2 6k
3. 5k
4 2k
5. 1k
6. 700
7. 600
8. 500
9. 400
10. 300
11-20. 250 each.
Great thread, lots of good info and nice to hear semipro class will be out, restructuring, etc...

As for that purse, I am going out on a limb... but the only time that type of prize money was offered was at 2 races-The Reebok Eliminator and the First (and last) ESPN Summer Xgames Mountain bike race in 1994.
 

SinatorJ

Monkey
Jul 9, 2002
582
51
AZ
Wow...I feel like I'm being told to quit racing or slow down. I'm Semi-Pro and without being in that category, you wouldn't catch me at a National or large scale race. Why? Because practice in Expert Class SUCKS! This sport isn't motocross where if there is a 48 year old expert on the track with a 30 year old expert, you can just take the outside line and blow by. I saw Amateur practice at the Open and it looked like a parade lap coming out onto the fire road. Riders spaced 30 feet apart one after another like cattle to water.

In Semi-Pro, I'm 35, can ride the big stuff, can keep up with pros, not tie up anybody, take full runs, scope lines with peers and get in as many runs as possible. Come race time, I go head to head with guys all on the same skill level with me.

Put me in expert and I get to spend 2 hours with my tire behind 10 other guys waiting to ride a 30 yard section of roots, not pedal a lick, coast, brake, stop, repeat.

Understand that I have no beef with the skill level in Expert, but the bottom line is me and the majority of my riding buddies have NO business in Expert Class where we'd be called Sandbaggers. And I'm not pretending to be a pro either. You can call Semi-Pro a wanna be class all you like, but bottom line is it is a darn big pool of very fast riders with a select few looking to move up to Pro. Take away Semi-pro at a large event, and you can have it. I'll go shuttle.

At the US Open, with 150 guys in Pro, we had one choke point at the off camber slab, but by in large, we weren't tying each other up. The horror stories I heard of in AM though made me sick.

But by all means, move categories all you want. Until you make a legitimate pro purse a requirement for those promoters with all their fancy timing and brand new hats and shirts, the Nats are dead to me and all those other fanboys. It's a joke until the pros get paid...and not just gas money. I'm talking top 20 pro payout with 20th able to cover the bulk of their airfare.

Anybody besides me remember a payout that looke like this:
1. 10k
2 6k
3. 5k
4 2k
5. 1k
6. 700
7. 600
8. 500
9. 400
10. 300
11-20. 250 each.


Honestly Todd, I'm a monster proponent of Nationals, but not til the pros get their jobs back. 90% of DHers will never see the pro podium or have a shot at getting paid at a Nat. But they all "aspire" or dream of it...and to see their heroes and idols get squat is a disservice and slap in the face of that other 90%. They won't support a series that won't pay their pros.

I agree. I would rather quit and never give the goons at USA cycling a single penny than have to race in an Expert level class again. I am 32, was compeditive at the Masters Worlds 2 seasons ago,have had a pro license since 2004, but I am not at the top of the pro class. At the same time I am not in the tail end. Why would I ever want to subject myself to the horrors of the expert class, I have personally seen fist fights during practice.
So my question is what class would I race?
 

bizutch

Delicate CUSTOM flower
Dec 11, 2001
15,928
24
Over your shoulder whispering
Great thread, lots of good info and nice to hear semipro class will be out, restructuring, etc...

As for that purse, I am going out on a limb... but the only time that type of prize money was offered was at 2 races-The Reebok Eliminator and the First (and last) ESPN Summer Xgames Mountain bike race in 1994.
Really? I could swear that the 1st year they had Seven Springs, the winner got handed that size check. Am I just remembering wrong?

One thing I do remember being told in the pits by Chevy's corporate rep was this. The 2nd year of Seven Springs, Chevy was the DH series sponsor for the entire year. The amount they paid for all that publicity....$10,000.00 . They lowballed a bid and were planning on offering much, much more, but NORBA jumped on it. :crazy:

Oh..and I had a good talk with Sean at the US Open the other weekend and forgot to haggle with him on 1 thing. 5 years later, the top prize is still only $5k. :D
 

bizutch

Delicate CUSTOM flower
Dec 11, 2001
15,928
24
Over your shoulder whispering


I have personally seen fist fights during practice.
..
Apparently New Jersey has rednecks. Whoduh thunk it?

