I think we should base the categories of races strictly on the base of the UCI classification. No one of us can claim that he/she can make a better categorisation.
For example Quebec and Montreal are World Tour races, the should be cat 5 as the earn you the same UCI points as Hamburg or the Fleche Wallonne in real life. For every cycling fan a victory in the Fleche Wallonne will be still more important even if you earn the same amount of points.
This would make the categorisation very easy and end all the discussion about the right category.
One day races in season (Jan - Oct)
6 <- monuments
5 <- WorldTour races
4 <- 1.HC
3 <- 1.1
2 <- 1.2
1 <- fantasy races
tours in season
5 <- grand tours
4 <- WorldTour races
3 <- 2.HC
2 <- 2.1
1 <- 2.2 (fantasy tours if they are really necessary in season)
This seems to be implemented for many races anyway, but I see no reasons to make exceptions.
Race Categories
Moderators: systemmods, Calendarmods
Re: Race Categories
Disagree. And I think many of us can make a better categorization. But it leads to endless discussion if we try to come up with our own, true. But this is not what we are actually doing right now.
In 07 we decided to follow the cycling4all calendar. Very good website by a dutch cyclingfanatic. Best cycling website ever on the web. Unfortunately the website then went offline later in 07, he had enough due to the doping scandals, so we only have the calendar from then. And some things changed yes.
The c4a calendar was superior to the UCI one because with the UCI it's political too. Plus it's not ONE circuit, but 5. Pro Tour, now World Tour, same shit.. then Europe Tour, Americas Tour, Africa Tour, Asia Tour, Oceania Tour. Well, 6 different calendars actually. 6 different competitions. The WT one with its own scale, TdF, then Giro/Vuelta and monuments, then the other one day races and stage races. Something like that. The continental circuits though have the same .HC to .2 classification. But everybody knows and agrees (Ithink) that a 1.HC race like the Japan cup, can't compare to a 1.HC race in Europe like Het Volk or Tre Valli Varesine. At first glance they look the same value in UCI, but at a closer look.. they are in a different competition. Asia Tour and Europe Tour, which are 2 different things. So, they don't actually have the same value in the end. Then it's political in the sense that some races give up their higher status depending on their calendar position, to get a better field in the end. Like many Italian races went back to 1.1 in the last years. So that foreign continental teams can be invited to. With 1.HC it was only PT, Prof and continentals of the country where the race is. So now they might get a slovenian Conti team without really losing much in the WT participation, nothing, or maybe 1 or 2 teams that didn't bring a strong squad anyway, while the young slovenians will be motivated and finally make the race stronger. Plus, the UCI doesn't really take into account history. It's just the value in UCI points. Not even the value it actually has. Look no further than Paris-Tours. Not in the WT anymore. So it's less important than Plouay, Hamburg, Québec and Montréal? No it isn't in the end, ask most riders what they'd rather win and the answer will be clear. Paris-Tours.
The c4a calendar took care of that in many cases. HC races with no history, with no real strong fields either, or outside Europe, didn't get the same classification as HC like E3. Then the UCI cat 2.1 is actually very wide. Even though there are certainly huge differences in the value between them too. See something like Agostoni and GP Schwarzwald for example. With its history and the advantage of being held in a cycling country, a win at Agostoni, or make that Romagna or almost any other Italian semi-classic with a certain tradition, a win at Agostoni is just more valuable than the GP Schwarzwald. Following the UCI, we would have both at 3.
Here how the c4a categorized the races roughly
1.S. Monuments
1.A. WT races
1.B. Most HC races in Europe.
