 |
 |
 |
Women's racin' - the cat 4/5/t-shirt dilemna
Thu, 03/16/2006 - 11:44am
Casey wrote in response to this
Quote:The reality is though that there are few open women's races in this area any more. Based on looking at the results last year I get the following numbers. Yes in some cases categories may have been run together but placed separately
Cat 4 only women's races 43 races
Cat 3/4 races 14 races
Cat 3 only races 25 races
Cat 1/2/3 races 27 races
Cat 1/2 races 23
Open women races 7
I hear ya, Casey. But, how many men's cat 1-5 races did we have last year? Or ever? Now, we all know there are race-day realities that promoters HAVE to deal with. And, one of those is having a women's field of 9 show up. It sucks. But, it sucks equally to be an intro cat 4 woman showing up to a race and have to compete against {insert any of our local cat 1/2 super-vet strong women here}.
... especially if it's in a field of 9!
So again, what my original comment was about = the return of the category 5 field for women. In my opinion, most of our local racing merits having, at the least, two women's fields per race ... and honestly, what we're talking about here are crits.
For the safety and enjoyment of all involved, one idea would be to have a cat 1,2,3 field and a separate cat 4,5 field. You might even include 1,2,3,4's in one field and 3,4,5's in another ... I absolutely guarantee that you will have 3's and 4's doubling up in those fields and entering both events. Just like the men do (which = more revenue for promoters, more fun for cyclists). Of course there are certain events that historically draw much larger fields of women and would merit having multiple fields for their events (again, see Snelling, Wente, etc...).
But, you say, 'what about those 4's getting blown out of the higher category race? Well, that's why we need the return of the newbie 5 category for women. There needs to be an introductory category for newbie women so that they feel safe to try out races, especially crits. As with the men, it can be up to the discretion of the rider to decide if they should enter in a 1/2/3/4 race, etc ... but, at least they would have the opportunity to race in a 4/5 event ... just like the men often times do.
Road Races are getting the numbers - McLane, 'Senlling', Wente, Winters, etc... But, crits are an intimidating beast to new riders and if we had a more entry level category, I really do think (over time) we would increase our membership, participation, enjoyment. As the promoting structure currently exists, I really don't think we can consider the category 4 an entry-level category.
but, i could just be influenced by seeing a number of these early season events with higher than normal women's entries. maybe it's just a blurp in the historo-graph and women should be treated exactly as they have been these past years.
On the other hand, as someone who dabbles in marketing a bit ... it sure seems a waste to shoot in the foot a potentially huge revenue source for promoters, cycling equipment producers, and local bike shops.
Check out the numbers of entry level women knocking on the doors of cyclocross these past couple years. They are all looking to buy cross bikes, cross equipment, and need cross wrenching from local bike shops.
hmm...
~
don't have the answers, but i definitely do see a bit of a problem that should be addressed. Want new racers in the sport? Older cat 4/5 men and all ages women. That's the place to generate revenue and participation. And, they'll be funding & procreatin' your next Lances/Floyds/Georgey's.
We seem to be addressing the master entry level racing quite well in this region, let's keep working on helping out the women ... that's my vote and i think that the return of the cat 5 field for la femmes is worth examining.
mhernanadork
Are you ready to get some good points? I did a search on the topic and found almost all people with your blog.
Social Media Agency
I'd like to congratulate Lori for putting her money where her mouth is.
We female racers should do the same.
Attend those races that offer a seperate start for your category and encourage others to do the same. Make it worth a promotor's time to consider it.
Do not enter open category races if you feel you will not get a valuable racing experience from this. (Unfortunately, most of the women that entered the Merced Crit probably did not know they would be pulled after about 3 laps of racing - what a horrible welcome to the sport that was)
And, I count several women's racing teams, or teams with a focus on womens racing, in our region. These teams should consider women's categories when promoting their races. Its the one time you have absolute choice over what is offered. (We do this for CX) If the race your team promotes does not offer ample categories for women...ask them why and offer your volunteer help/ideas to make it happen.
But of course, none of this addresses our region's need for a Cat 5 for women. Thanks for the heads up on the 4a/b option Lori. If we ever promote a road event (yikes) I will consider that. Although I worry that without official sanctioning of this cateogry the a/b thing could be misunderstood/abused by some. Too bad the rest of the regions were so short sighted.
As Lori, myself, Brooke and so many others involved in women's racing are aware, this growth we see in women's racing in our area did not happen overnight.
I'd hate to see that momentum dissipate.
But can we still blame the screwed up 45+ McClane results on the Velo Girls?
Sabine
Elis wrote:
Somewhere there is a solution that balances the economic implications and the personal implications of having womens races that are fun for every participant. The standard 1/2/3 and all-categories picked separately might work for other, smaller discticts, but I can tell you that it is mighty discouraging to show up at a combined field or 1/2/3 event that you will be picked separately for, only to be dropped at the hands of some of the local pros and pulled before you can be picked. The first steps to making certain races profitable is to make them accessible and provide the incentive to keep racing.
