Masters Racing...why? [Archive] - The Paceline Forum

peanutgallery

12-02-2010, 03:48 PM

All this zaniness about aging male bikeheads chasing their racing dreams and the lengths they will go to for "success" has got me thinking:

1) Is it (Masters racing) something worth supporting? Masters racers are not building towards a pro career, younger racers are. Should any part of the meager sponsorships and resources for racing in the US get sucked up by a group that is basically degenerating, not building towards the future?

2) Would road racing in the US be better off in the long term if a large number of the age groupings were funneled in to the the current Category 1 through 5 with little or no differentiation based on age?

3) Would this kind of institutional focus increase the level of competition and develop the talent like we see emerging from established cycling countries?

4) Or are we better off allowing things to stay as they are because the large and various Masters fields "pay the bills" for the local race promoter and deep pockets allow for more high-end sales in what is a small industry.

Food for thought and/or discussion. We've all laughed about the old guys in lycra for years, but if USADA has to spend one penny on testing for Masters racing, is it all upside-down?

For the record I am over 40

fiamme red

12-02-2010, 04:15 PM

Interesting observation about demographics on rec.bicycles.racing:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/cde3f8c1e33c6cb0/49d041133f7fdeb3

bigbill

12-02-2010, 04:28 PM

1. It keeps us off the golf course.
2. We have disposable income, give me a sponsor discount and I'll buy even more.
3. We started racing in the 80's and 90's, this is just a continuation of what we love.
4. At 45, I am a much better rider than I was at 25. I have a higher top end speed, I just don't recover as well. I have to be smarter.
5. It gives us a sport we can share with our kids, they become the new generation of bike racers. Would Tyler Phinney be a cyclist without cycling parents?
6. I like diving a corner in a crit surrounded by people with kids and mortgages. They're less likely to do something stupid. If they don't have a sprint, they fall back on the last lap.
7. I've got a couple of masters medals.

Bob Loblaw

12-02-2010, 04:55 PM

If USAC doesn't support Master's racing, we'll flood the non-age group categories with talent and experience and bury the up-and-comers with sheer numbers. The younger riders should be paying our entry fees! :beer:

BL

Chris

12-02-2010, 05:23 PM

6. I like diving a corner in a crit surrounded by people with kids and mortgages. They're less likely to do something stupid. If they don't have a sprint, they fall back on the last lap.

That's the only point that needs to be made. I think the OP's question was a little muddled. Does master's racing need support? Absolutely not. If you are racing in the master's (and I do) and you need support to do so, you need to pick another sport or get a better job. It's a hobby at this level and while teams are cool to be on, to think that sponsorship is needed is just silly in my opinion. Should master's racing exist? Absolutely. See Bill's point #6. I wouldn't want to be my age now and in a race with me when I was a junior. I don't heal so well anymore.

bigbill

12-02-2010, 05:35 PM

That's the only point that needs to be made. I think the OP's question was a little muddled. Does master's racing need support? Absolutely not. If you are racing in the master's (and I do) and you need support to do so, you need to pick another sport or get a better job. It's a hobby at this level and while teams are cool to be on, to think that sponsorship is needed is just silly in my opinion. Should master's racing exist? Absolutely. See Bill's point #6. I wouldn't want to be my age now and in a race with me when I was a junior. I don't heal so well anymore.

The only support I ever want is a good discount at the sponsor shop. I don't need entry fees, travel expenses, a new bike, etc. This past season I rode for a team sponsored by a shop in San Diego. The shop offered a 20% discount and one time deals on shoe, helmet, tires, etc orders for the team. That's all I'm looking for.

Chris

12-02-2010, 05:45 PM

The only support I ever want is a good discount at the sponsor shop. I don't need entry fees, travel expenses, a new bike, etc. This past season I rode for a team sponsored by a shop in San Diego. The shop offered a 20% discount and one time deals on shoe, helmet, tires, etc orders for the team. That's all I'm looking for.