1.C. Some HC races in Europe (Aargau at the time, no doubt that was never worth 1.HC, a try to take over from Zürich as nr 1 race in CH, didn't work, think they are 1.1 now, not sure) all or most HC races outside Europe, many 1.1 races
1.D. The other 1.1 races. Maybe sometimes even a 1.2 one slipped in, not going to check all, but think it was basically the 1.1 races not in 1C
1.E. Roughly the 1.2 races, maybe some 1.1 fell down
2.S=The 3 GTs
2.A=other PT races
2.B =some HC races in Europe
2.C.=some HC races outside Europe, some in Europe, some 2.1 in Europe
2.D. Some HC races outside Europe, +2.1 in Europe
2.E. 2.2 in Europe and 2.1+2.2 outside Europe
RSF then decided to make it like this
1S=6
1A=5
1B=4
1C=3
1D=2
1E=1
for one day races. Since then some thing have changed. Some races gone up or gone down a category. In those cases usually we just let leso decide. For example last year the Giro del Veneto went down to 1.1 from 1.HC. We informed Leso, he went down to cat 3. I would have kept it at cat 4 personnally, down this year since it isn't even raced in reality... if raced maybe keep it at 4 still. It's still a classic race with a certain history. Leso decided 3, that was ok too and we didn't have any discussion. New races like Strade Bianche, it gained importance fairly fast, last year I proposed to leso to make it 3, he did, that's what he did and what it is now. Ups, just saw that Japan Cup was UCI1.1 in 07... changed to HC since then maybe? Anyway, 1.D. c4a cat 2. Back on topic, new races, now 2 new WT races. No tradition, no nothing. Personnally I would have started at 3. Increased to 4 this year, then another year 4 or maybe already 5 in 2012. Probably though as a traditionalist would have kept it at 4. Leso started at 2, IMO too low. But ok, we can go that way and start there, takes one year longer to go to 4. There was no discussion, we accepted it. Now go to 4 from 2 directly? For me is ok, even for it. Ask Leso to do it when he's back. If he says yes, good, if not, well, then we'll get it to cat 4 next year. There is actually no need for endless discussion. And we havent't had them.
For stage races it's a bit more complicated.... not sure if I copied the original "agreement post" by leso somewhere in this forum, probably yes, will look for it tomorrow, to tired not, bed son.
but
1S=5
1A=4... but not sure if all PT or just the classic ones, we have been handling it as only the classic ones, Tirreno, Paris Nice, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphiné and TdS. Not Eneco and Poland (which last year we didn't even find a designer for) or Down Under which has become a WT event since then. A policy that I actually think is right, since Eneco and Poland just don't have the standing the other historical, classic stage races have. And won't have that standing for a fairly long time IMO. But not sure if we are actually following the agreement here.
1B=3 But here I remember it was explicitly written that leso had the right to "promote" some races. He has done that with Austria and Route du Sud regularly, maybe others too.
1C=2
1D+E 1
Roughly... again, will need to look for a Klebtpost with the exact agreement.
But it's not as we are making it all up out of thin air. We still use the c4a calendar from 07 as a basis. And no, while there are some minor changes IMO it's far from outdated. Leso posted it once as a PDF on the old forum before you joined here probably, I downloaded it, and in 99,9% of complaints I have I consult it before... will try to post it as an attachment in my next post, since obviously don't think many have it here.. Download it, study it, and I'm confident you will come to the same conclusion leso and all others involved at the time (LCB, Klebt, Buhmann, Ariostea at the start, Peacemakers partly) came then. It's a better categorization than the UCI one. And as I said, I don't regard it as outdated yet. And it just is more precise in one day races than the UCI.
Plus, by following that (and sometimes leso is not strict enough, like when he downgraded Schelde to 3, grrr and we all saw it too late, grrr, double grr) we actually don't have endless discussions. It's all pretty straight forward. Some complaints when leso does one too high or too low, but he would do that with the UCI too, oh Schelde, that's 3 I think... even though it's 1.HC... complaints follow, if early enough mostly succesful.