Two guys got in a 1 sided fist fight in the upper rock garden DURING finals at the open. I was told there was an "Airplane" line of 2-3 people waiting to beat the guy down, but Contestant #1 made him bleed.

:pirate2:
 

Fbc2008

Chimp
Apr 29, 2008
6
0
You all have great points, But the one thing that we are missing hear is that USAcycling have created this monster. For instance I won the 06 Masters Worlds as a semi pro, Then last year bumped up to pro. Had some good races at Otter and fontana. Got back from Fontana and had a press release that said I would not be eligible for Masters Worlds because I raced in a UCI points race.Great timing. So this year I had a choice to go and race Elite and maybe get a top 20-25 and miss Worlds or do as the guys at USAcycling told me to do and drop down to Semi and race whatever I want and still go to Worlds. Now Masters class is the only real solution, But the only races that are doing that are the Mountain States Cups. No offense but I would win my age group in amature by 10 seconds. This is not fun or fair for me or the other guys in that class. I really don't care as to what they do, because I will race and support my local race series and only race 1 National this year(Deer Valley) because it is in my back yard. And if USAcycling wants to promote faster and better racers from the amature ranks they need to hold races on Mountains not on weed infested mole hills like they like to do. They need to step up and get back to Switzer and Mammoth and such.
Just my thoughts.
So dave are going to support the circus up at dv

jeremy
 

ska todd

Turbo Monkey
Oct 10, 2001
1,776
0
Guys (and gals, seeing as Terry interjected here too :) ), step back and realize that several of these posts have again conflated USAC/Norba with the NMBS/"Norba Nationals". They are not one in the same; they haven't been for several seasons now.

Many of the issues being described here relate to course design, too many riders, and practice times. There is maybe a degree of "muppetry" in play here as well (see UCI points thread for more on this topic), especially in regards to the expert level races. This is the similar effect that XC riders have with too much traffic on courses.

A lot of this is a function of riders needing to be realistic with themselves or their abilities. (I'm personally guilty of this at times, as I'm sure many of us will admit to ourselves but not here on the intrawebs.) The other point I'd make is that the technical skill of the average sport/expert level is a bit better now than it was 10 years back. This combined with modern suspension, brakes, and tires makes many of the "beginner/sport courses" just simply not fun enough for a large swath of riders.

Some of these are points that should be brought up to your local event promoters and are not directly related to the category system. They might be issues of practice times, field limits, course design, or any combination thereof.

To perhaps explain the semi-pro thing from a different angle is to say, the expert, sport, and beginner categories are also being eliminated. There will now be a true "Pro" class, with perhaps more regulated criteria for entry. In addition to this you will have several amateur categories (1, 2, 3, etc) that will be aged-based. The top tier of this will be your highest level of amateur competitors.

Currently, semi-pro is the de facto top amateur field. Now the top Am category will be "1", along with age-based classes therein. This should also address the requests to have "vet pro", "junior pro", "women's semi-pro", and other higher tiered age-based categories all in one shot. :)

-ska todd
 
Last edited:

FlyinPolack

Monkey
Jul 16, 2007
371
0
They can call em whatever they want, but..
Will they actually make the sandbaggers move up? or actually allow more semi-pros to come back to the expert level & ruin it for the rest of us slower guys?

Instead of restructuring the classes, how about some actual Promotion?!
Ever see any TV adds for the National races (at least??)
USA cycling needs to Promote or let the UCI just take the mtb racing the hell over in the US.

It's a Terrible, terrible racing league.. Where would NASCAR be right now if they promoted like the USAC??
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,196
4
They can call em whatever they want, but..
Will they actually make the sandbaggers move up? or actually allow more semi-pros to come back to the expert level & ruin it for the rest of us slower guys?

Instead of restructuring the classes, how about some actual Promotion?!
Ever see any TV adds for the National races (at least??)
USA cycling needs to Promote or let the UCI just take the mtb racing the hell over in the US.