Right, I get that. Some shops benefit from that and it's cool if they want to support cycling teams. What kills me are master's (or most in this sport) who think they are doing someone a favor racing their bicycle. As someone who has run teams up to and including the pro level I can tell you that sponsors don't need cycling and most are only into it because someone in the sponsorship company is a cyclist. So, for guys my age to think they deserve to get free stuff or have their entries paid for just because they ride around in parking lot crits that no one other than their families go to is comical.

54ny77

12-02-2010, 05:49 PM

Velo Smooth Presented by Metamucil.

You heard it here first...

Right, I get that. Some shops benefit from that and it's cool if they want to support cycling teams. What kills me are master's (or most in this sport) who think they are doing someone a favor racing their bicycle. As someone who has run teams up to and including the pro level I can tell you that sponsors don't need cycling and most are only into it because someone in the sponsorship company is a cyclist. So, for guys my age to think they deserve to get free stuff or have their entries paid for just because they ride around in parking lot crits that no one other than their families go to is comical.

nm87710

12-02-2010, 06:30 PM

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No

doofus 2.0

12-02-2010, 07:03 PM

I don't think there should be prize money in the 35/45+.

In my whacked-out ideal world, we'd get cool prizes like six-packs or really good pastries or a pair of socks to go with a cheesy bike race medal. It's all about bragging rights and fun anyway -- and it's not like Masters guys are racing to pay the bills. Checking out the carbon arms race on start lines would seem to suggest that we're not exactly hurting for cash.

The main reason I race for the club team that I do is because everyone gets the same deal, and the deal is that there is no deal. Don't ask for anything, becuase you're not going to get anything, other than a pair of shorts and a jersey. Fair enough, and down to Earth.

bigbill

12-02-2010, 07:50 PM

I'd be cool with no cash prizes. I'd sprint someone for a six pack and joy of taunting them later. The only place that cash or cool items would come into play is primes. I like shop discounts.

peanutgallery

12-02-2010, 07:56 PM

Chris

12-02-2010, 08:01 PM

Yup. It's like the junior scene died after those of us who raced in the 80s grew up. I remember going to junior races where the fields were maxed out at 100. I can't remember the last time I saw a junior field that was even bigger than the women's field at a race. I think it's too expensive these days for juniors to get in on racing for the most part and the only people who can afford to race are college kids with student loans, shop rats and master's racers.

pbjbike

12-02-2010, 08:19 PM

There's been a huge trickle down in bicycle technology in the last 20 years, resulting in race ready bikes for $600-800. 30 years ago, you only had Colnagos, Guerciottis and their ilk, ($900-1,200), OR, a "club racer" from Raleigh, Gitane, Peugeot, which still set you back $400 or so. Multiply times 3 or 4 for equivalent $ today, (ahneedaride?).

Entry fees seem higher now, even with equivalent $, but buying a decent bike is much cheaper, thanks to the far East manufacturers. :rolleyes: Lack of Juniors has more to do with other contemporary distractions and fads. Endurance sports have never been cool in the U.S. JMO

rounder

12-02-2010, 09:28 PM

I wish i was good enough to show up for a race with only the possibility of winning a cheesy medal and no cash. I have a bunch of cheesy bowling trophys and patches that mean nothing to anyone but myself. I have a lot of respect for those who can race and make a (decent) living. Also have lots of respect for those who go and knock themselves out (no money), racing against others just to win or place well in a bike race.

kong79

12-02-2010, 09:34 PM

When I started racing in the mid 80's, there were many of us in our 20's and early thirties, and only a few in their 40's or older. It was a blast to race, except that my age group was always the biggest so medaling was hard to do. When I think back now, the only teens that raced were the kids of the older riders. As we got older so did the demographics. The teens went away to college and quit racing and there were no youngsters until our age group got into their 40's and our kids started racing. So in a roundabout way, yes, the Masters class is very important because, at least around here, not many "kids" start bike racing competitively unless they have a parent that is into bikes or they have a mentor (Scout Leader maybe) that introduces them to the sport.

false_Aest

12-02-2010, 09:36 PM

1) Is it (Masters racing) something worth supporting? Masters racers are not building towards a pro career, younger racers are. Should any part of the meager sponsorships and resources for racing in the US get sucked up by a group that is basically degenerating, not building towards the future?