Now of course not EVERYTHING is perfect. Possible that we haven't been really following the stage races thing as agreed then. Possible that some races which have gone up to 1.hc, like Vendée I think, could be cat 4 and are still 3, possible that some people think Indurain should be 4, HC UCI, 1.C. c4a, cat 3 RSF. Those things certainly can, and sooner or later will have to be discussed. On Indurain for example I'm really unsure myself, in a way hasn't become really more important, it's 100% overshadowed by the northern races in the same period... 3 ok, like c4a said. But then it usually has a fairly good starters field... 4... with Catalunya now right before it... 4... both ok. If a certain number of people that study the whole issue say it should be 4, ok, I'm sure leso will do it, if we or they or you or whoever comes up with good enough reasons NOT to follow the c4a calendar.
So, I'm 100% opposed to strictly follow the UCI calendar. See above, 6 competitions mixed into one, less precise on 1 day races. The UCI classification is just inferior to the c4a one, and to the RSF one too logically. Analyze it, (in case I manage to post the pdf as an attachment) compare it. Hope you'll come to the same conclusion.
But if somebody wants to start a review, all races in the c4a calendar, compare if the UCI status has changed (when we noticed me and others have usually mentioned it to leso, but probably missed a few) or with the same status the races has gained or lost importance, clearly gained or lost, then analyze new races, and demand a status change for some races, yeah, very good idea. Let's do that this winter, start now, no problem, finish in Winter, after all in January it will be 5 years since the decision of the policy, the calendar we use is 5 year old. Some adjustment can and maybe should be made. For some races (and maybe general policy like the WT stage races of "lesser" pedigree?) the discussion then might actually be a bit longer. But once it's done, then again we'll have peace for a few years. LIke with stuff like Veneto going down, mention it to leso, he'll decide. Then after another few years a longer general review again.
In 07 we decided to follow the cycling4all calendar. Very good website by a dutch cyclingfanatic. Best cycling website ever on the web. Unfortunately the website then went offline later in 07, he had enough due to the doping scandals, so we only have the calendar from then. And some things changed yes.
The c4a calendar was superior to the UCI one because with the UCI it's political too. Plus it's not ONE circuit, but 5. Pro Tour, now World Tour, same shit.. then Europe Tour, Americas Tour, Africa Tour, Asia Tour, Oceania Tour. Well, 6 different calendars actually. 6 different competitions. The WT one with its own scale, TdF, then Giro/Vuelta and monuments, then the other one day races and stage races. Something like that. The continental circuits though have the same .HC to .2 classification. But everybody knows and agrees (Ithink) that a 1.HC race like the Japan cup, can't compare to a 1.HC race in Europe like Het Volk or Tre Valli Varesine. At first glance they look the same value in UCI, but at a closer look.. they are in a different competition. Asia Tour and Europe Tour, which are 2 different things. So, they don't actually have the same value in the end. Then it's political in the sense that some races give up their higher status depending on their calendar position, to get a better field in the end. Like many Italian races went back to 1.1 in the last years. So that foreign continental teams can be invited to. With 1.HC it was only PT, Prof and continentals of the country where the race is. So now they might get a slovenian Conti team without really losing much in the WT participation, nothing, or maybe 1 or 2 teams that didn't bring a strong squad anyway, while the young slovenians will be motivated and finally make the race stronger. Plus, the UCI doesn't really take into account history. It's just the value in UCI points. Not even the value it actually has. Look no further than Paris-Tours. Not in the WT anymore. So it's less important than Plouay, Hamburg, Québec and Montréal? No it isn't in the end, ask most riders what they'd rather win and the answer will be clear. Paris-Tours.
The c4a calendar took care of that in many cases. HC races with no history, with no real strong fields either, or outside Europe, didn't get the same classification as HC like E3. Then the UCI cat 2.1 is actually very wide. Even though there are certainly huge differences in the value between them too. See something like Agostoni and GP Schwarzwald for example. With its history and the advantage of being held in a cycling country, a win at Agostoni, or make that Romagna or almost any other Italian semi-classic with a certain tradition, a win at Agostoni is just more valuable than the GP Schwarzwald. Following the UCI, we would have both at 3.