It's a Terrible, terrible racing league.. Where would NASCAR be right now if they promoted like the USAC??
Have you seen the mess the UCI has created on the road side? I wouldn't trust them to do a good job
 

buildyourown

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2004
4,832
0
South Seattle
Some of these are points that should be brought up to your local event promoters and are not directly related to the category system. They might be issues of practice times, field limits, course design, or any combination thereof.

Since Norba chooses who promotes the National Series, I see it as Norba's responsibility to ensure that they are holding competative races are world cup level venues.
 

Mani_UT

Monkey
Nov 25, 2001
644
0
SLC, UT
They can call em whatever they want, but..
Will they actually make the sandbaggers move up? or actually allow more semi-pros to come back to the expert level & ruin it for the rest of us slower guys???
No offence but the biggest issue is the people who move up to fast not that sandbaggers. A sandbagger will never ruin my practive or my run. A person who moved to a class he cannot handle on the other hand is a bigger issue. :banghead:

I'd rather race expert if I could but nationals were such a joke when it came to expert practice that I felt I had to move up to semi so I could actually ride my bike instead of standing in line or figure out where to pass people...
 

CRoss

Turbo Monkey
Nov 20, 2006
1,329
0
The Ranch
Why is USAC reinventing the wheel?? Why don't they look to the UCI and try to structure things after them? The UCI might not have the perfect category system but some consistency with the rest of the world would be nice. Many racers cross the border and race in Canada. It is stupid to have different categories.

Looks like USAC is waisting our membership money sitting around discussing the hard way to solve this problem. A quick easy solution is to model our category system after the UCI.

USAC take Mike's advice outline what the problems are and let us(membership) know them. Them give us choices on ways to fix the problem and let us be part of the decision process.

Sorry Ska Todd you might love the idea you guys have going but it is just stupid. Why again are you guys(USAC) insisting on not doing things consistent with the UCI?
 

Pbody

Monkey
Oct 30, 2003
341
0
ska todd: Some of these are points that should be brought up to your local event promoters and are not directly related to the category system. They might be issues of practice times, field limits, course design, or any combination thereof.

To perhaps explain the semi-pro thing from a different angle is to say, the expert, sport, and beginner categories are also being eliminated. There will now be a true "Pro" class, with perhaps more regulated criteria for entry. In addition to this you will have several amateur categories (1, 2, 3, etc) that will be aged-based. The top tier of this will be your highest level of amateur competitors.

Currently, semi-pro is the de facto top amateur field. Now the top Am category will be "1", along with age-based classes therein. This should also address the requests to have "vet pro", "junior pro", "women's semi-pro", and other higher tiered age-based categories all in one shot.
The whole problem surrounds the fact that there is no one monitoring what class a racer should be in. Because of the looseness that some MTB promoters run their racers, there is a lot of confusion out there among the weekend warriors of our sport who have no idea what class they should be in. Until USAC tracks each racer's performance and measure it against specific move-up criteria, we will always have problems with the wrong people in the wrong class. There are people out there who can do a 10 foot drop, but cannot go through a 30-ft rock garden at 20mph.

Todd, I don't understand when you say how things will change by getting away from named proficiencies and going to lettered groups will solve the problems being discussed here. If you take the current amateur groups (Semi/Ex/Spt/Beg) and go to Cat. 1-5, you have one more group. Am I missing something? I.e. what category would a sport rider fall into? Would experts go into Cat. 1, 2, or 3?

Lastly, I think the main problem we have right now is that there needs to be different criteria between DH and XC. One of the main problems stated here is ideal practice time for DH. XC can go practice any time all day long. In my ideal world (looking up to the MTB Gods as I write this), I'd love to see gravity events separated from XC events. Compare us to skiing. I never hear of combined DH and XC events in the skiing world. Does it exist? I don't know. But how better would an event be if we could practice DH from 8:00am to 5:00pm Fri, Sat, and Sun. No XC racing taking away the event coordinators having to run their racing. Split the DH practice into 4 hour windows among similar speed groups. If we had more practice times, I'm willing to bet that DH participation would increase. Everyone agree? I know there are economies to be gained by having XC racing, but think how much more bargaining power a promoter might have by allowing the resort to sell lift tickets to spectators. Overtime, I'm willing to bet that DH only events could make more money and become self-sustaining. Case in point. . . US Open.....MSC G3 events . . . 12 Hours of Summit. . . . . very popular events.
 

