Stage Races: Time or Points?
Dorothey Abbott
stage race on time or points. It seems to me that officials who haven't
worked many stage races on time prefer points placings.
My contention has always been that a stage race based on time is much
better for all the riders who enter, because even the ones far down in GC
can see how they rated.
As far as placing "every rider" I don't buy the excuse that it's easier to
place the top 20-25 places than every rider. After all, if you place the
top 3, you can usually place almost everyone in smaller breaks (and should
know who is in those breaks before the finish), the peloton gets S.T., and
then there are stragglers, the job of placing riders is, IMO, much
simpler. The real time difference comes in "after hours" when the racers
are sleeping (or should be) - sorting out the records for GC.
My question: Which do most racers prefer to see in stage races? I feel
that basing a stage race on points can really cheat the guys who place
just beyond the points, too, but right there in the same bunch with the
top 20 places.
DA
--
Dot Abbott
abb...@netcom.com
Steven L. Sheffield
>
>My question: Which do most racers prefer to see in stage races? I feel
>that basing a stage race on points can really cheat the guys who place
>just beyond the points, too, but right there in the same bunch with the
>top 20 places.
i don't race, so maybe i shouldn't comment, but i'm an opinionated sort,
so i'm going to anyway.
as a follower of races, i prefer to see g.c. based on time rather than
points. that way you will always know how a particular rider is riding.
also, think of it this way. how would you feel if you placed 21st
consistently (thus not receiving any points), but a rider who places
20th on one day, and DFL (dead f---ing last) every other day ends up
ahead of you on g.c. based on the points received for that one 20th
place finish.
so, my opinion, as an unbiased outsider is for g.c. based on time. it's
a little more work for the officials, but if the officials don't want
to work, they shouldn't be officiating. it's much more fair to the
riders.
--
Steven L. Sheffield Disclaimer? I don't need no
(BOB #1765/IBOB #3) stinking disclaimer.
Internet: biki...@netcom.com __o
Voice: (415) 296-9893 _`\<;
Fax: (415) 597-9849 (*)/(*) Cars suck. Ride yer bike.
Kurt F. Sauer
>Yes, lazy officials with well-funded promotors and photo-finish timing
>always prefer points. I don't really consider a points-based race
>to be a "stage race", rather a "points series".
Yes, yes, I agree. And there is a significant difference between the two
race types in terms of tactics. It makes the race more interesting (a
solo breakaway in a small stage race is more often chased down than let
go, for one thing).
I think it's simply false advertising when a race is billed as a stage
race and it is run on points only. You could make an argument that it's
a stage race put only the points gc is calculated, but that's still
pretty weak, since stage race penalties are assessed in terms of time--
which is unused in a points gc.
--
Kurt F. Sauer Fight air pollution
Austin, Texas & stay fit:
Ride a bicycle!
ViaCrypt PGP key available on key servers
Randy Legeai
: As an official, I've heard the other officials' side of whether to base a
: worked many stage races on time prefer points placings.
always prefer points. I don't really consider a points-based race
to be a "stage race", rather a "points series".
: As far as placing "every rider" I don't buy the excuse that it's easier to
: place the top 20-25 places than every rider. After all, if you place the
I agree. I've officiated and raced in lots of small three and four-stage
local stage races, and it's lots easier to get the results right in a
timed stage race if you (1) can pick the top 3 finishers, (2) get
times on all of the stragglers, (3) minimize the need to calculate
crit times by using longer courses, or not pulling riders needlessly,
and (4) have a well-tested computer program to do your calculations
and rankings for you. If your judges do a good job, and there are
no major protests, you should be able to have pretty good preliminary
results within 30 minutes of the finish of a stage.
From the riders' perspective, I think timed stage races are more
challenging and more interesting, since, if nothing else, you
can seek to move yourself up in the standings in every stage, or
you can help your teammates by taking sprint points, pulling in
dangerous breaks, etc.
--
Randall Legeai rle...@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu
Federal Agency Affairs / Ctr. Bioenv. Research Phn: 504/865-5758
327 Gibson Hall, Tulane University Fax: 504/865-5274
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-5698
Baird Webel
To me it depends very much on what the stages are like, how many, what
kind of time bonuses or points bonuses might be given for primes or
hill hot spots.
