Cat 1 or D1 - which is harder?

While intriguing, I think the comparison is apples to oranges. Many 18-19 year old runners become D1 runners every year. Far fewer 18-19 year old cyclists become Cat 1 racers every year. So an 18-19 year old that upgrades to Cat 1 is more impressive than the 18-19 year old that goes D1. In general, however, I think running results at equivalent levels are harder to achieve than cycling results b/c far more kids run at all levels than race their bikes.

+1 Stress fractures ruined my senior year of HS.

Cat 1

Tactics and teamwork play a big role in the outcome of bike races. The draft has a much bigger effect in cycling.

Being a sub 30 10k guy is probably on par with cat 1/domestic pro cyclist.

Justin England was a sub 30 guy and individual ncaa xc qaulifier from ECU. (2000-2001) He went on to be a domestic pro cyclist for ~8 years.

Cat 1, but it isn't a fair fight. Cyclists don't graduate from cat 1 riding. There are lots of cat 1 riders who are 25-35 years old and have been riding at a high level for a much longer time than div 1 18-22 year olds have been competing at running. So, of course cat 1 riders have acheived on average a higher level of performance than the average div 1 runner.

Shaved ape wrote:

Cat 1 is more like racing for McMillian or Hansons vs Pro Contracted racing for Nike. As in stipends, gear, racing for a particular team but not quite pro and more than likely not making entire income from biking. Now that said, there are several D1 runners who could "jump right on those teams" but to say the avg collegiate could is quite silly. Cat 4/5 = Turkey Trot/ High School runner Varsity Runner, Cat 3 State HS athlete to Regional race level, Cat 2 National to Collegiate D1, Cat 1 see above

Mtn biking is a whole other animal

I think you're giving too much credit to cyclists. I used to do cycling for few years and became cat 3. I only did track for one year in high school, and my 800m time was around 2:06. So, just an average varsity runner at average high school. I knew several cat 2 cyclists, and many of them would not be able to run in D1. They just weren't athletic enough. I knew one guy who I think has moved up to Cat1 who was on D1 swim team.

RunninginCircle wrote:

I think you're giving too much credit to cyclists. I used to do cycling for few years and became cat 3. I only did track for one year in high school, and my 800m time was around 2:06. So, just an average varsity runner at average high school. I knew several cat 2 cyclists, and many of them would not be able to run in D1. They just weren't athletic enough. I knew one guy who I think has moved up to Cat1 who was on D1 swim team.

This is not true, unless the question is how man cat. 1 cyclists could be D1 runners. They are different disciplines in which different types of athletes tend to excel. Good runners CAN do well in cycling, but there is no guarantee that they will. On the flip side being a good cyclist (even a pro) is in no way an indicator of your running ability.

BostonRunner2 wrote:

I completely agree with the posts here, having been a D1 runner and now am competing in cycling events.

As a note, one former NCAA XC champion Keith Kelly is now working his way up the cycling ranks. Here are his results in cycling showing that you have to work your way up which he is:

http://www.road-results.com/racer/30214

I believe he has/is upgrading now to Cat 2, so he is not Cat 1 yet but he has only been racing a year.

For those of you who don't know who Keith Kelly is, here is a link to his bio:

http://www.friars.com/sports/m-xc/mtt/kelly_keith01.html

If you don't know Keith, I have talked to him at a few races that we were both at. Great competitor and super nice guy.

Interesting note, one of Keith's rivals is Dereck Treadwell, a 1500m runner from Maine who trained with the Farm Team and was an Olympic Trials finalist in the 1500m in 1996.

i think you're taking this conversation away from the original concept. The question was not what would be harder for YOU to achieve, it was what was a harder level to attain. Cycling fitness and running fitness are not the same. Although if you are a fit runner, you can probably start riding at a decent enough level. If you are a top level cyclist, that doesn't really translate well into running. I know a number of Cat 1 guys that couldn't break 18 in a 5k if they tried their hardest, but they could rip my legs off on a ride, even though i'm a 15 flat 5k'er. But that point is useless in this conversation. The question was what is the harder level to attain, Cat 1 or D1. As a former D1 runner, I can tell you, there are a lot of scrubs "running D1". There is a huge disparity in the talent at the top level of D1 and the bottom of D1. The same can not be said for Cat 1 cyclists. There is a certain level you must race at to be considered for that category. If there were performance levels that you had to achieve to be on a D1 team, then the conversation would be different. But since kids can get recruited on so many intangibles and not 100% based on times, it isn't nearly as difficult to be on a D1 track team as it is to be a cat 1 cyclist.

midwaste wrote:Good runners CAN do well in cycling, but there is no guarantee that they will. On the flip side being a good cyclist (even a pro) is in no way an indicator of your running ability.