Here how the c4a categorized the races roughly
1.S. Monuments
1.A. WT races
1.B. Most HC races in Europe.
1.C. Some HC races in Europe (Aargau at the time, no doubt that was never worth 1.HC, a try to take over from Zürich as nr 1 race in CH, didn't work, think they are 1.1 now, not sure) all or most HC races outside Europe, many 1.1 races
1.D. The other 1.1 races. Maybe sometimes even a 1.2 one slipped in, not going to check all, but think it was basically the 1.1 races not in 1C
1.E. Roughly the 1.2 races, maybe some 1.1 fell down
2.S=The 3 GTs
2.A=other PT races
2.B =some HC races in Europe
2.C.=some HC races outside Europe, some in Europe, some 2.1 in Europe
2.D. Some HC races outside Europe, +2.1 in Europe
2.E. 2.2 in Europe and 2.1+2.2 outside Europe
RSF then decided to make it like this
1S=6
1A=5
1B=4
1C=3
1D=2
1E=1
for one day races. Since then some thing have changed. Some races gone up or gone down a category. In those cases usually we just let leso decide. For example last year the Giro del Veneto went down to 1.1 from 1.HC. We informed Leso, he went down to cat 3. I would have kept it at cat 4 personnally, down this year since it isn't even raced in reality... if raced maybe keep it at 4 still. It's still a classic race with a certain history. Leso decided 3, that was ok too and we didn't have any discussion. New races like Strade Bianche, it gained importance fairly fast, last year I proposed to leso to make it 3, he did, that's what he did and what it is now. Ups, just saw that Japan Cup was UCI1.1 in 07... changed to HC since then maybe? Anyway, 1.D. c4a cat 2. Back on topic, new races, now 2 new WT races. No tradition, no nothing. Personnally I would have started at 3. Increased to 4 this year, then another year 4 or maybe already 5 in 2012. Probably though as a traditionalist would have kept it at 4. Leso started at 2, IMO too low. But ok, we can go that way and start there, takes one year longer to go to 4. There was no discussion, we accepted it. Now go to 4 from 2 directly? For me is ok, even for it. Ask Leso to do it when he's back. If he says yes, good, if not, well, then we'll get it to cat 4 next year. There is actually no need for endless discussion. And we havent't had them.
For stage races it's a bit more complicated.... not sure if I copied the original "agreement post" by leso somewhere in this forum, probably yes, will look for it tomorrow, to tired not, bed son.
but
1S=5
1A=4... but not sure if all PT or just the classic ones, we have been handling it as only the classic ones, Tirreno, Paris Nice, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphiné and TdS. Not Eneco and Poland (which last year we didn't even find a designer for) or Down Under which has become a WT event since then. A policy that I actually think is right, since Eneco and Poland just don't have the standing the other historical, classic stage races have. And won't have that standing for a fairly long time IMO. But not sure if we are actually following the agreement here.
1B=3 But here I remember it was explicitly written that leso had the right to "promote" some races. He has done that with Austria and Route du Sud regularly, maybe others too.
1C=2
1D+E 1
Roughly... again, will need to look for a Klebtpost with the exact agreement.
But it's not as we are making it all up out of thin air. We still use the c4a calendar from 07 as a basis. And no, while there are some minor changes IMO it's far from outdated. Leso posted it once as a PDF on the old forum before you joined here probably, I downloaded it, and in 99,9% of complaints I have I consult it before... will try to post it as an attachment in my next post, since obviously don't think many have it here.. Download it, study it, and I'm confident you will come to the same conclusion leso and all others involved at the time (LCB, Klebt, Buhmann, Ariostea at the start, Peacemakers partly) came then. It's a better categorization than the UCI one. And as I said, I don't regard it as outdated yet. And it just is more precise in one day races than the UCI.