In general I like the idea of timed GC, but, for example, in a three
day race with RR, Crit and ITT, the time trial could come to dominate
the overall standings, unless either time bonuses are given or the
courses are really hard. If the latter is not the case then I would
prefer points.
#
Baird
ja...@jra.itg.ti.com
>
>From the viewpoint of the organizer, and of some riders, the omnium has
>a big advantage in that you can run each stage as a separate race and
>allow entries in some but not all stages, with the riders not in the
>GC list if they don't enter all stages. This "pollutes" the results to
>some extent, but it allows the organizer to get the most entry fees, and
>allows riders with work and/or family conflicts to attend those races
>that can be worked into their schedule.
>
And it's not a stage race anymore! Your officials are not doing their
job right if this is allowed. You are describing a series of some sort
if we want to get technical.
I FAR prefer time over points. I've never been in contention in a stage
race, but enjoy measuring myself against someone else. Liberal doses
of time bonuses can really balance the results verses a ITT stage. Give
em at the top of hills!
james
Forever Cat 4.
Bruce Hildenbrand
>bigger draw for a true stage race (not a points series) - basing it on
>time or on points?^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^
I'll relate a little story about stage races with points from the good
old days. The 1979 Wisconsin Milk Race was a 4 stage event based on points,
not time. Greg LeMond was an 18 year-old Junior racer who chose to
race the Senior Men's event. He wasted everybody in stage 1, a bumpy
criterium, taking long pulls at the front with speeds reaching 34mph.
Unfortunately for Greg, that night, one of the race's sponsors, Pizza Hut,
put on an all-the-beer-and-pizza-you-can-eat charity dinner with the
proceeds to help pay the costs of Alan Kingsbury's medical bills from
a collision with a cement truck at the 1978 USCF National TT championships.
(BTW - Alan runs American Classic, make of light bicycle parts).
Anyway, Greg imbibed too many suds and when the next day rolled around,
he could not start the 2nd stage.
Greg partially redemed himself the following day(the rest day) by winning
our own little criterium, which consisted of racing around the 2nd floor
walkway at our hotel, but that event and the ensuing flood of bicycles
into the swimming pool and the $500 bill for damages that somehow
ended up being sent to a completely innocent female racer is yet
another story.(Suffice it to say the the banner at the Days Inn
the following year did not say "Welcome Racers!")
Back to stage 3 where Greg was ragin' once again, collecting another
victory. The final stage was a road race which Greg won by over
5 minutes from the rest of the pack with help from his friend, Greg Demgen.
So, Greg had 3 wins in 4 races but came in second on points to
Easterner Ian Jackson who had been able to place highly in all
4 events and hold his liquor to boot!
Them's were the days!
Bruce Hildenbrand
john.d.unruh
>stage race on time or points. It seems to me that officials who haven't
>worked many stage races on time prefer points placings.
>
(points), the officials don't really have much if any say.
>My contention has always been that a stage race based on time is much
>better for all the riders who enter, because even the ones far down in GC
>can see how they rated.
>
When it is done with time, then there is the problem for riders down on
a stage of not making the time cut, losing their entry fee because they
were kicked out of the race in an early stage. For those not anywhere
near contention for the GC, I don't think it really makes any difference.
>
>My question: Which do most racers prefer to see in stage races? I feel
>that basing a stage race on points can really cheat the guys who place
>just beyond the points, too, but right there in the same bunch with the
>top 20 places.
>
Using the omnium style doesn't cheat those who are not in the points.
They will seldom be in contention for the GC. The two styles of scoring
do emphasize different things. When scoring by time, time trial stages
make more difference, since there can be more spread. Criterium stages
tend to be deemphasized since usually the leaders are not separated by
much in time. When scoring is by time, driving a break to get more time
can make sense. In an omnium, it doesn't matter if the break is 5 minutes
up the road or 5 seconds up the road, it is only the order of placing that
matters.
From the viewpoint of the organizer, and of some riders, the omnium has
a big advantage in that you can run each stage as a separate race and
allow entries in some but not all stages, with the riders not in the
GC list if they don't enter all stages. This "pollutes" the results to
some extent, but it allows the organizer to get the most entry fees, and
allows riders with work and/or family conflicts to attend those races
that can be worked into their schedule.