Yeah, this is something I've always wondered. Runners can usually transfer their "ability" over to cycling fairly easily (they may not be great, but most will be good), whereas cyclists have a hard time transferring the ability to running.

Why is that? Both exercises build the aerobic system.

aek wrote:

Yeah, this is something I've always wondered. Runners can usually transfer their "ability" over to cycling fairly easily (they may not be great, but most will be good), whereas cyclists have a hard time transferring the ability to running.

Why is that? Both exercises build the aerobic system.

Are you kidding me? Please no one answer this guy, we'll see if he can figure it out on his own. If you can't, I question your mental aptitude.

Pounding on the legs.

Andy Schleck wrote:

While intriguing, I think the comparison is apples to oranges. Many 18-19 year old runners become D1 runners every year. Far fewer 18-19 year old cyclists become Cat 1 racers every year. So an 18-19 year old that upgrades to Cat 1 is more impressive than the 18-19 year old that goes D1. In general, however, I think running results at equivalent levels are harder to achieve than cycling results b/c far more kids run at all levels than race their bikes.

Why do people always act like it is difficult to compare apples to oranges? Think of all the similarities.

funny wrote:

.... There is a huge disparity in the talent at the top level of D1 and the bottom of D1. The same can not be said for Cat 1 cyclists. There is a certain level you must race at to be considered for that category. If there were performance levels that you had to achieve to be on a D1 team, then the conversation would be different. But since kids can get recruited on so many intangibles and not 100% based on times, it isn't nearly as difficult to be on a D1 track team as it is to be a cat 1 cyclist.

Probably a better comparison is between D1 and Cat 2. There are some Cat 2s who spend their lives riding crits and easy road races and never finish anywhere near the front, and there are some who are on their way to the pros and only stop in cat 2 for a year or two. Similarly with D1 runners - some run 15:30 5ks and disappear after college, some run 13:30 and go up from there.

Cat 1 means you're on your way to the Pros or coming back down from the pros. There are no casual Cat 1s (ok, maybe a few), just like there are no causal runners at Hansons or OTC. Cat 2s however, can be as good as any given Cat 1, or worse than most Cat 3s, depending on motivation, life circumstances, basic talent, etc.

Cat-1 is not quite as elite as people are making it out to be. There are lots of "scrubs" in the 1-2 field at most local races, too (I'm proud to be one of 'em). (Officials almost always combine the top categories to get a sufficient field size of 40-60 riders in local and regional racing). As people have pointed out, there are lots of Cat 1 riders out there who have been doing bike racing for years. You don't lose your category unless you request a downgrade from the US Cycling Assoc--and your category is a matter of pride. So people keep racing and keep their category of 1 or 2, even if they might DNF many races or just sit in the middle of the field at the big local races (much easier than racing to win. Those riding to win and those sitting in the field are only nominally in the same race). On the other hand, in many areas there are former pros in their 40s who frequently win races. Of course there are also young guys on their way up who win, as well as tough cat 1s who have been doing the sport for years and have the training, fitness and smarts to keep winning.

Another addition or clarification about upgrading to cat. 1: to upgrade to 1, you don't need to beat 1s and pros, even if you're racing against them. Rather, your upgrade points are calculated against the other cat 2s in the race. So you may finish 12th in a big race, but get the largest number of available upgrade points, because pros and 1s beat you. You get the points because you finished as the first cat 2. So you could become a 1 without ever having placed in the top 5 of a race, say if you got all your points at big Pro 1-2 races, where you were the best 2 in a field dominated by pros and 1s.

There are probably 300-400 Cat 1s and US pros and who are really top level, that is pretty much paying the bills with bike racing. I wonder what the equivalent number of elite runners is (measure would be different, obviously) and how many of them run D1?

That dollars and cents measure raises a last point. The talented young athlete who can do either cycling or running should choose cycling, if money is the deciding factor. With significant prize money at any big race (10-15k is not unusual for a big regional pro-1-2 race, and many well-funded amateur teams, a good amateur rider can make an impoverished living at the sport. Beyond that, there are probably about 50-80 American pros who live a little better, mostly racing to keep their team spot, equipment etc, collect travel money, and live off prize money. Further, there are at least another 50-80 American pros making good working-class salaries, racing big races for established teams. Then there are a couple dozen American pros racing the biggest events in the world, and making six-figure annual salaries or more over the course of careers that last longer than a decade. Think of it this way, what could a guy with an engine and build like Chris Solinsky have done (and made) over a career as a cyclist? (There is not significant African presence in cycling, yet.) Solinsky is the exact same size as Lance. I'd bet he would have had chance to be one of the top cyclists in the world, and that would have been worth quite a bit more than a Nike contract. Plus way more glory.

FS

Well put..

I am by no means a top collegiate runner (14:20s), but I have taken up cycling. Best decision as an athlete for me. I can ride hard the majority of the days and have really learned to train smarter and stay healthy w/o breaking down (a problem I came across in college). Not to mention my VO2 max from 80 as a runner, 82 as a cyclist.

Solinsky would be an animal on the saddle.

Good post.

I was a D 1 sprinter, and not a day goes by that I don't wish I'd gone cycling instead of running. I am nearly 60 years old and I can still push 1700 watts. And that's not being in the best of shape.

I think the cycling world is small. More talent gravitates to running. As my Brother once pointed out when I was thinking of changing sports and I was minimizing the costs "You only need shorts and a singlet to run track." We couldn't afford a bike.

I think that raw physical talent is more abundant in the running group. But I also think that cyclists have greater threshold for crazy stuff. 60 mph down a hill for example.

A cat 1 rider may be no less talented than a D 1 College runner but as in everything, that is a long way from elite.

Wait, what?

1700 watts for how long and in what circumstance? That's a pretty ridiculous figure although it makes sense being a former sprinter.

Too bad you didn't race the kilo or something when you were younger.

How about, is it harder to run a 14:30 5k or become a Cat1 cyclist?

My answer: 14:30 5k

Here's the reasoning for my bias:

If you run a 14:30 5k, you have the athletic ability to become a competitive CAT1 cyclist. Ofcourse you need to develop the specific muscles and most importantly, the skillet to actually race a bike. I feel that n running, its 100% talent + conditioning and drive; in cycling its 85% talent + conditioning/drive and 10% Racing smarts and 5% luck (being on the right wheel at the right time whether in breaking away, avoiding a crash, or sprinting home).

I was a D2 14:30 5k guy who took the plunge into road cycling a few years back because of injury. I've been in the 3's for a while, but I'm not serious about upgrading. A lot of guys I beat on the bike the past couple of years are now 1's or 2's, but they race more in a season than I did in 3 years! Also, if you're a master (+35), you have two to three times as many chances to place and get upgrade points. In running,

On the bike, I've found that 7-9hours per week gave me a variety of strengths needed to race and place well in a variety of races at the Cat3 level. When I had the time to ride more like 12-14hours per week, I beat a lot of solid cat1/2 guys in 123crits(I'm not a sprinter), time trials and group rides (which really become races). Most of the young guys I know (<23years old) who are serious about racing and possibly getting on a domestic pro team are riding 15-20hours per week. I did not train (running) more than 10hours per week in college to run my pr's. I think to reach a similar level of competitiveness on the bike I would have to train 15hour+. The demands of 90min crit or a 90mile road race are alot different than 5k/10k.

I found that the Time Trial was the most similar in terms of demand (physically and mentally) to running.

I was about 74kg when I ran my pr's of low 3:50's (1500m), 8:20's (3000m), and 14:20's (5000m). I feel that I can ride/race against most Cat1/2 guys in California while producing about 4.72watts/kg at threshold. Learning patience and race strategy has been a lot more challenging than anything I was exposed during running. However, if you blow up in a running race, your not coming back; in a road race, I might find my legs again, catch the break away, and get a top 5 finish....

I think cycling allows a wider variety of athletes to be very competitive. Cycling Categories shows a rider's racing success, not necessarily physical talent. In running, we go by pr's.

By the way, I'd be glad to start a CA based cycling team of former runners and see how we stack up against other teams. We could about running while cycling.....

Frank Schleck wrote:

Another addition or clarification about upgrading to cat. 1: to upgrade to 1, you don't need to beat 1s and pros, even if you're racing against them. Rather, your upgrade points are calculated against the other cat 2s in the race. So you may finish 12th in a big race, but get the largest number of available upgrade points, because pros and 1s beat you. You get the points because you finished as the first cat 2. So you could become a 1 without ever having placed in the top 5 of a race, say if you got all your points at big Pro 1-2 races, where you were the best 2 in a field dominated by pros and 1s.

Actually I'm pretty sure that this is not true. According to the USA Cycling website: "In a mixed category field, the riders in a higher category are not subtracted out (i.e. in a combined cat 3-4 race, if a category 4 rider is 6th across the line but is the 2nd cat 4, that rider gets 6th place points and not 2nd place points.)"

I'm pretty sure the same thing holds for 1-2 but I haven't had to look into it recently.