SinatorJ

Monkey
Jul 9, 2002
582
51
AZ
No offence but the biggest issue is the people who move up to fast not that sandbaggers. A sandbagger will never ruin my practive or my run. A person who moved to a class he cannot handle on the other hand is a bigger issue. :banghead:

I'd rather race expert if I could but nationals were such a joke when it came to expert practice that I felt I had to move up to semi so I could actually ride my bike instead of standing in line or figure out where to pass people...
don't lie, no one has ruined practice for you since you were an expert
 

Mani_UT

Monkey
Nov 25, 2001
644
0
SLC, UT
don't lie, no one has ruined practice for you since you were an expert
Haha. You stopped riding expert so long ago you don't even remenber what expert practive was like. Waiting 10 minutes at every feature is something you must have forgotten from these days. My last expert year I passed somebody (or even a couple) at 4 out of 5 Nationals. That's bull considering that yes indeed I am pretty slow.

Again I'd rather race expert but they need to make the expert class more competitive.
 

ska todd

Turbo Monkey
Oct 10, 2001
1,776
0
ok, first off, this multi-quote feature is wicked sweet - now if I can figure out how to carry it across from one page of a thread to the next correctly!

They can call em whatever they want, but..
Will they actually make the sandbaggers move up? or actually allow more semi-pros to come back to the expert level & ruin it for the rest of us slower guys?
This (and other comments such as Mani's) are EXACTLY why the categories need to be shuffled. The current architecture of pro/semi/exp/spt/beg no longer cleanly fits the needs of competition. Many riders (particularly in DH) do not feel challenged or have fun on a "beginner/sport" course and race up to play on the expert course. This causes a chain reaction by prompting some of the better Experts to race semi-pro to have better practice (ie. quality riding) sessions. None of this is actually promoting competition, just satisfying peoples' individual desires for fun.

Instead of restructuring the classes, how about some actual Promotion?!
Ever see any TV adds for the National races (at least??)
USA cycling needs to Promote or let the UCI just take the mtb racing the hell over in the US.

It's a Terrible, terrible racing league.. Where would NASCAR be right now if they promoted like the USAC??
I am rather certain you have used this exact line of reasoning before on another thread. I'll paraphrase what I said then.

What you describe simply doesn't work in the way you say. The two are on entirely different scales of budgets. USAC is a not-for-profit. Nascar is for profit. Nascar has real big budgets with dollars from corporate sponsors, licensing, etc. Even with all of this big money in play, most of the "Nascar" ads you see are not really by Nascar, they are from the TV networks airing the events and the sponsors of the event, teams, or individual drivers. You don't see (m)any PSA's for Nascar.

I don't think CAT 1 should have age catagories. Fast is fast, it doesn't matter how old you are. If you're not fast anymore, downgrade.
On a certain level I personally agree, however there is validity to and expressed demand for higher-level age-based racing - ex Vet-pro. Also, look at the Masters fields in road races for example or the quality of racing at Masters Worlds. Those guys are no-joke fast and the events often sellout promptly.

I'd rather race expert if I could but nationals were such a joke when it came to expert practice that I felt I had to move up to semi...
This is all part of the problem and why the semi-pro field has strayed from it's intended role. I understand your frustrations though as I think many of us have been in your position before.

Why is USAC reinventing the wheel?? Why don't they look to the UCI and try to structure things after them? The UCI might not have the perfect category system but some consistency with the rest of the world would be nice. Many racers cross the border and race in Canada. It is stupid to have different categories.

Looks like USAC is waisting our membership money sitting around discussing the hard way to solve this problem. A quick easy solution is to model our category system after the UCI.

USAC take Mike's advice outline what the problems are and let us(membership) know them. Them give us choices on ways to fix the problem and let us be part of the decision process.