>>> at least 90% of younger racers aren't building towards a pro career either. I'm with ya though, don't support older people. No more benefits after age 40.

2) Would road racing in the US be better off in the long term if a large number of the age groupings were funneled in to the the current Category 1 through 5 with little or no differentiation based on age?

>>> There are plenty of strong 40+ dudes that would love to take out a 21 year old. There are plenty of 21 year olds that would love to school a 40 year old. I'm all for this too. More carnage.

3) Would this kind of institutional focus increase the level of competition and develop the talent like we see emerging from established cycling countries?

>>> Who cares when you get to see blood?

4) Or are we better off allowing things to stay as they are because the large and various Masters fields "pay the bills" for the local race promoter and deep pockets allow for more high-end sales in what is a small industry.

>>> What? Did you say blood?

Food for thought and/or discussion. We've all laughed about the old guys in lycra for years, but if USADA has to spend one penny on testing for Masters racing, is it all upside-down?

>>> Totally upside down. Teachin how to punch on the bike first then ride in a group.

For the record I am over 40[/QUOTE]

>>> I am under 30.

nm87710

12-02-2010, 09:54 PM

i wish i was good enough to show up for a race with only the possibility of winning a cheesy medal and no cash. I have a bunch of cheesy bowling trophys and patches that mean nothing to anyone but myself.

+1

rounder

12-02-2010, 09:57 PM

lol

R2D2

12-02-2010, 10:34 PM

I see very few actual road races anymore. Only crit racing.
At club rides there seem to be very few teens or 20 somethings.
Even Merckx lamented that cycling was dying in popularity in Belgium.
Younger people wanted to play tennis,soccer or some less demanding sport.
Maybe it's a generation thing. We lived on the bike as kids and road all over from dawn to dusk. I hardly see kids out of doors now.
Most of my riding buddy's kids are active in swimming,running or soccer but never cycling. So to me, the reason there are such large masters fields is they are the only age group really interested in any form of racing. So let's get rid of them and watch racing in the USA wither and die.
At least the hipsters show some interest but they loathe anything that smacks of organization,rules and structure. There has been an explosion (33% growth) in RUSA (Rando) but many of the participants have no desire to race. I used to race in the 80's but would rather do the long distance thing today.
But I would love to see a resurgence of racing in all disciplines.

John M

12-02-2010, 10:40 PM

bigbill's #2 is the real answer. The masters are the ones with disposable income. When I was young and somewhat fast, I had one bike, budget equipment, and scrapped for entry fees. Now I am a slow 40+ employed parent of two, but I have 4 bikes, spare wheels, and can easily afford the entry fees. The older guys are the ones who spend money so the shops/industry can sponsor the young fast guys.

tlarwa

12-02-2010, 10:47 PM

I've been an avid cyclist, competitive duathlete, etc for 25 years, but have never had the balls to race crits. My passion for cycling did, however, rub off on my oldest boy, who will be racing with the University of Minnesota cycling team this coming season. His newly found love of the sport has re-energized me to the point of seriously considering racing myself next season ... a crit newbie at 49. I'm pretty stoked about it, and it would have never happened without my son's interest (and vice versa). I guess my point is that racing is probably necessary at all age levels if the sport is going to survive. As with a lot of things, some younger riders became riders because of their parents! As for sponsorships ... that'll never happen!

Tom

djg

12-03-2010, 07:08 AM

I don't understand the OP at all. Really.

This isn't curing cancer or writing the great American advertising slogan. It's bike racing. And if the point of junior racing is to develop the next generation of star professionals -- kids who will race for the annals of the sport -- then it has to be the most inefficient activity ever imagined. Wanna know how to look at a juniors field and identify who will make it? Point to each and every kid and say "nope, not that one." Once in a blue moon you might be wrong, but not often.

Amateur and citizen racing are worthwhile, or even cool, at the junior level, Cat 5, Cat 3, masters, etc. or not. I'd say yes. I'd also say that the proposition of folding more fields together makes very little sense.

And support for masters racing mostly comes from masters racers. Maybe I should give up sports and spend all my discretionary income on charity -- there are good arguments for that -- but unless you are going to argue that everyone give up all such spending, I'm not really sure why a race fee is worse than going to the movies.

Charles M

12-03-2010, 07:27 AM

The point of all racing at all levels, in all forms, is the same...

Ralph

12-03-2010, 07:34 AM

Junior racing is very expensive. It may not have to be, but it is. Not many parents can/will cough up the dough the kid thinks he needs to compete.

Sure there are entry level racing bikes that won't hold a kid back. But all I see them riding are hi end carbon frames with hi end parts and wheels. I hate to see one of these "no fear" kids crashing his Cervelo and telling his parents he needs a new one. So many kids thinking about racing sees all these nice bikes, thinks he has to have one to to be successful, and can't afford it. Peer pressure is tough on a kid. It seems to be a lot about the bikes, and less so about the racing sometimes.

There are some race clubs in our area that attempts to help kids get into competitive equipment, that holds up to racing, and helps with clothing and some travel expenses. That helps a lot.

45K10

12-03-2010, 07:54 AM

Ti Designs

12-03-2010, 11:52 AM

The point of all racing at all levels, in all forms, is the same...

The point is the same, and yet it's soooo different.

I've worked with riders in just about all the different fields, masters, juniors, blind stokers, pros, new riders... They all have their little quirks, but putting riders in the master's field is a special challenge. The driving force in masters racing are the mutants who were beating up on the field 30 years ago and just refuse to give up the sport. Something happens to them along the way, the mental game changes. In senior racing, when a break goes all the riders are looking forward and the focus is on getting into a winning move. In masters racing the point of a break going is to get the guys who can't hang to give up the sport. Putting a new rider into the masters field is a special challenge 'cause everybody else in the field has 30 years of racing under their belt, so no matter how well trained they are, they're still the new guy. New guys get pushed around a lot in that field, but anyone who's willing to make a go of it has my respect.

As for supporting masters racing, I question if it needs to be supported. The guys who stay in the sport tend to have the disposable income, they're not out there to win the rent (the same can be argued about any cat 4 race, but when you watch them race you have to question that) By the time a rider makes it into the masters they're looking to test their own limits, awards mean very little...

BobC

12-03-2010, 12:11 PM

The driving force in masters racing are the mutants who were beating up on the field 30 years ago and just refuse to give up the sport. Something happens to them along the way, the mental game changes...In masters racing the point of a break going is to get the guys who can't hang to give up the sport. ...

Wow. I gotta throw the red flag there.

I race primarily 40+ vice Cat II for 2 reasons:
1. I know 40+ are ten times safer. The dudes in the field (by & large) have day jobs & families and therefore racing isn't their source of income. Thus they race like that.
2. My teammates & I are all pretty much the same age. So we have the chance to race together vice possibly broken into several different fields. More fun that way and the race stories afterwards are more colorful.

I won't argue that the old men in the old man races are not ubercompetitive. But everyone pretty much knows everyone else, and thus it is competition within set guidelines. Dangerous behavior frankly doesn't cut it.

I think you will find that reason the main one masters ride masters races.

- Bob

flydhest

12-03-2010, 12:14 PM

Visited my first race in years this past Summer and was taken aback by the size of the masters race, disappointed in the Cat 3/4 field. Makes you wonder about the big picture implications. Lot's of us played baseball as kids but you don't see too many minor league teams with 40 year olds on the roster. Fantasy camps do brisk business I would bet

I think that our esteemed sanctioning body is missing the boat, but what else is new

The problem with the question is that it is built on a false premise, it seems. Are you implying that by having a masters race it somehow impedes having a 3/4 field? Some of us race in both, if I only do one, it would be the 3/4 field. More fundamentally, however, there are plenty of races that don't have a masters race that is separate.

So . . . you are basing your discussion on one race you went to for the first time in years?

What boat are they missing.

If you saw a huge Cat 5 field and a combined 1-2-3 field with few riders, does that mean there's something wrong . . . or just that there are more Cat 5 racers?

Besides, sponsor money is about more sales for the sponsor. Should they care if it is old farts if the advertising money gets better results for them?

excel1959

12-03-2010, 12:35 PM

Ti Designs

12-03-2010, 01:14 PM

I won't argue that the old men in the old man races are not ubercompetitive. But everyone pretty much knows everyone else, and thus it is competition within set guidelines. Dangerous behavior frankly doesn't cut it.