I think from a rider's view, it is a wash.
John Unruh
Dave Hayes
(Bruce Hildenbrand) wrote:
> Greg partially redemed himself the following day(the rest day) by winning
> our own little criterium, which consisted of racing around the 2nd floor
> walkway at our hotel, but that event and the ensuing flood of bicycles
> into the swimming pool and the $500 bill for damages that somehow
> ended up being sent to a completely innocent female racer is yet
> another story.(Suffice it to say the the banner at the Days Inn
> the following year did not say "Welcome Racers!")
Ah yes, there WAS a down side to having a large and active Junior class. I
have been told that the same sort of Spirited High Jinks by Juniors is what
lost Superweek riders the use of Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE)
dorms--also in the late 70s.
At least Greg went on to increase the awareness of bicycle racing in the
U.S... in a _positive_ way.
Dave Hayes
Marc Lee
>[stuff deleted]
> My question: Which do most racers prefer to see in stage races? I feel
> that basing a stage race on points can really cheat the guys who place
> just beyond the points, too, but right there in the same bunch with the
> top 20 places.
Here's another (negative) thing that can happen with points vs. time:
Last year in the 40+ crit at Mammoth, the pack split in two with about 6 or
7 guys in the front group. I was at about 9th, and got gapped by the guy
in front of me at a point when we were strung out single file. The 2nd group
chased for awhile, then some of us pulled out when it appeared we might get
lapped (the announcement before the race said that lapped riders would be
pulled but it turns out it didn't happen). Anyway, someone told me after
the race that at least 3 of the riders pulling the front group around had
sat out the 2 previous stages in order to rest up for the crit!
Marc Lee
HP San Diego
ma...@hpsanaeo.nsr.hp.com
Seamus Shortall
>photo-finish timing always prefer points. I don't
>really consider a points-based race to be a "stage
>race", rather a "points series".
run on time. Local rules here in Ireland forbid stage races on
points.
>: As far as placing "every rider" I don't buy the
>excuse that it's easier to
>: place the top 20-25 places than every rider. After
riders can be more trouble than it is worth. Even with good
photo-finish, it can take quite a while to read non-existant
numbers <g> and work out a process of elimination. (Especially
here in Ireland where it rains a lot and the numbers may be
muddied or covered in capes). Except on pro races and full
international status races, we use photo finish to pinpoint the
major placings and then place riders in groups after that.
>and (4) have a well-tested
>computer program to do your calculations and rankings
>for you. If your judges do a good job, and there are
printer to produce provisional Stage/GC/Points/Team etc using
this technique. Usually, I can be handing out printouts during
the jersey presentation. The biggest problem is getting all the
details during the commotion from judges who may have to be
watching for stragglers.
Seamus.
john.e.ampe
>I think from a rider's view, it is a wash.
Not from this rider's viewpoint! To me, using a points system just
doesn't feel like bike racing. The strategies involved are completely
different. Yes, it's a little more work for the organizer to find an
even mix of stages, but hey -- that's part of the fun! Now if we
could only have more than one timed stage race in New England for
Cat 3's...
John_Ampe
Kurt F. Sauer
>
>When it is done with time, then there is the problem for riders down on
>a stage of not making the time cut, losing their entry fee because they
>were kicked out of the race in an early stage. For those not anywhere
>near contention for the GC, I don't think it really makes any difference.
If they can't make the time cut, they probably shouldn't be in the race.
That's one of the features of stage races.
>From the viewpoint of the organizer, and of some riders, the omnium has
>a big advantage in that you can run each stage as a separate race and
>allow entries in some but not all stages, with the riders not in the
>GC list if they don't enter all stages.
In a stage race, you can't enter just the stages you want. In fact, there
is a specific rule (implied in prior years, but now stated explicitly)
that you must complete each stage in order to enter the next one.
You are talking about a points series, which is a much different type of
race, but certainly a good format. It's just different from stage racing.
My experience is that few riders in this part of the country have really
ever participated in a stage race. They've been in a lot of races called
by the name "stage race," but not run like one.
Some of it is just semantics, and some of it is substantively different.
Just my $0.02.
Dorothey Abbott
: When it is done with time, then there is the problem for riders down on
: a stage of not making the time cut, losing their entry fee because they
: were kicked out of the race in an early stage. For those not anywhere
: near contention for the GC, I don't think it really makes any difference.
Let's disregard the time cut, for discussion's sake, since time cuts can
also be adjusted by the promoter, if specified in the race bible, and
done uniformly for all riders (no favoritsm).
: From the viewpoint of the organizer, and of some riders, the omnium has
: a big advantage in that you can run each stage as a separate race and
: allow entries in some but not all stages, with the riders not in the
: GC list if they don't enter all stages.
In this case, the race ceases to exist as a stage race, and has now become
simply a "points series". In any stage race, entrants are obligated to
complete one stage in order to go on in the next (being pulled from a crit
does not = DNF). You can't pick and choose which stages to race.
Otherwise, it can "pollute" the results in a big way, just as (different
arguement) Pros racing in the Amateur races can affect the outcome of
Nationals. I appreciate the perspective, but it's not the question.
From a promoter's point of view (also one of my roles), what would be a
bigger draw for a true stage race (not a points series) - basing it on
time or on points?^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^
--
Dot Abbott
abb...@netcom.com
Dorothey Abbott
I should probably add that I'm a proponent of the time cut. 120% is a
pretty big difference already. But that isn't the topic of this thread.
John U. wrote:
: For those not anywhere
: near contention for the GC, I don't think it really makes any difference.
I know it made a difference to me at the '89er SR (Norman, OK) to see my
standings move up from 17th (ITT) to 13th (RR) to what would have been top
10, had our crit been held. And I finished the RR OTB! (Field of 35 Cat
4 Women). I also liked knowing just how I ranked overall, compared to
the others. ... But this is all IMHO.
Dorothey Abbott
[stuff deleted]
: Anyway, someone told me after [Mammoth Masters]
: the race that at least 3 of the riders pulling the front group around had
: sat out the 2 previous stages in order to rest up for the crit!
If this is really a stage race, that's exactly why they needed to
complete the previous stages before being elligible to race the next.
Whether time *or* points, this should apply. Was there a protest?
--
Dot Abbott
abb...@netcom.com
Michael Taffe
>john.d.unruh <j...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> wrote:
>>
>>When it is done with time, then there is the problem for riders down on
>>a stage of not making the time cut, losing their entry fee because they
>
>That's one of the features of stage races.
>
>>From the viewpoint of the organizer, and of some riders, the omnium has
>>a big advantage in that you can run each stage as a separate race and
>>allow entries in some but not all stages, with the riders not in the
>>GC list if they don't enter all stages.
>
>race, but certainly a good format. It's just different from stage racing.
>
Leaving points series aside, why can't genuine stage races be run in
omnium format with the requirement that you must finish each stage?
In this case, elimination would be based on overall place standing
rather than time.
The answer is, of course, the mindless bigoted presumption in
bicycle racing that hill climbing ability defines the "real"
cyclist. Sprinters are given their time in the spotlight in the pro
tours, but is isregarded precisely as a gift. It should be clear
that sprinters are given no chance to win the big tours--even if
they can (Abdu'!) finish the climbing stages within the cutoffs.
I would welcome seeing stage races in which the *value* of each
stage to the eventual winner is equivalent. You could still have
stages favoring climbers, sprinters or time trialists but the
designer of the race should strive to give riders of all talents
equal chance.
mike who can't climb out of a paper bag
--
Mike Taffe * He uses statistics as a drunken man uses a lamp
mta...@ucsd.edu * post--for support rather than for illumination.
* -Andrew Lang
PAUL
>From: am...@cbnews.cb.att.com (john.e.ampe)
>Date: 25-APR-1994 16:43:29
>Description: Re: Stage Races: Time or Points?
>Now if we
>could only have more than one timed stage race in New England for
>Cat 3's...
>John_Ampe
We have 2. Killington and Fitchburg. Both great races by the way.
I personally don't like timed stage races. People race even more
conservatively. "Can't let that break get away. I need to protect
my 43rd place."
Paul Stek
"Lantern Rouge at Killington 92 in the 3's"