Sorry Ska Todd you might love the idea you guys have going but it is just stupid. Why again are you guys(USAC) insisting on not doing things consistent with the UCI?
When USAC does things consistent with the UCI people complain that they are "just going along with the UCI", when they don't do things the way the UCI does they get blasted. Pick one line of attack and go with it folks :cheers: (Don't worry as I was in your shoes for many more years than I was on this end. I relate.)

There are no membership dollars being wasted here. The board isn't paid for picking up the phone, meeting with promoters, chatting on message boards, etc. There are no fancy banquets or Leer jets. This is volunteer.

Some wheels have been set in motion but many of the details have still to be hashed out and/or legislated. The first steps are discussions with regional representative and promoters. I ensure you all that this thread will be read by those who need to see it and your feedback WILL be heard.

If you want to know MY personal, honest thoughts; I simply would say we need three categories: Pro, Amateur, and Novice with 5 or 10 yr age classes in Am and Nov. That's it, down and dirty, age-based racing. However, the direct feedback from promoters was virtually unanimous that more categories were needed to service the needs of the racing community. Listening to that feedback and the advice of other Board members I would now agree that this simplicity is not ideal for all types of racing in all regions. Needs are different from one place to another.

Since Norba chooses who promotes the National Series, I see it as Norba's responsibility to ensure that they are holding competative races are world cup level venues.
The NMBS series as we all know is not carrying thru as the "National" series for 09. The separate Endurance and Gravity National Racing Calendars will be the official series for this purpose. More on this below.

The whole problem surrounds the fact that there is no one monitoring what class a racer should be in. Because of the looseness that some MTB promoters run their racers, there is a lot of confusion out there among the weekend warriors of our sport who have no idea what class they should be in. Until USAC tracks each racer's performance and measure it against specific move-up criteria, we will always have problems with the wrong people in the wrong class. There are people out there who can do a 10 foot drop, but cannot go through a 30-ft rock garden at 20mph.

Todd, I don't understand when you say how things will change by getting away from named proficiencies and going to lettered groups will solve the problems being discussed here. If you take the current amateur groups (Semi/Ex/Spt/Beg) and go to Cat. 1-5, you have one more group. Am I missing something? I.e. what category would a sport rider fall into? Would experts go into Cat. 1, 2, or 3?
You are quite right and this is also "in-process" for 09 as well. There are plans for an intensive overhaul of the points scoring and tracking system. As it stands now, the system is largely irrelevant or ignored by most racers. By re-categorizing, this is a step towards adjusting the categories to the needs of today's racing community. The road uses the Cat 1-5 model. The mountain bike side will also use numbers. The final number is not settled; XC and gravity will probably have a different category count to reflect the individual needs of each discipline.

This is NOT simply re-naming the existing categories with numbers. THAT would be a waste of time. This is a shift in where categories sit and what the delineation between categories is. Numbered Categories might be hard for us to swallow as downhillers but, a solid chunk of membership on the XC side also carry road licenses so, the concept is quite familiar to them.

Lastly, I think the main problem we have right now is that there needs to be different criteria between DH and XC. One of the main problems stated here is ideal practice time for DH. XC can go practice any time all day long. In my ideal world (looking up to the MTB Gods as I write this), I'd love to see gravity events separated from XC events. Compare us to skiing. I never hear of combined DH and XC events in the skiing world. Does it exist? I don't know. But how better would an event be if we could practice DH from 8:00am to 5:00pm Fri, Sat, and Sun. No XC racing taking away the event coordinators having to run their racing. Split the DH practice into 4 hour windows among similar speed groups. If we had more practice times, I'm willing to bet that DH participation would increase. Everyone agree? I know there are economies to be gained by having XC racing, but think how much more bargaining power a promoter might have by allowing the resort to sell lift tickets to spectators. Overtime, I'm willing to bet that DH only events could make more money and become self-sustaining. Case in point. . . US Open.....MSC G3 events . . . 12 Hours of Summit. . . . . very popular events.
Again, this is largely up to promoters. They run and schedule their individual events. This does not tend to affect the local style events but is certainly and issue in the large and circus style events. There are currently separate Endurance and Gravity National Racing Calendars. For 09 these Calendars will hold more sway in rankings and in criteria for selection to Worlds teams, upgrades, etc. Additionally for 09, the Endurance and Gravity National Championships have the ability to be split up and held at different venues, by different promoters. This should help allow top level gravity racing to grow by placing events in the hands of specialists in the field of promoting the genre.