I think you misunderstood what I said. Never did I say anything about riding dangerous. In a lot of master's races there is a statement made by the top riders, it happens on a really tough part and it says "you can't hack it" to all those getting dropped. At the Fitchburg stage race, on the Mt Wachusette stage it was clear as day. The attack came on the steepest section on Rt 31 before the turn, and it was like they all were doing the Lance "look" as they powered away from the helpless field.

Masters racing is simply more defined in what people can and will do. There are climbers you know are going to make their move on the climb, there are sprinters who lurk until the sprint. It's the same guys all the time, unlike the other fields you don't expect these guys to change much.

flydhest

12-03-2010, 01:37 PM

Not every club or team has a shop sponsor, but I agree, it is the majority.

Sponsors often like to be associated with something they support. My team's sponsors span a range of businesses. It would likely be impossible to demonstrate conclusively that sponsorship raises revenues, but our sponsors often link to our website and talk it up to their clients.

Of course, the cost benefit analysis goes something like this:
cost: very low
benefit: very low possibly only warm fuzzies

Given that no single sponsor gives us much they don't expect much in return.

That said, my team was born out of a shop ride (one that I created) and that shop ride over the three years that I ran it grew huge, getting written up in the Washington Post and having people getting referred to it by word of mouth. The team used to help run/organize the ride and encouraged recreational riders. The ride starts and ends at the shop. I find it hard to believe that the shop didn't get more revenue because of it.

Bike racers are either cheap, broke, or both. So many looking for a deal or free stuff and then drive away from the shop in their BMW or Porsche Cayenne. Sponsorships for 99.9% of racers in the USA do not generate a penny more in sales for the sponsor. Every club/team has a bike shop sponsor. 99.9% of the people at an industrial park crit are either racers or family or significant others. They are all already associated with their 'sponsoring' shop. So where are the incremental sales going to come from?
Yes it's fun to be part of a team/club. I've been racing for 30+ years and still get a thrill racing a crit and there are the health benefits. But to expect financial support for doing what I love. That's just dumb.
Shops get better exposure working support at charity rides. I've sent more people to the shop on my jersey by going to area club rides (non-racers).
End of rant...

wasfast

12-03-2010, 02:00 PM

The demographics I've witnessed (mostly OBRA) are heavily skewed to the 40+ guys. While that's said for the ongoing momentum of the sport, it is the way it is. Whether cost or interest is the reason for less younger riders, I can't say. Those of us in their late 40's and older grew up in the bike boom of the 70's and that interest seems to have stuck something fierce.

Certainly there's a more safety (i.e. less crashes hopefully) orientation in the age categories. The implication to me has always been that old guys are slow so therefore there are age categories. The reality is there are plenty of 50+ guys that still race Cat 1-2. If it were up to me, I'd rather see straight categories and no age distinction. Also note that I no longer do pack racing except on the rare occasion and focus on TT's.

peanutgallery

12-03-2010, 02:29 PM

How big was the Cat 1/2, 3 or 4 field at the last race you attended? Several people have agreed that the Masters fields are big/popular, how does that affect the big picture in a sport that we all seem to love? Good, bad, indifferent? It was also a response to a post by Fiamme Red, so I ask that you keep the context of my post in mind. You are welcome to read the link yourself: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/cde3f8c1e33c6cb0/49d041133f7fdeb3

The problem with the question is that it is built on a false premise, it seems. Are you implying that by having a masters race it somehow impedes having a 3/4 field? Some of us race in both, if I only do one, it would be the 3/4 field. More fundamentally, however, there are plenty of races that don't have a masters race that is separate.

So . . . you are basing your discussion on one race you went to for the first time in years?

What boat are they missing.

If you saw a huge Cat 5 field and a combined 1-2-3 field with few riders, does that mean there's something wrong . . . or just that there are more Cat 5 racers?

Besides, sponsor money is about more sales for the sponsor. Should they care if it is old farts if the advertising money gets better results for them?