Plus, by following that (and sometimes leso is not strict enough, like when he downgraded Schelde to 3, grrr and we all saw it too late, grrr, double grr) we actually don't have endless discussions. It's all pretty straight forward. Some complaints when leso does one too high or too low, but he would do that with the UCI too, oh Schelde, that's 3 I think... even though it's 1.HC... complaints follow, if early enough mostly succesful.
Now of course not EVERYTHING is perfect. Possible that we haven't been really following the stage races thing as agreed then. Possible that some races which have gone up to 1.hc, like Vendée I think, could be cat 4 and are still 3, possible that some people think Indurain should be 4, HC UCI, 1.C. c4a, cat 3 RSF. Those things certainly can, and sooner or later will have to be discussed. On Indurain for example I'm really unsure myself, in a way hasn't become really more important, it's 100% overshadowed by the northern races in the same period... 3 ok, like c4a said. But then it usually has a fairly good starters field... 4... with Catalunya now right before it... 4... both ok. If a certain number of people that study the whole issue say it should be 4, ok, I'm sure leso will do it, if we or they or you or whoever comes up with good enough reasons NOT to follow the c4a calendar.
So, I'm 100% opposed to strictly follow the UCI calendar. See above, 6 competitions mixed into one, less precise on 1 day races. The UCI classification is just inferior to the c4a one, and to the RSF one too logically. Analyze it, (in case I manage to post the pdf as an attachment) compare it. Hope you'll come to the same conclusion.
But if somebody wants to start a review, all races in the c4a calendar, compare if the UCI status has changed (when we noticed me and others have usually mentioned it to leso, but probably missed a few) or with the same status the races has gained or lost importance, clearly gained or lost, then analyze new races, and demand a status change for some races, yeah, very good idea. Let's do that this winter, start now, no problem, finish in Winter, after all in January it will be 5 years since the decision of the policy, the calendar we use is 5 year old. Some adjustment can and maybe should be made. For some races (and maybe general policy like the WT stage races of "lesser" pedigree?) the discussion then might actually be a bit longer. But once it's done, then again we'll have peace for a few years. LIke with stuff like Veneto going down, mention it to leso, he'll decide. Then after another few years a longer general review again.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Re: Race Categories
Yeah, think I managed to upload the PDF!!! Hope it's the right file, not some porn hidden under an innocuos name or something hehe, now everybody will download it, cool
Was doing a short search if I can find a copy and paste of the agreement in 07... not succesful, will try with other keywords tomorrow... should have posted it ones or twice though...
Was doing a short search if I can find a copy and paste of the agreement in 07... not succesful, will try with other keywords tomorrow... should have posted it ones or twice though...
- Attachments
-
- c4allkalender07.pdf
- (183.65 KiB) Downloaded 234 times
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Re: Race Categories
The fact that the categorisation is based on a "very good" web site still makes it a subjective measurement. The UCI categorisation is not perfect, but it is strictly based on the teams allowed to participate. And in my opinion the races were the best teams take part are the most important. Before I continue a list of teams allowed to participate in the different categories (from the UCI webside).
World Tour
- UCI ProTeams (compulsory participation)
- Invited UCI professional continental teams
1.HC + 2. HC (European Tour)
- UCI ProTeams (max 80%)
- UCI professional continental teams
- UCI continental teams of the country
- National teams of the country of the organiser
1.1 + 2.1 (and 1.HC + 2.HC other continental tours)
- UCI ProTeams (max 50%)
- UCI professional continental teams
- UCI continental teams
- National teams
1.2 + 2.2
- UCI professional continental teams of the country
- UCI continental teams
- National teams
- Regional and club teams
That means x.HC races are such that attract the best teams. The fact that an organiser opts for x.1 instead of x.HC to be allowed to invite continental teams of neighbouring countries means that they do not attract better teams or that the prefer regional participants. In either case this do not qualify them for a high category despite the tradition they may represent. In contrast races like Quebec and Montreal have no tradition, instead the have a strong starting field. This should qualify them for a high category.
Paris - Tours is a special case, and it is a shame that such a traditional race is not on the same calender as the other top races. But I think the opted for 1.HC to be a more French race. This makes the race more attractive in France but justifies a downgrading on an international level.
Last point: I do not see a big difference between the European races and races in the rest of the world. The only reason to have a x.1 or x.HC status is the possibility to invite strong Europe based teams.
World Tour
- UCI ProTeams (compulsory participation)
- Invited UCI professional continental teams
1.HC + 2. HC (European Tour)
- UCI ProTeams (max 80%)
- UCI professional continental teams
- UCI continental teams of the country
- National teams of the country of the organiser
1.1 + 2.1 (and 1.HC + 2.HC other continental tours)
- UCI ProTeams (max 50%)
- UCI professional continental teams
- UCI continental teams
- National teams
1.2 + 2.2
- UCI professional continental teams of the country
- UCI continental teams
- National teams
- Regional and club teams
That means x.HC races are such that attract the best teams. The fact that an organiser opts for x.1 instead of x.HC to be allowed to invite continental teams of neighbouring countries means that they do not attract better teams or that the prefer regional participants. In either case this do not qualify them for a high category despite the tradition they may represent. In contrast races like Quebec and Montreal have no tradition, instead the have a strong starting field. This should qualify them for a high category.
Paris - Tours is a special case, and it is a shame that such a traditional race is not on the same calender as the other top races. But I think the opted for 1.HC to be a more French race. This makes the race more attractive in France but justifies a downgrading on an international level.
Last point: I do not see a big difference between the European races and races in the rest of the world. The only reason to have a x.1 or x.HC status is the possibility to invite strong Europe based teams.
Re: Race Categories
Hope you have at least downloaded the pdf and studied it.
And I stay of the opinion that the c4a calendar is superior.
And I stay of the opinion that the c4a calendar is superior.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
-
Coroncina2
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:16 pm
- Contact:
Re: Race Categories
Seem others players had my opinion. And at the end quit the game...
Why every months we need to lose time talking about category and what races do and how many times???
I think could be better fix all RSF calendar on winter. Like that all teams could plan better his season, and designer could better organize calendar in time.
A problem could be that we don't know if some race will take place and when. So we could decide some basical rules to follow during the season. Maybe calendar organizator are already done it, but could be nice publish them. This rules should follow UCI calendar and UCI classification. This just to select races in an impartial way. I'm Italian and I don't like that many historical races have a lower category that new ones just because of money.
For same impartial way we should follow UCI classification to make game classification of races.
Would be also nice give same points of UCI ranking race by race following all UCI regulation.
Why every months we need to lose time talking about category and what races do and how many times???
I think could be better fix all RSF calendar on winter. Like that all teams could plan better his season, and designer could better organize calendar in time.
A problem could be that we don't know if some race will take place and when. So we could decide some basical rules to follow during the season. Maybe calendar organizator are already done it, but could be nice publish them. This rules should follow UCI calendar and UCI classification. This just to select races in an impartial way. I'm Italian and I don't like that many historical races have a lower category that new ones just because of money.
For same impartial way we should follow UCI classification to make game classification of races.
Would be also nice give same points of UCI ranking race by race following all UCI regulation.
Mens sana in corpore sano
Re: Race Categories
Is there any point in this sentence or just an introduction?Coroncina2 wrote:Seem others players had my opinion. And at the end quit the game...
How much time is it per month? 5 minutes? 10? 15? And I don't see it as lost time.Coroncina2 wrote:Why every months we need to lose time talking about category and what races do and how many times???
Ok, I'm officially impressed. So you want to have the whole calendar, from January to October (or December?) decided at once? And then you could better plan the season? You really plan that detailed, that it would help you to know that today we ride a race in or around Toulouse? Ok, it might help you, but I don't think the majority of managers make plans as detailed as that.Coroncina2 wrote:I think could be better fix all RSF calendar on winter. Like that all teams could plan better his season, and designer could better organize calendar in time.
What's with this "impartial" that everybody keeps talking about? And why is it that good? What does it mean in this context?Coroncina2 wrote:This rules should follow UCI calendar and UCI classification. This just to select races in an impartial way. I'm Italian and I don't like that many historical races have a lower category that new ones just because of money.
I still have a big problem with your "reality, follow UCI" argument. It seems that when you like something, like having the categories following the UCI, you just keep saying reality, not much else as an argument, well impartial, but I'm not sure what you want to say exactly with that. But when you don't like something, like the dates of races, you are ok to completely ignore reality and support races to be moved all over the place. Why is reality SO important in some cases, but absolutely not important in others? Follow categories, follow rules of participation too? What to follow, and WHY?Coroncina2 wrote:For same impartial way we should follow UCI classification to make game classification of races.
No it wouldn't. We have 11+ years history here now. Changing the whole points scale now, would just make it either easier or harder to make points. I think harder, UCI gives out less points than we do. So we could have a Giro-Tour-Vuelta triple winner that has less than 5000 points. While winning all 3 now gives you much more. While the points system can be adjusted slightly, after all due to fewer teams it is much much easier now to score points than it used to as well, a big change like just doing it like the UCI makes little sense.Coroncina2 wrote:Would be also nice give same points of UCI ranking race by race following all UCI regulation.
Plus, lots of work. The UCI changes its points system almost every year, up until 2016? it didn't even have a real all encompassing system, it was divided into their different tours.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Re: Race Categories
Actually the idea I like really much is changing the prize money. Take for example Fourmies, the winner gets 120k. Heidelberg Pokal the winner gets... 120k.
I know that points are different, but honestly nobody cares about them (being div1 champ is almost useless except for palmares). What counts more is money to be able to have a good team that can compete in top races.
My idea? Do that the winner of PR gets 200k and the winner of a fantasy race 60k. The good things I see are:
1) No more crazy teams for a mountain/hilly low cat tour or race. The same could actually be obtained by changing the amount that the sponsor covers based on race categories.
2) Best teams will tend to play the most important races, letting little teams the rest.
Probably there are other ways to achieve this but I think it is really something we should tend to. I mean, div1 teams that play most important races, for example in this period not Alberta but Vuelta or Fourmies + Bruxelles + Montreal etc.. and little teams trying to emerge in low cat races.
I know that points are different, but honestly nobody cares about them (being div1 champ is almost useless except for palmares). What counts more is money to be able to have a good team that can compete in top races.
My idea? Do that the winner of PR gets 200k and the winner of a fantasy race 60k. The good things I see are:
1) No more crazy teams for a mountain/hilly low cat tour or race. The same could actually be obtained by changing the amount that the sponsor covers based on race categories.
2) Best teams will tend to play the most important races, letting little teams the rest.
Probably there are other ways to achieve this but I think it is really something we should tend to. I mean, div1 teams that play most important races, for example in this period not Alberta but Vuelta or Fourmies + Bruxelles + Montreal etc.. and little teams trying to emerge in low cat races.
-
Pokemon Club
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: Race Categories
If you want people cares about divisions classafication, you can give money according to their place too. Or if it isn't money in the transfertmarket. Because finally their is no difference between the 1st in div 1 and the 40th in div 5luques wrote:Actually the idea I like really much is changing the prize money. Take for example Fourmies, the winner gets 120k. Heidelberg Pokal the winner gets... 120k.
I know that points are different, but honestly nobody cares about them (being div1 champ is almost useless except for palmares). What counts more is money to be able to have a good team that can compete in top races.
My idea? Do that the winner of PR gets 200k and the winner of a fantasy race 60k. The good things I see are:
1) No more crazy teams for a mountain/hilly low cat tour or race. The same could actually be obtained by changing the amount that the sponsor covers based on race categories.