-ska todd
 
Last edited:

MouseMonkey

Monkey
Jul 29, 2006
116
0
Salt Lake City
Um, give me a break. How is "semi-pro" any different from Cat 1 (on the road, the typical race is Pro/1/2) and how is Cat 2 any different from Expert? You guys think going to a different naming system is going to somehow mess up your killer race experience? Basically all it does is get the true beginners and newbs out of "sport" (now Cat 3) so you don't have to run them over.

If you are scared to race against guys that are younger than you, race Masters. It's what all the pussy old-guy road racers do. If not, go ahead and put the hurt to some 25 year olds. It's fun.

I have raced for years as a 2 on the road and an expert on MTB. There is really no difference between the two systems if you ignore the naming.

So what's the problem?

Or, more importantly, what does the change SOLVE?

JMH
 

FlyinPolack

Monkey
Jul 16, 2007
371
0
What you describe simply doesn't work in the way you say. The two are on entirely different scales of budgets. USAC is a not-for-profit. Nascar is for profit. Nascar has real big budgets with dollars from corporate sponsors, licensing, etc. Even with all of this big money in play, most of the "Nascar" ads you see are not really by Nascar, they are from the TV networks airing the events and the sponsors of the event, teams, or individual drivers. You don't see (m)any PSA's for Nascar.
& I'll keep saying it until the right person sees it. Until the USAC starts thinking like NASCAR, NFL, etc. Mtn bike racing will NEVER be very popular in this country. I find it really sad that a huge amount of the Pro riders still have day jobs, because they are making peanuts. How many Pro football players need to work mon-fri just to afford to play on Sun? I personally value Sam hill a ton more than I do Tom Brady but who makes more $ ? Why? Marketing. That should be the USAC's #1 priority. As far as being a Non-Profit, that's just an excuse not to spend the $$ in the right place. Go for profit, become an LLC, get some real sponsorships set up & get our pros some $$ so they can retire in style when the time comes.

I don't know what a Nascar membership costs for a year, (I'll ask my neighbor tom.)but I'm pretty sure they don't have CLOSE to as many members as the USAC does. On top of the $ they extort from the race promoters, thats a lot of cash.

Nascar & all of their sponsors work together to build a bigger product together. Which means that everyone involved gets more $$.. The USAC should take some lessons. All I'm saying...
 

ska todd

Turbo Monkey
Oct 10, 2001
1,776
0
It really isn't as simple as you lay it out. I think we all dream it really were. If it were there would be dozens of other sports also getting some primetime play on network TV.

There are little sticky issues such as the Olympics and the USOC and such also involved here, not just our little sport. If it were as simple as throwing money at something and putting it on TV then surely soccer, or indoor football, indoor lacrosse or a multitude of other sporting events would have taken hold and would dominate our sportscasts on the 11 o'clock news.

-ska todd
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,196
4
& I'll keep saying it until the right person sees it. Until the USAC starts thinking like NASCAR, NFL, etc. Mtn bike racing will NEVER be very popular in this country. I find it really sad that a huge amount of the Pro riders still have day jobs, because they are making peanuts. How many Pro football players need to work mon-fri just to afford to play on Sun? I personally value Sam hill a ton more than I do Tom Brady but who makes more $ ? Why? Marketing. That should be the USAC's #1 priority. As far as being a Non-Profit, that's just an excuse not to spend the $$ in the right place. Go for profit, become an LLC, get some real sponsorships set up & get our pros some $$ so they can retire in style when the time comes.

I don't know what a Nascar membership costs for a year, (I'll ask my neighbor tom.)but I'm pretty sure they don't have CLOSE to as many members as the USAC does. On top of the $ they extort from the race promoters, thats a lot of cash.

Nascar & all of their sponsors work together to build a bigger product together. Which means that everyone involved gets more $$.. The USAC should take some lessons. All I'm saying...
Mountain biking is such a fringe sport that we will never be like NASCAR. Our endurance events aren't as fun to watch as the Grand Tours and downhill doesn't look that impressive on TV, not when compared to motocross. When Grundig walked it took a lot out of the sport, and they've never been able to get it back. Mountain biking is fun to participate in, but not really that much fun to watch and along that logic you're selling a service with a limited audience.
 

beesonutah

Chimp
Apr 23, 2006
18
0
So dave are going to support the circus up at dv

jeremy
Yea, It looks like it. It being the only National I will race this year, because of location and wanting a good showing for my bike sponsor. If it weren't for them than Norba could kiss my ##$. But you know the drill.
 

beesonutah

Chimp
Apr 23, 2006
18
0
Hey guy's the really only right answer here is, screw Norba don't travel to there races and spend your money on supporting your local race series. I only hope you all have a good one like we here in Utah have. Ron Lindley runs a great 8 race series and has a killer turn out every race. Why you ask, because he cares about the sport and gives back to it and listens to the riders. We can change titles to #'s or whatever. But who cares. You can make a better race by helping out and being involved locally. You all know in what class you belong. and it will work it's self out.
Ska Todd, I appretiate that you are trying to help sort the problems at large races, But you really need to get involved and talk to the riders and seriously listen to them. And then and only then will good changes start to happen. Don't get me wrong I'm on your side. Some changes need to happen I just think that this is a bandaid on a large cut.
 

Lelandjt

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
2,508
822
Breckenridge, CO/Lahaina,HI
Like someone else said, I don't see any problem with the current classes but i do think they could combine some of the age groups to make larger classes. I'm semi-pro in DH and XC and always compare my times to expert and pro classes. Every time I beat all experts (except once or twice when a Jr.X beat me) and I'm not fast enough to consistently place in the upper half of the pros. I've been a semi-pro for 6 years and will probably stay at this speed for the rest of my riding days.

P.S. Hey Ska Todd, remember Kathryn and I from the Umass parties at Clay's house? Good the hear you're doing well. Oh, and I finally got an STi.
 
Last edited:

Inclag

Turbo Monkey
Sep 9, 2001
2,750
439
MA
Why are age classes broken into so many different groupings? In nearly every professional sport athletes go pro and peak from 18-35ish. Different names of classes, distribution of points seems like the same old status quo. I mean how many people here even pay attention to their point total? And if your trying to develop young elite talent why segregate them from the local elite? Maybe that 16-17 year might push it that little bit more if he knew that his 1st in Jr X would have placed him 30th in Pro. I just don't get it.

I keep on hearing there will be "change" yet there is absolutely no evidence, data, stats, numbers, figures, explanations, or breakdowns on how these "changes" will do anything. I mean how does the USAC work. Is it just people sitting at a large table saying "oooo that sounds like a good idea"? Do people actually research and collect data, write white papers and peer reviewed reports?
 

ska todd

Turbo Monkey
Oct 10, 2001
1,776
0
Hey guy's the really only right answer here is, screw Norba don't travel to there races and spend your money on supporting your local race series. I only hope you all have a good one like we here in Utah have. Ron Lindley runs a great 8 race series and has a killer turn out every race. Why you ask, because he cares about the sport and gives back to it and listens to the riders. We can change titles to #'s or whatever. But who cares. You can make a better race by helping out and being involved locally. You all know in what class you belong. and it will work it's self out.
Again, I think you might be confusing "Norba" with the "NMBS". The two are not the same. A "Norba" race can (and usually is) be your local race. "Norba" is the arm of USA Cycling that handles the sanctioning of mountain bike racing in the US. It is not a promotional arm, race series, or anything else really.

Your point about getting involved locally is quite valid and I urge more people to do so. Improving your local or regional events will have dramatic and direct impact that can be enjoyed by you, your friends, and other racers around you.

Ska Todd, I appretiate that you are trying to help sort the problems at large races, But you really need to get involved and talk to the riders and seriously listen to them. And then and only then will good changes start to happen. Don't get me wrong I'm on your side. Some changes need to happen I just think that this is a bandaid on a large cut.
Again, this is NOT just about issues at a large race. This is about changing the architecture for all USAC sanctioned mountain bike race events in the US. I have personally talked to and consulted with dozens of riders, promoters, coaches, team managers, and sponsors for feedback, input, and direction and I open the invitation for any and all to contact me at anytime to discuss these and other topics.