BobC

12-03-2010, 07:37 PM

I think you misunderstood what I said. Never did I say anything about riding dangerous. In a lot of master's races there is a statement made by the top riders, it happens on a really tough part and it says "you can't hack it" to all those getting dropped. At the Fitchburg stage race, on the Mt Wachusette stage it was clear as day. The attack came on the steepest section on Rt 31 before the turn, and it was like they all were doing the Lance "look" as they powered away from the helpless field.

Masters racing is simply more defined in what people can and will do. There are climbers you know are going to make their move on the climb, there are sprinters who lurk until the sprint. It's the same guys all the time, unlike the other fields you don't expect these guys to change much.

Ti,

I can see your point but to be fair every course is different, suiting different styles of riders. Fitchburg, Sommerville, 'Toona, your local crit course, you name it. Some are good for small breaks, some are a sprinter's heaven, some are the power climber's best friend. Perhaps the fact that you see the same folks dealing out the pain is that masters might not travel as far to race (again, family/work obligations, etc). I know that my days of packing up the car with a couple buds and driving 8 hours to race are over.

Where I think you and I disagree is the attitude "I am going to crush you like a bug and drive you out of the sport (and deflate your bike tires, steal your woman, melt your ice cream and drive away with your sportscar ;) )" I really truly don't see it out there.

- Bob

Bob Loblaw

12-03-2010, 08:58 PM

I agree with this. And anyway, not every Masters racer enters a race trying to win. To some guys, a victory might mean hanging with the bunch through a hard, hilly road race or just getting into a break in a crit. Personally, I have won races that I haven't enjoyed, and had a ball in races where I ended up getting creamed in the finale. Some of the most fun, exciting, evenly matched, desperate mano a mano duels to the finish I have ever engaged in have take place when the winner was already standing on the podium.

BL

Ti,

I can see your point but to be fair every course is different, suiting different styles of riders. Fitchburg, Sommerville, 'Toona, your local crit course, you name it. Some are good for small breaks, some are a sprinter's heaven, some are the power climber's best friend. Perhaps the fact that you see the same folks dealing out the pain is that masters might not travel as far to race (again, family/work obligations, etc). I know that my days of packing up the car with a couple buds and driving 8 hours to race are over.

Where I think you and I disagree is the attitude "I am going to crush you like a bug and drive you out of the sport (and deflate your bike tires, steal your woman, melt your ice cream and drive away with your sportscar ;) )" I really truly don't see it out there.

- Bob

djg

12-03-2010, 10:20 PM

Bike racers are either cheap, broke, or both. So many looking for a deal or free stuff and then drive away from the shop in their BMW or Porsche Cayenne. Sponsorships for 99.9% of racers in the USA do not generate a penny more in sales for the sponsor. Every club/team has a bike shop sponsor. 99.9% of the people at an industrial park crit are either racers or family or significant others. They are all already associated with their 'sponsoring' shop. So where are the incremental sales going to come from?
Yes it's fun to be part of a team/club. I've been racing for 30+ years and still get a thrill racing a crit and there are the health benefits. But to expect financial support for doing what I love. That's just dumb.
Shops get better exposure working support at charity rides. I've sent more people to the shop on my jersey by going to area club rides (non-racers).
End of rant...

I think you should add a couple of significant digits when making up numbers. 99.9% sounds precise, sure, but 99.892% seems so much better. And more plausible too -- one of those mysterious psychological tics, as there's no prior reason to suppose that an 8 or a 2 will pop up out of an analysis more often than a 9, but they somehow help the fiction look more like real data. Also, repeating the same numerical result for two different statistics, back-to-back, always looks suspicious (although again, how much more likely is the pair, 99.9 and 99.7, than the pair 99.9 and 99.9?)

No idea what goes on at your shop. Our shop sponsor does quite a bit of business with team members. They offer some very good deals indeed on things that (a) they line up in advance on a special deal or (b) clear out at the end of the season, and various more modest discounts on this and that throughout the year. The Pinarellos and carbon wheel sales seem to go to the masters riders rather than the students. Go figure. How do the numbers work out? I'm not sure -- they seem to like the association, but it's their business and I haven't seen them post an accounting on the internet.