This is the reason we chose to have single-category races at the Menlo Park Grand Prix -- http://www.velogirls.com/racing/menloparkcrit.php
This meant, of course, that we couldn't include every single category (or we'd be racing into the night). These were tough decisions for us.
If more promoters did this, we'd probably find more happy racers. But, it means that there may not be a race for every single category every single weekend day from January to September. Given the ample opportunities we all have to race throughout the year, there are many racers who would choose to forgo certain races knowing that they had the opportunity to be in a single-category field at more races throughout the season.
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
Thank you for bringing this whole thread up. Women's racing in this area is such a labor of love for everyone, especially the racers, and there needs to be a lot of dialogue about how to grow it. Unfortunately the problems are usually treated as rants and gripes until someone from the dominant group steps up and says something. Thanks to Mr. Hernandez for adding your voice.
Somewhere there is a solution that balances the economic implications and the personal implications of having womens races that are fun for every participant. The standard 1/2/3 and all-categories picked separately might work for other, smaller discticts, but I can tell you that it is mighty discouraging to show up at a combined field or 1/2/3 event that you will be picked separately for, only to be dropped at the hands of some of the local pros and pulled before you can be picked. The first steps to making certain races profitable is to make them accessible and provide the incentive to keep racing.
In fact, this is a common concern -- I believe there's a discussion going on about the same thing in the Master men's categories. That discussion is getting a lot of play and compassion from fellow racers, and it's time to discuss the same issues affecting the women's peloton.
R4L, you could "subtly, politely, pass that message on" to me yourself if you wanted to. If it gave you chills and you don't understand the issues that led me to post what I did and to be upset, by all means let me know and I'd be happy to talk with you about it. I notice that no one taking part in the 45+ discussion is holding back their responses and feedback, but most of the guys seemed unwilling to discuss women's racing and how to improve it, or even to show the same compassion they did to the male racers who brought up the McLane snafus. Please, if you wanted to say something to me or enter the discussion, I wish you would do it directly. That's what the forum is for...
Solution...
Throw out Gender and Age...
Just promote races on Categories.
Make 6 or 8 Categories and run races by that...
600/8 = 75 - Safe and competive size for all~!
No Age or Gender Discrimination
velogirl wrote:As someone who's promoting her first race, I can tell you that having two women's races in an eight-race day, was the most we could budget. Because of the smaller field sizes, women's races are subsidized by the larger men's fields. That's the financial reality (and the women thank you guys for it).
Could you maybe, subtly, politely, pass that message on to whoever it was that wrote that rant about Mclane results in an earlier thread (the one about sportsbasementonline)?
That gave me shivers. Missing race results (because the camera cable fell out) = more evidence of widespread gender discrimination in cycling was the basic point. Uh, yeah. Maybe the clubs putting on races have to at least break even?
Great to hear you're promoting a race...speaking of rants that's my rant...some clubs around here totally drop the ball on that "requirement", including some big sponsored clubs. And to me the complaints from racers have risen right alongside that - I can't believe the expectations people have about these volunteer-run events. If everyone worked at least one race every year, getting up at 4AM to move barricades then waving an orange flag in the rain all day, people would be nicer about it all. I think we're all on the same team, it's called The Fringe Sport Weekend Warriors.
Oh yeah I have another rant, getting emails "I came in 39th but my results are not listed so I think I am entitled to a refund". Who are these people? See last paragraph...
R4L
I am in complete agreement with all of Hernando's points.
Ron
Hey, Michael! I (of course) agree. I proposed the return of women's CAT 5 last year and Tom Simonson took it to the USCF Board Meeting in June. Of course, it wasn't considered viable for most of the country where there are smaller numbers of women racing.
Casey's solution during EBs was to offer a CAT4-A (women with 10+ races of experience) and a CAT4-B (newbie racers). I think it's a great idea, but the suggestion doesn't seem to have reached the promoters. It's easy to implement in road races -- just add another field on the course at the same time -- no real additional expenses. More challenging in crits, because it means adding an additional race. As someone who's promoting her first race, I can tell you that having two women's races in an eight-race day, was the most we could budget. Because of the smaller field sizes, women's races are subsidized by the larger men's fields. That's the financial reality (and the women thank you guys for it).
Besides the items you note for the newbies, there are also thoughts about the experienced CAT4 women. Some of these women have been racing for years, and while they have skills and experience, may never have the fitness to upgrade. But they love racing all the same. There's definitely a mental/ego issue involved when you've got an adult, intelligent, affluential woman who feels like an experienced racer but is lumped into the same category as the newbies. Ah, but that's a longer conversation.
Thanks for giving the shout out for the girls.
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com