Like someone else said, I don't see any problem with the current classes but i do think they could combine some of the age groups to make larger classes. I'm semi-pro in DH and XC and always compare my times to expert and pro classes. Every time I beat all experts (except once or twice when a Jr.X beat me) and I'm not fast enough to consistently place in the upper half of the pros. I've been a semi-pro for 6 years and will probably stay at this speed for the rest of my riding days.
Age classes are often up to the discretion of the event promoter based on field sizes, courses, and other reasons. The UCI style 5 year age classes are generally respected for larger sized events but, promoters may combine fields as needed.

P.S. Hey Ska Todd, remember Kathryn and I from the Umass parties at Clay's house? Good the hear you're doing well. Oh, and I finally got an STi.
Ha! I don't remember you by face but I do remember those parties...1 Red Bull truck + lots of vodka + dirt jumps = disaster waiting to happen!

Why are age classes broken into so many different groupings? In nearly every professional sport athletes go pro and peak from 18-35ish. Different names of classes, distribution of points seems like the same old status quo. I mean how many people here even pay attention to their point total? And if your trying to develop young elite talent why segregate them from the local elite? Maybe that 16-17 year might push it that little bit more if he knew that his 1st in Jr X would have placed him 30th in Pro. I just don't get it.
There are widely used 5 year age brackets for larger events in the UCI Masters and Vet fields. At the Pro/Elite level there are no age breakouts; you are pro or you aren't. This is why I am personally fundamentally against a Vet-Pro class. For the Juniors, you open up an entire other can of worms. You cannot force an amateur to turn pro. This is at their own will. For Juniors you open up other problems with topics such as NCAA eligibility, state sports rules, etc.

I keep on hearing there will be "change" yet there is absolutely no evidence, data, stats, numbers, figures, explanations, or breakdowns on how these "changes" will do anything. I mean how does the USAC work. Is it just people sitting at a large table saying "oooo that sounds like a good idea"? Do people actually research and collect data, write white papers and peer reviewed reports?
While it might not be as scientific as you might want it to be (there isn't much budget around) it is far from just pulling ideas out of each others' arses. This whole concept came from 2+ years of discussions, meetings, review, and brainstorming. There were proposals drawn up from each individual board member coming from input they sought out and USAC staff was consulted with regarding numbers, logistics, and other details.

I can provide my proposal to those who wish to see it if desired.

For those who care, there is an upcoming USAC election. There are seats open on the Mountain Bike Board for Elite Athlete, Land Access, and Official categories. The info was emailed last month to all members. Nomination forms are available on the USAcycling.org page and are due by July 1. I believe you will see Jamie Bogner (NYCMTB) and Chris VanDine (Cannondale-Cut) throwing their hats into the ring, so the gravity crowd will more than certainly be getting their fare shake!

-ska todd
 

ÆX

Turbo Monkey
Sep 8, 2001
4,920
17
NM
todd our xc series will be running these cat.

sound about like what it will be like?

Women
Pro/Cat1 Open
Cat 1 18 Under
Cat 1 19+
Cat 1 30+
Cat 1 40+

Cat 2 18 under
Cat 2 19+
Cat 2 30+
Cat 2 40+

Cat 3 10 under
Cat 3 12 under
Cat 3 14 under
Cat 3 18 under
Cat 3 19+
Cat 3 30+
Cat 3 40+

Men

Pro/Cat1 Open
Cat 1 18 Under
Cat 1 19+
Cat 1 30+
Cat 1 40+
Cat 1 50+

Singlespeed - this one, ahhaha
Cat 2 18 under
Cat 2 19+
Cat 2 30+
Cat 2 40+
Cat 2 50+

Cat 3 10 under
Cat 3 12 under
Cat 3 14 under
Cat 3 18 under
Cat 3 19+
Cat 3 30+
Cat 3 40+
Cat 3 50+
 
Last edited: