• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Race Thread

Page 256 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
View: https://x.com/PS_BG_CT/status/1854162636729954538


L Brador, you say: I have just the jersey for them:
1_a6941f83-36d5-4fa8-a314-3d7621a45fd0.jpg
 
What's with the classification of races in CX? Today there is nothing televised, but two events I notice:
Rucphen Starting lists include Aerts, Adams, Kamp, Loockx, Van Kessel, Vandeputte; Bakker, Van Alphen, Verdonschott, Zemanova: recent winners include Kamp, Van der Haar, Pidcock; Verdonschott, Vos, Van der Heijden
and
Timisoara Highest career points on startlist are Malnasi , Jetta, Sylvester and Stan; Sels (OK, she was good a few years ago), Defour, Szekeres and Punk: previous winners Van der Meer and Ourliac, De Keersmaeker and Peeters.

So guess which is graded C1, and which C2, by the UCI.

Similar incoherencies are widespread.


Is this just protection against too high a percentage of the top 30/50/100 in World rankings being Belgo-Dutch? Is Eastern European and North American CX of such a standard that they deserve these points hauls but I am just unaware of most of the riders because of different levels of coverage?

Why are the likes of Boros and Konwa able to farm loads of C1 wins, but when they are in WC events they are typically placed mid to high teens: those from NW Europe finishing around them in the World Cups, for the most part, never get a sniff of a C1 podium in home events.

It seems like a much wider scale of race designations below WC is needed if rankings are to be meaningful.
 
Last edited:
What's with the classification of races in CX? Today there is nothing televised, but two events I notice:
Rucphen Starting lists include Aerts, Adams, Kamp, Loockx, Van Kessel, Vandeputte; Bakker, Van Alphen, Verdonschott, Zemanova: recent winners include Kamp, Van der Haar, Pidcock; Verdonschott, Vos, Van der Heijden
and
Timisoara Highest career points on startlist are Malnasi , Jetta, Sylvester and Stan; Sels (OK, she was good a few years ago), Defour, Szekeres and Punk: previous winners Van der Meer and Ourliac, De Keersmaeker and Peeters.

So guess which is graded C1, and which C2, by the UCI.

Similar incoherencies are widespread.


Is this just protection against too high a percentage of the top 30/50/100 in World rankings being Belgo-Dutch? Is Eastern European and North American CX of such a standard that they deserve these points hauls but I am just unaware of most of the riders because of different levels of coverage?

Why are the likes of Boros and Konwa able to farm loads of C1 wins, but when they are in WC events they are typically placed mid to high teens: those from NW Europe finishing around them in the World Cups, for the most part, never get a sniff of a C1 podium in home events.

It seems like a much wider scale of race designations below WC is needed if rankings are to be meaningful.
So races in other parts of the cross world should only be C1 if a certain number of the top 20 riders in the world are gonna rock up on the starting line? No C1 in Italy, Eastern Europe, Japan, France the US or Canada unless they can import some Dutch and or Belgians? They already have almost all the World Cups so I guess that seems fair.
 
So races in other parts of the cross world should only be C1 if a certain number of the top 20 riders in the world are gonna rock up on the starting line? No C1 in Italy, Eastern Europe, Japan, France the US or Canada unless they can import some Dutch and or Belgians? They already have almost all the World Cups so I guess that seems fair.

So what does C1 mean if races at C1 level have a field far inferior to those that are C2?
Do you believe that the wins today of Takacs and Sels today are of a much higher level of achievement and prestige than those of Orts and Verdonschott? Because apparently the UCI does.
Andrea Tamacs took 8th place in a C1 (and 15 UCI points) race by finishing 2 laps behind Loes Sels (UCI ranking 140); Nette Coppens got 8th ( no UCI points) in a C2 by finishing 2:07 behing Verdonschot (UCI ranked 5th). Where do you think Coppens would have finished in Timisoara or Tamacs in Rucphen?


Compare 2 races a week before the Euros: both given the same ranking by UCI:
Overijse: top six came 1, 3, 5, 4, 19 and 10 in Ponferrada;
Melgaco: Top 6 came 13, 21, [7th in U23], 23, 26, 30 in Ponferrada (most of them, with 'home advantage')
That does not indicate equivalence of standard in the races to me.

Yes, it does seem odd to have races defined as Class 1 if they do not have top class riders in them. As I said, perhaps there should be more levels than just C1 & C2 above NC. We would not accept a Road Race as being .Pro if no WT were willing to enter it.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the sport's elite is so geographically concentrated, but it is churlish to pretend that it is not and dishonest to give world ranking points in ways that are so ill proportioned to the achievement inherent in the result.
 
Maybe someone , if they really care, should look into how the different C's (permits virtually) of each race are applied for and awarded and the cost of obtaining that 1 or 2. I don't know the specifics but I think it's a pretty screwy process from what I've heard.
 
So what does C1 mean if races at C1 level have a field far inferior to those that are C2?
Do you believe that the wins today of Takacs and Sels today are of a much higher level of achievement and prestige than those of Orts and Verdonschott? Because apparently the UCI does.
Andrea Tamacs took 8th place in a C1 (and 15 UCI points) race by finishing 2 laps behind Loes Sels (UCI ranking 140); Nette Coppens got 8th ( no UCI points) in a C2 by finishing 2:07 behing Verdonschot (UCI ranked 5th). Where do you think Coppens would have finished in Timisoara or Tamacs in Rucphen?


Compare 2 races a week before the Euros: both given the same ranking by UCI:
Overijse: top six came 1, 3, 5, 4, 19 and 10 in Ponferrada;
Melgaco: Top 6 came 13, 21, [7th in U23], 23, 26, 30 in Ponferrada (most of them, with 'home advantage')
That does not indicate equivalence of standard in the races to me.

Yes, it does seem odd to have races defined as Class 1 if they do not have top class riders in them. As I said, perhaps there should be more levels than just C1 & C2 above NC. We would not accept a Road Race as being .Pro if no WT were willing to enter it.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the sport's elite is so geographically concentrated, but it is churlish to pretend that it is not and dishonest to give world ranking points in ways that are so ill proportioned to the achievement inherent in the result.
in road racing, though I know it’s not an equivalent example, races given WT status do not always have superior fields and higher status than some non-WT races. Strade Bianchi, for example, was for years not designated WT during the period when the best classics riders showed up every year. And in stage races, we know the UCI awards WT status to certain (mostly non-European) races just to prop them up.
 
Maybe someone , if they really care, should look into how the different C's (permits virtually) of each race are applied for and awarded and the cost of obtaining that 1 or 2. I don't know the specifics but I think it's a pretty screwy process from what I've heard.
Well it is the UCI.........
If I remember correctly at least part of it has to do with price list valuation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ManicJack
By your logic then no other country in the world save Holland and Belgium should be able to get a UCI C1 sanction for any race held in their country. #makecyclocrossbelgianagain
I'm saying that I don't understand the grounds under which some races are granted C1 status, and others are not. I am remarking on the incongruousness of it, wondering how it is justifiable, and asking what might be a better set of classifications.

I'm not campaigning for anything, but in terms of your question, why do races in other countries A) need and B) deserve C1 status? The races in the US, Czechia, Spain or Romania would still have the same riders, the same budgets, and the same lack of coverage without it, apart from, possibly, the participation of 3rd level Belgians and Dutch trying to find easy points, undermining the local talent.
 
I'm saying that I don't understand the grounds under which some races are granted C1 status, and others are not. I am remarking on the incongruousness of it, wondering how it is justifiable, and asking what might be a better set of classifications.

I'm not campaigning for anything, but in terms of your question, why do races in other countries A) need and B) deserve C1 status? The races in the US, Czechia, Spain or Romania would still have the same riders, the same budgets, and the same lack of coverage without it, apart from, possibly, the participation of 3rd level Belgians and Dutch trying to find easy points, undermining the local talent.
Speaking only for the US back when I was helping promote cross races in California if we wanted any of the "big guns" to show up (it would be at least a 6-10 hour drive for them) we had to have at least one race on the weekend that gave C1 points. One might also ask how does a country the approximate size of the state of Maryland have so many C1 races. The eastern European countries are nowhere near the size of the US but I would imagine that some race promoters there also are willing to pay for C1 in order to attract the best cyclists of their countries.
 
Thanks: that goes a long way to answering my initial question :"What's with the classification of races in CX?" So how would promoters do to get a race C1 status? Is it simply payment to the UCI? No requirements for level of entries or coverage?

A system whereby a rider gets artificially bumped up world rankings because promoters in this country are willing to put more money in the pockets of the UCI seems to lack sporting integrity somewhat: maybe I am too much of an idealist...
 
Thanks: that goes a long way to answering my initial question :"What's with the classification of races in CX?" So how would promoters do to get a race C1 status? Is it simply payment to the UCI? No requirements for level of entries or coverage?

A system whereby a rider gets artificially bumped up world rankings because promoters in this country are willing to put more money in the pockets of the UCI seems to lack sporting integrity somewhat: maybe I am too much of an idealist...
I don't actually know if the sanction fees are different for C2 and C1 that wasn't my department :) course design etc. was my purview. The prize list for elites was substantially more for the C1, and we paid the sanction fees to USAC although I'm sure some of it trickled on up to UCI. My point is why shouldn't other countries be able to have their own C1 races to attract the best of their country's talent pool. I don't think the Belgians are at any disadvantage, it's probably pretty easy to do at least 8 races a month in Belgium with probably no more than a hundred mile of driving per weekend. In the US that many races would mean at least 2 plane trips. If it was a problem there would be a bunch of slow guys getting unearned front row starts and clogging up the first corner. As it is it might be an odd American or French rider doing that but it's certainly not wide spread.