2) Best teams will tend to play the most important races, letting little teams the rest.
Probably there are other ways to achieve this but I think it is really something we should tend to. I mean, div1 teams that play most important races, for example in this period not Alberta but Vuelta or Fourmies + Bruxelles + Montreal etc.. and little teams trying to emerge in low cat races.
Re: Race Categories
luques wrote:. I mean, div1 teams that play most important races, for example in this period not Alberta but Vuelta or Fourmies + Bruxelles + Montreal etc..
[8:11:11 PM] SM: j'ai un bug la j'arrive plus a aller sur RFM
Re: Race Categories
luques wrote:Actually the idea I like really much is changing the prize money. Take for example Fourmies, the winner gets 120k. Heidelberg Pokal the winner gets... 120k.
I know that points are different, but honestly nobody cares about them (being div1 champ is almost useless except for palmares). What counts more is money to be able to have a good team that can compete in top races.
My idea? Do that the winner of PR gets 200k and the winner of a fantasy race 60k. The good things I see are:
1) No more crazy teams for a mountain/hilly low cat tour or race. The same could actually be obtained by changing the amount that the sponsor covers based on race categories.
2) Best teams will tend to play the most important races, letting little teams the rest.
Probably there are other ways to achieve this but I think it is really something we should tend to. I mean, div1 teams that play most important races, for example in this period not Alberta but Vuelta or Fourmies + Bruxelles + Montreal etc.. and little teams trying to emerge in low cat races.
Incredible, but true. I like the idea. Luques might not be completely useless after all!
The 2 concern I have:
a) New teams will not be placed much better, so earn less money. And already now I imagine it takes a while to earn enough money to start building a good team, that will take even longer and be more frustrating. But since I haven't been a new team for quite a while, I don't really know for sure how long it takes now.
b) Winter, very little money around then. But ok, less teams generally too, so that is not really a big problem.
But, the idea is good!
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Re: Race Categories
I would suggest lowering the amount of salary covered in cat 1 races. New teams usually have cheap teams, so only the big teams will "suffer" from this change if they still want to bring an expensive team.
Other than that, I think it would be good to either raise the amount of salary covered for cat 4+ races or the prize money in those races. It would only be realistic that the every team will be in their strongest formation in such races, that the winner of a classic gets more money and that the sponsor is willing to pay more when the team participates in such a big race.
Other than that, I think it would be good to either raise the amount of salary covered for cat 4+ races or the prize money in those races. It would only be realistic that the every team will be in their strongest formation in such races, that the winner of a classic gets more money and that the sponsor is willing to pay more when the team participates in such a big race.
-
Coroncina2
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:16 pm
- Contact:
Re: Race Categories
+1Laurens88 wrote:I would suggest lowering the amount of salary covered in cat 1 races. New teams usually have cheap teams, so only the big teams will "suffer" from this change if they still want to bring an expensive team.
Other than that, I think it would be good to either raise the amount of salary covered for cat 4+ races or the prize money in those races. It would only be realistic that the every team will be in their strongest formation in such races, that the winner of a classic gets more money and that the sponsor is willing to pay more when the team participates in such a big race.
Mens sana in corpore sano
-
CircleCycle
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Race Categories
maybe open a new thread about the money issues and stick to race categories here?
Re: Race Categories
Why... it's not like anybody really has anything of importance to say about race categories.
And since a change in either the pay-out (good idea) or the covered salary (bad idea) will obviously rely on the category of the race, discussing this here seems appropriate.
And since a change in either the pay-out (good idea) or the covered salary (bad idea) will obviously rely on the category of the race, discussing this here seems appropriate.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!
Got a carrot from FL. But they threaten to take it away now.
-
CircleCycle
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Race Categories
I thought it is about why a certain races deserves/gets a certain category and discussion about that.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests