Armchair Cyclist
Moderator
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.